I'm voluntarily recording the remaining WW2 defences in mid Sussex for my local HER. I approached some landowners to get permission to look at AT defences etc and they asked if I'd also be interested in seeing 'the searchlight bunker'.
Not being sure what to expect I was very surprised to discover quite substantial remains of a bunker built to drawing 367/41.
Working from vol III of Dobinson's 20th C Fortifications, I think I've worked out the likely location of the lights but I haven't been able to find out any history of RAF Gatwick and the operation of the decoy site. Some 1947 Op Revue aerial photos have what look very much like bomb craters in the vicinity so it appears the decoy worked at least once.
Can anyone help or point me towards further research material?
The Defence of Britain database. quoting Dobinson, indicates that a Q site named Lower Beeding was the decoy for both Redhill and Gatwick and located at TQ236299
Thanks Peter. Sorry, but perhaps I didn't explain myself very well in my opening post. I know exactly where the bunker is and by extension, narrowed down where the lights would have actually been.
What I'm trying to find out is who manned the site and when. There's an indication the site went live in Aug 42 but that's as far as I've got.
Looking at the 1947 Op Revue aerial photos, there's nothing at that location you indicate other than some nearby craters. It appears the decoy worked at least once so I'm hoping this would have been recorded in a unit diary. Question is, whose?
My guess is the Form 540 for RAF Gatwick not a resident squadron or unit. Of course, unless one knows the dates of when air attacks were made you have to trawl through many years worth.
There was a requirement to feed back details of suspected enemy attacks onto decoy sites to permit estimation of their effectiveness. But in some cases the actual target was an airfield but bomb aiming errors caused bombs to fall onto decoys!
I just had a thought and will look through another reference......
I'm not familiar with RAF records (hence posting here) but it does appear that they did build to set plans, which is great.
Wish I could say the same for the pillboxes in the area; of the 14 I've surveyed, every one is a custom construction and doesn't match the standard 'type' they've been labelled with.
This message has an attachment image. Please log in or register to see it.
We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.