Pilot mentality

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Pilot mentality

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Pilot mentality

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Pilot mentality - 7/20/2002 1:50:34 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

I wanted to pull this out from the thread this was gonna be in cuz it really didn't pertain to the original topic. Like most threads, they tend to digress, so I figured a new one was needed. Feel free to add comments.

Some of you guys don't really understand the type of person it takes to be a good attack type pilot whether he flies bombers, fighters, or attack helicopters. Not every one is cut out to do this type of mission and in most units there is always 1 or 2 shirkers that eventually get washed out, find themselves in an admin job, or flying transports...but the average attack pilot has a very unique type personality. They are typically aggressive in thier lyfestyles...living on the edge in many ways...always pushing their luck...but very dedicated. There are not many better adrenalin rushes greater than rolling inverted onto a target or nothing sweeter than the smell of cordite in the cockpit:) This type of pilot lives for this stuff. There was a running joke in most units I was ever assigned to that you were never a full fledged attack pilot unless you were divorced at least once:)

Most attack pilots go through an "invincibility" phase around the 500 to thousand hour time frame, believing they have more skill than they really have. But once thru this phase they settle down and become dedicated professionals. Those that don't outgrow this phase are usually tagged as "cowboys" and eventually wash out or end up killing themselves or someone else for doing something really stupid. It's true that many of the younger pilots are extremely eagar and naive when it comes to extensive combat operations...but to think that the older pilots suffer greater morale loss because they new what to expect is not true at all..if anything..these guys provide the inspiration and stabalizing effect for all the younger ones. Now these guys might yell and complain the most...hehe...but they are out there every day cuz they need that "rush" and know what has to be done. What slows them down is fatigue from extended intensive operations and this is something the chain of command has to monitor to keep from losing pilot's unnecessarily.

The biggest morale drain to an individual attack pilot is not being able to fly and watching their buddies fly off on a mission while they are grounded for one reason or another. The worse morale drain on a unit is losing one of the experienced pilot's which will cause many of the pilot's to be a bit cautious for a few days, but once the grief wears off...they are back to their old selves, and if anything..a bit more aggressive to avenge the loss.

The pilot's that I really admire, that have IMO the most difficult and usually most deadly mission are the helicopter Medevac. While most attack guys are prima donna's:), the hard core medevac pilot is motivated by a sense of helping his fellow soldier, not unlike the combat medics, and while full knowing the perils, continually put themselves in harm's way to complete their mission. These guy's are very individualistic and some of the most unselfish people on the planet.

There is one last group of pilot's I want to mention. There is a helicopter unit in existance right now that consists of the most highly skilled and motivated group of pilot's I have ever known and are on the frontline..or actually beyond it, in Afghanistan at this very moment. As a whole, they have more hard core combat time and experience than any other aviation unit ever! The training regimen in this unit is beyond belief and very few pilot's are able to meet their standard. They are looked upon by many as a "cowboy" unit, and many of them are major prima donna's, but in reality this unit is the best at what they do and despite losses have unwavering morale and dedication. These guy's have been thrown into every known, and many unknown, frays around the globe over the last 20 years. One of my best friend's have been in this unit for nearly 10 years and has more attack pilot combat time than anyone I have ever known (and yes he has been divorced too). These guys get up very close and personal when they engage targets. It's really too bad that the public can't know of their true exploits.

Sabre21

Post #: 1

- 7/20/2002 10:38:43 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Nice analysis, but does it really have a comparison to the situation in WW2, where the squadrons were taking heavy losses? IIRC, in 1943, the Eight AF crews had a shorter expected life span than the required number of missions for rotation. That kind of loss rate HAS to take a toll on morale.

Modern pilots have not had to deal with such heavy losses and so have developed a much more agressive mentality. I am not saying that this mentality didn't exist in WW2, but I am wondering how well it holds up to crushing losses.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 2

- 7/20/2002 11:51:17 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi Brad

I believe it does pertain to WWII as well. You gotta remember the helo pilots flying in Vietnam were doing so on a daily basis...sometimes 2 or 3 missions a day...sometimes even more. Just so you know, the US Army lost 10000 helo's during the Vietnam war...them ain't exactly light casualties. If anything, pilot's today are a bit more subdued than their WWI or WWII counterparts. So many regulations today prevents you from having too much fun.

Having read many stories on Allied, German, and Japanese pilots, I know the same esprit de corps and pilot mentality existed then too. I have had the opportunity to talk with a few of the US and German pilots from WWII...some good stories there.

Actually I believe the way military pilots are today originated back in WWI when flying was a new thing and carefree...pilot's needed a cavalier attitude. This caried on to WWII and holds true today.

