Wildcat during the Battle of Britain

[XBe02Drvr]

A big flying boat can take I believe up to 2 miles to get off the water, more if it doesn't have the wind to fly into.

Big is a relative term. A Catalina isn't a Sunderland or DoX. If the Sunderland is a battleship, the PBY is a destroyer, the Goose a minesweeper and the Widgeon a PT boat.
A PBY rigged up for photogrammetry and magnetic mapping used to stop in occasionally at our local airport and suck our 100 octane tanks dry. That thing could stay up for twelve hours at a time, flying endless grid patterns photo mapping or trailing a magnetometer "bomb" on a long cable. (Borring!)
Once it had a landing gear actuator failure and landed on a nearby lake, so we drove our fuel truck over and put 500 gallons in it. The lake is about 3/4 mile long with hills at both ends, but the Cat had no trouble getting out, except for getting fined $10K for landing on a drinking water reservoir. Expensive tank of gas.
PBYs used snatch downed pilots out of lagoons and off coral reefs in WWII, often under fire.

 

[GrauGeist]

There's no provision in the rules of war for a fighting service to operate an air-sea rescue service without interference from their opponents.

The Seenotdienst aircraft were white, with civil registries and red cross insignia - they were clearly marked and their mission was to rescue, which they were fully outfitted for.

Attacking them under the auspices that they are military targets would then include medic/corpsman, medical evacuation vehicles/trains, field hospitals and hospital ships, right?

 

[ThomasP]

Hey GrauGeist,

Unfortunately no.

re Air-Sea Rescue Aircraft and the Geneva Convention

from Geneva Convention 1929

Article 7
___The protection to which medical formations and establishments are entitled shall cease if they are made use of to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

Article 18
___Medical aircraft, that is to say, aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick and for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected by the belligerents, while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between the belligerents concerned.*
___They shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 38, together with their national colours, on their lower, upper and lateral surfaces. They shall be provided with any other markings or means of identification that may be agreed upon between the belligerents upon the outbreak or during the course of hostilities.
___Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy-occupied territory are prohibited.
___Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.
___In the event of an involuntary landing in enemy or enemy-occupied territory, the wounded and sick, as well as the crew of the aircraft shall be prisoners of war. The medical personnel shall be treated according to Article 24 and the Articles following.

(My note: There was an attempt (before and during the 1929 Convention) to expand and provide more detailed protections for medical aircraft and aircraft searching for wounded or downed aircraft crew in need of rescue, but no significant changes were made. Although I am sure that the information is out there somewhere, I could not find a record of the suggested changes or discussions.)

from Geneva Convention 1949

[Excerpt from Article 36]

Paragraph 1 - Definition and Protection
___Medical aircraft have the same role under the 1949 Convention as in the past: flying alone or in convoys, they may be used both for the evacuation of the wounded and sick, and for transporting medical personnel and material. Like any other means of transport, they may be the property of the army, or of voluntary aid societies, or have been requisitioned.
___As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.*
___The nature of the protection accorded remains the same: the aircraft, like medical transport on land, are placed on the same footing as mobile medical units.

(My note: There is still no protection included in the Geneva Convention for the search and rescue aircraft, only for the personnel on board after it is shot down. The protections afforded the occupants are as for other military or civilian aircrew, medical personnel, wounded, etc.)
*My bold.

 

[stona]

There's no provision in the rules of war for a fighting service to operate an air-sea rescue service without interference from their opponents.

The aircraft were painted white with red crosses and were unarmed. Their crews were registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. The Germans believed that these aircraft were afforded the same protection as ambulances or, in the words of the ICRC 'medical transports'.

It's why the British had to issue statements to the effect that the Germans were contravening the customary rules, what we now call customary international humanitarian law, by using the aircraft for hostile purposes (reconnaissance) in order to justify attacking them.

We can argue legal semantics, but this was really a moral question. With hindsight the attacks on these aircraft, which were persistent and frequent, are difficult to justify morally, even if the are legally justified (which is borderline).

Some Fighter Command pilots knew this instinctively. Here is an account of one of the actions on 29 July which I wrote elsewhere.

