Halifax DT971, 10 Sq crashed 17 April 1943 - pic and some questions

[Troy Smith]

Bit of local to me history.

Recently I joined a local facebook page, Lewes Past,  and found out a few bits and pieces (like names of shops I'd forgotten) and discussion of the famous crash also came up. 

On 17th April 1943 a Halifax Mk.II, DT971 of 10 Sq, with two engines out crashed in Lewes.  Famous in the town, partly as someone snapped a clandestine photo of the crashed, which has been published a few times in local publications.  This one

Halifax DT791 ZA-K,  Lewes crash by losethekibble, on Flickr 

 

It's been a vague project to do this as a diorama model for a while,  I even got s slightly started Revell Halifax off @JohnT at some point for just this purpose.

 

Now, questions...  I suspect the crash photo was taken a few days later,   so I'm not sure if the aircraft was being dismantled, or if the crash broke the fusleage.

 

this is a picture of the main components, look to be like the fuselage broke at the joint just in front of the top turret? 

http://www.brindale.co.uk/ach/prv_site/site_images/readers_images/hfm/halifax_split.jpg

 

To me what I can see in the centre is the rear fuselage, with the port fin sheared off, and broken at the joint at rear of wing?  Possibly the rest of the fuselage is directly above port fin, twisted to left? 

Apparently one of the engines broke off and rolled down the hill.

I'm still trying to place the exact site, I know roughly where it is,  and there are living witnesses, though they were children at the time.  For anyone local, it seemes to be between Meridian Road and the Offham Road.  Meridian road is called that as the Greenwich Meridian goes through it BTW.

 

Just hoping someone will be able to 'see' the crash layout from the above picture.

 

There is a main road just above the crash, I think it's the darkish line to left of the telephone(?) pole, and the aircraft was later dismantled and removed.    I'm wondering if this might be a good use for the Airfix RAF recovery set?

I'll settle for some inaccuracies for an easy life on this,  so it may well suffice...   Perhaps make a better diorama seen during the recovery I thought.

 

  

But, a few more fragments turned up since I last looked about, (and no having various Air Britain books)  including the serial, quoted as being DD971, which is a Mosquito,  but a look at the Halifax II listing showed that DT971 was listed as the Lewes crash.

Which then gave me the Squadron.

And this , DT972, also of 10 Sq, and I'm guessing a good indicator of how DT971 looked. 

 

 

and this,  I'm inclined to think these are 48" by 24" codes? 

 

 

or is the X 30 wide?

One fascinating aspect of the raid itself, if anyone here remembers in Len Deighton's Bomber a comment about a raid in Czechoslovakia going wrong, and instead of the Skoda works being bombed, and asylum was, it was this raid to Pilsen.

 

finally

Anyone got a leftover Tollerton nose from the Revell B.III kit  and leftover ZA-K /DT971 decals, I'll ask in the wanted  as well but just in case...

 

hope of interest 

 

cheers

T

[dogsbody]

Freightdog did do a Tollerton nose, cast in clear resin, but it doesn't show as available now.

 

 

 

Chris

[Troy Smith]

7 minutes ago, dogsbody said:

Freightdog did do a Tollerton nose, cast in clear resin, but it doesn't show as available now.

Cheers Chris, I found that.

The Revell B.III kit come with two noses, the commonly seen clear nose dome, which is going to be the most used option and the Tollerton, .... which means they are out there is spares boxes which is why I mentioned it  

Been meaning to run a wanted post again for various bits and pieces so I'll ask there later.

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Bomber Command War Diaries by Middlebrook and Everitt and the Bomber Command Losses series by W.R. Chorley are good initial sources of information, Pilsen raid 16/17 April 1943, 197 Lancasters, 130 Halifaxes, 18 of each type lost.  The squadron history has DT791 ZA-K lost port outer to flak near target, lost port inner to flak near channel coast, crash landing near Lewes, 0520, all 8 crew sustained injuries or shock and taken to Lewes hospital.  Aircraft classified Category E write off.  So I would assume unless shown otherwise the damage in the photograph was caused by the crash.

