Did the Luftwaffe Strafe Civilians in England in WW2?

[timshatz]

Although it was an RAF sinle seat fighter she sain the Americans were the worst culprits and used to enjoy it

No offense Gerry but how could she tell. A guy blowing by, shooting, at 300mph, and she can tell the guy enjoyed it?

What did the guy do, roll back the canopy, chop the throttle and yell "Yeeeeehhh Haaaaaaaawwwww?"

I can believe they did it. But that someone on the receiving end could tell the mental state of the pilots? Nah, no chance.

 

[Maximowitz]

Erich, if you have documentation to prove it I'm sure Mr Taylor would be interested to hear from you. Would you like me to contact him on your behalf? I'm more than happy to approach his publishers to establish communication with the author.

 

[Clay_Allison]

People in high stress situations, (including fighter pilots), who set out on a task, have a need to do something towards the fullfillment of that task. If they are frustrated in their attemps they will sometimes take ineffectual actions that 'duplicate' their intended goal. It's a form of posturing, which anybody in combat can be affected by.
A fighter pilot strafing civilian targets could be seen as posturing. He's frustrated because he hasn't found a military target, either through bad luck, or even being overly cautious, and eventually fires at something, anything, just to relieve the frustration.
It's not right, but that's a partial explanation of why it happens.
Or he could just be an evil sob.

By the way, N4521U, we have a hobby, and this is it.

That kind of psychology is just too foreign for people who've never felt adrenaline to understand. That's why I think only cold blooded actions should be counted as war crimes. Humans are imperfect creatures that are given to inhuman actions under extreme stress. A certain amount of collateral damage is to be expected when you employ them in combat. It's not the fault of the weapon that it overheats, nor is it the fault of the soldier who overheats under stresses that he was not psychologically built for. Taking revenge on a soldier for actions taken in the heat of battle makes no more sense than punishing an engine for seizing when drained of oil.

 

[Kurfürst]

So does this we will not see you crying war criminal about the P-51s staffing civilians at Dresden anymore?

Who's crying and what does ? I can only see a notorious troll, who was permabanned twice from here already seeking to start a flamewar..

As for the fighter strafings in 1945, it did happened and this was an actual order as Erich stated. I also recall seeing a Chuck Yeager interview where he told about this. Back in the briefing room, his only comment to a pilot next to him was something like 'We'd better win this war, because we don't, they will hang us all as war criminals for this'.

OTOH I am convinced that some 98% of the much propagandized strafings of civillians were simply due to identification difficulties, and/or individual pilots who didn't care much what and who they were shooting up, as long as it was enemy territory.

 

[The Basket]

I disagree.

All men must be accountable for their actions.

Even in war. Heat of battle.

Not snap decisions which may be life or death...but discipline must be absolute.

There are guys under great combat stress in parts of the world and the only difference between a nutcase and a fully trained soldier is discipline.

If you allow actions due to combat stress without the discipline then its open season.

A man...even a soldier will be judged and cannot be allowed to go beserk coz he can.

 

[pbfoot]

One must remember the period clothing was far drabber in colourthen today and it would be hard to distinguish civvie from military . Trains were legit targets and they were often full of non combatants

 

[Clay_Allison]

I disagree.

All men must be accountable for their actions.

Even in war. Heat of battle.

Not snap decisions which may be life or death...but discipline must be absolute.

There are guys under great combat stress in parts of the world and the only difference between a nutcase and a fully trained soldier is discipline.

If you allow actions due to combat stress without the discipline then its open season.

A man...even a soldier will be judged and cannot be allowed to go beserk coz he can.

Then people should not fight for people like you because you'll demand perfection and invariably ultimately punish them for serving you imperfectly. Back seat drivers like you are the reason terrorists use human shields. If they don't get our soldiers, armchair moralists will. Someday no one will want to go out to the battlefield and read Miranda rights to terrorists instead of shooting them. Who will defend your ideals then?

 

[Njaco]

Lets all heed Erich's advice and keep this civil and on-topic. Its too inviting to go to other areas. And name-calling.

 

[Clay_Allison]

*taking a chill pill*

 

[The Basket]

Then people should not fight for people like you because you'll demand perfection and invariably ultimately punish them for serving you imperfectly. Back seat drivers like you are the reason terrorists use human shields. If they don't get our soldiers, armchair moralists will. Someday no one will want to go out to the battlefield and read Miranda rights to terrorists instead of shooting them. Who will defend your ideals then?

I am ex raf...not an armchair driver. I would have defended my country and my ideals. Thanks for asking.

I don't demand perfection but if a POW or detainees were beaten to death by a soldier then he must face court martial for his action.

 

[Civettone]

My point is that you can't tell wheter they are civvies or a soliders, even if the person most far away on this picture is probably 150 meters away or less... how far away a fighter bomber pilot would be before starting an attack run? 500 m? 800? 1000?

My thought exactly. Even from a 100m I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Of course when strafing cities it must be a different story but I haven't heard them actually doing this. It seems it was more along roads outside of cities. No?
I was also thinking of how German fighter pilots hardly ever attacked ground targets in Russia, fearing it was too dangerous or either not their job. And I agree, imagine losing Hartmann by ground rifle fire!
It was also official strategy to attack crossroads and create traffic jams and overall confusion behind enemy lines. So where does one draw the line?

And I suppose a similar story can be told for the allies.

