Author Topic: Killing German Ground Crews?  (Read 1787 times)

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #30 on: April 21, 2008, 10:27:19 AM »
It would be even meaner if they shot them and watched them bounce off the rocks into the gorge..  :cool:

I think we make em kiss a pig- right on the lips. I know I'd quit fighting if they threatened to make me kiss Jane Fonda.

Offline iWalrus

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 114
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #31 on: April 21, 2008, 10:54:12 AM »
At least it was a military target and not like bombing London.

Or Dresden
That's all.

WalrusG

Offline SkyRock

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7758
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #32 on: April 21, 2008, 11:08:25 AM »
or fire bombing Tokyo.

Triton28 - "...his stats suggest he has a healthy combination of suck and sissy!"

Offline Reschke

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7724
      • VF-17 "The Jolly Rogers"
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #33 on: April 21, 2008, 11:27:25 AM »

But were the airfield personnel really killing the US Airmen in the skies??   After all, they were only support people, and not the actual combatants taking to the air.

I doubt that this sort of tactic would have been considered chivalrous in WW I.

Oh let's be chivalrous???? WTF! Do you think the Red Baron was being chivalrous when he taught his pilots how to come in on someone from the sun? Don't think so there buddy.

Chivalry only existed in some tournament BS back in the middle ages when knights were in stinky, bulky armor and could barely read the rules of the tourney. Then it promptly died when they hit the battlefield.

War sucks and people die...even a so called "non-combatant".
Buckshot
Reschke from March 2001 till tour 146
Founder and CO VF-17 Jolly Rogers September 2002 - December 2006
"I'm baaaaccccckkk!"

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #34 on: April 21, 2008, 11:52:13 AM »
The concept of the limited, professional army type of war went out the window in the late 1800s. Up until then you basically fielded a professional army numbering in the tens of thousands. It took a lot of work to field that army. The army was equipped with expensive and difficult to (hand) produce weapons. It was supplied as best you could for a single extended campaign. There would be some limited resupply but not much, with living off the land accounting for much of the rest.

You then marched your army to war. It fought a handful of battles, perhaps one major one, that pretty much decided the war. Then the two cousins -- prince fluffy shirt and duke dandy pants -- negotiated a peace giving up a province or two and that was that. Civilians were largely unmolested as a rule (well, at least in more modern times), or at worst had their food stocks depleted when they crossed paths with an army.

Then, you had the arrival of the industrial age with mass production, nationalism and conscription. The US Civil War was a tipping point. Suddenly, you can crank out large numbers of troops (using conscription and mass training techniques) move them to the front using steam power (railroads and ships), supply them on campaigns using steam power, crank out munitions in absurd quantities and fight devastating wars over many years where millions die in a constantly refilled meat grinder until one side reaches total exhaustion and the war ends.

With an industrial war there are no longer civilians. Civilians are absolutely essential for keeping the ranks filled with men, and the supply lines filled with bread and bullets (and planes, torpedoes, centmetric radar valves, ball bearings, food, armor plate, canvas ammo pouches, helmets, tanks, optical sights, pressure bandages, shoe laces, machine guns, machine gun tripods... etc) Even someone who drives a civilian bus supports the war effort transporting troops and workers behind the lines. The truly innocent do exist, the children and pacifists, but by and large modern history suggests that the civilians buy into the war and support it from the start to even a bad finish.

Now, when you have millions dying on the battlefield instead of tens of thousands it becomes a lot easier to justify targeting enemy civilians if it promises to save the lives of your soldiers. Break their will to fight and end the war. Kill them and leave the factories empty. Destroy the factories themselves. Blockade the island and starve them to the peace table…whatever. Shorten the war a year and you save hundreds of thousand or even millions of your citizens lives. If you are the non aggressor, the difference between a soldier (drafted to fight a defensive war) and the civilian population of an aggressor become very blurred indeed.

A modern industrial war simply cannot function without the country's civilian population and supply and production infrastructure. No less valuable than the divisions and fleets doing the fighting.

So, IMO in a total industrial war targeting civilians – OK. Shooting pilots in parachutes over their home territory – OK. Machine gunning the Japanese troops in the water of the Bismarck Sea – OK (many actually did make landfall in the combat zone). Attacking military support personnel – obviously OK.

