Rudel's Knight cross

[David C]

Hmm, to quote that site:

'With three Ju 87 and four Fw 190 Rudel and his comrades start, in order to surrender in Kitzingen the Americans.'

So, did Rudel come in in a Stuka or A FW?

Cheers,
David.

[DavidM]

Hello

According to the information on this site:

http://www.geocities.com/bookie190/Kitzingen.htm

Rudel piloted in and landed a JU87 G-2.

Regards
David

[fknorr]

Hello
According to the information on this site:
http://www.geocities.com/bookie190/Kitzingen.htm
Rudel piloted in and landed a JU87 G-2.
Regards
David

Thanks David, that is a thorough site.

[David C]

Yes very informative, thanks.

Most fitting that Rudel piloted a Stuka, and nice to see the photographs especially 'Stuka Girl'. I wonder who she was and what became of her. A nice project for ATB magazine here I should think.

Cheers,
David.

[Alan Smith]

Rudel's intentional damage of his aircraft

Reading this thread, it occurred to me that the U.S. Air Corps personel at the base where Rudel crash landed and surrendered would have (in my mind) been justified in being very angry at Rudel, et al, for intentionally damaging the surrendering aircraft.

After all, here was Rudel, et al, seeking out U.S. forces so as to obtain what he (correctly) expected would be the best possible treatment, food, living conditions, etc. for himself and his men post-surrender. In exchange for the American's generous treatment what does he do: he obstructs/hinders operations at the American base via crash landing his aircraft on the runway. In addition to disrupting U.S. operations, he destroys valuable assets that (per the negotiated surrender) should have been turned over intact to the allies.

A WWII U.S. fighter pilot friend of mine has shared with me photos and stores of German aircrew and planes that landed and surrendered at his base in Germany at the end of the war, just like Rudel did. These other Germans, however, did not crash land or otherwise damage their aircraft; rather, they proudly surrendered them to the U.S. pilots, who then took great delight in familarizing themselves with the German aircraft.

Based on my veteran friend's accounts of the Germans' surrender, I am certain that the act of surrendering the aircraft intact was interpreted as a good will gesture by the Americans and resulted in very favorable (even friendly) treament of the German pilots.

Again, just my thoughts and opinons, but if I were the U.S. commander of the airfield where Rudel pulled this little stunt, I'm affraid that I would have been rather ugly to him and the others who intentionally damaged the aircraft; the Germans from undamaged aircraft would have been given the best possible treatment.

I don't know why this has struck such a "raw nerve" with me, but I just can't help but thinking that Rudel was a real S.O.B for seeking out American protection from the Russians, then pulling this stunt of destroying assets that would have been a nice quid pro quo in return for the Americans' generosity.

[fknorr]

but if I were the U.S. commander of the airfield where Rudel pulled this little stunt, I'm affraid that I would have been rather ugly to him and the others who intentionally damaged the aircraft; the Germans from undamaged aircraft would have been given the best possible treatment.

I don't know why this has struck such a "raw nerve" with me, but I just can't help but thinking that Rudel was a real S.O.B for seeking out American protection from the Russians, then pulling this stunt of destroying assets that would have been a nice quid pro quo in return for the Americans' generosity.

I guess not sending them to the Russians for almost certain murder is generosity...I guess. Then of course there is that little nasty extended incarceration for a lot of Germans whose only crime was being in uniform thing. Then there are those anti-Geneva convention things like slave labor and mine clearing duties and the whole limited ration/starvation thing.

Yep, the nerve of those surrendering Germans!

Did the Germans have the right to be as critical of the surrendering Britians, French, etc when they destroyed their equipment from falling into the hands of their enemies prior to surrendering?

Double standard, maybe....

[Jos L C]

Some additional info..

http://dev.wehrmacht-awards.com/foru...ighlight=rudel

Jos.

[Alan Smith]

Fran,

You offer good thoughts to consider.

I guess what drives my opinons on this is my perception (which is partly based on my U.S. pilot friend's statments) that surrendering German aircrew were treated very, very well by U.S. Air Corps personnel. In other words, the treatment received by these Germans far exceeded that minimum level of care mandated by the Geneva conventions. It is this premium level of treatment that causes me to frame the Americans as being "generous" to POW's.

Given the overall circumstances of May, 1945 (including almost certain death if captured by the Russians), I would have just assumed that Rudel, et al, would have gone out of their way to appease the Americans rather than doing something that, quite likely, made the Americans very angry.

[fknorr]

Fran,

You offer good thoughts to consider.

I guess what drives my opinons on this is my perception (which is partly based on my U.S. pilot friend's statments) that surrendering German aircrew were treated very, very well by U.S. Air Corps personnel. In other words, the treatment received by these Germans far exceeded that minimum level of care mandated by the Geneva conventions. It is this premium level of treatment that causes me to frame the Americans as being "generous" to POW's.

