Instructors: is no combat better?

(ArtKramr) wrote:
"Tony Volk" wrote:

I've been biting my tongue for a long, long time now, but I feel that
this is perhaps the right time to finally post a reply to Art Kramer. My
grandfather was a pilot in the RCAF since the 1920's. He flew everything
from Camels to Spitfires to even co-piloting a BUFF (yup, it's in his log
book!). He was a good enough pilot to gain recognition from Billy Bishop
with regards to his flying (have a great photo of the two of them together).
He ended up being a wing commander before he retired, shortly after which he
had a fatal heart-attack. I never had the chance to meet him.
During W.W.II, he didn't see a lick of action because he was in such
demand as a flight instructor. You might think he was a coward for doing
so, but from his bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not
suffer from a lack of courage (probably the opposite!). To get to the point
of this thread, training pilots (for W.W.II), one of our more treasured
family possessions are the *stacks* of letters he has from the RCAF and RAF
pilots that he trained, and their crediting their survival in the skies over
Europe to his training. My uncle was briefly in the RCAF and has verified
some of these stories personally (my grandfather never bragged or even spoke
much about his work). I can also tell you that he had the complete respect
of every single person who wrote him a letter, as well as numerous other
veterans who simply knew him as an excellent pilot and serviceman.
So while I can't give you much proof about whether combat instructors
are better than non-combat instructor, I can offer you proof that many
pilots thought at least one non-combat instructor was (to quote one letter)
"worth [his] weight in gold". Regards,

Thank you for your interesting post. And thank you for telling your story
without flames, insults or sarcasm. I appreciate that.

Er um, you must've missed it while reading the white spaces:

"You might think he was a coward for doing so, but from his
bush-piloting days, I am quite certain that he did not suffer from
a lack of courage (probably the opposite!)."

In other words, Kramer, allow me to spell it out for ya. What the
poster is alluding to above is that bush pilots are among the
thousands of brave aviators whom you have categorically insulted
as "cowards."

ubject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Seagram" wrote in message
...
Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.


I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand a
chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees
are
bottom feeders.


Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?

Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
a
nerve.

It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by the
SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact that
it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean less
than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
Amendment is a good thing too.



We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the size of
the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment blocks
that.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
ubject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Seagram" wrote in message
...
Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.


I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders
stand a chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees are
bottom feeders.


Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?

Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making
noises that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You
hit a
nerve.

It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by
the
SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact
that
it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean
less
than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
Amendment is a good thing too.

We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the size
of
the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment
blocks
that.

The 14th Amendment does no such thing and should never have been interpreted
to cancel the 10th Amendment. A constructionist view of the Constitution is
best for freedom.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...


Seriously, would anyone care to speculate that if aircraft gunner
was
still a tactically useful skill, how much virtual reality simulator
time
(e.g., in at least a 3-axis-of-motion device) would a gunner get
before
going to a combat unit? Aggressor simulators only, or perhaps a
few
pilots that have flown the aggressor ship manipulating the target?

I suspect temperature, noise, fumes, etc. would all be part of the
simulator.

Heck, they used "simulators" of a sort like that during WWII. My dad,
who
was a gunner on a B-29, remembers standing in the back of a truck that
drove
along while the trainee took shots at model aircraft.


Right. But let's assume full modern simulator capability. What would
that have done for combat effectiveness? A truck, for example, is going
to be "flying" much more straight and level, there won't be the noise of
multiple defensive guns or the sound of your plane being hit, assorted
fumes, cold, etc. The model plane is probably not being controlled by
one of the best of pilots (or their doppelganger in an intelligent
simulator).


The problem with simulators is that no one ever died in one.


How is a dead gunner that can't fly a mission an advantage? Not getting
killed strikes me more as an advantage than a problem. For example, the
motivation for Top Gun was that a fighter pilot would be far more likely
to survive and win if he could get through his first five engagements --
so the training goal was to give him the equivalent five in expensive,
realistic training -- but not as expensive as pilots.

It's also a little marginal to say no one ever died. I agree not
literally, but physiological measurements show that crashing in a
realistic flight simulator is extremely stressful -- and really drives
home the lesson of what one did wrong. In the Army's field training with
the MILES "laser-tag-on-steroids-system", it's sufficiently realistic
that there have had to be medical intervention to deal with the stress
-- and counseling that brought a far better soldier to a duty unit.

