Copyright 2014/2023 Paul R. Martin III. All rights reserved, no portion of this book/photographs/website may be used or reproduced without expressed written permission of the author, Paul R. Martin III.
Aerial Gunnery
Many joined the AAF with dreams of glory and becoming a pilot, yet only 10 percent of all enlistees met requirements for bomber pilot training with an additional five percent assigned to bombardier or navigator training.[1] The rest were designated gunners and some doubled as radio operators or flight engineers. B-17’s and B-24’s carried a 10-man crew with eight designated gunners.[2] No specialized flexible gunnery schools existed before 1941,[3] when the War Department built seven new airfields. Las Vegas Army Air Field in Nevada opened in late 1941,[4] followed by Harlingen Army Air Field and Laredo Field in Texas, Tyndall Field and Buckingham Field in Florida, and Kingman Airfield and Yuma Field in Arizona.[5] Training began immediately, before the fields were even complete.[6]
Entry into gunnery school was strictly voluntary. Training command believed greater morale, enthusiasm, and completion rates would prevail if all entrants volunteered. The failure rate averaged about 10 percent at all gunnery schools throughout the war years[7] with “fear of flying” a valid reason for elimination. A Flying Training Command memorandum from May 5, 1944, stated that no trainee could be disciplined for refusal to fly.[8]
Initial standards for gunnery school admission were stringent, but bomber command lowered them by the fall of 1942 to meet the large numbers of candidates required, and General Harold “Hap” Arnold gave flexible gunnery training priority in 1943, ahead of all other training activities in the United States.[9]
The mechanical aptitude test score lowered acceptance from 100 to 80, and the general classification test from 100 to 85. Physical requirements were modified by the summer of 1943. Age limits changed from 18-30 to 18-35. Height limitations adjusted to a minimum 60 inches and maximum 72 inches, and weight to not less than 100 pounds or more than 180 pounds.[10]
Mike Fevola arrived at Harlingen Army Gunnery School (HAGS) at Harlingen Army Air Field on March 27, 1944. The field opened in mid-1941, with its first cadre of trainees arriving in August.[11] On November 27th the first plane, a BT-13, set down on the new concrete runways.[12] The 960 acres of flat, hard desert terrain in Cameron County, Texas, offered perfect weather conditions for over 300 flying days a year.[13] Nearby railroads facilitated easy and rapid troop transportation. Newly constructed sidings delivered raw materials for buildings that mushroomed almost overnight.[14]
Rio Grande Valley residents knew the school was opened on Christmas Eve, 1941, when newspaper headlines warned them to stay away from the gulf coastal flats where gunnery students were firing machine guns.[15]
By August of 1942, the field specialized in high and low level flexible gunnery training while also operating B-24 transition training. The first gunnery class graduated in January of 1942 after a five-week course. Constructed to handle a student load of 600 with 120 gunners graduating each week, the quota increased dramatically as the war continued and course time extended to six and then eight weeks. Some 16,000 gunners graduated in 1943 alone, illustrating how rapidly the school expanded.[16] New construction and expansion increased the field’s size to 1600 acres by late 1944 on the former cotton and sorghum fields,[17] in the near-tropical Rio Grande Valley where gulf breezes and orange blossoms mingled with gun powder scents.[18]
Aerial Gunnery training in 1944 lasted six weeks with classroom instruction allotting extensive time to aircraft recognition and the principles of sighting, leading and firing on a fast moving target.[19] Fevola learned turret and weapons maintenance emphasizing the Browning .50 caliber machine gun. Nomenclature and 17 operational sequences were drilled. He field stripped and reassembled the gun after the parts were purposefully mixed-up, adjusted the proper headspace, the oil buffer tube and the direction of feed, all while blindfolded.[20]
Live weapons firing began with BB guns and .22 cal. rifles, progressing to shotgun skeet and trap shooting on the auxiliary range of 30,000 acres located 22 miles east of base.[21] Trap and skeet shooting offered greater familiarity with firearms and forced the gunner to allow for leading the moving target.[22]
“They yelled, ‘Mark! Hold! Pull!’” Fevola remembered. Complexity increased. The men “went skeet shooting with shotguns from the back of a fast moving truck,” as the vehicle careened crazily around the target range. “It was an exciting time and every day a new experience!”[23] Students learned to operate and fire flex-mounted .50 caliber machine guns, progressing through stages of difficulty, including firing twin .50 caliber machine guns, turret mounted on moving trucks, before advancing to air-to-air tow target firing.[24]
