103 MU at Aboukir

[Aussie7]

I am interested in the activities of the High Altitude Flt of 103 MU at Aboukir from Jun 42. I have found it difficult to research as I couldn't find an ORB at the PRO. I have found claims for 8 and 1 shared E/A destroyed in various references, is that about right ? I am also seeking further info on the claims for JU86's destroyed on 2 Jul 43 and 4 Jul 43. If anyone can help it would be appreciated.

Ian Westworth (Adelaide)

[Larry deZeng]

The following should help with the latter part of your question, but I have no information on the high-altitude Spitfire unit or any record of the 4 July claim:

2.(F)/Aufkl.Gr. 123
[extracts]
June 1942: Staffel received 4 pressurized, high-altitude Ju 86 P-2s in late May/early June for use over Egypt due to the heavy losses in Ju 88s to RAF fighters. Later, the Ju 86 P-2 (or Ju 86 R-1 according to other sources) missions were flown along the Nile from Alexandria to Cairo, and along the Suez Canal from Port Said to Suez in August and early September 1942, and brought back photographic evidence of the huge build-up of Allied equipment and supplies, leading the Germans to the correct conclusion that Montgomery would soon be in a position to launch a major and perhaps decisive offensive in North Africa.
June 1942 – June 1943: two Ju 86s lost, one in combat and the other in a crash.
2 July 1943: Ju 86 (4U+IK) FTR from Alexandria, 100%, 2 MIA.
6 July 1943: Ju 88 D-l trop crashed at Athens-Tatoi due to engine failure, 100%, 4 killed.
8 July 1943: in a report up the chain of command on its high altitude capability, the Staffel stated it had 2 Ju 86s and 2 Ju 88Ts but that all four of these were unserviceable for various reasons and consequently the Staffel could not comply with an urgent Luftflotte 2 demand for high-altitude missions over Cyprus, Alexandria or Benghazi.

There is no further mention of 2.(F)/123 Ju 86 losses in the surviving documents.

Larry

P.S. According to the carefully maintained German loss records, the Staffel only lost two Ju 86s to the enemy, as you can see from this tabulation: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/aufkl/b2ag123.html . 2.(F)/123 had the only aircraft of this type that would have been used for these long distance flights to Egypt. There were no others in the Mediterranean theater.

[Brian]

Hi Ian

Looking at my very incomplete notes for 103 MU, I have the following claims

26/6/42 P/O GEC Genders Ju86 shared damaged

27/6/42 P/O GEC Genders Ju86 shared damaged

24/8/42 F/O GWH Reynolds Ju86

6/9/42 P/O GEC Genders and P/O A. Gold Ju86

?/9/42 F/O GWH Reynolds Ju86

21/10/42 P/O GEC Genders Ju88

early 1943 P/O AF Wilson Ju88

2/7/43 P/O J. Hunter & P/O GT Pratley (80 Squadron) and two pilots of 103 MU Ju88 (4U+IK Ltn Franz Stock & crew)

12/8/43 Two Spits 103 MU Ju88 4U+IK Ltn Hans Peters & crew)

13/9/43 Two Spits 103 MU Ju88T-1 4U+7K Werner Schiller & crew

I believe F/O Freckingham was involved in one of the above.

Are you able to add anything to the above?

Cheers
Brian

[JohnE]

I have D.N. McQueen (RAAF) as the pilot on September 9th 1943 (Those Other Eagles).

And I have G.H. Purdy (RAAF) damaging a Ju88 on August 13th 1943 (naa12.naa.gov.au)

John

[Franek Grabowski]

I understand that the Flight was attached to one of the fighter squadrons. One fo the pilots was Alec Arnell, and another - Johnie Kent.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Guys

Excuse my ignorance, but I thought a Maintenance Unit was tasked with doing what it says, maintenance and not combat. Was 103 MU an unusual or very special unit since it formed a high altitude flight? Why wasn't the task going to one of the regular squadrons in the area? Did any other MU score victores either in Europe or Africa?

