Fokker D.XXI in Dutch service

Marcel · Oct 8, 2008

05.12h: 240, 218 and 244 escorted 2 C.V's to Arnhem. They encountered heavy Flak. 244 damaged a German reconnaissance a/c. The patrol landed at 06.05h. 218 was lost during landing, the pilot, sgt Steensma was transported to the hospital.

05.29: 221, 212 and 236 flew to Ruigenhoek. They arrived there without meeting resistance. They escorted 4 C.V's to Delft, where they bombed German paratroopers.

219 which had remained on De Kooij flew to Buiksloot, landing there at 07.40h.

10.05h: 221, 219, 235, 240 and 244 flew to Ruigenhoek. 240 got engine problems there and could only return to Buiksloot, late in the afternoon.

16.16h 212, 224, 219, 235, 221 and 244 escorted 4 C.X to Waalhaven (Rotterdam), to bomb it. The D.XXI's also attacked ground targets.

17.00h 240 escorted T.V 856 to the Afsluitdijk, the dam in the IJjselmeer (former Zuiderzee). They were forced to return by many German a/c.

After this, only 7 D.XXI's were still able to fight, 219, 224, 235, 236, 240, 242 and 244. 212 and 221 had to be repaired. 231 was still on Texel and was not used.

Marcel · Oct 9, 2008

As we get further, the posts get shorter.

Still from Buiksloot:
03.58h 219, 235, 240, 242 and 244 took part in a ground support mission (with 4 C.X's) to the Grebbe line. All D.XXI's got damaged by Flak. 219 suffered a failure in one of the MG's, which emptied itself.
11.34h: 212, 224, 240, 236, 240 and 242 repeated the previous mission. 224 was severely damaged.

There were no clashes with German fighters as the fighters flew on the deck all the time. The Dutch camouflage showed itself to be effective. The fighters had been using this tactic since May 11th. However the repeatedly damaged and repaired aircraft were wearing out and desperately needed replacement. There were none.

Marcel · Oct 9, 2008

In the night 13-14th of May, the Dutch army retreated from the First line, the Grebbe-line (Near Wageningen) to the Water-line near Utrecht. The Dutch army also feared a German landing north of Amsterdam, over the IJselmeer. Buiksloot was considered to be too close to the lines, so the JaVA was transferred to Schiphol airport. In the mean time they had to cover the Dutch field army.
As the groundcrew had worked very hard during the night, 10 D.XXI's were ready again. Because of fog, the first patrol could only be made at 07.05 h. This patrol was done byt 221, 236, 240, 242 and 244. 236 crashlanded and was set on fire by the pilot, sgt. Sitter. 205, 219, 221, 224 and 235 flew the short flight to Schiphol.
10.45: 8 D.XXI's were battleready. 212, 219, 221, 224 and 235 patrolled the area.
Condition of the pilots was so bad that flights were suspended. Preparations were made to fly the a/c to the UK, but when the army surrendered at 19.00h, this was forbidden by the high command. All D.XXI's were then set on fire against the order of the high command.

Vincenzo · Oct 9, 2008

Beautiful work Marcel

Marcel · Oct 9, 2008

After the surender, the following D.XXI's were captured by the Germans:
217 and 228 at Ockenburg
231 on Texel
245
230 and 232 at Schiphol
220 at the Fokker factory.

231 crashed on october 16th, badly injuring the German pilot.

1. 230 at Schiphol, the Fokker symbol in the tail was taken as a souvenier.
2. 231 in LW markings at Jever.
3. The burned D.XXI's at Schiphol after the fight. In the back, a disabled KLM DC2

Marcel · Oct 9, 2008

D.XXI pilots and groundcrew who fell in the 5 days:

Kapt.Tel L.J. van Beerschoten
Wmr. Vl. J. van Zuijlen
Elt.Vl. A.H. Bodaan
Sgt.Vl. F.C.H. van Looijen
Dpl. Sld. W.G. Kern
Sgt.1 Vlm J. Barendregt
Dpl.Sld. W. Muilenburg

Marcel · Oct 9, 2008

Thanks Vincenzo, I try.

