No 10 Squadron RFC/RAF

[ICM - RAF Retd]

The 10 Sqn Association has just launched a much-revamped website, and I have agreed to put together a bit of squadron history for the webmaster. What I have been asked to do for the time being is to put together a number of short narratives, largely tied to bases down the years - should a fuller history be required later, then I accept that several visits to the Archives at Kew will be needed to consult the detail held in War Diaries and Operational Record books. However, for now, and looking first at the WWI years, I have consulted Wg Cdr Jefford's excellent book and searched a number of keywords here on GWF and elsewhere. Thus, I am aware that the unit formed on 1 Jan 15, and moved to France on 27 Jul 15, initially to St Omer. After that, it changed locations on a number of occasions throughout the conflict before returning to the UK in 1919 to disband. Most locations were used for only a few weeks, it seems, but I note that for some 2 years or so (Aug 15 - Nov 17) it was based at Chocques, where my questions start:

1. How best might one describe Chocques? Was it a HQ area, or some kind of Logistics park - I have seen, for example, that it contained a Casualty Clearing Station? Were other RFC sqns based there also?

2. At what level were RFC sqns held and tasked? Army? Corps? (I am assuming no lower than that, perhaps wrongly.) Whichever it was, which (by number) did 10 Sqn support, and did that change as the war progressed and the size of the British Army increased? And dare I ask if the extant command and control arrangements changed in any significant way on the formation of the RAF on 1 Apr 18?

3. Until mid-1917, when it received some AW FK 8s, I see that the unit was progressively equipped with a variety of BE2 variants (C/12/D/E/F/G). I have seen references to early leaflet dropping, but am I correct in thinking that the main sqn role would have been recce, both visual and photo? And was there much of the 'light bombing' of which I've seen mentions elsewhere? Some Bristol F2bs were added to the mix in June 1918, but only until October of that year - would that have changed operational employment in any significant way?

4. From 22 Sep 18 until the armistice, less than 2 months, I see that the unit moved four times: from Droglandt to Abeele, to Menin, to Staceghem, and back to Menin. I assume that the moves would have been dictated by the evolving situation on the ground in those final weeks, but can anyone add a bit of detail/colour as to why the unit had to stay on the go at that particular stage?

5. In Feb 19, the sqn returned to the UK 'as a cadre.' How big/small might that cadre have been? And are there any general points on the rate of demobilisation of (by then) RAF units of which I should take note? What fate befell the many demobilised aircraft - they would hardly all have been needed as trainers by a much-reduced service? (10 Sqn was not to re-form until January 1928, now equipped for the bomber role with the HP Hyderabad.)

I suspect that many of you out there can fill-in some of the detail that I think I'm looking for. To those who can help, my thanks in advance.

[centurion]

3. Until mid-1917, when it received some AW FK 8s, I see that the unit was progressively equipped with a variety of BE2 variants (C/12/D/E/F/G). I have seen references to early leaflet dropping, but am I correct in thinking that the main sqn role would have been recce, both visual and photo? And was there much of the 'light bombing' of which I've seen mentions elsewhere? Some Bristol F2bs were added to the mix in June 1918, but only until October of that year - would that have changed operational employment in any significant way?

Principle BE2 versions were the BE2C and the BE2E. The latter had a different wing arrangement which was supposed to make it more maneuverable. The BE12 was not strictly a variant but a further design intended to produce a more powerful single seat aircraft initially for bombing. With the introduction of the synchronised machine gun attempts were made to use it as a fighter a role for which it was singularly unsuited. The other BE2 types were used in very small numbers. The BE2 was principally a corps recce aircraft.

The Bristol F2b fighter was just that but it was intended to produce a Corps reconnaissance version to replace the FK8s and RE8s so possibly this was being tried out.

[centurion]

Further to my last posting

The Be2d was a dual control version of the BE2c most of which were, logically, used in training squadrons although a few went to France some subsequently being fitted with BE2e wings and re typed as BE2gs. The BE2f was a BE2c re fitted with BE2e wings.

[centurion]

And more

No 10's BE12s were flown very little and as escorts to the BE2cs carrying out bombing raids, sometimes (but not often) carrying a bomb themselves Their service with no 10 started at the end of May 1916 and had finished by the first week in July

[centurion]

Some Bristol F2bs were added to the mix in June 1918, but only until October of that year - would that have changed operational employment in any significant way?