As for combat losses..there will be other factors determining morale...level of training, unit cohesion, quality of the commander, number of highly experienced pilots in unit, number of casualties. If a unit has a high ratio of quality pilots, well trained and with a commander that supports them...even high casualties (20-30%) won't deter them..they most certainly won't like it...but it won't keep them from continuing on. There will be other unit's though with a jerk of a commander and pretty green pilots. That unit would suffer more casualties than the norm and take a pretty hard morale hit.

But let me point out that fatigue is a far more critical factor than morale can ever be. Four to five days of intense combat operations and you are kaput...if you don't get a day off from flying...you will most likely kill yourself doing something careless.

Sabre21

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 3

- 7/21/2002 12:48:39 AM

ExNavyDoc

Posts: 11
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: NW PA
Status: offline

I have to agree with pretty much everything that Sabre21 has said. As a former Navy flight surgeon I can speak a bit to the behavior, motivation, and psychology of aviators.

As a nugget flight surgeon, I came to realize there is an unspoken hierarchy of pilots. The single seat fighter / attack guys were the most self-confident, cocky, and ballsy bunch, almost to the point of being insufferable. The 2-seat attack guys (my first squadron was a USMC A-6 outfit) were a bit more laid back, and not as "in-your-face" aggressive. The multi-engine patrol / transport types were the most easy-going of the lot. The helo pilots were kind of a mix of all three.

Leadership means everything, and I don't just mean the CO and XO. The department heads and senior enlisted also have a huge effect on morale, and the synergy of all of a squadron's leaders can make the whole much more effective than the simple sum of its parts.

For example, my first A-6 squadron CO was a Vietnam vet and had umpteen thousands of hours in the A-6. He was a quiet, firm guy who let his department heads and senior enlisted run their own shows, and would only intervene when he had to. The J.O.'s and the troops all loved him, and would do just about anything and work just about however long it would take to make things happen for our CO and the squadron. The XO was also a reasonable, "hands-off" guy who had made his fortune in real-estate and stayed in the Marines as a kind of hobby. The maintenance head was a former enlisted Marine A-6 mechanic who knew from experience what it took to keep the troops happy and working. As a consequence. the squadron had an outstanding deployment to Japan, and won "Attack Squadron of the Year".

As soon as we returned to CONUS, we got a new CO who was an insecure micromanager, and a screamer to boot. As a result, squadron morale went in the sh****r, and there were a couple of near-mishaps that got sort of brushed under the rug. The squadron was nowhere near as effective with the new CO at the reins, obviously

Anyway, I think UV models this pretty well. I constantly check the morale of my squadrons, and rest those that need it. I wish there was a way to sack the poorer rated CO's though.

ExNavyDoc

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 4

- 7/21/2002 1:22:38 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

Airplane pilots are inherently confident and optimistic because they have laws of physics on their side. If the engine goes out, they can still glide.

Helo pilots are inherently irritable and cynical, because they have the laws of physics constantly working against them. If their engine goes out, they fall to the ground and in most cases die.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 5

- 7/21/2002 2:54:34 AM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

Dgaad,

Have you ever heard of autorotate? If a helicopter loses an engine it can glide to the ground via autorotation.

http://www.aero.gla.ac.uk/Research/Fd/Project15.htm

If you lose a blade then your in trouble. Like a fixed wing airplane losing a wing!

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 6

Jesus Nut - 7/21/2002 3:28:24 AM

tanjman

Posts: 717
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: Griffin, GA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt Cliff
[B]Dgaad,

Have you ever heard of autorotate? If a helicopter loses an engine it can glide to the ground via autorotation.

http://www.aero.gla.ac.uk/Research/Fd/Project15.htm

If you lose a blade then your in trouble. Like a fixed wing airplane losing a wing! [/B][/QUOTE]

Capt Cliff,

:D Don't forget the "Jesus Nut". You know the one, when it comes of off a helo all the pilot can do is say "Oh Jesus! Here I come". :D

_____________________________

Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 7

Speaking of digression... - 7/21/2002 3:41:44 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

I'm not sure what the point is here. UV is attempting to simulate a war situation 60 years removed from the current day. The world was a far different place then, with far different ideas of what constitutes such concepts as "duty," "ethics," "morality," "heroism," and "courage." Indeed, people and their societies were very different from what we see in the first glimpses of the 21st century (and those glimpses are more than a little disconcerting so far, aren't they).

As far as the net effect on morale, fatigue, and experience of the pilots who flew the aircraft of the day on the missions of the day to fight the war of the day, who knows? The design decisions behind UV in these respects seem to mirror the learning and lore that have passed down to us from those times, both from those who were there and those who have studied that era, steeped in traditions that have been expressed in such media as motion pictures, historical fiction, and other popular culture idioms. Seen through this warped, distorted lens, who can sort out what the realities were? I'm satisfied with what UV gives me.

My attitude is to strap 'em on, draw 'em out, shoot 'em down, cover 'em up and read over 'em in the morning.

