Talk:Attacks on parachutists

Source
The thread here is 80% BS flame ware, but it is sprinkled with informative, well sourced posts to multiple occurrences of this from multiple sides.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=68936 RAF shooting Italians, USAAF doing this as a general frequent policy against Germans, Soviets shooting at Finns etc etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.254.216 (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Soviets vs. Nazi Germans in WW2
The article utters no word (I read through it and then searched extra for "Soviet" or "Russian") on the attacks on parachutists at the Eastern front, I would like to see some statements on it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.197.178 (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Why I restored my reverted edit.
According to our Wikipedia colleague "during times of war" looks "cooler", is more compliant with the Wikipedia guidelines and is more understandable than "during a war".
 * But Google Search (as of 2015-11-28) shows that in our Wikipedia only 733 cases are "cool":
 * "during times of war" site:https://en.wikipedia.org/   => 733 results
 * "during a war" site:https://en.wikipedia.org/   =>  results

Hmm, how could I? ;-) 85.193.232.158 (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Rambling introduction
An introduction should describe the subject matter, not go on to attack the subject, as here. Furthermore the reference to "military pilots have to be held to a higher standard" shows confusion about the topic, since the attacks are against pilots and passengers, not by pilots.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Style
The style is that of a popular work of military history, not an encyclopaedia entry. The text needs tightening up. Anyone who has the time, inclination and capacity to do this would be doing a good thing.

Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 22:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Attacks on parachutists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130310112314/http://www.afsc.army.mil/gc/files/fm27-10.pdf to http://www.afsc.army.mil/gc/files/fm27-10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the anecdote from Thaen Kwock Lee in the 'War in Europe' Section
The citation in this article allegedly given by Lee is highly improbable, bordering on impossible, and is certainly at least hyperbole or a misunderstanding about which planes he was under attack by, assuming it is not a lie. I believe it should be removed from this article. Firstly, his broad claim is that 3 separate Me-262 aircraft shot at men in parachutes. Considering their rarity and use, this alone is a bold, albeit not impossible, claim. Me-262 aircraft - all variants - were extremely limited on fuel, and the pilots also certainly knew of the lack of fuel back at their airbase. Thus I find it extremely hard to believe that this would happen. Secondly, he claims: "When I hit the ground a burst of machine gun was fired at me." No production variant of the Me-262 was equipped with machineguns. Their typical offensive armament consisted of either 2 or 4 30mm cannons, and such cannons had very limited ammunition. If such shells impacted even near him, he would have been maimed. Third, he also claims: "On the way we passed a row of dead American airmen, about twelve of them covered with blood soaked parachutes. I knew they were shot dead on the way down." Considering the points given above: the Me-262 had very limited airtime, that it had very limited ammunition, and that anti-aircraft rounds in use by such 30mm cannons would likely - and I do not speak hyperbole - obliterate a man's torso upon a hit, I will again repeat my initial claim that this anecdote is untrustworthy and ought to be removed. -Posted on March 16th, 2020.