in the airforce...

AWOL vs. desertion

From that Courts Martial manual--basically the distinction is intent. Desertion is absence "with intent to remain away therefrom permanently" or "with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service." Generally, "the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension." He didn't come back voluntarily.
>Desertion with intent to remain away permanently is complete when the person absents himself or herself without authority from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty, with the intent to remain away thereform permanently. A prompt repentance and return, while material in extenuation, is no defense. It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jurisdiction and control.

AWOL basically "the guy didn't show up when he was supposed to" but without the intent that it be permanent. "any member of the armed forces is through the member’s own fault not at the place where the member is required to be at a prescribed time...Specific intent is not an element of unauthorized absence." There are some step ups in punishments after 3 and 30 days of absence.

You can read the whole 10 MB thing if you need an insomnia cure. MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL UNITED STATES (2005 EDITION)

Thanks, nutrax. I suppose if you stay AWOL for a year, that's pretty strong evidence of intent to absent yourself permanently, but I see it's not a question of there being a fixed limit as I thought.

And more on the first paragraph on #8, from the wikipedia article on Strategic Bombing During the Second World War:

Mid-way through the air war, it slowly began to be realized the campaign was having very little effect. Despite an ever-increasing tonnage of bombs dispatched, the inaccuracy of delivery was such any bomb falling within five miles of the target was deemed a "hit" for statistical purposes, and even by this standard, as the Butt Report made clear many bombs missed..[11] Indeed sometimes in post raid assessment the Germans could not decide which town (not the installation in the town) had been the intended target because the scattering of bomb craters was so wide.

Hit reply too soon. That referred to the Brits.

"In Europe, the American Eighth Air Force conducted its raids in daylight and their heavy bombers carried smaller payloads than British aircraft in part because of their heavier (as needed) defensive armament. USAAF leaders firmly held to the claim of "precision" bombing of military targets for much of the war, and energetically refuted claims that they were simply bombing cities. In reality, the day bombing was "precision bombing" only in the sense that most bombs fell somewhere near a specific designated target such as a railway yard. Conventionally the air forces designated as "the target area" a circle having a radius of 1000 feet around the aiming point of attack. While accuracy improved during the war, Survey studies show that, in the over-all, only about 20% of the bombs aimed at precision targets fell within this target area. .[16]In the fall of 1944, only seven per cent of all bombs dropped by the Eighth Air Force hit within 1,000 feet of their aim point."

Things have improved since then but not all bombs are smart bombs (which the Germans had started to develop even during the Second World War, although they were never deployed) and even smart bombs fail often enough.

I suppose it makes sense that there's an "intent" part to it, rather than only a time limit. Suppose someone is AWOL because he has been captured by the enemy and hasn't been able to notify his unit, surely that doesn't equal desertion.

I suppose it makes sense that there's an "intent" part to it, rather than only a time limit. Suppose someone is AWOL because he has been captured by the enemy and hasn't been able to notify his unit, surely that doesn't equal desertion.

Yeah, there was a bunch of stuff in there about "beyond the person's control." That is not an excuse, but it is a defense. If you are AWOL because you were run over by a bus and have been in a coma for a week, you are still AWOL, but they aren't going to punish you for it.

[quote]I think you have too high an opinion of the accuracy of bombs and bombers, mathilda.[/quote]

well i was extrapolating from stuff i read about shooting. it's morally for the person very difficult to kill so a lot of soldiers usually shoot just left of their target. it had lots and lots of data to support this. but yeah, a pilote is more removed from his or her actions so it may be different.

This is what I was talking about, mathilda: "It's not like he flew off and dropped them over a field or something. He well dropped it approximately where he was supposed to, over a town, say, just he makes sure not to hit houses but the streets instead." I don't know what period you're writing about, but until, say, the 1991 Gulf War, bombers were lucky if they hit the town at all. Although there was a lot of talk about "precision bombing" and "surgical strikes", it was all bullshit.

And even in 1991, most of what was dropped in that war was not the smart bombs that we saw on TV, drilling into the airshaft of the Baghdad PTT building, but the same old dumb bombs that had always been used.

Maybe in ten years or so we'll learn about how smart the average bomb used in the current wars is.

i am talking about the 1991 gulf war actually (or something close to it).

it's a story i heard that some time in the late nineties some kurds from erbil travelled to baghdad to buy a car and their car vendor turned out to be the guy who was in the helicopter assigned to bombing the part of the city they lived in back in 1991. he said to them he did it on purpose not to hit any houses, except one or two token ones so he would not be accused of dereliction of duty.
so this i completely unlikely?

Edited by: mathilda

I think a helicopter would normally have been firing rockets, not dropping bombs. But maybe since Saddam was restricted to helicopters against the Kurds following the 1991 war, he might have had them tossing bombs out the window. I'm really over my head addressing the likelihood of intentional missing here.

The topic reminds me of a story that I heard George McGovern tell one time (US Senator, Democratic nominee for president in 1972, bomber pilot in Europe in the Second World War.) He was interviewed on Austrian TV once and asked if he had any guilt feelings about his role in the war. He said generally no but that there was one incident that troubled him -- he still wouldn't call it guilt. Returning to his base in Italy from one mission -- I forget the target -- there was one bomb caught in the bomb bay. It would of course have been impossible to land like that, so he undertook some maneuvers, sudden drops I guess, to dislodge it. He finally succeeded, but saw the bomb directly strike an Austrian farmhouse. McGovern had grown up on a farm, and knew that at midday the whole family would be there eating dinner. He found that pretty hard to take.

When he got back to the base, he learned that his first child had been born that day. That fixed the date in his mind and led to quite a confusion of emotion.

Then, after telling the story on Austrian TV thirty years later, he got a call from the farmer himself, who told him that the family had indeed been in the house, but had heard the plane coming, sounding and looking funny, and had run to a ditch. All had survived. He added that he was a good Catholic who had hated the Nazis and he would have given his house ten times over to shorten their stay in power. McGovern was pretty emotional telling the story.

Edited by: VinnyD

wow what a story