Interesting book named Dresden looked at similar claims that have become "what everybody knows" in that part of Germany. Historically these reports were noticed by the occupying Soviets and played up for political reasons after the war, according to the book's author.
The author also told of a German, a Dresdener, who did down-to-the-individual-element research on the Dresden firebombing and escorts. After correlating eyewitness accounts with mission reports and flight paths, his conclusion was that the strafing of civilians described by first person witnesses was likely correlated with on the deck dogfights described in both German and American AARs. In other words, the civilians were on the ground fleeing the fires, the planes were down low and shooting, the bullets hit the ground near the civilians...but the actual ATTACK was air to air fighting. Not surprising that target planes flying at 250+ mph, zipping at treetop levels, might be out of visual range of civilians on the ground.
This German researcher was vilified by the population of Dresden, who by that time (late 80s as I recall) had such an ingrained cultural belief in the events that the presentation of data couldn't change their opinions.
BTW, knowing contemporaneaous reports about difficulties hitting bridges, trains, convoys -- is it really credible to think strafing individual farm animals in family sized fields was policy? It seems to me far more likely that what looked like deliberate strafing was by and large collateral damage from other stuff going on beyond visual range of ground observers.
Not to say that there may have been the odd pilot who took "target of opportunity" to ridiculous, bovine slaughtering extremes....but seems almost silly to think that tactical doctrine would have P51 pilots use limited 50cals on cows when there were literally hours of return flight remaining in mission, eh?
