# Luftwaffe Pilots - Sanctioned to Bail Out?



## jayastout (Aug 8, 2011)

My name is Jay Stout. I recieved help from several forum members while writing my last book, _The Men Who Killed the Luftwaffe_ and am hoping that someone can help me once more.

While doing research for a new book I've noted that many encounter reports recounted how Luftwaffe pilots, once cornered, often abandoned their fighters even before they were fired on. Late in the war this certainly was not a bad idea from a practical perspective as it was much easier to produce a new aircraft than it was to produce a new pilot.

My question is this: Is anyone aware if this practice was officially sanctioned or encouraged by the Luftwaffe leadership? If so, can you quote a source?

Thanks in advance,
Jay A. Stout


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 8, 2011)

short answer: no. its a fly till you die policy. I'm sure it happened on both side at one point however. the truth of the matter of late war is that _some_ groupe Commanders ignored orders thought to be suicidal. there main concern was saving there men.

and one more thing, starting around mid 1944. the Allies started to 'machine gun' Luftwaffe pilots that bailed. so if the pilots can get to the ground in the aircraft.. thats what they did.


----------



## stona (Aug 8, 2011)

You've read the encounter reports. The allied pilots seemed surprised by the willingness of the Luftwaffe pilots to abandon their aircraft. I have never seen any evidence that this was in any way officially sanctioned. I suspect,like the allied air forces at the time,that it reflected a lack of "fighting spirit" in the young and under trained airmen being committed to the fray by the Luftwaffe late in the war. This is supported by radio intercepts in 8th Air Force intelligence documents which demonstrate the unwillingness of some Luftwaffe units to engage escorted bomber formations.
It's interesting to reflect that the possibility of airmen abandoning their aircraft rather than fighting with determination was the very argument used by the Royal Flying Corps when it refused to issue parachutes to its air crew during WWI.
Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 8, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> and one more thing, starting around mid 1944. the Allies started to 'machine gun' Luftwaffe pilots that bailed. so if the pilots can get to the ground in the aircraft.. thats what they did.



That's a very bold statement without some serious supporting evidence. Men in parachutes were attacked by all sides throughout the war but it was never an official policy of the USAAF,RAF or Luftwaffe.
Almost any pilot will attempt to land a controllable aircraft rather than abandoning it. 
I had to explain to someone recently that just because a parachute appears on gun camera footage does not mean that it is being attacked. Filming a parachute,which could be done without firing the weapons,was a good way to back up a claim.
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 8, 2011)

I know that. I also know its was practiced on both side. but undoubtably it happened. A good friend of mine ( name withheld for privacy) seen it first hand, to excess in Jan 1945. His commrads would open their chutes at 600m or less. more often less. I won't go into more detail then that. out of respect for all concerned.

cheers.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 8, 2011)

it was known to happen throughout the war as mentioned above, at Malta the LW was accused of both attacking men in chutes and of flying close by to collapse the chute, there is one instance quoted where thier victim was actually a LW pilot, it was also mentioned the RAF reciprocated!


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 8, 2011)

its always better to live to fight another day. during the BoB the raf stayed close to home rather than venture too far from mainland england. that way if the pilot bailed out he could be back in the air later that day or the next. so when the airwar centered over german occupied areas the LW pilots were more inclined to use that same strategy. like was mentioned before they didnt rotate out after so many missions they were to fly until they died or the war ended. one pilot on the return leg of a Frantic mission got behind a LW ac before he realized he traded all his ammo for vodka....never fired a shot and the hun bailed. kinda like "ok, you got me...see ya tomorrow".

_"and one more thing, starting around mid 1944. the Allies started to 'machine gun' Luftwaffe pilots that bailed. so if the pilots can get to the ground in the aircraft.." _ I dont know where you got this idea. that is a gross overstatement. that practice was not santioned or common....in fact it was frowned upon. if you are going to shoot enemy pilots hanging in the silk...what do you expect they are going to do to you or your buddies if they bail....and many fighter jock bailed. did they strafe an ea that bellied in? yes. did they strafe the pilot on the ground? on occasion. but the only known story i know of an intentional shooting a LW pilot in the silk was where that pilot had been doing such to a bailed out bomber crew. so the us pilot shot him up until he had to bail then gave him the same treatment.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 8, 2011)

again when It comes to strafing pilots while parachuting I'll keep it brief. niether side will report it for the most part. the only eyewitnesses are those who survived the war. their stories are chilling.

cheers.


----------



## seesul (Aug 8, 2011)

As for shooting at the pilots hanging on his chute...it happened on both sides. During the battle over my born town on Aug 29, 1944, the Germans were shooting on the bomber crew members while descending to the ground. One of them was even injured on his arm. It´s written in their statements and also confirmed by several (Czech) eye witnesses who saw it from the ground.

One of the Germans even shoot at the young Czech boys who were trying to get closer to the crash site of one of downed B-17s. Then he landed at the closest airfield ,toke a motorbike and drove t the crash site. To take the pics there. When he saw those young boys he said that he was shooting at them as he thought their white shirts are the parchute...
The local photographer toke few pics of him at the crash site and hid the copies of them for the future.
Here they are FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: unidentified Jagdflieger - B-17 shoot-down on 29 August 1944

On the other side there were also cases when Allied pilots shot at the Germans hanging under the chute. Willi Reschke´s statement from Aug 24, 1944 perhaps comes to my mind.

From a human point of view it´s something very bad. But should I be in shoes of a pilot whose comrade was killed under the chute who knows what would I do during my next mission...war is a hell.

Btw, when I spoke about it with Willi Reschke he told me that it was strictly forbidden in his unit to shoot at the pilots under the chute. And should something like this happen, the pilot would immediately be eliminated from the 'team'.

But sorry Jay, I´m not answering your question...


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 8, 2011)

also reminds me of an account by Dulias:

_"The guidance provided to Luftwaffe pilots included standing orders to, *'never shoot a parachuting flyer nor to strafe an enemy who is forced to land'*. And based on my training as a Luftwaffe pilot and my upbringing as a morally honorable person, I refused to go for the easy kill. (Dulias) recounts:

He went down to tree top level in the direction of the front to get home. I followed him and dove but did not shoot at him because he would not have had a chance to bail out at that low altitude. I was not out to kill him. I wanted to get his forced landing into my gun camera as proof of another victory. I was hoping he would go down in our territory but he kept going, hedge humping. He wound up behind the Russian side of the front.”_

many more cases of this type of Airmanship. It seems to be the norm. But theres always a few bad apples.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 8, 2011)

I would take anything Gottfied Dulias said with a large bucket of salt. He is a _Walt_.

Solders have shot at unarmed enemy solders running away. Your Tiger/Sherman/T-34 is hit and you bale out and are gunned down.

So why is it different shooting at a pilot parachuting into his own territory?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 8, 2011)

Dunno.. you'd have to ask him/them. I'm just the messenger my friend. not everybody in Germany during WWII were genecidal meglomaniacs who followed Nazi SS doctrine to the tee.


----------



## jayastout (Aug 8, 2011)

I've not uncovered anything at all that has addressed the issue of Luftwaffe pilots premptively bailing from their aircraft, and was not really expecting to find anything. However, I thought that I'd check here and a couple of other places. Tough to prove a negative, but lacking any evidence I'll characterize the practice as a form of self-defense.

Relative to the issue of pilots getting shot in their chutes...as others have noted, it happened in all the air forces. I've uncovered a U.S. encounter report that describes doing so. Too, Eisenhower expressly forbad it in a memo to his commanders (however, the memo was about a larger issue) just before D-Day. This indicates that it happened often enough that he felt compelled to do something about it.

Thanks to all.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 8, 2011)

Self Defence in my opinion would be the wrong term to use. I think an more apt description would be Self Preservation. I don't believe they would bail not before engaging B-17 formations. I would believe that some would have say coming apon P-47s or P-51s that severely outnumbered them. that would be more plausable.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 8, 2011)

I've read various accounts of Luftwaffe pilots jumping jumping even before receiving any fire. But this was late in the war, no doubt it was some of the very low time pilots the Luftwaffe was forced to put in the air , with very little experience and probably with no confidence of being able to survive a encounter . Just simple self preservation, not self defense.

I wonder if the tales the Luftwaffe pilots were told of allied pilots shooting parachutes might have been greatly exaggerated to cut back on or prevent these early bailouts ?


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

There is another thing to consider.
I have read this book 'Another Bowl of Kapusta': The True Life Story Of A World War II Luftwaffe Fighter Pilot and P.O.W. in Russia.
I'm told that the pilot does not exist but, it made an interesting read nevertheless.
I have now been told that the whole book is a tissue of whoppers. Fit for the bin, which is where it is now...
I can see no reason why a German pilot would want to bail out early and land in the tender hands of the Russians.
The other books I have read gave me the impression that the German pilots fought hard to the bitter end driven by their code of honour and pride.
I cite examples of allied bombers being rammed for example.
Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

That would be the ' Rammkommando '. Pilots flew stripped down Bf109's with the intention of ramming the tail, wing, or a last resort the cockpit of four engine bombers. The pilots however had no intention of dying. They planned either to bail out right before or right after impact. It was tried one day only. 8 B-24s were succesfully destroyed.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 9, 2011)

7 April 1945

Sonnderkommado Elbe


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2011)

Njaco said:


> 7 April 1945
> 
> Sonnderkommado Elbe



Yes,if you dive into a bridge then you intend to die.

As far as shooting men in parachutes go it was discouraged on all sides for the reasons mentioned. It leads to retaliation and you might be the next poor bugger hanging in a parachute.
Churchill thought that Luftwaffe pilots should be shot descending in parachutes during the BoB. It was Dowding who argued that as they were descending into captivity they were already effectively prisoners of war and therefore not legitimate targets. This of course begs the question whether a pilot descending into friendly territory,whence he might become active again in hours,is a legitimate target. It seems that the Luftwaffe and Western Allied Air Forces did not think so. There were always exceptions.

