Strafing of Civilians in England
Steven Gordon
targets during the Battle of Britain. Does anyone know if this was an
official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying) to cause
rather limited damage?
--
Posted from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
casita
> Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying) to cause
> rather limited damage?
It was more risky for the people on the ground:
"When I saw those little kiddies in the Tube in London night after
night...and people with baby carriages who were straffed by the Luftwaffe in
Bournemouth."
Lyle James Lancaster pilot RCAF
John Halliwell
<stev...@earthlink.net> writes
>I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned) civilian
>targets during the Battle of Britain.
I've never seen or heard any suggestion anything like this ever took
place. Airfields and the like may have been attacked in this way and
they sometimes had non-combatants around, but doesn't really count.
There may have been occasions in the Battle of France where German
fighters strafed troop columns who were close to civilian refugees going
the other way.
> Does anyone know if this was an
>official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
If you read Galland's book, he says he was told to order his pilots to
shoot RAF pilots in parachutes, apparently he refused considering it to
be murder. Assuming this is the case, I doubt strafing civilians would
be very likely.
>Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying) to cause
>rather limited damage?
I can't think of a single reason why you would expose yourself to such
risks to kill a few civilians, remembering fuel was always critical for
the German fighters in the BoB.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
--
Don Phillipson
news:9e8em3$rje$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
> I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned) civilian
> targets during the Battle of Britain. Does anyone know if this was an
> official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
99.9 per cent of combat during the Battle of Britain
occurred at altitudes above the range at which any
machine gun could be aimed at a ground target.
Your reading may have misinformed you.
--
Donald Phillipson
dphil...@trytel.com
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
613 822 0734
--
Nightjar
> targets during the Battle of Britain. Does anyone know if this was an
> official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
My father related seeing a German raider flying along a railway line
just
after he had joined up. The pilot waved to him and others, who were
waiting
at a railway station in RAF uniform. He obviously was not looking to
shoot
at people, even service personnel.
> Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying) to cause
> rather limited damage?
A low flying aircraft is very difficult to hit with ground fire, which
is
why barrage balloons were used - to force them up. The point of single
aircraft raiders was to cause disruption, rather than actual damage.
Even a
single aircraft would produce an air raid alert, which had the
potential to
disrupt quite a large area if people went to the shelters. It was
probably
most useful as a tactic in the early part of the war, before people
had
become accustomed to air raids.
Colin Bignell
Michael Emrys
> Steven Gordon <stev...@earthlink.net> writes
>> I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned) civilian
>> targets during the Battle of Britain.
>
> I've never seen or heard any suggestion anything like this ever took
> place.
It may be worth keeping in mind in relation to this subject that a lot
of
planes were firing a lot of rounds through a lot of guns. Most by far
of
that ammunition fell harmlessly in open country I am sure, but it is
not
entirely beyond conceiving that some may have fallen near civilians on
the
ground or even have struck some. Such rounds would have retained
enough
energy to do harm and could have been confused with deliberate
strafing.
Michael
ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <9e8em3$rje$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU>, Steven Gordon
><stev...@earthlink.net> writes
>>I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned) civilian
>>targets during the Battle of Britain.
>
>I've never seen or heard any suggestion anything like this ever took
>place. Airfields and the like may have been attacked in this way and
>they sometimes had non-combatants around, but doesn't really count.
>>Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying) to cause
>>rather limited damage?
>
>I can't think of a single reason why you would expose yourself to such
>risks to kill a few civilians, remembering fuel was always critical for
>the German fighters in the BoB.
It sounds much more like what happened later in the war - '43-'44,
after the Germans had given up on bomber raids as such but were
still harrassing the south coast with tip-and-run low-level
attacks by Fw190 fighter-bombers - they came in very low, dropped
their bombs, shot up whatever they could then high-tailed it
back to France before anything could catch them. My father
(with coastal forces in Newhaven) tells of a lot of raids like
that.
Mind you, he was also at a training camp in 1940 when they got
strafed by Bf109s, so it did happen earlier on.
--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation research group
Physics Department, UW Aberystwyth
"When I was young I used to scintillate
now I only sin 'til ten past three" (Ogden Nash)
--
Martin Rapier
<9ebkjf$109u$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>...
