Instructors: is no combat better?

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?


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

Ok tribe members, its time to cast your vote. Who wants Art off the island
?

"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.

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.


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
...
In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley



I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
Crazy
Krauts"

Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing pass
on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the target
while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would have
produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see to
believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting down
and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver if
the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost certain
predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These tactics
I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for the
more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the ideal
angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
Dudley

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 3/9/04 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during the
war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you might
have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have been
the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being taught
a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many lives........
and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps they
will post.
Dudley



I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training on
the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to believe
it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his back?
Crazy
Krauts"

Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing pass
on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the target
while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would have
produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see to
believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting down
and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver if
the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost certain
predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These tactics
I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for the
more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the ideal
angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
Dudley



Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was still
surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he got set and
swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always pass over
us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the top turret
would track him coming an going.
Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top turret had a
far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo Taylor
(Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot. worst gun on
the Marauder.


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: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 3/9/04 10:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
In conjunction with your comment about the gunner's remarks to you; if
simple aerodynamics wasn't a part of every gunner's training during
the
war,
it most surely should have been. What this gunner was telling you
might
have
been from his training knowledge base or simply as the observed result
of
his personal experience. The end result would be the same for
recognizing
what the fighter was about to do, but the big difference would have
been
the
advantage to gunners having this knowledge up front going into combat
as
opposed to finding it out through operational experience.
Every gunner out there should have had at least some basic knowledge
of
positive and negative g as that knowledge relates to a firing pass by
a
fighter. Those who didn't had to learn the hard way. Gunners being
taught
a
few simple facts about g and vectors would have saved many
lives........
and
as this knowledge relates to a firing pass, could have been taught in
just a
few minutes during training.
The simple truth of it is that if the fighter rolled inverted during
the
pass, in order to pass over you he would have to bunt the airplane
into
negative g, and the odds of this happening vs going the positive g
route
under you would have all but been a sure bet that he would go positive
under
you; hence the lead would become predictable based on the odds.
I should add that there were a few German fighter pilots who routinely
would
go negative, but never offensively, only defensively.
Erich Hartmann was one of them, and he was not in the theatre.
I've always wanted to ask a gunner from the period if simple
aerodynamics
was indeed taught in gunnery training to help with prediction lead
solution,
but somehow I've always forgotten to ask
:-) If there are any gunners out there who can answer this, perhaps
they
will post.
Dudley



I think the answer would be no. When I went through gunnery training
on
the
way to bomb school they didn't even teach us about that. And the first
time I
heard it, it is was totally new to me. I had to really see it to
believe
it.
And when I saw it I thought, "why the hell is he coming in on his
back?
Crazy
Krauts"

Actually, going under is a practical air to air maneuver for a firing
pass
on specific targets executed in the scenario given, although the point
through the run where the fighter rolled would be critical for him. Too
early and he would be faced with holding the aircraft in pitch on the
target
while he fired entering his max/min range for his weapons. Firing through
the rotation in roll as he entered his range parameters for guns would
have
produced a trajectory shift and gravity drop error you would have to see
to
believe, for all but the most highly skilled pilots.
The pro of such a pass is the ability to maintain or even produce exit
energy on the back side of the firing envelope through the run, exiting
down
and out maintaining maneuvering energy for a possible defensive maneuver
if
the run was followed through by a hostile (to him) shooter. Also, this
energy could be expended in a transition to another high side run if
unopposed. The cons are an almost certain off center ball through the run
which would play hell with the projectile trajectories and an almost
certain
predictability of the exit direction for a real sharp gunner. These
tactics
I'm sure were almost certainly target aircraft specific , at least for
the
more able of the German pilots. They would have been familiar with the
ideal
angle offs and target aspects for the specific target type and made their
runs if possible to take advantage of that data.
Dudley



Great stuff as usual Dudley. But even though I was forewarned I was still
surprised to see them come in on their backs. BTW, we could tell an
experienced pilot from a novice just by how aggressive and fast he got
set and
swept in on us. The timorous would never come in inverted and always pass
over
us as he completed his run while Bill Henderson (Pittsburgh) in the top
turret
would track him coming an going.
Of course passing under us was the better way to go since the top turret
had a
far greater field of action than the hand held waist guns fired by Bo
Taylor
(Texas). while on his knees. Lousy position. Clumsy way to shoot. worst
gun on
the Marauder.

One thing's for sure. Everybody learned fast or they didn't learn at all.
D

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

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.

In article ,
362436 (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.