Why a Defiant ‘bomber formation destroyer’ didn't shot down a RAF Museum Do 17 - Aviation Wings Why a Defiant ‘bomber formation destroyer’ didn't shot down a RAF Museum Do 17 - Aviation Wings

Why a Defiant ‘bomber formation destroyer’ didn’t shot down a RAF Museum Do 17

Defiant Do 17 1170x585 1

One particular assertion made by a Defiant crew of No. 264 Sqn, Do 17Z 5K+AR of 7./KG 3, shot down over the English Channel on August 26, 1940, has gained some attention in recent years. This aircraft, according to reports, was the one the RAF Museum recovered in 2013

The Air Ministry issued Specification F.9/35 in April 1935, requesting the development of a high-speed, two-seat day and night fighter with weapons housed in a power-operated turret. The P.82 suggestion by Boulton Paul of Norwich was one of the twelve responses. The P.82 design was accepted by the Air Ministry in April 1937, and 87 of the type were ordered.

On August 11, 1937, Cecil Feather piloted Boulton Paul’s prototype P8310, which had been given a Rolls-Royce Merlin III engine and given the new name Defiant. It was discovered to be a superb flying machine without any significant flaws. With its concentrated battery of four Browning 0.303-in. machine guns mounted in a power-operated turret behind the pilot, it was also remarkably stable for a gun platform.

The Defiant’s crucial turret made it uncommon for a single-engined fighter, as Andy Saunders explains in his book RAF Fighters Vs Luftwaffe Bombers, Battle of Britain; the aircraft was planned very much as a “bomber formation destroyer.” While common wisdom could lead us to conclude that this was a design concept that was hopelessly out of date for current air combat, it was unquestionably not as poorly thought out as many historians have since noted. These claims obviously resulted from its subpar performance during the Battle of Britain’s daylight combat, where it was shown to be no match for enemy fighters.

Only three production Defiants had been delivered by the time the conflict started. Nonetheless, there were 135 orders and more than 40 in service by January 1940. No. 264 Sqn was the first organization to receive the type in December 1939.

The tactical and strategic scenario for which the Defiant had been designed had vanished while it was in use. Now, in the summer of 1940, fighter aircraft like the Bf 109 and Bf 110 were within striking distance of southern Britain, and most bomber groups targeting the mainland were heavily escorted. So, if the Defiant was to perform as a bomber formation destroyer, it had to either breach a defensive fighter screen or cope with the Messerschmitts when they made an attack. Naturally, the gunner was always dependent on his pilot to maneuver the aircraft into the most advantageous offensive or defensive position.

If the bomber formations were unescorted or if the Defiants could avoid the fighter screen, they might have some success with some luck and a favorable wind. One particular assertion made by a Defiant crew of No. 264 Sqn, Do 17Z 5K+AR of 7./KG 3, shot down over the English Channel on August 26, 1940, has gained some attention in recent years. The Do 17Z that crashed on the Goodwin Sands was allegedly brought down in this combat by Plt Off Desmond Hughes and Sgt Fred Gash. As we’ve already mentioned, it’s been claimed that the aircraft was the same one that the RAF Museum recovered in 2013.

Hughes described the August 26 action, which took place at a height of 15,000 feet over the East Kent coastline, in his unpublished memoirs. He reported what happened after positioning his gunner for a strike from beneath the bombers:

Goodwin Sands Dornier Do 17

‘The specks grew into the long pencil-slim silhouettes of Dornier 17s and suddenly there were the black crosses, insolently challenging us in our own backyard! Fred Gash took as his target the second Dornier and made no mistake – his De Wilde incendiaries twinkled all over it, but particularly on its engine. It began to fall out of the formation, the hatch was jettisoned, two parachutes streamed as little dark figures bailed out and the stricken aircraft went down increasingly steeply, with its starboard engine well alight.’

The Goodwin Sands aircraft was one of the two Dorniers that Hughes and Gash were credited with shooting down that day. Following the initial attack on the formation, a chaotic action resulted in the second triumph. Hughes wrote about this second achievement, ‘Fred had been blazing away at another Dornier’, which he later reported as having ‘brewed up’. The Defiants were then attacked by Bf 109s, and after shaking them off, Hughes and Gash headed back to base, where they discovered six bullet holes in their aircraft. That night, Hughes sent a telegram to his parents. It said, simply, ‘Two up and lots to play.’

In that operation, Hughes and Gash are credited with shooting down two Do 17s, one of which has since been speculatively “identified” as the Goodwin Sands plane. The latter, nevertheless, cannot be the one from which Hughes witnessed two crew members escape because that plane forced a landing on the sands with its crew still aboard. The fact that the recovered aircraft showed a bullet strike from dead astern in one of the propeller blades furthers the enigma.

Despite the fact that it is entirely plausible that other aircraft also had the bomber in their sights, this does not “fit” with Hughes’ angle of attack from below. Furthermore, it cannot be the one that Gash claims has “brewed up,” a term generally used to denote utter devastation brought on by fire and explosion.

In other words, the recovered Dornier has not yet produced any proof that it was the aircraft that crashed into the Goodwins on August 26, 1940. As we have shown, the aircraft touched down on the sands when the tide was low, where the infamously glutinous sand would have swiftly engulfed the bomber. In light of this, it is difficult to understand how the Dornier, assuming it is this one, came to be found on the seabed and on its back.

All in all, this instance adequately illustrates how difficult it is to link particular “kills” to particular airplanes. The inability of Defiant gunners to accurately determine what had happened to the aircraft they had fired upon was another challenge. The vulnerability of singleton bombers in the hostile skies above southern England in 1940 is equally well illustrated. The aircraft became separated from the formation after the crew lost their bearings, according to the RAF Intelligence Report on the crashed Dornier that landed on the Goodwin Sands, which includes details of the PoW questioning.

After that, fighters (plural) attacked them. Hughes’ claim that he had attacked a formation or group of Do 17s is refuted by evidence showing the Dornier was flying alone.

RAF Fighters Vs Luftwaffe Bombers, Battle of Britain is published by Osprey Publishing and is available to order here.

Boulton Paul Defiant

Photo by Crown Copyright

Related posts

Bf 109 Vs Spitfire: the handling tests

When Empress of Britain was crippled by an Fw 200 and sunk by U-32 becoming the largest British ship lost during WWII

The B-26 with the left wing and horizontal stabilizer blown away by flak