Cheers
Stig

[Franek Grabowski]

The MU was responsible for modifications of combat aircraft and had a qualified personnel and tools to do the task. Also it had an own pool of test pilots. But as noted, the Flight was operationally attached to another Fighter Squadron.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Franek

Sounds strange to me though, since their foremost task after all was to maintain the aeroplanes in an as fit shape as possible, that is to overhaul them and send them back to operational units. I can fully understand that they were capable of minor modifications as might be needed, but somehow my feeling is that the British didn't do a lot of major modifications in the field.

However it does not answer my questions since I still find the formation of a combat flight within a MU (even if attached to a squadron) to tackle high altitude reconnaissance aeroplanes to be highly irregular even if they were used to modify aeroplanes. Why was not the flight formed within or as an extension of a regular combat squadron??

So what about it, can anyone answer my original questions?

Cheers
Stig

[Franek Grabowski]

103 MU as well as some other MUs were responsible for quite advanced modifications. It was the Mu which introduced Aboukir Filters and clipped wings in the area, for example. Spitfires for the Flight were highly modified to increase their altitude performance.
They obviously required skilled groundcrew and experienced pilots, who were of short supply in operational Squadrons. Therefore it was likely much more easier logistically to attach MU crew rather than to send extra people to a particular Squadron.

[Frank Olynyk]

The claims of 103 MU can be found in the Aboukir Station ORB, Air 28/9. This ORB may have further information on why an MU was involved in combat operations. I do not have a copy so I cannot check.

Frank.

[stefaan]

Hi.
During my research for SAAF at War I spoke to a number of pilots that knew of these modified Spits.
They stated that it was a flight from some unit that seconded these Spitfires to sqdns that needed them to get rid of high altitude Ju's that did recces over certain areas.That Sqdn would then get sent these Spits untill the Ju's were shot down, or stopped the recce runs.
on we have fount 2 Spits that cropped up in War Diaries of 1,41,9 SAAT Sqdns.
Serials MH993 and MA792.
A photo of MH993 is on page 47. These ones with 41 sqdn were based at St Jean de Acra.
A pilot from 9 SAAF sqdn said he flew it as well, but I am waiting to get his logbook to get the serials.
Hope it helps
Stefaan

[Brian]

Hi Frank

Thanks for the NA reference - will check it out during my next visit.

Trust you are well.
Cheers
Brian

[Graham Boak]

Sounds strange to me though, since their foremost task after all was to maintain the aeroplanes in an as fit shape as possible, that is to overhaul them and send them back to operational units. I can fully understand that they were capable of minor modifications as might be needed, but somehow my feeling is that the British didn't do a lot of major modifications in the field.
Stig

In this case, you must add the receipt of aircraft into the theatre, and adoption of specific modifications (including paint schemes) that had been found desirable on local operations but had not (yet?) worked their way onto production lines in the UK. Given that production lines were under pressure to standardise production to maximise numbers, such a unit would (and did) prove particularly valuable.

One American equivalent would be the 8th AF Base Aerial Depots at Burtonwood and Warton.

Your feeling certainly reflects what I've encountered, with some notable exceptions, but I think you have to distinguish "in the field" from "in theatre".

[VoyTech]

my feeling is that the British didn't do a lot of major modifications in the field.Feelings are hard to discuss with. I guess we'd have to start by defining 'major'. When you're in the desert even standard maintenance procedures may become 'major', to say nothing about modifications.
I still find the formation of a combat flight within a MU (even if attached to a squadron) to tackle high altitude reconnaissance aeroplanes to be highly irregular even if they were used to modify aeroplanes. Why was not the flight formed within or as an extension of a regular combat squadron??I guess the major problem they faced was lack of any prescribed modification procedure to apply, so it was more a matter of experimenting "do this, see if it works, if it doesn't try that, see if it works" an so on. If you want to do it 'highly regular', you have to modify and send to an operational unit; unit finds it doesn't work and sends back to the MU with a memo on what doesn't work; MU tries to work out what the hell they meant in their memo, does what they think is right and sends back to operational unit; and back to stage one. This way it's highly likely you will not get the system work in the short time you need it to. As the MU was actually in the area of operations (the German high altitude reconnaissance was flown over or near it) it was logical to give it the task of "developing the operationally capable high altitude fighter" (well within its scope as an engineering unit) and the task inevitably included actual flying trials (which, incidentally, involved shooting down or damaging some e/a).
BTW, was the 'high altitude flight' an official (sub)unit name or a term used in retrospect?

