DANTE DUNBABIN - Historian & Archaeologist 
DANTE DUNBABIN
Historian & Archaeologist
Posted on: 5 September 2025
Godlingston Heath: Pillboxes or Range Observation Posts?
On Godlingston Heath at Studland in Dorset there are three completely intact unique hexagonal concrete structures. A fourth is partly destroyed and four more are also completely demolished with only rubble remaining. When surveyed for the Defence of Britain Project (DoB) in the 1990s, they were classed as pillboxes, yet it was also commented that they are ‘probably not an anti-invasion defences pillbox, but a range observation bunker for training carried out on Studland Heath [sic].’(1) Further commentary has not helped to clarify this situation. William Foot’s Defence Areas Project paper on Studland Bay stated that, ‘the structures on Studland Heath, thought to be range observation bunkers, have been included as there is some debate regarding their purpose...’(2) 

In 2012, all three of the buildings still in good condition were Grade II listed by Historic England. Each of the Official List Entry(s) state that, ‘Studland Heath which was just inland from the coast was used as a military training area from 1942. South-west facing observation posts were constructed on the heath to monitor the exercises [sic].’(3) The two sources provided are William Foot’s report and the DoB which both state the original use of the buildings is only speculated. Nevertheless, the apparent fact that these structures are observation posts has become largely accepted, despite some debate online. Yet no research has been published which actually tries to investigate what these buildings are. This article intends to fix this deficit and provide definitive evidence to prove exactly what the ‘observation bunkers’ were built for. 
Figure 1: One of the concrete buildings (No.23) on Godlingston Heath. Image Copyright © Dante Dunbabin
Identifying the Construction Date
Studland is perhaps one of the most complex archaeological military areas in the country with remains from extensive anti-invasion defences constructed in 1940-41, later training exercises from 1941-1945 and even air defence positions dating from 1939-1945. Confirming the original use of more ambiguous military remains at Studland is thus not always straightforward. However, by using a combination of archive sources and aerial photography, the identity and use of many structures can be quickly confirmed.

The first source to consult is a December 1940 map of defences prepared for the Bankes Estate in order to allow them to claim compensation for damage to estate land. This is held at Dorset History Centre as part of the Bankes Archive. Eight structures are marked number 20-27 in two distinct groups on Godlingston Heath. The description in the attached schedule for describes them as 7ft square pillboxes covered with turf and surrounded by barbed wire. The schedule also specifies trenches and other earthwork positions constructed adjacent to each building. This source immediately removes any question that these buildings were constructed in 1942, yet before further commentary, let’s look at another source to tie down further the date of construction.  
Figure 2: The Bankes Estate map cannot be reproduced here due to copyright reasons, yet the above map shows the positions of the eight pillboxes as plotted in the field. Map Copyright © Dante Dunbabin
Throughout the Second World War the German Luftwaffe conducted large numbers of air photography sorties over the United Kingdom and this imagery survives largely intact at the National Archives and Records Administration in the United States. Consultation of a suitable image from 4th September 1940 (NARA: RG373/GX/10352/SG(R)/12) clearly shows all eight buildings. For copyright reasons this image is also not reproduced here (this is a non-profit blog and expensive license fees are not budgeted for), yet a similar albeit not quite so good quality image from November 1940 is included below which illustrates the same point. As will be explored further on, the defence construction plans for Studland as of the beginning of July 1940 are well known, and do not include anything on Godlingston Heath. This confirms that these structures were conceived and built during July-August 1940.
Figure 3: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), RG373/GX/10492/SK/14. The four northern pillboxes shown on 22nd November 1940. The large excavation at the top of the image is an anti-tank ditch and road block. The white patch next to No.25 where the paths join is likely an engineer supply dump.
Figure 4: NARA, RG373/GX/10492/SK/14. The same image as above yet showing the four pillboxes to the south.
Although this article will go on to examine multiple more pieces of evidence, from the above sources it can be concluded that these buildings are defensive pillboxes constructed as part of the wider anti-invasion defences at Studland. This is for five main reasons. Firstly, during July and August the Royal Engineers (RE) Field Companies, Work Services and private contractors were fully engaged in constructing anti-invasion defences and they had no remaining capacity to construct training infrastructure. Secondly, little training was being conducted at Studland during this time as both infantry and artillery units were also fully committed to building defences. Thirdly, the heathland was yet to be requisitioned as a training area which makes any infrastructure investment unlikely. Fourthly, the Bankes Estate map clearly records the structures as being pillboxes. And finally, it lists other earth defence works constructed around the pillboxes and all positions are recorded as being camouflaged to some degree.
Where did the misunderstanding come from?
The difference between ‘I think’ it is an observation post and actual evidence.
The original source for suggesting these 1940 anti-invasion pillboxes were in fact 1942 era observation posts appears to have been the DoB records. The exact reasons for this are not specified, yet it appears to have been due to the unusual sloping design and the fact that some pillboxes faced inland. As will be explored further both these features have perfectly rational explanations.