----------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 8

- 7/21/2002 5:25:48 AM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi Pasternakski (tough name to spell)

I would agree that the world is a different place than it was 60 years ago...and 60 years from now it will be even more different....but your statement that "The world was a far different place then, with far different ideas of what constitutes such concepts as "duty," "ethics," "morality," "heroism," and "courage" is exactly my point. The concepts of "duty, ethics, morality, and courage" for the military have NOT changed in 1000 years nor will they change in the next 1000. The way the aviator is today is the same type of character that climed into that WWI biplane..or the Spitfire...Zero...B17...or F15 Eagle! The attack pilots are a unique breed that will never change (I put fighter, bomber, attack, and helo all in the same class). Over the last 28 years I have come to know hundreds if not thousands of pilots, many of whom served in Vietnam and the Gulf...some in Korea and WWII. These guys share a common bond that goes beyond national borders or even generations. There is nothing like a group of aviators getting together..old and new that fought against each other in previous conflicts...sharing stories...these guys hold no animosity towards one another but a sense of respect.

As for the game..I like how it's modeled too:)

Hey Dgaad...autorotation is a pretty easy thing as long as the drive train is intact or the transmission doesnt sieze. If it does you get the Blue Blade Award...one blows this way..the other blo that away:D Seriously though..we practiced autos on a regular basis...couldn't do full touch down auto's in practice other than at the school house. You might be surprised at what a helo can do aerodynamically...even in autorotation.

Hey ExNavyDoc...glad to see ya here. Flight Surgeon huh...ack..I hated them yearly physicals. We got a good looking single female flight surgeon assigned to us when I was in Germany...guys were lining up to see here:p Oh well...retired now and enjoying it!

Sabre21

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 9

hero, schmearo - just lemme get back alive - 7/22/2002 12:52:42 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

I couldn't agree with you more, Sabre, within the narrow context of Western Civilization aviators. I merely point out that the world is far wider than that, and such things as "heroism" and "honor," for example, mean something far different to a Hun horseman than they do to an Islamic terrorist than they do to a follower of Mao Tse-Tung on the Long march than they do to a ... you get my drift.

Oops. My Jesus nut's comin' loose. Gotta go.

-------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 10

- 7/22/2002 2:45:49 AM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt Cliff
[B]Dgaad,

Have you ever heard of autorotate? If a helicopter loses an engine it can glide to the ground via autorotation.

http://www.aero.gla.ac.uk/Research/Fd/Project15.htm

If you lose a blade then your in trouble. Like a fixed wing airplane losing a wing! [/B][/QUOTE]

Thats why I said in "most cases". I know its possible to use downward momentum to cause spin in the blades just before impact that can absorb some of the downward momentum and possibly save lives. If the failure and subsequent fall generate too much momentum, autorotation provides very little comfort.

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 11

- 7/22/2002 5:20:59 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dgaad
[B]

Thats why I said in "most cases". I know its possible to use downward momentum to cause spin in the blades just before impact that can absorb some of the downward momentum and possibly save lives. If the failure and subsequent fall generate too much momentum, autorotation provides very little comfort. [/B][/QUOTE]

You know, as I recall from being stationed in Greece, this is exactly what happens when you try to go to sleep after a night of drinking too much ouzo...

----------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 12

- 7/23/2002 10:59:07 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I have to say that the theory posted in this thread is at odds with the information given in the most authoritative study of the south Pacific air war to date: "Fire in the Sky" by Eric Bergerud. His theories developed from interviews he had with actual pilots in the theatre. He mentions that morale was better among allied pilots due to the fact that they were rotated out of the combat zone while the Japanese pilots were left to die on the vine.

Even so, he quotes the surgeon of the 3rd Bomber Group (5th USAAF):

"Combat crews show signs of operational fatigue and deletorious changes in mental attitude after six to eight months of combat. Combat crews with over ten months of combat develop severe operational fatigue and undergo changes in attitude toward flying to such an extent that the probability of ever restoring them is questionable. "

This statement from someone dealing with the actual pilots in the theatre definitely cotradicts your statement. Once again, I think that there is a major difference between modern combat flying and that of WW2.

G

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 13

- 7/23/2002 12:09:40 PM

dgaad

Posts: 864
Joined: 7/25/2001
From: Hockeytown
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]

You know, as I recall from being stationed in Greece, this is exactly what happens when you try to go to sleep after a night of drinking too much ouzo...

----------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area. [/B][/QUOTE]

Were you wearing the beanie cap with the rotors?

