Probable E/a by P/O Denby, 600 Sqn night 27/28 Sept 1940

[phasselgren]

Hi,

On the night 27/28 September 1940 Pilot Officer Gordon Alfred Denby, RAF 80812 claimed a probable enemy aircraft. He was flying with Sgt Peter Coulson Whitwell, RNZAF NZ40613 as air gunner and Sgt R M Holland as radar operator in Blenheim l “P” of No.600 Squadron.

According to the squadron ORB two aircraft was attacked and the second probably destroyed but the combat report indicates that the first aircraft was destroyed.

ORB “Pilot Officer Denby on the 27th September was credited with a probable. I the Maidstone district his gunner sighted the glow of two exhausts, which were identified as an enemy aircraft. A long … ensued and two bursts were put in by the pilot and one by the air gunner when the hostile plane went into a steep dive near Hastings. Shortly afterwards the pilot sighted the glow of two exhausts and he continued he chase to France again firing at close range. It was believed this was a second enemy aircraft and the gunner believes that this enemy aircraft was shot down. Uncertified reports from Hastings stated that one enemy aircraft was shot down in the sea, in that district about this time.”

Fighter Command Combat Report: “Blenheim took off 0210 hours landed 0345. Pilot Officer Denby patrolling at 14,000 feet Kenley Control South of Sheppey on an Easterly course intercepted an E/a. Air gunner sighted two glows from the exhaust of an aircraft on a Southerly course some distance below. Pilot turned South and closed on two exhaust rings to within 250 yards when he opened fire. Gunner confirms that tracer was going in and pilot’s fire was very accurate. Return fire was experienced from enemy rear gunner. Enemy aircraft went into a spiral dive and air gunner shot off about sixty rounds. Pilot again picked up enemy aircraft at 11,000 feet and put in two more bursts of five seconds during a chase of several minutes which took Blenheim to French coast. During this time the twin glow of exhausts was visible but enemy rear gunner has ceased fire. AI was used to inform if gaining on enemy but enemy was visible to pilot until he went into a spiral and was lost. AI operator confirms that two separate enemy aircraft appeared on tubes before opened fire and it is possible that a second quarry may have been picked up when first aircraft went onto spiral dive after pilot and gunner had fired. Reported that an enemy aircraft was down in the sea near Hastings. This enemy aircraft may have been the original machine sighted and pilot the picked up another bandit returning home. Pilot states on second chase enemy aircraft was much slower whereas previously Blenheim was overtaking at a rate of 5 mph his aircraft was gaining rapidly in subsequent chase.”

Is there anyone with some more information about this claim? I am especially interested in the involvement by the air gunner in this combat.

Thanks in advance,
Peter

[Observer1940]

Peter

Some years ago I found the Night Interceptions 17th June - 14th November 1940 on several very large (A2 size photocopies) Summary Tables, which I had photocopied.

Unfortunately, some are undated. Would your report have the Reference 900 or 900/40?

There, are two parts 900/40 i) & ii), within the Interceptions Table as one report.

i) The locality of the "S. of Sheppey" 2 glows which proved to be exhausts, "went into spiral dive and was lost." The "Results" were "Believed destroyed".

ii) The locality of the "S. of Hastings" this "E.A. seen on A.I. during previous combat." The "Attack"; "Ranges of Fire"; "Length of Burst"; "Return Fire"; "Evasive Action" and "Results" columns are all blank.

Regarding aircraft ii) in the S. of Hastings locality there was nothing else to report in any of the columns, regarding this second aircraft over a month later. However, an attached note covering 3/9/40 - 14/11/40 to the table does state that some are not individually complete.


Just found a Fighter Command letter dated 30th December 1940 to the Air Ministry, Whitehall regarding their attachments and Fighter Command were stating that you have omitted several interceptions between 3/9/40 and the 14/11/40, and Fighter Command had attached a list, stating the following:-

"28/9/40 Blenheim 600 Squadron under Kenley control had visual of an e/a. This was lost, but A.I. found it and seen again. Pilot opened fire two 5 sec. bursts. Rear gunner also opened fire. One e/a damaged."

Mark

[phasselgren]

Mark,

Thanks for the reply. My report has the Reference F.C.C.R./900/40, dated 13.9.40.

All information you have found in the report seems to indicate that the first aircraft was successfully attacked but there is still some confusion regarding this claim especially as the ORB has a different conclusion.

Regarding the letter dated 30 December 1940. Was the claim by Denby completely rejected or downgraded to damaged?