 

The 10 squadron history is online at the British Archives, (Records of Events) https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/advanced-search

 

Halifax mark II DT791 was taken on charge 4 February 1943, Category E 15 April 1943.

 

The mark II series 1 had the same turret arrangement as the Lancaster, two 0.303 inch in the front turret, another pair in  mid upper turret and four in the tail turret.

The Mark II series 1 special deleted the front and mid upper turrets, the Mark II series 1a deleted the front turret and had a four gun mid upper turret.

The deleted front turret was originally replaced by a more aerodynamic nose then in the series 1a and later the nose was transparent and mounted a single free 0.303 inch gun.

Later mark II had the rectangular fins.

[JohnT]

Oh I am looking forward to this one. Great to see the one that got started with son before he lost interest going to good use. 

[Graham Boak]

The history of the top turret in the Halifax is rather involved.  Initially the Mk.II had the bulbous  BP Type C as in the nose, then they were removed as part of a general weight/drag reduction exercise.  This was later replaced by ex-Defiant Type A turrets, on a raised mounting.  I believe that this is what we see in the photo of DT972.   It used to be possible to obtain this fairing - Freightdog?   Backing this, Merrick's last epic has a crash photo of DT972 with exactly this mounting.  Then this in turn was replaced by a flush mounted variant of the Type A, redesigned for the Halifax.  The fins were replaced on all surviving Halifaxes, by means of a works party that moved around the stations.

 

Note also the landing lights are hinged down when on the ground - at least on this example.  It is not unusual for crashed RAF heavies to have broken apart at the transport joints.

[Troy Smith]

5 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

This was later replaced by ex-Defiant Type A turrets, on a raised mounting.  I believe that this is what we see in the photo of DT972. 

this raised ring? EDIT - answered my own question,  more the the fairing on Lancaster mid upper. 

 

5 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Backing this, Merrick's last epic has a crash photo of DT972 with exactly this mounting. 

this one?  Mine is not hand,  but a page number would be great if possible.

 

5 hours ago, JohnT said:

Oh I am looking forward to this one.

this may well be a bit glacial...  research is so much easier than actually building models..... 

Does have the potential to be an interesting multi discipline build though.

cheers

T

Edited March 19, 2022 by Troy Smith
answered own question.

[brewerjerry]

Hi

     Reading this thread , i wonder how it effected the morale of the halifax crews

    Losing the nose turret, then the upper turret, thus having only a four gun rear turret to fight off any attack

      presumably halifax losses were higher ? 

     cheers

        Jerry 

[Troy Smith]

9 minutes ago, brewerjerry said:

i wonder how it effected the morale of the halifax crews

    Losing the nose turret, then the upper turret, thus having only a four gun rear turret to fight off any attack

Or raised with a slightly faster aircraft?

The whole discussion of bomber armament is really a long complex subject, but there had been studies showing that statically dropping all the armament would have resulted in less losses, as the planes would have been faster and carried a greater load, and had less crew.

The tail turret was the most important as well.

Studies also showed that the use of 0.50 cal guns was a great improvement, but only a few Lancaster got the Rose tail turret that mounted these.

Poor discipline with electronics didn't help, like the myth that keeping IFF on could affect German radar controlled searchlights, and later with German devices which could home in on H2S transmissions, Naxos IIRC.... 

9 minutes ago, brewerjerry said:

      presumably halifax losses were higher ? 

Of the Merlin engined types, so much so these were withdrawn from bomber duties in early 1944. 

The Hercules engined B.III/VI/VIII did much to redeem the Halifax operationally.

[brewerjerry]

30 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

Or raised with a slightly faster aircraft?

The whole discussion of bomber armament is really a long complex subject, but there had been studies showing that statically dropping all the armament would have resulted in less losses, as the planes would have been faster and carried a greater load, and had less crew.

The tail turret was the most important as well.

Studies also showed that the use of 0.50 cal guns was a great improvement, but only a few Lancaster got the Rose tail turret that mounted these.