Claims by D.XXI pilots:

Aarts, P.J.(217), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-110
Doppenberg, H.(221), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-109E-3
Droste, F.(228 ), 1x Junkers Ju88
Eden, J.(247), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-110C-1
Geus de, G(236), 1x Dornier Do-17
Grave de, F.L.M. (213), 1(2)x Messerschmitt Bf-110
Hateboer, W.(244), 1x Junkers Ju88
Kiel, G.(216), 1x Junkers Ju52
Linzel, J.(246), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-110
Overvest van, H(219), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-109
Plesman, J.C.(212), 1x Junkers Ju52
Roos, J.(229), 2x Messerschmitt Bf-110
Sitter, H.(236), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-109
Sluyter, N.(225) , 1x Junkers Ju88
Smits, P.(242), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-109
Stok van der, B.(234), 1x Messerschmitt Bf-109
Vaart van der, A.M.(212), 1x Dornier Do-215B-4

Juha · Oct 11, 2008

Marcel
Thanks a lot for the excellent info!

Juha

Marcel · Oct 12, 2008

Thanks Juha.

I think this concludes the story about the Dutch Fokkers, sadly not a very long one. Maybe I'll post some snippets of info later, but I think the main story is already told.

So what do you think, was the Fokker D.XXI the right a/c at the right place or should the Dutch have bought other planes?

In 1940, the Dutch command preferred the G.1, which is obvious as the G.1 was clearly the more advanced a/c. The G.1 was deadly in the air, which is shown by the fact that the 3e JaVA (G.1) shot down 14 German a/c against the loss of 1 in the early minutes of the war. This while they were surprised on the ground and still had to take off. But the main disadvantage was shown when they had to land again. As Waalhaven airport was not available, they could land nowhere, needing concrete strips, and crashlanded in the neighbourhood. Most of them could not be used in the following days. The D.XXI however, could take off and land almost everywhere, and was quite easy to repair and maintain. It also proved itself quite capable of fighting the Bf109/Bf110, see for instance the dogfight over the Waddenzee by between 1e JaVA and 4./JG186.
I would argue that more emphasis on the production of the D.XXI, in higher numbers would have had more impact on the war. If say a 100 or even maybe 50 of these fighters would have been available, flying from almost any piece of grass available, far more would have survived the first day and perhaps they would have had the chance to attack the German bombers, bombing Rotterdam on May 14th. Maybe the Dutch then would have lasted many days longer for the benefit of the allied forces.

As it was now, the number of fighters (total of 52 G.1's and D.XXI's) was far too few to make any impression on the massive German Luftwaffe.

HoHun · Oct 12, 2008

Hi Marcel,

>In 1940, the Dutch command preferred the G.1, which is obvious as the G.1 was clearly the more advanced a/c.

I've added a quick analysis of the G.1 to the D.XXI comparison, simply using the engine data from the D.XXI with the parameters of the G.1 (relying on 475 km/h top speed at 4500 kg for calibration).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Marcel · Oct 12, 2008

so the G.1 could turn even faster than the D.XXI? Great stuff Henning!

HoHun · Oct 12, 2008

Hi Marcel,

> so the G.1 could turn even faster than the D.XXI? Great stuff Henning!

It's not so surprising if you consider that at twice the weight and twice the power, it has more than twice the wing area

I have added another graph for the Me 110C-1 at 6040 kg (later versions tended to be heavier).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Marcel · Oct 12, 2008

Thanks Henning, I was wondering what the Bf110 would do in the equation, so here I have the answer. Good job.

Juha · Oct 12, 2008

Hello Marcel
even if I have past couple decades defended the decision to buy Fokker D.XXIs to Finland even if many with more knowledge had been critical to that decision, among them the Grand Old Man of FAF fighter aviation, colonel Lorentz. XXI was rather cheap, licence production went smoothly and it's climb rate was reasonable. But IMHO both FAF and Dutch would have made a wise move if they had purchaced Curtiss Hawk 75As as their main fighter and bought a reasonable number of XXIs as interceptors because 75A wasn't a great climber. IMHO only realistic European alternative for Hawk 75A was Fiats, producers needed better fighters themselves and even if G.50 was a reasonable fighter it was a difficult plane to maintain.

XXI vs G.1 I agree with You. Dutch planning should have been based a longer resistance than happened and it would not be reasonable to assume that their permanent bases would stay operational very long. So their fighters should have been able to operate from improvised strips and be easily repairable. Acting a bit like guerilla AF.

Juha

Marcel · Oct 13, 2008

Hi Juha, I believe the Hawk was not even considered by the Dutch. They were focused on either a more advance a/c like the He112 with Db601 engine or the Spitfire. I think you're right that the Hawk could have been a good alternative, especially because of it's greater speed of about 500 km/h. But climbspeed was very important as there was hardly any defence depth (The Netherlands is only about 150 km deep from east to west) and the warning system was very old fashioned and slow.

About the Fiat G.50, I'm not so sure. I believe they would not have fared better than the D.XXI.