[Aussie7]

Guys, it is good to see that there is quite a bit of interest in the High Altitude Flight. My interest started when researching the activities of 451 Sqn RAAF, which like most defensive Hurricane sqn had on strength 3 or 4 Spit V's during 1943 to combat German recon a/c. On several occasions the Spitfires and pilots were detached to other units such as 103 MU and 127 Sqn.

Brian, I have found much the same claims as you except:
1. P/O Wilson's claim was on 26 Jul 42 (Aces High - AH), although this seems a little odd as I thought the Flt only had 3 pilots in 1942 - F/O Reynolds, P/O Genders & P/O Gold.
2. 1 Ju88 dam on 15 Jun 43 by F/L Cooper-Slipper (AH).
3. The 16 Sep 43 claim was by F/O McQueen RAAF (Those Other Eagles - TOE).
4. 1 Me109 dam on 13 Aug 43 and 1 Me109 conf on 24 Aug 43 by S/L JG West RNZAF (TOE).
5. F/O HV Freckleton RAAF with P/O AF Arnel RAAF (attch fron 451 Sqn) as his No2 claimed a Ju86 conf on 4 Jul 43 (info from several Aussie books/diaries and NAA). However is it possible that this the E/A shared with 80 Sqn on 2 Jul 43 ?

JohnE, the 451 Sqn ORB is insistant that although F/O Purdy's claim occured whilst he was attached to 103 MU it was credited to his parent Sqn.

Ian (Adelaide)

[John Beaman]

Pages 135 and 136 of Shores' Fighters Over The Desert talks about this flight and the modifications they made to both Hurricane 2Bs and Spitfire Vs of 80 and 1 SAAF Squadrons as Stefaan mentions.

Stefaan, I do not have your book. Does the photo show the 4-bladed prop and 2 x .50 cal MGs?

[stefaan]

Hi John.
It shows the 4 bladed prop and one barrel on the left wing, as the photo is taken from left, bit behind.
Stefaan

[Birgir Thorisson]

According to Kenneth "Bing" Cross, officer commanding 219 group, the unit charged with air defence of Egypt, it was his operation, and carried out by test pilots at Abukir, using progressively modified Spitfires. Cross had very high opinion of the MU 103, they even improved the Merlin engine for the project!!!
It is noteworthy that Cross himself was an ex-test pilot there. That is to say, a year peviously, when 219 group was 252 wing, with himself in command, he kept himself in flying practice by "moonligthing" as a test pilot at Abukir.

Birgir Thorisson

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Guys

Looks like the further away from Britain the action was, the more important the actual MUs became. They might even warrant the epitath Modification Units... :)

Also looks like 103 MU in Egypt was a big one, perhaps the biggest in the ME? As such it was perhaps not unusual for it to have a far better tool park than most other designated units.

Finally one last question (well repeat really), was there any other MU forming special combat units like this and claiming victories? I have never come across any from the Home Country, but perhaps there were some more in the ME and/or FE??

Cheers
Stig

[Birgir Thorisson]

According to then Group Captain Cross, Aboukir was the largest RAF depot in the Middle East, and handled all types of aircraft. (He spells it Abu Sueir on this page, but seems to be talking of the same place which elsewhere in the book is spelled Aboukir.)
The bulk of the workforce was civilians, Maltese being most numerous, then Greeks, and in fact all sorts of nationalities. The supervising staff was RAF. (This from his autobiography, "Straight and level".)

There are interesting discrepencies between his account of the interceptions, and an account that appeared in 1978 in the magazine "Air Pictorial" about stratospheric raiders, by Christopher Argyle.

The most striking was that according to both, Genders had to bail out into the sea after shooting down the second Ju 86. Cross states that he was rescued almost at once by an egyptian boat. According to Argyle, Genders had to swim for 23 hours to the shore, and then walk back to Aboukir.