The issue of strafing per se could be considered separate as far as it related to what individual airmen or units did under their general orders, but it seems like the big picture issue was bombing policy, not strafing. Again for example the low atlitude fighter bomber raids by the Germans on smaller British cities ca. 1941 bombed town centers, did it really made a big difference whether or not they strafed too? (made a difference to a particular individual being strafed, I suppose, but not so much difference in general).

Allied or specifically USAAF fighters (which spent more time over Germany itself) routinely strafed targets like trains, road vehicles and river traffic where civilians were likely to be killed, yet the targets themselves had bona fide military value. And a lot of German 'strafing of civilians' would fall in the same category presumably. Another category for all combatants were areas closer to the ground combat front lines. Fighters demonstrably had a very hard time reliably telling their own soldiers from enemy frequently shooting up their own, so mistaking civilians for soldiers in such areas isn't a stretch at all; not the same as strafing city streets or farms far in the enemy's interior. There were many situations.

Joe

Excellent post!

Kris

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Several of you are getting out of hand! Keep this civil, or you can have this discussion in another forum!

I am not giving names, you know who you are!

 

[A4K]

What I am wondering is, a fighter or bomber that is strafing anything on the deck, is usually doing so when the pilots are assured of air supremacy.

In England, the LW didnt have air supremacy for too long, and I doubt the fighters were strafing anything that moves after 1940.

What I mentiond about my grandmother occurred ca. '43. (The fact that it was an Fw 190 points to the fact that it was post 1940 aswell). Though the Luftwaffe didn't have air superiority, they still performed strafing attacks against military targets in England, just as the Allies did on the continent before air superirity was won.

 

[parsifal]

I think it offensive to say that soldiers of any nationality enjoy killing people. If they do, they cross a line and cease to be soldiers really.

Killing, even organised killing, must serve a purpose. The object in war is achieve an objective, and ultimately, in a strategic sense that objective is to bring your opponent to the negotiating table. Often that involves terrorising civilian populations by dorect means, though there are strict rules about targetting civilians. This is semantics I know, but it is not illegal to sink a ship full of civilans, or to bomb a city knowing that civilians are going to die in that city. Although, the law is biased to whoever wins the war....Dionitz was charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but Harris was not charged with the terror bombing of Dresden ( and other German cities).

On the other hand, the treatment of civilan populations by the nazis in occupied Europe was clearly criminal.

Im not sure at what point a crime is committed when attacking civilians. Clearly attacking and murdering civilans after their government has surrendered, is criminal. But I dont think strafing the civilians of a country still at war is any sort of crime

Now I am not too sure about the Allies, but I do know that Germans deliberately strafed columns of refugees, and bombed cities to generate panic and dislocate communications. For me, distasteful as it is, it is still a a valid military strategy.

I think it grossly offensive to couch things as "the Americans liked to kill civilans" With the possible exception of the SS Death squads, I would say that most germans aborred this sort of behaviour as well

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it offensive to say that soldiers of any nationality enjoy killing people. If they do, they cross a line and cease to be soldiers really.

Killing, even organised killing, must serve a purpose. The object in war is achieve an objective, and ultimately, in a strategic sense that objective is to bring your opponent to the negotiating table. Often that involves terrorising civilian populations by dorect means, though there are strict rules about targetting civilians. This is semantics I know, but it is not illegal to sink a ship full of civilans, or to bomb a city knowing that civilians are going to die in that city. Although, the law is biased to whoever wins the war....Dionitz was charged with waging unrestricted submarine warfare, but Harris was not charged with the terror bombing of Dresden ( and other German cities).

On the other hand, the treatment of civilan populations by the nazis in occupied Europe was clearly criminal.

Im not sure at what point a crime is committed when attacking civilians. Clearly attacking and murdering civilans after their government has surrendered, is criminal. But I dont think strafing the civilians of a country still at war is any sort of crime

Now I am not too sure about the Allies, but I do know that Germans deliberately strafed columns of refugees, and bombed cities to generate panic and dislocate communications. For me, distasteful as it is, it is still a a valid military strategy.

I think it grossly offensive to couch things as "the Americans liked to kill civilans" With the possible exception of the SS Death squads, I would say that most germans aborred this sort of behaviour as well

Very insightful post whether one agrees with it or not.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I am ex raf...not an armchair driver. I would have defended my country and my ideals. Thanks for asking.

I don't demand perfection but if a POW or detainees were beaten to death by a soldier then he must face court martial for his action.

I wouldn't consider a situation involving a detainee to be in the "heat of battle" anyway. I was talking about decisions made while people are in fact actively trying to kill you.

For instance: you are in an urban environment and take fire from a building across the street, you return fire and civilians are killed. In the current political environment you cross your fingers and hope you aren't tried for murder in California.

 

[Messy1]

It was war. I have no doubt many atrocities were committed by both sides. I do not pretend to only think or believe only the enemy participated or did actions which are questionable at best to being immoral.

 

[stona]

There was a war on. Civilians ,on both sides, were targeted intentionally.I once had to explain to a youngster why a horse and cart would be a target for a fighter (from well known gun camera footage)
Anyone want to start a thread about the shooting of airmen in parachutes? That will really get you going.
Steve (feeling mischievous)

 

[Erich]

I could say something that would really get this out of control about the eastern part of Germany during 1945 but will not dare...........

as spoken keep the emotions under control if you would, things of the bombing of Dresden as one please, go back to the original posters question

 

[parsifal]

well, I have no proof or first hand information, but I think it entirely possible, if only on an isolated or occasional basis, that German fighters strafed targets (8including civilians, during the war.

In 1942, German fighters were carrying out low level hit and run raids across the channel. It seems entirely possible that these sweeps included strafing runs of thye English countryside