Instructors: is no combat better?

And who have I ever called a coward?

To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
1943-1945.

You couldn't be more vague, non- commital and evasive even if your life
depended on it. I hope you fly better than you attack..


Uhh, that wasn't an attack...it was a slight exaggeration of my perception of
your attitude. You have called *many* people cowards on this group, both by
generalization and personally.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Tony Volk"
Date: 3/9/04 12:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Except that not much of it applies to WW II.

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,

Tony Volk


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

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
Art Kramer wrote:

And who have I ever called a coward?

To summerize: everyone who never participated in the European Theater from
1943-1945.

Even those who flew missions in the ETO with him such as the
"replacement armament gunner" weren't immune from being labeled
a coward (see: "After 58 years, this still burns my ass" on his
website.)

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.



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

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.



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

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.,


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

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


Sure they have, it was just simulated

But seriously, why would you want someone dying in a simulator? Seems rather
hard to apply the lessons learned, if you arent alive afterwards, which is
the whole point of a simulator in the first place.




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

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.


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

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: 362436 (Ron)
Date: 3/9/04 3:22 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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


Sure they have, it was just simulated

But seriously, why would you want someone dying in a simulator? Seems rather
hard to apply the lessons learned, if you arent alive afterwards, which is
the whole point of a simulator in the first place.




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



Well a simulator is supposed to simulate reality. We had a B-26 simulator at
Lake Charles and before we got in we used to say, "not to worry, you can't be
shot down in it". Just a little black humor.


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
...
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.