Did Scarecrows Really Exist?

Lancaster NG353

I managed to find a quote in ‘Battles with the Nachtjagd’ from flight engineer Flight Sergeant Ray Base of 115 Squadron flying over Dresden in Lancaster I NG205:

“We experienced moderate flak over the target. As we left the target and turned on course for home we saw a Lancaster about 1000 feet below silhouetted by the glow of the fires. I could see the Lancaster’s exhausts. Our mid-upper gunner then spotted a Ju88 following the Lancaster and then we saw a Ju188 (clearly identified by its pointed wings) to the left and behind the Ju88. There was a small cloud below and the three aircraft went into it and the cloud lit up with a large explosion typical of a bomber blowing up.”

Could this have been the destruction of NG353 of 186 Squadron in a Schräge Musik attack?

Both 115 Squadron and 186 Squadron were part of 3 Group that was part of the second wave of bombing over Dresden between 01:21 and 01:45 so that should have put the two bombers in roughly the same part of the sky at roughly the same time.

Somewhere there must be a record of which wave of bombing that footage of the bombing of Dresden was shot (and probably which aircraft and squadron).

I recently obtained the RAAF service record of one of my relatives who was the pilot of Lancaster NG353. In it are details of the RAF investigation report relating to the loss of the aircraft and the crew which are consistent with the possible eyewitness account referred to here. The RAF report states that the aircraft was attacked by a nightfighter and exploded in mid air. The bodies of the crew and scattered wreckage fell near Johannis Friedhof, so the aircraft was clearly directly over Dresden at the time of the explosion.

If the film footage in question was shot on the 13th of Feb over Dresden the explosion seen in it could well be the destruction of NG353.

Lancaster NG353

I managed to find a quote in ‘Battles with the Nachtjagd’ from flight engineer Flight Sergeant Ray Base of 115 Squadron flying over Dresden in Lancaster I NG205:

“We experienced moderate flak over the target. As we left the target and turned on course for home we saw a Lancaster about 1000 feet below silhouetted by the glow of the fires. I could see the Lancaster’s exhausts. Our mid-upper gunner then spotted a Ju88 following the Lancaster and then we saw a Ju188 (clearly identified by its pointed wings) to the left and behind the Ju88. There was a small cloud below and the three aircraft went into it and the cloud lit up with a large explosion typical of a bomber blowing up.”

Could this have been the destruction of NG353 of 186 Squadron in a Schräge Musik attack?

Both 115 Squadron and 186 Squadron were part of 3 Group that was part of the second wave of bombing over Dresden between 01:21 and 01:45 so that should have put the two bombers in roughly the same part of the sky at roughly the same time.

Somewhere there must be a record of which wave of bombing that footage of the bombing of Dresden was shot (and probably which aircraft and squadron).

I recently obtained the RAAF service record of one of my relatives who was the pilot of Lancaster NG353. In it are details of the RAF investigation report relating to the loss of the aircraft and the crew which are consistent with the possible eyewitness account referred to here. The RAF report states that the aircraft was attacked by a nightfighter and exploded in mid air. The bodies of the crew and scattered wreckage fell near Johannis Friedhof, so the aircraft was clearly directly over Dresden at the time of the explosion.

If the film footage in question was shot on the 13th of Feb over Dresden the explosion seen in it could well be the destruction of NG353.

the wings, not the belly

I’ve very much enjoyed reading this thread from the sideline.

AM correctly notes above that we’ve been over a lot of this ground before, but something interesting always comes from another look. I hadn’t appreciated that there was so much ongoing reporting about attacks from underneath … but it seems the mindset of the analyst was set on this being a new manouver or free held gun. A purpose built set up that allowed the attacking pilot to maintain level flight (rather than pull up) seems not to have been considered (as Dyson suggests) notwithstanding Allied experiments with the same.

I also note James’ comment re. RAF aircraft having their bellies unprotected. The memoirs I’ve read of Nachtjager pilots suggests bellies weren’t what they were looking for. For one thing they had an unfortunate tendency to go bang if fired upon. This could be detrimental.

The preferred technique, built up through evaluation of downed aircraft, was to put a mix of explosive and incendiary shells into the fuel tanks between the engines. This could be done from close range, in formation whilst flying level (and therefore having beter control over the approach) and very quickly. Only a handful of shells were required.

For years I’ve been intrigued by how quickly a bomber struck in that manner went out of control. The few surviving tales tell of the bomber going out of control in tens of seconds. Why would this be? Would burning fuel destroy the lift of the wing in very short order? Plus of course there would also be flames streaming back to the elevators (tail wing).

