3./KGr.zbV 9

[Stig Jarlevik]

Mathieu

With full respect to the Dutch Group in question, but their list says very, very little and I must say I am doubtful unless more details can be found.

Cheers
Stig

[Pieter H]

Hi guys,
in my research on the Ju52 landings in Holland this has long been one of the most problematic to explain. So let me share my observations and conclusions:

- I (finally) hold the report of Scitivaux for credible, assuming a fight over the Dutch coast between roughly Hoek van Holland and Wassenaar. Distance was well within reach of the Potez, there was clearly fighting along the coast at Ockenburg and Valkenburg air fields, so not unlogical he was having a look. Also other French reconnaissance flights made it as far as Rotterdam, so I see nothing unrealistic in this report.
- although he claims a flight up to IJmuiden, a fight there never happened, so I suspect he took the harbour of Hoek van Holland for IJmuiden, and so the encounter was more to the south near Den Haag (The Hague).
- timing fight according most sources including Gillet around 10.00 BST, 09.20 Dutch time
- assuming this timing is correct, the incident does not match to any transport wave in this area, with or without unexplained losses.
- the lonely Ju52 suggests a returning flight, of which there only a very limited number. One of the a/c landed on the beach at Kijkduin which were 2./KGrzbV.9 but of which there were no reported returns are the most likely candidates.
- in that case eight unexplained 2./KGrzbV.9 PoW can finally be matched to a loss (since there were no other locations where this could have happened; all 2./KGrzbV.9 losses are identified and nowhere option for 8 more POW).
- only issue remains that in these 8 crew there is one FF and 3 BM’s; my interpretation is that a BM was flying the 2nd machine, probably due to a lack of pilots, and like they were supposed to do when the FF was wounded. I’ve chosen Jerzembeck because Horter is said to be member of Kornprobst crew by Weiss, and Moseler was wounded, possible as BS under the French attacks.
- See Brongers Residentie p74. Timing indeed halfway the morning.
On this one Kamphuis [Official report fighting around Den Haag] p.70 says: “Omstreeks 11.00 bereikte de voorste afdelingen [van 6-13 Dep.Bat bezig met een aanval richting het vliegveld] de rand van Loosduinen, nadat van de inzittenden van een Duits transportvliegtuig, dat zuid-west van de Houtweg een noodlanding had verricht, een achttal manschappen gevangen was genomen”. [Around 11.00 the leading sections of 6-13 Dep.Bat. while making an attack in the direction of the air field [Ockenburg] reached the outskirts of Loosduinen, after they had made 8 crew pisoner from a German transport aircraft that had made an emergency landing south west of the Houtweg."]
This confirms roughly an hour before 11.00 and 8 men.
- Kamphuis says 6-13 DepBtl, while the other sources say 4-13, including battle reports, so I stick to 4-13.

So this would be the Cornwell style report of the intial landing of two Junkers on the beach:

2./KGrzbV.9 Junkers Ju52. Diverted from Ypenburg, forced-landed on the beach south of the Badhotel Kijkduin at km-pole 107, 7.00 a.m. LT, 7.40 BST. Crew unhurt. 16 men of 2./NA22 off-loaded. Aircraft 9P+EK damaged and abandoned, later set alight by shelling from Hr.Ms. van Galen and a 100% write-off.

2./KGrzbV.9 Junkers Ju52. Diverted from Ypenburg, forced-landed on the beach south of the Badhotel Kijkduin at km-pole 107, 7.00 a.m. LT, 7.40 BST. Crew unhurt. 16 men of 2./NA22 off-loaded. Aircraft undamaged and returned.
The two crew of these aircraft were
- FF Fw Georg Kornprobst, BO ObLt Adolf Lindloff, BM Fw Willi Horter and BF Uffz Siegfried Bühring
- FF/BM Otto Jerzembeck, BO Uffz Helmut Liebscher, FF/BM Uffz Heinz Moseler, BF Uffz Rudolf Schade
Soldiers from this aircraft stranded at Kijkduin took refuge in woods around Ockenrode where, operating as ‘Gruppe Pollay‘, they remained in action until the Dutch surrender.
Both crews returned in the undamaged aircraft around 9.15 a.m. LT 9.55 BST, after which it was almost immediately attacked by a French Potez 631 and crash landed at Loosduinen.