_____________________________

Last time I checked, the forums were messed up. ;)

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 14

- 7/23/2002 4:03:36 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi again Brad

What we were first discussing was the character of the pilot..the type of person that gets good at this type of flying is the same kind of guy that flew Sopwith camels , P51's, or Eagles...that has never changed. I don't argue that 8-10 months of continuous combat won't have an affect on you. I mentioned several times in this thread that after 4-5 "DAYS" of continue hi tense operations that pilot capabilities degrade due to fatigue. Usually rotating pilots every few days, even if it is to just sit on the ground not flying a day will allow a unit to maintain a hi tempo of sorties for probably a month or so at which time the pilots will need a good week or so in a rear area. But all this is due to the stress of flying that equates to fatigue....not morale. Now morale as I said before is affected by many things...most importantly is the type of Commander the unit has, how well the aircrews are being treated, and how many of the hi experienced crews are being lost. No doubt Jap pilots had good morale in the early part of the war and degraded over time and that the Allies improved as the war went on. Long term stress though can also reduce morale (not always) and depends on the individual..this we never discussed before...look at how many of us are divorced :D

Now as for the difference betwen WWII flying and that of today...if anything...combat flying today is far more stressful. The degree of technology has increased the demands on the pilot considerably. No doubt flying bombers over Germany or combat operations as part of the Cactus Air Force and many others had it's affect on pilots. But again I point out Vietnam where the helo pilots were right in the middle of the combat zone for 12 months!!!...These guys usually flew multiple missions daily with the threat of attack on their airfields as a constant threat...and the attack helo guys could expect to be tortured and killed if captured...but the guys flew these missions despite the hardships. There was a even bounty on the heads of Cobra pilots in Vietnam by the VC.

Then lets look at the Gulf war. Any of the airfields that were used against Iraq were under threat of Scud attack by HE, chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. Many of the bases were fired upon. This went on for nearly 6 months for some units prior to the start of the airwar. These guys lived in tents in the desert among a bzillion flys and heat going over 120 degress not to mention the threat of attack. Alerts would be called daily forcing crews to don full chemical gear...do you know what its like wearing a full MOPP suit in those conditions...no ...I didn't think so! Even highly trained guys can barely last 6 hours in those conditions...just after 2 hours performance starts to degrade rapidly. I've had to do this in temps over 130 degress in a fully enclosed cockpit with no airconditioning...temps in the cockpit would rise to 150 degrees! 30 minutes to an hour in these conditions is all an aircrew performing low level operations can expect to last. From the moment crews were on site they were flying missions on a daily basis...sometimes..2 or 3 sorties daily. Some units were there for 10 months prior to rotation. In all of this, although fatigue was a major problem...morale never wavered. I would say if anythin ticked off the pilots, it was a toss up between all the flies or having to eat MRE's (Meals Rejected by Eithiopians) for the duration:)

No...combat flying today can be far, far more stressful than that of any prior era. The threat of missile attack, radar guided guns, electronic warfare (yeah the German bomber crews had to put up with some EW as the Brits messed with their homing signals)...these are things our WWII predecessors didn't have to contend with which has made combat flying far more dangerous. The future even is going to be even more difficult. We are on ther verge of a new era...with the development of energy based weapons just around the corner (closer than most of you might even believe), not to mention the new digital battlefield as thousands of weapon systems are tied together...even individual infantrymen are hooked into the network. You should see what we are doing with the Comanche (my current job)...we are pushing the envelop when it comes to future technologies and capabilities that even a few years ago would have been impossible. Even pilot's of my day are typically overwhelmed by the technolgy onboard..it's gonna take kids with nintendo reflexes to fly these things and keep up with requirements. The aircraft itself is a dream to fly..unheard of flying capabilites ever seen in a helicopter before...but the mission package...complex is an understatement. heheh...digressed as normal..oh well...back to playing UV:)

Sabre21

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 15

- 7/24/2002 12:17:12 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

One detail I have been trying to point out is that long term stress can affect pilot and unit morale. I see that in a round about way, you have concurred with the idea. "Long term stress though can also reduce morale (not always) and depends on the individual..this we never discussed before"

I can understand that today's combat pilots do have a lot of stress related to the technology level of the a/c and combat theatre. Luckily, today's pilots also have the most thoroughly developed downed crew retrieval sytem. While the US was far better at this in WW2 than anyone else, it was still a case of hit amd miss then. Since Vietnam you have had a very reliable system that pilots (thank god!) can count upon. This should be a big boost to morale.

You correctly point out that in the gulf war the units had to deal with similar hardships to those suffered by the troops in the south pacific: heat, bugs, bad food (though i think that MREs are far preferential to bully beef!!!). However, the troops serving in the gulf were serving on a winning side, which is not something that the troops serving in the south pacific could be sure of, at least during the first year.

As far as losses affecting morale, I can quote Bergerund's Fire in the Sky once more. An allied pilot, Jim Moreland, who had served in the defense of Java spoke about his unit which had suffered severe losses, including the squadron commander: "The attitude changed to "I am a goner, the next one lost will be me, I know it will be me." How many times I heard "We're just flying tow targets. We are all on suicide missions!" Such conclusions were only logical. Anyone's arithmetic can figure out how many missions you are likely to last if ten go out and only five come back. When an alert stack is normally boisterous with laughter and wisecracks, silent anxiety was the mood in those days."

