Air Photo of Kenley Airfield 1941

Kenley Image

The actual location of the Dornier crash at the end of (golf road) is on the image but shows no evidence of any smoke/wreckage/damage.
As this incident was very early on in the raid (within a minute of it starting) it hardly gives any credit to the accuracy of the image.
The smoke issuing on the airfield boundary near to the old Hayes Lane does tie in with reports of a fire there although it seems rather large for a bowser fire.
As far as the rest of the image is concerned, apart from the hangar fire there is little evidence of any other damage especially around the Hayes lane entrance to the camp.
When one looks at the blast pens several have no central bank so that poses an interesting query as to whether the original image for this “final” version was taken whilst the airfield was being updated in early1940.The famous Spitfire in the pen shot clearly shows the central wall on several pens (later to have an earth banks) yet in the raid shot they are not there.
As stated before once an image has been altered there is no real way to know what is real and what is changed.
As a propaganda tool it fails to show how much actual damage was caused and therefore is suspect.

The majority of bombs from the low attack hit the hangar group and neighbouring buildings – the reports talk of extensive fires in that area that were hard to extinguish. Also hit were the fuel dump, MT hangar, 2 stores buildings, canteens, accommodation blocks and the sick bay. Reports say that in addition to the wrecked hangars (5, 6 and 7, the MT shed), SHQ, and the sick quarters were also “rubble”. The high attack then largely aimed for the smoke but bombs fell over a wider area with bombs dropped on Malcolm Road (to the NE in Coulsden) where there were 10 casualties.

The Petersen Dornier that hit Sunnycroft is reported to have broken up after hitting a tree as it fell; the major part falling onto Sunnycroft where it burnt out with other parts travelling on for a further 70 yards into a field. The smoke in the photo does seem to be a bit south of Sunnycroft, but it could be the smoke from a burning oil browser mixing with the smoke from the crash site and obscuring that source.

There certainly were bomb craters, and some should be visible on the flying field. Although many were in the domestic site, there is a report that by ‘late afternoon a safe landing strip had been marked put in brightly coloured tape amongst the craters’.

Although Kenley was the target for many bombs that day many of them missed the target and those that were responsible for most of the damage were very small; the nine Do17 of the 9th Staffel each carried twenty 50kg bombs and these were dropped from a very low level so I doubt there would be much evidence of craters on the photograph. Also quite a few of these bombs didn’t explode and I seem to remember a quote describing them as ‘bouncing along the ground like rubber balls’!

Overall I’ve no reason to doubt that the upper section is a genuine untouched photograph of the attack on Kenley, taken within a few seconds of the high-level Do17 bombs bursting. Is that the smoke to the north-east of the airfield; I can’t remember where the majority of the bombs landed?

I did wonder about the amount of black smoke coming from the crash site of Petersen’s Do17 but personally I’m happy to accept that could be what has been photographed just a few seconds after the crash. The descriptions of the crash location would seem to be close enough and often the impact point of a crash and the point were the larger heavier components come to rest can be many yards apart (especially if the crash is from low level).

As for the Do17 in the other photograph, although I’ve raised doubts about when the photograph was taken, it does seem to be a Do17 flying very near Kenley so I’m not saying it couldn’t be one of the high-level force, and that explanation is probably the most likely, but I’m still a little suspicious of the joining of two photographs.

Logically we are potentially talking about three aircraft here, the Do17 in the photograph, and the aircraft (or possibly two aircraft) that took the two photographs. What got me thinking in the first place was that the two photographs undoubtedly contain some of the same reference points (most notably the railway lines) but that the remainder of the join between the two photographs seems less than perfect. In particular the scale on the two photographs seems different; even the two railway lines, that are very close together, cannot be made to align on the two photographs. Does that mean that they were taken from different cameras (or with different settings on similar cameras), or at different times, or were they taken from different altitudes or was the aircraft banking when one was taken? Or are all these differences explainable by the printing (enlarging?) process?

