Shooting at crash-landed pilots

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#1

I was looking through of some gun camera footage from the 8th fighter comand over germany dated 1944/45 the other day and some of the footage did show some really odd stuff
About 30 of them show American pilots attacking german fighter planes and bombers they crippled them so the german pilots have to crash-land the planes.
After the crash the American pilots are going for the pilots chasing them mercilessly like rabbits over the fields.
There are also footage that shows german fighter/bomber planes that put out their landing gear in mids air, normally a sign of surrender in air combat, but still get shot mercilessly with amything the American pilot has.
And last but not least attacks on civil trains, the American pilots didn`t go for the train no they chasing the passangers over the fields
they just puffing into a clout of blood, dust and body parts when they get hit by one of the cal.50 rounds :roll:

my question is, was that a given order or shows this only action by some pervert individuals?

#2

Unfortunately it was a very used practice, especially against Me-262 pilots. :neutral:
Some german pilots were also killed while hanging on his parachute.

#3

Shooting at enemy pilots who are escaping from crashed aircraft, or baling out of damaged aircraft was not, in the rules of war then in existance, a war crime.

#4

Shooting at enemy pilots who are escaping from crashed aircraft, or baling out of damaged aircraft was not, in the rules of war then in existance, a war crime

And what about hanging on parachute ?

#5

I think you’ll find once Allied fighter pilots were given permission for free hunt operations in early 1944, this type of stuff became common. Anything that was moving was shot up. However these tactics further helped to write down the Jagdwaffe as a fighting force.

Train busting was also popular and so effective losses of locomotives outstripped production of new locos. This placed further strain on the railway system and ultimately led to the strangulation of German transport.

Regards digger

#6

I think you’ll find once Allied fighter pilots were given permission for free hunt operations in early 1944, this type of stuff became common. Anything that was moving was shot up. However these tactics further helped to write down the Jagdwaffe as a fighting force.

That is an ambiguous concept, destroying only the aircraft also do that without the need of such “ungentlemanly act”

Unlike the myths fostered in popular accounts of World War I, not all fighter pilots in World War II were “honorable Knights of the Air”. Among the many reasons were human nature, pilots’ discipline or lack thereof, and the “detachment” of mechanized war. Pilots of powerful aircraft were in a sense removed from seeing an enemy pilot being sawed in half by large caliber slugs or exploding cannon rounds. Bomber pilots could rarely see or know of the carnage they created when payloads hit targets.

It is well documented that some Allied pilots and even some aces shot at Axis pilots hanging in their parachutes, even as the Axis pilots shot at defenseless Allies. Some Polish pilots looked for cruel revenge after September 1939. The pilot of Pursuit Brigade (123. Eskadra), Corporal Eugeniusz Nowakiewicz battled in the French campaign of 1940 in with the Polish section of Groupe de Chasse II/7, led by Lt. Wladyslaw Goettel. On 4 June 1940, in Besancou area, Nowakiewicz succesfully attacked an He 111 and after crash landing he shot at the surviving German crew. On 15 June 1940, in Caumont-Toinville area, Nowakiewicz again got an enemy bomber, an Do 17 this time. Two German airmen bailed out, but the Polish fighter pilot killed one of them in the air, and the other second was ‘shared’ with French pilots after the crewman got to the ground.

In a later instance, an American Ninth Air Force ace of Polish ancestry shot an Me 262 Luftwaffe ace after destroying his jet. When the U.S. airman landed, he had his crew chief destroy the gun camera film. In a debriefing, the Squadron commander asked why the pilot (whose family had been killed by Germans) did what he did. The pilot explained that these were experten , the cream of the Luftwaffe crop. And if they were not killed, they’d simply reappear the very next day in another fighter, to kill more U. S. airmen.

http://www.elknet.pl/

#7

Again, according to the rules of war then in existance, it was perfectly legal to shoot him ( this was changed in the Hague Convention of 1947, it is now illegal to do so)

During WW2, the only time it was illegal to kill a uniformed member of the enemy forces, was if they were attempting to surrender, or they had already surrendered.

Didn’t matter if they were armed or unarmed, baling out of a plane or running away from the battle, if they weren’t surrendering, they could be killed, according to international law.

War is not ‘nice’

#8

Kill the pilots, every chance you get.

They’re more valuable than planes.

In the Battle of Britain, the risk to Britain was running out of pilots, not planes.