At 15.05 four Hurricanes of No. 111 Squadron attacked 2 ASR He 59s of Boulogne. One of Seenotflug Kdo 3 was shot down wounding two of the crew and killing the other two. A second He 59 landed to rescue the surviving crew and was itself attacked by the Hurricanes, sustaining 60% damage and wounding two of its crew. Some pilots did have reservations about attacking these aircraft. 111 Squadron's intelligence report states that at least two pilots noticed the prominent red crosses and did not attack. The first was shot down by Sgt Robinson who 'only noticed black swastika on red roundel on fin', but P/O Wilson 'circled the enemy a/c as he perceived a red cross on the fin, a large red cross on the fuselage, and another red cross, position of which he did not note'. The second aircraft was 'riddled' with bullets from '800 yards, closing to point blank range' by F/O Ferris. His colleague on the other hand saw the markings. 'P/O Fisher, after a short burst held his fire, as he saw a Red Cross marked on fuselage of enemy aircraft'.

 

[stona]

Double post

 

[fastmongrel]

@ThomasP fascinating I learned something today.

So a rescue plane would have to file a flight plan with the opposing force and be prepared to land at any time for inspection.

What is the status of an enemy picked up by the rescue plane. If he is sent to a POW camp then is the rescue plane acting as a combat plane.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Stona,

Except for the parts in ( ), [ ], the *s, and the words "My bold.", all of the above was copied and pasted from the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Search and rescue aircraft, regardless of how they are painted, were not and are still not considered Medical Aircraft. To be considered Medical Aircraft they must be used exclusively for transport of wounded and/or medical personnel and/or medical supplies.

 

[Elmas]

Captured airmen, submariners etc... were of great importance in the hands of a cunning Information Officer.
So, their rescue was not just a matter of humanity or to avoid to have an enemy fighting again.

 

[stona]

Hey Stona,

Except for the parts in ( ), [ ], the *s, and the words My bold., all of the above was copied and pasted from the Geneva Convention of 1949.

Search and rescue aircraft, regardless of how they are painted, were not and are still not considered Medical Aircraft. To be considered Medical Aircraft they must be used exclusively for transport of wounded and/or medical personnel and/or medical supplies.

I've edited my post to make my point clearer.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Stona,

Sorry, we were posting at the same time so I did not catch your post before I sent my post.

Please note, however that an aircraft acting as search and rescue removes that aircraft from the exclusive medical aircraft definition, rendering it a legal target - even today.

If you are saying that the pilots that attacked the He 59s in your example above should not have done so, I personally agree, but it is not illegal by the Geneva Convention.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey fastmongrel,

re: "So a rescue plane . . ."

Let's say you have a bunch of wounded on an island somewhere in the Pacific, and you want to evacuate them to a rear area where they can receive medical treatment. You would contact the enemy and inform them of the event, complete with when, where, number of aircraft, number of flights, route, etc. so that the enemy knows that they should be on the lookout for the medical aircraft (properly marked with red cross on white background) in the areas and at the times specified. You may then proceed and by ~international law the enemy should not attack your medical aircraft. If, however, you also use your transport aircraft to pick up and transport able-bodied combatants (such as rescued but unwounded pilots and aircrew) and the enemy discovered this, you would be in violation of the Geneva Convention rules and the enemy could legally shoot your transports down.

In the case of the German search and rescue He 59 aircraft mentioned above, in theory if the British had been told of a specific location where a believed-to-be wounded German pilot had crashed, and the Germans had made the required arrangements(?), the the RAF pilots would have been breaking the law (I think) when they attacked the rescue aircraft. But telling the enemy that you will have properly marked aircraft operating in non-specific areas at non-specific times, sometimes picking up wounded and sometimes picking up able-bodied aircrew, does not meet the standards of the law - unless both sides agree to it.

 

[stona]

The Germans may have tried to escort them later. I know of at least one instance where an He 59 was encountered in the company of three Bf 110s. How an aircraft like the Bf 110 was supposed to protect an aircraft like the He 59 flying at not much more than 100 mph is another question.

 

[ThomasP]

Hey fastmongrel,

re: "What is the status of an enemy picked up by the rescue plane. If he is sent to a POW camp then is the rescue plane acting as a combat plane."

I suspect that the kind of situation in your question is at least part of the reason why the international law concerning what we are talking about is not more black and white, and why they decided that to qualify as a medical aircraft it must be used exclusively for transport of wounded and/or medical personnel and/or medical supplies. If the enemy was wounded I think it would be OK. Otherwise, I do not know for sure, but I think it would break the exclusively part.

