3./KGr.zbV 9

[robert]

Jaap,

what is your point?

Regards

Robert

[Jaap Woortman]

Robert,

I am always willing to learn if there are documents I do not know of.
And I think I am not the only one.

Jaap

[robert]

KTB F.d.Luft West - I don`t know the file reference number. Don`t ask me the page number because I would not have time to check it out now. Erfolgsmeldung of 9.Fliegerdivision was taken from our manuscirpt - I don`t have also the file reference number.

Robert

[Pieter H]

Hi, back from holidays.
Have been thinking how we can close this discussion.

The most shaky part of it all is the so-called report by de Scitivaux, because it is at best 2nd-hand and (much) later after the event. Essentially there are 4 statements:
A= timing = 10.00 French time (11.00 German, 09.20 Dutch time).
B= location = IJmuiden
C= 3-engines German aircraft
D = Arado-style = interpreted as a float plane

Scenario 1: A+B+C are correct.
In that case we talk a bout a Ju52. At 09.30 I./KGzbV.1 started massive landings on and around Valkenburg, so that could match. However, there is no report of any of the Ju52's being shot out of the air by enemy fighters. Furthermore at the time of air landings the sky was infested with at least one, often two Staffels of Bf109's. So difficult to imagine a Potez could make 5 successive passes on a Ju52. I therefore score this scenario as unlikely.

Scenario 2: A+B+D are correct.
This could only have been a Dutch float plane, there were no German floatplanes over the Dutch coast after 06.00. Most likely is then the Fokker T8W, which was indeed attacked. But most reports state attacked by German fighters while just landed on the beach. Unfortunately both crew members died, so no detailed witness reports.
I score this scenario as possible, but unproven.

Scenario 3: B is not correct
IJmuiden is quite far to the north (the harbour entrance of Amsterdam) so easily 60-75 minutes flying, assuming de Scitivaux was not flying full throttle. Not very likely, and there is a fair change he mixed it up with especially Hoek van Holland, the harbour entrance to Rotterdam. However, at 10.00 French/09.20 Dutch time I have no activity in this area, let alone a loss.

Scenario 4: A is not correct
At least in the sense that 10.00 (French time) was not the time of encounter, but more likely the time of departure. French authorities took hours to react to the dawn attacks, and only towards 10.00 the first recon flights were dispatched towards Belgian and Dutch coastal waters. At 10.30 e.g. a Potez started from St Omer towards the Schelde estuary. This would mean over the IJmuiden area towards 11.15 French time, 10.30 Dutch time, but at this timing a match is again very difficult. The only candidate is then a No.40 Sqn Blenheim that flew a recon over Den Haag (the L8833) and returned heavily damaged after the encounter with a "Ju88".
I consider this latter match pretty far-fetched, because factually all assumptions A-D are then false or at least different.

Looking back at all this I can't get away from the feeling that de Scitivauxs "facts" are by far the weakest link in the whole story, where especially the timing is critical. So main question: what is meant with the "10.00" in the story?

Until more clarity on that I'm afraid this remains unsolved with no logical solution.

Cheers, Pieter

[CJE]

Great job, Pieter!

I had another look at de Scitivaux's report.
10h00 is the time the mission was ordered to LV Ferran (leader) and himself. It can be assumed that Ferran took off two or three minutes later. De Scitivaux was delayed by a few minutes for some reason. Thus, he is likely to have taken to the air by 10h10/10h15.
At no time the type of E/A he attacked is mentionned in Flottille F1C archives. We are just left with:
"... j'aperçois un gros trimoteur allemand du genre 'Arado'".
I must insist on the fact that this naval pilot of great experience would have noticed it was a floatplane - particularly after five passes!

[Stig Jarlevik]

Indeed

I must say by now I am pretty convinced what Scitivaux actually ment with his ID was this was a floatplane he did not recognize, meaning we should focus on floats and nothing else. This rules out a Ju 52/3m. Since the Ju 52 had been around for very long, was well known also in France due to its Luft Hansa and other airline usage, I find it very hard to believe that Scitivaux should be unable to recognize such an aircraft and report it as such.

Next we should focus on a multiengined aircraft. Two or three engines can be difficult to make out, especially if you have the sun in your back, meaning you have a lot of light coming back towards you, reflected from metal and various glazings. Also if you are convinced it had three engines, that's what it had.