I wish I knew more about the cameras in question (or about the science of photography in general). :confused:

Kenley Photo

Although it would be nice to see an image with better resolution it is quite possible that this image has utilised an earlier shot and has had the “smoke” added.
The real query has to be in what detail CAN be seen or shown (ie the blast pens and camp area) and that does not add up to the state of things on the 18th.
It is quite likely that there was too much smoke over the target for a good propaganda image therefore they have made one up to suit.
With nearly 200 bombs on target including the landing ground there would have been far more evidence of that in a real recon image.
I would love to have a better res image (pathfinder) and will gladly swap that for one i have taken recently (pm me please).You could then post that on the forum for others to view.
Well done for giving Kenley some exposure (that it righly deserves) it is quite surprising how much can be seen despite the “developments” taking place.

I tend to agree, PP. The Northern fire isn’t Petersen’s Do17 that crashed on Sunnycroft, Golf Rd, though it’s not that far away from it – Sunnycroft was just over the airfield boundary. That source does look to be on the airfield itself, in the vicinity of from the E pen in the famously retouched photo taken from von Pebal’s Dornier.

The source of that fire looks a little heavy and possibly retouched to me. There is also a photo of those fires taken that day from the ground – taken at about 2pm from Coulsden, 2 miles to the North East. That photo shows a towering column of smoke rising from the airfield, but from one source, not two widely spaced as in the overhead shot. It could be that one was quickly extinguished after the atack at 1.0, of course.

Kenley Photo

I suspect the whole image has been “enhanced” and amalgamated as there are many features that do not add up.
The fire at the northern sector is possibly an oil bowser (there is some evidence of that in the accounts) but it is not the Dornier that crashed in Golf road as that location is some distance away.
The “e pens” seem to have changed to C pens and there is little evidence of damage in the main camp area near the Hayes Lane entrance and where the main casualties were.
Once an image has been altered and recopied there is nothing that can confirm what is original and therefore it has to be treated with caution as a historical record.

* slight edits to save space* because we have a photograph of fires on the ground at RAF Kenley and a photograph of a Do17 flying over Kenley do we necessarily have a photograph of a Do17 flying over Kenley during the attack on 18 August 1940?

Since this photograph was released by the Luftwaffe wouldn’t it be wise to view it as possibly being selective or enhanced reality;

This could also possibly explain the mistaken caption; maybe the photograph was designed to confuse the identity or importance of the Do215?

You raise three extremely good points!

1. Yes, I – probably naively – assumed that the pair were adjacent frames from the same film. Not necessarily the case, of course. I don’t think there is anything on the lower frame eg smoke to suggest that they do match – I think the smoke is blowing the wrong way.

2. You only have to take a look at the famous photo of the Spitfire in the blast pen, pre and post-retouching, to see that the Luftwaffe did that sort of thing. Beppo Schmidt was very prone to telling the story that people wanted to hear.

3. Not so sure why the 215 might be considered important, but others who know more might have an idea. Until proven otherwise, I thnk that’s entirely feasible.

Where’s Andy? He’s probably got the original print in his shed…

Adrian

Entertaining stuff…..but the 9th Staffel look a bit high to me! And their formation is wrong! 😉

Creaking Door – That certainly seems very plausible, and as you say the image is clearly a composite of two plates laid end to end.

However I believe that the Do. 215 was mostly used in the BoB period as a recce aircraft while the Aug 18th raids on Kenley were conducted by Do. 17 equipped units (and Ju.88), so it could be a shot from a recce overflight after the raids had passed.

I wonder if a release date for the image could be established. That might go some way to take uncertainty out if it.

There’s quite a nicely done computer/flight sim recreation of the Kenley raid here:

http://wn.com/Dornier_Do_17

I may be completely wrong here but because we have a photograph of fires on the ground at RAF Kenley and a photograph of a Do17 flying over Kenley do we necessarily have a photograph of a Do17 flying over Kenley during the attack on 18 August 1940? The reason I say this is that it isn’t a photograph, it’s two photographs isn’t it?

