Please listen to this before you score another kill...

[indiaciki]

Asked by a german journalist and publishee by Der Spiegel a couple of months ago (Galland would not talk to german media) whow he felt about all his air victories - he told (the number of his victories) x times I could have died and x times I escaped death by being more suchessfull or lucky than my opponent. Air victories to him were dangerous situations that he survived while being shot at.

[Bearcat]

One of the refreshing things I find about watching/listening to the recollections of German 'aces' is how self-effacing and modest they tend to be about their wartime exploits.  Gunther Rall is one and Erich Hartmann is another.  They did their duty as they saw it, suffered grievously as a consequence in most cases, but never complained about their treatment or gloried in their own much celebrated deeds.   When you contrast their observations about combat flying with those of some of the allied 'aces' - guys who talk about the 'thrill' of air combat and boast about their killing prowess, it just makes me feel  embarrassed.   I suspect a lot of these gung-ho types probably didn't get to see any combat in the early days of the War when the western allies were on the rough end of a thrashing, but even so, their observations about killing other human beings in air combat (probably very one-sided air combat in the last months of the War) sound at best immature and at worst down right offensive.  

 

That is one of the most misinformed posts I have ever seen on this forum. To use two German fighter pilots as examples of this "noble warrior" fantasy is like using Hitler and Goebbels as examples of all Germans. There are glory seekers and honorable men on all sides  of every conflict that has ever been waged since mankind began the large scale killing of one another. I don't know of any fighter pilots who boasted about their killing prowess... all the ones I ever heard more satisfied with the fact that they killed their opponent.. before he could kill them.

 

When it comes to pilots especially fighter pilots that old adage still to this day holds true..

 

You can always tell a fighter pilot... you just can't tell him much.

 

It is pointless. I was arguing that a lot of people in this forum are obsessed with getting kills, don't mind landing the aircraft, don't bother getting killed if they can score a kill. It was my intention to illustrate what "kill" means. A sim i a tool. You shoul try to fly it like a sim and not like counterstrike. Not every sortie has to result in a kill. But it seems that I missed the point. I noticed a mindset in many posts all over the forum that resembled the gunner from Full Metal Jacket and an implicit portrayal of combat pilots being primarily killers. Fighters are above all defencive weapons as opposed to bombers that are offensive weapons.

 

There are some who still do that.. or would like to. This is the same mindset that makes a lot of folks who like to ground pound reluctant to do so.. but in many cases it was like that IRL as well...

 

for a fighter pilot, getting a 'kill' is the ultimate validation of your skill and training, surviving is the other, a fighter is no more a defensive weapon than a machine gun, it's just another weapon.

it doesn't really matter how you play a piece of entertainment software, the important thing is you should be able to use it in anyway you want and not be dictated how it 'should' be done. in a game there are no consequences so it matters very little.

 

From the pilots I have talked to, and there were several surviving an engagement with as few losses as possible was more validation and it was only when the mission itself was to engage fighters that

 

It matters very much. It's the difference between simulating historical combat (as much as possible) or flying a sim like a fps with 3d environment. For a fighter pilot the ulimate thrill was having his plane and squadron home without losses. Having denied someone else hos airspace or having protected bombers or made the oppnents mission fail. The kill count was propaganda for most parts. Exploited for media at home.

 

I agree... and it was like that since air combat began...

[Rjel]

The claim that 1 million POWs died in US camps after the war is nonsense.  It never happened.

This man has lived in my hometown as long as I remember. I haven't read his book yet but I plan to. Considering the millions of Americans before,during and after WWII that can claim a German heritage, it's ludicrus to believe thier POWs would be harshly treated and then emigrate here after being repatriated.

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1595945369/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=4967813945&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_9o647xu55l_e

 

While individual Luftwaffe pilots, and their counterparts in the other German services were descent, honerable men, the cause and regime they fought for weren't. Threads like these never turn out good.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Rjel

[DD_bongodriver]

It matters very much. It's the difference between simulating historical combat (as much as possible) or flying a sim like a fps with 3d environment. For a fighter pilot the ulimate thrill was having his plane and squadron home without losses. Having denied someone else hos airspace or having protected bombers or made the oppnents mission fail. The kill count was propaganda for most parts. Exploited for media at home.

