Defected Allied Pilots?

[Graham Boak]

Thank you, Martin, for a fuller account. One point you don't mention is the story, reportedly from a fellow-pilot, that before the launch Walcott had said outright that he was not going to go to Malta. Another version of the story is that he had claimed undercarriage problems (I think this is in Cull's new book Spitfires Over Malta), as opposed to most versions which say engine problems. I do wonder where these bullet holes could have come from, as these were brand-new aircraft. Itinerant tribesmen?

I doubt that we will ever find the truth of this matter, but I feel that if he was at fault in 1942 then he redeemed himself later.

Either way, it was not a defection. Desertion, maybe.

[Martin Gleeson]

Hallo Graham,

Thank you for your reply. I do agree when you state that we will (probably) never know the entire truth of this story. However we can but try !

I am not a 'legal eagle' but I have concerns about the issue of one of Walcotts fellow pilots, F/Sgt. Buckley, stating that Walcott told him that he was not going to Malta. At first sight it is very damming and I am not disregarding it to suit my argument. The most detailed version of this that I have seen was published in MALTA: THE THORN IN ROMMEL'S SIDE by Laddie Lucas (1992). The source appears to be the same as that used by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton ie. Tony Holland, ex-603 Squadron.

It is written when David Douglas-Hamilton (the 603 Sqn. C.O. at the time) enquired of Buckley on this matter that Buckley told him what Walcott is reputed to have said. However Buckley never went to Malta either ! Therefore how could D D-H have obtained this information ? Tony Holland himself only picked up various accounts of Walcott's time as a prisoner after he returned to the UK.

Re. the undercarriage problem. This only occurred when Walcott attempted to land on a highway in North Africa, but one wheel would not lower. So he decided instead to land near the road. This information comes from his debriefing statement of late November 1942. I plan to buy Brian Cull's new book in the near future, especially to see what he has to say on Walcott. Hugh Dow has told me that he contacted Brian Cull after reading MALTA: THE SPITFIRE YEAR in order to set the record straight on Walcott. Hugh said Brian Cull promised to review the matter in SPITFIRES OVER MALTA.

Re. the bullet holes. Again according to his debriefing statement Walcott was pulled unconscious from the Spitfire by French troops. Presumably a guard was placed immediately on the plane. He was taken to a house three quarters of a mile away. When he came to he was brought back to the plane where he was shown the 'm.g. strikes'. He was not aware of being fired on by the boat that he passed close to, but he presumed it had done so after seeing the bullet holes.

While it is clear that Walcott was an unusual character in some ways I still believe that he did not defect or desert. I fully accept too that his debriefing statement is his side of the story and as such can of course be used to push a certain line.

Best wishes for now,

Martin Gleeson.

[Graham Boak]

Cull tells the story in the text with only four lines, referring to the Buckley report. A footnote then directs you to another ten lines (in smaller print) quoting the fuller story as passed on by, and credited to, Dow. However, it does specifically say that the diversion was because he was unable to retract the undercarriage and thus (correctly) feared overheating the engine.

It is interesting to note that Buckley did not go to Malta this trip, but there will have been some kind of enquiry about Walcott's disappearance, and his story would have become public knowledge then. I don't see any reason to doubt the story on that ground, though whether he was the actual informant may be queried, perhaps.

[Brian]

Hi guys


I have just joined your honourable guild of aviation experts and hope that I will be able to add something to your discussions from time to time.

I am the author of SPITFIRES OVER MALTA and get the feeling that some flak may be directed my way! Fire away!

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Author

I am the author of SPITFIRES OVER MALTA

And your name is, please?

Dénes Bernád
Author

[Martin Gleeson]

Hallo all,

Hmmm! Very interesting Graham. The details I quoted concerning the engine trouble and undercarriage problem appear, in that order, in Walcott's debriefing statement of 23 November 1942 to the RAF. The version that Hugh Dow has given to Brian Cull is even more likely and completely believeable for the following reason. This version could well be what Walcott told Hugh Dow during the year they served together. It would be totally in line with Walcott's character to embelish a perfectly good story for more dramatic effect (ie. the debriefing statement). I believe Hugh would go along with this interpretation.

Consider this. If one's undercarriage would not retract after take off, then obviously one could not fly to Malta or land back on the aircraft carrier. Ditching would be risky. The most sensible course of action would be to fly to the nearest land especially when it was only 55 miles away. This would not normally cause any blame to be attached to the pilot (in my opinion). Other RAF aircraft and crews had been forced to land in French North Africa from 1940 to 1942. I have never heard of any suspicion or sanction attaching to these crews.

I can only imagine once it became known Walcott was a prisoner of the French that some enquiries were made, but I would not have expected much beyond that. After all hundreds of aircraft were lost every month by the RAF. Our problems, as researchers today, often arise because the wartime RAF had no time or resources to probperly investigate each loss.

By the way I must alert Hugh Dow to this thread and hopefully he will add to or correct the preceding entries on 'Bud' Walcott (as he was universally known).

I am glad to learn SPITFIRES OVER MALTA is available. I await with great interest the next contribution by 'AUTHOR'. I have questions certainly, but no flak !

Regards for now,

Martin Gleeson.

[robert_schulte]

Gentlemen,

many thanks for this most informative thread.

If one's undercarriage would not retract after take off, then obviously one could not fly to Malta or land back on the aircraft carrier

I hope, this is not a silly question, but why would a pilot, whose plane would not retract its undercarriage will not try to land again on the carrier? Or is this only the case, when the undercarriage is partially retracted and not completely down?
Sorry, I don't know the "mechanisms" on a carrier.

[Alex Smart]

hello Martin,

55 miles from the North African coast . How far from Malta ?

Alex

[Juha]

Hello
Spitfire didn’t has an arrester-wire hook that could grip one of the carrier’s arrester-wires. Also it lacked the strengthenings made in Seafire. I think that it was possible to land a Spitfire to a carrier but it was difficult and risky and it is entirely possible that the carrier’s “batman” would have denied the permission to even try the landing .

[robert_schulte]

Juha, thanks for this, completely logic
It didn't come to my mind that a plane taking off from a carrier not necessarily has an arrester hook.....