Good thread, cheers D

edit … I note (in the KB965 thread) discussion about metal vs fabric elevators … I was thinking fabric in my comment above re. flames streaming back. All the same, I can’t see how flames would help.

It never was a “Canadian .5 Browning position” James. We have all read references to this in sundry books on the Lancaster but the authors have not done their homework properly.

I cheerfully hold my hand up to not having done any homework on this one, thanks for the correction and clarification.

Don’t forget they had one. Introduced in 1943 and apparently only intended as an interim (like Mod 925) until H2S/Fishpond was installed.

So was there any useful data as to the crew’s belief in any use, or evidence of its use as discussed above? Is it as simple as the right answer at the wrong time?

Regards,

I agree that the best compromise would have been a downward looking crewmember look-out, complete with ‘clear-view’ panel but no guns. It would also have been the quickest modification to get into service; almost nothing being allowed to hold-up production. It would have been even better if the existing seven-man crew could cover the duty.

Don’t forget they had one. Introduced in 1943 and apparently only intended as an interim (like Mod 925) until H2S/Fishpond was installed.

The difference with Bomber Command was apart from the Canadian .5 Browning position…

It never was a “Canadian .5 Browning position” James. We have all read references to this in sundry books on the Lancaster but the authors have not done their homework properly.

Mod 925 was intended for installation in every operational Lancaster not equipped with H2S. It was not a locally devised Canadian modification, it was developed by the Bomber Development Unit with close co-operation from Cambridge University. Halifax and Stirling aircraft had similar installations, both based on the same design.

It has all been quite well covered on other threads.

Thanks CD, I thought we were on the same page…

It’s a bit of curious situation with regard to gun-turrets on bombers; current thinking seems to be that they were no use and that the gunners rarely even saw a night-fighter, let alone damaged one, however if they were so ineffective why did the night-fighter pilots adopt a attack technique that specifically avoided the possibility of being seen by the gunners?

The problem, I think, is talking in absolutes and missing the effect of deterrence rather than achievement – or, in other words, strong defences drive attackers to weaker defences until the weaker areas are boosted, and then the attackers move to another (newly evaluated) ‘weaker’ area.

In the bomber war, the Luftwaffe moving to head on attacks due to the strength of the gun defences from aft and around, with the result that the USAAF boosted the forward gunnery, making the head-on attacks tougher. (Other advantages that lay with the fighter, i.e. number and calibre of guns on target, kept the head-on attack as a viable option). The difference with Bomber Command was apart from the Canadian .5 Browning position, throughout the four engine bomber war, the RAF literally left their bellies unprotected, so the Luftwaffe never had to re-evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the heavies.

Regards,

This extract from the February 1944 Report is interesting:-

“The proportion of attacks made from some position below the bomber remains the same as in previous months (35% as reported by surviving crews), but the detailed damage returns have shown a noticeable number of cases in which strikes were scored from steeply below.

….A number of surprise attacks in which the attacking fighter was not seen at any stage – 16 in all – also points to fairly frequent use of some tactic by which the attack is delivered from steeply below.

….Very few cases are reported, however, in which the enemy aircraft is actually seen attacking from such a position – only 3 in the current month – so that it is not possible to discover from the combat reports the method by which such attacks are made, i.e. whether by a special manoeuvre or by use of a free gun.”

Just after quoting the same report there is an interesting passage in ‘Men of Air’ (which is better than I first thought) by Kevin Wilson:

“The Air Ministry even put out a press statement a few weeks later insisting under headlines such as ‘The Scarecrow Flare Is A German Bluff’ (Daily Express 14th April 1944) that crews had nothing to worry about.”

The same newspaper article gave an interesting description of what a ‘scarecrow’ looked like:

“When these scarecrows burst there is a sheet of orange flame for about half a minute, followed by oily black smoke. A shower of coloured fragments shoots outwards and drops slowly. The whole show lasts for about three quarters of a minute.”

…generally in this context it’s morale not moral. Different words with very different meanings.

Oops! Yes, I understand the difference perfectly…..it just doesn’t get picked-up by a spell-check! 😮

It’s a bit of curious situation with regard to gun-turrets on bombers; current thinking seems to be that they were no use and that the gunners rarely even saw a night-fighter, let alone damaged one, however if they were so ineffective why did the night-fighter pilots adopt a attack technique that specifically avoided the possibility of being seen by the gunners?

I appreciate once formated below the bomber it was much easier to hit it with a lethal burst of cannon-fire but that wasn’t the only reason surely?

I agree that the best compromise would have been a downward looking crewmember look-out, complete with ‘clear-view’ panel but no guns. It would also have been the quickest modification to get into service; almost nothing being allowed to hold-up production. It would have been even better if the existing seven-man crew could cover the duty.

