Thread: Shoot-down question

When I was in the Armor Corp, there was an unwritten "understanding" that if you shot at & destroyed a tank, but some or all the crew members got out & started "advancing to the rear," they were left alone to do so. Their primary weapon of war had been destroyed, & they were merely retreating. If they picked up a weapon, even a pistol, & continued to advance towards you, they were still active in the fight & could therefore be fired upon.

I went through Desert Storm & got out in '92, & things were still that way then. Anyone still in that can say whether this has changed or not? Most tankers I know don't usually wish a "tanker's death" on their opponents. I'm sure many pilots feel the same way about wishing a "flier's death" on their opponents.

Bugs--"Fair fight"? If it's 3-1 in your favor, I'd think you'd let him chute to the ground. If it's 1-3 against you, I doubt you'd have time to worry about any pilots who you've shot down while trying to stay out of the gunsites of the others still trying to do the same to you...

3 to 1 against you on strategical level
1 on 1 on tactical level
what do you chose ?

During the battle of Britain german pilots who bailed out were captured, RAF did not. A. Galland refused to strafe british pilots ... Admirable decision but how about tactical wise ?

Originally Posted by bugs

3 to 1 against you on strategical level
1 on 1 on tactical level
what do you chose ?

During the battle of Britain german pilots who bailed out were captured, RAF did not. A. Galland refused to strafe british pilots ... Admirable decision but how about tactical wise ?

That's not a tactical concern. Its barely a strategic one, honestly...there are few pilots in history that had enough of an impact to be concerned truly valuable targets as individuals.

If there are 3 planes against you, and one guy parachuting down or on the ground already, you're saying you'd go for the person? You're going to die, very very soon.

Thanks Jimmy. Really close to what I would have said anyway.

If the pilot I shoot down parachutes to ground safely, picks up a machine gun & starts fighting again--only this time on the ground...well, I've created another Infantryman--only more than likely a poorly trained one. If he does make it back home, is offered another plane & takes to the air again...well, I've already demonstrated that I can shoot him down once now, haven't I?

I see it as a good choice to allow them to float to the ground. I see no increased threat, either tactically or strategically, in allowing them to do so.

Besides, that golden rule works sometimes, if you allow it to. (even in combat)

Your scenario is 3 to 1 on a tactical/ situation level

Originally Posted by Skull6

If he does make it back home, is offered another plane & takes to the air again...well, I've already demonstrated that I can shoot him down once now, haven't I?

Many WWII ACES were shot down during combat , some even several times.

Just because you got lucky one time does not mean you are going to be the same the next time.

Gun, I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot paratoopers before they hit the dirt?

Originally Posted by Expat Canuck

Gun, I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot paratoopers before they hit the dirt?

No, Its against the Geneva Conventions to shoot Parachutist. Paratroopers are fair game.

Parachutist are crewmen that exit disabled aircraft. They are presumed to be "Out of Combat" therefore no longer targets. Unless they do something stupid like pull their pistol and start shooting. Then they become Combatants again.

Paratroopers are presumed to be on a military mission. Therefore legal targets

Originally Posted by bugs

Your scenario is 3 to 1 on a tactical/ situation level

I'm not really sure what you mean, can you explain?

And yes, Gun Grape is correct. I had to take a test on the Laws of Armed Conflict last week, and one of the questions could've been taken right out of his post.

Edit: And that actually sounds more like a Hague Conventions issue than Geneva Accords. Geneva deals mostly with treatment of prisoners and non-combatants (medics, chaplains, etc). Hague deals more with shooting people "properly" it seems. Its kind of in the grey area in between though, maybe it is Geneva.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Edit: And that actually sounds more like a Hague Conventions issue than Geneva Accords.

It is. But usually when dealing with the LoW everyone has heard of the Geneva conventions. So sometimes I use it a a blanket "Coverall"

edit: Until someone catches it.