View Full Version : Wartime 'etiquette' question...
Buster Hyman
28th Mar 2016, 05:17
I was just watching this video and at the 1 min mark, the Narrator says something along the lines of "Even though this B17 has its undercarriage down, the German fighter continues to bore in ever closer in its determination to shoot it down"
Was the significance of "gear down" a form of surrender?
JVxtJULJ0KA
skippedonce
28th Mar 2016, 07:54
I believe so (part of a 'take me to the nearest airfield so I can land) however, could also have been an unintentional action caused by battle damage to control lines, hydraulics, etc if not accompanied by the 'surrendering' crew ceasing to fire on the attacking fighter.
Tankertrashnav
28th Mar 2016, 09:24
Certainly recognised among UK forces. In his book Requiem for a Wren Nevil Shute has a Wren who is operating an AA gun from the shore shoot down a German bomber as it flies past at low level with its undercarriage coming down. The aircraft crashes and is found to have been manned by Polish aircrew who had somehow stolen it and had flown it to England to escape. The Wren is reprimanded for not knowing the significance of the lowered undercarriage.
Wander00
28th Mar 2016, 10:24
A few years back there was a dramatic presentation of "Requiem for a Wren" at Exbury, where the book was written, and of which the true shooting down of a German aircraft forms part of the plot. The audience was moved around various parts of the estate for different scenes. we ended up on Lepe Beach, in the rain, watching a representation of the D-Day outload, on the night of 5 June. Made the hair stand up on the nape of my neck
Just checked on the Neville Shute Foundation web site - it was June 2005
Wetstart Dryrun
28th Mar 2016, 10:25
I have a dim memory of a F4 shooting down a Jaguar on radar finals at Bruggen.
...a kill's a kill, I suppose.
Buster Hyman
28th Mar 2016, 10:55
Skippedonce, it's interesting that you say that. In some of the footage, it looks like there's no return fire. Whilst there's many reasons why this could be so, it's an interesting point if that was the protocol.
Pontius Navigator
28th Mar 2016, 11:00
It was like shooting aircrew in parachutes.
ian16th
28th Mar 2016, 11:01
Where did a/c such as the Ju 87 Stuka fit into this protocol?
Pontius Navigator
28th Mar 2016, 11:03
Ian, I think how it is flown is part of the equation.
Lyneham Lad
28th Mar 2016, 11:04
I have a dim memory of a F4 shooting down a Jaguar on radar finals at Bruggen.
...a kill's a kill, I suppose.
As it came down in the woods SE of Wesel, I doubt that the u/c would have been down when it was targeted...
rolling20
28th Mar 2016, 13:54
Jaguar story is well documented. The only time an RAF aircraft had shot down another aircraft since WW2 IIRC?
Basil
28th Mar 2016, 14:01
There was I thinking that the idea was to keep shooting at the bomber until it was clearly on the way to destruction.
BEagle
28th Mar 2016, 15:07
There was certainly some chivalry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Brown_and_Franz_Stigler_incident
Basil
28th Mar 2016, 16:30
BEagle, Yes, I'd read about that.
I have never been in combat so my view must be taken with that caveat but, I think, had I been the German pilot, I'd have shot it down.
Recollect having a beer with an Iraqi and an Iranian in HK one evening. Both flew in the Iraq/Iran war, one FJ, the other Hercs. We DID have a sardonic smile about the result of them meeting under those circumstances rather than in the Cathay bar.
Tankertrashnav
28th Mar 2016, 17:15
ian 16th - good point. I once researched a Beaufighter crew which among their confirmed kills was a flight of three J52s out over the Med somewhere. I should think the J52 pilots without fighter cover confronted by a Beaufighter would have been quite happy to surrender, but how? Anyway the Beau crew destroyed all three - I dont suppose it gave them huge satisfaction but it certainly had to be done
Wander 00 - interesting story, I hadnt heard about that "re-enactment before.
P-N - I have heard it said that aircrew in parachutes were fair game if coming down over their own territory as they would be up and flying again within a day or two, whereas aircrew going down over hostile territory were likely to be captured and thus were left alone. I don't know if this was a widely held view, just something I read.
