Question for Fighter Pilots

Goofy

Goofy

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
756
Display Name
Goofy
Hopefully this won't encourage a lot of forum trolls with nothing factual to contribute, but hey, we get what we pay for here, and occasionally more....
What was the primary intent of fighter warfare in the various eras represented by readers here - was it to down the plane or kill the pilot? I ask because I've read a lot about enemy pilots circling around to kill pilots under canopy and wondered how often this happens and if it is just an ugly part of warfare or just more vicious, disgusting crap done by certain foreign nation's pilots. Seems certain nationalities have been more prone to ugly behavior like the treatment of the Chinese that were anywhere near the Doolittle Raider planes that plopped in after an essentially morale boosting raid that did little damage albeit tremendously heroic. Would be interesting to hear from anyone experienced in the various battles over the last several decades and what was the general goal of combat.
 
My friend and golf partner Jim Baynham (Lt. James if you google) was the youngest B-24 pilot in WW-II, flying combat missions at age 19 with 150 total hours logged. His plane was shot down on the Kassel raid (also google) with all nine crewmembers bailing out alive. One was shot in his chute by German fighters, two were killed by German civilians after landing, six were imprisoned at Luftwaffe Stalag until the war ended.

I was not a military aviator.
 
I can tell you from a personal witness very close to me that the goal was to survive, close the Burma road, knock down Nakajima bombers and limp home, get the bird back into a cave in Kunming, and live to do it again the next day. And he did that. Everyday.

I have no perspective on how the other side felt, but when "doing" another nation state and being the aggressor, I think inferiorizing the enemy is a common tool to rationalize behavior.

Wee did the same thing in SVN- at some point the line between a very dedicated enemy and he becoming a "gook" was blurry.

The Iranians vs the Iraqis at Basra would be another example. "infidels!"
 
Last edited:
wabower
This message is hidden because wabower is on your ignore list...:yesnod:
 
The general attitude in the air-to-ground fighter community was "we put ordnance on targets" -- just business, not personal. Can't speak to what the air-to-air guys thought. At the end of the day, it about doing the job we were given and going home to mom and the kids.
 
I don't think we have any POA members that have engaged in actual air to air combat??? I would think the goal would be to destroy both the aircraft and the man. Once the man is separated from the aircraft though (parachute), they now become a non combatant and should be treated as such. In WWII this wasn't recognized yet under the Geneva Convention so shooting under canopy it took place on both sides. From what I've read this type of conduct didn't occur much from the Germans or Allies but the Japanese.

I just got done reading the book Flying Low. It details an the chronicles of Brian K Bryans who flew A-6s in Vietnam. In one attack he and his wingman killed over 300 troops in the open with CBUs. While I'm sure a primary goal is too eliminate their rifles, taking out that many combatants is still significant in attrition. I think in the pilot's minds they could care less about destroying 300 Vietcong but saving the SF team that was being overrun.
 
Last edited:
I can remember being briefed on a new version of the a heat seaking air to air missile that had it's guidance system updated to go for the cockpit rather than the tailpipe of the target. This was meet with general approval in my squadron.

In modern fighters there would be no shooting at parachutes, that would be a good way to set yourself up to be killed by the the parachute guy's wingman.

I think that shooting at parachutes did happen in World War II, especially in the Pacific theater.
 
Every vet I've talked to says their daily goal was to survive. Didn't matter if it was air, ground or sea based combat. If they believed the guy hanging under the parachute would be back up to try to kill them tomorrow, they might have pulled the trigger.

My VN vet ground-pounder Marine buddy told me frankly once when Scotch got the better of me not asking personal questions, that the only person he didn't kill in his rifle's sights was a guy taking his morning dump in the jungle. He said he only refrained from pulling the trigger because he hoped maybe that the same guy might not have done it to him, if he were having his morning constitutional and the rifle was pointed the other way.

He said that was probably a vain hope, but he just couldn't shoot a guy taking a ****.

War is hell.
 
WWI - I believe it was the discovery that you could arm airplanes and extend the battle to the skies - you first had recon. So you needed to shoot down the recon over the battle field - which is why fighter aviation developed.