 

No it really doesn't matter, it matters to you, but that's all, most fps's I have played have a 3d environment so I'm not sure what you mean, either way getting a kill (or more to the point being involved in a decent fight) is a much more gratifying experience and nobody really dies so it's all good.

 

 

For a fighter pilot the ulimate thrill was having his plane and squadron home without losses

 

 

No that would have been an ultimate relief, without doubt the thrill comes from the danger.

 

 Having denied someone else hos airspace or having protected bombers or made the oppnents mission fail

 

 

Nope, not a 'thrill' either, something to celebrate sure.

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

I don't know of any fighter pilots who boasted about their killing prowess... all the ones I ever heard more satisfied with the fact that they killed their opponent.. before he could kill them.

 

 

is that a difference? is it obligatory to paint aircraft with kill markings?

 

 

 

I agree... and it was like that since air combat began...

 

 

Air combat started when WWI pilots started shooting at each other with handguns.

[Sokol1]

 I was arguing that a lot of people in this forum are obsessed with getting kills, don't mind landing the aircraft, don't bother getting killed if they can score a kill. 

 

1 - For some landing is not properly easy,   and if he is not playing that "Unlock Campaign" are no reward for this.

2 - If he are killed geting kill is just matter to hit "re-fly". 

 

 

 

 A sim i a tool. You shoul try to fly it like a sim and not like counterstrike. 

 

No, is just a game. The final objective is kill. For score player (the majority) is like CS, or more appropriated, a "Airquake". 

 

I noticed a mindset in many posts all over the forum that resembled the gunner from Full Metal Jacket and an implicit portrayal of combat pilots being primarily killers. 

 

Yes, I shoot the plane - no mercy for "damaged" with landing gear down planes - and if possible kill the chute, and don't care about moaning in the chat bar.   

 

It's fun. 

 

... and just a game. 

[indiaciki]

You really are not into flying historical airplanes and aviation history, are you?

[DD_bongodriver]

You really are not into flying historical airplanes and aviation history, are you?

 

Strangely enough I am and more so than you think, I'm just not into it like you, I want to blow stuff up and kill things in games is all.

[Sokol1]

 

 

You really are not into flying historical airplanes and aviation history, are you?

 

I am, done what many real pilots did (in YT you see guncam of strafing crash landing planes/pilots). 

 

In Dambuster raid the Lancaster gunners shoot at "Nazi" passenger train at night, like this Full Metal Jacket gunner. War is not for "love". 

[Chuck_Owl]

 

No, is just a game. The final objective is kill. For score player (the majority) is like CS, or more appropriated, a "Airquake". 

 

 

 

For fighter pilots, yes. But bomber pilots and Utility Helicopter pilots don't give two sh*ts about killing: they just want to accomplish their mission and come back in one piece.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Warsaw was a fortress, manned with troops and preparing for a siege, which made it a legitimate target. Saturation - bombed cities like Dresen... not so much. Guy you quote probably meant Coventry, though.

 

Not exactly ...

 

Even if we would consider Warsaw as a fortress due to existence of military units, which in accordance with Article 25 of Hague Convention would have to be undefended ... it still is a breach of Article 27 which requires that under sieges all objects or buildings which have religious, political, cultural or especially medical (hospitals with red cross symbol) to be spared. Luftwaffe on contrary bombed them, using both explosive and incendiary bombs. 

 

But Warsaw was not defended from the beginning of the war, in fact the pre war plans were clear in this regard - Warsaw would not be used for military purpose, no trenches or foxholes were dug, supplies were not gathered. It was the actual situation after 4th of September that forced Chief Command to use it in defense purposes, and it wasn't until 7th that actual forces were gathered and stopped German advance. Let me remind you that Warsaw was bombed since the very first day.