As far as status goes, if the rescuing aircraft belonged to a combatant then the rescued enemy would be treated as any other prisoner of war by the rules of the Geneva Convention. If the rescuing aircraft belonged to a neutral country, the rules are more complicated, but I think the rescued would have to be held captive (interned) in the neutral country until after the war.

I do however have a 4 part version of the Geneva Convention of 1949 with commentary by the International Committee of the Red Cross stating their
understanding of the application of the rules of war as of 1952, particularly as to "THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF WOUNDED, SICK AND . . ."

Just saw what XBe02Drvr posted while I was waiting for the pdfs to upload, much less wordy than what I typed above.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It seems logical that any craft operating to further the objectives of the enemy would be a legitimate target. Retrieving a fighter pilot to fight again sounds to me like furthering the enemy's war effort. Said pilot is a war asset. War is hell and total war isn't pretty.

 

[stona]

It seems logical that any craft operating to further the objectives of the enemy would be a legitimate target. Retrieving a fighter pilot to fight again sounds to me like furthering the enemy's war effort. Said pilot is a war asset. War is hell and total war isn't pretty.

The issue was that the ASR aircraft were clearly marked in accordance with international law. They were unarmed and the crews were registered with the International Red Cross in Geneva. The British knew all of this after the very first He 59 was forced down on 9 July. The only 'weapon' on board was a signal flare pistol.

The crew of that aircraft believed that a mistake had been made by the British, and their interrogation reports show that they were keen explain their organisation so that future mistakes might be avoided. There was no mistake, the British targeted these aircraft, despite the reluctance of some of their own pilots.

We must be careful how we judge events with the benefit of hindsight, but the decision to go after these aircraft, which incidentally rescued British airmen too, was marginal at best. Personally, I do not consider it one of the best decisions taken during the Battle.

 

[fastmongrel]

If the Sunderland is a battleship, the PBY is a destroyer, the Goose a minesweeper and the Widgeon a PT boat.

Big Destroyer probably best to say if a Sunderland is a battleship then a PBY would be a heavy cruiser

 

[ThomasP]

Hey Stona,

While I agree that it was poor form for the RAF to attack the German ASR aircraft, there is no "clearly marked in accordance with international law" for ASR aircraft defined in the Geneva Convention. Search and rescue aircraft, regardless of how they are painted, were not and are still not considered Medical Aircraft. I do not know why the Germans thought it would apply, unless there was some sort of hoped for gentlemen's agreement between the Germans and the British?

 

[PAT303]

While I agree that it was poor form for the RAF to attack the German ASR aircraft,

How is it different to bombing unarmed civilians in London?, Germany attacked Poland Belgium France Britain and killed innocent people by the thousands doing it. If I was a fighter pilot in WW2 I would have attacked and do my best to destroy any and every Luftwaffe and Japanese aircraft I found.

 

[stona]

How is it different to bombing unarmed civilians in London?, Germany attacked Poland Belgium France Britain and killed innocent people by the thousands doing it. If I was a fighter pilot in WW2 I would have attacked and do my best to destroy any and every Luftwaffe and Japanese aircraft I found.

Because by shooting down those aircraft and killing their crews you are also condemning some of your own men to death.

I already gave an example of a survivor from a Blenheim who would otherwise have perished, and there were many more who were picked up to become PoWs, but alive to survive the war and return to their families.

It's why, with the benefit of hindsight and knowing that the aircraft were not being used for reconnaissance, I think that the British made a poor decision.

 

[stona]

I do not know why the Germans thought it would apply, unless there was some sort of hoped for gentlemen's agreement between the Germans and the British?

It is quite clear from the interrogation reports that the Seenotdienst expected that the British would respect these aircraft and not shoot them down. The first crews captured quite obviously believed that a terrible mistake had been made in their cases and that the British could not possibly have intended to shoot/force them down. The Germans considered them non-combatant, whatever the legal niceties of the laws of war.
Whether that was technically correct or not is not the point. It was a moral question, and it was one of the first instances from a British perspective when moral standards slipped. They had a long way to fall on all sides.

In 1940 I would have shot them down too, but today it looks like a poor decision.