33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,354
- Jan 31, 2021
Welcome to war. Ethics and morality will be challenged and in short supply.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
While aiming at cockpits may make tactical sense, in large melee, at least, targeting people in parachutes would seem to be a waste of time. Like a sailor in the water after their ship was sunk, a pilot in a parachute isn't an immediate threat. Of course, sailors were machine-gunned in the water, pilots were shot in parachutes, surrendered ground troops were murdered, and non-combatants, like medical personnel, and hospitals were targeted.
Thank you! This is exactly what I'm saying! No problem with a person having to do his duty and fight knowing they will kill people. It's this sick pleasure they get that's creepy. Your stepfather is of course completely normal since even though he killed people, it was his job in the war. As a military person it's what you ultimately have to do.It should be pointed out that enemies are people too, and he clearly took pleasure in shooting them to death. Look, I don't have much of an opinion on this one way or the other. I only know that were I in the shoes of him, I'd be disturbed and not elated by knowing I'd killed another human. I know my stepfather Bob was.
He was a Marine recon troop in Vietnam. He knew for a fact he'd killed three humans there, and probably more. He'd grown up hunting in Wyoming, bagging his first deer at eleven or twelve years old. When he returned to civilian life, he went back out hunting, but just could not do it any more. He swore then and there that he'd never kill again, and would only shoot with a camera.
His eyes were filled with tears as he told me this. Yet, he did his hitch in-country to the bitter end, and rendered honorable service to our nation.
Nothing about this topic is black-and-white. War changes warriors forever.
At the time of the battle of Malta it was the most bombed place on the planet, He volunteered to fight, he then volunteered to fight in Malta. You and I dont know what he saw in Malta I for one can imagine. The enemy pilots you say were normal people were dropping bombs on civilians, which is hardly a normal activity, is it? What he said and did is a normal reaction to that isnt it? Or do you demand. 80 years after these events that one side can bomb civilians while the other side play by some air borne "Queensberry rules". To me he told things as he saw them, post war many rowed back on what they did, to win you have to kill more of the enemy than they kill, and there isnt a nice way to do it.He got enjoyment out of killing enemy pilots who were normal people.
Well that s a post with no point at allWell of course he must have loaded up with rubber bullets for all future missions. Now how did the LW force him back, was he actually given compassionate leave? What do you think a "company front" attack on a US bomber formation, targeting the pilots did when they hit? Or is this knight of the air nonsense reserved for fighter pilots and no one else? The RAFs first experience in contact with the Luftwaffe was seeing them straffe and bomb French and Belgiann civilian refugees as a tactic of Blitzkrieg. Any RAF pilot who saw that or flew with somone who saw that would be perfectly entitled to take pride in blowing a member of the LW to pieces wouldnt they? How do you think the bombs dropped on civilians in London killed people, did they go "eeergh my time is up" as in the movies, or were they blown to pieces with blood all over the place? My uncle was in RAF Bomber Command invalided out with lung problems in the days before heated suits, he could never stand the smell of a roast dinner after the war, because on ground duty he had to hose out the fuselages of shot up and burned aircraft, they smelled of cooked meat, but it was his old friends and colleagues who had been cooked, people he had had a laugh and a drink with in the days before.
According to Gabor Horvath, he refused to fight for a while after that event. It's not my creation. Once again no problem with a pilot aiming for cockpits or random parts.Well that s a post with no point at all
I did not write lipfrets memoirs. He did!
He was not avoiding shooting at pilots! He was already over 150 kills. He was shocked at that particularly kill by the sight of the brain material spread on the rear fuselage
He was not given a leave. You created that. He just stayed out a few missions.
Actually in April 1945 ,after being ordered to disband his I/JG53, he continued flying in his own request in order to get his 200th kill. While he was not as ambitious for his record as hartmann was, he was no indifferent either.
He describes that when he hit Il2 s with mk 108 canon they instantly exploded.
Reading his memoirs it's clear that he was just trying to hit the enemy aircraft. He could not choose where , at least not against fighters and Il2s. It was not a matter of ethics, it was a matter of capability. And we speak for the no 15 ace. He even admits that sometimes, when chasing a skillful enemy fighter pilot, al he could do was spraying bullets in his direction hoping for random hits
The enemy pilots dropping bombs were normal people following orders. I don't demand one side has to follow rules since I said aiming for cockpits is fine since it's like soldiers firing at each other on the groundAt the time of the battle of Malta it was the most bombed place on the planet, He volunteered to fight, he then volunteered to fight in Malta. You and I dont know what he saw in Malta I for one can imagine. The enemy pilots you say were normal people were dropping bombs on civilians, which is hardly a normal activity, is it? What he said and did is a normal reaction to that isnt it? Or do you demand. 80 years after these events that one side can bomb civilians while the other side play by some air borne "Queensberry rules". To me he told things as he saw them, post war many rowed back on what they did, to win you have to kill more of the enemy than they kill, and there isnt a nice way to do it.
Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying my bad!Well that s a post with no point at all
I did not write lipfrets memoirs. He did!
He was not avoiding shooting at pilots! He was already over 150 kills. He was shocked at that particularly kill by the sight of the brain material spread on the rear fuselage
He was not given a leave. You created that. He just stayed out a few missions.