> > I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned) civilian
> > targets during the Battle of Britain. Does anyone know if this was an
> > official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
I imagine it was private initiative on the part of the heroic pilots during
the Luftwaffes British urban regeneration programme, or possibly bored
machinegunners letting rip. Offically the Luftwaffe were aiming at military
targets, although the inhabitants of Warsaw, Belgrade, Rotterdam, Guernica,
Coventry etc etc etc might forgiven for occasionally wondering exactly
where all these military targets were.
> 99.9 per cent of combat during the Battle of Britain
> occurred at altitudes above the range at which any
> machine gun could be aimed at a ground target.
> Your reading may have misinformed you.
Umm, funnily enough on a gardening programme just last week there was a
featuure about a makeover on a garden in Bourneville on the outskirst of
Birmingham. Two elderly gentleman, who were previous occupants of the
house, came to view the progress. As a casual remark they mentioned the
time a Heinkel, having dropped its bombs, flew at low altitude along the
back gardens machinegunning everything it could see. They were just
children at the time, dived into the shelter and it missed them. Obviously
another vital strategic threat to the German war machine.
My parents lived in South London during the war and my father in particular
recounts several instances when enemy planes (usually bombers) flew at low
altitude over the houses machinegunning. At least machineguns gave the
civilians a sporting chance, unlike dropping bombs on their heads at night
or firing ballistic missiles at them (my fathers house, although hit by
incendiary bombs, was eventually destroyed by a V2). Yet another strategic
military target destroyed, my grandmothers stockpile or marmalade was
obliterated but my fathers wheelbarrow survived - so only a partially
successful mission I'm afraid.
Probably just one of the 0.1%, or perhaps they are all misinformed as well.
To paraphrase Heinz, 'They were there'.
Cheers
Martin.
--
Stuart
were done by bombers flying at very low altitude. Possibly shooting up
anything they saw as they made their way back to their baseafter making the
bombing run and not in the vicinity of RAF fighters.
Also these instances were all in daylight hours.
"Don Phillipson" <dphil...@trytel.com> wrote in message
news:9ebkjf$109u$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
--
Pekka Riiali
If this is from JAMES, F/O Lyle Franklin (J26115), then it have nothing
to do with the Battle of Britan, because this pilot graduated from
No.1 SFTS (in Canada) 30 April 1943.
(source: http://www.airforce.ca/citations/wwii/JACK.htm)
Or is there the Tube in London, Ontario, where he enlisted?
//Beke
--
+ rii...@lut.fi ++ Pekka Riiali +
+ WWW: http://www.lut.fi/~riiali ++ Punkkerikatu 1 B 4 +
+ irc: Beke ham: OH5LUQ ++ FIN-53850 LPR FINLAND +
+ pgp public key available on request ++ Tel: +358 (0)40 5431128 +
--
AlanS
| I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned) civilian
| targets during the Battle of Britain. Does anyone know if this was an
| official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
| Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying) to cause
| rather limited damage?
---
My mother assures me that she was strafed in Isham Road in London SW16
(North Croydon) - she cannot recall the type of aircraft as she says
that
she 'stuck her head in the hedge'. I doubt that it was policy. There
are
accounts of British strafing without (against?) orders. Even
Lancasters did
it. I doubt any RAF crew would admit to deliberately attacking
civilians.
AVM 'Johnnie' Johnson in his book 'Wing Leader' describes, as seen
from his
Spitfire, above, two Lancasters, returning from bombing Caen,
attacking
stationary enemy troops. One making a pass South & turning to make a
second
run heading North. Another Lancaster joins in flying South, both
strafing
troops from ". . . a few feet above the Caen-Falaise road . . . there
is a
considerable amount of light flak . . . both avoid each other with a
careful
little swerve". He describes this as: ". . . a bit of a lark. Like a
schoolboy away from the vigilance of his prefect, he is making the
most of
his freedom." and "Speechless, I watch the role of fighter-bomber
being
carried out, and most effectively, by the four-engined heavies."
A fighter aircraft strafing suburbia seems relatively safe! The German
pilot
attacking the suburbs would have had no tall buildings to deal with &
I
suspect he was safer from AA fire at 50 feet agl than he would be at
1000
feet. There was a determination on the Allied side to get at the enemy
in
any way possible combined with youthful exuberance (a typical bomber
crew
might be aged 18 to 23); I suspect the German pilot was little
different.
The physical damage may not be great but it may have been retribution
against the 'British Terror-flyers' who had bombed his relations and
friends.