Tow targets were tubular fabric sleeves, like large windsocks pulled on cables 750 feet behind the towing aircraft.[25] Another type had fine wire mesh hung from a pipe called a “screen door” or “barn door” target.[26] Gunners fired from planes flying parallel to the tow planes, often piloted by WASPs. (Womens Air Force Service Pilots)[27] Students fired mounted machine guns from a rear-facing back seat of single engine AT-6 aircraft before advancing to turret guns in twin engine B-34 Ventura[28] or Hudson medium bombers. The men fired from all turret and waist positions, assigned special painted bullets that left colored marks on the targets for score keeping.[29] Gunners fired at offshore silhouette targets installed in the Gulf waters near South Padre Island[30] and strafed ground targets from low flying planes.[31] Fevola “saw wild horses out on the gunnery range and had to be careful not to shoot them. The racket from the .50 caliber guns startled them to run in circles, crisscrossing the range.”[32]
Flying at speeds above 150 MPH and attempting to strike a small enemy plane flying at similar speed was far more difficult than hitting targets during ground and tow exercises.[33] The equation compounded if the gunner received fire himself. Training focused on finding a way to strike first, to hit the fighter before it even neared the bomber, and sighting and firing systems received a major share of attention.[34]
A highly scientific system evolved to increase bullet strike accuracy with a specific sequence of action in sighting: 1. Recognize the enemy ship. 2. Estimate the range with 600 yards as the critical distance for opening fire. 3. Estimate the difference in speed between his ship and the enemy by holding the sight stationary for one second. 4. Compute the lead according to a definite memorized table, and 5. Open fire.[35] Tracer bullets, intended to assist the student’s ability to observe hits on the target, caused other problems. Light from the burning tracers sometimes produced optical anomalies distorting the actual distance from the gunner, who often depended upon it entirely and neglected their gun sights.[36]
To supplement live practice, the Air Force introduced “Gun camera” training in 1944, affording the realism of combat and all the advantages claimed by air-to-air firing. The Jim Handy and the Weller trainers applied realistic combat conditions, teaching both trajectory and firing angle theory utilizing motion picture technology to simulate combat. The technique assessed on film the number of hits made on targets with non-computing gun sights and proved superior to tow target firing. The film gave the student a continuous picture of the attacking plane from the time of action to breakaway, and judged the results of his own firing.[37]
By Fevola’s arrival at Harlingen, gun camera equipment simulators were readily available, and eventually superseded tow target practice.[38] “It was like an arcaide game at Coney Island. I sat in a booth with a mock gun handle in front of a screen where black paper airplane silhouettes moved across. They represented specific American, Japanese and German planes for us to quickly identify and shoot the enemy fighters. They showed us film in a room with projectors and evaluated our success.”[39]
The Air Force expected students to comprehend all lead and trajectory theory, relying heavily on a method called “position firing”, based upon an understanding of the course or curve a plane flew in order to attack a bomber... and firing upon the attacking plane before it was in a position to make an attack. Initial theory specified firing at enemy aircraft when 1,200 yards away, but experience from combat theaters confirmed machine guns could not fire accurately until the enemy closed to within 600 yards.[40]
Ultimately, all techniques were covered with position firing taught to be used only for guns not equipped with automatic computing or compensating sights or if sights malfunctioned, yet position firing was the technique most adopted by individual gunners like Fevola.[41] “They taught us the idea of firing on a ‘pursuit curve’. When the enemy plane flew toward you, you shot ahead of him as he came in, watching where the airplane was coming from and determining how he was going to turn or where he was going to go. You had to predict in a fraction of a second, because they moved fast and constantly changed the angle and curve from where they were attacking. You tried to lead him in, firing a ahead of him, knowing his direction and speed would fly right into your fire. Tracers helped, but you had to figure out where to shoot.”[42] With the fundamentals of firing a machine gun under his belt, Fevola received assignment for instruction in a specific mechanical turret.
[1] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.16 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[2] Ibid. p.16 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[3] Ibid, p.5 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[4] ibid. p.7. A lease was signed between the city and the army in January of 1941. The base opened and began operating on a limited basis by the latter half of 1941 although no actual firing training began until after December 7, 1941. On December 9, the Chief of the Air Corps ordered immediate aerial training to begin for gunners.
[5] Thole, Lou. Forgotten Fields of America: Volume III, World War Two Bases and Training, Then and Now. Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc. Missoula, MT, 2003, p. 23. For a more detailed history of many WWII training bases, read Mr. Thole’s excellent 3 volume set of Forgotten Fields of America.
