Surprising quality gun camera footage from japanese theatre.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by winny

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.

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.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by moilami

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.

That is one opinion, but certainly one that I would not give any respect for.
I have had the honor of meeting a few former airmen of that time, and they all said those who shot at parachutes where frowned upon. I know you will say that is not backing 100% the war effort, many exmilitary will say that is the differance between being human and a savage.
With that attitude I can understand why civilians went medival when after a bombing raid, downed air crew where lead through their town, they where making sure that those crew members would not escape........

Sorry as a former military member myself I can not share your view.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Wutz

That is one opinion, but certainly one that I would not give any respect for.
I have had the honor of meeting a few former airmen of that time, and they all said those who shot at parachutes where frowned upon. I know you will say that is not backing 100% the war effort, many exmilitary will say that is the differance between being human and a savage.
With that attitude I can understand why civilians went medival when after a bombing raid, downed air crew where lead through their town, they where making sure that those crew members would not escape........

Sorry as a former military member myself I can not share your view.

All those things what you mentioned I already listed as sacrifice some pilots did, either unwillingly or not. Read again if you don't believe that, and note how "sacrifice" was written in italics.

After that I am interested to know how you define what is a big sacrifice soldiers in WW2 did?

Also I am interested to know do you think that you can shoot helpless in the name of revenge?

Please answer and note you have 100% rights to totally disagree with me. I am just interested on what you think.



Edit: Now that I read you posting again I can do nothing but laugh. I am glad you understood how people went medieval after being bombed. Very glad. And now I am not laughing. Only smiling a little, but it is savage smile, I can tell ya.

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by moilami

After that I am interested to know how you define what is a big sacrifice soldiers in WW2 did?

For one, there is western allied tank troops going up against panzers in shermans, where the tactic was to form a circle, and race in, with the panzer shooting shermans and the last sherman in the circle hopefully getting close enough in that time to shoot the panzer.

Yes, the sherman was that crap. However, it was easy and cheap to make, and many thousands were made, almost as many as the soviets made t34s, but the soviets made bigger tanks too.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

For one, there is western allied tank troops going up against panzers in shermans, where the tactic was to form a circle, and race in, with the panzer shooting shermans and the last sherman in the circle hopefully getting close enough in that time to shoot the panzer.

Yes, the sherman was that crap. However, it was easy and cheap to make, and many thousands were made, almost as many as the soviets made t34s, but the soviets made bigger tanks too.

Thank you very much of your input, Igo Kyu. I realized something essential.

Also thanks to Wutz of his comment, was very interesting opinion.

[Wutz]

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

For one, there is western allied tank troops going up against panzers in shermans, where the tactic was to form a circle, and race in, with the panzer shooting shermans and the last sherman in the circle hopefully getting close enough in that time to shoot the panzer.

Yes, the sherman was that crap. However, it was easy and cheap to make, and many thousands were made, almost as many as the soviets made t34s, but the soviets made bigger tanks too.

Yes the well known "Tommy cookers" or "Ronsons" I know one fellow through my parents he was in the battle of the Bulge, although not in a "Tommy cooker" but the other side. He got his tank seven times shot out beneith his but.

As to viewing the opponent as human, when my grandfather surrendered with his comrad, a grenade went off as they both had their hands up. My granddads comrad got shrapnel in the head and was dead on the spot, my granddad when he was allowed to lower his hands saw that he had lost all his fingers except his thumb on the right hand. But his captures where very kind to him and treated his wound very well so that it healed very well. They could have also shot him, but they didn´t. Thinking of another episode which my granddad told me, a officer caught two on sentry duty sleeping, this officer thought he was smart and removed the bolts of their rifels and went away. In the mean time those two woke up and noticed their bolts where missing and got replacements. That officer came then back, he was called upon to say the pass word, but he thought "what are they going to do I have their bolts" so he said nothing. So those two shot that officer as he did not say the pass word.

I personally prefer to stay human where I can, only when driven to an extrem another side may appear, I hope this will never happen.

[Biggs [CV]]

In a way its the code of honor that fighter pilots are supposed to live by. There are written rules of war and there are un-written rules of war. Killing a helpless pilot in his cute is just something that fighter pilots are not supposed to do. Infantry live by a differant set of rules, similiar, but differant.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by Biggs [CV]

In a way its the code of honor that fighter pilots are supposed to live by. There are written rules of war and there are un-written rules of war. Killing a helpless pilot in his cute is just something that fighter pilots are not supposed to do. Infantry live by a differant set of rules, similiar, but differant.

Yeah, I know. I call those "don't shoot in ur leg while maintaining holier than thou image".

That is exactly one reason why those pilots who shooted chutes sacrificed so much for their country and people.

[winny]

Originally Posted by moilami

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.

A sniper is trained to kill someone. A fighter pilot is trained to shoot down planes the death of the pilot is secondary. I can't put it any simpler than that

A sniper is a trained killer, Infantry is totally different.
You also compared it to Area bombing whhich is also different.
Bomber pilots were hitting targets and the civillian casualties were secondary. Snipers target is a human being and usually military and is his primary target. It dosn't matter how you kill someone as it is always wrong, justified sometimes but always wrong.

If you want to compare Area bombing to something compare it to the use of Artillery on a City as they have similar objectives. Snipers and fighter pilots do not.

[moilami]

Originally Posted by winny

A sniper is trained to kill someone. A fighter pilot is trained to shoot down planes the death of the pilot is secondary. I can't put it any simpler than that

Ah...but how about fighter pilots who strafe ground troops? I mean is shooting down enemy planes the only thing a figther pilot is trained to do? What about his role and duty as just one soldier in the war machine? Or does fighter pilots have some privileges?

Why it is okay for a sniper to make headshots on helpless enemy but if a fighter pilot does the same on a chute pilot it is suddenly oh so wrong ? Is it really because of what sniper has been trained to do and what fighter pilot has been trained to do?