 

After that time (8th-9th September) yes, Warsaw was a defended city. But certainly not a fortress, it still had only few old forts (post Russian, built long before WWI) incorporated into city defense structure but main line of defense was based on barricades and trenches dug by soldiers later on. 

 

 

That was just to clarify something, end of OT. 

[DD_Arthur]

Did you listen to Günther Rall's secend inteview about Chuck Yeager admitting war crimes? Writing them down? Would you have the guts to talk like this if your life was at stake and you had no respwan? I'm just talking about playing it as close to reality. In reality nobody want's to die or kill if he is sane enough. Think about it.

 

Don't get me wrong. I loved chuck. I have an autograph signed by him and I admired the man... didn't know until two days ago until i listened to Rall and I have no reason not to believe him.

 

Oh no!  Chuck Yeager is a war criminal?  You don't have Robin Olds autograph too, do you?  I ask as - by this standard - Robin Olds and just about every other allied fighter pilot who flew over Germany in the spring of 1945 was too.   

 

Tell me; does good 'ole Gunther in his many books and interviews ever mention what he must have seen whilst living on aerodromes in the rear areas of the Eastern front?  Does he ever talk about the devastation?  The looting of crops and livestock?  The burned down farms and villages?  The rounding up of starving Russian women and children?  The work of the Einsatzkommando?  Ever mention going out to see captured partisans being executed?

 

It was going on all around them in these areas.  You know fighter pilots; they've all got really good eyesight.  I'm curious.    

[LukeFF]

I know.  It's always unsettling when things conflict with the mainstream narrative.

 

There are books that cover the issue if you care to look.  There's also plenty of info on Google..

 

I have researched the topic plenty enough, and it does not change my stance, namely that there was no deliberate plan to starve the German population, be they POWs or not. 

 

 

no one on this forum has ever seen anything the likes of what our parent and grandparents did.

 

I beg to differ on that point. 

[BraveSirRobin]

He got heavily drunk before meeting Hitler, and commented to Kurpinsky that the man is out of touch with reality immediately after it was concluded.

 

So he resigned his commission and returned all his medals?

[Feathered_IV]

So he resigned his commission and returned all his medals?

 

I think they got them rebranded and reissued after the war without swastikas and whatnot so they could keep wearing them.

[Original_Uwe]

I don't think we understand exactly how awful and reprehensible war really is, and no one on this forum has ever seen anything the likes of what our parent and grandparents did.

 

Speak for yourself.

You have NO IDEA what we have done in our lives and you are out of line.

[BraveSirRobin]

I think they got them rebranded and reissued after the war without swastikas and whatnot so they could keep wearing them.

 

I suppose that is one way to pretend that fighting for Hitler was noble.  At least they were humble about it.

[unreasonable]

On the issue of pilot psychology, I remember somewhere an account by an RAF pilot who said that he realised fairly soon that there were only a couple of people in the squadron who had what it takes to shoot down enemy aircraft time after time, and that the rest of the squadron was along to make up the numbers and were OK with that. (He was not referring to flying skills, but the pure intent to kill. He was not one of the killers). I have no doubt this applies to men in war in every branch and service: Guy Gibson was a killer. In the infantry not everyone has the mentality to be a sniper.

 

It is hard to believe that many LW aces were just ordinary chaps who lacked this trait. This does not make them bad people, and it seems futile and unrealistic to claim that they all just wanted to do their duty and get home safely. We should face up to the fact that for some people war - and killing - is inherently exhilarating, and such people tend to make excellent fighter pilots, snipers, SF commandos etc, where their tendencies are channeled in a disciplined manner.

 

Once home, if they are intelligent as well as most of the more successful aces were, they can see perfectly well that a humble posture goes down much better with public opinion.

 

Look at modern sports celebrities - the true face is the grimace and fist pumping when they defeat their adversary. But they all have the same PR coaches nowadays, hence the incredibly tiresome post match interviews where they give credit to their opponent and go on about how they will stay grounded and keep working at their game..... you know that what they really want to say is "Yeah, I am the best!  