But all is not lost! The key for civilians is to be very conservative about the people you elect and support since if you make the wrong choices, your nights may be filled with the drone of Merlin engines and the pop of incendiaries. As exciting as the fall of France and Poland (to name a few) might have been, you better hope the boys in black in Berlin have their stuff together for the big finish. You can always take to the streets and end the war yourself.

The nuclear age of course, changes this with MAD. And, you have to wonder if we have embraced technology to the point that a total conventional  industrial war is even doable today. Once you burn through your jets and missiles and high tech MBTs and subs the replacement rate will have to be pretty slow. Perhaps you then revert to 1916 on the Western front.

In 4th generation warfare like we have had in Vietnam and Iraq, targeting civilian populations not only fails to serve a military function but has a negative impact on achieving a positive outcome. There is no war production to speak of, except for the manufacturing of insurgents and insurgent supporters and bombing and abusing civilians only facilitates that process.

Charon
« Last Edit: April 21, 2008, 01:34:49 PM by Charon »

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #35 on: April 21, 2008, 02:27:54 PM »
Quote
But when you consider that NO WAR IN THE HISTORY OF ALL MANKIND HAS EVER BEEN WON WITHOUT THE USE OF TOTAL WAR.

Utter garbage, yet again. Even when you put it in capital letters.

One off the top of my head:

Peninsula Campaign and the Napoleonic War - France defeated, French civilians left alone - British soldiers hanged for stealing chickens from the local population.

Your policy of total war significantly helped the British and Allies in Spain - the Guerrilleros were so riled up by the atrocities committed by the French against Spanish civilians, they forced the French to spend huge amounts of time defending their supply lines from partisans.

Or are you going to claim the Peninsula war and defeat of Napoleon was a battle and doesn't count as you do with the Falklands?  :rofl

War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline Jackal1

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9092
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #36 on: April 21, 2008, 04:22:47 PM »
France defeated, French civilians left alone - British soldiers hanged for stealing chickens from the local population.

With all due respect, I believe the chickens surrendered.
Democracy is two wolves deciding on what to eat. Freedom is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Offline Roundeye

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #37 on: April 21, 2008, 04:23:13 PM »
Would you feel any better if they were bombed with regular GP bombs?  Whats the difference?  Dead is dead.  Maybe we were thinking of using the captured facility one day?

AP bomb:  Kills people with shrapnel; damages-beyond-use airplanes, vehicles, tents and support equipment.

GP bomb:  Kills people with shrapnel, concussion, flying bricks, flying airplane parts, flying car parts and flying pieces of support equipment;  destroys-beyond-use the entire facility.

"Rotorhed"

Offline IronDog

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 753
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #38 on: April 21, 2008, 05:02:02 PM »
Getting back at their tormentors!Most of the AAA crews were teenagers,up to and including the modern day Pope.
IronDog

Offline Mini D

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6897
      • Fat Drunk Bastards
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #39 on: April 21, 2008, 05:09:05 PM »
The use of bomblets for runway destruction has been a continuing doctrine since early WW2. It seems that using conventional bombs on runways makes a hole that can be filled and covered up. The repairs could be done in a day. The act of turning the surface of a runway into rubble is actually much more impacting. Destroying the ground support equipment would also be a serious plus. Killing the airmen who might have been working on the runway was a perk.

Offline Gh0stFT

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2008, 05:14:26 PM »
total war or not, it sickens me what we "humans" are capable of,
nothing changed, just look around today, same hate, same breed.
The statement below is true.
The statement above is false.

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2008, 06:01:36 PM »
The concept of the limited, professional army type of war went out the window in the late 1800s. Up until then you basically fielded a professional army numbering in the tens of thousands. It took a lot of work to field that army. The army was equipped with expensive and difficult to (hand) produce weapons. It was supplied as best you could for a single extended campaign. There would be some limited resupply but not much, with living off the land accounting for much of the rest.

You then marched your army to war. It fought a handful of battles, perhaps one major one, that pretty much decided the war. Then the two cousins -- prince fluffy shirt and duke dandy pants -- negotiated a peace giving up a province or two and that was that. Civilians were largely unmolested as a rule (well, at least in more modern times), or at worst had their food stocks depleted when they crossed paths with an army.

