RAF Bomber Command Group Orders

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello RAF experts,

Does anybody know whether copies of the so called Group Orders (in which instructions were given for squadrons to carry out a bombing raid) have been sent to other Bomber Command chains of command ? Perhaps HQ of Bomber Command itself ?

I do have a copy of the Group Order for 5 Group for the Duisburg raid on 20th December 1942, but unfortunately the entries with 61 and 106 Sqdn. seems to have been corrected/altered. I do hope to find another example without this handwritten correction.

Any hint or help is very appreciated! Many thanks in advance,

Marcel Hogenhuis, Venlo

[MW Giles]

Not sure we are talking about the same form but Bomber Command Form B - Group Orders are kept at National Archives December 1942 is AIR 14/3093 to 6
The new catalogue is a pain so it is one of those 4 references

Martin

[RodM]

The Marcel,

the details that you seek may be on file AIR 14/3093 (Group Operational Orders, Dec 1942) or files AIR 14/3094-3096 (Group Operational Orders, Mar-Dec 1942, possibly day raids) at The National Archives, Kew. I don't have copies of the contents of these files myself.

This series of files (AIR 14/3086-3136, Mar 1942-May 1945) contain operational orders for all Bomber Groups, with the documents on the latter files at least being copies received by Bomber Command headquarters.

Amendments to the operational orders after initial transmission were common, although, if you are lucky, the files above will contain the original unaltered order and also the latter amendment on a seperate sheet.

Cheers

Rod

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Dear Martin and Rod,

Thank you both for the interesting (and perhaps promising) answers. The Group Orders I have come from AIR 14/3096 and in the enclosed picture you can see that the entry about the desired bomb loads for the Lancasters of 61 and 106 Squadron leaves room for speculations about what actually have been carried to Duisburg...

Now that I read about the chance that the other AIR 14 files mentioned could contain such Group Operational Orders too, my hopes have revived to find clues about the number of 4000 lbs HC Cookies carried by 61 and 106 Squadron of RAF Syerston.

Many thanks ! Very grateful !

Marcel

[MW Giles]

My interpretation of the Group order

Part C - 5 Group is to supply 83 Lancasters for the raid
Part F - someone cannot count and has only assigned 71 Lancasters from the five bases. The most likely thing is that they have forgotten 106 Sqn which was asked for 12 Lancs. (Actually 61 Sqn provided 9, but I cannot prove that it was initially asked for 11)
Part N - someone has done the calculation and found that there should be 23 Lancasters from Syerston and has then decided 11 of these will have load B

75 aircraft took off - the missing ones come from 207 Sqn = 4 a/c and 49 Sqn = 2 a/c cancelled before t/o. This gives credence to 2 a/c being cancelled before t/o from Syerston as the other bases all provided their quotas

You could try coming at it from the other direction and look at Bomber Command Form E which was filled in after a sortie. These are also at National Archives but I do not know if they show bomb loads.

Regards

Martin

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Martin,

Thank you for your interesting observations. On my (enlarged) copy the number of - presumed - Lancasters with bombload B is actually 16 instead of 11 but... according to the ORB's of 61 and 106 Sqdn. a majority flew with bomb load A (14 SBC's). That why I am puzzled what the T-mark with number 16 under Part N means...

Unfortunately the ORB of 61 Sqdn doesn't specify details about the bomb load with one exception: Lancaster Mk.I W4236 had bomb load C, a 4000 lbs HC Cookie.

Well, I will order the other Group Operational Orders as well and send some prayers that these will disclose new insights.

Again many thanks for your thoughts and help. Best regards,
Marcel

[RodM]

Hi Marcel and Martin,

I think the second annotation is a 'red herring'.

As Martin states, 83 a/c of No. 5 Group were assigned to the raid (under Part C); only 71 are accounted for by Base, including only 11 from Syerston (under Part F). The bomber loads correctly account for all 83 a/c, when the hand-written amendment of 23 a/c from Syerston cayying load A is considered (Part N).

Thus, 23 aircraft from Syerston were detailed for the raid, with all to carry load A (bearing in mind that the Form B was a statement of intent and not a statement of what was later executed).

The fundamental issue here is that you appear to have a copy of the Form B as first transmitted by telex. No doubt amendments to the original Form B were transmitted at a later time (these would correct errors on the original form and/or amend the number of aircraft or composition and distribution of the bomb loads). This usually means that the contents of the file must be checked to see what amendments to the Form B were later issued, provided that they are still on file.

Cheers

Rod

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Rod,

Thanks for your comments and excluding the chance that I misunderstand 'second annotation': whose annotation do you mean?

I can see your point about the originally planned 23 aircraft of Syerston now and I am aware that form B was a statement of intent, since Lancaster W4236 of 61 Sqdn actually carried a 4000 lbs Cookie instead of the asked load A and two Lancasters of 106 carried four 1000 lbs GP plus 10 SBC's.

Do I understand it correctly that I might (repeat: just might) find perhaps other/later/revised versions of the Group Operational Order in the other AIR 14 files as mentioned by you earlier? I will order these anyway to take every opportunity to find which number of Cookies MIGHT be carried by 61 and 106 Sqdn and/or the other squadrons of 5 Group.

Many thanks for your input! Best regards, Marcel

[RodM]

Hi Marcel,

It is the hand-written annotation that appears to read "T 16" that is the red herring. I don't know what it means, but if it is ignored, the rest of the figures under Part N add up to the total of 83 a/c given in Part C.

The original Form B contained two obvious errors in Parts F and N, and Part N has two hand-written amendments added plus a hand-written question mark, while the error in Part F is unchanged. Such inconsistencies in the original signal would no doubt have been queried by the message recipients...

Yes, there is a chance that there are later signals on file that contain amendments to the original Form B. These will not likely be a revised copy of the Form B itself, but rather a signal or signals providing amendments to the original form, I base this conclusion on experience working with the files containing Form Bs and files containing a range of other telexed signals from the late war period, where such amendments to the originally transmitted data exist.

But I cannot state for certain that they will be on file in this case, only that it is likely they are on file.

Cheers

Rod

[RodM]

Hi Marcel,

by way of example, I have attached an amendment signal for a Form B from later in the war.

Cheers

Rod