As far as prematurely bailing out into Soviet captivity I don't know if it happened. All the instances I have seen evidence for,and there are many,come from Anglo-American reports.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

I think the reasoning for not shooting pilots who bailed was two fold:

1. they are no longer a threat.
2. they have no way to defend themselves.

regardless of whether they bailed over friendly territory or not. even once they landed, say on US held territory, if they did not pose a threat and were shot and killed anyways, that was a courtmartial offence with serious jail time.

anyways, seems alot are mentioning the USAAF RAF as the main suspects. I suspect from what I've read/heard that the VVS had zero problems with shooting pilots under their chutes.

as far as prematurely bailing over russia, I think no Luftwaffe pilot in their right mind would willingly do so.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 9, 2011)

theres only one reason not to shoot a pilot in a chute, and thats simply that you dont want it done to your people!

other than that killing every pilot you shot down over thier territory makes very good strategic sense!


----------



## jayastout (Aug 9, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> Self Defence in my opinion would be the wrong term to use. I think an more apt description would be Self Preservation. I don't believe they would bail not before engaging B-17 formations. I would believe that some would have say coming apon P-47s or P-51s that severely outnumbered them. that would be more plausable.


 
Yes, of course. Self preservation is what I meant. A fine but important distinction.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

The thing was, in WW2 the situation hadn't really been anticipated, and wasn't covered by the Geneva Conventions, so authorities kind of winged it. The general idea that people came up with, was that pilots parachuting over enemy territory would be going to almost-certain captivity, so shouldn't be shot at; while pilots parachuting over their own territory would be returning to the fight the next day, if not sooner, and so were fair game.

How it actually worked out, over Germany at least, was that American fliers were instructed to shoot at German pilots under their chutes. German pilots were instructed not to shoot American pilots under their chutes. 

After the war, it was decided that, regardless of which territory they were over; pilots bailing out their aircraft were no longer in the fight, no longer capable of "offering meaningful resistance" and not able to defend themselves; therefore they should not be shot at. (Article 42 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)).


Paratroopers are a completely different matter, you don't have to wait until they reach the ground, you can open up on them with everything you've got as soon as you see them.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

Kryten said:


> theres only one reason not to shoot a pilot in a chute, and thats simply that you dont want it done to your people!




There was a chivalry between the airforces that precluded such barbaric behaviour. It was enough to shoot a plane down.
The books written about Galland, Tuck, Molders etc all say that they were warriors and would fight hard...but, fight fair (or as fairly as you can in total war)
Obviously there is the lunatic fringe on all sides, but the majority of WW2 pilots would not have gunned a man in a parachute down in cold blood.

If you look at the mutual respect between Tuck and Galland when they talk of their wartime experiances you'll see why I have come to this view.

Having said that, the only question mark I have is that of the Japanese who's life values where a little different to the other nations involved in WW2.

Cheers
John


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 9, 2011)

Ratsel posted - How it actually worked out, over Germany at least, was that American fliers were instructed to shoot at German pilots under their chutes. German pilots were instructed not to shoot American pilots under their chutes.

Where is your proof of these instructions ? Individual pilots on both sides knew in most cases nobody was looking over their shoulders all the time, and it was a big sky they were fighting in. They could do what they wanted and nobody would get singled out if they stepped out of line, because it was usually impossible to track down who was responsible.

But the allied pilots knew if they gunned parachuting Luftwaffe pilots it would be done to them also. They Luftwaffe pilots would have had no problem seeing the tit for tat that would result in return. Chivalry in war is a oxymoron.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

Chivalry in war is a oxymoron.

I would generally agree with you Tom, but the pilots of the LW RAF seem to bear out the 'chivalry' concept. I can only pass on my thoughts on the books I have read. 
Maybe it is a romantic, fanciful notion. I don't know as I wasn't there to be shot at !

Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

> Ratsel posted - How it actually worked out, over Germany at least, was that American fliers were instructed to shoot at German pilots under their chutes. German pilots were instructed not to shoot American pilots under their chutes.


well Eisenhower expressly forbad it in a memo to his commanders. Even he knew it was happening. anyways, like I said, thats how it worked out. I NEVER said however that it was carried out in only that way.



> Individual pilots on both sides knew in most cases nobody was looking over their shoulders all the time, and it was a big sky they were fighting in. They could do what they wanted and nobody would get singled out if they stepped out of line, because it was usually impossible to track down who was responsible.


no, they couldn't do what they wanted. that goes for both sides.



> Chivalry in war is a oxymoron.


Chivalry was alive and well, on both sides of the European conflict in WWII. well, except for the russians french (just my opinion. so no hate mail please).


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 9, 2011)

Maybe the French and Russians, after the extreme lack of chivalry shown to them by their invaders, just gave back as they were given.


----------



## davebender (Aug 9, 2011)

September 23, 1944. 
Operation Market-Garden. Two fighter Gruppen from JG2 and JG26 are strafing ground targets. CPT Eder is leading the attack. They receive word from the FLIVO (Luftwaffe forward air control net) that swarms of bandits were over the Zuider-Zee. 

Aster 53, a JG26 pilot, declared that he had a mechanical problem. CPT Eder thought otherwise.

"You've filled your trousers! Ram them and then climb out. After that then you can say you've got a mechanical problem."
.....from "It Never Snows in November" by Robert Kershaw


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> How it actually worked out, over Germany at least, was that American fliers were instructed to shoot at German pilots under their chutes. German pilots were instructed not to shoot American pilots under their chutes.



Who gave these instructions? 

I might be wrong (I will admit if I am), but I don't believe that such instructions were ever given.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

jayastout said:


> Too, Eisenhower expressly forbad it in a memo to his commanders (however, the memo was about a larger issue) just before D-Day. This indicates that it happened often enough that he felt compelled to do something about it.


if you could post this document, that would be most appreciated. I had one that mentioned General Jimmy Doolittle by name (not from President Eisenhower), but darn if I can find it now  it may have been a bookmark for a website.



davebender said:


> September 23, 1944.
> Operation Market-Garden. Two fighter Gruppen from JG2 and JG26 are strafing ground targets. CPT Eder is leading the attack. They receive word from the FLIVO (Luftwaffe forward air control net) that swarms of bandits were over the Zuider-Zee.
> 
> Aster 53, a JG26 pilot, declared that he had a mechanical problem. CPT Eder thought otherwise.
> ...


I guess he would have a mech. problem after ramming 



Readie said:


> Having said that, the only question mark I have is that of the Japanese who's life values where a little different to the other nations involved in WW2.
> 
> Cheers
> John


The Germans had the Leonidas Squadron, which was a true "Self-sacrifice missions" (Selbstopfereinsatz) unit. Goering showed little intrest, and Hitler did not like it at all. there were few deployments, mostly against bridges to hinder russian advances towards Berlin. with no appreciable results.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Who gave these instructions?
> 
> I might be wrong (I will admit if I am), but I don't believe that such instructions were ever given.




Yep, I have never read anything to verify the shooting (execution) of parachuting bailed out pilots on either side of WW2.
What reception the pilots received when they landed is another matter.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

The Germans had the Leonidas Squadron, which was a true suicide unit. Goering showed little intrest, and Hitler did not like it at all. there were few deployments, mostly against bridges to hinder russian advances towards Berlin. with no appreciable results.

Leonidas Squadron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thank you, I have learnt something this evening. I had always thought the concept of a 'suicide pilot' was a Japanese thing to do with their beliefs and values.

Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

Readie said:


> Yep, I have never read anything to verify the shooting (execution) of parachuting bailed out pilots on either side of WW2.
> What reception the pilots received when they landed is another matter.
> Cheers
> John


nor will you likely read about it. it was a wink,wink, nod proposition. also, you will not(possibly not) see any documenting the act of deliberatly shooting pilots under there chutes. but it existed, to the point of enacting rules. (Article 42 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1)).

however, as said before, there were letters sent from the C&C out to relevant personel that forbid the practice.


----------



## jayastout (Aug 9, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> if you could post this document, that would be most appreciated.


 
It was posted by one of our friends over on the Axis History forum. Read the last two sentences:


Letter from Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower to Air Officer Commanding RAF Bomber Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur T. Harris and Commander United States Strategic Air Force, Lieutenant General Carl A. Spaatz, 2nd June 1944.

Air Attacks on Civilians
During current and future intensive air operations, Allied airmen are required by their duty to fly and fight continuously over enemy and occupied territories of Europe. The enemy who is fearful of these attacks because of their devastating effect of his transport and the morale of his troops, is endeavouring to prevent them by propaganda designed to prove to the peoples of Europe that Allied airmen are wilfully shooting up harmless civilians in the course of their fighter sweeps and tactical bombing attacks. It is essential to remember that much of the air fighting will take place over the heads of friendly people, who have endured the savagery of the Germans for years. Humanity and the principles for which we fight demand from our pilots scrupulous care to avoid any but military targets.
The Air Forces of the United Nations are privileged to be the spearhead of the forces fighting for freedom and the herald to the oppressed peoples of Europe of our approach. Be careful that nothing is done to betray this trust or to prejudice our good name in the eyes of our friends still dominated by Nazi tyranny. I request that those instructions be brought to the attention of every member of aircrews fighting over Europe. I would add that similar considerations apply to enemy airmen compelled to escape by parachute. Such personnel are not legitimate military targets, and may not be deliberately attacked.

Source - Public Record Office WO 219 325


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

I suppose we have to remember the desperate times while we are discussing the finer points of human behaviour.
Does everything go out the window?

Its hard to say as none of us where there and we rely on documents and hearsay.

I ask an open question...would you shoot a bailed out pilot if you were a pilot in WW2?

John


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 9, 2011)

It's easy to sit at the computor and say never. But no one knows for sure what they'll do when they're under the influence of adrenalin, fear, hate, and all the other passions envolved in any kind of close combat.