This quote is not from a historian with no personal experience, this was from a P40 pilot who served in the theatre.

I don't appreciate the snyde, condescending tone of your post. "do you know what its like wearing a full MOPP suit in those conditions...no ...I didn't think so!" In a discussion between historians this was uncalled for. A person can intellectually understand what a subject is experiencing without having had to experience it himself. There is no need for the tone which you used.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 16

- 7/24/2002 8:41:51 PM

Jeremy Pritchard

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline

I would actually say that the stress of pilots probably has not changed that much over time, and could possibly be even less stressful today.

Technology has made the pilot's life tougher, but it also makes it easier. No longer do they have to rely on their eyes, constantly scanning all over, to spot an enemy, they get an alarm. With all of the new dangers out there, like radar guided missiles and such they have countermeasures that are designed to combat these.

They are constantly in coordination with ground personell (instead of being virtually alone as in WW2). They get target relays, and know that when they drop their weapon, chances are it will hit (which means they will not have to fly the gauntlet again, unlike in WW2).

Check out the casualty rates, even for allied pilots during the last few years of the war when we had air superiority, it was very high! Even when we were winning, with the best equipment, our death rates, when compared to present day, were unacceptable.

I know individuals who are pilots as well. Although there are a lot more screens and buttons, they are trained and do have the time to react to these buttons as they no longer have to spend their entire time scanning 360 degrees around them to spot an enemy who could be anywhere. THIS is very stressful.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 17

- 7/24/2002 10:12:12 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hiya Brad

I base a lot of my opinions on personal experience and those fellow pilots I have personally known over the last 28 years...not just what I read...and of course I do that a lot too. But I honestly believe that there are some things in life that people can not fully appreciate or understand until they actually experience it themselves, civilians in general are pretty naive when it comes to actual military life. As for condenscending...it was intended as such because your posts makes one believe that all you have to do is read about a subject and therefore you are all knowledgable, it seems like a very arrogant attitude to take. You are basing your opinions on 3rd hand accounts on some writer's interpretation of an event, of course we all do this to some degree, that's how most history books are written. How can a reader though comprehend what it's like to go through an impending crash with a damaged aircraft on fire filled with smoke, at night in the clouds with all instrument lighting out with no outside reference..at very low altitude in a steep high speed dive and multiple radios blaring..it's hard enough to describe the emotions and sequence of events let alone understand...fellow experienced military pilots though do. Just so you know recovery was made with less than 5 seconds to impact. Or what its like to collide with another parachutist in the middle of the night and have both chutes collapse and fall a thousand fight and somehow by the grace of God to walk away from it. Or standing just mere feet from an armed hostile patrol knowing that one wrong move will not be good.

How many stories have you read about the morale of the US Army in the early 70's...I myself have read nothing but how bad it was, how bad drugs and alcohol were. Most writers of the period focused on the bad...seems to the most part they still do. I was there during that time...and sure...we had a couple guys that smoked pot..usually privates (they still do that), and we had several NCO's that drank a lot...hmmm...we still have that too. But the vast majority of the guys we had were highly motivated and very good soldiers. Some units were worse off than others...but it was due to how the chain of command took care of the problem.

I did mention in many of my posts that casualties will affect morale, especially those casualties due to non combat losses. But as I said before...the higher experience of the unit...the less affect in morale.

You know soldiers are a funny breed...one day they will complain about bad chow...while others will say they love the chow...some will complain about it being too hot...while others say they enjoy the heat. While at times it may seem as if morale is bad...it's nothing more than typical GI complaining. But there will be times when the tone of the complaint will actually indicate individual or possibly even unit morale problems. Like you mentioned...knowing, or at least believing that you are on the winning or losing side can affect morale...especially in green units...the more experienced ones are not nearly affected as much. The other big factor that I have mentioned is how well the chain of command treats the crews. The dedicated SAR efforts definitly improve pilot disposition...it's one of those things that pilot's themselves believe so much in...that you can't leave a buddy behind..at least in the western frame of mind.

Now there are some other...more personal things that can radically affect morale...even sometimes in the most diehard of pilot's. Probably one of the worst is a dear Jane letter, pilot's are typically grounded if going thru divorce or extreme marital problems. Receiving or not receiving mail can have a profound affect on individual morale. That pilot you mention in your story could very well have got a dear jane letter the day before...or hadn't received any mail at all in months, or it could be as the author describes..it is hard to say. The difference is I know there are other factors involved in that guys's attitude and I am sure there are other pilots in the same unit that didn't feel that way. Unfortunatly people tend to write about the bad things..it sells more books...you don't usually find too many stories about how good things are cuz it's usually boring to the reader. But the list goes on and on of all those little what may appear as minor things that can change one's disposition that most writers don't pick up on.

