Luftwaffe Pilots - Sanctioned to Bail Out?

[Nikademus]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[stona]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[tyrodtom]

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]

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]

They weren't. You are not wrong.
Steve

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.