Some Sunbeam Arab engined F2Bs were sent to corps recce squadrons in 1918 to be trialed as corps recce aircraft. The Arab engine proved too unreliable. However it's no 11 squadron that seems to have born the brunt of this - there is no record of any F2bs going to no 10! Have you more detail?

[fetubi]

The first of just a handful of Bristol Fighters did join the squadron from February 1918. They were fitted with W/T receiving sets and were used on long-range shoots. These were F2bs A7214, A7256, A7300, B1234, C967, C984, C4818, E2250, E2426

Here's some typical action (via Casualty Reports):

A7214 *test o'shot ldg cr 24Mar.18

A7300 *AOb cr ldg OK 26May.18

C 967 *AOb eng failed on tk off stall cr(Capt EH Comber-Taylor KIFA/2Lt GA Cameron inj) 16Jun.18

B1234 *AOb storm ftl o't ldg dam 10Jul.18 later re-b as H7070

C 984 *AOb dam ldg? 23Aug.18

E2250 **Phot comb 16DVIIs dam(Lt AW Bennett WIA/2Lt GHE Kime MM WIA) 1Oct.18

Regards,

Trevor

[nils d]

A cadre would be about one officer and ten or so O.R.s

No aircraft no transport.

[RossM]

2. At what level were RFC sqns held and tasked? Army? Corps? (I am assuming no lower than that, perhaps wrongly.) Whichever it was, which (by number) did 10 Sqn support, and did that change as the war progressed and the size of the British Army increased? And dare I ask if the extant command and control arrangements changed in any significant way on the formation of the RAF on 1 Apr 18?

Just to answer this. The basic command and control arrangement evolved as the war progressed. Intially, It was based on a wings system initially and these supported major field formation. However, from 1916 onwards the system was evolved into a brigade system that had wings, both Army and Corps wings, which supported the field armies of the BEF. So the command hierachy was Squadron, Wing, Brigade, RFC/RAF in the Field, GHQ BEF. It did not change with the formation of the RAF. The difference between a Corps and Army wing was that Corps wings were taksed with Arty R and Support operations whereas Army wings were typically your fighters.

For 10 Squadron these were the major formation that they were attached to.

Battle of Loos, 1915 - 1st Wing, RFC

Battle of the Somme, 1916 - 1st (Corps) Wing, 1st Brigade, RFC

Battle of Arras, 1917 - 1st (Corps) Wing, 1st Brigade, RFC

Battle of Ypres, 1917 - 1st (Corps) Wing, 1st Brigade, RFC

German Spring Offensives, 1918 - 2nd (Corps) Wing, 2nd Brigade, RFC/RAF

Battle of Amiens, 1918 - 2nd (Corps) Wing, 2nd Brigade, RAF

I hope this helps.

Ross

[centurion]

Now found a reference to an "detachment" of F2bs assigned to No 10. F2bs were not normally fitted with wireless at the time and this would not be a standard 'factory fitting' job. It would almost certainly have to be done by the Wireless Experimental Establishment at Biggin Hill and I suspect that these aircraft were part of a detachment from this unit assigned to test the suitability of the Bristol Fighter as a Corps Recce aircraft to replace the Big Acks and Harry Tates. As such I suspect they would not effect number ten's core duties.

I am puzzled at to why a receiver and not a transmitter was fitted however.

[Blackblue]

By chance I am currently reading Ira 'Taffy' Jones book 'Tiger Squadron'. He commenced as an Air Mechanic and Observer at 10 Squadron and he details some of these aspects in the first few chapters. May be worth picking a copy up. E Travers 'Cross Country' (from log books & letters of 3 WW1 pilots) (Hothersall & Travers 1989) may also be worth a look.

Rgds

Tim D

[fetubi]

Now found a reference to an "detachment" of F2bs assigned to No 10. F2bs were not normally fitted with wireless at the time and this would not be a standard 'factory fitting' job. It would almost certainly have to be done by the Wireless Experimental Establishment at Biggin Hill and I suspect that these aircraft were part of a detachment from this unit assigned to test the suitability of the Bristol Fighter as a Corps Recce aircraft to replace the Big Acks and Harry Tates. As such I suspect they would not effect number ten's core duties.