WWII perfected attack aircraft [both bombers and light attack converted or special purpose built aircraft that dropped bombs] - fighters developed to attack the bombers to prevent damage to civilian populations and infrastructure. Looking at the course of WWII - the Germans through Hitler believed that attack aircraft carried the day and Hitler designed or insisted that almost everything be a bomber - and everything was a bomber - even FW190's developed into the 'F' model which was eastern front ground attack aircraft - the RAF needed fighters to ward off German bombers in 1940 - the German bombers needed fighters to keep the RAF off them.

The RAF and USAAF developed the insane doctrine that the bombers could protect themselves in large swarms - once again a good idea inside the Pentagon did not work so well over the battlefield over France and Germany. So - we developed longer range fighter aircraft to keep the German fighters off the bomber streams. Look at the development of the FW-190 and the P-47 and then the P-51. The P-51 could go all the way to eastern Germany and the oil fields in Romania - once the fighters could escort the bombers round trip the air war was essentially over because the defense fighters could not get to the bombers . . .

The Cold War had the same mindset - though purpose built airplanes proliferated here - with fast and high recon, armored attack aircraft [A10 Thunderbolt and the OV10 Bronco] and then fighters - the fighters existed to patrol coastlines and borders and were designed to a) shoot down bombers and attack aircraft - along with the SAM's and b) prove CAP and high cover and bomber escort where able -

Remember - after Korea fighter doctrine was bvr missile launches until the pols decided they needed positive visual ID and then we went right back to furballs . . . .

Who knows what fighter doctrine is now - there are not enough of them to do much of anything to anyone. . . . it seems like attack is being delegated to drones - and its that the way things happen . . . .then you will not need much of a fighter to take down a drone - which puts us right back in the same place as WWII with large fleets of drones dropping ordnance protected by fighters . . . .

The goal of military aviation is, as Ron says put steel on targets. Everything else is designed to do that - including recon and the fighters - whose existence has always been to protect the attack/bombers pilots. Fighter pilots get the glory but the mud movers win the battle - and as the battle wins mount - so goes the war.
 
Last edited:
comanchepilot said:
SNIP...
The goal of military aviation is, as Ron says put steel on targets. Everything else is designed to do that - including recon and the fighters - whose existence has always been to protect the attack/bombers pilots. Fighter pilots get the glory but the mud movers win the battle - and as the battle wins mount - so goes the war.
Click to expand...

Let's see, I have a fair amount of time in NVN and Laos during the last event there (Jolly Greens). Our goal, and we were fairly good at it, was picking up pilots that needed a ride. So "a goal" maybe the "primary goal" but I don't buy "the" goal. :)
 
Velocity173 said:
... Once the man is separated from the aircraft though (parachute), they now become a non combatant and should be treated as such...
Click to expand...

Technically, someone bailing out of a combat aircraft that has been damaged is not a non-combatant but a combatant hors de combat while under canopy. This means that while he is under canopy he has no realistic means to defend himself so he is not subject to attack under the Geneva Convention. Upon hitting the ground, however, he is still a combatant and can continue to engage in combat and kill or be killed. Paratroopers or agents parachuting into enemy territory are subject to attack at any time and do not enjoy any protection while under canopy.
 
I spoke to my grandfather (WWII pilot) about this very thing. He rationalized it this way;

The goal is to get the enemy's war fighting effort neutralized. That means, for a pilot, shooting down the other teams plane. If the pilot bails, my grandfather told me, he'd circle around and attempt to shoot him too because if that pilot lands and returns to fight it's another enemy plane coming at our boys.

A war effort is many things...beans and bullets (planes) and boots too (pilots). Destroy them all. If there was a way to pluck a pilot out of the sky under a chute and take him prisoner then I suppose they would. But they can't so they don't.
 
ebetancourt said:
Let's see, I have a fair amount of time in NVN and Laos during the last event there (Jolly Greens). Our goal, and we were fairly good at it, was picking up pilots that needed a ride. So "a goal" maybe the "primary goal" but I don't buy "the" goal. :)
Click to expand...

Well by doing your job you gave the folks putting the iron on target a great expectation of making it home, making them less tentative and therefore putting more iron on target.
 
Recent book found WWII British platoon daily orders containing the phrase, "NPT below rank major." "NPT" meaning, "No prisoners taken." In other words, don't bother escorting live German enlisted men, lieutenants, or captains back to the POW cages. This was apparently in reaction to the SS killing POWs during the Battle of the Bulge.