In 2008 William Foot published his book Defended England which acts as a narrative account of his work for the Defence Areas project. From the pages which describe Studland it is clear that he was working to an extremely tight timeframe, and only spent one afternoon actually at Studland. With regard to his opinion of the Godlingston Heath buildings he states that, 

‘scattered across the heath are a number of concrete structures that might be termed pillboxes, but which, from the long narrow apertures in their forward faces, I think [author's emphasis] were range bunkers, where umpires and other military observers watched the live ammunition exercises that were being played out about them. They all face towards the south, not east towards the coast as you would expect if they had been built as part of the anti-invasion defence [sic].’(4)

It is clear from the information above that Foot did not have any actual evidence that these building' were observation posts, nor did he investigate them in detail. The ‘long narrow apertures’ are no larger than standard pillbox embrasures and there is nothing about them to immediately suggest that they are meant for observation. The idea that ‘they all face towards the south’ is also false as out of the eight pillboxes, only three are known to face south (these happen to be No.20, 21 and 23 which survive largely intact and are now listed).

At least in his Defence Areas report he acknowledges that the building's use is not certain, yet in his 2006 book Beaches, Fields, Streets, and Hills the ‘observation bunkers’ idea is presented as fact.(5) The use of the word ‘bunkers’ is also puzzling as in the author’s experience this word is not used in period documents. The correct terminology as used in this article is Observation Post or OP. From Foot’s work it is clear that in the case of Studland a lack of time and sufficient research has meant his conclusions do not withstand close examination.
Who built the Godlingston Heath Pillboxes?
During the summer of 1940, three main RE Field Companies worked at Studland, the 233rd, 240th and 751st. Of these units only the 240th kept detailed records of the defence works they constructed. Their operation instructions and progress reports record that at the beginning of July, 14 pillboxes were planned together with an extensive network of anti-tank defences located to the north and south of Little Sea. However, the plan to build blocks and ditches north of Little Sea appears to have been rapidly abandoned (most likely due to time, supply, and cost reasons) in favour of a much shorter and quicker to build barrier located at the top of Godlingston Heath. This is the anti-tank ditch and roadblock visible in the Luftwaffe November 1940 image included above (Figure 3). It appears that the decision to build this defensive position was taken some time between the 3rd and 6th July and work proceeded quickly as air photographs show it to be complete by the 12th August 1940. 

From the Bankes Estate map we know that an additional 14 pillboxes were constructed that are not included in the 240th progress reports from 6th July, including the eight on Godlingston Heath, indicating that they were planned after this date. Detailed records are not always forthcoming for Studland, yet by amalgamating various data from War Diaries it is possible to gain a reasonable idea of what happened over the next few weeks. It was thus on the 9th July that the next stage in Studland’s defences appears to have been planned. Major Osborne and Captain Burgess of the 233rd Field Company (who had now replaced the 240th) visited Studland, while Brigadier Barstow (commander of the 69th Infantry Brigade) ‘and DCRE [Bovington] with respective sector commanders and civilian contractors sited new pillbox positions.’ How many of the 14 pillboxes were sited at this meeting remains unclear and Barstow and DCRE Bovington visited defensive positions again on 15th July, possibly siting more at Studland. 

Deputy Commander Royal Engineer (DCRE) Bovington was the Royal Engineer Work Services (REWS) office in charge of supervising civilian contractors in the Studland area. See A Brief History of the Construction and Life Of a Pillbox for more information on how the engineer chain of command worked. The Luftwaffe image from 4th September indicates that the northern group of four (24-27) are complete. Less work is visible on the southern group, yet No.22 and No.23 look mostly complete while only ground work appears to have started on No.20 and No.21. This at least largely defines the construction time to mid-July - September 1940, apart from the two southern most pillboxes which appear to have been finished some time in early 1941. The Bankes Estate map marks these two as ‘N.C.’ which presumably stands for not complete. Between 10th July and 15th August, the 751st Field Company RE was the main engineer unit working at Studland, replaced after that date by the 233rd again. If the Godlingston Heath pillboxes were built by RE units then these two companies are the mostly likely constructors. However, it is more likely that they were built by a private contractor under the management of DCRE Bovington. Information relating to private contractors at Studland is very limited and only one major contractor has been identified to date, Jones and Seaward Ltd. of Bournemouth. The source for this is a document from early 1941 and it is unclear what work, if any, they were doing at Studland in the summer of 1940. It is very likely this company was involved in constructing the defences on Godlingston, and almost certain they finished No.20 and No.21 as there were few RE companies available during this time, yet from the current records this cannot be proven. 
Features of the Design and Archaeological Significance
The design of the Godlingston Heath pillboxes has attracted attention over the years due to the unusual sloping front. Although each pillbox is slightly different, and working out the exact parameters of the four demolished buildings is rather hard, they all share distinctive features which are summarised below.  