The story of the 2nd Junkers then extends into the following description:
2./KGrzbV.9 Junkers Ju52. Unable to land at Ockenburg, forced-landed on the beach south of the Badhotel Kijkduin at km-pole 107, 7.00 a.m. LT, 7.40 BST. Crew unhurt. 16 men of 2./NA22 off-loaded. Aircraft undamaged and took-off with own crew plus four crew of abandoned 9P+EK, when attacked over the beach between Scheveningen and Hoek van Holland by LV Philippe de Scitivaux in a Potez 631 of the French Aéronavale F1C-AC1. Crash landed south of Den Haag at Loosduinen, south-west of the Houtweg and north of Bouwlust, 9.30 a.m. LT, 10.10 BST. FF/BM Uffz Otto Jerzembeck and BF Uffz Siegfried Bühring wounded, admitted to hospitals in Den Haag, FF Fw Georg Kornprobst, BO ObLt Adolf Lindloff, BM Fw Willi Horter, BO Uffz Helmut Liebscher, FF/BM Uffz Heinz Moseler and BF Uffz Rudolf Schade all captured unhurt by the 4-13 Depot Bataljon. Aircraft damaged, later recovered.
It is not known which of the two BM’s Jerzembeck or Moseler was acting as pilot on this flight. All crew members except Bühring were brought to the UK and spent the remainder of the war in Canada. Bühring was trasported back to Germany after the Dutch surrender.

As always my best possible explanation given the available data, but open to correction or refinement.

Cheers, Pieter

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks Pieter

Quite an in interesting piece of work. Need to go through it more carefully.

However if we move the combat from IJmuiden down to southern Holland we do in fact get quite a large discrepancy from de Scitivaux's combat report. A bit odd to find such a large distance difference from an experienced pilot, but I guess more strange things than that happened during the war....

Cheers
Stig

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thanks again Pieter

I have looked a bit more closely at your deductions and even if it is a theory, it is a good one and I cannot personally say anything against it, not with my own limited sources. So I confess I have copied it to keep it! Hope you don't mind...

Also thanks to Chris, who started the thread, to Gerhard who took the bait and everyone else who took up the challenge.

This proved to be a very interesting subject, indeed minute, but very rewarding never-the-less.

Thank You Guys
Cheers
Stig

[Jaap Woortman]

I have followed this discussion with great interest.
Is this than the end of the discussion? I can hardly believe it.
Are we sure that the plane mentioned in Scitivaux's combat report was a Junkers Ju 52?

IMHO we are not, at least I am not. What do we know.
Scitivaux was flying at May 10th, 1940 after 10 o’clock (French time) along the Dutch coast till IJmuiden.
In the area near IJmuiden he claimed a “large German three-engined plane looking like an Arado”.
This plane has been identified by someone, identity unknown to me, as an Junkers Ju 52/3m and even more
surprising was from 3./KGzbV 9. But was it a Ju 52/3m?
This question has been raised by Stig Jarlevik earlier in the discussion.

I am sure that Scitivaux was familiar with the Ju 52/3m. This type was a well-known German transport aircraft
flying all over the world before WWII. He did not recognize his victim near IJmuiden as a Ju 52/3m and did not
mention it in his report. No, he mentioned an large Arado-type of aircraft.
In the Wehrmacht was only one aircraft type from the Arado company operational and that was the
Arado Ar 196. A single-engined float-plane. When Scitivaux saw his victim he must have seen a large
multi-engined float-plane and that can only be an Heinkel He 115. The wingspan of the He 115 is 22.28 m. and
of the Ar 196 12.40 m. So the He 115 was indeed a large Arado-type of aircraft.

