Precisely which article of which set of conventions?
Messerschmitt 109 Improvements
- Thread starter Ivan1GFP
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Precisely which article of which set of conventions?
In 1907 they were just about anticipating bombers. The 1907 Convention covering Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 25 states:
"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
There was a failure to get ratification of a clause about "the prohibition of the discharge of any kind of projectile or explosive from balloons or by similar means", which was suggested in 1898, extended to include aircraft in 1907. This was because the major powers were not going to sign away their right to try out the new method of bombardment.
It is therefore the article considered legally relevant to bombardment from the air.
The problem is that as soon as you place an anti aircraft gun or build a flak tower to defend your factories (which are legitimate targets) you are also defending other dwellings and buildings.
It is notable that nobody was ever charged with any war crime related to the bombing of cities at Nuremberg precisely because everyone had done it (including of course the victorious, prosecuting, powers) and the defence would refer to this clause.
Cheers
Steve
"The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited."
There was a failure to get ratification of a clause about "the prohibition of the discharge of any kind of projectile or explosive from balloons or by similar means", which was suggested in 1898, extended to include aircraft in 1907. This was because the major powers were not going to sign away their right to try out the new method of bombardment.
It is therefore the article considered legally relevant to bombardment from the air.
The problem is that as soon as you place an anti aircraft gun or build a flak tower to defend your factories (which are legitimate targets) you are also defending other dwellings and buildings.
It is notable that nobody was ever charged with any war crime related to the bombing of cities at Nuremberg precisely because everyone had done it (including of course the victorious, prosecuting, powers) and the defence would refer to this clause.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
silence
Senior Airman
Yep
There is also Article 27.
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
Yes, and that went out the window in WWI as well. Not even hospitals were marked by "distinctive and visible signs" as a rule. Bombing was never accurate enough to specifically avoid such buildings. The 1940 Blitz on London destroyed 16 of the churches built by Sir Christopher Wren after the great fire. Only nine were rebuilt, of three the towers survive, the others are gone forever. It very nearly got the greatest of all his churches (St Paul's Cathedral) too.
Here's a nice picture of Hallsville Junior School in London.
77 bodies were recovered but the number killed in this one school was much higher. Recent estimates suggest that up to 600 people, many children waiting for evacuation, were sheltering in the basement.
I notice that a lot of comments about bombing in WW2 come from people who live in countries that were never subjected to it.
The reasons why area bombing was developed (as opposed to the sort of bombing inflicted on Rotterdam which was purely to intimidate the population) has been done to death both here and elsewhere.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
You see things upside down but thats not the topic of the thread.
Why do you think that the Luftwaffe attacked Rotterdam ? They dropped less than 100 tons of bombs but managed to kill nearly 900 civilians and destroy 24,978 homes, 24 churches and 62 schools. So much for Article 27.
It worked, the Dutch surrendered, they were trying to before the bombs fell.
It's not a question of who did what first. I couldn't care less. This was the way that aerial bombing was going to go. The Germans reaped the whirlwind.
War really is hell. It's a lesson that we all seem incapable of learning.
Cheers
Steve
The city was under siege and the Luftwaffe provided close support bombardment for the impeding German Army attack after the garrison refused to surrender.
Just like RAF Bomber Command did at Caen etc.
Again not the subject of the thread.
No, the correct answer is that the German armed forces invaded the Netherlands, and yes, not the subject of the thread. Probably a good idea to get back on topic.
So, the Bf 109; small, potent fighter that lived far longer than its designers envisaged and proved an enormously successful design, long after it had reached obsolescence. Not being an expert on the '109, but an interested party, when looking over the different variations and modifications, I find it interesting to note the actual modifications that were carried out in comparison to what we have discussed here. They weren't as substantial as we might have done (obviously). Yes, there were recontoured nose, revised armament and modified wings between the first production examples and the last, but the big changes that were made were to armament and of course to powerplant throughout its career and latterly the tail section in later models as a result of wartime expediency - in German hands that is. Obviously the Czech and Spanish derivatives had more alteration outside of what Messerschmitt could have done - again out of expediency compared to the original Gustav, but even then the changes were not structural and only the Czechs saw to substantial changes to the canopy.