[6] Arnold, General, H.H., First report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War, January 4, 1944, Schneidereth & Sons, Baltimore, MD, 1944
[7] Simms, Henry, pp. 20-21. The elimination rates in 1942 for the four following schools were, Harlingen, 16.1%, Las Vegas, 9.7%, Fort Myers,(Buckingham Field)10.4% and Tyndall Field, 5.2%..
[8] Simms, Henry,. pp. 12-20
[9] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.16 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[10] ibid, pp. 12-13
[11] Rozeff, Norman. A History of the Harlingen Army Airfield and Harlingen Army Air Force Base. Harlingen Historical and Preservation Society, http://www.cameroncountyhistoricalcommission.org/harlingen, 5/10/06
[12] Harlingen Army Air Field, AAFTC, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[13] Rozeff, Norman. A History of the Harlingen Army Airfield and Harlingen Army Air Force Base. Harlingen Historical and Preservation Society, http://www.cameroncountyhistoricalcommission.org/harlingen, 5/10/06
[14] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[15] Ibid.
[16] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.8 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622 The number of gunners that graduated from each of the seven Gunnery schools from their openings through 31, August 1944 were: Las Vegas, 44,246. Harlingen, 36,494. Tyndall, 39,452. Buckingham, 33,118. Laredo, 27,077. Kingman, 24,008 and Yuma, 10,431 for a grand total of 214,826
[17] Rozeff, Norman.
[18] US Army Air Corps Public Relations Office. A Camera trip Through “Hags” Harlingen Army Gunnery School. The Ullman Company, Brooklyn, NY, 1944 (date approximate) p.2
[19] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[20] Thole, Lou. p. 44
[21] Rozeff, Norman.
[22] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.100 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[23] Fevola, Michael J. Interview
[24] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[25] ibid
[26] Simms, Henry H. p.100
[27] Rozeff, Norman.
[28] Rozeff, Norman.
[29] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[30] Rozeff, Norman
[31] Thole, Lou. Forgotten Fields of America: Volume III, World War Two Bases and Training, Then and Now. Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc. Missoula, MT, 2003, pp. 27-30,
[32] Fevola, Michael J. Interview
[33] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.56 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[34] Simms, Henry, H., p. 100
[35] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.54 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[36] ibid. pp. 55-56
[37] ibid P. 71
[38] ibid. pp. 66-69
[39] Fevola, Michael J., interview
[40] Simms, Henry, H., pp. 57-58
[41] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.60 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[42] Fevola, Michael J., interview
Entry into gunnery school was strictly voluntary. Training command believed greater morale, enthusiasm, and completion rates would prevail if all entrants volunteered. The failure rate averaged about 10 percent at all gunnery schools throughout the war years[7] with “fear of flying” a valid reason for elimination. A Flying Training Command memorandum from May 5, 1944, stated that no trainee could be disciplined for refusal to fly.[8]
Initial standards for gunnery school admission were stringent, but bomber command lowered them by the fall of 1942 to meet the large numbers of candidates required, and General Harold “Hap” Arnold gave flexible gunnery training priority in 1943, ahead of all other training activities in the United States.[9]
The mechanical aptitude test score lowered acceptance from 100 to 80, and the general classification test from 100 to 85. Physical requirements were modified by the summer of 1943. Age limits changed from 18-30 to 18-35. Height limitations adjusted to a minimum 60 inches and maximum 72 inches, and weight to not less than 100 pounds or more than 180 pounds.[10]
Mike Fevola arrived at Harlingen Army Gunnery School (HAGS) at Harlingen Army Air Field on March 27, 1944. The field opened in mid-1941, with its first cadre of trainees arriving in August.[11] On November 27th the first plane, a BT-13, set down on the new concrete runways.[12] The 960 acres of flat, hard desert terrain in Cameron County, Texas, offered perfect weather conditions for over 300 flying days a year.[13] Nearby railroads facilitated easy and rapid troop transportation. Newly constructed sidings delivered raw materials for buildings that mushroomed almost overnight.[14]
Rio Grande Valley residents knew the school was opened on Christmas Eve, 1941, when newspaper headlines warned them to stay away from the gulf coastal flats where gunnery students were firing machine guns.[15]
By August of 1942, the field specialized in high and low level flexible gunnery training while also operating B-24 transition training. The first gunnery class graduated in January of 1942 after a five-week course. Constructed to handle a student load of 600 with 120 gunners graduating each week, the quota increased dramatically as the war continued and course time extended to six and then eight weeks. Some 16,000 gunners graduated in 1943 alone, illustrating how rapidly the school expanded.[16] New construction and expansion increased the field’s size to 1600 acres by late 1944 on the former cotton and sorghum fields,[17] in the near-tropical Rio Grande Valley where gulf breezes and orange blossoms mingled with gun powder scents.[18]
Aerial Gunnery training in 1944 lasted six weeks with classroom instruction allotting extensive time to aircraft recognition and the principles of sighting, leading and firing on a fast moving target.[19] Fevola learned turret and weapons maintenance emphasizing the Browning .50 caliber machine gun. Nomenclature and 17 operational sequences were drilled. He field stripped and reassembled the gun after the parts were purposefully mixed-up, adjusted the proper headspace, the oil buffer tube and the direction of feed, all while blindfolded.[20]