Next question is: is it possible that Scitivaux saw a Heinkel He 115? Yes, it was. The Heinkel He 115 was operating in
minelaying operations along the Dutch coast at May 10th in the Küstenfliegerstaffeln of 9. Fliegerdivision.

And what about the three engines you will say. Well, have you ever been under fire of two 7.92 mm machineguns?
Aircraft recognition is, when you are under fire, not that reliable! Maybe he saw the big nose of the plane as an engine?

Were there any losses during May 10th in these Küstenfliegerstaffeln? Yes there were. 3./506 Lost one He 115 with
the crew of Lt. Erwin Dirking during this day near the coastal line south of The Hague in the Netherlands.
But it is also possible that Scitivaux's victim was able to come home safely.
Maybe the KTB’s of these Küstenfliegerstaffeln can bring more information about the operations and incidents on this day.
I have no access to these KTB’s.

These are some thoughts for an alternative for the Ju 52/3m,

Jaap Woortman
Member of the ‘the Dutch Group in question’ and
researching the German aircraft losses over the
Netherlands during May 1940.

[Stig Jarlevik]

Thank you as well Jaap

Yes it is undoubtedly an interesting aspect you bring up.
However, we then have to make three 'changes' in de Scitivaux's report instead of two.
a) He had no real grasp where he was.
b) He had no real good idea what aeroplane he was shooting at.
c) He was unable to determine accurately if this was a twin-engined or three-engined aircraft, meaning his knowledge of German aircraft was very basic.

However I agree with you that his statement of an 'Arado type' may indicate a floatplane, and it is a great pity this was not clearly stated in his combat report.

While I have never been shot at by a 7.92mm machine gun (or any gun come to think of it... ), so I don't know my reactions, but from the combat report de Scitivaux attacked the aircraft five times, which indicates he was both quite courageous and very determined, plus this should also have given him ample time to actually identify his intended victim.

Since I have no idea regarding the detailed education of Aeronatique Navale pilots, the war had been going on for slightly more than eight months and even if aircraft recognition always was (at least it seems that way) on a low priority I would say some basic skill had to be known by all individuals including de Scitivaux.

Again I have to applaud our Dutch friends on this forum for being able to come up with two possibillities. Again I also have too admit defeat since I cannot really say anything against this theory of Jaap either.

Perhaps a reply by Pieter?

Cheers
Stig

[Pieter H]

Hi guys,

like I said, my story was the - in my eyes - best possible interpretation based on the scarce facts I had.
So I maintain that the loss of the Ju52 remains as it has been described with the exception of the cause of this loss.
I tend to agtree with Jaap that the description of "an Arado-type" does not fit nicely to a Ju52. So let's accept it was not a Ju52 (and the 2./KGrzbV.9 Ju52 at Loosduinen was simply hit by ground fire when taking off from the beach).

But I diasgree with Jaap's interpretation of this being a He115. These aircraft only flew at night and before dawn (at least over the target area) and there are no reports of He115 flights during the day along the Dutch coast. The mentioned crew of Dirking was also lost during darkness, early May 11.

However, there were other float planes flying over the Dutch coast, exactly at 09.20 Dutch time, which is 10.00 French time! These were two Fokker T8W's (the R2 and R4) and a Fokker C8W (the G8). The R2 came from the Braasemermeer float plane base north of Amsterdam, and flew along the coast from IJmuiden to Scheveningen, where it landed to pick up members of the Dutch government for transfer to the UK. (Two other Fokker T8W's had already landed at 8.30 Dutch time). The R4 and G8 came from De Mok float plane base on Texel island and also flew along the coast. The landing time of these three is said to be 9.20-9.30 Dutch time. During the landing the R4 and G8 were both attacked and sunk. These attacks were always reported as being from Bf109's, but there are no German claims at 11.00 German time in this area. My suspiscion is that this belongs to the standard reporting of the time, where any fighter was default a Bf109.

In TBoFTaN these two losses are listed as:
MLD Fokker C VIIIw (G8). Sent from De Mok in readiness to evacuate members of the Dutch government to England. Strafed by enemy aircraft and burned out on the beach at Scheveningen 9.55 a.m. No crew casualties. Aircraft a write-off.

