Well, Churchill was not stupid. I don't believe a second he thought shooting chutes is like shooting sailors without a ship in the sea because they are very different things. Sailors without a ship are ready to be captured, there is no question about that. Chutes on the other hand are very different in many ways. Sailor analogy was just great analogy in making stupids (lol no offence meant) to believe shooting chutes is bad. Aren't British seafaring people?

Interview with Fritz Boost Luftwaffe Pilot Part 1

"P-51 pilot went past waving before he shot only at the wing of the FW190"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6AIp...eature=related

Er, what? It's no different than thinking it's ok for a sniper to shoot a soldier in the distance - that's also not great when you're the soldier in the distance, but it's a war. Personaly I hate the thought of having to shoot anyone, I'm very glad I'm not involved in a war. But in a war I think those in chutes over their own territory are a valid target.

Oh hello, that's basically what I said.

Those are great stories about chivalry in crazy times. However things are not very simple. Honour and ethics are a little bit different things. Some pilots maybe tried to be like knights as everyone should try to be.

But why they were flying in the first place? To be a knight of the sky or to defend their country and people to make the war end? To do both? To do both was impossible. Either you were knight of the sky and let the enemy live, or you defended your people and wanted to end the war.

Which was better? I can't answer to that. Both were honourable and ethical things to do, and in the same time both were dishonourable and unethical to do. The pilot who you let to live could kill 1000 civilians or shoot 10 chutes next week. Were you not supposed to protect your people? Not blaming anyone or pointing with finger. Absolutely not doing that.

But again, you are free to hate me :lol:


Edit: This was response to I/ZG52_Gaga.

Exactly. You make an excellent analogy there. And I can imagine chute shooting or sniping would both suck to do. I am not a killer. However it can be argued that one should be able to do both. Now, talk about sacrifice. If you get what I mean.

No no there's no problem ..:)

This is the fact : great power comes with great responsibility

Meaning that when it is up to you to decide for someone's death

then you really show what you're made of ...

off course circumstances always perplex the situation at hand ...

Right. Even if it would be against most of your principles. Sacrifice everything and be the merciless killer.

I said nothing about the rights and wrongs of it, I mearly pointed out that if you were hanging from a 'chute and an enemy aircraft was approaching you'd be thinking 'hope he dosn't shoot me'

Sniping is a different thing totally, different operation, different objective, different execution. You simply cannot apply morals to war and to try and argue a wrong with another wrong, it is pointless. Most pilots saw thier jobs as destroying as many aircraft as possible, then up to them what they do to the pilots. A snipers job is to kill people.

If there's chute shooting going on, freefall to 500 ft above ground.

It was mentioned in "Flying Tigers", which was a WW2 film, so they knew it at the time.

Hmm, how is sniping different? In air combat one of your missions is to eliminate the enemy. In sniping your mission is to eliminate the enemy. If we would go to different operations we would go for example to snipers in police. By then we could say sniping is different. However even by then the sniper would have to shoot mercilessly, possibly risking innocent people.

I don't say what pilots in WW2 thought about what is their job. I spoke about what people think was the job of the WW2 pilots. And I have seen many think something like air combat would had been some sort of glorified game with some sort of rules (moral code) which makes the difference between "us" and "them" e.g. good and evil.

So, if people begin to talk about ethics in air combat (is chute shooting right or wrong) and if they don't see enough to talk about it, I may have a word to say.

Shortly said there was a war going on, and in war you have certain responsibilities. Like protect your people and defeat the enemy. The faster and more effective you are in your responsibilities, the better. Now imagine a war where Knighs of the Sky are playing a game while the rest are burning and torn by explosions and gunfire. How much does that make sense? Are pilots privileged to only shoot "planes" down and not people? Or if they only shoot planes down does it make them better pilots (especially when they don't shoot chutes down because of the fear of getting the same fate from enemy)?

I know what people think with that glorified Knights of the Sky illusion. However that is sandbox war. Real war is not sandbox war. Now don't drink coffee. You have been warned. I will turn things upside down from what you have used to believe and I don't want you burst coffee on your keyboard and monitor.

Those who shooted chutes made the real sacrifice. They stopped playing a wargame and begun to do their best to eliminate the enemy. In the process they sacrificed their humanity, their principles of not shooting helpless, their respect as seen by enemy and comrades (honour stuff), and their safety of not getting shooted at in a chute by themselves. They sacrificed possibly everything we can imagine to stop the war and minimize casualties. They had the choise, and they made the sacrifice.

Such is war. Total madness. And it is best to see as it is.