I am puzzled at to why a receiver and not a transmitter was fitted however.

The reference to "Receiving Sets" may have come out of something like an Official History from Kew, but I'll look into it if I get a moment. You're probably right. As you mention, it would be interesting to get to the bottom of exactly how much use the F2bs did get in units like this.

By the by, the only BE12 I've got a reference to regarding 10 Sqn is 6136, which came in from 1AD on 19.5.16. It had a bit more of a life with 21 Sqn. There were also 3 RE8s fairly late in the day - B4103, C2547, D6737. All of which is really a bit of a diversion from the type which a history of 10 Sqn should be properly built up around - the Armstrong Whitworth FK8, which it got from around June 1917, and went operational with in July.

There is a history of 10 Sqn in Air Pictorial by JDR Rawlings called "Handley Page Specialists. History of 10 Squadron." from way back in March 1962. His unit histories were always pretty useful.

Regards, Trevor

[centurion]

The reference to "Receiving Sets" may have come out of something like an Official History from Kew, but I'll look into it if I get a moment. You're probably right. As you mention, it would be interesting to get to the bottom of exactly how much use the F2bs did get in units like this.

By the by, the only BE12 I've got a reference to regarding 10 Sqn is 6136, which came in from 1AD on 19.5.16. It had a bit more of a life with 21 Sqn. There were also 3 RE8s fairly late in the day - B4103, C2547, D6737. All of which is really a bit of a diversion from the type which a history of 10 Sqn should be properly built up around - the Armstrong Whitworth FK8, which it got from around June 1917, and went operational with in July.

There is a history of 10 Sqn in Air Pictorial by JDR Rawlings called "Handley Page Specialists. History of 10 Squadron." from way back in March 1962. His unit histories were always pretty useful.

Regards, Trevor

BE12 6483 went initially to no 10 and was used both for escort and bombing duties. It was the first BE12 to go to France. It was eventually forced down with prop damage when the mg synchro failed. After repair it seems to have gone on to no 21 Sqn. I think to concentrate on the Big Ack would be wrong - its a historu of No 10 which used a variety of aircraft - indeed there would appear to have been an attitude of "lets try it out with no 10"

BTW a number of small F2b detachments were made to various corps recce sqadrons in 1918. Where detail is available it seems that these were part of the effort to introduce the type to replace the FK8 and RE8. it failed due to a lack of a suitable replacement for the RR Falcon engine. The Arab had a tendency to come apart under the stess of take off which may be reflected in one of the accident reports for No 10.

[fetubi]

I think to concentrate on the Big Ack would be wrong - its a historu of No 10 which used a variety of aircraft - indeed there would appear to have been an attitude of "lets try it out with no 10"

My point in reminding the thread about the FK8 and its connection with 10 Squadron is that in truth it's hardly been mentioned or discussed directly in any of the above replies, other than in comparison with other types. There were almost 70 FK8s involved in Casualties for the unit - compared with about 25 on the BE2 types. Bald comparisons of this nature are odious on their own - rather I guess I'm trying to kickstart some discussion on the FK8 and 10 Squadron for the person who has posted the question. I know there are a few Big Ack experts out there..

Regards,

Trevor

[centurion]

My point in reminding the thread about the FK8 and its connection with 10 Squadron is that in truth it's hardly been mentioned or discussed directly in any of the above replies, other than in comparison with other types. There were almost 70 FK8s involved in Casualties for the unit - compared with about 25 on the BE2 types. Bald comparisons of this nature are odious on their own - rather I guess I'm trying to kickstart some discussion on the FK8 and 10 Squadron for the person who has posted the question. I know there are a few Big Ack experts out there..

Regards,

Trevor

Wouldn't disagree except that I think it needs a different thread. The OP mentioned a number of different types and posters have been trying to fill in on these, to turn this into a Big Ack discussion would be to hijack his thread (tempting though that might be).

[ICM - RAF Retd]

Wouldn't disagree except that I think it needs a different thread. The OP mentioned a number of different types and posters have been trying to fill in on these, to turn this into a Big Ack discussion would be to hijack his thread (tempting though that might be).