Then, you had the arrival of the industrial age with mass production, nationalism and conscription. The US Civil War was a tipping point. Suddenly, you can crank out large numbers of troops (using conscription and mass training techniques) move them to the front using steam power (railroads and ships), supply them on campaigns using steam power, crank out munitions in absurd quantities and fight devastating wars over many years where millions die in a constantly refilled meat grinder until one side reaches total exhaustion and the war ends.

With an industrial war there are no longer civilians. Civilians are absolutely essential for keeping the ranks filled with men, and the supply lines filled with bread and bullets (and planes, torpedoes, centmetric radar valves, ball bearings, food, armor plate, canvas ammo pouches, helmets, tanks, optical sights, pressure bandages, shoe laces, machine guns, machine gun tripods... etc) Even someone who drives a civilian bus supports the war effort transporting troops and workers behind the lines. The truly innocent do exist, the children and pacifists, but by and large modern history suggests that the civilians buy into the war and support it from the start to even a bad finish.

Now, when you have millions dying on the battlefield instead of tens of thousands it becomes a lot easier to justify targeting enemy civilians if it promises to save the lives of your soldiers. Break their will to fight and end the war. Kill them and leave the factories empty. Destroy the factories themselves. Blockade the island and starve them to the peace table…whatever. Shorten the war a year and you save hundreds of thousand or even millions of your citizens lives. If you are the non aggressor, the difference between a soldier (drafted to fight a defensive war) and the civilian population of an aggressor become very blurred indeed.

A modern industrial war simply cannot function without the country's civilian population and supply and production infrastructure. No less valuable than the divisions and fleets doing the fighting.

So, IMO in a total industrial war targeting civilians – OK. Shooting pilots in parachutes over their home territory – OK. Machine gunning the Japanese troops in the water of the Bismarck Sea – OK (many actually did make landfall in the combat zone). Attacking military support personnel – obviously OK.

But all is not lost! The key for civilians is to be very conservative about the people you elect and support since if you make the wrong choices, your nights may be filled with the drone of Merlin engines and the pop of incendiaries. As exciting as the fall of France and Poland (to name a few) might have been, you better hope the boys in black in Berlin have their stuff together for the big finish. You can always take to the streets and end the war yourself.

The nuclear age of course, changes this with MAD. And, you have to wonder if we have embraced technology to the point that a total conventional  industrial war is even doable today. Once you burn through your jets and missiles and high tech MBTs and subs the replacement rate will have to be pretty slow. Perhaps you then revert to 1916 on the Western front.

In 4th generation warfare like we have had in Vietnam and Iraq, targeting civilian populations not only fails to serve a military function but has a negative impact on achieving a positive outcome. There is no war production to speak of, except for the manufacturing of insurgents and insurgent supporters and bombing and abusing civilians only facilitates that process.

Charon


Well said.  :aok

Offline Tango

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1421
      • http://www.simpilots.org/
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2008, 06:04:11 PM »
Yup. If we woulda just flat out leveled Baghdad and killed every man, woman and child there we would have won the war quickly and our kids would be home by now.

You're voting for McCain, right?

Four more years?

Great.

Go read a history book about why we dropped the A bombs on the Japanese. You might understand what I'm talking about.

Before you jump to conclusions, I'm not saying we should have nuked them, just dropped several 52 loads of conventional bombs on them.
Tango78
78th Razorbacks
Historical Air Combat Group

Offline SFRT - Frenchy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5420
      • http://home.CFL.rr.com/rauns/menu.htm
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2008, 06:08:50 PM »
So you can't shoot at a guy in uniform/military gear? Dam! I missed that memo. :o
Dat jugs bro.

Terror flieger since 1941.
------------------------

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
Re: Killing German Ground Crews?
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2008, 08:23:28 PM »
In 4th generation warfare like we have had in Vietnam and Iraq, targeting civilian populations not only fails to serve a military function but has a negative impact on achieving a positive outcome. There is no war production to speak of, except for the manufacturing of insurgents and insurgent supporters and bombing and abusing civilians only facilitates that process.

Charon


It seems to be well said.  He's well spoken.


But of course, he leaves out an important point.  An EXTREMELY important point.


We lost in Vietnam.  We lost in Korea.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"