Given the overall circumstances of May, 1945 (including almost certain death if captured by the Russians), I would have just assumed that Rudel, et al, would have gone out of their way to appease the Americans rather than doing something that, quite likely, made the Americans very angry.

I am sure that many German POWs were treated fairly but if you read Stephen Ambrose's rebuttal to Basques "Other Losses" in his Eisenhower and the German Pows: Facts Against Falsehood (Eisenhower Center Studies on War and Peace) , German POW's, their care, their housing and rations came LAST on the list of priorities, after feeding allied troops and POWs (obviously), liberated countrys civilian populations, Concentration Camp survivors, German Civilians and lastly German POWs.

Rudel was an Allied POW for a year after the end of hostilities. I am not sure why a one-legged pilot without a plane or country was incarcerated that long but I am sure the allies had his best interest in mind by doing so.

[David G]

Why would anyone be surprised at Rudels actions? This mans personal convictions exceeded most, and of course he would not have enjoyed surrendering to anyone-although quite what advantage any American pilot would have flying machines that underperformed their own at the war's end is extremely doubtful.
Had we talking about the Me 262 -I could see the point-but not a Ju 87 surely, or for that matter the FW-190?

Another point to bear in mind was the bad feeling over the carpet bombing of Germany-it's difficult to underestimate the feeling there was against this.This year I was taken aback by an old German lady (her husband is a DKIG holder) who said to me she still hated the Americans for bombing a school and killing all the kids in 1945 nearby where she lived.

Granted Rudel would have faced death under the Russians-but I feel coming through what he had come through that death was a constant companion-the miracle was he survived, and for a man like that, a winner, a victor, surrender did not come easily.

His hatred of the enemy was absolute.

Part of his strength was that long before the call of Major Remer to become "politische soldaten" , Rudel already had that conviction which stayed with him all his life.
So please, when you express surprise at the mans "ingratitude", read his books and it will become clearer perhaps?
Trotzdem.

[Bill H.]

I'm with Alan. Crashing landing planes against strict orders is inexcusable for an officer of any military. Rudel's side lost. Donitz accepted allied terms which called for NOT doing what Rudel did. Its quite arrogant to behave in this fashion and and insult to the forces accepting their surrender.

That said, I know Rudel routinely ignorred direct orders even from Goering and Hitler. As has been pointed out by Tomasz, Rudel on more than one occasion refused decorations (and promotions) that accompanied orders grounding him. Hitler personally ordered Rudel not to fly operational missions as he was too great a hero and his loss would have been devastating to the German people but Rudel, adament about his duty, refused the award or promotion if it meant that he could no longer serve his country to the best of his abilities. Hitler, no doubt with a lump in his throat, backed off but then ordered Goering to ground him. Obligatory decorations reference duly noted..... :-)

One other thing, how does one do a gear up landing in a stuka? Arent they all fixed gear aircraft? The 190s I understand but I'm fuzzy on the stukas unless they went full rudder after touching down.

Cheers, Bill Huber

[Hank C.]

...(edit)
One other thing, how does one do a gear up landing in a stuka? Arent they all fixed gear aircraft? The 190s I understand but I'm fuzzy on the stukas unless they went full rudder after touching down.

Cheers, Bill Huber

Well, I suppose if anybody could've done it, it would've been Rudel!

[David G]

You know the saying about orders being for "guidance of wise men"?-Rudel of course broke rules,especially and routinely overcoming the pullout safety device in the Stuka-because he knew better, and obtained more accurate bombing.

How do you get a wheels up landing in a Stuka?-easy-the aircraft was built with explosive charges in each gear so that if one was destroyed, the other could be blown off by the pilot and a landing effected which would cause less damage.

[Alan Smith]

Bill,

I too am wondering just what Rudel did to crash land the Stuka, with its fixed landing gear. All I can figure is that it must have been a pretty risky/dangerous maneuver - whatever he did to effect damage to the aircraft.

I guess the risk involved in creating an intentional crash landing of a fixed-gear aircraft just goes to reinforce how determined Rudel must have been to NOT allow his aircraft to remain intact, post-surrender.

The others in this thread continue to raise good issues; I hope we are not getting the thread too off course, but I'm learning a lot.

As to the German school children killed in the U.S. bombing raid, that makes me very sad to hear. I've recently become a father and it has really changed my outlook on life and, particularly, war. I still enjoy collecting war relics (most of my stuff is all combat-related and straight from U.S. WWII vets), but I have to pause from time to time to reflect on the great sadness caused by the wars that created my prized relics. In particular, I am get very upset when I read about dead, injured and/or orphaned kids.

Like someone else posted a while back, it's too bad that people with so much in common (i.e. Allies v. Axis in WWII) resorted to going to war against each other.

[Tim Schreiner]

One way to look at it is that Rudel had Brass Balls. One has to admire him for that.

He also never considered himself, or his men in his unit as defeated. He did everything on his terms.

This is a great thread BTW!