What’s so terrible about shooting a pilot in a parachute versus strafing a road clogged with military and civilian traffic, or bombing a sleeping city?

At least shooting the dangling pilot confines it to a military target.

#9

I think you’ll find that the “landing gear down” footage was largely not the planes attempting to surrender (by which time in any case surely the rules of TLC (Too Late, Chum) surely apply), but hydraulic failures caused by high velocity lead poisoning of various aircraft systems.

#10

What’s so terrible about shooting a pilot in a parachute versus strafing a road clogged with military and civilian traffic, or bombing a sleeping city?

One thing is to kill a parachutist who descend arms in hand like the germans in Kreta or the allies in Arhem, but a pilot who is disarmed because had lost its weapon (the airplane)…Is a unaceptable behavior, as is strafing civilians. Unfortunately that also happen in WW2.

I think you’ll find that the “landing gear down” footage was largely not the planes attempting to surrender

Of course it wasnt the case, I think the history of surrending in that way is a mith.

Just check the sec 30 to 33 here.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=_aqJwHdMDK0

#11

A pilot parachuting onto his home territory lives to fight another day. Seems like fair game to me.

By the way, German paratroopers did not jump with their weapons, they were crated and dropped separately. By your logic they are “disarmed”.

#12

By the way, German paratroopers did not jump with their weapons, they were crated and dropped separately. By your logic they are "disarmed

No, they were not disarmed, they carry hand grenades and pistols.

#13

Of course it’s unacceptable behaviour.

Everything that happens in war is.

We just choose to make some silly distinctions, so that some forms of murder are okay and others aren’t, depending upon one’s viewpoint.

#14

Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

etc.

Am I the only one who thinks this definatly applies to pilots on a chute?

#15

Probably.
Because he hasn’t surrendered, he’s merely escaping from a damaged aircraft.
Once he’s reached the ground, if he’s in his own territory, and he’s unwounded, he will return to his unit to fight again.
That isn’t surrendering.

#16

And he will surrender if he lands on enemy territory.

#17

Or he may attempt to evade capture. either way he hasn’t yet surrendered.

War is not nice

#18

Of course it’s unacceptable behaviour.

Everything that happens in war is.

We just choose to make some silly distinctions, so that some forms of murder are okay and others aren’t, depending upon one’s viewpoint

Fortunately not all the pilots had you oversimplistic view of the fact of war, thanks god.

Art. 23.

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -

To employ poison or poisoned weapons;

To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;

To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;

etc.

Am I the only one who thinks this definatly applies to pilots on a chute?

You are not alone :rolleyes:

#19

How could the shooter know? Did he ask while flying by?
The point is he has no means to defend himself anymore. This is one of the underlying principles of the whole convention, to protect certain minimum standards in such cases and even if it was not in expressis verbis in the covention (because it’s about land warfare) it is at least a violation of the spirit of said article.

This is btw. precisely the silly distinction that RS mentioned, it’s ok to kill the opponent as long as he could kill us is pretty much the fundamental for every soldier and the reason why most of them can justify their actions at all.
Every other killing is murder and has been regarded as such pretty much since the beginning of time. Your way of argument leads straight to the “Don’t leave the kids alive, they could grow up to avenge their parents” path. After all they pose a potential future thread, just as the downed pilot. Or the POW, heck they could escape or be liberated and rearmed, shoot them straight away.

#20

That is totally irrelevant. Being unarmed gave you no greater protection.

This is one of the underlying principles of the whole convention, to protect certain minimum standards in such cases and even if it was not in expressis verbis in the covention (because it’s about land warfare) it is at least a violation of the spirit of said article.

Sorry, but its a violation of nothing.
The conventions were quite clear on what was illegal

This is btw. precisely the silly distinction that RS mentioned, it’s ok to kill the opponent as long as he could kill us is pretty much the fundamental for every soldier and the reason why most of them can justify their actions at all.
Every other killing is murder and has been regarded as such pretty much since the beginning of time. Your way of argument leads straight to the “Don’t leave the kids alive, they could grow up to avenge their parents” path. After all they pose a potential future thread, just as the downed pilot. Or the POW, heck they could escape or be liberated and rearmed, shoot them straight away.

The laws on the killing of civilans and members of the uniformed armed services were quite different, with civilian’s having far greater protection under international law.

You seem to have a romantic view of how war should be conducted, a view that doesn’t correspond to the laws of war then in place.