----------



## Readie (Aug 9, 2011)

I know Tom, that's why I asked the question. I cannot say what I would do myself in those circumstances either,
To be quite honest I'm glad I will never know.
John


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 9, 2011)

I think I wouldn't shoot a pilot in a parachute, normally. But if that same pilot had just blew one my own friends aircraft out of the sky, I'm not sure what i'd do. War can sometimes get personal.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

jayastout said:


> Letter from Supreme Allied Commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower to Air Officer Commanding RAF Bomber Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur T. Harris and Commander United States Strategic Air Force, Lieutenant General Carl A. Spaatz, 2nd June 1944.
> 
> I would add that similar considerations apply to enemy airmen compelled to escape by parachute. Such personnel are not legitimate military targets, and may not be deliberately attacked.
> 
> Source - Public Record Office WO 219 325


thank you Sir




Readie said:


> I ask an open question...would you shoot a bailed out pilot if you were a pilot in WW2?
> 
> John


Discipline training. that will dictate ones next move (a direct quote from my Grandfather).


----------



## Njaco (Aug 9, 2011)

Readie said:


> *Chivalry in war is a oxymoron.*
> 
> I would generally agree with you Tom, but the pilots of the LW RAF seem to bear out the 'chivalry' concept. I can only pass on my thoughts on the books I have read.
> Maybe it is a romantic, fanciful notion. I don't know as I wasn't there to be shot at !
> ...



http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/when-enemy-friend-5982.html


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

yes! awesome story! what makes an ace an ace? read the  Franz Stigler interview


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 9, 2011)

By a lot of aces own admissions, Erick Hartmann as well as others, a lot of aircraft they shot down didn't even know they were in anybodies sights . In other words they snuck up behind them and blew them away. But of course they were very careful in their aim, made sure they hit everything , but the pilot.
That's chivalry too I suppose ?

War is a dirty business, the few individuals that can show compassion to a enemy is notable for it's exception.


----------



## Erich (Aug 9, 2011)

just to get back on topic as this thread has rambled off.............

case in point is inexperienced youth at the controls of a 109 or Fw 190, period. this was not normal but happened probably on a daily operational basis in 1945. there was no time or safe haven for any LW single engine prop unit for training due to US incursions by 9th AF fighter bombers and US 8th and 15th Mustangs on deep penetration raids with strafing of LW A/F's. the youth went up with a Staffel leader barely older and wiser than they with no operational missions under their belt never being in a combat scenario with a US heavy of fighter in fighter vs fighter exchanges. In other words they were .50 fodder .................


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 9, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> By a lot of aces own admissions, Erick Hartmann as well as others, a lot of aircraft they shot down didn't even know they were in anybodies sights . In other words they snuck up behind them and blew them away. But of course they were very careful in their aim, made sure they hit everything , but the pilot.
> That's chivalry too I suppose ?
> 
> War is a dirty business, the few individuals that can show compassion to a enemy is notable for it's exception.


I don't know. you'd have to ask them. I suspect that wherever the bullets hit.. thats where they hit. if the e/a pilot was killed, so go the fortune of war. I don't think anybody here was saying chivalry was omnipresent during WWII.. just that in some situations it was in fact a case of chivalry.

I know of accounts where Luftwaffe pilots followed a plane they just shotup down, to make sure the e/a pilot got out ok. then themselves were shot down by ground fire. Is that Chivalry? 

No doubt war is brutal, but perhaps some pilots chose to make it a little honorable.



Erich said:


> just to get back on topic as this thread has rambled off.............
> 
> case in point is inexperienced youth at the controls of a 109 or Fw 190, period. this was not normal but happened probably on a daily operational basis in 1945. there was no time or safe haven for any LW single engine prop unit for training due to US incursions by 9th AF fighter bombers and US 8th and 15th Mustangs on deep penetration raids with strafing of LW A/F's. the youth went up with a Staffel leader barely older and wiser than they with no operational missions under their belt never being in a combat scenario with a US heavy of fighter in fighter vs fighter exchanges. In other words they were .50 fodder .................


well said.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 10, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> nor will you likely read about it. it was a wink,wink, nod proposition.



And where is the proof of this? Again, I have never seen or heard of anything like this. 

You seem to be very sure of this, yet know one else seems to know anything about it. Please enlighten us. I personally don't believe it.

Of course it happened on both sides, but I seriously doubt there was any "Shoot them in the chutes" (wink, wink) instructions from any of them.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 10, 2011)

its actually quite difficult for us to empathise either way, to us these days Germans are Germans, Russians are Russians, Brits Brits and yanks yanks, but back then the level of sheer hatred that the Nazi's managed to garner for themselves is almost unfathomable to us now, we see a Luftwaffe pilot doing his job, many saw him as a Nazi murderer who was part of the war machine that caused millions of deaths!
the level of hatred between the Russians and Germans was a case in point!
hatred like that dehumanises people!


----------



## Mustang nut (Aug 10, 2011)

During the BoB Dowding considered RAF pilots were legitimate targets for the LW (they could return to combat) but LW pilots were not legitimate targets for the RAF (they were prisoners). However LW rescue planes with red crosses were attacked on Dowdings orders.

There is no doubt both sides occasionally did shoot pilots in parachutes but I dont think it was ever ordered.

I read about one RAF pilot who baled out at very high altitude and a LW pilot repeatedly flew over to collapse his chute and get him down to where he could breathe.


----------



## davebender (Aug 10, 2011)

There are plenty of instances where newly captured POWs were shot. All nations did this at one time or another and it was always (as far as I am aware) against military regulations and orders from higher HQs.

Personally I think it's bloodlust. Combat is a matter of kill or be killed. Emotions for killing the enemy cannot be flipped off like a light switch just because an enemy raises his hands or bails out of a burning aircraft.

_The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility. _
- British Sea Lord John Fisher


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2011)

how about we go back to the original posters intended question ................... please


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 10, 2011)

Maybe those inexperienced pilots felt if they stayed in the aircraft they WOULD get shot down and die, but if they jumped, they might get shot in their chutes, or they might just be allowed to drift to earth unharmed. A lot evidently believed the the chute was the best choice.


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2011)

why serve a regime you no longer believe in ? that is very key, as I said earlier seeing your brothers in your staffel getting pancaked into the ground did not seem to appetizing to the LW youth who on most occasions could not even get close to the bombers flying daily over the Reich skies. there were not enough high element "Höhenschutz" ( high elevation protection squadrons ) available as there should of been. this has been discussed at some length in earlier threads on the Sturmgruppen, JG 301 vs the US 355th fg etc..........


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 10, 2011)

I spoke with a friend of mine. He said 'not so common occurance' and 'definately wasn't sanctioned'. 'you were expected to fight for your unit and your homeland'. he went on to say 'sometimes they get hit by a few bullets coming from behind (the inexperianced ones), no real damage really, they couldn't see the enemy, and they would jump'. and too add, at that time of the war you wouldn't pull the cord until the last possible moment'. His aircraft was hit bad, caught fire, raised the nose to gain altitude, then he bailed ( he broke his arm bailing out) at 800m+ but didn't pull it until 400m. Next thing he knew he was on the ground.


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Who gave these instructions?
> 
> I might be wrong (I will admit if I am), but I don't believe that such instructions were ever given.



They weren't. You are not wrong.
Steve

Edit I see someone else has already posted the order I was trying to dig out. We should deal in facts,hopefully documented not baseless tittle-tattle and opinion.

A forced landing wasn't always a better option. 24 year old Unteroffizier Herbert Maxis was flying on operation Bodenplatte and belly landed his Bf109G-14 near a position occupied by the 739th Field Artillery Battallion. As he climbed unhurt from his aircraft he raised his hands and tried to surrender but one of the Americans shot him dead. There are some sad pictures of the unfortunate Maxis lying on the wing of his aircraft....without his boots which have been "liberated". Infact the Americans stripped his body to such an extent that no identification could be found and he was buried as "unknown". He is still officially M.I.A. as his grave is now lost.
There was talk of a court martial,the man who shot him was known,but the idea was dropped when it was claimed that Maxis came in with his guns blazing. I doubt he did,he would have been busy trying to get his damaged aircraft down in one piece.I suspect this embellishment was agreed upon as the whole affair was covered up.
Just one instance amongst thousands.
This is not a pop at that U.S. unit,it could have been anybody.War,as the saying goes,is hell.
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 10, 2011)

Unless you're a very, very, experienced jumper, there's no way to tell how high you are once you're out of that aircraft. Even the altimeters of the time couldn't tell you how high you were above the ground, it was in relation to sea level pressure. Unless you knew the altitude of the particular ground you were flying over, and subtracted that from your altitude, you would have no idea how high you were when you jumped.
Most people would be able to tell 800m from 400m , but when you're falling about 60m a second, there isn't a lot of room for error.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 10, 2011)

seriously??? you'd have to ask him yourself I guess..PM me your email addy and I'll get you in touch with him. then, you can ask him whether or not he knew his altitude. His body might be 86 years old, but his mind is as sharp as a razorblade.


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2011)

I've personally interviewed dozens of former LW pilots on S/E. the order was to flip the A/C over and drop or pop out after releasing the canopy at 400 m or less due to fact of being shot at by US fighters while hanging in the parachutes. Same goes for Me 262 pilots, there are many first hand impressions in this regard for the LW in late 44 into 45.

but the question is why LW pilots even bailed out as their A/C was not even hit. My basis goes back to what I first mentioned. yes few instances but they seem to stand out in US Mustang pilot reports. the German pilot wanted to live another day, the A/C could be replaced the pilot could not......and if we want to get real picky I have LW fighter pilots report getting close onto the tail of B-24's without firing a shot and watching US bomber crews bailing out


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> I spoke with a friend of mine. He said 'not so common occurance' and 'definately wasn't sanctioned'. 'you were expected to fight for your unit and your homeland'. he went on to say 'sometimes they get hit by a few bullets coming from behind (the inexperianced ones), no real damage really, they couldn't see the enemy, and they would jump'. and too add, at that time of the war you wouldn't pull the cord until the last possible moment'. His aircraft was hit bad, caught fire, raised the nose to gain altitude, then he bailed ( he broke his arm bailing out) at 800m+ but didn't pull it until 400m. Next thing he knew he was on the ground.