Live weapons firing began with BB guns and .22 cal. rifles, progressing to shotgun skeet and trap shooting on the auxiliary range of 30,000 acres located 22 miles east of base.[21] Trap and skeet shooting offered greater familiarity with firearms and forced the gunner to allow for leading the moving target.[22]
“They yelled, ‘Mark! Hold! Pull!’” Fevola remembered. Complexity increased. The men “went skeet shooting with shotguns from the back of a fast moving truck,” as the vehicle careened crazily around the target range. “It was an exciting time and every day a new experience!”[23] Students learned to operate and fire flex-mounted .50 caliber machine guns, progressing through stages of difficulty, including firing twin .50 caliber machine guns, turret mounted on moving trucks, before advancing to air-to-air tow target firing.[24]
Tow targets were tubular fabric sleeves, like large windsocks pulled on cables 750 feet behind the towing aircraft.[25] Another type had fine wire mesh hung from a pipe called a “screen door” or “barn door” target.[26] Gunners fired from planes flying parallel to the tow planes, often piloted by WASPs. (Womens Air Force Service Pilots)[27] Students fired mounted machine guns from a rear-facing back seat of single engine AT-6 aircraft before advancing to turret guns in twin engine B-34 Ventura[28] or Hudson medium bombers. The men fired from all turret and waist positions, assigned special painted bullets that left colored marks on the targets for score keeping.[29] Gunners fired at offshore silhouette targets installed in the Gulf waters near South Padre Island[30] and strafed ground targets from low flying planes.[31] Fevola “saw wild horses out on the gunnery range and had to be careful not to shoot them. The racket from the .50 caliber guns startled them to run in circles, crisscrossing the range.”[32]
Flying at speeds above 150 MPH and attempting to strike a small enemy plane flying at similar speed was far more difficult than hitting targets during ground and tow exercises.[33] The equation compounded if the gunner received fire himself. Training focused on finding a way to strike first, to hit the fighter before it even neared the bomber, and sighting and firing systems received a major share of attention.[34]
A highly scientific system evolved to increase bullet strike accuracy with a specific sequence of action in sighting: 1. Recognize the enemy ship. 2. Estimate the range with 600 yards as the critical distance for opening fire. 3. Estimate the difference in speed between his ship and the enemy by holding the sight stationary for one second. 4. Compute the lead according to a definite memorized table, and 5. Open fire.[35] Tracer bullets, intended to assist the student’s ability to observe hits on the target, caused other problems. Light from the burning tracers sometimes produced optical anomalies distorting the actual distance from the gunner, who often depended upon it entirely and neglected their gun sights.[36]
To supplement live practice, the Air Force introduced “Gun camera” training in 1944, affording the realism of combat and all the advantages claimed by air-to-air firing. The Jim Handy and the Weller trainers applied realistic combat conditions, teaching both trajectory and firing angle theory utilizing motion picture technology to simulate combat. The technique assessed on film the number of hits made on targets with non-computing gun sights and proved superior to tow target firing. The film gave the student a continuous picture of the attacking plane from the time of action to breakaway, and judged the results of his own firing.[37]
By Fevola’s arrival at Harlingen, gun camera equipment simulators were readily available, and eventually superseded tow target practice.[38] “It was like an arcaide game at Coney Island. I sat in a booth with a mock gun handle in front of a screen where black paper airplane silhouettes moved across. They represented specific American, Japanese and German planes for us to quickly identify and shoot the enemy fighters. They showed us film in a room with projectors and evaluated our success.”[39]
The Air Force expected students to comprehend all lead and trajectory theory, relying heavily on a method called “position firing”, based upon an understanding of the course or curve a plane flew in order to attack a bomber... and firing upon the attacking plane before it was in a position to make an attack. Initial theory specified firing at enemy aircraft when 1,200 yards away, but experience from combat theaters confirmed machine guns could not fire accurately until the enemy closed to within 600 yards.[40]
Ultimately, all techniques were covered with position firing taught to be used only for guns not equipped with automatic computing or compensating sights or if sights malfunctioned, yet position firing was the technique most adopted by individual gunners like Fevola.[41] “They taught us the idea of firing on a ‘pursuit curve’. When the enemy plane flew toward you, you shot ahead of him as he came in, watching where the airplane was coming from and determining how he was going to turn or where he was going to go. You had to predict in a fraction of a second, because they moved fast and constantly changed the angle and curve from where they were attacking. You tried to lead him in, firing a ahead of him, knowing his direction and speed would fly right into your fire. Tracers helped, but you had to figure out where to shoot.”[42] With the fundamentals of firing a machine gun under his belt, Fevola received assignment for instruction in a specific mechanical turret.