Through the middle ages, you could force a prisoner's family to pay ransom; hence, capturing a rich enemy knight or lord was an outstanding way of making yourself a pile of money. Still didn't help the common foot soldier, though... no financial incentive, so no reason to spare their lives. Eventually, a financial practice got codified into an ethical one...still with emphasis on the officers, of course. The PBI remained the PBI.

At Agincourt, Henry V got concerned over how many prisoners they had taken in the course of the battle, and the possibility they could rise and attack the British from within. So he ordered them slaughtered.

War is...well, you know.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Witmo said:
Technically, someone bailing out of a combat aircraft that has been damaged is not a non-combatant but a combatant hors de combat while under canopy. This means that while he is under canopy he has no realistic means to defend himself so he is not subject to attack under the Geneva Convention. Upon hitting the ground, however, he is still a combatant and can continue to engage in combat and kill or be killed. Paratroopers or agents parachuting into enemy territory are subject to attack at any time and do not enjoy any protection while under canopy.
Click to expand...

Well technically if you are a pilot and hit the ground and surrender you are not a combatant and should be treated as a POW. If one continues to fight once on the ground, then yes you are now once again a combatant. I'd be willing to bet a pilot wouldn't make it long fighting with an M-9 though.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well technically if you are a pilot and hit the ground and surrender you are not a combatant and should be treated as a POW. If one continues to fight once on the ground, then yes you are now once again a combatant. I'd be willing to bet a pilot wouldn't make it long fighting with an M-9 though.
Click to expand...
CDR Gordie Nakagawa (USN A-6 pilot) told the story of the beautiful Colt Python he bought and carried when flying combat missions during Viet Nam. He got shot down, and was surrounded by NVN regulars as his boots hit the ground. They took his lovely pistol, held it by his ear with the muzzle straight up, and emptied all six in the cylinder -- pretty well deafening him. He said later that all he could think about at the time was how he'd spent $350 (a lot of money in 1970) so the NVA could ruin his hearing.

Then he got tossed into the Hanoi Hilton with a bunch of USAF pilots who took one look at his Oriental face and treated him as a plant until another Navy guy got dumped in with the group and confirmed that he really was a US Navy Commander.
 
ebetancourt said:
Let's see, I have a fair amount of time in NVN and Laos during the last event there (Jolly Greens). Our goal, and we were fairly good at it, was picking up pilots that needed a ride. So "a goal" maybe the "primary goal" but I don't buy "the" goal. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that btw -

I maintain the goal of military aviation is blow stuff up from above - everything else is a support role - including fighters and SAR. We need SAR because of the value of the pilot - so your conclusion is correct at the end of the day . . .
 
Ron Levy said:
CDR Gordie Nakagawa (USN A-6 pilot) told the story of the beautiful Colt Python he bought and carried when flying combat missions during Viet Nam. He got shot down, and was surrounded by NVN regulars as his boots hit the ground. They took his lovely pistol, held it by his ear with the muzzle straight up, and emptied all six in the cylinder -- pretty well deafening him. He said later that all he could think about at the time was how he'd spent $350 (a lot of money in 1970) so the NVA could ruin his hearing.

Then he got tossed into the Hanoi Hilton with a bunch of USAF pilots who took one look at his Oriental face and treated him as a plant until another Navy guy got dumped in with the group and confirmed that he really was a US Navy Commander.
Click to expand...

I think I remember reading that story as well. In Vietnam I think I would have taken my chances in the Hilton instead of fighting. When I was in Iraq, my pockets were stuffed with M-9 mags. It was during the time decapitations were popular so there was no way I was going to get captured. Unfortunately I can't hit the broadside of a barn with that stupid thing!
 
Velocity173 said:
Well technically if you are a pilot and hit the ground and surrender you are not a combatant and should be treated as a POW. If one continues to fight once on the ground, then yes you are now once again a combatant. I'd be willing to bet a pilot wouldn't make it long fighting with an M-9 though.
Click to expand...

