il2crashesnfails Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 What are your personal ethics regarding this matter? Don't you think my plane ?was damaged enough to stop continued attack? I think if a plane is obviously going down and the engine is knocked out, you should stop the attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallcott Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 What are your personal ethics regarding this matter? Don't you think my plane ?was damaged enough to stop continued attack? I think if a plane is obviously going down and the engine is knocked out, you should stop the attacks. George S Patton said it best: “No b****** ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b****** die for his country.†You were crash landing, so you weren't dead... Game on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomTweak Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I don't think, at least not very often, that the Brits would press an attack on an obviously disabled, landing, aircraft. They, and the Americans, did shoot the ME-262's in their landing pattern, but they weren't disabled. The Allied Aviators were after the machine, not the men. Once the machine was destroyed, especially if the pilot had bailed out, they would leave it alone, and go looking for other "prey". Besides, each flight, they only had so much ammo aboard. If thy got a plane to the point it was obviously going down, they would stop wasting ammo on it. They'd try to make sure someone saw it "auger in", so they got the kill credit, and then go looking for more prey. They wanted aircraft kills, not human kills. The less ammo they used per kill, the more kills per flight. Simple math... Remember, Aviators, on both sides, were "Officers and Gentlemen", and they were expected to act accordingly. Their actions were under constant scrutiny by their peers, and superiors. Not to mention being treated as examples by their juniors. They would be expected to fight "honourably", and as a rule, they did. Besides, a human shot out of the shroud lines didn't count for their kill credits, so was a waste of ammo that COULD add kill credits... Just my thoughts on the sitch... Pat☺ [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Had a thought...then there was the smell of something burning, and sparks, and then a big fire, and then the lights went out! I guess I better not do that again! Sgt, USMC, 10 years proud service, Inactive reserve now :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallcott Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Patton was a general on the Allied side. What individuals did, or should do, was not symptomatic of the conduct of war. There were several examples of Jerry not completing an attack, just as there were several examples of the Allies pursuing an attack against articles of War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Mayer http://www.historynet.com/german-submarine-u-505-crewmember-hans-goebeler-recalls-being-captured-during-world-war-ii.htm https://uboat.net/articles/55.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II As an ex-military man and Falklands veteran, I remain firmly of the old skool - "Always kick a man when he's down. It ensures he can't get back up again. " Of course there are situations when it might be unethical to pursue an attack, I just never encountered one. The enemy is to be destroyed. Best summarised by a quote from the first Gulf War: "We accept the surrender of women, children and those who have expressed a wish to surrender: Everyone else we kill." Ask yourself this question: At what point did you express a wish to surrender..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallcott Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 I don't think, at least not very often, that the Brits would press an attack on an obviously disabled, landing, aircraft. They, and the Americans, did shoot the ME-262's in their landing pattern, but they weren't disabled. The Allied Aviators were after the machine, not the men. Once the machine was destroyed, especially if the pilot had bailed out, they would leave it alone, and go looking for other "prey". Besides, each flight, they only had so much ammo aboard. If thy got a plane to the point it was obviously going down, they would stop wasting ammo on it. They'd try to make sure someone saw it "auger in", so they got the kill credit, and then go looking for more prey. They wanted aircraft kills, not human kills. The less ammo they used per kill, the more kills per flight. Simple math... Remember, Aviators, on both sides, were "Officers and Gentlemen", and they were expected to act accordingly. Their actions were under constant scrutiny by their peers, and superiors. Not to mention being treated as examples by their juniors. They would be expected to fight "honourably", and as a rule, they did. Besides, a human shot out of the shroud lines didn't count for their kill credits, so was a waste of ammo that COULD add kill credits... Just my thoughts on the sitch... Pat☺ Attacking ME262's while landing had the conspicuous benefit of increasing the number of kills as the pilots simply could not escape a flaming aircraft in time - no zero-zero ejection seats in those days. Was this known by the Allies? Yes. Did it matter? Apparently Not. Apparently you consider ammo still on-board a good thing? As pilots didn't pay for it, nor was there some kind of bonus for returning with only half-empty ammo boxes, it was Poor Form not to strafe targets of opportunity on the way back - trains, and unarmed military vehicles were a particular favourite. Many of those had no ability to shoot back, belying your claim of `gentlemen` and `honour`. They needed destroying as part of the logistics of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
il2crashesnfails Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 Patton was a general on the Allied side. What individuals did, or should do, was not symptomatic of the conduct of war. There were several examples of Jerry not completing an attack, just as there were several examples of the Allies pursuing an attack against articles of War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Mayer http://www.historynet.com/german-submarine-u-505-crewmember-hans-goebeler-recalls-being-captured-during-world-war-ii.htm https://uboat.net/articles/55.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II As an ex-military man and Falklands veteran, I remain firmly of the old skool - "Always kick a man when he's down. It ensures he can't get back up again. " Of course there are situations when it might be unethical to pursue an attack, I just never encountered one. The enemy is to be destroyed. Best summarised by a quote from the first Gulf War: "We accept the surrender of women, children and those who have expressed a wish to surrender: Everyone else we kill." Ask yourself this question: At what point did you express a wish to surrender..? Some people on the forums told me that pilots often lowered landing gear to indicate surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mallcott Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Well, that might work, or it might indicate only that gear locks or hydraulics have been shot out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhantomTweak Posted January 10, 2019 Share Posted January 10, 2019 Well, that might work, or it might indicate only that gear locks or hydraulics have been shot out... All good info to have, hopefully while you still have altitude available to jettison the aircraft, if necessary :D No Martin-Baker Club in those days! Pat☺ [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Had a thought...then there was the smell of something burning, and sparks, and then a big fire, and then the lights went out! I guess I better not do that again! Sgt, USMC, 10 years proud service, Inactive reserve now :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.