Poor guys, never stood a chance
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
Hopefully to clear this up. It was just that CMs post came across as if he was berating people for either having sympathy for the downed crew or having a 'there but for the grace of god' type moment.
He also seemed to be saying that somehow anyone who was anything other that steely-eyed about the whole thing might not be effective in combat. If this was what he meant, then it was totally unfair and frankly illogical. If It wasn't then maybe it's just a bit of a misunderstanding.
Hopefully to clear this up. It was just that CMs post came across as if he was berating people for either having sympathy for the downed crew or having a 'there but for the grace of god' type moment.
He also seemed to be saying that somehow anyone who was anything other that steely-eyed about the whole thing might not be effective in combat. If this was what he meant, then it was totally unfair and frankly illogical. If It wasn't then maybe it's just a bit of a misunderstanding.
Again, BOAC, you are spot-on. I don't expect soldiers, sailors and airmen to enjoy killing people, but I also don't hold with the 'excessive hand-wringing' as you so neatly put it.
Probably easier for me than many as I was always air defence and could always console myself with the thought that I was stopping the bad guys from hurting people, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a conscience.
Poor guys, never stood a chance? Fine by me. As BrainStormer says, I don't need a fight to be fair.
Finally, no I don't wish a painful end on anyone. But I am still a bit surprised by the outpouring of sympathy for the bad guys that die in a fight/war/action.
Probably easier for me than many as I was always air defence and could always console myself with the thought that I was stopping the bad guys from hurting people, but that doesn't mean that I don't have a conscience.
Poor guys, never stood a chance? Fine by me. As BrainStormer says, I don't need a fight to be fair.
Finally, no I don't wish a painful end on anyone. But I am still a bit surprised by the outpouring of sympathy for the bad guys that die in a fight/war/action.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
c_p - yes, time to 'clear this up'. The thread title was the kick-starter for this and AA in post #3 brought us back to reality. If it had been tilted 'Syrian AF helo down' we might not be here now.
WRT your last para - IF that was what he was saying, then he was absolutely right. Kitchens and heat? If you just want to stack blankets, don't join the military - go and work in a bedding store.
WRT your last para - IF that was what he was saying, then he was absolutely right. Kitchens and heat? If you just want to stack blankets, don't join the military - go and work in a bedding store.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
That really isn't fair at all. There are all kinds of people in the military, some are more likely to introspect and reflect on the killing and misery caused to both sides in a war and some aren't. It's simply untrue and unfair to suggest because someone can have empathy with the enemy that they would not be effective at doing their job when it was required of them.
So, if that was what CM was saying then he was IMHO dead wrong.
That really isn't fair at all. There are all kinds of people in the military, some are more likely to introspect and reflect on the killing and misery caused to both sides in a war and some aren't. It's simply untrue and unfair to suggest because someone can have empathy with the enemy that they would not be effective at doing their job when it was required of them.
So, if that was what CM was saying then he was IMHO dead wrong.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously we will never agree. I'm sure that had CM or I scythed through an enemy cockpit or 3 with our missile warhead, killing or worse mutilating the crew, we would have both suffered trauma and troubling times later. It may be that it would have 'finished' either or both of us - I don't know as it never happened to me, but I would have hoped I would have been back in my jet to do it again without delay since that is why I took the Queen's Commission . The time to quit is when you join - as one of the guys on my South Cerney course did when he realised he could not face 'bombing babies' and had made the wrong career choice. I respect him for that and think no less of him.
It is how far we take your 'empathy' - 'Take the shot' as M in the current film says - there is no time to think.
It is how far we take your 'empathy' - 'Take the shot' as M in the current film says - there is no time to think.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC, I suspect you're right we won't agree totally but there is some common ground. I wouldn't want anyone to hesitate before taking what ever shot it was incumbent on them to make either, I'd count that as them not being able to do that job they were there to do.
All I'm saying is that away from the heat of that particular moment people have all sorts of different ways of reacting to what they've done or witnessed others doing and no one should be judged on that.
You have an opinion and I respect that.
All I'm saying is that away from the heat of that particular moment people have all sorts of different ways of reacting to what they've done or witnessed others doing and no one should be judged on that.
You have an opinion and I respect that.