[=38=Tatarenko]

1) How many people did the Germans kill in Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Greece and the Soviet Union?

 

 

2) Utter tripe, the British could and did conduct daylight raids, we can argue until blue in the face as to why the Americans conducted daylight raids but the results made a perfect advertisement for why night raids made sense, the Allied bomb sights were not the marvel they purported to be and civilians still died in American raids, the Americans only entered the war in 43 and none of their civilians ever saw an enemy bomber or the indiscriminate V1 and V2 murder weapons.

 

 

 

3) What aim did they think they were serving? considering the bulk of the German military was not Nazi affiliated they could easily have refused to fight for that self serving Lunatic.

 

1) Yes I realise the Germans killed people.  I have been to almost every country you list, also concentration camps etc. I grew up next to Belsen and I've been to Stalingrad, Theresienstadt, Normandy, Leningrad and the terrible mass hunger cemeteries there, Arnhem etc. I had a grandfather on each side during the war. I think I have as realistic a picture as anyone.

 

My point is that we (in this case meaning the Brits and Commonwealth allies bombing campaign) deliberately targeted homes and civilians. The fact that the other side were baby killers doesn't mean we weren't. We intended to kill civilians and make as many homeless as we could and thereby indirectly affect war industries.

 

2) "Utter tripe" - thanks very much. In fact after the Wilhelmshafen raids it became clear that RAF bombers couldn't fly over Germany unescorted in daytime and once France fell our fighters couldn't range that far. Hence the night raids. The RAF carried out next to no daylight heavy bomber sorties over Germany from 1941-44, but did carry out some in France where our fighters could offer cover. Of course civilians died from American raids (and some few of these actually targeted civilians) but overall the Americans were at least trying to hit oil targets etc.

 

3) They thought they were serving Germany. And many of them, esp in Russia, carried out atrocities. I don't buy into the innocent Wehrmacht myth for a second. But no, they could not easily have refused - it would have meant death. With all that we now know it is easy to see that they should have refused a lot more. But the Nazi party wasn't one lunatic, it was the whole state. For example every lawyer/judge had to be a member.

[Cybermat47]

Someone remind me the point of this pointless thread again?

A lot of people here have nothing better to do than argue with people.

 

Arguments that they'll never win, and will never go anywhere.

 

Honestly, the arguments people have on these forums make me sad.

[unreasonable]

 

My point is that we (in this case meaning the Brits and Commonwealth allies bombing campaign) deliberately targeted homes and civilians. The fact that the other side were baby killers doesn't mean we weren't. We intended to kill civilians and make as many homeless as we could and thereby indirectly affect war industries.

 

 

I think this needs to be qualified. Firstly, any industrial plant used to support the war effort, including the people working in it at the time, civilians or not, is a legitimate military target, both under the rules of war at the time and now. Given a state of total war, this covers pretty much every industrial facility. People killed nearby are collateral damage.

 

Secondly, the RAF tried hitting targets such as these for a long time, (steel plants in the Ruhr for instance)  and found that they either could not hit them, or if they did, that they were incapable of damaging them sufficiently to knock them out. The de-housing policy came as a result of earlier failures: remember that the first RAF night raids dropped nothing but leaflets! The choice was to either go to a de-housing area bombing strategy or give up bombing altogether. Since this was the only offensive option Britain had for some time, this was not going to happen.

 

The statement that the RAF intended to kill civilians is contentious: I have no doubt that some planners thought in those terms, but actually having German civilians alive and homeless is a better result for the RAF than killing them outright, since they still have to eat, be policed, have temporary shelters etc. After all, "Bomber" Harris said words to the effect that if the German people did not want to be killed by bombs all they had to do was camp in the fields and watch their cities burn from afar.

