Yeah that's generally how I feel about it. I don't have a problem with a German pilot shooting a bailed British pilot over Britain. Both sides deliberately dropped bombs on each other's civilians, which makes enemy pilots seem very fair game by comparison. The only problem I'd have with enemy pilots bailing over your own territory is if those pilots are armed and likely to kill your side or evade capture.

If a British pilot bailed over Britain, they'd be back in a plane shooting at the Germans. Why would the Germans want that? Happy to escort a bomber to Coventry to bomb children, but won't shoot the enemy - it's madness.

Does anyone know why the original post was deleted? i'd like to see it.

If people want to talk about shooting parachutes and what not surely they can create a thread for it, makes it hard to keep track of anything relevant to the original post.

twas a bit odd ...

all was fine until I pointed out the footage was US guncams shooting at the Japanese not the other way around and then suddenl7 people started deleting posts and links

must admit I was rather confused myself

Wow, that video made me want to kill a few people in real. Almost. Glad I can't do it :lol:


Edit: Nah, killing would be too ez fate for some.

All this 'I'd kill a guy in a chute' talk is fine until it's you hanging from the chute.

BoB wise some of the top RAF commanders were quite happy to have thier men shooting at chutes, but it was Churchill who told them it wasn't acceptable (he saw it like shooting sailors in the sea which was also seen as not the done thing). Also, most allied aircrew were treated quite well if captured and there was a degree of respect between RAF/Luftwaffe.

Pacific was a whole different war.. It got very personal and the treatment of allied pilots was.. well, extreme. Allied pilots knew of the barbarism and so reacted in kind. There was a fight to the death mentality with the japanese that meant that they were treated with a lot less respect, on land and sea and in the air.

Eastern front was also a lot less chivalrous..

In IL-2 the game shooting parachutes is just stupid because this game should be fun for all people, including the enemy, and remember without the enemy you would not have the game. And if you shoot for revenge a parachute in IL-2 you have played far too emotionally, and lost to your feelings. I don't though care abit if I get shot in parachute. Has happened, was irrelevant. Or maybe I lolled a little.

I don't say a word about chute shooting in WW2, but I would be interested to know did those who did it boast and laugh with it.

Yeah, it's weird. The original footage did NOT show an Allied plane shooting someone in a parachute, for those who were wondering (it was a camera pass, no bullets).

While I still think it is wrong to shoot someone up in a chute IRL (except of course in a case like Bud Peterson talked about where it was simply battlefield justice), apparently Dowding agreed with Trigaaaar.

From another website:

"According to ACM H. Dowding in his despatch submitted
to the Secratary of State for Air on August 20, 1941:
Supplement to The London Gazette 11 September, 1946.
PDF page 1, Supplement page 4553
items 158 to 160.

158. This is perhaps a convenient opportunity
to say a word about the ethics of shooting
at aircraft crews who have "baled out"
in parachutes.

159. Germans descending over England are
prospective Prisoners of War, and as such
should be immune. On the other hand, British
pilots descending over England are still
potential Combatants.

160. Much indignation was caused by the
fact that German pilots sometimes fired on our
descending airmen (although, in my opinion,
they were perfectly entitled to do so), but
I am glad to say that in many cases they refrained
and sometimes greeted a helpless
adversary with a cheerful wave of the hand."

This surprises me.

Also, shooting at pilots who had bailed was not covered under the Geneva convention. So legally, it was ok. In the Pacific, it is important to note that the Japanese never signed on to the Geneva convention.

It is also important to not that an Allied airman in the Pacific had a decent (not great) chance of being rescued at sea. The Japanese did not have as good a record of recovering their own pilots.

Lastly, I think it is important to note that there are far more reports of acts of chivalry between airmen than there are verified accounts of "chute shooting". Exceptions to that seem to be German vs. Russian and Allies vs. Japanese. I think most of us would agree that there was a special brutality in those theaters of war for various reasons.

Splitter

I gladly agree with your first statement.
I don´t agree to make exceptions.

Being emotional get you into such a situation in the first place.

I bet the German pilot also had his reasons to aim at the chutes of a bomber crew having dropped their payload on civilians.
Maybe he lost his family the night before. Which doesn´t make it right, but just as understandable as in Bud Petersons case. The difference is they were soldiers, the citizens weren´t.

Someone wrote that Churchill himself intervened in shooting pilots. Yet allowed to bomb German cities late in the war. Ok to bomb civilians but not shoot chutes?

No matter how hard I try I can't believe ethics got anything to do with Churchill's intervention. I think he saw that if British pilots start shooting chutes in Battle of Britain, then German pilots will begin to do the same, and it is British who will lose in that game for they wont get pilots back to flying. Captured German pilots could also been interrogated about German squadron strenghts and stuff. I have understood British got notable advantage in that their pilots could continue flying about the next day after shot down in Battle of Britain. How would had the Battle of Britain ended if all chutes were shot down on both sides? I don't know, but definetly Churchill didn't want to gamble that, which was wise.

*

While #159 makes sense, it can be argued that chute pilot has surrendered (given up) and therefore should not be shot down. If we compare that to Japanese early war doctrine where Japanese pilots did not have parachutes so that they could not "give up" (and would have to fight harder), not shooting chutes makes even more sense ethically, thus effectively countering RAF ethics about accepting chute shooting in the name of potential future combatant argument.

So I see #159 as just a way to try make British pilots accept that even if Germans shoot chutes we can't do so because Germans are "entitled" to do so.

*

If we can talk about ethics I might say shooting a chute is unethical since the chute pilot has surrendered. But if we can't talk about ethics there is pragmatical view which says chute pilots are potential future combatants and has not been captured (eliminated) yet. Like in France where resistance groups helped pilots to get back to England.



Edit: "There is no challenge" and "helpless" arguments are valid in sports and honour, not in war. For the best time to attack is when the enemy is helpless.


Edit: Huh, it seems that shooting chutes in war is not unethical because the chute pilot is in state of "tactical retreat", and there is not much reason for the victorious pilot to gamble in that will the chute pilot be captured or not. You can freely hate me because of this conclusion.

Churchill understood what they had to do and what they didn't need to do.

They didn't need to kill pilots in thier 'chutes, they had to bomb Germany.

War is full of paradoxes and contradictions.