Since this photograph was released by the Luftwaffe wouldn’t it be wise to view it as possibly being selective or enhanced reality; after all what could be more convincing than a photograph that actually showed a Luftwaffe bomber flying over a British airfield as it burned?

This could also possibly explain the mistaken caption; maybe the photograph was designed to confuse the identity or importance of the Do215? Unlikely? Ask yourself this; why did British pilots know so much about the He113?

I know it’s nearly two years late, Nils, but here’s an extra layer to your Do17/Do215 question.

As far as I recall, it was thought when the recognition handbooks were written that the Dornier 17 and 215 both equipped bomber squadrons when, in fact, the 215 was much rarer and largely used for reconnisaince (how on earth do you spell that?). So in RAF records of the time it’s common to find Do215s shot down, when they were Do17s, and of course a great many He113s, which I’m sure you know the story behind.

I have to say that I’m at a loss to explain why someone on the other side, who had far better knowledge of the situation, could make the same mistake (I’m pretty sure that those blunt cowlings hide radials rather than inline engines) – unless they assumed it was a recce shot rather than the high-altitude raid coming over?

Given the famous shots of the Do17s at Null Metre over the English Channel, the famous shot of the Spitfire in the dispersal pen – both before and after retouching – and now this, surely this has to be one of the most photographed Luftwaffe raids? Or, given the use of Kreigsberichter, is it simply that this one was better rather than more photographed?

Adrian

Hi Dennis,

I will check my old PC for the original scan of this photo this week.
Sadly the book is not in my archive 😮

Regards
Nils

@ Dennis
Thanks for the message !

Cheers Denis, much appreciated!

I have just let Nils know about your request, after all the thread is a little old and he might not see it for some time!

Request for air photo of Kenley airfield

Newbie here! Apologies for re-opening an old thread, but I would really like to take up Pathfinder on his offer of a high-res copy of his Kenley photo, which I recently stumbled across.
My interest is that my father (a fit and sprightly 92-year-old I’m proud to say!) was stationed with the Scots Guards at Kenley during the 18/8/40 attack, and picked up a piece of a Do 17 that crashed at the edge of the airfield on that day. I now have this small piece of aluminium in my possesion, and, having just purchased and read the excellent ‘The Hardest Day’ book, I am fairly confident that I own a small piece of Feldwebel Petersen’s Do17 (F1+HT according to Tangmere’s post here). So, I know my Dad would be especially interested in a copy of the photo, please!

Regards, from
Scorrybreck

Thanks for the details and the notice of the Do-17 !
I had use the lext from the book, and I´m wondering that they have wrote D-215 :confused:

Regards
Nils

Cheers Andy,
I wondered about the date in 1941 as I couldn’t find anything about a large raid at that time. I can’t recall seeing the picture in my copy of ‘The hardest Day’. I’ll have to take another look.
I take the kids to Kenley a lot. They love to cycle round the perimeter whilst I wander about exploring. Such a shame that most of the old buildings have been demolished now though.
I submit a picture from google earth that can be used as a comparison, Kenley hasn’t changed much at all really.
Best wishes
Gerry

“The Hardest Day” is an outstanding book. My copy, which I’ve had (I think) since it was pretty much forst published still makes a journey from the bookshelf every now and then.

Pathfinder – that’s an excellent photo. I’ve dropped you a PM regarding it.

Chris

The photo was taken on 18 August 1940 during the attacks by KG 76. The photo was taken by one of the high altitude raiding force that day, the fires having been started by the earlier low level attacks by the 9th Staffel. The picture first turned up when I was helping Alfred Price in a small-ish way with his his book “The Hardest Day” way back in 1978. The Dornier in the picture, by the way, is a Do 17 not a 215. The smoke cloud to the north is most probably from the still burning wreck of one of the 9th Staffel machines, F1+HT, that crashed onto “Sunnycroft” in Golf Road killing the four crew.

Kenley

Hi,
Many thanks for posting this photograph.
Does it have a date?
I would love to have a better resolution of it if that’s OK. my email is as follows:- [email]gedburke3@yahoo.co.uk[/email]
Many thanks
Gerry