I don't know about parachuting but your friend is expressing an opinion. 
Read the encounter reports. On some occasions Luftwaffe pilots abandoned their aircraft as soon as they were aware of an allied fighter commencing an attack and BEFORE they were fired upon. An air to air attack doesn't start when one aircraft opens fire!

Here's one from "Mike" Gladych,who seems to have had a go at the pilot after he bailed out.







Here's one where the U.S.pilot beleives that parachutes are being attacked. Notice that the intelligence officer has bracketed the comment which makes it unusual or notable.






You could also jump to late.






Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 10, 2011)

thanks for the posts. that confirms that at least one German pilot indeed bailed before being fired apon. it also shows that in some cases, bailing was a death sentence.


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2011)

read some Mustang reports here and then go to the home page of Mike W. and find the 56th fg as was quoted by stona, it's all there in a mish mash.

Mustang Encounter Reports


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 10, 2011)

Readie said:


> I suppose we have to remember the desperate times while we are discussing the finer points of human behaviour.
> Does everything go out the window?
> 
> Its hard to say as none of us where there and we rely on documents and hearsay.
> ...



I must admit that the largely "Western" concept of "Civilized" warfare is probably one of Humanity's most contradictory examples. We advocate Total War yet place rules on conduct. The goal is the total anhilation of the enemy, yet we by nature (unless clouded by personal hate/grudge), gravitate towards examples of Chivalry and Genteel behavior while turning away from more graphic and brutal examples as often seen in the Pacific or on the Russian Front. It's an uncomfortable subject because it makes one question the very moral fiber of our people and one-self.

Here was another real life controversey that 'was' official policy. That being the RAF policy of considering Rescue aircraft a legitimate military target both during the Battle of Britian and during the Med. campaign, primarily the siege of Malta. The Italians and Germans made alot of press out of this policy. The British government took a defiant attitude, saying that to allow downed pilots to be rescued from the water meant that those pilots could again appear over British soil (or around Malta) which in it's view constituted a direct threat to it's survival. Hence the brightly colored and or Red Cross marked planes were attacked regularily.

The same UK government, like most nations, however would not sanction shooting pilots and crew in parachutes on the way down. 

Like i said.....a contradiction, and a quandry. Some people like to make great press of the barbarity of the Japanese in combat (not speaking of their mistreatment of subject populations)....or perhaps that of the Germans and Russians in their KultureKrieg. It could be argued however that theirs was a more pragamtic approach to war. 

On the other side of the coin, I like how Hastings pointed out that for the Western Allies, they did try to fight on a more "civilized" level at times in order to highlight the difference betweenst the ideologies of the Democracies vs. the Dictatorships. "Fighting the good fight" has it's place in WWII though it seems to have applied more to Europe than the Pacific.


----------



## Kryten (Aug 10, 2011)

that situation wasn't helped by the Luftwaffe using red cross floatplanes to recconoiter the convoys in the channel, I have an account in one of the books here where an arado was downed and force landed near goodwin sands, apparently the crew admitted to sending target coords for convoys!


----------



## davebender (Aug 10, 2011)

Most men will eventually break if they remain in combat too long. Perhaps some of these aircrew were at the breaking point.


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2011)

davebender said:


> Most men will eventually break if they remain in combat too long. Perhaps some of these aircrew were at the breaking point.



But it's different in a crew where you are not alone. There are plenty of accounts when many or even all of a bomber crew were thinking the same thing,maybe a diversion to Sweden,but noone dared say it at the time. Only later did they realise what they might have done. You'd need everyone to agree. In a single seat fighter it's just one man.
I suspect that the Luftwaffe pilots bailing out were not "old hares" experienced in combat but young under trained men who could barely fly their aircraft,let alone fight them. They knew they were done for when they saw the Thunderbolts/Mustangs/Spitfires/Others lining them up.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2011)

I see my post # 44 on page 3 was quickly forgotten ................. the reason is right there. 

Inexperience under a most probably inexperienced though higher ranking formation leader. 

JG 301 had a real problem with the new Fw 190A-9 mounts in November of 44 and were continually j8mped on the young pilots never knew what hit them and even then as I said earlier when their Kameraden were shot down could not even do the basic evasive maneuvers many still with the Züsatztank still in place.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 10, 2011)

yes, experianced leadership is everything. reminds me of the story of Ofw. Franz Meindl, a 31 kill ace. made three P-51 pilots look like rookies in his Bf109. doing low altitude spit 's's, vertical stalls, swinging the tail, side-slipping to fire on -51's making passes. until that 4th -51 came into the picture. theres only so much you can do.... then your numbers up. BUT it gave his wingman (fresh out of training school) the chance to escape to safety. or so the story goes. 

this was all in Jan.1945. also, thanks for the link.. it was most imformative.


----------



## Readie (Aug 10, 2011)

Nikademus said:


> I must admit that the largely "Western" concept of "Civilized" warfare is probably one of Humanity's most contradictory examples. We advocate Total War yet place rules on conduct. The goal is the total anhilation of the enemy, yet we by nature (unless clouded by personal hate/grudge), gravitate towards examples of Chivalry and Genteel behavior while turning away from more graphic and brutal examples as often seen in the Pacific or on the Russian Front. It's an uncomfortable subject because it makes one question the very moral fiber of our people and one-self.
> 
> Here was another real life controversey that 'was' official policy. That being the RAF policy of considering Rescue aircraft a legitimate military target both during the Battle of Britian and during the Med. campaign, primarily the siege of Malta. The Italians and Germans made alot of press out of this policy. The British government took a defiant attitude, saying that to allow downed pilots to be rescued from the water meant that those pilots could again appear over British soil (or around Malta) which in it's view constituted a direct threat to it's survival. Hence the brightly colored and or Red Cross marked planes were attacked regularily.
> 
> ...




Well said.

Its a western oxymoron of total war v chivalry. AND before anyone jumps down my throat I mean all European nations.
The Russians and Japanese had different values, how can I put this in a diplomatic manner? ....if I were in WW2 I would rather fight the German Army than the Japanese army as to surrender was acceptable to one and not the other.
My Dad was in the 8th army and was captured after his company surrendered due to impossible circumstances to the German army. I maintain that the Germans were chivalrous as they knew my Dad and his company were defeated, out of ammo and supplies, they offered terms instead of blowing them to hell which they could have easily done... and maybe after Casino they would have good reason.
But, it was done with some humour according to my Dad and his men were treated as well as could be expected.
So, there you have it, a little bit of Read history.

Back to the thread...'we' have always had god on our side according to Bob Dylan.

Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 10, 2011)

There were some BC crew that did jump not many but it did occur , maybe it was easier then going LMF


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 10, 2011)

The whole crew in a bomber does not have to agree to bail out, or fly to a neutral country. Once the pilot or pilots make that decision the rest of the crew doesn't have any other choice but to go along.


----------



## jayastout (Aug 10, 2011)

Mind you, I'm not interested in denigrating anyone for exercising this option when faced with deadly odds. And I know what it's like to be frightened in an aircraft. I simply want to know if there was any policy behind it when I write about it. It appears not. Thanks to all.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 10, 2011)

stona said:


> They weren't. You are not wrong.
> Steve


you seem to have posted that in fact the higher ups knew and did nothing. 


stona said:


> Edit I see someone else has already posted the order I was trying to dig out. We should deal in facts,hopefully documented not baseless tittle-tattle and opinion.
> 
> A forced landing wasn't always a better option. 24 year old Unteroffizier Herbert Maxis was flying on operation Bodenplatte and belly landed his Bf109G-14 near a position occupied by the 739th Field Artillery Battallion. As he climbed unhurt from his aircraft he raised his hands and tried to surrender but one of the Americans shot him dead. There are some sad pictures of the unfortunate Maxis lying on the wing of his aircraft....without his boots which have been "liberated". Infact the Americans stripped his body to such an extent that no identification could be found and he was buried as "unknown". He is still officially M.I.A. as his grave is now lost.
> There was talk of a court martial,the man who shot him was known,but the idea was dropped when it was claimed that Maxis came in with his guns blazing. I doubt he did,he would have been busy trying to get his damaged aircraft down in one piece.I suspect this embellishment was agreed upon as the whole affair was covered up.
> ...


the otherside of the coin now... the C/O of the AAA unit was very pissed off when they brought Maxis's body to the C/O's office stripped to his underwear in a wheelbarrel. I believe he wanted to charge those responsible, but was whitewashed for reasons above. source: Operation Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 10, 2011)

jayastout said:


> Mind you, I'm not interested in denigrating anyone for exercising this option when faced with deadly odds. And I know what it's like to be frightened in an aircraft. I simply want to know if there was any policy behind it when I write about it. It appears not. Thanks to all.


thank you for opening this thread, its brought some very interesting conversation about various practices from both sides of the fence.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 10, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> The whole crew in a bomber does not have to agree to bail out, or fly to a neutral country. Once the pilot or pilots make that decision the rest of the crew doesn't have any other choice but to go along.


but a crewman can go without the pilot


----------



## stona (Aug 11, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> the otherside of the coin now... the C/O of the AAA unit was very pissed off when they brought Maxis's body to the C/O's office stripped to his underwear in a wheelbarrel. I believe he wanted to charge those responsible, but was whitewashed for reasons above. source: Operation Bodenplatte: The Luftwaffe's Last Hope



