The behavior, if followed, would result in far higher casualties, especially at sea.
The reason that prize-taking went out of fashion was that, with the advent of the large caliber shell gun, navies had, for the first time in several centuries, the ability to sink enemy vessels regardless of size. The many years of naval gunpowder warfare prior to the introduction of the shell gun, especially the rifled shell gun, rarely resulting in the sinking of a well made warship, unless some bizarre accident involving the powder magazines occurred. This was something that worked both ways, the ship taking the prize had little concern of an enemy ship luring it into range for a barrage since any such act would allow the aggrieved ship's captain to eliminate those responsible and any such barrage would be exceptionally unlikely to alter the outcome of an engagement. The explosive shell gun changed the reality at sea forever, the further advances in weaponry just made this more obvious.
On land, prize taking had fallen out of fashion by the mid-1500s for the same reason, with the additional element of loss of control of combat units. Even in the Second World War it was surprisingly common for troops to get so involved in inventory and requision (i.e. looting) that they were caught by counter attacking forces and wiped out. Aircraft clearly had no place in a prize-taking scheme at all.
Taking of prizes is only possible when the enemy is willing to play by the same rules. As war became increasingly lethal, and as the price of defeat became increasingly severe, that sort of genteman's agreement had no place on the battlefield.
All the loot on Earth won't help to to survive The Somme, or Tarawa, or Stalingrad. On the other hand, trying to raid the other sides baggage might well get you sniped or cut off by an enemy armored column.
Money is surprignly worthless once you get killed.