_________________________
Alan Saunders (Web Apprentice)
550...@theraf.co.uk
-----x--'x--0--x'--x-----
http://www.550sqn.theraf.co.uk
Martin Briscoe
The message <9ebkkm$71a$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu>
from John Halliwell <jo...@photopia.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
> I've never seen or heard any suggestion anything like this ever took
> place. Airfields and the like may have been attacked in this way and
> they sometimes had non-combatants around, but doesn't really count.
The first building attacked on the British mainland by the Luftwaffe
was a hotel on the West coast of Sccotland that was machine-gunned.
Fortunately no one was killed but there was no military target. It
sounds very much like a bored pilot at the end of an unsuccessful
anti-shippinmg patrol who wanted to use up his ammunition. There was
no known military reason for it being targetted.
MB
Andrew Clark
"Michael Emrys" <em...@olypen.com> wrote
> It may be worth keeping in mind in relation to this subject
that a lot
> of planes were firing a lot of rounds through a lot of guns.
Most
> by far of that ammunition fell harmlessly in open country I am
sure,
> but it is not entirely beyond conceiving that some may have
fallen
> near civilians on the ground or even have struck some.
As a matter of fact, according to the British official history,
shrapnel from AA fire caused *more* civilian casualties than
direct enemy action over the whole of the war. London alone had
600+ heavy and 400+ medium and light AA guns by November 1940,
shooting scores of tons of metal into the sky every night. And
all of it came back... That is why the tin helmet issued to civil
defence workers was so essential - their memories are full of
tales of shrapnel pattering, pinging and occasionally crashing
onto their heads during a raid.
--
casita
> If this is from JAMES, F/O Lyle Franklin (J26115), then it have nothing
> to do with the Battle of Britan, because this pilot graduated from
> No.1 SFTS (in Canada) 30 April 1943.
> (source: http://www.airforce.ca/citations/wwii/JACK.htm)
> Or is there the Tube in London, Ontario, where he enlisted?
He was quoted in "Battlefields of the Air: Canadians in Bomber Command" pg
136.
It was common knowledge among aircrew that Bournemouth was straffed.
Jack Harding RCAF Navigator also mentions Bournemouth being attacked and
people killed in his book pg 13 "Dancing Navigator".
"They Shall Grow not Old" details the RCAF killed in a raid on Bournemouth
also.
--
Andrew Clark
"Steven Gordon" <stev...@earthlink.net> wrote
> I've read that German airplanes strafed (machine-gunned)
civilian
> targets during the Battle of Britain. Does anyone know if this
was an
> official policy or rather a personal decision by pilots?
The British official history of WW2 evacuation and medical
facilities, "Problems of Social Policy" specifically says that at
least 4000 civilian casualties were caused by low-level strafing
attacks by German aircraft.
> Also, wouldn' strafing be a risky tactic (requiring low flying)
to cause
> rather limited damage?
Not in open rural and coastal areas, where most of the casualties
occured.
casitaman
>Even Lancasters did it. I doubt any RAF crew would admit to deliberately
attacking
> civilians.
They flew low over France, but would not shoot friendlies. At night @ 25 000
ft over Germany, how could they possibly determine a civilian from a
soldier? Just identifying the city was a challenge.
Besides that. their tracers would give away their position.
>two Lancasters, returning from bombing Caen,attacking
> stationary enemy troops.
Bill was on that raid. It was late evening. It was an enemy combat zone in
support of the Allied army. His log book and squadron record indicate they
blasted anything that moved.
> http://www.550sqn.theraf.co.uk
My Uncle Bill McCollum flew with 550 with with Ken Newman and later at 576
with Raymond Linklater. Three of his crewmates, including Wing Commander
Newman survived and supplied us with a lot of info and some photos. Their
WAG jacked out and his replacement was KIA. They had gone through training
at 1656 HCU and had selected each other as a crew.
casita
> As a matter of fact, according to the British official history,
> shrapnel from AA fire caused *more* civilian casualties than
> direct enemy action over the whole of the war.
Good grief! Do you have some sort of quote on that?
Doug Harvey RCAF - he was featured in Death by Moonlight - wrote in "Boys,
Bombs and Brussell Sprouts" that EVERY time they returned to England they
were shot at by their own AA.
--
Andrew Clark
"casita" <cas...@home.com> wrote
> Good grief! Do you have some sort of quote on that?
See T H O'Brien's "Civil Defence", HMSO 1955, the British
official history of that sector of wartime effort. I'm afraid I
can't be more specific without re-reading the whole volume.