Just a couple of minor points. With the ventral position I was trying to point out that the FN ventral turret was difficult to see out of at all (it was one of the worst turret designs of the era) and that, like the rear gunners removing the central glazing to their turret, a clear or unglazed ventral position with a crewman glued to it looking through it may well have been of some use. (As we now know, the turrets were primarily better used as observation points, rather than as gunnery platforms, guns better used as a last resort.) Yes, it is hard to see another aircraft looking down. It’s harder when trying to peer through slot windows, periscopes, framing and glazing. At the distance the Schräge Musik german fighters were approaching (ten – 40 metres rather than 100 metres) likely that some would have been seen and evasive action could have been taken.

Secondly, generally in this context it’s morale not moral. Different words with very different meanings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morale

Regards,

I have an original photo, taken by a Lancaster air gunner during a daylight operation in 1944/5. He snapped the photo just as the Lancaster he was hoping to capture on film exploded without warning. No apparent flak, no fighter attacks. I’ve read of similar events on other raids. Hence my suspicion concerning the Type 37 Long Delay Pistol – it had a nasty habit of exploding the bombs without warning, and it was in widespread use by Bomber Command at this stage of the war. See:-

There was some correspondence in early issues of the Bomber Command Association Newsletter which would seem to support suspicion of the No. 37 pistol – in particular a letter in BCA Newsletter #15 from Mr N Cooper, the Station Armament Officer at Skellingthorpe in 1944/45.

In the book Last Talons of the Eagle by Hyland and Gill, which discusses secret Nazi technology, there is no mention that I recall of “Scarecrows” or similar.

There were however a frightening array of development a/c that would have shredded allied formations had the technology got into significant production levels.

Quite scary was the proposed Go 229, the Horten Bros jet powered flying wing. This and several other a/c such as the Me 263, Lippisch P-13a and the Stratopheric Bomber may well have had the rest of Europe speaking German.

…just to play Devil’s Advocate a moment, if you think about how commercial fireworks work, that, slightly modified (and a LOT higher!) would be broadly similar.

Suspecting that may be the Devil’s Advocate defence I had wondered whether there was a similar weapon of the period designed to project a rocket to 20,000 feet and looked at the British ‘Z-Battery’ rocket.

http://www.secretscotland.org.uk/index.php/Secrets/Z-Battery

“Each projector could fire two 3 inch anti-aircraft rockets having a maximum altitude of 19,000 feet and a ground range of 10,000 Yards (5.7 Miles). The heavy finned rockets were about six feet long and each had an adjustable nose fuse to be set to explode the warhead at the correct altitude.

To be fully operational the Z-Battery site required a total of 1424 men…”

Interesting the numbers of men required for a single Z-Battery and if similar scarecrow rockets were being fired from cities all over Germany it doesn’t sound like the sort of organisation that would be easy to keep a secret post-war. Circumstantial evidence I know but it shows the potential numbers of operator witnesses there would have been.

http://resources.ushmm.org/film/display/main.php?search=simple&dquery=bombing&cache_file=uia_mOVnBo&total_recs=308&page_len=25&page=1&rec=10&file_num=1438

For interest, there are several references to scarecrow shells in the first half of this wartime newsreel, link above.

Note how during the daylight attack, the commentator (an American) refers to a scarecrow shell having destroyed a Lancaster. If the Germans did indeed use this sort of weapon, including during daylight attacks, one would have thought they would have fired them regardless of who was bombing them, i.e. R.A.F. or U.S.A.A.F. However, google “scarecrow” and “8th Air Force” or similar, and you won’t find many (if any) references to them being used against American bombers.

I have an original photo, taken by a Lancaster air gunner during a daylight operation in 1944/5. He snapped the photo just as the Lancaster he was hoping to capture on film exploded without warning. No apparent flak, no fighter attacks. I’ve read of similar events on other raids. Hence my suspicion concerning the Type 37 Long Delay Pistol – it had a nasty habit of exploding the bombs without warning, and it was in widespread use by Bomber Command at this stage of the war. See:-

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jzzl8wUn52cC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=long+delay+pistol&source=bl&ots=CZmuUwKSlT&sig=HcGBpJDbQLPs5zvdNcaLDEynF7E&hl=en&ei=S1vcStP9A5Gs4QaSmJnOCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAA

I can see similarities with the introduction of the V2 rocket against London.

“No need to panic, it was a gas main exploding.”

Mmmm.
I think Creaking Door’s made some excellent points. I’d speculate that the majority of the ‘Scarecrow’ visuals may well have been Schräge Musik type attacks, but not exclusively.