Yes,I said there was talk of a court martial. That's when the story of Maxis coming in with guns blazing and wounding or killing (depending which version you believe) one of the U.S.unit appeared. This was all part of the cover up. It doesn't matter what Maxis was doing as he made his landing,it was illegal to shoot him in the act of surrender. 
As I said previously this was a war and Maxis' unfortunate death was one of many such instances.
There is a great line from Willard in the film Apocalypse Now which seems quite apt.
"****... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500."
Steve


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 11, 2011)

yep. I'd figure he'd be concentrating more on belly landing his Bf109. He also feathered the prop set the trim Jettisoned the canopy. dunno if he had time to do anything else.

also found another little tibit in that book. an argument between a captured Bf109 pilot an American Major:

_During the course of the conversation with Major Brooking, the German went to the window and arrogantly pointed at the still-burning aircraft and said:" What do you think of that?" Maj. Brooking apparently felt like punching him on the nose and strode furiously out of the room. In the next few days, replacement aircraft arrived from Paris and Maj. Brooking made it a point to go over to Group HQ to see the German pilot. Walking to the window with him, Maj. Brooking pointed to ten or so new aircraft where charred hulls had sat a few days before, and he said: "What do you think of that?" The German pilot looked out the window and then with a rueful expression on his face turned to Maj. Brooking and said:" *That is what is beating us*."_


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2011)

that is essentially what all the LW vets have told me, our ammo was superior but the amount of men and materials you had far outweighed us, we could and never kept up.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2011)

Havent read the whole thread, but shooting at Parachuting pilots might be a distasteful connotation, and I doubt any orders by either side were ever issued, but i can certainly envisage why it might happen, starting with revenge. if you were part of a unit that has just taken casualties and the guy that has helped inflict those casualties is now in your sights, in the silk, there is every chance you will react and kill that sucker. 

In Crete Allied ground troops did not hesitate to fire on parachuting Infantry. This also happened at Arnhem, but the shooters were German. In the jungles hardly any prisoners were taken, not just because the Japs didnt like surrendering. Japanese subs routinely machine gunned survivors in the water, and the U-Boats were issued orders not to assist allied sailors in the water, even to the extent of transmitting their position because Hitler did not want them to survive. At Guadacaanal, survivors of opposing ships were hardly ever rescued by those opponents. In the BoB SAR aircraft (mostly of the LW) were routinely fired upon, in fact I am pretty sure orders to that effect were issued by Dowding. am i uncomfortable with that. Most certainly. Do i agree with it? Yes, given that a dead pilot is never going to come back, whereas a downed pilot will come back. 

So why would we think fighters behaved any dioferently....


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 11, 2011)

massively off subject but didn't the Royal Navy at some point in WWII issue orders not to pick up their own survivors? do you agree with that policy?


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 12, 2011)

If a convoy was under U-boat attack, any ship that slowed or stopped to pick up survivors was a very easy target to torpedo.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 12, 2011)

good point. anyways it hard to believe but it happened, not so far of a stretch to also believe that sometimes on whatever side, orders were givin to shoot pilots who bailed. hence the addition to the Geneva Convention act. there must have been proof of it. 

back to bailing without even getting hit. the more I looked, I can only find a few references to it. So it was not a common practice. I was skeptical about Erichs claim that some B-24 crews bailed at just the sight of a -109.. to my surprise it did happen, not often but it did. So it seems both sides did a 'premature' bail.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2011)

The key is whether the convoy was under attack or not. If attack was under way, or considered imminent, the position of the stricken ship was noted and a message passed to a rescue ship or aircraft. But no-one from the convoy would stop for the ship. These orders from the convoy commander, and sometimes individual ships would disobey them, accepting that the convoy would not wait for them. These guys were truly heroes, in every sense..... if there was no attack in progress one of the escorts would usually be detached to pick up survivors.


----------



## Readie (Aug 12, 2011)

parsifal said:


> The key is whether the convoy was under attack or not. If attack was under way, or considered imminent, the position of the stricken ship was noted and a message passed to a rescue ship or aircraft. But no-one from the convoy would stop for the ship. These orders from the convoy commander, and sometimes individual ships would disobey them, accepting that the convoy would not wait for them. These guys were truly heroes, in every sense..... if there was no attack in progress one of the escorts would usually be detached to pick up survivors.



Yes, you are quite right. 

It had also taken a long time for the Merchant Marine to get the salutation and recognition they deserve.

Cheers
John


----------



## seesul (Aug 12, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> back to bailing without even getting hit. the more I looked, I can only find a few references to it. So it was not a common practice. I was skeptical about Erichs claim that some B-24 crews bailed at just the sight of a -109.. to my surprise it did happen, not often but it did. So it seems both sides did a 'premature' bail.


If am I not wrong, I read the same in Willi Reschke´s book. Gotta check it out.


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2011)

As far as opening parachutes,according to veteran accounts U.S. airmen were told to open the canopy when they "could tell the difference between a horse and a cow on the ground". Sounds awfully risky to me!
This has nothing to do with avoiding being targeted by Luftwaffe pilots but rather avoiding anoxia by opening at high altitude without an emergency oxygen supply.
The rare footage of bomber crews hanging in parachutes that I have seen would indicate that they didn't always follow this advice and I don't blame them.
There is a belief amongst American veterans that Luftwaffe fighter pilots would fly close to their parachutes in an effort to collapse them. There are many such beliefs but it doesn't make them true and there is absolutely no evidence to support this one. I think it is more likely that they were attempting to capture the parachute on film. Interestingly the claims are usually made about Fw190s which did often have a gun camera,something which was much more unusual on the Bf109.
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 12, 2011)

There's no way to know, but the bomber could have already been damaged from another fighter, and seeing another coming to attack might have been the last straw.

And the same can be said for the Luftwaffe pilots who bailed, they might have already had a damaged aircraft, very low on fuel, no ammo. The attacking aircraft can hardly do a damage survey.


----------



## FalkeEins (Aug 12, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> back to bailing without even getting hit. the more I looked, I can only find a few references to it.



..I've only found one reference in the JG 300 history - three Fw 190 pilots, including two aces, bailed out on 02 March 1945 rather than get involved with the 353rd FG..one of them was formation leader Rudi Zwesken who had just downed two B-17s and had no ammo left...


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2011)

I've found a few British encounter reports that support the U.S. ones. NOT pilots bailing out before the engagement started but bailing out as soon as they were fired at. Always difficult to assess. One Tempest pilot claimed he saw only three or four strikes on an enemy aircraft whereupon the pilot jettisoned his canopy and jumped. Of course one lucky round can cripple an aircraft.
Anyway the original question was whether this was sanctioned which it was not,neither was it widespread.
Steve


----------



## jayastout (Aug 12, 2011)

In doing my research--reviewing hundreds of encounter reports from just a single fighter group--I was surprised at how many instances I found. I would have expected one or two, but offhand, I'd say I've found at least a dozen, if not more. This is what prompted me to make the original post.


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2011)

jayastout said:


> I'd say I've found at least a dozen, if not more. This is what prompted me to make the original post.



I would estimate I've seen a similar number after trawling through both U.S and British reports but it hardly makes it common place. I'm more surprised by the number of parachutes that fail to open after a pilot is seen to abandon his aircraft.
Steve


----------



## Nikademus (Aug 15, 2011)

Perhaps this exerpt and quote says it all....

Three missions later, McCrary interviewed him. [Mark Mathis....bombadier...brother of Medal of Honor recipient Jack Mathis...KIA] A lot of fliers were saying that they found it hard to hate the Germans, that they'd rather be getting _revenge_ [my italics] against the Japanese. What did he think about that? 

"_You don't start hating till you been hurt,_" Mark said. "_Me, well, I've been hurt. So I hate the Germans. I wish we bombed their cities instead of just their factories._"

-Masters of the Air. (re: early March 1943 raids)

I'd like to assume that the bulk of fighting men treated war as a job needing to get done...but its also true that for many, war took on a more personal angle. The need for Revenge was one of the reasons why the Pacific war was so bloody. Hate is a part of war too. I seem to recall that at times Allied CO's complained that there was a distinct "Lack" of hate in the ground pounders...that it prevented them from being proper killers. And you have to kill to get the job done.


----------



## stona (Aug 15, 2011)

Nikademus said:


> "_ I wish we bombed their cities instead of just their factories._"



Well we certainly did that for him.

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2011)

Nikademus said:


> Perhaps this exerpt and quote says it all....
> 
> Three missions later, McCrary interviewed him. [Mark Mathis....bombadier...brother of Medal of Honor recipient Jack Mathis...KIA] A lot of fliers were saying that they found it hard to hate the Germans, that they'd rather be getting _revenge_ [my italics] against the Japanese. What did he think about that?
> 
> ...



I can tell you without fear of contradiction that both Blakeslee and Zemke despised Germany/Germans and I have zero doubt there were many Germans that felt the same way about US, perhaps modified only after the war.

On the other anecdote about bomber crews bailing out at the sight of an enemy fighter - I suspect that in most cases the bomber was already severly crippled and nearly defenseless.. but who knows on an indivual basis?


----------



## Erich (Aug 16, 2011)

don't forget the numerous Allied reports of engaging LW S/E's still with Belly tanks on, though usual to forget they were still attached a terrible direct order to keep them on to save precious fuel order by non other than the Fat one himself while engaging US heavy bombers and even in fighter vs fighter combat............insane !


----------



## jayastout (Aug 17, 2011)

Erich said:


> don't forget the numerous Allied reports of engaging LW S/E's still with Belly tanks on, though usual to forget they were still attached a terrible direct order to keep them on to save precious fuel order by non other than the Fat one himself while engaging US heavy bombers and even in fighter vs fighter combat............insane !


 
Yes, I do wonder at that. I would suspect that in many instances the Luftwaffe fliers were simply ambushed (most successful aerial victories on every side were achieved this way) and either didn't know they were being shot at, or hadn't yet had time to collect their wits and shuck the tanks. I'm sure it happened to Allied pilots as well.

