What is your answer?

first off the machine is a bigger target  easier to hit

second i know the other guy is out to kill you but he is a human bieng doing what his job is a soldier

the other part to this ? might be do you shoot to kill the enemy pilot who has bailed out  or do you shhot a guy in the back because his gov views r diff than your gov views  that my view  and i know many will not like it

I will probably pick up another label for saying this. War is a mean place. All the tanks, trucks, artillery, ships and aircraft are just platforms for carrying bigger or different types of guns. It is possible to force a country's surrender by destroying steel and aluminum, but, if you are trying to actually defeat the enemy you have to shoot the men. Rest assured that they are trying to kill you and your buddies.

Pick out 10 Allied WW II aces,,,,the Boyington's and Baders,,,,imagine if they were shot instead of "reloading" into aircraft after aircraft,,,and if they weren't available to train the newbies.

Rex

edit,,,,,,,I was answering the original post, not the "swinging in the chute" second post

I guess it depends upon my temper at the time... some things you take more personal- like getting shot at... fear and anger will make your blood boil and put that desire to kill inside you.

I'd be happy to hit the darn thing. But I suppose it I were a good enough shot, I'd go for the pilot, although we would have lost good NATO Generals such a Gunther Rall.

The answer to your question DURR: if the pilot bailed out of his craft after I put a few holes in it, I wouldn't shoot the pilot parachutting to earth. So my answer to the question is shoot to put the aircraft out of action.

Now a waist gunner in a bomber shoot to defend his craft so it can complete its mission.

I would do this .If i could get in that sweet spot on his six or wherever I would go for the machine .An errant shell might take out the pilot or my shots to the plane might cause it to explode .Scratch one experienced pilot and aircraft . If No, t the machine has to go . I would NOT shoot the pilot in the silk. To me that is morally reprehensible !

I would go for the aircraft...  If the pilot is unable to get out due to injuries or equipment damage (ie. canopy won't open due to battle damage) such are the fortunes of war.  Once he is out and under a canopy, wave or salute and go on my way.

It is an old custom (I know wrong word) that you wage war on armed adversaries.  Those that wage war on innocents or unarmed enemy are considered barbarians or savages.  If an enemy pilot is in a duel with you they are actively waging war with you, do what you must. To the question, kill the machine and the pilot is rendered useless.  The target is much larger with higher chance of a kill shot.  In a way it could be said, kill the larger threat.

Joe

I think the primary function of a fighter pilot is to destroy the enemy machine, and follow the honor code of not shooting at a parachute. Even in the savagery of war, a sane moment does come up once in a while as in the Charlie Brown and Franz Stigler incident.

Who can say what anyone would do in a particular moment?

I remember seeing a reunion photo in the river museum in Savannah, TN last spring of veterans of the Civil War. Cool thing about it was that it was populated by both northern and southern veterans who got together some thirty years after hostilities ended to fellowship with each other. It's inspiring that they could do that; and you see some of that today, especially with WWII vets.

Having never flown an armed aircraft, I have absolutely no idea what I would do.

Fill my pants is probably my best and most honest answer.

plasticjunkie - A Higher Call is one of the best books I've ever read. I applaud Franz for what he did - protect and lead Charlie and his crew to safety unbeknownst to his superiors.

It's against the laws of war to shoot an aviator in a parachute in the air. Us paratroopers are fair game. That being said, I remember seeing an interview with one if the Yoxford Boys, I can't recall if it was Bud Anderson or somebody else. But he mentioned about how they would not shoot parachuting German airmen. But, during one escort mission he saw a German fighter pilot shooting downed bomber crews in their chutes. He said that he got on that fighters tail then picked and picked at him until he forced that pilot to bail out. He said that he then shot that pilot in his chute. Like I said in my original posting on this subject, when your blood boils, you may want to really kill someone.

BSheep

I think there's a movie in the works about this incident. What is funny is that Charlie Brown was probably living close to me in Miami and being a police detective at the time, I could have located him very easily if I had known about this.  A truly moving story.

www.youtube.com/watch

I'd fly alongside and tell him his panel lines are out of scale.  He'd bail out in disgust.

CN Spots

I'd fly alongside and tell him his panel lines are out of scale.  He'd bail out in disgust.