Each pillbox is approximately 8x12ft by 8ft high and includes a covered entrance way and three main embrasures (although No.20 has four). They have been built to a bullet-proof not shell proof thickness with the front sloping concrete approximately 14-inches thick. The four northern pillboxes (No.24-27) were all constructed using concrete block shuttering and this is clearly visible when examining the remains. Two of the southern group (No.22 and No.23) also have concrete block shuttering, yet No.20 and No.21 have brick shuttering. This is further evidence that they were built later, and possibly by a different unit or contractor. 
Figure 5: The outside of pillbox No.21 viewed from the south side facing north. Note the distinctive sloping front, brick shuttering and embrasure visible at the bottom of the image. Like all of the pillboxes on Godlingston Heath it is surrounded by thick vegetation. Image Copyright © Dante Dunbabin.
Figure 6: The inside of pillbox No.23. Note the recces below the three embrasures and two concrete hatches. Image Copyright © Dante Dunbabin.
Figure 7: Plan view of pillbox No.21. Note the three stepped embrasures and covered entrance way. Drawing Copyright © Dante Dunbabin.
Figure 8: Inside the entrance way to Pillbox No.21. The numbers 2 and 1 can be clearly seen stencilled on the wall, a direct connection between this building and the Bankes Estate map. Image Copyright © Dante Dunbabin.
The embrasures are located near ground level which together with the sloping front section mean the garrison would have had to fire sitting down. The recess below the embrasures appears to accommodate the front leg of a Bren Gun tripod. However, the author of this article has not tested this with an actual tripod, so this is not completely certain. The recess is also further evidence that these buildings are pillboxes, not observation posts. It is also worth noting the concrete hatches to close the embrasures. Two are visible in the above photograph and they would have been held in place with some kind of support, probably a metal bar. The metal pegs located either side of the embrasures are still extant, as are the metal brackets on the right concrete hatch.

The Bankes Estate map and schedule provide some further evidence regarding camouflage, and it appears the sloping front was designed to be covered with turf. This does not seem to be present in the September 1940 image as the pillboxes are clearly visible. Turf appears to have been added by November 1940 as the pillboxes are much less visible in images from that date, yet it is often hard to be certain about these sorts of details when interpreting an image taken at 38,000ft.

Encirclements of barbed wire are also referred to in December 1940. The earliest image which clearly shows these futures is from August 1942 (included below). 
Figure 9: NARA, RG373/GX/12060/SG/161, 28 August 1942. Dark rings indicating a belt of barbed wire are just visible around pillboxes No.26 and No.27.
Origins of the Godlingston Heath Design
With regard to construction almost everything currently known has already been discussed above and the simple answer is that it is unknown for certain who came up with this design of pillbox and the reasons why. However, by making a few educated guesses and examining some supporting data a possible explanation can be found.
  
Brigadier John Barstow had overall control of the defences in east Dorset during this time, and he is known to have requested REWS staff to create custom designs at Sandbanks. Barstow went to school at a scientific college in Switzerland, indicating he may have had a role in suggesting the use of sloping concrete. Although it is possible that Barstow requested an RE field officer to come up with a new design, the most likely architect is DCRE Bovington who is known to have had multiple meetings with Barstow. As was explained in the article on the Redend Point pillbox, the identity of DCRE Bovington is currently unknown due in part because so few records relating to the DCREs office survive. Why a new design was considered necessary despite the presence of the standard FW3 drawings is not immediately clear from the documentary evidence, but there are several clear advantages of the Godlingston Heath design, including the reduced front profile.  
Tactical positions in the landscape
One of the main reasons suggested that these pillboxes are range observation posts is that some face in directions which do not have an immediately visible defensive purpose. Yet when consideration is given to the demolished pillboxes and other defence works which have now been removed, the tactics behind these pillboxes’ intended use becomes clear.