 

US bombing policy ended up being virtually indistinguishable from RAF policy by the end of the war. The RAF hit oil targets too - indeed the heavy bomb loads of the Lancasters were particularly well suited to this - and under the right conditions achieved the same accuracy as the USAAF.  In Japan the USAAF faced exactly the same problems of hitting a dispersed industrial base and came up with exactly the same solution: area fire bombing. 

[Original_Uwe]

 

curiously enough one in 4 its a socialiced psycopath,picasso style, coincidence?

Not hardly.

Killing in war doesn't make one a psycopath, it means nothing in particular other than you are willing to kill for your own and your units life.

I understand that English isn't your first language so I assume your choice of phrasing wasn't a deliberate insult to combat veterans if all nations and all times.

There is a difference between murder and killing. Murder is abhorrent but killing is of nothing else long established human tradition.

[=38=Tatarenko]

I believe there was one engagement in the American Civil War where two units fired at each other and not one person fired to hit. That is at least civilised war.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

There are glory seekers and honorable men on all sides of every conflict that has ever been waged since mankind began the large scale killing of one another. I don't know of any fighter pilots who boasted about their killing prowess... all the ones I ever heard more satisfied with the fact that they killed their opponent.. before he could kill them.

I completely agree with the first part but I can add one (and it is only one) story to the "boasting about killing prowess"-part: I remember (sadly I don't know exactly where) reading about a pilot who recalled shooting an enemy plane and seeing the pilot trying to bail out. He proceeded to tell that he then "clobbered him good" with his machine guns. Now I'm not a native English speaker but that doesn't sound like "I had to kill him before he killed me".

To me, those people are complete [forbidden profanity]s regardless of the side they were fighting for.

 

 

To add something to the original topic as well, I'll have to agree with Bongo's statement that:

 

it doesn't really matter how you play a piece of entertainment software, the important thing is you should be able to use it in anyway you want

There are players who value their virtual life and those who just chase kills no matter what and everything inbetween - we'll have to accept that both are valid ways to play this game.

Edited August 20, 2015 by I/JG27_Rollo

[Bearcat]

 

 

is that a difference? is it obligatory to paint aircraft with kill markings?

 

 

Air combat started when WWI pilots started shooting at each other with handguns.

 

 

You do have a point with the kill markings... but kill markings on one's aircraft in time of war and boasting on on'e killing prowess in an interview are two different things and in the post that started this portion of the discussion the op made it sound as if the "other" pilots were doing the latter..

 

Yes it did.. and your point is.....?     Seriously... I don't understand the point in reference to the quote...

[BraveSirRobin]

I completely agree with the first part but I can add one (and it is only one) story to the "boasting about killing prowess"-part: I remember (sadly I don't know exactly where) reading about a pilot who recalled shooting an enemy plane and seeing the pilot trying to bail out. He proceeded to tell that he then "clobbered him good" with his machine guns. Now I'm not a native English speaker but that doesn't sound like "I had to kill him before he killed me".

 

If the pilot is able to bail out he could very well come back and kill the guy who shot him down, so the "I had to kill him before he killed me" standard still applies.

[I/JG27_Rollo]

Sure, one can see it that way but there was no indication of that reasoning and it sounded rather as if he enjoyed it.

That might be speculative of course but it, at the least, quailfies as "boasting about killing someone", imo.

Edited August 20, 2015 by I/JG27_Rollo

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

Yes it did.. and your point is.....?     Seriously... I don't understand the point in reference to the quote...

 

 

Simple really, air combat started when pilots decided to start trying to kill each other, prior to that enemy encounters between aircraft were rather gentlemanly affairs where the crews would give a friendly wave, my point is.......war is all about killing, romanticize it all you want, eventually as a combatant you are faced with the prospect of kill or be killed, the choice is pretty obvious, fighter pilots were not the sorts of characters who simply wanted to play with an expensive flying club at tax payers expense and avoid conflict.

[DD_bongodriver]

 

 

They thought they were serving Germany.