This basically leaves us with two types, the German He 115 and the Dutch T.VIIIW.

That Dutch reports of the loss of their T.VIIIW says German aircraft is nothing strange. The Potez was quite Bf 110 looking and observers on the ground were probably even worse aircraft 'spotters' than those in the air.

Must say I favour the T.VIIIW theory myself.

Cheers
Stig

[Pieter H]

JC,
thanks a lot for confirming the timing, I've been struggeling with that question for years.
I have only one remark, which is related to the reaction time. From all French reports I've seen the following pattern appears: typically the reaction time after a mission command came in from the central Force Aérienne was at least half an hour; the time to translate the high level command into a detailed mission target, course, objectives etcetera. I strongly suspect the commands for F1C/AC1 and GR I/35 were issued at the same time (the 10.00 you mention), and the GR I/35 Potez took off at 10.30.

So if I assume that Ferran took off at 10.30 and de Scitivaux 5 minutes later it was 10.35 French time. Now the initial order was to fly to the Schelde estuary for escorting Latécoère float planes they were supposed to meet there. Calais to Vlissingen is probably 20 minutes flight, 10.55. But I can not imagine de Scitivaux then immediately abandoned his orriginal order, so he must have been flying there for say 5-10 minutes looking for his colleagues before deciding to fly on. We're 11.05 earliest by then.
Flying from Vlissingen to IJmuiden - still assuming that his identification is correct - is easily another 30 minutes, so we're by now well past 11.30 French time, or 10.50 Dutch local time. With all uncertainties this makes the time of his encounter with the "3-engined Arado-style" aircraft 11.00 Dutch time, give or take 10 minutes.

Which makes it even more difficult to identify any suitable candidate, since this was after the third and effectively last Ju52 wave, and activities in the air over the Dutch coast were quickly coming to much lower level.
These are the options if I use the very large time window 10.30-11.30 local time:
- the last T8W left Scheveningen beach at around 10.00-10.15 (the damaged R1 returning to Schellingwoude) but there are no reports it was attacked). That makes the T8W scenario again unlikely.
- The only Ju52 activity in the Valkenburg area were 6 a/c of I./KGzbV.1 that were still flying around loaded, not having landed. At 10.15 they started their return flight whereupon one was shot down at Zoelen at 10.30. I've difficulty seeing any relation between this loss and the Potez.
- Between 10.00 and 11.30 some 13 IV./KGzbV.1 Ju52's were still flying over the Den Haag - Hoek van Holland area, having failed to land at Ypenburg. They were at least for a time escorted by Bf109's, although these might have been forced to return earlier. But all fates of these 13 a/c are known and none seems to have been shot down by enemy fighters, they all made controlled emergency landings.
- Between 10.40 and 11.40 Fokker C10's from Bergen (some 20km N. of IJmuiden) attacked Valkenburg air field (along the coast S. of IJmuiden) but reported no "enemy" aircraft in that area.
- Towards 12.00 the Luftwaffe was back in force, with 7./JG3 shooting down two C10's west of Rotterdam and 3./ZG1 and 1./JG20 shooting down five No.600 Sqn Blenheims. So it seems logical to assume de Scitivauz had left the scene by then.

So although this has been a very valuable discussion with some very useful new inputs, I'm still at a complete loss as to what the presumed victim of de Scitivaux could have been. Hélas.
But I keep on hoping for fresh inputs!

Cheers, Pieter

[focusfocus]

Hi guys

Very interesting discussion!with no answer seems he.

Pieter
Just a note:you say,claims blenheims for 3/ZG1 AND 1/JG20?...JG20?.to my knowledge,no claims of Blenheims for 1/JG20 or others THAT DAY for JG20.

But rather for II/JG27(two by Fluder and Schafer;13h08 13h50) and two(Uebe and Wenzel;14h20 14h35).

and IV.(N)./JG2 (Steinhoff;hour?)

Michel

[Pieter H]

Hi Michel,

you're right, 1./JG20 didn't claim any of the Blenheims, but one of the Bf109's of this unit was shot down in the engagement (Fw Hoppe).

600 Sqn Blenheims were attacked and shot down by 3./ZG1. 6./JG27 engaged Fokker D21's and T5's a bit later.

Regards, Pieter