Usually there are signs that a pilot will give off when he is undergoing stress...some very subtle that his fellow pilots or commander should be attuned too. As an Instructor Pilot, it was critical to not only evaluate a pilot's ability to perform....but to evaluate his ability to do it under stress. Now I could never shoot at the guy...but I could put him in situations that he honestly believed he was in peril (I was a sneaky guy)...even to the point of having local ATC's and crash rescues involved as part of the scheme. The hardest part for me was keeping a straight face thru all of this. It is extremely important to be able to detect stress problems early and correct them before it becomes critical. I am sure we are better at this now than we were 50 years ago.

Well it has been a pretty good thread and I enjoyed the discussion. I'm gonna have to find that book you mention and read thru it. A few books I have enjoyed are Stuka Pilot, Zero, and Cactus Air force.

Gotta go back to work:)

Sabre21

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 18

- 7/24/2002 11:08:42 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Okay Sabre (hmmm... not willing to use a real name?), I believe that in order to understand a historical subject one must read as many various sources on said subject as possible. I find it best to search for information coming from all sides, not just a single narrow viewpoint. I apologise if I came across as arrogant. I did not believe that anything I posted was posted in an arrogant manner. I quoted a respected source to support my theories because this is the way that historians discuss historical subjects.

If you choose to be condenscending to osmeone who questions your theory, then we shall all have to wonder why in your initial post (in this thread) you told us to "Feel free to add comments"? Are only comments that support your theory allowed? Are all other posts to be treated with contempt? I tried to support my ideas with excerpts from respected sources and you respond with personal anecdotes and personal attacks. So be it...

As far as the particular book I was quoting, it was a very even handed study of the air war in the south pacific. It did not dwell on the negative aspects, but did report them. I quoted the section that supported my theory, because I know of no other way to show that I might have some idea as to what I am talking about. I now understand that in your opinion I will never understand the subject. I'm sorry to say that this will not force me to quit studying military history. It has been my life's obsession, and will continue to be so. And yes, if I see a post on the message board that I think isn't entirely correct, and I have access to a source that supports my ideas, I will continue to use those sources and post my ideas. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate that. Free exchange of ideas is what expands knowledge, and I appreciate that. I had learned quite a bit from your posts, and am now trying to look past the prejudicial tone of your posts for the good information included therein. I must say that it is difficult.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 19

- 7/25/2002 4:28:30 AM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hi Brad

I use first names all the time...sometimes old callsigns...actually sabre21 I use on many BB's so ppl know me as that, and my RL name is Andy btw..I use that on many posts here too.

I do believe in an exchange of ideas...don't get me wrong..I do enjoy hearing other ppl's perspective...so what if i disagree here or there...doesn't mean I disagree with you or others entirely. Maybe when it comes to the life of military pilots I take it a bit too personal..hehe. Plus I never said anything bad about your source either...I always enjoy finding new sources of info...especially first hand stuff. I have heard ppl speak of that book in other threads and wouldn't mind reading it myself. I was using a generalization about how many sources or authors do focus on the negative or on a single subject matter and it would be unfair of me to judge that book in particular since I haven't read it. Oh and by no means do I know it all either...of course not. Well maybe I raised your blood temp a degree or two and am glad to see you enjoy military history as much as I do.

Having read thru the post many times there are many points that we agree on..and maybe a couple we don't ...that's fine though, plus reacting as I did could have been a misinterpretation of your post too. I have seen you on this forum for a while and know you are one of the many steady followers here and hold no hard feelings towards you or anyone else here that I can think of. I think in the last couple years only maybe 1 guy has really rubbed me wrong...but he left. He just badmouthed UV too much...sheesh. So no hard feelings Brad:)

I read Jeremy's point of view and would disagree with his statement that he thinks stress is easier due to technology or that pilots don't have to look outside all the time anymore. I would point out here that pilot's are constantly looking outside the canopy...especially flying low level or nap of the earth. Collision avoidance is imperative and you can only do that by effective and continuous scanning. The heads up displays help in this to some degree but the new helmet mounted displays are much better and the future retinal displays improve upon that even. Pilots are forced to look inside and review their displays..they learn to do this thru quick cross checks. There was a study done 12 years ago to determine if the Comanche could be a single pilot aircraft. Well any descent Cobra or Kiowa pilot at the time would have laughed and state "You gotta be kiddin". The outcome was that the mission was too complex for single pilot...well duh! A more recent test that we conducted with a Comanche aircrew on a typical Zone reconnaisance mission lasting only 1 hour...the crew pressed over 3000 buttons during the course of the mission with the non flying pilot performing about two thirds of these. Thats averaging about 17 presses a minute for the pilot and 34 for the copilot...pretty intense. Thats why one of the comments I made earlier that pilots now a days need nintendo reflexes. It's not like the guys want to look inside...they are forced too. There's only so much info you can put in a helmet display or make voice cues to before they become over saturated with data.