Personally, I have substantial experience with advanced medical
simulators. Believe me, when a medical student, resident, or practicing
physician sees how their actions would just have killed someone, it's an
incredibly strong learning reinforcement.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:04 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 9:47 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I don't disagree with you in that exception. Where I disagree is
when
you appear to make accusations of cowardice or shirking against
people
that were not in WWII, and thus operated in different, valid
environments.


What do you mean "appear" to make them. You mean I don't make them but
only
"appear" to make them? And who have I ever called a coward?

Believe me, I am no raving Bush supporter, but you seem to have
suggested he avoided combat by qualifying in an aircraft with no mission
in Viet Nam -- but with a mission in continental defense.

You've criticized Rumsfeld for somehow not getting into combat. Again,
he was qualified in a platform that could have been critical if the Cold
War turned hot.

I think if you re-read the post you will find out that I made no
criticism of
Rumsfeld. I was simply pointing out that he was an instructor with no
combat
experience Then I asked if that was usual these days. I said nothing
negative
about him at all. The subject was qualifications to instruct, not
Rumsfeld per
se. You can understand that being trained in WW II the idea of an
instructor
who had never been to combat was just a but strange, Very strange.

It makes sense in WWII. What doesn't make sense is that your posts often
characterize people by WWII standards. Things change.

As far as saying anything negative, I really don't want to go back into
the archives, but I'm fairly certain you sounded at least dubious about
how someone could rise to O-6 without combat, and suggested that he
should have sought it out.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Ron) wrote:

Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
experience
versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
instructors
who
have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
instructor
who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
combat
you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for
flight/nav
instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a
combat
vet, because you are still learning the very basics

Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
different story.

I certainly didn't say combat experience would make you a bad
instructor. I said that it wouldn't make you a good instructor, even in
WWII, if you also didn't have decent instructional skills.

Today, combat doesn't necessarily mean that someone is up to speed on
the latest systems. The need for systems improvement may very well mean
that the people who used them most effectively are assigned to doctrinal
development, battle laboratories, etc., where they can both make that
knowledge available to more people, and also to use it to improve
systems.

I understand Point well taken.

Thank you. Believe it or not, Art, I do listen and learn from many of
the things you write. I'd like to see this whole dialogue turn into one
from which everyone can learn.

WWII involved a huge number of techniques being tried for the first
time. The minuscule budgets of 1940 or so didn't allow more than the
most minimal training, and the press of combat didn't allow for much
experimentation. Things have changed. The Germans were a very credible
threat to what you had, but the 1991 Iraqis could at least have annoyed
them significantly. A lot of WWII lessons still were valid in Viet Nam,
until obsoleted.

I'd ask some of the people that went downtown during Viet Nam if they
can see some similarities to Art's bridge attacks and the attacks on the
Dragon's Jaw and Paul Doumer bridge BEFORE precision-guided weapons. But
once those early intelligent weapons were used, things started changing.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 9:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.



Arthur Kramer

And the corrollary of that, would be that not much of how war was
fought
in
WW2
would apply to today either.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)


Agreed. I am talking about what I know, those who fought later later
are
talking about what they knolw. Those who never fought are talking
about
what?


Define "fought". Does that mean combat only? Does combat mean that you
are shooting, or have a post-strike recon pilot, an AWACS combat
controller in Desert Storm, a satellite watch officer in Colorado
Springs who gave real-time Scud warnings, a targeting specialist in the
US, etc. somehow don't know what they are talking about?


I don't know about that fancy stuff. I just know that combat means you
go
where the bad guys are and burn out their black hearts and leave their
entire
nation a burning, smoldering ruin,.See the strike photographs on my
website
for more specific information.,

Then a Minuteman squadron in South Dakota could leave the bad guys in a
state where a burning, smoldering ruin would be an upscale resort.
Perhaps even more significantly, a combination of missiles and standoff
weapons can leave the bad guys' headquarters a burning ruin -- but
mostly break windows in the apartment house next door.