Poor discipline with electronics didn't help, like the myth that keeping IFF on could affect German radar controlled searchlights, and later with German devices which could home in on H2S transmissions, Naxos IIRC.... 

Of the Merlin engined types, so much so these were withdrawn from bomber duties in early 1944. 

The Hercules engined B.III/VI/VIII did much to redeem the Halifax operationally.

Hi 

     Thanks for the detailed reply, never thought of that

  i suppose the mossie proves that theory 

   cheers

      jerry 

Edited March 19, 2022 by brewerjerry

[Graham Boak]

Re the Mosquito: only to some extent: as a bomber it was very limited in what it could carry and its early daylight missions resulted in a higher loss rate than the Blenheims they replaced.  (On admittedly more dangerous missions.)  Which is why they ended up in small numbers on specialised night missions,  very annoying but little more than pinpricks.  It was later used by 2nd TAF but almost always only as a conventional light bomber alongside Bostons and Mitchells.  Yes it only had two crew, but the most expensive pair requiring the highest educational and physical abilities and longest training, yet only carried a fraction of the payload.  But the idea stuck: at least for the RAF, the USAAF and Soviets were much less convinced.

 

Troy:  Yes that's the fairing, that's the book, and the picture is on page 58.  See also P54 and 59,

 

The main operational problem with the Merlin-engined Halifax was its poor altitude performance, which never went away despite continued improvements.  However the Mk.II was intended to be all things to all men, and so initially carried a lot of surplus stuff.   The resulting weight and drag was excessive.  The removal of the turrets was first introduced by the SOE base at Tempsford in order to gain the  required range for operations into Poland, so the basic clash between offensive/defensive role as much less important.  The value of the nose turret was however always miniscule, on all the night bombers.  The Type C turret was simply too big and too bulbous - although both C Type were removed the A Type turret was soon modified for the dorsal position and welcomed back by the squadrons.   The dorsal gunner was seen as also useful for a "fighter controller" point of view, when this was relevant.

[IanC]

1 hour ago, brewerjerry said:

Hi

     Reading this thread , i wonder how it effected the morale of the halifax crews

    Losing the nose turret, then the upper turret, thus having only a four gun rear turret to fight off any attack

      presumably halifax losses were higher ? 

     cheers

        Jerry 

 

You do have a point about morale. Turrets in heavy bombers were retained for longer than strictly necessary, specifically because of the need to make crews feel they could defend themselves. Morale was everything, and although we know now with hindsight that more crews may have survived without the additional weight and drag, it would have been unthinkable at the time. Gunners were essentially lookouts anyway, whatever their defensive effectiveness. 

 

The Mosquito was of course a quantum leap forward. It has often been asked why didn't we just switch to an all Mosquito force, but that was impossible given the realities of factory production and the numbers of aircraft - and bomb lift - required. 

 

 

[Graham Boak]

Perhaps part of the reason was that the one role the Mosquito didn't prove first class was that of bombing.  An unmatched PR aircraft, an excellent heavy fighter (night fighting, intruding  and shipping attack - although not that much better than the Beaufighter) but an expensive way of dropping a few bombs.  Forget the aesthetics, the wartime and company propaganda, look at the value for money.  Or, if you prefer it, return on effort.

 

But this is supposed to be about the Halifax, in particular the Mk.II.

 

 

[dogsbody]

I believe this is the upper turret fairing Graham was talking about. 

When the Defiant-type turret was first fitted to the Halifax, this fairing was also added. It was later omitted and the turret lowered a bit.

 

 

 

Sorry for the poor image. I scanned it from some old magazine years ago.

 

 

 

Chris

[Graham Boak]

Yes, thanks Chris.  The reason was that these were reclaimed Defiant turrets.  I suspect the difference in the turrets will have been access, but it may involve changes to the lower areas permitting a lower mounting.  Apparently some ended up on the Ventura too - it would be interesting (if irrelevant) to know a little more about how they were fitted.  One of  those details which are never mentioned.  Perhaps  Les Whitehouse at the BP archives might be able to find the reason.