Just as a side note, if anyones interested..the Comanche uses a passive target detection system. We do have a radar similiar to longbow...but the primary, and much more effective system is our passive one...actually classifies targets too...to a limited extent.

Well..I hope the patch comes out while I finish this up:)

Andy / Sabre21

:D :D

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 20

- 7/25/2002 7:04:27 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21

Then lets look at the Gulf war. Any of the airfields that were used against Iraq were under threat of Scud attack by HE, chemical, biological, or nuclear attack. Many of the bases were fired upon. This went on for nearly 6 months for some units prior to the start of the airwar. These guys lived in tents in the desert among a bzillion flys and heat going over 120 degress not to mention the threat of attack.

[/QUOTE]

I do hope your knowledge of modern helicopter develpment is better than your knowledge of Gulf operations and events.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 21

- 7/25/2002 7:18:27 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21

I read Jeremy's point of view and would disagree with his statement that he thinks stress is easier due to technology or that pilots don't have to look outside all the time anymore.

[/QUOTE]

I believe that there are public records of UK MoD studies that say almost *exactly* what Jeremy has been saying. I know such studies exist in Japanese too.

[QUOTE]

I would point out here that pilot's are constantly looking outside the canopy...especially flying low level or nap of the earth.

[/QUOTE]

What do US pilots (or the USAF or whatever) call low level?

[QUOTE]

A more recent test that we conducted with a Comanche aircrew on a typical Zone reconnaisance mission lasting only 1 hour...the crew pressed over 3000 buttons during the course of the mission with the non flying pilot performing about two thirds of these. Thats averaging about 17 presses a minute for the pilot and 34 for the copilot...pretty intense.

[/QUOTE]

If this were true then you have a massive design failure. Maybe you should have subcontracted the eletronics interface to a Japanese company? ;)

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 22

- 7/25/2002 8:35:34 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21
[B]Hiya Brad

I base a lot of my opinions on personal experience and those fellow pilots I have personally known over the last 28 years...not just what I read...and of course I do that a lot too. But I honestly believe that there are some things in life that people can not fully appreciate or understand until they actually experience it themselves, civilians in general are pretty naive when it comes to actual military life.

(I was a sneaky guy)

Sabre21 [/B][/QUOTE]

Galaxy far away? I believe it.

------------------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 23

- 7/25/2002 9:39:31 AM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Well at least this is getting more lively:)

Hi Tohoku

To answer the easy question..US Army helo pilots consider 200 feet AGL and below as low level. NOE flight is basically obstacle avoidance meaning as low as possible without hitting things. Flying below treetop level is common in this mode of flight.

As for maintaining your eyes outside...very important for survival at these altitudes. That's why comprehensive helmet displays and voice alerts are being made for aircrews...and not just army pilots either.

Which portion or is it all of Jeremy's statements that you believe there are studies that validate his response. I would like to see these studies and read them myself.

The complexity of mission packages on board aircraft these days require pilots to interact with more systems than ever before. It is Jeremy's second paragraph that I mostly disagree with. Simply stating that all the pilot has to do is receive an alarm on an enemy's presense and that countermeasures will take care of the problem indicates to me watching to many movies and a very naive understanding of what attack flying is all about. Warnings as he understands them are only good for radar and laser type weapon systems emitting a signature that the aircraft recognizes. If the enemy changes the spectrum of their electronic signal (isn't an easy thing with older systems), then it is possible the aircraft will not detect it. But this still doesn't take into account optical systems or simply the guy on the ground with a gun. Also ASE systems are not full proof. Many modern weapons have ECCM capabilities.

I have been working with these engineers from the aviation industry for about 6 years now...some are gifted and talented and motivated, some need to find another line of work, the majority though..to them it's just an 8 hour job. Sometime's it's hard for me to comprehend that...and it's mostly from this interaction that I have formed my opinion on most civilians..biased maybe...but I haven't seen anything yet that disproves what I have learned.

One last thing..what part of the Desert Storm statement did you have a problem with??

Sabre21

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 24

Puff, puff, peace pipe accepted... - 7/25/2002 10:30:50 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Andy, I think I can gladly return your offer to lay down the swords. I don't think that a duel with someone whose call sign is sabre is smart, anyway -maybe I should have followed my grandad's lead? Dad liked to tell a story where my grandfather accepted an offer of a duel but as the challenged party he chose hip boots and a muddy field. Somehow I find it all hard to believe, but it makes a very amusing thought...

Military history is such an intriguing subject that it arouses passion among it's students. It is good to see that the passion can be tempered with diplomacy (much as the subject matter?).