 

Very weak argument, what was Germany trying to achieve? it was hardly a noble case of defending the realm, sure that changed in 1945 but until then the Wehrmacht  was marauding across Europe murdering people, they wanted the war and they sure as hell got it.

 

 

 

they could not easily have refused - it would have meant death

 

6 of 1 half a dozen of the other, it's not like the other choice was a 'death lite' option, why didn't they save the world a lot of bother and have a civil war? most of the German military was not Nazi affiliated, all it would have taken was at least one of them with a pair to realize that and have a coup. 

 

 

 

But the Nazi party wasn't one lunatic, it was the whole state. For example every lawyer/judge had to be a member.

 

Even if they were Jews? not sure what the point is behind your statement here, are you saying a few Nazi lawyers frightened the entire German military?

The Nazi party was a group of lunatics who fanatically obeyed one lunatic.

[Original_Uwe]

well i just was throwing off known numbers as i said maybe its just a coincidence

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHFmMhSQ4T4

I don't question your numbers, but your choice of ascribing psychopathy to warriors is dreadfully bad form and makes you sound incredibly stupid.

[Original_Uwe]

What's more, you shouldn't forget that everything we have in this world that is good is had because someone somewhere was willing to use force of arms to defend what was theirs.

Be it at Marathon, Tours, Constantinople, Lexington concord or in the air over Britain. We owe our culture and civilization to men of arms. Calling them psychopaths only illustrates how soft we have become.

The trigger pullers are heroes. They do the will of their people, who themselves will not be bothered with it. If you have a problem with soldiers direct your complaints to their employer.

Edited August 21, 2015 by forsale

[Cybermat47]

If you have a problem with soldiers direct your complaints to their employer.

Exactly.

 

The people who start wars are psychopaths, not the people who fight them.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Cybermat47

[unreasonable]

What's more, you shouldn't forget that everything we have in this world that is good is had because someone somewhere was willing to use force of arms to defend what was theirs.

Be it at Marathon, Tours, Constantinople, Lexington concord or in the air over Britain. We owe our culture and civilization to men of arms. Calling them psychopaths only illustrates how soft we have become.

The trigger pullers are heroes. They do the will of their people, who themselves will not be bothered with it. If you have a problem with soldiers direct your complaints to their employer.

 

I agree with all of this: as long as there are some people who are prepared to use violence to get what they want, our society needs people who are willing and able to use violence in our protection. Pacifists and feminists forget this at their own peril. (Actually I do not care about their peril, I just do not want them to take me down with them....)

 

The point remains, however, that the willingness - even eagerness - to kill that the best fighter pilots, snipers, commandos etc have to have is at a fairly extreme end of the spectrum of human psychology. It does require the actor to suspend empathy for the target, which many - perhaps most people cannot do. What they do is quite different from killing in self-defense in the heat of battle: it requires a coolly planned and executed procedure during which the actor must shut down his inhibitions: if indeed he has any.  Psychopaths, by definition, have no empathy at all, so it easy to see how a non-violent person might confuse them with this kind of soldier or airman.

[Lusekofte]

I see many people refer to this as a sim, why does 95% of the people take off from the spawn point and not taxi to runway and do it the right way?

In a simulator the plane would flip over when hitting deep snow in speeds over 100km/h . In a sim pilots would taxi to runway, in a sim people would escort their bombers so they could win the map. This is counterstrike with wings, do not flatter your self.

But I agree , it got potential to be more like a sim

[DD_Arthur]

also the word veteran is missinterpreted, its associated with wwii ally veteran which gives the word that hallo

 

but if i went to a country to steal theyr petrol, torture their people and kill them with the false excuse of mass destruction weapons well...

 

if with that premise i shot a single guy as a sniper certainly i would need to have psycopathic tendencies becuase if i was a normal person if had to be there certainly id shoot with elevation

 

what annoys me its the view here its the shooter is the hero while the rest are sheep

 

well the pretender has certainly what it takes cause he is risking his life but the shooter is actually enjoying himself for there are those who pay to play to do that and enjoy it as hell, his choice noone forces hi to kill

 

btw i dont even shoot in combat sims i just form behind my foe and as a matter of fact i look down on those who get high pretending to kill others

 

Very, very interesting and perceptive.  Raaaid.