Last edited:
Close bombardment of the city centre, almost, they just missed. Schmidt threatened the destruction of the city centre in an attempt to convince the Dutch to surrender, he did not specify how he would do this. I'm sure those 900 Dutch people would have appreciated the niceties of having their city centre flattened in support of an assault rather than to force a surrender.
Caen was more than four years later, we were living in a different world.
Cheers
Steve
Exactly. Rotterdam city centre is actually about 500 meters from where the Dutch and German troops were fighting over a bridge and a couple of hundred meters perhaps from the river bank. The Dutch held the area north of the river, the Germans planned an assault with paratroopers flanking somewhere around that bridge.
The centre burned out as a result of the fires ignited by the something like 50 bombers that performed the bombing from as low a 700 meter altitude, severing gas lines and igniting large vegetable oil tanks in the docksides.
Well the discussion on that started with you arguing that the Germans could happily bomb and/or machinegun/barrage them to bits, since the town was defended, so... 
I am sure Dutch civillians did not give a neuken about wheter it was the German, Dutch, British or American Army or Air force wrecking their homes to bits.
I am sure Dutch civillians did not give a neuken about wheter it was the German, Dutch, British or American Army or Air force wrecking their homes to bits.
To return to the original topic, sort of, I think the saga of the Hawker Typhoon canopy illustrates just how hard it can be to modify an aircraft for a different canopy and better rear vision.
The prototype Typhoon (and early production) looked like this.
The rear vision was terrible and was quickly flagged as a problem. An initial solution was some rear quarter lights. Due to the structure of the air frame, which I have no intention of explaining here, the skins in the area behind the cockpit were stressed. It was thought that a small quarter light might be an adequate solution in the short term.
On 9th May 1940 the prototype suffered a serious structural faiiure of the rear fuselage. Whilst not a definitive cause the quarter lights were considered as possibly having contributed to this.
As a result the entire rear fuselage was redesigned to allow a better clear view canopy. It was NINE MONTHS before this appeared in production aircraft.
In the mean time a thicker and stronger quarter light was fitted as a temporary measure.
It was January 1943 before the single piece sliding hood was introduced as the ultimate refinement.
I keep saying that there is a tendency for many here to underestimate the consequences of modifications to aircraft, particularly those already in production. Even the smallest changes can have serious ramifications, both for the aircraft and production schedules.
You can't "just" do anything to a production WW2 fighter
Cheers
Steve
The prototype Typhoon (and early production) looked like this.
The rear vision was terrible and was quickly flagged as a problem. An initial solution was some rear quarter lights. Due to the structure of the air frame, which I have no intention of explaining here, the skins in the area behind the cockpit were stressed. It was thought that a small quarter light might be an adequate solution in the short term.
On 9th May 1940 the prototype suffered a serious structural faiiure of the rear fuselage. Whilst not a definitive cause the quarter lights were considered as possibly having contributed to this.
As a result the entire rear fuselage was redesigned to allow a better clear view canopy. It was NINE MONTHS before this appeared in production aircraft.
In the mean time a thicker and stronger quarter light was fitted as a temporary measure.
It was January 1943 before the single piece sliding hood was introduced as the ultimate refinement.
I keep saying that there is a tendency for many here to underestimate the consequences of modifications to aircraft, particularly those already in production. Even the smallest changes can have serious ramifications, both for the aircraft and production schedules.
You can't "just" do anything to a production WW2 fighter
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
The Spitfire was a relatively simple alteration structurally. I don't know enough about the P-51's construction to make an informed comment. For many aircraft it was not a simple matter, the argument I made regarding the Bf 109 previously.
It all depends how the airframe is constructed and stressed. I know why it was such a problem for the Typhoon, but really don't have the time or will to explain it here. The facts are that it entailed major structural alterations and took nine months to reach production aircraft.
The Typhoon also illustrates that such changes CAN be made, even when they entail considerable modifications. The problem for the Germans and the Bf 109 was that they didn't have the time to even explore, never mind undertake, such a task.
Cheers
Steve
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,022
- Jun 25, 2013
Perhaps, but the P-51 did have stability issues, due to reduced keel area aft of the c/g, after the bubble canopy was installed.
That would be the P-51D/K but the razor back P-51B/C also had the same problem.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