Last edited by course_profile; 30th Oct 2012 at 12:13.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE][You are within your rights to disobey an illegal order, /QUOTE]
C.P. Valid point, but how many "cannon-fodder" are fully qualified lawyers, and who's going to argue with an officer's gun pointed to your head?...or your family's?.....If you aren't IN the Military , then you're not putting yourself/family in the way of sanctions for not obeying orders(illegal or otherwise)
My biggest objection to Military service, is the thought of having to obey the orders of incompetent or immoral a-holes. When they all lead fronm the front, I may think differently.....but read about "D" -Day and how a diversionary force were sent to certain death.....sure, justify it as "for the greater good".....but had the knobbers who sanctioned that particular "jolly", had to lead it, they may have come up with a different strategy!..... so, yes, V.R. I probably would have been a Concientious Objector.
C.P. Valid point, but how many "cannon-fodder" are fully qualified lawyers, and who's going to argue with an officer's gun pointed to your head?...or your family's?.....If you aren't IN the Military , then you're not putting yourself/family in the way of sanctions for not obeying orders(illegal or otherwise)
My biggest objection to Military service, is the thought of having to obey the orders of incompetent or immoral a-holes. When they all lead fronm the front, I may think differently.....but read about "D" -Day and how a diversionary force were sent to certain death.....sure, justify it as "for the greater good".....but had the knobbers who sanctioned that particular "jolly", had to lead it, they may have come up with a different strategy!..... so, yes, V.R. I probably would have been a Concientious Objector.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DADDY-OH, I don´t think I have a remarkable take on history.
I wanted you to see the parallels between the actions and especially the result.
I venture a guess here, not being killed yet myself, I think it does not make a difference who killed you. The result is the same.
The dambusters did what they have being told to do and I´m pretty sure not following orders was a court martial offence in WWII also in the UK...as it was in Hitlers Germany.
I also know for a fact that allied soldiers shot at civilians in WWII, namely, e.g. at my mother who was a child then. I will never know wether this was done intenionally or not, the result if he`d hadn`t missed would have been the same. This happened when she was hearding goats on a meadow in the black forrest region. No military installation close.
Bomber Harris had his crews mostly aim at civilians, didn´t he? 'Breaking the morale', as it was put so gentlemanly. But of course, being british the bomber command had every right to do so. Because the Germans did it first.
But don`t tell me this was of any different result for children, females, elderly and others that were killed in the countless air raids of the RAF.
If the German Stuka crews were murderers, then RAF crew bombing/strafing not purely military installations were too.
No.
I wanted you to see the parallels between the actions and especially the result.
I venture a guess here, not being killed yet myself, I think it does not make a difference who killed you. The result is the same.
The dambusters did what they have being told to do and I´m pretty sure not following orders was a court martial offence in WWII also in the UK...as it was in Hitlers Germany.
I also know for a fact that allied soldiers shot at civilians in WWII, namely, e.g. at my mother who was a child then. I will never know wether this was done intenionally or not, the result if he`d hadn`t missed would have been the same. This happened when she was hearding goats on a meadow in the black forrest region. No military installation close.
Bomber Harris had his crews mostly aim at civilians, didn´t he? 'Breaking the morale', as it was put so gentlemanly. But of course, being british the bomber command had every right to do so. Because the Germans did it first.
But don`t tell me this was of any different result for children, females, elderly and others that were killed in the countless air raids of the RAF.
If the German Stuka crews were murderers, then RAF crew bombing/strafing not purely military installations were too.
There is a world of difference between victims through collateral damage of a bombing raid a few miles away from the target & targeting civilians through machine gun boresight & intentionally strafing them.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve
If you aren't in the military then please don't come here and make comments as disrespectful as the one you have just made.
If that is your perception of the UK Military, then you are wildly wrong.
If you aren't in the military then please don't come here and make comments as disrespectful as the one you have just made.
If that is your perception of the UK Military, then you are wildly wrong.
Last edited by course_profile; 30th Oct 2012 at 13:21.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cockney Steve
As BOAC, Courtney Mil and many others could tell you, the responsibility for obeying orders is strictly confined to Legal Orders, the definition of which is clearly laid out for British Forces in Queen's Regulations.
His dudeness
Actually, it's as much "yes" as it is "no."
