Leigh Light image - is it what it seems?

[WATU]

Hi Ewen

You detailed this report in #9 "The 12 Nov 1943 official CC document was ref CC/S. 7012/2/6/CinC. 1938.". Is that in the UK archives and if so do you have the TNA reference please? I cannot find it via the TNA search.

Was there any comment on using the Leigh Light with RPs?

Here is the ground picture of a Leigh Light. which is from the IWM.

Paul

 

[EwenS]

Hi Ewen

You detailed this report in #9 "The 12 Nov 1943 official CC document was ref CC/S. 7012/2/6/CinC. 1938.". Is that in the UK archives and if so do you have the TNA reference please? I cannot find it via the TNA search.

Was there any comment on using the Leigh Light with RPs?

Here is the ground picture of a Leigh Light. which is from the IWM.

Paul

Sorry can't help. That is the reference on the document itself. It lays out specific aircraft configurations.

For Long Range aircraft and Very Long Range aircraft they broke them into 4 "cases" :-
Case 1 Aircraft without Leigh Light and / or fixed RP installation
Case 2 Aircraft with Leigh Light complete (RP Installation to be removed where fitted)
Case 3 Aircraft with fixed RP installation complete (fixed fittings of Leigh Light only remain)
Case 4 Aircraft with retractable RP installation complete to be issued later (i.e. armament fit)

Under cases 1-3 a specific bomb load is then described.

The retractable mounts were only beginning to be fitted in late 1943. Note there is no mention of Leigh Light in case 4. But nowhere is there a "case" for a Leigh Light and RP.

 

[WATU]

Made some progress.
The Finn book is no use. Picture caption is "U-boat destroyed in Leigh Lights" is misleading at best. No source is given.

Attached is an extract from part of the UBAT contained in a staff assessment. After an accurate depth charge attack the Lib went back three times using its Leigh Light to sweep the surface to seek evidence of damage. On the second run it used flash photography and the mystery image comes from that. The description of a dark circle, a white centre and a white ring fits. The six beams remain unexplained but are nothing to do with rockets. Some quirk of the flares used for the flash photograph?

The date of the attack is confirmed in AIR15/138 as 24 September 1944. This comes from the form completed by the aircrew so must surely be correct. The squadron log seems to have a huge clerical error with the flight being missed out. Missing out a promising attack seems incredible.

The Admiralty assessment was ultimately "Probably sunk", classification B. The fact that Niestle gives no U-boat sunk on that date in that area might mean that it escaped probably with material damage.