Since I wrote the first post I found the citation for Denby´s DFC:

“Pilot Officer Gordon Alfred DENBY (80812), Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, No. 600 Squadron.
One night in February, 1941, (actually the night 13/14 March) whilst on patrol this officer sighted a Heinkel in flying across his bows and by determined and accurate attacks he shot it down. Previously, he has attacked and probably destroyed two other hostile aircraft at night. Pilot Officer Denby has taken part in numerous operational night flights, often in bad weather, and his zeal and initiative in these duties have been an inspiration to all.”

In Those Other Eagles by Christopher Shores the only claim made by Denby before the night 13/14 March was on the night 27/28 September 1940. This may indicate two probables this night but I have found that citations are not always reliable when looking for information about claims.

Peter

[Observer1940]

Hello Peter

Part of your report stated:-

"Reported that an enemy aircraft was down in the sea near Hastings. This enemy aircraft may have been the original machine sighted and pilot the picked up another bandit returning home. Pilot states on second chase enemy aircraft was much slower whereas previously Blenheim was overtaking at a rate of 5 mph his aircraft was gaining rapidly in subsequent chase.”

Looking at the Interceptions table:-
1. some rows only have one engagement.
2. whereas several rows have two engagements (one under the other) indicated as (i) and (ii) within the same row, but with differing results.

Because there are differing "results" in other rows between engagements (i) and (ii) would suggest two separate aircraft being engaged.

Regarding your 900 Report, "900/40" in the Whitehall Table I have photocopied from AIR 2/8542 it states for engagement:-

(i) S. of Sheppey location - "Believed destroyed."
(ii) S. of Hastings location - was blank when the table was compiled and copy sent to Fighter Command.

The December 1940 Fighter Command letter is stating that it is sending the information omitted on the Interceptions table that Fighter Command had received from Air Ministry Whitehall. If this is the case, then engagement:-

(i) is "Believed destroyed"
(ii) is "One e/a damaged."

Bear in mind, that the claimant did not see the aircraft (i) crash into the ground, only that the aircraft went into a spiral and became lost, so it would be recorded as "Believed destroyed" and the Table may have been based on early reports of the Pilot, before being confirmed.

The way the Interceptions table is laid out regarding other Interceptions of two aircraft in the same row, does seem to suggest that you have two separate aircraft engaged (albeit in one report) as some of the others have differing results, where there is two engagements in the same row marked (i) and (ii).

Therefore, looking at the table and the Fighter Command letter together, I do not feel that you have the "Believed destroyed" aircraft being downgraded to "One e/a damaged." You have two engaged, one "Believed destroyed" and the other "damaged".

Perhaps the S. Of Sheppey e/a flew some distance before coming down?

Mark

[phasselgren]

Hello Mark,

Thanks for the reply. You have been very helpful for me.

I assume believed destroyed = probably destroyed

Peter

[Observer1940]

Peter

The information sent is from the file regarding Night Interception with Radar Aids.

There are also several other AI Airborne Interception files in the AIR 2 series at TNA, Kew, although they appear to have been weeded looking at the missing / renumbered folio number numbers, on the file pieces.

According to some FIU information at TNA, Kew, some of their intercepts were friendly, perhaps the missing folio pieces of the Night Intercepts went onto another file and/or some were intercepts with friendly aircraft?

Mark

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

I've looked into the EoE Luft Loss DB for this night and don't find a ready candidate for a loss involving these reports.

Regards,

Larry Hickey
EoE Project Coordinator

[phasselgren]

Mark and Larry,

Thanks for the additional information.

Mark: Have you made any check if the information in these files (Night Interception with Radar Aids and others) conform with the Fighter Command Combats and casualties, Vol I, 1940 May - 1942 Mar (AIR 16/960)?

Regards,
Peter

[Observer1940]

Originally Posted by phasselgren

Mark and Larry,

Thanks for the additional information.

Mark: Have you made any check if the information in these files (Night Interception with Radar Aids and others) conform with the Fighter Command Combats and casualties, Vol I, 1940 May - 1942 Mar (AIR 16/960)?

Regards,
Peter

Hello Peter and Larry

No, I was looking for any references to a specific 1940 night friendly fire incident in the AIR 2/8542; 2/7391 and 2/7167 files in our TNA at Kew, but no mention of any friendly, only unconfirmed or probable e/a. I have not compared them.

AIR 2/7167 Operational use of AI
AIR 2/7391 Night Interception summaries
AIR 2/8542 Night interception with radar aids

There seems to be quite a few in Autumn 1940 and I was led to believe that 1940 night intercepts were not that easy.

Mark

Mark