Anyone who surrenders becomes a noncombatant. A pilot that ejects over enemy held territory can try to evade and hope that CSAR forces can extract him. While doing so, he is a combatant. If a pilot were to eject and make it to a neutral country, as a combatant, the neutral country would have to inter him for the duration of the war. Now if he said he was an escaped POW, as a noncombatant, the neutral country could repatriate him home.
 
comanchepilot said:
Thanks for that btw -

I maintain the goal of military aviation is blow stuff up from above - everything else is a support role - including fighters and SAR.
Click to expand...
Even air-to-ground is a support role. The real job is done by the grunts on the ground, because you can drop all the bombs and shoot down all the fighters you want, but if you return to base and find an enemy tank in your squadron commander's parking space, sorry, Ace -- you lost the war. You only win the war when your ground troops raise your flag over your enemy's command post.
 
Witmo said:
Anyone who surrenders becomes a noncombatant. A pilot that ejects over enemy held territory can try to evade and hope that CSAR forces can extract him. While doing so, he is a combatant. If a pilot were to eject and make it to a neutral country, as a combatant, the neutral country would have to inter him for the duration of the war. Now if he said he was an escaped POW, as a noncombatant, the neutral country could repatriate him home.
Click to expand...
The line we all said we'd use with the Swedish/Swiss/Austrian border guard: "Sure thing, Sven/Gustav/Franz -- a couple of Russian soldiers had me for a few minutes, but then I escaped!" Unless Sven had a sister named Inge...
 
Witmo said:
Anyone who surrenders becomes a noncombatant.
Click to expand...
Well...not quite. If the victor cannot take the vanquished into control, the protections don't really exist.

Imagine an A-10 diving on a tank, but the crew gets out of the tank and raises their hands in surrender. But the A-10 pilot cannot take possession of the tank, nor, in all probability, pass instructions to the crew. As soon as he flies away, nothing prevents the tank crew from re-boarding their tank and rejoining their forces. The A-10 pilot may contact other forces to take possession of the crew and tank, but I believe they're otherwise permitted to attack.

A U-Boat that was unable to dive surrendered to an American Hudson patrol bomber during WWII, but in that case, the Hudson stayed in proximity and called in ships and other aircraft. IIRC, the Hudson pilot signaled the U-Boat to put most if its crew on the hull, so that if they fixed it and *did* dive, most of the crew would be left behind.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Well...not quite. If the victor cannot take the vanquished into control, the protections don't really exist.

Imagine an A-10 diving on a tank, but the crew gets out of the tank and raises their hands in surrender. But the A-10 pilot cannot take possession of the tank, nor, in all probability, pass instructions to the crew. As soon as he flies away, nothing prevents the tank crew from re-boarding their tank and rejoining their forces. The A-10 pilot may contact other forces to take possession of the crew and tank, but I believe they're otherwise permitted to attack.

A U-Boat that was unable to dive surrendered to an American Hudson patrol bomber during WWII, but in that case, the Hudson stayed in proximity and called in ships and other aircraft. IIRC, the Hudson pilot signaled the U-Boat to put most if its crew on the hull, so that if they fixed it and *did* dive, most of the crew would be left behind.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

That is if they have time to actually get out of the tank and throw up their arms.

The ability to accept surrender under the particular circumstances of combat was discussed by the United Kingdom and the United States in the light of the war in the South Atlantic and the Gulf War respectively.[32] The United Kingdom pointed out that it may not be possible to accept surrender from a unit while under fire from another position. Hence, a party which “takes” surrender is not required to go out to receive surrender; instead, the party offering surrender has to come forward and submit to the control of the enemy forces. The United States took the position that an offer of surrender has to be made at a time when it can be received and properly acted upon and that a last-minute surrender to an onrushing force may be difficult to accept. The question remains, however, as to how to surrender when physical distance may make it difficult to indicate an intention to surrender or may subject one to charges of desertion. The United States also took the position that retreating combatants, if they do not communicate an offer of surrender, whether armed or not, are still subject to attack and that there is no obligation to offer an opportunity to surrender before an attack.
 
Last edited:
Well I suppose I should weigh in on this one. For us in the air-to-air business, things have been very very slow since 1999 (that was the last US air to air kill). The missiles are designed to kill the jet, typically not the pilot. The problem with that is that missiles don't always go where we want them to. (afterall, they aren't called "hittiles")

Gunning someone in the chute would land any of us a big big trouble these days. I've heard/read many reports of the Russians doing that in WW2 as well.

As previously stated, we are very much more effects based. If the "commander's intent" is for no enemy aircraft to be able to attack our troops, it doesn't matter whether we shoot them down, bomb their runways or if they bury them in the desert (OIF). Everyone in a jet is a support asset (also as previously stated), we are there to support the guys on the ground.
 