Actually in April 1945 ,after being ordered to disband his I/JG53, he continued flying in his own request in order to get his 200th kill. While he was not as ambitious for his record as hartmann was, he was no indifferent either.
He describes that when he hit Il2 s with mk 108 canon they instantly exploded.
Reading his memoirs it's clear that he was just trying to hit the enemy aircraft. He could not choose where , at least not against fighters and Il2s. It was not a matter of ethics, it was a matter of capability. And we speak for the no 15 ace. He even admits that sometimes, when chasing a skillful enemy fighter pilot, al he could do was spraying bullets in his direction hoping for random hits
You said "he stopped for a bit" and then was "forced back". He was in the Luftwaffe a military organisation, if he stopped for a bit it is because he was allowed to. While he was shocked at brain material, all military organisations were training snipers to blow the enemy's brains out, could they claim time off every time they did what they were trained to do? Why didnt he aim to avoid the pilots head, in fact how did he hit someone in the head, he should have aimed at the engine, shouldnt he?Well that s a post with no point at all
I did not write lipfrets memoirs. He did!
He was not avoiding shooting at pilots! He was already over 150 kills. He was shocked at that particularly kill by the sight of the brain material spread on the rear fuselage
He was not given a leave. You created that. He just stayed out a few missions.
Actually in April 1945 ,after being ordered to disband his I/JG53, he continued flying in his own request in order to get his 200th kill. While he was not as ambitious for his record as hartmann was, he was no indifferent either.
He describes that when he hit Il2 s with mk 108 canon they instantly exploded.
Reading his memoirs it's clear that he was just trying to hit the enemy aircraft. He could not choose where , at least not against fighters and Il2s. It was not a matter of ethics, it was a matter of capability. And we speak for the no 15 ace. He even admits that sometimes, when chasing a skillful enemy fighter pilot, al he could do was spraying bullets in his direction hoping for random hits
I think this is the first time I've ever seen those two words in the same sentence on this Forum.... pilots .. normal people.
That kill was number 172 on 4/1/45. Number 173 came on 8/1/45. According to the lipfrets book he certainly flew in 7/1/45 but failed to score. It s not clear if he flew in 5&6/1/45 , but that's just 2 days.According to Gabor Horvath, he refused to fight for a while after that event. It's not my creation. Once again no problem with a pilot aiming for cockpits or random parts.
Yeah he gives Hartmann about ~30% accuracy over Hungary and his data is solid. I've looked at TsAMO documents myself for my own research and some involve Hartmann's days and sure enough everything he said is true.That kill was number 172 on 4/1/45. Number 173 came on 8/1/45. According to the lipfrets book he certainly flew in 7/1/45 but failed to score. It s not clear if he flew in 5&6/1/45 , but that's just 2 days.
By the way, this horvath is the guy that gives hartman 20% claims reliability?
I apologise for this comment I made. Looking back it's quite childish and even though I strongly disapprove of his behaviour I shouldn't have said that. I let my anger take over and it wasn't right what I did.God, George Beurling truly was a disgusting psychopath. I knew that he enjoyed killing people but just reading what he said here makes me infuriated. Thank God he died young, he deserved it. To me he is honestly no different from people like Jeffrey Dahmer.
You are calling them kills, obviously you should say "unfortunate engine misses" when the various aces of the Luftwaffe went to collect their Iron Cross with oak leaves diamonds and pink bloomers they always pointed out that no one was hurt in the activities they were awarded for, that is why they were national heroes and they put a lot of effort into getting ever more engine near misses.That kill was number 172 on 4/1/45. Number 173 came on 8/1/45. According to the lipfrets book he certainly flew in 7/1/45 but failed to score. It s not clear if he flew in 5&6/1/45 , but that's just 2 days.
By the way, this horvath is the guy that gives hartman 20% claims reliability?
Ok, there s nothing more to discuss with youYou are calling them kills, obviously you should say "unfortunate engine misses" when the various aces of the Luftwaffe went to collect their Iron Cross with oak leaves diamonds and pink bloomers they always pointed out that no one was hurt in the activities they were awarded for, that is why they were national heroes and they put a lot of effort into getting ever more engine near misses.
It is a nonsense discussion, kills are not kills, they are sort of deliberate misses, like something from a Star Wars trooper or the A Team despite people actually calling them kills at the time. In most conflicts it was only pilots being killed that mattered, the planes they flew never lasted long and were upgraded anyway.Ok, there s nothing more to discuss with you
Whether he likes or or not, it's his job in war. I couldn't give less of a darn about his motives.No problem if a person dies after shooting down a plane. This is war. The problem is getting some sick enjoyment from it.
Nah there's no way?! Has my man just compared a fighter pilot to a rapist and mass murderer?
Of course you would take pleasure in killing someone who wants to kill and rape your family. But you're missing one crucial thing. A fighter pilot isn't a rapist and mass murderer, so no it makes no sense for him to get enjoyment
All you, rewriters of history, have to prove the reliability of the soviets archives. Otherwise you have no case. The general reliability of Soviet books is well knownYeah he gives Hartmann about ~30% accuracy over Hungary and his data is solid. I've looked at TsAMO documents myself for my own research and some involve Hartmann's days and sure enough everything he said is true.
"The view shocked Lipfert so much, that he immediately regretted this victory and could not shoot down other Soviet planes for awhile until he was forced to."