Attack air-sea rescue planes--yes or no?

[Watanbe]

Air-sea rescue planes were armed weren't they? They had a variety of roles to fulfill and as a general rule didn't most of them carry defensive armament?

Fair game as far as im concerned if the plane is armed. I think its a different matter to shooting pilots in parachutes!

[KrazyKraut]

Their armament was purely defensive which hardly makes it fair game in my eyes. If a refugee convoy is escorted by a humvee is it fair game to bomb them?

I understand it was often very difficult to spot red cross markings on planes and the possibility of abuse was always there. A touchy subject.

Don't forget that rescue missions often enough saved the enemy's soldiers aswell (see Laconia incident).

[Watanbe]

Originally Posted by KrazyKraut

Their armament was purely defensive which hardly makes it fair game in my eyes. If a refugee convoy is escorted by a humvee is it fair game to bomb them?

I understand it was often very difficult to spot red cross markings on planes and the possibility of abuse was always there. A touchy subject.

Don't forget that rescue missions often enough saved the enemy's soldiers aswell (see Laconia incident).

Yeh your correct, I take back what I said before. It is a tough one, the "nice" thing to do isnt always the best thing to do.

Do you shoot down the plane and potentially kill 5-6 people or do you let them go and potentially risk the rescued pilot shooting down 5-6 of your mates.

[MAV_406]

what if the rescue plane you shoot down had some of your sqaudron mates that were kindly picked up by the enemy. Imagine the feeling when you find out

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Watanbe

Air-sea rescue planes were armed weren't they? They had a variety of roles to fulfill and as a general rule didn't most of them carry defensive armament?

Fair game as far as im concerned if the plane is armed. I think its a different matter to shooting pilots in parachutes!

Air-see rescue aircraft initially they weren't armed or camouflaged, they were IIRC white with the Red Cross on them. After the British begun following the policy of shooting these planes down, they were armed with a defensive MG and were camouflaged.

[Hop]

Air sea rescue planes were not protected by the Geneva conventions of the time. In most cases they still aren't, because the potential for abuse (reconnaissance) is far too high.

The Germans based their use of red cross marked rescue aircraft on the 1929 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field.

Article 18 of that states:

Aircraft used as means of medical transport shall enjoy the protection of the Convention during the period in which they are reserved exclusively for the evacuation of wounded and sick and the transport of medical personnel and material.
They shall be painted white and shall bear, clearly marked, the distinctive emblem prescribed in Article 19, side by side with their national colours, on their lower and upper surfaces.
In the absence of special and express permission, flying over the firing line, and over the zone situated in front of clearing or dressing stations, and generally over all enemy territory or territory occupied by the enemy, is prohibited.
Medical aircraft shall obey every summons to land.

The intent of the highlighted clause is to prevent abuse of rescue aircraft for reconnaissance. Trying to fly aircraft all over the channel, when the Germans were busy attacking British shipping in the channel, is an obvious violation.

Even the 1949 convention did not protect rescue aircraft:

Art. 36. 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.

Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy-occupied territory are prohibited.

And from the ICRC commentaries to the 1949 treaty:

As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded.

The Germans were seeking protection for aircraft that had been denied protection by the Geneva conventions, and the British were fully justified in attacking them.

[KrazyKraut]

Originally Posted by Hop

The Germans were seeking protection for aircraft that had been denied protection by the Geneva conventions, and the British were fully justified in attacking them.

That's not quite what the text you quote says though. If German rescue aircraft were shot down without a sea battle going on in the vicinity, they WERE protected by the Geneva conventions.

[Hop]

No, protection for search and rescue aircraft was ruled out in the original treaty. Read the commentary for the 1949 treaty:

"As in 1929, it was not considered possible, for reasons of military security, to accord protection to aircraft searching for wounded."

Note that even the first clause speaks only of "evacuation of wounded and sick", not searching for them.

The problem is the "vicinity" of an aircraft is so much larger than for a vehicle or ship. A German aircraft over the middle of the channel can easily sport ships hugging either coast, as well as preparations for sailing in harbour. In a single flight in good weather a recce aircraft could cover the bulk of the channel.
At 50ft the horizon is only 9.5 miles away. At 10,000 ft it's 135 miles.

That's why search and rescue aircraft were not protected by treaty, either in 1929 or 1949. Even Kranzbuehler, Doenitz's attorney at Nuremberg, said there was no law protecting air sea rescue aircraft, and that shooting them down was fully justified.