I am additionally curious as to whether or not any German pilots were actually punished for releasing their belly tanks, and what that punishment was. The order itself was unwise but it would have been additionally unwise to take a trained pilot out of service (if that was the punishment).


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2011)

Erich said:


> don't forget the numerous Allied reports of engaging LW S/E's still with Belly tanks on, though usual to forget they were still attached a terrible direct order to keep them on to save precious fuel order by non other than the Fat one himself while engaging US heavy bombers and even in fighter vs fighter combat............insane !



Erich I've noticed many encounters in which allied pilots comment on their Luftwaffe opponents still carrying drop tanks. I was unaware that they were ordered to retain them. 
I have seen in POW debriefings that during defence of the Reich operations a Geschwader only carried drop tanks on the first mission of the day as they attempted to re-fuel and re-arm the entire wing in less than half an hour for subsequent operations. The implication is that they must have jettisoned them eventually,even if only when empty.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## TheMustangRider (Aug 17, 2011)

I wonder if such possible sanctions which sound completely absurd might have caused resentment and mutiny among fatigued and disillusioned German flyers.
In my perspective, many German fighter pilots having endured the brutality of the air war for a prolonged period of time while being aware that Germany is on the brink of collapse, might have refused to fly when given irrational orders like not engaging enemy fighter pilots even if they become a target for them and never releasing their external fuel tanks if they were not empty even if enemy fighter pilots were in the immediate area as well; and in the face of a court martial, might have contemplated the possibility of taking their planes and deserting behind enemy lines.
I am certain that the commitment to defend their fatherland until the end overcame such options for the majority of them but I do not discard the possibility that some might have taken seriously the option of mutiny or desertion in the face of irrational and absurd orders.


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2011)

it was a written order from the LW higher ups in the spring of 44 but never carried out officially, stated in breifings but up to the individual pilot(s) to remain or drop. with the order from Staffel leaders during a rear attack on US bombers the order Zusätztanks ab ! was given now if the pilot was so focused on selecting his quarry then a person could understand the reasoning why the tank was still in place. when in travelling mode by staffel and rarely a whole Geschwader, forming up and then assaulted by Mustangs you can see the reason only in the evident of being hit why the fuel tank was not dropped and even so the inexperienced pilot was too much in his zone trying to weave and climb and overhaul his 109/Fw to be aware he still had an extra load of un-necessary weight still attached, and by the spring of 45 as the Reich had dwindled in size the use of extra drop tank's was nullified.


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 17, 2011)

Erich said:


> don't forget the numerous Allied reports of engaging LW S/E's still with Belly tanks on, though usual to forget they were still attached a terrible direct order to keep them on to save precious fuel order by non other than the Fat one himself while engaging US heavy bombers and even in fighter vs fighter combat............insane !


That is insane. Wonder what a order like that would do to morale? Wonder if it left the pilot feeling he was not as valuable as gallons of aviation fuel? Terrible policy.


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2011)

add to the conservation idea of saving fuels but also being able to randomly - ha ha, fly over the Reich for an extended period of time with extra onboard to attack US bombers for miles and miles.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 17, 2011)

TheMustangRider said:


> I wonder if such possible sanctions which sound completely absurd might have caused resentment and mutiny among fatigued and disillusioned German flyers.
> In my perspective, many German fighter pilots having endured the brutality of the air war for a prolonged period of time while being aware that Germany is on the brink of collapse, might have refused to fly when given irrational orders like not engaging enemy fighter pilots even if they become a target for them and never releasing their external fuel tanks if they were not empty even if enemy fighter pilots were in the immediate area as well; and in the face of a court martial, might have contemplated the possibility of taking their planes and deserting behind enemy lines.
> I am certain that the commitment to defend their fatherland until the end overcame such options for the majority of them but I do not discard the possibility that some might have taken seriously the option of mutiny or desertion in the face of irrational and absurd orders.



The Germans armed forces executed at least 11,000 of it's own men for, desertion, combat refusal, dereliction of duty, etc. during WW2. I've seen some figures that put that almost triple. These executions were not hidden, everone knew what the consequences could be.

A little off topic, if you want a real shocker look at the Russian numbers for the same offense.


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2011)

you comment really has nothing to do with bailing out, truth of the matter the pilot WAS more important than the A/C, the LW needed the pilots however they were equipped with experience to fight for the last futile efforts of the Reich in the West and Ost fronts for the Battle of Berlin February 45 into May 45.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2011)

Drop tanks sometimes hung up. Here's a view from the other side. F/Sgt Hudson of 130 Sqn. was involved in combat with Bf109s on 8/12/44. He was flying a Spitfire XIV. Here's how he concludes his report.

"I claim this Me 109 as probably destroyed, as when I last saw it it was wallowing around and appeared out of control at about 150 feet. 
I could not get rid of my drop tank at first, but I found that even with the tank on I could turn inside the e/a."

Here's what F/O Walmsley had to say after his involvement in the same incident.

"The Spitfire XIV is definitely better than the 109 as I could do a better climbing turn even with my tank on. With my tank on the e/a could almost follow me but could not get a deflection shot at me. The e/a were using tracer and self-destructing ammunition. The camouflage was earth green and brown and blended well with the cloudy weather."

Flying with a tank on wasn't so bad in the right aeroplane.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2011)

think of the important fact as if you are an Fw 190A-8 pilot attacking the rear of a US bomber formations with many .50's blarring away at you, the tank still holding on, what a gorgeous and most flammable target.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2011)

I agree Erich,it seems like madness and in some encounter reports the attacking (allied) pilots remark that the drop tank of their target exploded. This didn't always destroy the aircraft.
I was posting those allied accounts because I was surprised that they too would enter combat with their tanks on.
Steve


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2011)

Its madnes from the individual pilots point of view, but I can actually see some perverted logic in it. By 1945, a tank of gas was probably worth more to the LW than a surviving pilot. Probably 90% of the LW was grounded due to lack of fuel, wheras maybe 10% of airframes couldnt fly for lack of a pilot. Putting it crudely, pilots were expendable, fuel was not


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 17, 2011)

Erich said:


> you comment really has nothing to do with bailing out, truth of the matter the pilot WAS more important than the A/C, the LW needed the pilots however they were equipped with experience to fight for the last futile efforts of the Reich in the West and Ost fronts for the Battle of Berlin February 45 into May 45.



My comment was not intended to have anything to do with bailing out. It was intended to counter that Luftwaffe pilots would consider mutiny or desertion as a consequence of the order to retain their drop tanks at all costs. 
But the strict disipline policies of the German military couldn't help but influence some decisions these pilots made. They all knew if the wrong person saw them bail out too early, there could be repercussions.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 17, 2011)

only very green pilots would follow those orders anyways.. but more then likely they forgot the basics of aerial combat. veterens would drop the tanks ( except the ones that carried 300l of beer... no joke). After Bodenplatte.. well actually a little before that, groupe commanders were ignoring suicidal orders anyways. Wasn't like the _SS_ was there monitoring their every move.

speaking of suicide, the Luftwaffe had the Leonidas Squadron ( a staffel in KG 200(?)). they didn't carry any parachutes. BUT they did have to sign a paper saying that they would willingly give their life, and their mission would result in their death. I think they dropped that idea after higher ups thumbed their noses at it, sighting it was a waste of life and materials. but not before a few missions took place. I can't remember the unit, but it was another volenteer staffel one where they would ram heavies.. but they had parachutes fully intent on bailing out just before or just after impact.


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2011)

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm how to make comment 

the drop tank was a leverage point it was to carry the hopeful JG to longer ranges to apply more cannon rounds into the Us heavy bombers whether US fighter escorts were involved or not. To be honest I would say either we have some pretty green pilots that were staying as close as they could in formation or to their attacking leader and did not follow orders to drop tank as protocol would be intended or we have a pilot of some skill or questionable skill who thought he had dropped tank as he was in the attack mode with a US bomber/fighter.

As the result of being pursued often a jump on a LW fighter the German pilot is only thinking of one thing and that is too dive and roll as close to the earth as possible instead of giving of himself in battle and in this regard it is more than a 1 on 1 situation but 3 to 1 or more.

orders were ignored as much as possible this can be said as example: of the original thesis in the Sturmgruppen - IV. Sturm/JG 3 as to have all ammo expended and then ram a bomber in any means possible to bring it down. Again the point is the pilot is more important than the A/C which can be replaced.


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2011)

Well covered by Neil Page in his Luftwaffe blog here.

FalkeEins - the Luftwaffe blog: Search results for kamikaze

Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 20, 2011)

Not sure if you guys knew this or not but Neil and I had the most definitive web-site on he net covering all 3 Sturmgruppen for several years, which of course is not longer available. Ospreys book is trash ..............


----------



## jayastout (Aug 21, 2011)

I did not know that. Interesting link. The discussion of the _Nazi Kamikazes_ was interesting.

Any idea where a person could get a copy--I didn't notice if it said, and it's not listed on Amazon.

BTW, if you could recommend a few books--in English--that describe air action from the German perspective I'd be appreciative. Particularly those that include first-hand accounts.


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2011)

sorry but the German philosophy abhoars in this case giving of oneself in air combat by ramming to the death. may or may not help but I know Oskar and Fritz, have for many years. When Sonderkommando Elbe was shown Fritz was pretty upset with the history channel for not translating some of the German language from two of his kameraden correctly, (they were not done speaking when they were cut-off), he even wrote me asking me what he should do as this was the reason and the only reason thinking the History channel would do the utmost to represent his unit truthfully..............nope.

Neil did a good job with his overview but after seeing the episode completely several times I almost puked it was full of errors or unfinished statements that were needed to take one to the next level of understanding.