[1] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.16 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[2] Ibid. p.16 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[3] Ibid, p.5 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[4] ibid. p.7. A lease was signed between the city and the army in January of 1941. The base opened and began operating on a limited basis by the latter half of 1941 although no actual firing training began until after December 7, 1941. On December 9, the Chief of the Air Corps ordered immediate aerial training to begin for gunners.
[5] Thole, Lou. Forgotten Fields of America: Volume III, World War Two Bases and Training, Then and Now. Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc. Missoula, MT, 2003, p. 23. For a more detailed history of many WWII training bases, read Mr. Thole’s excellent 3 volume set of Forgotten Fields of America.
[6] Arnold, General, H.H., First report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War, January 4, 1944, Schneidereth & Sons, Baltimore, MD, 1944
[7] Simms, Henry, pp. 20-21. The elimination rates in 1942 for the four following schools were, Harlingen, 16.1%, Las Vegas, 9.7%, Fort Myers,(Buckingham Field)10.4% and Tyndall Field, 5.2%..
[8] Simms, Henry,. pp. 12-20
[9] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.16 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[10] ibid, pp. 12-13
[11] Rozeff, Norman. A History of the Harlingen Army Airfield and Harlingen Army Air Force Base. Harlingen Historical and Preservation Society, http://www.cameroncountyhistoricalcommission.org/harlingen, 5/10/06
[12] Harlingen Army Air Field, AAFTC, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[13] Rozeff, Norman. A History of the Harlingen Army Airfield and Harlingen Army Air Force Base. Harlingen Historical and Preservation Society, http://www.cameroncountyhistoricalcommission.org/harlingen, 5/10/06
[14] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[15] Ibid.
[16] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.8 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622 The number of gunners that graduated from each of the seven Gunnery schools from their openings through 31, August 1944 were: Las Vegas, 44,246. Harlingen, 36,494. Tyndall, 39,452. Buckingham, 33,118. Laredo, 27,077. Kingman, 24,008 and Yuma, 10,431 for a grand total of 214,826
[17] Rozeff, Norman.
[18] US Army Air Corps Public Relations Office. A Camera trip Through “Hags” Harlingen Army Gunnery School. The Ullman Company, Brooklyn, NY, 1944 (date approximate) p.2
[19] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[20] Thole, Lou. p. 44
[21] Rozeff, Norman.
[22] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.100 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[23] Fevola, Michael J. Interview
[24] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[25] ibid
[26] Simms, Henry H. p.100
[27] Rozeff, Norman.
[28] Rozeff, Norman.
[29] Harlingen Army Air Field, Army Air Force Training Command, Army and Navy Publishing Co. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, 1943, p. 30
[30] Rozeff, Norman
[31] Thole, Lou. Forgotten Fields of America: Volume III, World War Two Bases and Training, Then and Now. Pictorial Histories Publishing Co., Inc. Missoula, MT, 2003, pp. 27-30,
[32] Fevola, Michael J. Interview
[33] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.56 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[34] Simms, Henry, H., p. 100
[35] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.54 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[36] ibid. pp. 55-56
[37] ibid P. 71
[38] ibid. pp. 66-69
[39] Fevola, Michael J., interview
[40] Simms, Henry, H., pp. 57-58
[41] Simms, Henry, H., Flexible Gunnery Training In The AAF. USAF Historical Study, 1945, p.60 Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell AFB, Iris # 00467622
[42] Fevola, Michael J., interview