Gents: Hijack as much as you like. As ever, I am impressed by the sheer expertise and scholarship evident here on GWF, and I suspect that the Association's webmaster is going to get a more fulsome entry for 10 Sqn in WWI than either he or I had first thought! That said, one of the points that has really struck me in this so far is comparing aircraft service life now and then, when things appear to have changed so relatively quickly. The 'modern' 10 Sqn got its VC 10s in 1966/7/8 and still had them as it was disbanded in 2005 .... and passed on the airframes to 101 Sqn, which still flies most of them, with a current out-of-service date in 2013.

[centurion]

Things went faster then - The FK8 was designed in early 1916, the prototype in the form of the FK7 flew in midsummer and the first FK8s arrived in France in Jan 1917 and the RFC was looking at replacing them in early 1918 (albeit unsuccessfully). The aircraft were simpler to build, there was war pressure to replace with something that would keep an edge over the enemy. Post war many aircraft lasted much longer and some types hung on for over ten years until the threat from Nazi Germany and the need to rearm generated another spurt. However most of the aircraft the RAF used in WW2 had been on the drawing board even before 1939 in one form or another. The development process became more bureaucratic - the introduction of the Fairy Albacore (by no means a sophisticated aircraft) was delayed for months whilst design committees worried over where to place the Elsan (the crews dumped them over the side on the first operational flight!). By the 1960s cost and delay was horrendous. I was around in Rolls Royce when efforts were made to marry the RR Spey with the American Phantom (despite the fact that the engine was too long to fit the airframe) - the result was that the 1st 50 delivered to the RAF were not combat capable - the reheat could not be used effectively without causing a wheel failure and engine explosion ( a fact concealed to hide Mr Wilson's blushes) - the cost was so huge that the tax payer would have got better value from the continued development of the TSR2. Today it costs so much (and takes so long) to develop a new war plane that they have to be kept in service for yonks

[Jim_Grundy]

Just for information, I came across an account yesterday of an early member of 10 Squadron, Lieutenant William Hodgson Sugden-Wilson. Sugden-Wilson was taken prisoner on 21st September 1915 after being shot down by Max Immelman. His pilot, Lieutenant Stanley Winther Claws, was killed.

I've transcribed Sugden-Wilson's and Immelman's respective accounts of the action on my fb page here: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=188464604505618&id=117600881609310#!/notes/small-town-great-war-hucknall-1914-1918/lieutenant-william-hodgson-sugden-wilson-immelmans-third-victory-21st-september-/188464604505618

[MikeMeech]

Just to add to the information from Ross and others. 10 Sqn. spent 1915 to 1917 in support of the First Army. At Loos (July 1915) one Flight was used for Strategical Reconnaissance while two Flights operated with the Divisional Artillery of the Indian Corps and part of 4 Group H.A.R. (Corps Heavy Artillery Reserve Group) on a front of three quarters of a mile.

In 1918, on the Flanders front, the Squadron operated with the Second Army and in September (according to the Official History Vol. VI, page 533) it operarated some aircraft fitted with Wireless Telephony (voice radio), along with aircraft from 7 and 53 Sqns which were also fitted with this equipment.

I hope this is of use.

Mike

[ICM - RAF Retd]

Gents: Once again, my warm thanks for your contributions, and I think it's now time for me to start writing and to send something to the Association's webmaster. That said, can anyone add anything to this snippet from the squadron's area of the MOD website?

"During the British advance in September 1918, a novel task undertaken by the squadron was the dropping of baskets of pigeons to advanced parties of infantry so that they could report progress of their advance to their headquarters."

I am left wondering if this mention means that the task was unusual, and not undertaken by other squadron.... and that seems a bit unlikely.

Also, but probably for a subsequent project, is there a readily available single consolidated source of casualties by unit?

So, for now, thanks again - and for those who mentioned it, I have a copy of Ira Jones' book on the way via ABE Books. The extract in the link by Jim Grundy looks most promising.