Jay you need to take up German as this is really the only way you will get a true nature of the Kommando and Sturmstaffel 1/Sturmgruppen in books detailing this subject matter, there is nothing and I mean nothing worthy in English so far.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 21, 2011)

You read the combat reports about attacked the LW pilots not dropping their tanks...and if you check out gun camera footage you will see it in all the dramatic and devistating effects. and you would say it is insane...or they were green or too busy evading at that point. for us airmen it was routine. when confirmed bandits were sighted the first thing you did was set your fuel selector and drop tanks. it didnt matter to them....they were over german occupied territory. if the tank came down, with the burst of fuel starting a blaze that burnt something...no big deal it was german! now for the LW pilot it was a different story. he gets bounced over berlin, kassel, munich...he may not be so anxious to dump a load octane fuel on his own city and possibly cause harm to the countrymen he is trying to protect. i would think...and yes this is all supposition i have never read a LW pilot's account of such...he would try to evade to a place where he could drop it. given the circumstances he may take fatal outcome rather than possibly hurting his own.


----------



## Erich (Aug 21, 2011)

D ~

it was standard procedure to drop tanks before an attack on a US bomber formation. you might say this was an unwritten law/ due to the prospect of getting bounced during summer of 44 and later there was no need to have the extra weight, this in effect answers in part why the Fat ones order was not always adhered to - it was that stupid


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 21, 2011)

E,

Oh i understand that. but wasnt the intercept points ( and hence the area where they would be dropping ) usually a rural area far from a metropolis ( when ever possible that is)? i was making a reference to those instances where it baffled you as to why they kept the tanks. they would have dumped them prior to a run so barring a mechanical malfunction...why did they keep them? later in the was when a lot of squadrons were out hunting they bounced a lot of unsuspecting LW ac all over the country....many time whilst strafing airfields and train yards.


----------



## jayastout (Aug 21, 2011)

Erich said:


> Neil did a good job with his overview but after seeing the episode completely several times I almost puked it was full of errors or unfinished statements that were needed to take one to the next level of understanding.
> 
> Jay you need to take up German as this is really the only way you will get a true nature of the Kommando and Sturmstaffel 1/Sturmgruppen in books detailing this subject matter, there is nothing and I mean nothing worthy in English so far.


 
Yes, it's sad that good-intentioned interviewees can have their words butchered and arranged in such a way as to ruin the original intent. I've done interviews before and been really discouraged with what was used.

I need to do a lot of things...learning German would be one of them. Sadly, it won't happen before I finish this next book. I'll simply have to be extra careful about what I find and use.


----------



## seesul (Aug 22, 2011)

Erich said:


> sorry but the German philosophy abhoars in this case giving of oneself in air combat by ramming to the death. may or may not help but I know Oskar and Fritz, have for many years. When Sonderkommando Elbe was shown Fritz was pretty upset with the history channel for not translating some of the German language from two of his kameraden correctly, (they were not done speaking when they were cut-off), he even wrote me asking me what he should do as this was the reason and the only reason thinking the History channel would do the utmost to represent his unit truthfully..............nope.
> 
> Neil did a good job with his overview but after seeing the episode completely several times I almost puked it was full of errors or unfinished statements that were needed to take one to the next level of understanding.
> 
> Jay you need to take up German as this is really the only way you will get a true nature of the Kommando and Sturmstaffel 1/Sturmgruppen in books detailing this subject matter, there is nothing and I mean nothing worthy in English so far.



Hi Erich,

I can imagine Fritz´s upset. I´ve been in touch with him too since 2 years ago and can say that he´s willing to talk about his experience...
One question Erich - why is yours and Neil´s web about Sturmgruppen not active anymore?

For jayastout - Fritz speaks English way better than me so should you be interested just PM me for his e-mail address...


----------



## stona (Aug 22, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> E,
> 
> Oh i understand that. but wasnt the intercept points ( and hence the area where they would be dropping ) usually a rural area far from a metropolis ( when ever possible that is)?



The interception took place where it took place,the interceptors would have no idea what was beneath them.The first task was to assemble,usually over a geographical feature of some type,maybe a town. The interceptors,now in formation,would attempt to manoeuvre themselves into a suitable position for an attack which could take some time. Once this was achieved they would,in theory, make the interception. They sometimes did not,particularly against heavily escorted formations. As the bomber formation was moving at considerable speed over the ground the actual interception point was not predictable.
You will have noticed the red lettering on Luftwaffe drop tanks. This,apart from the obvious "Not a Bomb" information also offers a reward for the return of the tank.
Here's a document drawn up from PoW interrogations.







You'll notice from one of my earlier posts that allied pilots also sometimes entered combat with drop tanks attached. I have absolutely no clue as to why they would do that,barring a failiure to jettison.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 22, 2011)

drop tanks were dropped wherever there was a bomber formation to attack inbound, over target IP or target and outbound so it did not matter, just as stona has stated.

Roman the Sturmgruppen web-site was removed as all of them were off the compuserve.com. they were no longer offering the web-space as I understand it to non profitable web-link/sites. Neil got very busy with translating and I got involved sadly with Familie problems and trying to slowly put together my book projects for release which are still sitting on the floor.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 22, 2011)

Hate how life interferes like that! 

Erich, whats your take on "The Last Flight of the Luftwaffe" by Weir?


----------



## Erich (Aug 22, 2011)

best book on the mission yet released. Fritz was wanting to have his own website on the mission as well as on operation Steinbock. super guy my interest in him actually was his service before the volunteering for the April 45 mission, earlier he was in the NJG 101 training and supplementing night fighter unit of which I was keenly searching for info. : 9./NJG 101 in summer of 44 before he went to day fighter training in 4./JG 104 in August 1944.


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 22, 2011)

ahhh yes I remember that HC episode.. HC really screwed the pooch on that one..


----------



## Njaco (Aug 31, 2011)

Just found this on wiki. 

"During the Battle of Britain the question of killing enemy pilots while in their parachutes was raised. In another conversation with Göring, Galland recalled:

Göring wanted to know if we had ever thought about this. "Jawohl, Herr Reichsmarschall!" He looked me straight in the eyes and said, "What would you think of an order to shoot down pilots who were bailing out? "I should regard it as murder, Herr Reichsmarschall", I told him, "I should do everything in my power to disobey such an order". "That is just the reply I had expected from you, Galland"."

Quote is attributed to Kaplan 2007, p. 15.

anyone verify?


----------



## Ratsel (Aug 31, 2011)

Did Galland also say the same in his book? along with "Leg Operation" (Operation Leg Drop).


----------



## parsifal (Sep 1, 2011)

i'll show my ignorance here..."Operation Leg Drop"...what was that?


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 1, 2011)

part of the story:

' _German forces treated Bader with great respect. When he bailed out, Bader's right prosthetic leg became trapped in the aircraft, and he escaped only when the leg's retaining straps snapped after he pulled the ripcord on his parachute. General Adolf Galland, a German flying ace, notified the British of his damaged leg and offered them safe passage to drop off a replacement. Hermann Göring himself gave the green light for the operation. The British responded on 19 August 1941 with the "Leg Operation"—an RAF bomber was allowed to drop a new prosthetic leg by parachute to St Omer, a Luftwaffe base in occupied France, as part of Circus 81 involving six Bristol Blenheims and a sizeable fighter escort. The Germans were less impressed when, task done, the bombers proceeded on to their bombing mission to Gosnay power station near Bethune, although bad weather prevented the target being attacked. Galland stated in an interview that the aircraft dropped the leg after bombing Galland's airfield. Galland did not meet Bader again until the summer, 1945, when he, Günther Rall and Hans-Ulrich Rudel arrived at RAF Tangmere as prisoners of war. Bader, according to Rall, personally arranged for Rudel, a fellow amputee, to be fitted with an artificial leg_. '


----------



## jayastout (Sep 5, 2011)

From what I've read and heard about relationships between the Germans, the British and the Americans, on a face-to-face basis, they generally treated each other pretty well. In the book (_The Men Who Killed the Luftwaffe_), I covered the story of a P-39 pilot (Hugh Dow) who downed an Me-109 pilot and subsequently drove out into the desert to recover him from the French soldiers that had captured him. Everyone was cordial and professional.


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2011)

This photo of J J Caulton and H-J Jabs says a lot. New Zealander Caulton and Jabs had shot each other down. I think Caulton looks uncomfortable. Jabs had shot down and killed Caulton's squadron mate P/O Pullin in the same engagement.







The two men became firm friends much later after the war.
Pilots on both sides were often men of similar backgrounds who,had there not been a war,would have had much in common. This picture of Caulton's Spitfire was supposedly given to him by Jabs.






Steve


----------



## Erich (Sep 6, 2011)

all except for Me 262 pilots. I have several US Mustang pilot notations to take out the jet pilots at all costs................ maybe a bit bizarre but I can see and feel the almost helpless feeling trying to engage these streaks as they came through the bomber formations hoping you could have a height advantage and somehow turn inside one of these suckers.


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 6, 2011)

in most of my readings...which is not near as extensive and most of you...but there are numerous accounts of LW pilots when finding out there were downed allied airmen captured...would show up and "rescue" them. they would get them to a luft stalag rather than the regular prison camps...or in several cases they actually saved their lives from the civilians who wished to hang, stone, or beat them to death...and unfortuntely that fate of allied airmen was not a rare occurance.


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2011)

There was a plethora of police and security organisations in the Third Reich and you are correct to say that it was important for a downed allied airman,particularly later in the war,to surrender to one of them,or at least be quickly handed over to them.Let's be honest here,most of these airmen had no intention of evading capture or walking to Switzerland! Cases of beatings and killings were almost invariably carried out by civilians,though some airmen were saved by civilian 'officials' like a local Burgermeister.
Reading personal accounts it seems that some Luftwaffe officers would 'borrow' a prisoner who was already safely in custody at a local Police post or similar. I'm not sure they could do this so easily once the prisoner had entered the PoW system. The prisoner would first go to a transit camp before,as airmen transferring to a 'Durchgangslager der Luftwaffe',abbreviated to'Dulag Luft'.This is where the Luftwaffe intelligence gathering and interrogation took place. These camps were run by and were under the control of the Luftwaffe. Eventually they would be transferred to a 'Luftwaffe-Stammlager' more familiar to movie watchers as a 'Stalag Luft'.