The northern group, with two pillboxes facing north, one facing north-east and one facing west was intended to protect the anti-tank barrier constructed on either side of Ferry Road just to the north of Godlingston Heath. The two northern most pillboxes (No.26 and No.27) were sited on small hills, allowing effective fire to be brought down directly across the anti-tank ditch and roadblock. If you stand just north of the original roadblock position (there are no clear remains of this) both pillbox positions can be clearly identified as effectively commanding the road. The southern group of four had a different role with three pillboxes facing south to protect against an advance from a successful landing in Swanage or the South Beach area. The final pillbox sited near Ferry Road faces east (No.22) where it could guard against an assault inland from Knoll Beach. Together these groups created an inland nodal point which if held would prevent the use of Studland by blocking the passage of Ferry Road from north to south. 
Figure 10: The same image as Figure 2, but with direction arrows overlaid. The directions of fire indicated are approximate only and the exact orientation of the demolished pillboxes is hard to determine. Map Copyright © Dante Dunbabin
Figure 11: Multiple fire trenches complement each pillbox. This arrow shaped position is located next to Pillbox No.23. Image Copyright © Dante Dunbabin.
Who provided a Garrison?
During the summer of 1940 and spring of 1941, Studland had two main defending units. The first defence scheme issued in August 1940 by the 5th Bn East Yorkshire Regiment specified that two rifle companies would hold the foreshore with a whole additional company assigned to defend the Knoll House Hotel and positions ‘N.N.W of Knoll House’ which appears to be referring to the Godlingston Heath defences. This scheme was updated when the 69th Infantry Brigade was replaced in October 1940 by the 210th Infantry Brigade and 7th Guards Brigade. According to the 7th Bn Suffolk Regiment’s October defence scheme a mobile reserve would be maintained which could be used for manning the defences on Godlingston Heath, as well as defeating minor parachutists attacks and reinforcing the beach defences. These defence schemes are of course yet further evidence that the buildings on Godlingston Heath are defensive pillboxes, not range observation posts.

By February 1942 when the coastal defences of Dorset were re-organised, it would appear that the defences on Godlingston Heath were abandoned. New defence maps issued by the 113th Infantry Brigade do not mark any positions in this area, and it would appear that only defences on the foreshore were maintained for the possibility of a German raid.  
Figure 12: The 7th Bn Suffolk Regiment Defence Scheme from October 1940. The Cassini grid reference 456047 is approximately the middle point between No.24, 25, and 27. Image Copyright © Dante Dunbabin / The National Archives
Conclusion
The above presented evidence confirms without any question that the eight concrete buildings on Godlingston Heath are pillboxes, not range observation posts. This is not to say that they were not used for training as all show signs of ordnance damage and four are completely destroyed. Although the types of ordnance used against the pillboxes can often be identified (for example No.21 shows signs of a Beehive shaped charge being used on the roof), working out during which exercise the damage was done is much harder. However, it should be noted that no evidence has been found to suggest that any of these pillboxes were ever used as observation posts even after their defensive era had come to an end and their training role appears to have been purely as targets.

Exactly who built them and who came up with the design and why is also hard to determine for certain. Due to limitations in the documentary record it is unlikely these questions will be answered definitively. This article is by no means a complete history of these pillboxes and topics such as the nature of the surrounding trenches and other supporting positions has not been covered here, yet hopefully this will help to reduce some of the controversy around their use.

The pillboxes at Godlingston have been rightly recorded as Grade II listed buildings as they represent a significant surviving inland nodal point defence system behind a beach area consisting of a unique local design of pillbox. The author is not aware of any other anti-invasion pillboxes in the UK which incorporate sloping armour (if anyone has evidence to contradict this then please get in contact) which makes these buildings deserving of wider recognition. Although Historic England have listed the buildings for a different and incorrect reason, the pillboxes are now protected and that is ultimately what is most important. Studland is almost unique in that so many of the defences survive, whether they be pillboxes, trenches or other positions. Although on Godlingston Heath four of the pillboxes have now been destroyed and many of the supporting trenches are now in a poor state, it is still one of the most complete defensive areas in the country and for this reason it is a nationally important landscape. 
 

(1) Defence of Britian Database, PILLBOX: S0007706. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/dob/ai_full_r.cfm?refno=7706. Accessed 01/09/2025.  
(2) William Foot, Defence Areas: A National Study of Second World War Anti-Invasion Landscapes in England (York: Archaeology Data Service, 2009). Defence Area 6: Studland Bay. https://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-455-1/dissemination/pdf/Text_Reports/DA06_TEXT_-_STUDLAND_BAY.pdf. Accessed 01/09/2025. 
(3) Historic England, Official List Entry 1411833. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1411833?section=official-list-entry. Accessed 01/09/2025. 
(4) William Foot, Defended England 1940: The South-West, Midlands and North (Stroud: The History Press, 2008), p.169. 
(5) William Foot, Beaches, Fields, Streets, and Hills: The Anti-invasion Landscapes of England, 1940 (York, Council for British Archaeology, 2006), p.66. 
Copyright © DANTE DUNBABIN 2025 - All Rights Reserved