Fighter vs fighter usually lucky to get a hit.

Fighter versus multi motor, go for the airframe kill.

I don't think given all that is going on in aerial combat that many, if any, pilot was good enough to so narrowly target just the pilot.  But for the hypothetical here, the proper answer is destroy the air asset and whatever happens collaterally, happens.  Of course the argument in taking out the pilot is that he could then get in another plane one day and then take you out.

Yes, we were left to assume that taking out the pilot or taking out the aircraft were equal choices.

I wonder how the ground attack deal would work, trying to keep all of that "honor" in place as it was done.

"okay, you Blue shirts tow those loaded up Corsairs over to the bombing up area",,,,,,"you Red shirts arm them up with bullets, shells, bombs, and Napalm,,,,,,,and remember to wrap some ammo belts around some of the bombs to provide plenty of shrapnel",,,,,,,,"pilots, there is a pre-flight briefing, you are on notice that some of you seem to have been dropping your stuff on the enemy, you know you are only supposed to be taking out trucks and tanks, and let the people thing 'just happen' as you go along"

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commander's won't allow them to write  on their aeroplanes. Because, 'it's obscene' ".

I think I am supposed to know that quote, Stik. But, those two brain cells aren't active at the moment. Who was that? (I can guess the era, because of aeroplanes)

It's from the end of Apocalypse Now... the last transmission of Col Kurtz just before his final demise. I think it perfectly sums up the hypocrisy of high command regarding such things.

Ah,,,,,,it has been quite a while since I watched that last. I am currently part way through WW II again, on "A Bridge Too Far".  Going to be a while before I get to Vietnam and DS again. (All of the Victory at Sea episodes are still to go)

I have a new friend here (former FFG type) that we have weekly movie nights watching older movies and  enjoying some refreshing beverages while the kids and wives do their thing. Quite enjoyable. We watched The Sand Pebbles and The Wind And The Lion for our last viewing.

stikpusher

"We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commander's won't allow them to write  on their aeroplanes. Because, 'it's obscene' ".

Yes, a pilot has to get in pretty close to be able to place his fire at a specific point of his target aircraft as opposed to just shooting at the whole aircraft silhouette. There is a well known piece of German gun camera footage of a rear attack on a B-17 where the pilot gets closer and closer and his fire gets more specific into each engine as he closes. I'm sure most folks here have seen it.

DURR

the other part to this ? might be do you shoot to kill the enemy pilot who has bailed out  or do you shhot a guy in the back because his gov views r diff than your gov views  that my view  and i know many will not like it

Shooting a pilot in a parachute or other air crewman, like from a bomber, is against the law of war and is a crime. Now paratroopers are a different topic. They are combatants and can be shot while parachuting down from an airplane.

Air crew parachuting from a destroyed have certain protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention. They are to be given a chance to surrender to ground forces.

Bottom line, paratroopers are open season; you can fire machine guns, flak etc. at them. Air crewmen are not.

Rob Gronovius

DURR

the other part to this ? might be do you shoot to kill the enemy pilot who has bailed out  or do you shhot a guy in the back because his gov views r diff than your gov views  that my view  and i know many will not like it

Shooting a pilot in a parachute or other air crewman, like from a bomber, is against the law of war and is a crime. Now paratroopers are a different topic. They are combatants and can be shot while parachuting down from an airplane.

Air crew parachuting from a destroyed have certain protections afforded them by the Geneva Convention. They are to be given a chance to surrender to ground forces.

Bottom line, paratroopers are open season; you can fire machine guns, flak etc. at them. Air crewmen are not.

Seeing as the discussion is primarily talking about WW2, this only became a war crime in 1949, during WW2, it was not against the rules of war.

At the start of WW2, the idea was considered unchivalrous by many on both sides. Goering once asked Galland his view on the matter, to which Galland replied "I should regard it as murder, Herr Reichsmarschall. I should do everything in my power to disobey such an order". To which Goering responded with "That is just the reply I had expected from you, Galland".

But while it was frond upon, it of course did happen, but at the time, it was considered bad sport, but not illegal.

Further commentary on the subject if anybody finds themselves interested.

www.icrc.org/.../Comment.xsp