RAF Log Book Entries.

[Jenks]

Chuck..

Shooting at pilots on chutes was still considered heinous as many pilots saw the target as
the plane not the pilot.

Just a thought, What do you consider a greater atrocity. Killing a pilot who minutes earlier had been doing his very best to kill you! Or fire bombing a city like.. London. Coventry. Hamburg Dresden etc.Killing hundreds of thousands civilian non combatants ?


Read a brilliant article recently on the RAFs N0:303 (Kossiuszko) Polish Squadron.

Article here:(Well worth a read)

http://info-poland.buffalo.edu/LOSC.html


From the notes at the foot of the article:

Enraged by the Germans' machine-gunning of parachuting Polish and British pilots, the Poles were sometimes guilty of doing the same to Luftwaffe airmen as they descended under parachutes..



And from elsewhere:

Shooting of Parachuting aircrew.

Well, it happened, but it was mostly allied pilots that did it. We have a few incidents in Denmark where allied pilots killed (or tried to kill) German pilots. This happend during 1944/45. One of these incidents took place meanwhile the German pilot was parachuting. I have spoken to the allied pilot (who is well known and long time dead) and he admitted that he did it. I asked him why and he said that the German pilot was one of the best pilots that he had ever flown against and if he did not shoot him the pilot would the following day be sitting in a new fighter and shooting down american planes.

My underlined sentence accords with the point of view expressed by my Dad in his jottings.


Jenks

[Chuck]

That's a good question Jenks.

I am told by relatives and people I've met who flew such missions that they just dropped bombs, the result of doing so was never considered: it was war and they were doing their duty - just as the other side did to us.

Tank crews for example were always targeted for the very reason you mention: easier to build a tank than train a crew, same with pilots.

One could assume that aircrew were seemed and deemed more gentlemanly and honourable on either side. I guess it would be down to who did it first and tit for tat becomes standard practice. machine gunning someone on a chute is more akin to murder and combat, that may be the reasoning perhaps.

Also of course the decision to attack someone on a chute is very personal whereas bombing from altitude is distinctly impersonal

Who said "a few hundred is a horror a few thousand is a statistic" - or words to that effect? Probably Stalin

[Jenks]

Chuck...

Who said "a few hundred is a horror a few thousand is a statistic" - or words to that effect? Probably Stalin

It was of course Stalin, actually he said. “One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.”

Some of his other quotes here, some crackers among them..

http://www.quotesdaddy.com/author/Joseph+Stalin


Jenks

[Chuck]

Some very true words in that lot Jenks.

[IainWR]

In the early part of my RAF career around 1980, I tried to be a fighter pilot. I didn't have the co-ordination or speed of thinking to finish the course. I do remember being taught in air-to-air gunnery that the point of aim was the back of the cockpit. There was no shying from the issue - the best way to destroy an aircraft is to kill the pilot. Conversely, the best defensive measure that the US Army came up with for their helicopters in Vietnam was to crew them with two pilots, and when much later I served on a helicopter squadron with a tactical role, we always went on operations with two pilots even though the aircraft could be and was regularly flown single pilot. In a war where, from our side at least, the enemy was loathed as well as to be defeated, I can see that where pilots were more difficult to produce than aircraft, killing the pilot would be seen as a legitimate act of war. But the gap between legitimate acts of war and murder is small at best.

[Jenks]

IainWR

I can see that where pilots were more difficult to produce than aircraft, killing the pilot would be seen as a legitimate act of war.

Surely this was never more true than in the Battle of Britain.
It amazes me that German pilots during the Battle were not ordered to kill RAF pilots by any means, given that the success of Operation Sea lion depended on control of the air space above the channel.To achieve this it would be necessary to degrade the capacity of the RAF to a point where they were ineffectual. We all know that in the event it was a pretty close run thing. I wonder just how many RAF pilots were shot down, recovered and rejoined the battle.

In the early part of my RAF career around 1980, I tried to be a fighter pilot.

My Dad wanted to be a Mosquito pilot. His body wasn't up to it.

From his jottings:

Later I applied to fly Mosquito aircraft for the Pathfinders as Beam trained pilots were needed. I was interviewed at P.F. Headquarters and was accepted but would be required to pass an altitude test. This took place soon afterwards. The test was 3 x 2 hour periods at 38000 feet with 10 minutes in every hour at 42000 feet. This took place in a de-compression chamber with 6 bods being tested and a doctor supervising and controlling. We were given certain problems to solve and showing the answers at a Port Hole. Myself and one other just could not stand the pain at 42000 feet. It was excruciating, just like the cramp in every joint in one’s body.

As a result he was posted to 192 Squadron Bomber command.



Jenks

[Jenks]

Here's a remarkable young man who survived being shot down three times:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -like.html

A comment from the foot of the article, I fancy most of us would agree with:

'killed in action aged 22, commanding a Hurricane squadron'. By God, what men these were.

Jenks

[Chuck]

I loved this comment: sums up todays nonentities nicely!

For a sense of perspective, now read an article about the 'ordeal' of the celebrities in their 'jungle'.