The Schräge Musik attacks were closer, swifter (no stalking, closing attacks and part damaged aircraft as a rule) and more often resulted in the complete sudden destruction of the bomber. It’s highly probable that some of the ‘lights going down’ would have been from flack hits, other night-fighter attacks and also mid air collisions and just accident – fuses shorting – as well as the most effective German attack type.

On the other hand, while I agree with CD’s hypothesis, just to play Devil’s Advocate a moment, if you think about how commercial fireworks work, that, slightly modified (and a LOT higher!) would be broadly similar. Remember judging the distance and size of lights at night is very difficult. without other clues, like relative motion, almost impossible. Pretty left field, and yes, there’s a few flaws to the concept, I can see.

Regards,

Is that were the dated expression ‘flaming onions’ comes from I wonder?

Of course there was a ‘mysterious German weapon’ fired at British aircraft, and the launcher was only discovered at the war’s end…

…but it was the ‘flaming onions’ machine, in the Great War.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_onion

Note the link to ‘Scarecrows’ in the last para.

Personally I think it would be quite difficult to produce a shell that could be fired from the common 88/105/150mm flak guns that would (invisibly) climb to a height of 20,000 feet and that would burst (but not visibly explode) and produce a convincing ‘flaming wreckage’ trail (and possibly even burn on the ground). I’ve never read any other description than a ‘shell’ for a scarecrow; never heard them called ‘scarecrow rocket’ for example.

And should such a technical achievement have been made it was kept so secret that not a single document, drawing, specification or instruction is in the public domain nor has any former flak-crew (who’s number often included schoolchildren, Hitler-Youth or ‘willing’ POWs) come forward.

So from a ‘technical’ point-of-view I personally doubt that ‘scarecrow (or scarecrew)’ shells existed.

Well put, and, as I said earlier, scarecrows would have been pointless. The crews were already scared stiff and there was plenty of the real thing about without having to simulate burning bombers.
I think this is a case of having to apply Occam’s Razor!
Jim

It is interesting (to me anyway) to speculate what a ‘scarecrow’ device would be like, assuming you had to design one.

First I would try to understand what a scarecrow was trying to simulate. An unseen bomber suddenly having its petrol tanks set alight by an unknown (and unseen) form of attack and then the bomber (judged by the flames coming from it) losing control and plummeting to earth.

The assumption seems to be that scarecrows are the result of Schräge Musik attacks but why should this be the case? The strength of the Schräge Musik attack seems to be to get a greater proportion of the cannon shells to hit the target at a predicted point thanks to close-range and zero-deflection. Clearly also the fighter was almost never seen but then attacking night-fighters were seldom seen in the more traditional forms of attack and the end result was often the same, cannon-fire setting the wing fuel-tanks alight.

What made Schräge Musik unseen to the crews of other bombers? Was it because tracer ammunition wasn’t used, although I’ve read one account of a gunner from another bomber stating that he saw green (I think) tracer being fired at 80° into the belly of a bomber (and being somewhat ‘miffed’ that the intelligence officer dismissed this saying the gunner didn’t know what he was talking about!). Was tracer used in the forward-firing cannon of German night-fighters? I don’t think it was in British night-fighters until June 1944.

The explosion of standard ‘flak’ shells must be visible at night from a considerable distance, and although not as likely as fighter losses flak must have claimed some bombers, so were the losses from that cause distinguishable from Schräge Musik losses?

Personally I think it would be quite difficult to produce a shell that could be fired from the common 88/105/150mm flak guns that would (invisibly) climb to a height of 20,000 feet and that would burst (but not visibly explode) and produce a convincing ‘flaming wreckage’ trail (and possibly even burn on the ground). I’ve never read any other description than a ‘shell’ for a scarecrow; never heard them called ‘scarecrow rocket’ for example.

And should such a technical achievement have been made it was kept so secret that not a single document, drawing, specification or instruction is in the public domain nor has any former flak-crew (who’s number often included schoolchildren, Hitler-Youth or ‘willing’ POWs) come forward.

So from a ‘technical’ point-of-view I personally doubt that ‘scarecrow (or scarecrew)’ shells existed.

Interesting – anyone have a stab at the length of time for a Ju-87 to climb to the altitude of such a formation?

Well if and when a Ju87 did manage to climb to 20-25,000 feet it would need to be a head-on attack as I doubt a Ju87 could catch a B-17/B-24 at that altitude!

Are we talking about under-wing 37mm cannon here? I doubt a Ju87 so equipped could even reach 20,000 feet.

Thanks for that Richard, interesting.

btw, what an appallingly badly sub-edited book! Shockingly bad.

Ghastly. In the days of type-setters, the spacing errors would not have happened however bad the editing. These days, I fear that some publishers just load the CD from the author into their system & run it through a spell checker.

Interesting content, though.