Ron Levy said:
Even air-to-ground is a support role. The real job is done by the grunts on the ground, because you can drop all the bombs and shoot down all the fighters you want, but if you return to base and find an enemy tank in your squadron commander's parking space, sorry, Ace -- you lost the war. You only win the war when your ground troops raise your flag over your enemy's command post.
Click to expand...

Reminded me of this quote:

"... you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
― T.R. Fehrenbach
 
Matthew said:
Reminded me of this quote:

"... you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
― T.R. Fehrenbach
Click to expand...

"The Army's just the Air Force's helpers...."
-- Will Stockdale (Andy Griffith) "No Time for Sergeants"

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Imagine an A-10 diving on a tank, but the crew gets out of the tank and raises their hands in surrender. But the A-10 pilot cannot take possession of the tank, nor, in all probability, pass instructions to the crew. As soon as he flies away, nothing prevents the tank crew from re-boarding their tank and rejoining their forces. The A-10 pilot may contact other forces to take possession of the crew and tank, but I believe they're otherwise permitted to attack.
Click to expand...
IIRC, a bunch of tired, starving Syrian soldiers surrendered to a drone circling their position during the 1991 Gulf War by coming out with a white flag and hands in the air. Those boys were so unhappy with the situation, they wanted to surrender the first chance they got, and rejoining their forces for more combat was the last thing they wanted in the world.
 
Captain said:
If the pilot bails, my grandfather told me, he'd circle around and attempt to shoot him too because if that pilot lands and returns to fight it's another enemy plane coming at our boys.
Click to expand...

Was he OK if the enemy used that rationale to shoot him, and his crew under canopy? Not being snarky, just curious. I would imagine he thought war was war, and accepted the realities.
 
Ron Levy said:
Even air-to-ground is a support role. The real job is done by the grunts on the ground, because you can drop all the bombs and shoot down all the fighters you want, but if you return to base and find an enemy tank in your squadron commander's parking space, sorry, Ace -- you lost the war. You only win the war when your ground troops raise your flag over your enemy's command post.
Click to expand...

More properly, The Infantry
The cavalry and artillery are also support roles to the infantry (heck, the air force is just cavalry [fighters] and artillery [bombers] in different clothing)
 
This is just cute mental aerobatics to imagine some moral superiority or cleanliness to fighter pilots. Not shooting them under canopy is a war fighting failure. Bunch of accomplished pilots from yesteryear were shot down, killing them under canopy and denying their home country of later contributions is the rational way to wage war.
 
oldShar said:
More properly, The Infantry
The cavalry and artillery are also support roles to the infantry (heck, the air force is just cavalry [fighters] and artillery [bombers] in different clothing)
Click to expand...
Not going to get in the middle of an intraservice rivalry in someone else's service.
 
wanttaja said:
"The Army's just the Air Force's helpers...."
-- Will Stockdale (Andy Griffith) "No Time for Sergeants"

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

You couldn't trust that guy. He was PLO, which you probably know.
 
ClimbnSink said:
This is just cute mental aerobatics to imagine some moral superiority or cleanliness to fighter pilots. Not shooting them under canopy is a war fighting failure. Bunch of accomplished pilots from yesteryear were shot down, killing them under canopy and denying their home country of later contributions is the rational way to wage war.
Click to expand...

That's a strange way to look at it. More to the point, in modern warfare it is completely uninformed. As someone said earlier, there's a great chance you'll get shot down by hanging out near a fireball that used to be an enemy fighter. Even without considering that, just the sheer chance of successfully gunning something as small as a person in a parachute is remote while moving at the speed of a modern fighter. An A-10 probably has the best chance but they wouldn't likely be nearby when people are getting shot down.
 
EvilEagle said:
That's a strange way to look at it. More to the point, in modern warfare it is completely uninformed. As someone said earlier, there's a great chance you'll get shot down by hanging out near a fireball that used to be an enemy fighter. Even without considering that, just the sheer chance of successfully gunning something as small as a person in a parachute is remote while moving at the speed of a modern fighter. An A-10 probably has the best chance but they wouldn't likely be nearby when people are getting shot down.
Click to expand...

How easy to shoot from a WWII fighter? Today we could get them with a drone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top