I am also pretty certain that the Greenborough crowd published somewhere a detailed article about the spitfire modifications in Aboukir, but haven´t been able to locate it in my stash of old Air Enthusiast/Air International magazines. (I have very little after 1985).

Birgir Thorisson.

[Brian Bines]

For the 6-9-42 there is Ju86R1 5101 of 3(F)/123 in crashlanding with 60% damage at Bir el Abd following Feindbeschuss ( Luft QM's report dated 6-10-42 ).

[Chris Going]

Small gloss, really, on the GAF Recon sortie rates over Egypt in 1942.
2/123 figures give FET64/42 flown on 10 March 1942 (Alexandria); FET105/42 on 16 March 1942 (Aboukir+, this 1/121); FET146/42 on 31 May 42(Alexandria); FET154/42 on 12 June 1942(Alexandria), and FET246/42 on 20 July 1942 (Alexandria), and FET283/42 on 17 October 1942 (Alexandria).

Might be useful for rates.


best,

ChrisG

[phasselgren]

Guys, it is good to see that there is quite a bit of interest in the High Altitude Flight. My interest started when researching the activities of 451 Sqn RAAF, which like most defensive Hurricane sqn had on strength 3 or 4 Spit V's during 1943 to combat German recon a/c. On several occasions the Spitfires and pilots were detached to other units such as 103 MU and 127 Sqn.

Brian, I have found much the same claims as you except:
1. P/O Wilson's claim was on 26 Jul 42 (Aces High - AH), although this seems a little odd as I thought the Flt only had 3 pilots in 1942 - F/O Reynolds, P/O Genders & P/O Gold.
2. 1 Ju88 dam on 15 Jun 43 by F/L Cooper-Slipper (AH).
3. The 16 Sep 43 claim was by F/O McQueen RAAF (Those Other Eagles - TOE).
4. 1 Me109 dam on 13 Aug 43 and 1 Me109 conf on 24 Aug 43 by S/L JG West RNZAF (TOE).
5. F/O HV Freckleton RAAF with P/O AF Arnel RAAF (attch fron 451 Sqn) as his No2 claimed a Ju86 conf on 4 Jul 43 (info from several Aussie books/diaries and NAA). However is it possible that this the E/A shared with 80 Sqn on 2 Jul 43 ?

JohnE, the 451 Sqn ORB is insistant that although F/O Purdy's claim occured whilst he was attached to 103 MU it was credited to his parent Sqn.

Ian (Adelaide)

Hi Ian,

A late comment. I just read about Montague James Rowland in Errol Martyn´s book For Your Tomorrow, Vol Three. He served in the High Altitude Flight from from 23 Aug 42 to 30 Nov 42 when he joined the Detached Flight (C Flight) of 94 Sqn.

Cheers
Peter Hasselgren

[Brian]

Hi guys

I'm resurrecting this post as I have just noticed on a Canadian website mention of a RCAF pilot Wendel J.A. Nelson (actually an American in the RCAF) who apparently claimed two Ju86s shot down while with the MU Spitfire Flight. The website owner stated that he had seen the entries in the pilot's logbook.

He transferred to USAAF and was killed in January 1945.

Do we know anything about Nelson? He apparently served with 600 Squadron on Beaufighters (and possibly with 6 Squadron on Hurricanes)before being wounded and posted to the MU on recovery.

Cheers
Brian

[Aussie7]

Brian,

Nelson's career was covered in the June & July 2009 issues of Flypast (which I appear to have unfortunately thrown out !!) and from memory he didn't make any air claims with any of his various RAF units. As he was OC of the High Altitude Flt maybe his logbook entries refer to unit claims whilst he was 'the Boss'. I have seen DFC/DSO citations listing unit claims which read like personal claims, causing confusion to novice historians down the ages.

Ian Westworth

[CJE]

Hi gents,

Sorry to dig up the deads, but I came across this thread by... Google.
How many "special" Spits were modified by 103 MU ?
We know BR202, which was lost after an engine failure on 6 September 1942. It was replaced by BR114.
But Brian wrote that on two occasions an interception was made by TWO Spits of 103 MU which leads me to believe there was a third machine.
Does anyone know anything about it?

Thanks.

Chris