At the moral level, there is a difference. At the purely physical level, no. We humans are far more than purely physical, or purely moral. We are a mix of both. That said, I am glad they didn't hit your mom.
Your reductionist take on this discussion is an incomplete approach to a very human activity: intramural homicide, aka war. You will note that humans, in their infinite wisdom (or is it folly?) have crafted a thing called war crimes at the international level, which more or less judge whether or not a given kill was a valid kill.
That's a moral matter, and renders your "dead is dead" point true but utterly incomplete, and thus at least partly wrong.
A few other points:
Spot on! That is how I felt the first time I saw the film clip. I spent some years as a Naval Helicopter pilot. I knew damned well that a hand held SAM, well directed ZSU-23 fire, or a variety of other surface to air fires, would put an end to me in a fashion similar to what happend to those fellows.
Good point, and quite frankly, the most important point regarding the "lesser of two evils" matter.
On a less dire note, in 2004 I faced an election where I could choose:
George W Bush (a man with whom I was bitterly disappointed, and whose inner circle quite frankly pissed me off, that Swift Boat defamation tactic being the cherry on top of the sundae)
John Kerry, whose record showed that he was utterly devoid of leadership talent at the level required, albeit we had in common Naval Service
I held my nose as I voted.
We don't always get a choice between the bad and the good.
More often, we get to choose whether or not our feces falafel comes with cheese and pickles, or with tomatoes, onions and lettuce. I daresay that is what the average folk of Syria confront at the moment. I am not sure there is a lot of choice beyond "who keeps fighting longer" in this nasty civil war.
cockney steve: your post comes off as
Further comments duly 
No.
At the moral level, there is a difference. At the purely physical level, no. We humans are far more than purely physical, or purely moral. We are a mix of both. That said, I am glad they didn't hit your mom.
Your reductionist take on this discussion is an incomplete approach to a very human activity: intramural homicide, aka war. You will note that humans, in their infinite wisdom (or is it folly?) have crafted a thing called war crimes at the international level, which more or less judge whether or not a given kill was a valid kill.
That's a moral matter, and renders your "dead is dead" point true but utterly incomplete, and thus at least partly wrong.
A few other points:
If an SH pilot says that seeing SH aircrew of a different flag going down in flames and exploding makes uncomfortable viewing it is probably a glimmer of humanity and a 'there but for the grace of God' feeling rather than being a wimp ...
"It still remains to be seen whether having a hard-arsed secular dictator in charge is better or worse than having fundamentalist Al Quaeda run anarchy within spitting distance of Europe.
On a less dire note, in 2004 I faced an election where I could choose:
George W Bush (a man with whom I was bitterly disappointed, and whose inner circle quite frankly pissed me off, that Swift Boat defamation tactic being the cherry on top of the sundae)
John Kerry, whose record showed that he was utterly devoid of leadership talent at the level required, albeit we had in common Naval Service
I held my nose as I voted.
We don't always get a choice between the bad and the good.
More often, we get to choose whether or not our feces falafel comes with cheese and pickles, or with tomatoes, onions and lettuce. I daresay that is what the average folk of Syria confront at the moment. I am not sure there is a lot of choice beyond "who keeps fighting longer" in this nasty civil war.
cockney steve: your post comes off as
a tale ... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 30th Oct 2012 at 13:40.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My apologies to the last 3 posters if I've upset you with MY opinion.
It's just that, an OPINION. I'm on the outside, looking in. I find the whole concept of killing my fellow man in cold blood, because my "superior" says so, to be immoral.....
Although i quoted the sacrificial force of "D" day, I wasn't necessarily saying the corruption/incompetence applied to only "Queen's Regulations" forces....it was basically a reply to the poster who tried to justify just why this Heli crew may have been killing their kith and kin.
in the ground position, I, too would have defended myself
(theres the dichotomy.)
Presumably, them lot are ignoring Q.R ?
Oh, ..and had the "movers and shakers" in the Falklands war been competent enough to log the fact that we , AND the enemy both had Exocets , Simon Weston might have kept his original features.
Sorry, I can't accept gaffes on this scale from a "superior" to whome I've entrusted my continued existence.
To those who have served , come out the other end,and still have a life to enjoy, I salute you...I.m too much of a coward to have ever contemplated Military service.