GVT 2 Fokker T VIIIw (R4). Sent from De Mok in readiness to evacuate members of the Dutch government to England. Strafed by enemy aircraft and burned out on the beach at Scheveningen 9.55 a.m. Pilot Off-Vl J. M. Uijtenhoudt killed, Mechanic Vliegtuigmaker N.R.L. Kooiman seriously wounded, died of wounds May 12.Aircraft a write-off.


So my new hypothesis is that one of these two was attacked by LV de Scitiveau. His description of a "tri-moteur" fits better to a T8W than a C8W, and also the T8W had better air defence than a C8W. Also the C8W effectively landed on the beach, where it was burned and the wreck pictured, whereas there are no pictures of a T8W wreck near Scheveningen, so this a/c might have come down more out into the see. I need more detailed reports to verify those assumptions. But a lot of circumstantial evidence for a good level of confidence to start with.

Probably still not the definitive story, but hopefully one little step closer to the truth.


Cheers, Pieter

[CJE]

A naval pilot would have noticed the twin floats. So IMHO, it cannot be a floatplane.

[Jaap Woortman]

CJE,

Just because he was a naval pilot he saw the floats and called it therefore an Arado-type of plane.

Pieter,
To check all possibilities it’s good to take the Dutch floatplanes in consideration. But what against it is that Scitivaux talks in his report of a “large German three-engined plane looking like an Arado”. He also states that he has made five times an attack always at the back-side of the German plane. So he must have been able to see five times that his victim has the Balkenkreuz painted on or under the wings.
In September 1939, after the incident with Kriegsmarine aircraft near Ameland, the ‘roundels’ on the planes of the Dutch Army Air Force have been changed into black out-lined orange triangles. See appendix for the painting system on the Fokker T-VIIIw. I also have included a top view of a German Heinkel He 115. So if you compare the two camouflage systems it’s obvious that is impossible to make a German aircraft of the Dutch Fokker T-VIIIw even under combat conditions. It’s a nice thought, but only a Heinkel He 115 remains as a possibility.

I also did some research on the original question of CJE in this thread. As far as I could see Victor Bingham was the first one who has mentioned the Ju 52/3m near IJmuiden as from 3./KGzbV 9. In Blitzed! The battle of France May-June 1940, New Malden, 1990 he mentioned at page 223:
3./KGzbV.9, Ju52, Shot down nr Ijmuiden by Po631, 100%. At the end of his summary he states: Transcribed from Luftwaffe Quartermaster General Daily Returns of Aircraft Losses held at IWM. In my copy of the same document there is no mention of a Ju 52/3m shot down by a Po631 near IJmuiden at May 10th, 1940. Not a Ju 52/3m near IJmuiden nor shot down by a Po631.

Jaap

[Pieter H]

Hi Jaap,

at least we can agree that the 3./KGrzbV.9 story is total nonsense, so we can discard that one.

But other than that I've learned that aircraft recognition by any of the parties is the last thing to rely on. There are also ample friendly fire incidents.

On this specific case we have:
- testimony of Scitiveaux on an "Arado-type" seaplane, which almost certainly means with floats
- timing by Scitiveaux of 10.00 French time = 9.20 Dutch time
- attacks along the coast, starting close to IJmuiden
- aircraft crashed in the sea, probably close to the shore

On May 10 I have after 04.00 in the early morning (mine laying by He115's of 3./KüFlGr506) no more reported activities let alone losses of He115's during the rest of that day.

But I have flights of Dutch float planes at texactly the time given by Scitiveaux along the Dutch coast, of which at least one shot down by a fighter.

So unless convincing evidence of KüFlGr He115 losses at the right time and location turn up, I for the moment link Scitiveaux's claim to one of the Dutch float planes. Where indeed I assmume that his aircraft recognition skill under the circumstances was the least reliable parameter in his report.

I look forward to any new data to improve this analysis!

Cheers, Pieter