Assaults on airmen didn't just happen in Germany.There is at least one case of a badly wounded Luftwaffe airman being badly beaten before he was rescued by the Metropolitan Police. He had parachuted into a park in London. He later died of his wounds but the beating can't have helped much.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Njaco (Sep 7, 2011)

It happened many times with LW crews as well. The date is pretty important. 

Wolfgang Schellmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On 22 June 1941, the opening day of Operation Barbarossa, Schellmann's Bf 109E collided with a I-153 Chaykahe piloted by a Lt Kuzmin after he had just destroyed his 26th victim, a I-16. Kuzmin was killed in the collision but Schellmann managed to bail out over Soviet territory. Attempting to make his way back to German lines he was captured and later killed by NKVD troops."


----------



## jayastout (Sep 10, 2011)

Stona,

Is that document readily available anywhere?

Regards,
Jay


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> in most of my readings...which is not near as extensive and most of you...but there are numerous accounts of LW pilots when finding out there were downed allied airmen captured...would show up and "rescue" them. they would get them to a luft stalag rather than the regular prison camps...or in several cases they actually saved their lives from the civilians who wished to hang, stone, or beat them to death...and unfortuntely that fate of allied airmen was not a rare occurance.



There are many examples of USAAF crews being rescued by LW flak crews, German military personnel, etc.

There were reverse scenarios.

I also know personally one 355th pilot that surrendered his .45 to a SS Leiutnant who then shot him in the gut and left him to die. A German priest got him to a doctor and together they hid him from the SS Troopers around Ansbach until the end of the war. Bill Cullerton is alive today.


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 11, 2011)

did they ever catch the SS officer? i know a case where a 357th pilot was killed by a civilain. the act was witnessed but another person in the town. after the war an inquiry was made and they tracked down that civilian and he was convicted ( of a war crime ? ) and executed.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2011)

I don't know. This was April 4, 1945, who knows?

BTW the two 357FG pilots that collided with their victim Me110s on April 24, 1944 were Donnell and Connaghan. Connaghan was seen to bail out but did not survive the war and Donnell wa sPOW


----------



## Ratsel (Sep 11, 2011)

posted in the wrong thread lol


----------



## stona (Sep 12, 2011)

Not sure what document you mean Jay!

After the war the Royal Military Police went after those involved in the execution of PoWs who were re-captured after the 'great escape'. If my memory is correct thirteen people were hanged as a result of those investigations.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 12, 2011)

during the course of this conversation i did a quick half @$$ed look throught the one fighter group's loses to see what were the most prevelant causes. wrecks/collisions was #1...now that encompassed everything....training, coming back from missions (possibly shot up or low on fuel ), some bad weather, and collisions possibly in combat. you think about a fur ball with some 30 to 60 planes...each going 300+ mph with machinegun and cannon rounds whipping around as well....just not a healthy place to be. anyways, enemy fighters was 2nd and flak came in 3rd.


----------



## Erich (Sep 12, 2011)

Interesting comment D ~

the closest thing for the LW fighters was their S/E attempts at night fighting where they were terrible at overclaiming.................. accidents and landing and taking off and running out of fuel were tops with these pilots and of course one of the important issues if not well scheduled in blind flying was the terrible winter weather at night.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 13, 2011)

along with Eric's post about the LW, also take into acount that after Sept 44 when a/c parks were getting loaded with aircraft, a lot of pilots and mechanics, instead of fixing a battered machine, just went and picked a new one up. How this was reflected in the stats, I don't know, but I could guess that might be recorded a a loss. Maybe?

And especially in the East with the front changing quickly, many a/c were left on bases as JGs had to move quickly. Another loss to the stats?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2011)

Njaco said:


> along with Eric's post about the LW, also take into acount that after Sept 44 when a/c parks were getting loaded with aircraft, a lot of pilots and mechanics, instead of fixing a battered machine, just went and picked a new one up. How this was reflected in the stats, I don't know, but I could guess that might be recorded a a loss. Maybe?
> 
> And especially in the East with the front changing quickly, many a/c were left on bases as JGs had to move quickly. Another loss to the stats?



I have had several exchanges with Dr Prien on the subject of battle damaged German aircraft, due to crash landing and strafing damage. He was pretty clear that the LW made every effort to repair those with less than '60% damage'. he was less clear on disposition of various staged damaged ships either as hanger queens or how many were lost as a result of transit to major repair facilities or simply abandoned when retreating - particularly at end of war.

The huge difference in perception between a US/RAF fighter claim as 'destroyed' for a battle damaged 109 that crash landed - is that there was a chance it would be returned to service even if the pilot died of wounds - therefore in the minds of the LW, the aircraft was not 'lost'. I know this accounts for some of the over claiming by USAAF but have no sense of percentage.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> during the course of this conversation i did a quick half @$$ed look throught the one fighter group's loses to see what were the most prevelant causes. wrecks/collisions was #1...now that encompassed everything....training, coming back from missions (possibly shot up or low on fuel ), some bad weather, and collisions possibly in combat. you think about a fur ball with some 30 to 60 planes...each going 300+ mph with machinegun and cannon rounds whipping around as well....just not a healthy place to be. anyways, enemy fighters was 2nd and flak came in 3rd.



It's all about the mission profile for the group. The two leading strafers, 355th and 4th FG, had far higher losses strafing than air to air. 

Comparisons versus 357FG
The 355th had nearly 5x the scores on the ground and about 2.5x losses to flak than 357th FG.. The 357th had 2x fatal accidents to the 355th (12 to six) and 1.5X Ops losses to 355th (weather, fuel, mechanical) (45 to 31) - these are P-51 Operations statistics for about the same number of sorties.

Net - the 357th was a better air to air success story, but operationally in context of German fighters destroyed per operational loss the 355th was slightly better.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 13, 2011)

Thanks Bill. I agree about the determination to repair damaged a/c but did Prien ever say this was still a priority towards the end? I think thats where even 20% damaged a/c might have been left as is and a new one obtained - do you know if this would have been listed as a loss or still recorded as damaged?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 13, 2011)

Njaco said:


> Thanks Bill. I agree about the determination to repair damaged a/c but did Prien ever say this was still a priority towards the end? I think thats where even 20% damaged a/c might have been left as is and a new one obtained - do you know if this would have been listed as a loss or still recorded as damaged?



Simple answer - no idea what the processes were at the very end. Until April, however the LW was able to retreat in an orderly fashion, leaving only the aircraft which could not have wings removed and transported by truck or rail (preferably at night - lol)


----------



## Erich (Sep 13, 2011)

this is invariably tied into your question Njaco, what were the shortages during 1945 of fuel and reserves for both the day/night fighter forces, lets be blunt here....................... during the spring of 45 the A/F's were covered with parked LW crates just haphazardly left sitting with no camo attempts to be riddled with .50 cal rounds. Eisting day/night fighter staffeln in a gruppe were now being reduced to 1-2 staffels and even then hardly any fuel except for the few aces still flying, the pilots could pick any A/C they felt like taking as long as ammo was in supply on the craft.


----------



## jayastout (Sep 13, 2011)

stona said:


> Not sure what document you mean Jay!
> 
> Cheers
> Steve


 
Hmmm...can't see it now, Steve. I think it was embedded in your post of 8-22-11. It was only part of a page but it looked like an intelligence debriefing of a captured Luftwaffe pilot. It'd be great to get a copy of something like that if it's available.

Regards,
Jay


----------



## bobbysocks (Sep 13, 2011)

those ad hoc stats were from KIAs only...i didnt have a chance to look at the reasons POWs were brought down. so that part of the "loses" group is mssing from my numbers for that FG. additionally, there were a lot of crashes that lead to neither POW or KIA ...but werent on their home field and the pilotswere returned to their units within days. these i am having a hard time locating. i cant find the information regrading these. i know on one Jan 45 mission low fuel and bad weather forced several guys to belly in on farmers fields in france. some made it to a 9th AF bases but crumpled them on after sliding off the icy steel runway. (iirc, shortly afterwards an order came out to not land at 9th bases as to not "tie-up" the runways with wrecks.) i can only find a few of these incidents of wreckage rercorded but not the one's i know for sure.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 14, 2011)

bobbysocks said:


> those ad hoc stats were from KIAs only...i didnt have a chance to look at the reasons POWs were brought down. so that part of the "loses" group is mssing from my numbers for that FG. additionally, there were a lot of crashes that lead to neither POW or KIA ...but werent on their home field and the pilotswere returned to their units within days. these i am having a hard time locating. i cant find the information regrading these. i know on one Jan 45 mission low fuel and bad weather forced several guys to belly in on farmers fields in france. some made it to a 9th AF bases but crumpled them on after sliding off the icy steel runway. (iirc, shortly afterwards an order came out to not land at 9th bases as to not "tie-up" the runways with wrecks.) i can only find a few of these incidents of wreckage rercorded but not the one's i know for sure.



There are always possible errors but I have a pretty good feel for all 8th AF losses - at least ops, plus accidents in which a fatality occurred. I have pretty much covered the Macrs which is how I was able to separate types of losses.


----------



## seesul (Sep 14, 2011)

jayastout said:


> Hmmm...can't see it now, Steve. I think it was embedded in your post of 8-22-11. It was only part of a page but it looked like an intelligence debriefing of a captured Luftwaffe pilot. It'd be great to get a copy of something like that if it's available.
> 
> Regards,
> Jay



Jay, did you get my PM I sent you yesterday? Thx.


----------



## jayastout (Sep 15, 2011)

seesul said:


> Jay, did you get my PM I sent you yesterday? Thx.


 
Seesul--No, I didn't get it. Did you use jayastout "at" usa dot net?

Thanks for trying,
Jay


----------