I would suggest that there are some people today that have the right to
be very proud of that, whether they dropped the bombs or designed the
guidance systems.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Seagram" wrote in message
...
Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.


I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders stand
a
chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees
are
bottom feeders.


Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?


Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making noises
that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You hit
a
nerve.


I admit to being a bit facetious. But I will state, in good conscience,
that there are lawyers that use technical knowledge to undermine the
rule of law.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

ubject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tarver Engineering"
Date: 3/9/04 10:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"Seagram" wrote in message
...
Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off
the
island

Nice thread Art, don't let the bottom feeders troll you.

Excellent signal, to all that participated.


I made it through WW II . There is no way the bottom feeders
stand a
chance,
especially the wannabee bottom feeders. But then again all the
wannabees
are
bottom feeders.


Catfish have a biologically useful role. Did you mean lawyers?

Without lawyers there would be no rule of law. There would be no
equal;
protection under the law. There would be no courts and no
constitution.

Be careful what you wish for lest you get it, And what you seem to be
wishing
for can be the end of freedom as we know it. Those who undermine the
lawyers
are undermining the law. And they have agendas that are well worth
examining.
No I am not a lawyer. Be watchful. Justice Thomas has been making
noises
that
may well lead to overturning the 14th amendment. A disaster. Yup. You
hit
a
nerve.

It is rediculess to think that the 14th Amendment would be overturned by
the
SCotUS. The 14th Amendment might be interpreted in light of the fact
that
it was passed to enable the enforcement of the 13th Amendment, to mean
less
than it has in the past, but that is a good thing. After all, the 10th
Amendment is a good thing too.



We have a Supreme Court and an administraiton that wants to limit the
size of
the federal government and return power to the states. The14th amendment
blocks
that.

Ummm...trying to remember...didn't the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments
have a few other effects? And wasn't at least certain aspects of
returning power to the states evaluated, oh, between 1861 and 1865?

Justice Thomas has not exactly been the spiritual or intellectual leader
of the Court.

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 4:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 1:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(Ron) wrote:

Since I started this thread on instructors who have have combat
experience
versus those who have not, 100% of the replies were in favor of
instructors
who
have never been to combat. Many state that they would rather have an
instructor
who was skilled at instructing suggesting that once you have been to
combat
you were automatically a bad instructor. Hard to buy.

That is not what was said at all. What was being said, was that for
flight/nav
instruction, it isnt going to make a difference if you are taught by a
combat
vet, because you are still learning the very basics

Now once you get to where you are learning weapons, tactics, that is a
different story.

I certainly didn't say combat experience would make you a bad
instructor. I said that it wouldn't make you a good instructor, even in
WWII, if you also didn't have decent instructional skills.

Today, combat doesn't necessarily mean that someone is up to speed on
the latest systems. The need for systems improvement may very well mean
that the people who used them most effectively are assigned to doctrinal
development, battle laboratories, etc., where they can both make that
knowledge available to more people, and also to use it to improve
systems.

I understand Point well taken.

Thank you. Believe it or not, Art, I do listen and learn from many of
the things you write. I'd like to see this whole dialogue turn into one
from which everyone can learn.

WWII involved a huge number of techniques being tried for the first
time. The minuscule budgets of 1940 or so didn't allow more than the
most minimal training, and the press of combat didn't allow for much
experimentation. Things have changed. The Germans were a very credible
threat to what you had, but the 1991 Iraqis could at least have annoyed
them significantly. A lot of WWII lessons still were valid in Viet Nam,
until obsoleted.

I'd ask some of the people that went downtown during Viet Nam if they
can see some similarities to Art's bridge attacks and the attacks on the
Dragon's Jaw and Paul Doumer bridge BEFORE precision-guided weapons. But
once those early intelligent weapons were used, things started changing.


Excellant points all. But the marshalling yards were also fiercely defended.
And anything in the Ruhr Valley was defended to the death. But we really
didn't know very much. We just did what we were trained to do. And we just kept
doing it until the war ended. But I can honesrtly say that for us there were
very few surprises. It seemd as though we were trained to meet whatever
problems cropped up. And that is the way it was. And our instructors were all
combat vets which Iis why I brought the subject up in the first place.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer