BobKatTarget Indicator Casings
Air Ministry,
With acknowledgements as indicated for the diagram (always much easier to find once one knows what one is looking for!!), I am now convinced that we have two Target Indicator casings.
The reason that the casing seems to be shorter than expected may be twofold: first that the last part of its length is the tail plate (see the diagram) which has become detached; and secondly I have found a reference to the diameter being approximately 12 inches, and the length with tail attached being approximately 62 inches – if the tail is about 27 inches, then the main casing would be 35 inches, or about 89 cm. This is pretty close to our 80 cm if allowance is made for the detached tail plate. The dimensions of the first piece on the left (which is slightly squashed) seem then to fit the diagram.
The flash hole is clearly visible on the small item at the foot of our first piece, and the transit plug is clearly visible on the close-up of the second. Both pieces have single suspension lugs.
Are we of like mind?
BobKatI note your caution! Laurent has just told me that the two objects were found about 200 metres apart, which would make sense if they were target indicator casings. Their mangled condition certainly suggests that they fell from the sky!
Laurent has been very busy over the last few days – he has found a second propeller base pitch gear some distance away from the first, and several other pieces including the tip of a propeller blade.
Hopefully, more to follow in due course!
BobKatI have heard from France as follows:
La première est complètement vide , mais le petit morceaux de fer, sur la photo que vous avez reçu était à l’intérieur , dans la partie haute de l’objet ! La deuxième semble avoir une paroi à l’intérieur.
Pensez que l’objet a passé 68 ans sur place et qu’il est très oxydé! Le diamètre peut varié de quelques centimètres !
Tous les bombardements sur la forêt du Croc ont été réalisés par la R.A.F , l’objet n’est pas américains!
My attempted translation is:
The first is completely empty, but the small pieces of iron, on the photo which you received, were inside, in the upper part of the object! The second appears to have a wall on the inside.
Remember that the object has spent 68 years there and that it is very rusty! The diameter may vary by a few centimetres!
All bombing on the Forêt du Croc was carried out by the RAF, the object is not American!
A closer look at the second object also shows a lug, but the aperture at the top is still filled by some metal, which could create the appearance of a solid wall when viewed from the other side.
All this would seem to confirm that what have been found are Target Indicator casings.
Many thanks for your help on this one, Air Ministry – do you agree with this conclusion?
BobKatAir Ministry,
Many thanks for the details from the Bomber Command War Diaries – I have a copy of the 2011 reprint – a good idea to include some extracts on the thread. As you say, there are a number of more generalised entries. There seems to have been a concerted effort against Flying-Bomb sites from 31 July to 6 August 1944.
My research to date has revealed the following:
6 July: night-time attack marked by Mosquitos of 105 Sqn: bombed by 550 Sqn: photographs taken indicate that bombing was from between 17,000 and 18,000ft (although the leader seems to have come down to 11,500ft for some closer photos) and that it overshot the target by about half-a-mile to a mile. If bombing accurately followed the TIs, they could have been close to where the casings have now been found. Details of the sortie are scant in the ORB, but a small number of 1,000MC bombs were hung up and jettisoned.
20 July: daylight attack by 156/582 Sqns. 582 Sqn bomb loads (except ED908) were almost entirely 500lb GP and GPLD, and bombing was from 15,000 to 16,000ft, but all except ED908, which flew on to attack the target after being hit by flak, fell short on the involuntary early release by the deputy-leader on being hit by the same burst of flak as the leader.
23 July: daylight attack by 156 Sqn from between 16,000 and 17,000ft with a mixture of 500lb GPLD and 500lb MC TD 0.25.
25/26 July: night-time – marked by 105 Sqn Mosquitos and by two Lancaster of 405 (RCAF) Sqn – bomber force not researched.
31 July/1 August: night-time – marked by 105 Sqn Mosquitos and by two Lancasters of 156 Sqn – bomber force not researched. The 156 Sqn ORB shows that the two Lancasters each carried 4 x TI Green LB 874; 4 x TI Green 874; 9 x 500 MC TD.025; and 1 x 500 GPLD. They were acting as Master Bomber and Deputy. The marking was from 12,000ft and 14,000ft. “Red TIs were down on the ground in good concentration at 2347 hrs. Our green TI’s fell right on the reds. At 2348 hrs we instructed Main Force to bomb the centre of reds and greens and when the green could no longer be seen we instructed them to bomb the centre of the ring of reds. The ring was about 350yds in diameter. Bombing was concentrated around the TIs. We ceased broadcasting at 2353hrs ….. One photo attempted.” The red TIs were presumably dropped by the Pathfinder Mosquitos and the Main Force seems not to have been drawn from the Pathfinder squadrons – seemingly quite a large operation.
9/10 August: night-time – marked by 105 Sqn Mosquitos and by two Lancasters of 405 (RCAF) Sqn – bomber force not researched.
The target had proved to be a significant challenge, but the launch ramp was presumably finally put out of action with what was the last of the three night-time raids in late July/early August. There would have been plenty of Target Indicators dropped!
I have found a reference to the tactics adopted for Oboe-leader sorties in the RAF Little Staughton ORB on 15 July 1944 which is interesting – this is also the source for the statement that ED908 was the only aircraft of its type then in use. Obviously these tactics were only suitable in daylight.
“A slightly different technique was to be used in this recently-developed type of attack ….. first, a formation of 6 a/c in pairs (in echelon to port) followed by a crocodile of 10 in pairs. As before a/c in the formation were to bomb immediately on seeing the leader do so, with the difference on this occasion that those who were more than 100 yds behind were to bomb on seeing the leader fire a smoke puff. The reserve Mosquito was to fly behind in case of failure of special equipment in the leading Oboe Lancaster.”
BobKatAir Ministry, your diagram will be a great help – thanks very much for that.
Looking at the picture of the crushed piece in post #95, there seems to be a strip of metal in the upper right-hand corner. I wonder whether this is a welded attachment at the base which has separated from the “intact” one in our first picture? This might explain the apparent discrepancy in length.
Family commitments and travel are now almost upon me, but I will be around for an exchange tomorrow morning.
BobKatThanks, Air Ministry. The local villagers say the site was bombed five times. I have traced four in the Pathfinder squadron ORBs. It is therefore quite possible that the Americans bombed the site once.
I have based my (external) diameter (in fact of 12.47in) on a circumference measurement provided by Laurent of 99.5cm. There may be some small error in the original figure due to distortion of the casing or approximation, so we could be on the right track.
The height of the casing is said to be 80cm, but again that may be relying on line of sight to get the top measurement. 80cm = 31.5in. Your measurements are 67.75in less 27.2in for the tail = 40.55in, but I am not sure that we necessarily have all the casing – but at least what we have is shorter and not longer!
Interesting about the single suspension lug – that fits with what we have.
Before we jump to any conclusions I will ask Laurent if he is able to recheck his measurements and have a look at the interior. I am afraid the technical bits of your post are beyond my capabilities to translate into French (Laurent speaks only a little English – a bit like my French!) but I will do my best with Google Translate.
With the Christmas break approaching, and family commitments on both sides of the Channel, I imagine this may take a little while to resolve, perhaps not until the end of next week.
On the last matter, it is the former load which is correct – 16 GF and 2 GP – I was relying on a fallible memory the first time! All very curious.
BobKatBomb casing or Target Indicator?
What we have established, so far, is that the latest object is neither a bomb that is recognised, nor one of the cylinders carried on the aircraft. The thickness (or thinness to be more precise) of the casing seems to rule out a deactivated bomb, and the lug on the side combined with shape/size seems to rule out an air cylinder or something such as a large fire extinguisher. We appear to have established what it is not!
Air Ministry, your thinking is that it may be nothing to do with the aircraft. However I continue to doubt whether it is of German origin – if it had been found by the side of a track through the forest or near the V1 site, then I would agree that this would be a definite possibility, but it was nowhere near a track. It could, of course, be something much more mundane such as a collection of discarded gas cylinders used in conjunction with some forestry management equipment – but in a well-managed forest, would these not have been removed rather than left to rust?
And then, why are these things (cut?) open at the base; what is the lug for; what is that little piece that seems to fit in the top aperture; why were three of them found together (or are they two things, each cut in half with one half missing?); and why were they in the middle of nowhere? Lots of questions, and few answers.
I still have this nagging feeling that what we are looking at ought to be a bomb casing, or something similar. Why else would there be a lug attachment? Looking carefully at the details in post #91, a Target Indicator would be of roughly the right diameter, and TIs would have been used on the target. I know that they were used by 156 Sqn on the night of 31 July.
When Weightman was acting as master bomber at Ardouval, his load was 6 x 1,000lb MC; 4 x TI yellow; and 4 x TI yellow (LB). [LB = Long burning??]
Air Ministry, do you have any more details about the other dimensions of Target Indicators? I haven’t been able to find anything except a reference to a 1,000lb TI – perhaps your 17in diameter version? This would suggest that a 500lb version (with your 12in diameter?) might exist, which would fit with our item. I have found a diagram of an American target illuminator which looks a good fit with what we have – the shape, a single lug, and the nose attachment, but there are no dimensions. If the RAF version is similar, perhaps this is our solution?
A Christmas conundrum!
BobKatWell, here it is. The third similar object is very much the same as this – crushed, not shattered.
Hmmm!
BobKatThanks Air Ministry, and for confirming LD is long delay. GF will just have to remain a mystery. The ORB states, “16 x 500 GF 2 x 500 GP”, so clearly there was intended to have been a difference between the two, but as to what it was we can only guess!
The attack on 20 July was in two waves. The two formations must have been controlled by two different Oboe stations as their attack was almost simultaneous and on slightly different headings.
There is quite a story in the 156 Sqn ORB. What happened was that the Oboe leader Mosquito fired a red cartridge to say that his equipment wasn’t working. The reserve Mosquito at the rear then tried to take over, but at this short distance from the target there wasn’t enough time, and so he too fired a red cartridge and the 156 Sqn sortie was aborted.
Of great interest to the story of ED908 are the following two extracts from the 156 Sqn ORB:
“Another formation passed over us from S/B to port with a Lancaster leading and a Mosquito in the rear.”
[The Lancaster would have been ED908]
and;
“At this time there was another formation directly overhead passing over from starboard to port. The last one of this formation burst into flames and flew on for two mins, then fell to earth and exploded in the Dieppe area.”
[This is a bit confusing as it was the leading aircraft, not the last, which was on fire, but perhaps it had already started to lose height so that the perspective was distorted. The “Dieppe area” is a little imprecise – it was about ten miles south!!]
Reverting to our “bomb”, clearly our man in France is convinced he has found a bomb as he is concerned about disturbing the other objects he has found. I have suggested that he leaves them alone and, if he can do so safely, simply photographs what he can see. PRENEZ GARDE, LAURENT!
BobKatAir Ministry, this is becoming an interesting discussion! I attach the latest photo received from France. The internal dimension of the aperture at the top is just over 5mm or 2.0in. Looking into the gap, the casing looks quite thick and might easily be 0.72in?
The ORB for the 550Sqn attack on the target on 6 July shows 1,000lb MC were used. Interestingly three hung up over the target and were jettisoned.
The ORB for the 582 Sqn attack on 20 July shows a mixture of 500lb GP, 500lb GP LD (what is ‘LD’?), and the mysterious 500lb GF carried by ED908.
I have not researched other ORBs.
…………………………..
I have just found my records of 156 Sqn which was in the second wave of the attack on 20 July: their attack was abortive – the Oboe leader Mosquito “fired red indicating special equipment U/S about 1 minute before target”.
Bomb loads were : 500lb GP TD .025 and 500lb GPLD. Does this help?
I have heard from France that the casing thickness is 9.5mm = 0.37in – about half the normal GP 0.72in. There is only one hook visible but the piece does not appear intact. It seems that the only way that the mystery will possibly be resolved is by examination of the other pieces in the same place which were apparently badly crushed by the impact. I have asked for photos when another visit to the location can be undertaken.
Another thought:
TD = Time Delay 0.025secs. Could GF be Fragmentation?
I agree that the use of incendiary bombs would be extremely unlikely, unless in an attempt to burn some of the trees in order to make the target more visible once the smoke had disappeared!
But what about photo flares? How big were these containers? I imagine that they would be much smaller. By 20 July daylight bombing was once more in effect, but the 6 July attack by 550 Sqn was in darkness and photoflash flares were used to picture the Aiming Point. A small number of these photographs survive in the National Archives – bombs can be seen exploding and the features of the landscape including roads are clearly visible.
BobKatThat seems to clinch it!
BobKatPeter, like you I have been concerned about the lug – if the compressed air tanks have no lugs, then we seem to be back to square one, and we have a bomb casing! I have been scouring the internet for pictures of 500lb bombs and have merely succeeded in confusing myself. There seem to be some with less rounded ends, some with two lugs, and American ordnance seems slightly different again.
Another factor is the distance it was found from the main crash site. Whilst I suppose things could be thrown long distances on impact or as the aircraft broke up, it is further away from the rest of the wreckage found than might have been reasonably expected – this points more towards it being a bomb casing than an air tank. Any further thoughts?
………………
I have just checked the dimensions of Mk.IV 500lb bombs:
Body length: 37.2 in (94.5cm)
Tail length: 33.4 in (84.8 cm)
Total length: 70.6 in (179.3 cm)
Diameter: 12.9 in (32.8cm)
Given the distortion likely in our object, the above diameter closely fits to what we have (about 1cm different), although our body length is shorter, but then if it had been cut on deactivation???
BobKatYes, Ardouval is certainly worth a visit. It has particular relevance to our crew as they attacked it, with Weightman acting as master bomber, on 9 July.
Reverting to our compressed air tank, I have now heard from France that its circumference is 99.5cm, meaning that its diameter is about 31.7cm (if I remember my geometry correctly!), so I was a bit out with my guesstimate of 40cm. The external measurement of the aperture at the top is just under 6cm.
BobKatThat’s great, Peter – it looks right – many thanks indeed. The little piece at the bottom of our photo looks as if it is the end connection. I can’t quite make out whether there is a central welding point where our piece may have shattered, but more may be revealed if we get some photos of the remaining pieces. The one thing that still seems a little odd is what seems to be a lug as shown in my post #78 – I can’t see any obvious sign of one in your pictures, but perhaps there is an explanation?
BobKatThanks for this Air Ministry. The object in the picture is about 80cm in height, so about 40cm in diameter.
I have found a diagram of the pneumatic system in A.P.2062A which shows a long air container in the position which austernj673 describes, so this is what we appear to be talking about. I can’t yet find any photographs. The place at which the object was found is quite some distance from the V1 site and off the paths, so it is probably less likely to be of German origin. Our friends in France say there is a bit more of something similar in the same place, but badly damaged. I have asked for a photo of this in situ. Perhaps this could be the other “half” of what we see in the picture?
As can be seen in the Bomber Command War Diaries, the attack on 20 July 1944 was against the Forêt du Croc site. The launch ramp was concealed in the heart of the forest and straddled the track through the forest from Les Grandes Ventes to Les Essarts. What remains is not readily visible on GoogleEarth as it is hidden by the trees. What can be seen on the ground are the foundations of what is said to be the amagnetic building and what was certainly the firing control bunker, as well as some of the concrete bases supporting the ramp. There were, I think, a total of ten V1 sites hidden in the Forêt d’Eawy around Les Grandes Ventes, and that in the Forêt du Croc was one of the ‘satellites’. As far as I am aware, it was fully operational.
………………………………………………………………………………
A further thought: I should mention that the vehicle tracks through the forest (on privately owned land) are controlled by barriers, but access is possible on foot. Attached is a detail from a map of the 117 V1 sites in Seine Maritime. The photo is of very poor quality – taken in bright sunlight at the preserved V1 site at Ardouval, and showing all the reflections of trees in the glass covering the plan, but it is the best I have. The Forêt du Croc site is number 51 at the top.
Sign In