John Lansford
>Doug Harvey RCAF - he was featured in Death by Moonlight - wrote in "Boys,
>Bombs and Brussell Sprouts" that EVERY time they returned to England they
>were shot at by their own AA.
What goes up, must come down. Even though AA shells used timed fuses
to explode at a certain altitude, many of them didn't explode at all
until they fell back to earth. Low and medium range altitude shells
relied on contact to explode, and the thousands of shells that hit no
plane would land somewhere on the ground.
There were documented cases of civilians being injured in Honolulu
during the Pearl Harbor attack from falling AA shells, so the original
claim that AA caused more civilian casualties in London than the
Germans did makes sense.
John Lansford
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/
casitaman
>the original claim that AA caused more civilian casualties in London than
the
> Germans did makes sense.
I am not disputing what Mr Clark posted, simply surprised.
Therefore, may we also assume "that AA caused more civilian casualties
in
Berlin than the British did" also making sense?
>Even though AA shells used timed fuses to explode at a certain altitude,
many of them didn't >explode at all until they fell back to earth.
Let's look at the effect this had on Germany. They had a lot of AA
guns in
their cities. The reason being that they were crowd pleasers. It
satisfied
people to hear them blasting away at the bombers.
The fact is that the German military told Hitler that the best thing
thing
they could do would be to send Intruder fighters to Britain to attack
the
armadas of the air as they were marsalling and most vulnerable. It was
Harris's worst nightmare. It was THE GREATEST MISSED OPPORTUNITY OF
THE
BOMBER WAR, and it was Hitler's personal decision. Hitler considered
that
only aircraft shiot down over Germany were of value in convincing the
German
people that they were being defended. The BBC did not report RAF
bombers
shot down over Britain as missing, because they were not. Therefore,
Hitler
relied heavily on AA.
The aluminum used in the fuses of the Flak shells they fired off would
have
produced 40 000 night fighters. Speer put it this way: ""In the Reich
and in
the western theatre the barrels of 10 000 guns were pointed toward the
sky.
The same guns could well have been employed in
Russia against tanks and other ground targets. Had it not been for
this
front, the air front over Germany, our defensive strength against
tanks
would have been about doubled. " Albert Speer.
If we assume that AA actually caused more casualties than the bombers
themselves, consider this: In comparison to the devastion caused by
German
night fighters, flak was much less sucessfull at shooting down RAF
bombers.
In addition to this, a Shrage Muzik attack from underneath into the
fuel
cells was catostrophic for the bomber and the crew. A few short bursts
and
it was all over. Firing from below directly into the bomb bay was
asking for
trouble.
FLAK was nowhere as lethal.
Another point to consider: What was the quality of workmanship with
all the
boming taking its toll on the economic system? In fact, many of the
workers
were slaves who's skill and more importantly dedication to the Nazi
cause
was questionable. Industrial sabotague was a very real concern in
Germany.
So, Germany fired off a lot of AA shells - of questionable quality -
over
their cities.
John Halliwell
<jo...@vnet.net> writes
>There were documented cases of civilians being injured in Honolulu
>claim that AA caused more civilian casualties in London than the
>Germans did makes sense.
During the Blitz, most civilians would have been in shelter (either
shelters, the tube or even just at home), so I guess we're talking about
the BoB (daylight bombing) and the V-1 campaign and not the war as a
whole?
I understand there were plans to fill the sky with a huge box barrage of
AA to try to down V-2s (they appear to have had a couple of minutes
warning), but these were apparently scrapped because of the dangers of
so many shells falling down again.
casitaman
>the original claim that AA caused more civilian casualties in London than
the
> Germans did makes sense.
I am not disputing what Mr Clark posted, simply surprised.
Therefore, may we also assume "that AA caused more civilian casualties in
Berlin than the British did" also making sense?
>Even though AA shells used timed fuses to explode at a certain altitude,
many of them didn't >explode at all until they fell back to earth.
Let's look at the effect this had on Germany. They had a lot of AA guns in
Drazen Kramaric
<m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>Offically the Luftwaffe were aiming at military targets, although the inhabitants
>of (...) Rotterdam (...) might forgiven for occasionally wondering exactly
>where all these military targets were.
They could have asked the troops defending the bridges in the town or
perhaps the crew of the destroyer that sailed up the river.
There was a battle going on within a city.
Drax