It's just that, an OPINION. I'm on the outside, looking in. I find the whole concept of killing my fellow man in cold blood, because my "superior" says so, to be immoral.....
Although i quoted the sacrificial force of "D" day, I wasn't necessarily saying the corruption/incompetence applied to only "Queen's Regulations" forces....it was basically a reply to the poster who tried to justify just why this Heli crew may have been killing their kith and kin.
in the ground position, I, too would have defended myself
(theres the dichotomy.)
Presumably, them lot are ignoring Q.R ?
Oh, ..and had the "movers and shakers" in the Falklands war been competent enough to log the fact that we , AND the enemy both had Exocets , Simon Weston might have kept his original features.
Sorry, I can't accept gaffes on this scale from a "superior" to whome I've entrusted my continued existence.
To those who have served , come out the other end,and still have a life to enjoy, I salute you...I.m too much of a coward to have ever contemplated Military service.
Lone....did you just say you voted for Kerry?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,117
Received 2,957 Likes
on
1,261 Posts
Well i have read all the posts and thought i would reply as to why i posted it under the heading i used..
War is war and people die, but even if I was on the ground shooting at it and took it down, I would still feel compassion towards the crew as they spun down, because at the end of the day I wouldn't wish a death on anyone like that, rather a quick bang bang your dead, hence my original post and title to the thread.. For all we know it could have just been carrying people from A to B, we just don't know who was in it and the circumstances.
I could have shown a link to the US Marine CH-46 that was hit by a SAM in Iraq that turns away on fire and descending as they try to flee the scene, that we know was carry some guys going home on leave, they died, compassion works both ways.
War is war and people die, but even if I was on the ground shooting at it and took it down, I would still feel compassion towards the crew as they spun down, because at the end of the day I wouldn't wish a death on anyone like that, rather a quick bang bang your dead, hence my original post and title to the thread.. For all we know it could have just been carrying people from A to B, we just don't know who was in it and the circumstances.
I could have shown a link to the US Marine CH-46 that was hit by a SAM in Iraq that turns away on fire and descending as they try to flee the scene, that we know was carry some guys going home on leave, they died, compassion works both ways.
Last edited by NutLoose; 30th Oct 2012 at 19:32.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Northumberland
Age: 52
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't want anyone to hesitate before taking what ever shot it was
incumbent on them to make either
Yet sometimes just a moments hesitation is entirely the right course of action. For example in Courtney's Journal, he reports scrambling from Wideawake airfield to intercept an incoming aircraft, which was suspected of being an Argentine transport aeroplane. Acting on his 'hunch' that something wasn't quite as it appeared, he hesitated long enough to confirm it was actually an in coming RN helicopter. Yet engaging immediately would have been an acceptable course of action, given the information first available.
How many other FJ pilots have 'hesitated' long enough for the situation to change completely, and slept much better as a result of it?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Sorry if my post was not clear to you. I was agreeing with CM, but took issue with the idea of worrying (or thinking about) whether your opponent has a fair chance. I would always want my gang to be thinking carefully about that in order that the other guy NEVER got a fair chance!
I come from a green background, and would always choose to sneak up on an enemy in their beds rather than ones who were wide awake and alert.
Sorry if my post was not clear to you. I was agreeing with CM, but took issue with the idea of worrying (or thinking about) whether your opponent has a fair chance. I would always want my gang to be thinking carefully about that in order that the other guy NEVER got a fair chance!
I come from a green background, and would always choose to sneak up on an enemy in their beds rather than ones who were wide awake and alert.
Cockney Steve,
The Bluff Cove air strikes had nothing to do with Exocet. RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram were bombed by A-4 Skyhawks.
Bluff Cove Air Attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both sides were well aware that Exocet was in the respective inventories before the conflict.
Argentine Navy: MM38 (surface-launched) and AM39 (air-launched)
Royal Navy: MM38 (surface-launched)
The Bluff Cove air strikes had nothing to do with Exocet. RFA Sir Galahad and RFA Sir Tristram were bombed by A-4 Skyhawks.
Bluff Cove Air Attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Both sides were well aware that Exocet was in the respective inventories before the conflict.
Argentine Navy: MM38 (surface-launched) and AM39 (air-launched)
Royal Navy: MM38 (surface-launched)
Last edited by TEEEJ; 30th Oct 2012 at 23:36.