Similar to shooting a pilot in a parachute? ...

[Mark Allen M]

There’s also an argument to be made that perhaps shooting down unarmed liaison aircraft or bombers in distress trying to return from missions could have been considered an unofficial violation of the rules of war.

[JohnB]

Probably not.
The crippled bomber is still seen as a fair target... however as we have seen like in A Higher Call, pilots may not want to administer the coup de grâce (although their superiors and civilian countrymen might disagree).

A liaison aircraft, while unarmed, is also considered a legitimate target since it is fulfilling a military mission: Observation...same as a fighter shooting down a WWI observations balloons (just ask Frank Luke) or reconnaissance aircraft.

Remember, as Sherman said..."War is Hell", (there was a P-51 named " Sherman was Right" in the VII AF FC). Even though an enemy (a road convoy, unarmed cargo ship or aircraft) might not pose a direct threat to you, that doesn't mean it is not a legitimate target because his intel or supplies will be used against your side.

Eighty years after the fact, we may not agree or like it, but that is the way it was.

[RyanShort1]

There’s also an argument to be made that perhaps shooting down unarmed liaison aircraft... trying to return from missions could have been considered an unofficial violation of the rules of war.

Actually, Liaison aircraft were highly prized targets. Unarmed didn't mean "not a target." The only reason more of them weren't shot down was the fact that the Germans learned that if the AAA missed, they might take an artillery round pretty quickly. Bf-109s would often chase them, too. They were definitely "worth it" to the Germans.

[Spitty]

Im pretty sure training aircraft during the BoB were shot down by marauding 109,s as well as civilian aircraft during the loss of the Low Countries pre 1940.

[Duggy009]

Arado Ar 96 trainer shot down by an 80 Squadron RAF Tempest on April 3rd 1945 near Hannover
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uswMd1kHgts

The attacking pilot was Evan Dall "Rosie" Mackie, DSO, DFC & Bar (October 31st 1917-April 28th 1986), a New Zealand fighter pilot and flying ace that chose to join the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) instead of staying with the RAF and as such, with 21.5 victories credited, he was the highest scoring member of that service. He would go on to destroy two similar aircraft six days later on April 9th.

[Dave Hadfield]

You know what one fighter-pilot says to the other fighter-pilot when they're driving in a car and a big bug splats against the windshield?

"A kill's a kill." And then they snicker.

[Mark Allen M]

You know what one fighter-pilot says to the other fighter-pilot when they're driving in a car and a big bug splats against the windshield?

"A kill's a kill." And then they snicker.

Fighter Pilots have all the guts to shoot down anything and everything all the time. A bug only has the guts to hit a window once.

[Noha307]

The crippled bomber is still seen as a fair target... however as we have seen like in A Higher Call, pilots may not want to administer the coup de grâce (although their superiors and civilian countrymen might disagree).

Retreating aircraft would be legitimate targets, surrendering aircraft would not. There's an argument to be made that maybe, Ye Old Pub had some sort of protection when Stigler first arrived on scene. However, after Brown was given the option to surrender and refused, then any possible protection would have been dropped. (Full disclosure, I've never read the book and based on a quick review of the relevant Wikipedia article. It's possible that Brown did not understand the commands. However, for the sake of argument, let's presume he did.) The relevant term here is hors de combat, which Article 41 of the 1949 Geneva Convention states:

2. A person is 'hors de combat' if:

• (a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
• (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
• (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;

provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

The B-17 would not have been hors de combat, as while it was "incapable of defending [itself]", it was still attempting to escape. (While this convention was enacted in 1949, IHL laws often codify existing unwritten conventions. So while this reading would not have been in place during the incident, it is still a reasonable application.) Where a war crime would have occurred was if Brown had accepted Stigler's offer to surrender and then Stigler had shot the B-17 down. Basically, it comes down to whether your opponent has a choice. If the enemy has freedom of action, then they are a legitimate target. However, once they offer surrender and you reject it, then it becomes a war crime.

The question I always thought would be an interesting one to try is whether or not it is legal to kill uninjured soldiers escaping a ship carrying troops. The argument being an analogy with the laws on shooting parachutists. It is illegal to shoot a crewperson abandoning an aircraft. However, it is legal to shoot paratroopers. Therefore, it would seem illegal to shoot the crew of the troop transport, but not the soldiers. While I'm not sure if this exact comparison was cited, this is more or less the argument that Mush Morton used to defend himself after doing just that during the third patrol of the USS Wahoo, suggesting that they would have been a threat had they made it to land. In any event, the incident was sort of swept under the rug (although, there are claims it was the reason he was never awarded the Medal of Honor), so it was never tried in a court of law. If I had to guess, the counter argument would be that the troops were hors de combat simply by virtue of being in the lifeboats. Again, while not formally adjudicated, a form of this rebuttal was brought up in discussions of the issue: namely that the troops had lost all of their equipment and were no longer combat effective.[1]

[Spitty]

There is a lot deeper argument here in what is allowable in war.A lot of it is the ability for each individual to make choices in whats right and wrong..As they say Warfare can bring out the best or worst out of in individual.

[old iron]

JohnB wrote:

Eighty years after the fact, we may not agree or like it, but that is the way it was.

Judging by actions is Ukraine and Russia, this still is true!

[lucky52]

I can tell you one thing, the VC had no problem with shooting down our unarmed and clearly marked Dustoff Hueys, two of which I witnessed.

[RyanShort1]

There is a lot deeper argument here in what is allowable in war.

Especially - "By what standard?"

[tom roberts]

Moderator put this one to bed.

[Mark Allen M]

Moderator put this one to bed.

It seemed to have cleaned itself up by itself. See if it stays that way.

[JohnB]

I'm not sure if anything else needs to be said...
-Everyone will have opinions
-Everyone will interpret the rules differently based on their own background/concerns/experiences...*


And finally the big variable...
A person will likely change his interpretation of the rules based on an infinite number of variables. Every case will be a bit different. So any action taken by one individual one day may not be the action taken the next.
(Example...what if the German pilot in "A Higher Call" had just learned before takeoff that some family or friends had been killed in an allied bombing raid?
Would he have been so generous to the crew of the B-17?).

So, while it is interest to ruminate on things which aren't usually discussed, we're not going to come up with a definitive opinion or policy.
Simply put...there isn't just one answer that everyone is going to use or is appropriate all the time.



*When writing a rule/regulation or law, no one can predict or address all the possible "what ifs".
They become the proverbial." One size fits all".
Which is why military regulations are called regulations and not suggestions.

Last edited by JohnB on Sun Mar 31, 2024 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.