I still think the D.XXI was not such a bad choice after all, if they would have been ordered in greater numbers. Especially for the Guerilla airwar the Dutch had to fight.

I think the choice for the G.1 was because of it's nature. The Dutch expected to be neutral and thought they mainly would have to patrol the borders. Being a Luchtkruiser, the G.1 would have been ideal for the job. A big miscalculation from their part.

Juha · Oct 13, 2008

Hello Marcel
I doubt that He 112 was even as good plane as Hawk 75A. IIRC Romanian He 112s suffered rather bad losses in summer 41. On the other hand Hawk 75A was the most successful fighter of French AF in 1939-40. Finns used it as first line fighter up to Sept 44, even if it was outclassed in 44. And RAF used Mohawk IVs (75A-4) in 43-44 in Burma.

Spitfire on the other hand was a dream, RAF needed them themselves.

IIRC May 40 over Netherland was mostly low level affair, so the climb ability wasn't after all so important. Hawk 75A was also very rugged plane and reliable, save problems with Cyclones. And it could operate from primitive airfields.

I understand the neutrality aspect but really, defence planning should take into account also the worst case scenarios. D.XXI as a good climber could have handled high flyers, at least show the flag even if it could not always catch intruders.
And the flight time of Hawk 75A was 3-5 hours, so it really could fly long patrols.
Juha

Marcel · Oct 13, 2008

Juha said:
Hello Marcel
I doubt that He 112 was even as good plane as Hawk 75A. IIRC Romanian He 112s suffered rather bad losses in summer 41. On the other hand Hawk 75A was the most successful fighter of French AF in 1939-40. Finns used it as first line fighter up to Sept 44, even if it was outclassed in 44. And RAF used Mohawk IVs (75A-4) in 43-44 in Burma.

Spitfire on the other hand was a dream, RAF needed them themselves.

IIRC May 40 over Netherland was mostly low level affair, so the climb ability wasn't after all so important. Hawk 75A was also very rugged plane and reliable, save problems with Cyclones. And it could operate from primitive airfields.

I understand the neutrality aspect but really, defence planning should take into account also the worst case scenarios. D.XXI as a good climber could have handled high flyers, at least show the flag even if it could not always catch intruders.
And the flight time of Hawk 75A was 3-5 hours, so it really could fly long patrols.
Juha

The He112 would have been the one with the Db601a engine, so more in league with the Bf109E. I believe the Romanian ones were powered by the older Junkers Jumo. Spitfires and Hurricanes were actually offered to the Dutch and they did test them thoroughly. None were bought in time however, as the war started earlier then the government had anticipated.

Low level was only because the Dutch, being fastly outnumbered, didn't fly higher then on-the-deck. They would have been slaughtered by the 109's if they got slightly higher.
I agree with you on the government being too short sighted and also that the Hawker should have been considered.

HoHun · Oct 13, 2008

Hi Juha,

>I doubt that He 112 was even as good plane as Hawk 75A.

That's probably a fair assessment - the Hawk 75 in French service did very well against the Me 109D with a Jumo 210 engine, so the like-engined He 112 probably would have fared no better.

If Marcel talks about the DB601-engined He 112, the Hawk would probably not be superior to that one though.

I have actually prepared a comparison Me 109 vs. Hawk comparison for a discussion on another board ... no Hawk 75A but just a Hawk 75C in there, but here it is anyway. (The "Super Hawk" with a two-speed, two-stage supercharged engine from a Wildcat was the focus of that discussion. I don't believe it was ever built, but it appears to have been considered historically).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Juha · Oct 13, 2008

Hello HoHun
I have never heard on Hawk 75C, but both P-36A and C used R-1830-17 engine. Max speed for P-36A was 313 mph at 10,000 ft and 311 mph at 10,000ft for P-36C (it had 2 wing mgs added to 2 mgs in nose which was A's armament)

Juha

Juha · Oct 13, 2008

Hello HoHun
Test flight report of CU-503 after engine change from Cyclone to Twin Wasp R-1830-SC3-G. Speed 372 kmh IAS at 2350m. Air pressure and temperature is given on the uppermost part and temperature at air intake is on the lowest line, max speed column at right.

Juha

Fokker D.XXI in Dutch service

rotartsinimdA

rotartsinimdA

rotartsinimdA

Senior Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Attachments

rotartsinimdA

rotartsinimdA

Senior Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

rotartsinimdA

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

rotartsinimdA

Senior Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Senior Master Sergeant

rotartsinimdA

Tech Sergeant

Attachments

Senior Master Sergeant

Senior Master Sergeant

Attachments

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads