Instructors: is no combat better?

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 literally don't know if Giulio Douhet or Alfred Thayer Mahan were ever
shot at or shot anyone other than, perhaps, a duck.

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/9/04 8:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Look at it another way. In the "grand old days", SAC had lots of pilots
and aircrew, many of which might have WWII or Korea or Viet Nam combat
experience. Let's say someone survived Linebacker and is now teaching.
How does that qualify them to teach a low-altitude nuclear delivery run
against the fUSSR?


How does anyone who hasn't done it teach it?

So no one who wasn't on Enola Gay or Bock's Car -- heck, I'll give you
the crews of the bomber-delivered nuclear test shots -- could possibly
be qualified to instruct in SAC?

In article k.net,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"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

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.

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.

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?

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
In article k.net,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"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

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.

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.

Brooks

And who have I ever called a coward?

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


BUFDRVR

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

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).

Subject: Instructors: is no combat better?
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/9/04 2:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

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..


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: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 3/9/04 11:22 AM Pacific

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



Yup. It was the shaky world of one strike is out.


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 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.




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