Pontius Navigator
28th Mar 2016, 17:22
TTN, logical. Just wonder if that was possibly a local thing.
Like I read recently of an Afrika Corps unit and an 8th Army one at the southern end of the line that came to an arrangement where they had a cease fire every evening.
rolling20
28th Mar 2016, 18:26
IIRC There was a visit to the trenches by a senior officer in WW1. He was appalled at the lack of offensive spirit, with the enemy clearly in view going about their daily business. When asked why they weren't being shot at: Senior NCO I believe replied: 'if they don't bover us sir, then we don't bover them!'. Or something similar.
rolling20
28th Mar 2016, 18:38
Also don't forget in the Falkland's, we shot down a Learjet, by missle I believe. A Sea Harrier destroyed a Herc. Another Sea Harrier escorted a 707 away from the task force and several shipped based missiles failed to bring down another 707. As our old adj used to say Krieg ist Krieg.
MPN11
28th Mar 2016, 19:26
War is not a nice thing. I'm vaguely glad I missed personal involvement at the coal-face in all of them during my 30 years .. although not 100%, as it was what I was paid to do. It just never happened.
Wander00
28th Mar 2016, 19:38
TTN - a link - Gatherings (http://www.nevilshute.org/Gatherings/Exbury2005/requiematexbury.php)
skippedonce
28th Mar 2016, 20:01
In some of the footage, it looks like there's no return fire. Whilst there's many reasons why this could be so, it's an interesting point if that was the protocol. I'd suggest that, whether you're in an aircraft, a ship or a trench, if you're shooting back (at least in the eyes of the adversary you're exchanging shots with) you're definitely not surrendering!
Buster Hyman
28th Mar 2016, 22:30
I'd suggest that, whether you're in an aircraft, a ship or a trench, if you're shooting back (at least in the eyes of the adversary you're exchanging shots with) you're definitely not surrendering!
Yes. In my ham fisted way, I meant to say that the footage corroborated your post.
Tankertrashnav
28th Mar 2016, 22:56
Thanks very much for that link Wander 00 - very interesting. I've bookmarked the site - looks like there's a lot of interesting stuff in it for a Nevil Shute fan.
RedhillPhil
28th Mar 2016, 23:37
I'm fairly sure that Len Deighton in his book, "Fighter" - which seemed extremely well researched to an amateur like me - mentioned aircraft crew showing that they were surrendering by lowering the undercarriage. He went on to remark that it was mostly a myth and the truth was that the hydraulics were likely shot-up.
izod tester
29th Mar 2016, 06:47
Surely aircraft undercarriages are kept retracted by more than just hydraulic pressure. The lowering sequence starts off with the disengagement of a mechanical lock. If so, then it would require positive aircrew action to lower the undercarriage.
Stanwell
29th Mar 2016, 09:03
Yes, I wondered about that myself.
I do, however, dimly recall reading an account of a shot-up B-17 that had its U/C drop when they were down to only two and a half engines.
Thus, they didn't make it back across the Channel.
Downwind.Maddl-Land
29th Mar 2016, 10:16
The reason the 100th BG (the Bloody Hundredth) suffered exceptional losses was supposed to have been linked to an incident when one of their B-17s, on its own, with 2 engines out surrendered by lowering its undercarriage and was duly escorted by opposing fighters. The B-17 crew got one or both engines going again and presented with close escort 'sitters' escaped by shooting down the escort - bar one - who reported the incident, after which the 'Square D' unit was supposedly singled out for 'special attention'.
Presumably completely apocryphal as in the heat of battle no one was going to go looking for specific Groups and it would be unlikely a pilot would to be able to recognise the 'Square D' insignia when positioning for an attack.
Stanwell
30th Mar 2016, 01:34
Aha! .. Here's something I just tripped over.
On the AH&N sub-forum at the moment, there's a thread to do with a defecting German aircraft in May of 1943.
A contributor to that discussion had posted links to records held at the RAF Museum, Hendon.
This particular aircraft was intercepted by Spitfires of 165 Squadron operating from RAF Dyce, Scotland.
The Squadron Diary, inter alia, records that...