[centurion]

I've seen a number of accounts of pigeons being air dropped by parachute so suspect that it wasn't confined to no 10 One Canadian unit received a case of pigeons and later reported that "they had been very tasty". Pigeon dropping was, it seems, first developed for agents operating behind the enemy lines but many of the birds never reached the agents for whom they were intended, suffering a similar fate to those received by the Canadians. I think I've got something in my notes on parachuting pigeons - I'll try and look tonight.

[Rockdoc]

At a talk I heard last year about British spy networks behind German lines it was said that pigeons were sometimes dropped 'on spec' by the Allies, with a note in the basket asking for information to be sent back by whoever found it. To validate the information, the sender was requested to give his or her own details plus those of someone in an area under Allied control who could verify their identity. The Germans found some of these and substituted their own pigeons so they received signed confessions from would-be collaborators......

Keith

[centurion]

At a talk I heard last year about British spy networks behind German lines it was said that pigeons were sometimes dropped 'on spec' by the Allies, with a note in the basket asking for information to be sent back by whoever found it. To validate the information, the sender was requested to give his or her own details plus those of someone in an area under Allied control who could verify their identity. The Germans found some of these and substituted their own pigeons so they received signed confessions from would-be collaborators......

Keith

Safer just to eat them

I'm not sure that Frenchmen in occupied France helping those in the rest of France could be refered to as collaborators. Spies possibly from a German viewpoint.

[Jim_Grundy]

Further to the piece I transcribed earlier, I found the following reference to Lieutenant Stanley Winther Claws in S.F. Wise's "Canadian Airmen and the First World War. The Official History oof the Royal Canadian Air Force. Volume 1", pp.352-353, University of Toronto Press, 1980:

"Stanley Winther Claws was the first Canadian airman to be killed in action. Caws was Canadian by choice, having been born on the Isle of Wight and, at thirty-six, was unusually old to be flying in the RFC. He had served in the Boer War as a trooper in Paget's Horse, and afterwards emigrated to Canada, where he was been 'on an important and remunerative expedition in North-West Canada when the war began.' Returning to Edmonton, he enlisted in the 19th Alberta Dragoons and went overseas with the First Contingent. In February 1915 he transferred to the RFC. Another RFC candidate remembered him thus:

"Barely had we been shown to our rooms, when a strikingly good-looking man made his appearance, grinning, and asked us if we were the two 'new guys.' In an obviously Canadian accent he... welcomed us to Brooklands. A grand character, the life and soul of our little party... he was always with us to give advice where it was needed...

"Caws always sat at the head of thet able in our little mess-room in the Blue Anchor, and I can hear him now, saying grace when the maid had served dinner, on the night of our arrival. It wa a solemn little utterance that went like this: 'For what we are about to receive, may the Lord make us truly thankful, and see to it that we have the strength to keep the god-damned stuff down!'

"He had the disconcerting habit, while we were waiting for the next course to be brought in, of suddenly snatching up any table-knives within reach, and slamming them, one after the other, across the room, into the woodwork of the door. [1]

"Manners were more stereotyped in 1915 and a man like Stan Caws must have impressed the sheltered eighteen- or twenty-year-olds with whom he was thrown into such close contact. Perhaps his peculiar social graces help to explain how Canadians in the RFC got their reputation for unorthodoxy and mild rowdyism in a service where unorthodoxy and mild rowdyism were a way of life."

[1] A.J. Insall, 'Observer: Memories of the RFC 1915-1918', pp.20-21, London, 1970.

[fetubi]

Also, but probably for a subsequent project, is there a readily available single consolidated source of casualties by unit?

When you eventually require this I am happy to provide you with a fairly comprehensive list for your squadron site.

Regards,

Trevor

PS As regards drops I've been exploring the amazingly deep resources of the Gorrell on-line files covering US air involvement the last few weeks. They got up to some amazing drops - not just the expected ammunition, but such treats for the men in the trenches as magazines, cigarettes, song sheets, US flags etc!! But no mention of anything with wings..

[centurion]

PS As regards drops I've been exploring the amazingly deep resources of the Gorrell on-line files covering US air involvement the last few weeks. They got up to some amazing drops - not just the expected ammunition, but such treats for the men in the trenches as magazines, cigarettes, song sheets, US flags etc!! But no mention of anything with wings..

Pigeons as well as other supplies were dropped to the "lost battalion" and even reported on at the time in the NYT