I will now bow out of this thread. It seems that Andy and I understand each other, and as far as my knowledge of the modern stuff - it's minimal at best (better than the average citizen, but the subject just don't lift my kilt). Hey, at least I'm closer to it than my dad was - his specialty was the 17th-18th century era.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 25

- 7/25/2002 12:13:55 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

Simply stating that all the pilot has to do is receive an alarm on an enemy's presense and that countermeasures will take care of the problem indicates to me watching to many movies and a very naive understanding of what attack flying is all about.

--------------------

Yeah, uh-huh, and God bless you, God. I harbored some small hope that these forums would not be inhabited by small-minded ego-trippers who trot out pseudo-knowledge and unverifiable assertions of personal experience for self-gratification, but I guess I was mistaken.

**sigh**

I guess I'll choose my forum reading more carefully in the future.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 26

- 7/26/2002 8:12:39 AM

tohoku

Posts: 415
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: at lunch, thanks.
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sabre21

To answer the easy question..US Army helo pilots consider 200 feet AGL and below as low level. NOE flight is basically obstacle avoidance meaning as low as possible without hitting things. Flying below treetop level is common in this mode of flight.

[/QUOTE]

I was meaning fixed wing pilots, not the taxi drivers.

[QUOTE]

The complexity of mission packages on board aircraft these days require pilots to interact with more systems than ever before.

[/QUOTE]

I agree. I see that as a design failure. Pressing 3000+ buttons an hour during flight is a massive design failure: either someone doesn't know how to automate processes very well or the pilots are being presented with more information than they need.

[QUOTE]

One last thing..what part of the Desert Storm statement did you have a problem with??

[/QUOTE]

The whole 'we were under threat and were attacked and lived in tents and we were so manly' line. Most of the bases were not under threat, nor were many under attack at *any* point nor were most pilots living in tents for six months+.

tohoku
YMMV

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 27

- 7/26/2002 9:45:34 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tohoku
[B]

I was meaning fixed wing pilots, not the taxi drivers.
tohoku
YMMV [/B][/QUOTE]

LOL, tohoku. But why keep trying to communicate with someone who talks like a teenager with a hardon and no place to put it?

--------------------

He was an easy target, despite his ECM.

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 28

- 7/26/2002 10:13:52 PM

Sabre21

Posts: 8231
Joined: 4/27/2001
From: on a mountain in Idaho
Status: offline

Hey Tohoku

US Army Field Manuals that pertain to all operations...lift, attack, reconnaissance...describe in detail what altitudes are considered what. 200 feet and below is low level. The Air force usually stay above 300 feet for seperation purposes but it is very common to go below that if the Threat requires it.

Also reconnaissance operations are some of the most difficult to perform. Stating that there is amassive design failure is a pretty general statement. If you are familiar with the Apache longbow or kiowa warrior you will see that their design is much more cumbersome and switch intensive. While i will say that 3000 button presses is extensive...that's what design process is all about. New mission requirements such as operating UAV's from within the cockpit, utilizing digital communications, satelite networking...not to mention the multitude of weapon systems has increased the workload from previous designs. Automation can only handle so much..the pilot needs to be in the loop on many of the decision making processes that occur. If you would like to get into a discussion on avionic system automation, I would be more than happy to do that. I wouldn't mind hearing your ideas.

As for Desert Storm...yes...many Army pilots did in fact live in plain tents...especially the first few units to arrive, some eventually got the larger air conditioned ones later on compared to the standard GP mediums that they deployed with. Once the ground war started, the tents went away. As for being under threat of attack..I never said they were all attacked..the Scud variant the Iraq used reaches out to Isreal. That put most locations in Saudi within range. A few bases were attacked too..say that to the 28 Pennslyvania NG that were killed in one of the attacks. We can look back with hindsight at what occurred..but at the time no one for certain what Saddam was capable of doing, fortunately the vast majority of the Scud's were shot down and there weren't nearly as many attacks as had been anticipated. Casualalties from the war were expected to exceed 10000, again, fortunately, only around 400 or so allied killed.

Now Pasternaski..it's pretty uncalled for do get into name calling on a public BB. People disagree or agree on issues on these things all the time. If I use a personal experience to back up my point rather than print in a book..there's nothing wrong with that. Telling someone they are naive on a particular subject matter is not a negative thing nor was it intended as such. All of us are naive or lack an understanding on many subject areas..I have no clue how to build a house, run a small business, or raise hogs to name a few...but when it comes to attack helo and reconnaissance operations..that has been my life for the last 28 years..so I know a bit more about this than many. I do not care to nor will not get into name calling. Your posts up until the last few have been pertaining to the subject, and just because we disagree on a few points doesn't call for the latter responses.

Have a nice weekend guys:)

Andy

(in reply to Sabre21)

Post #: 29