"The section identified the raider as a Ju88 and when Arthur approached, the Hun dropped his undercart, shot off very(sic) lights and waggled his wings.
Blue 1 waggled his wings in turn and positioned himself in front of the enemy aircraft - Ben Scamen flew above and behind and the procession moved off
to Dyce aerodrome where all landed safely causing a major sensation."
That Ju88 is the one now on display at the RAFM Hendon.
.
Fareastdriver
30th Mar 2016, 08:32
On a B17 the rear and ventral gunners had very little protection apart from flak jackets. In the film it looks as if there is a concentrated attack which possibly killed them both during the shot as there is no return fire and the ventral turret is stationary.
They did have according to a book, 'The Fall of Fortresses' a few waist gunners bailed out as they crossed the Dutch coast.
essdee
30th Mar 2016, 09:31
For those of you who missed the entry in Wikipedia (link from Beagle, post #13), Adam Makos' book, A Higher Call: An Incredible True Story of Combat and Chivalry in the War-Torn Skies of World War II, published 19 December 2012, is a riveting read. It is very well researched, covering the background on both sides that led to this incident.
AARON O'DICKYDIDO
30th Mar 2016, 09:41
Just wondering; "At what point (Size) does a machine gun become a cannon?"
Aaron.
Stanwell
30th Mar 2016, 10:05
On our side, at least, the 50cal (.5in or 12.7mm) heavy machine gun is the largest in common usage.
The smallest commonly used cannon is the 20mm.
Essentially, the big difference between the two is that the cannon mostly uses explosive-head projectiles.
.
megan
31st Mar 2016, 00:02
Surely aircraft undercarriages are kept retracted by more than just hydraulic pressureThe B-17 uses an electric motor or hand crank, but some aircraft do rely on hydraulic pressure to keep the gear up ie there is no mechanical lock. A lot of German gun camera film show a B-17 gear leg extending when the wing/inboard engine takes a hammering during the attack.
Fareastdriver
1st Apr 2016, 09:19
Perusing a couple of actions against B17s it is noticeable that the guns on the ball turret are pointing down. This is the position that it would be in when the gunner was entering or leaving the turret.
It was electrically controlled with no means inside of operating it in the event of an electrical failure; that was a crank handle in the fuselage. There was a hatch behind the gunner but as he normally kept his parachute upstairs that was of no use even if he could open it against the slipstream. It follows that in these occasions the gunners were not dead but had evacuated the turret.
You can see and hear your aircraft and crew being shot up; there might not be anybody up there to crank your turret if the electrics fail and you cannot bail out.
What would you do?
What would you do?
Anticipate joining the awful casualty list of ball-turret gunners, I suggest.
I would never impute cowardice, but there's a point where staying in the turret isn't going to achieve much. Some of those clips clearly indicate that the German fighter is able to take his time destroying his target [lone aircraft limping home?], and if he isn't getting in your sights you might as well get ready to bail out.
Fareastdriver
1st Apr 2016, 14:40
How would you like to fight a war like this?
http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee224/fareastdriver/ball%20gunner_zpsqbw4ljp7.png (http://s229.photobucket.com/user/fareastdriver/media/ball%20gunner_zpsqbw4ljp7.png.html)
izod tester
1st Apr 2016, 15:46
Perhaps the gunner had expended all of his ammunition. In which case, it would be pointless to remain in the turret.
Yes, FED ... it makes the BC "Tail End Charlie" look like a dream posting!
Massive respect to those guys [in both gun positions]
How would you like to fight war like this?How indeed, and the SOP for a gear up landing was to jettison the ball turret first. What to do with a man stuck in there, would he survive a gear up with the turret in place? I'm sure it must have been faced many a time.
WhatsaLizad?
2nd Apr 2016, 01:40
It would seem that man is reduced to a predator in combat and variables as to who lives or dies become another random statistic.
Same thing with animal predators. Plenty of stories in that for whatever unknown reason, a Grizzly, Lion, Tiger, Leopard or Shark calls off the final surely fatal attack and wanders off.
Best advice is to not go to war instead of wading into the morality of decisions in combat.