[Cybermat47]

I agree with all of this: as long as there are some people who are prepared to use violence to get what they want, our society needs people who are willing and able to use violence in our protection. Pacifists and feminists forget this at their own peril. (Actually I do not care about their peril, I just do not want them to take me down with them....)

Well, I'm a pacifist, and I agree with you. If one country decided to get rid of all of it's weapons, it would just cause more wars - because countries could attack them without any repercussions. The way it could work is if everyone got rid of their weapons at the same time (which is a nice idea, but hardly probable). And even then, killing probably wouldn't stop.

 

Frankly, I don't see there being peace on Earth for at least a million years, if ever.

 

By the way, not sure what Feminism has to do with this... I mean, I'm a Feminist, and again, I agree with you.

 

Then again, quite a few people calling themselves Feminists have said some pretty insane things, so I can see why you might mention that...

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

It is pointless. I was arguing that a lot of people in this forum are obsessed with getting kills, don't mind landing the aircraft, don't bother getting killed if they can score a kill. It was my intention to illustrate what "kill" means. A sim i a tool. You shoul try to fly it like a sim and not like counterstrike. Not every sortie has to result in a kill. But it seems that I missed the point. I noticed a mindset in many posts all over the forum that resembled the gunner from Full Metal Jacket and an implicit portrayal of combat pilots being primarily killers. Fighters are above all defencive weapons as opposed to bombers that are offensive weapons.

 

First, as possibly one of the few here, that I know of, that saw battle in Vietnam I will say that Full Metal Jacket does not reflect the "real" war but I do take your use of it as an example of stupidity as reflected by war movies such as this.

 

In reflecting my beginning in combat simulations I have to say that I had trouble in translating "reality" from "game". And to this day I look on Sims such as this as an exercise in survival. I fly for the enjoyment, and the challenge. I fly online for the opportunity to pit myself against other human pilots and dyeing only erks me as to my own stupidity. And yet I still fly as if my "real" life was on the line. I want to survive the experience. I critique myself as to my errors and give it another go.

 

Getting a victory is exciting but not paramount. I often fly the big birds on the resupply missions as it's a challenge.

 

Soldiers on each side of any war have to deal with their memories as best as they can. The right or wrongs of any given war are far to numerous to objectively argue or discuss. Civilians are the biggest losers in any war. I've seen this personally. Death does not have a pretty face BUT, this is a game in which whether we agree or not, we will each play in our own ways.

 

Chief

[DD_Arthur]

Then again, quite a few people calling themselves Feminists have said some pretty insane things, so I can see why you might mention that...

 

Especially the ones who have the full meat and two veg dangling between their legs!

[Cybermat47]

Well, I'm a pacifist, and I agree with you.

Just to be clear, I'm the sort of the pacifist who thinks that war should be avoided, but is sometimes necessary, not the sort who thinks that all violence (even self-defence) is bad.

[unreasonable]

Just to be clear, I'm the sort of the pacifist who thinks that war should be avoided, but is sometimes necessary, not the sort who thinks that all violence (even self-defence) is bad.

 

Not really a pacifist at all then, just a member of the mainstream.

 

I mentioned feminism because, like it or not, the kind of organized violence typical of war is predominantly a male trait. We all know that there are exceptions, female warriors and combat pilots etc, but females are usually better at priming their males to go off to fight than doing it themselves. Feminists typically decry this male violence as another form of male oppression, and of course they are right. The history of the world is largely a story of men fighting over women.

 

Western educational systems are now predominantly staffed by women, who constantly tell boys that violence (or even competition) is bad, which is quite different from the message that male teachers used to impart, namely that unauthorized, indisciplined violence is bad. 

 

It will be interesting to see what line feminists take when the islamists win and come to bag them.