Higgins LCP(L) in British use
 

After threads on the LCA, LCVP and Storm and Assault Boats, I'd like to learn some more about the Landing Craft, Personnel (Large), or LCP(L).

The LCP(L) was the production version of Higgins' Eureka boat. It was built for the US Navy and Marines, but was also supplied (in numbers unknown to me) to the British where it was initially known as the "R-boat" and used for Commando raids.

Can anyone supply us with more information/photos regarding the use of the LCP(L) by the British and/or Canadians?

Thanks!
Hanno

Some technical data and plan from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/...hips-lcpl.html

LCP(L) - Landing Craft, Personnel (Large), aka "T" boats, Higgins Eureka model:

• Displacement: 13,500 pounds (light), 21,600 pounds (loaded)
• Length: 36'
• Beam: 10'9"
• Draft: 3'6" aft (loaded)
• Speed: 10 knots
• Armament: 2 .30-caliber mg
• Complement: 3 crew, 1 officer/3 craft
• Capacity: 36 troops or 8,100 lbs. cargo
• Diesel engines
• 2,193 built

Also from the same source, a picture of one in British use, apparently. Note the spray screen and overhead weather protection, probably added to make them a bit more useful in NW Europe.

Re: Higgins LCP(L) in British use
 

Hi Hanno;

No. 3 Commando used them at Dieppe (19 Aug 42) and there is mention of them in the War Diary of The Calgary Regiment for 19 Aug 42. I'll post more later and a photo or two.

Cheers :)

Re: Higgins LCP(L) in British use
 

Hi Hanno;

Two other Canadian units which used 'R-boats' during the raid on Dieppe, were the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada (Green Beach), who crossed from Newhaven onboard LCP(L)s of the:

Second Flotilla Group Six, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 19; 88; 94; 119; 125; 129; 147; 156

Sixth Flotilla Group Six, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 127; 130; 131; 132; 134; 135; 136; 153; 158

Seventh Flotilla Group Six, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 83; 84; 99; 101; 102; 104; 110; 113; 159; 160

and the other was Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal (the Floating Reserve), who were onboard LCP(L)s of the:

Fourth Flotilla Group Seven, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 28; 53; 170; 172; 173; 174; 175; 186; 187; 188; 192; 195; 199; 212

Fourth Flotilla Group Seven, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 31; 45; 155; 163; 165; 166; 167; 208; 209; 210; 614

No. 3 Commando (Yellow Beach) were embarked in LCP(L)s of the:

First Flotilla Group Five, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 1; 80; 81; 85; 86; 87; 95; 118; 128; 145; 157

Twenty-Fourth Flotilla Group Five, consisting of LCP(L)s Nos.: 3; 4; 13; 15; 23; 24; 34; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 78; 115

Which puts the total used at Dieppe at approx. 77.

Cheers :)

Mark,

Excellent info re. their use at Dieppe!

I understand later during the war their role was taken over by the LCVP and LCA, but it continued in use as a Survey Craft, Rescue Launch and guide for the larger landing craft. I read they were used in these roles during the D-Day landings, but do you know if they were used during the amphibious landings in the Scheldt estuary (Operation Infatuate) as well?

Thanks,
Hanno

I guess they were, as two of them were lost during that operation (source):
Interesting to see LCP(L) No.127 served in both the Dieppe and the Scheldt operations. Now Mark, you are going to come up with a reference to it being used in Normandy as well, aren't you? ;)

H.

Accordint to Lenton & Colledge in "Warships of World War II" - Royal Navy LCP(L) were numbered 1-400, 501-600 & 701-800 so a total of 600. 66 were lost in 1944 and 4 in 1945. Some were converted to LCN - Landing Craft, Navigation and some to LCP(Sy) - Landing Craft, Survey
The large number lost in 1944 suggests that some may have been used at Normandy probably in the build up as ferry craft but I doubt they landed troops in the assault.

Appendix B to AHQ report No 54 lists the landing craft of Force J which includes "36 LCP(L) Smoke" but no other LCP(L)

Noel, thanks for the information.

At www.history.navy.mil I came across another picture of a British LCP(L) - would this be a LCN - Landing Craft, Navigation?

I've spent far too much time searching for the one good photo' of an LCN that I have but can't remember which book it is in. The picture you posted certainly has a larger " cabin" than was normal on later British LCVP but I seem to recall that LCN had a full lenghth cabin - one description I have found is: -
Assault from the Sea by J D Ladd

Afraid this doesn't help too much.

Also found this website which deals with postwar use of landing craft by the French in Indochina - http://indochine54.free.fr/ceteol/boats.htm

Both of the following pictures appear in the book "Les Navires du debarquement", written by Yves BUFFETAUT.

Alex

According to BUFFETAUT, this picture was taken somewhere in the British landing area in Normandy. Judging from the houses in the background (which are very close to the beach) I recon these pictures were taken in the Sword area, maybe Hermanville, Luc-sur-Mer or St Aubin-sur-Mer.

At least two LCP(L)'s can be seen on the right.

Alex

Just stumbled upon this article. It seems the museum in Vierville Normandy has saved an LCP from the scrappy:

http://www.ouest-france.fr/of-photos..._3_px_470_.jpg

http://www.ouest-france.fr/actu/actu...actuLocale.Htm

I have these which may be of interest. All are in Canadian use and most pre-date the Dieppe raid.

http://www.servicepub.com/images/pa113242.jpg

http://www.servicepub.com/images/dsc00632.jpg

http://www.servicepub.com/images/dsc00631.jpg

And three more.

http://www.servicepub.com/images/11099a.jpg

http://www.servicepub.com/images/dsc00566a.jpg

http://www.servicepub.com/images/dsc00567a.jpg

Thompson..
 

Some time ago we had a discussion of the use of Thompsons in Canadian service..here we see a trooper carrying one..

http://www.servicepub.com/images/dsc00566a.jpg

No question that Canadians had Thompson SMGs in the UK. However, they were not used at Dieppe and they were not used by Canadians in Norhwest Europe. They were used by Canadians in Sicily and Italy.
(you had to open that can of worms again, didn't you!) :nono:

I think a lot of people have said before regarding anything military "Never say never!"

So many people look at official documents and regulations for everything from clothing, weapons and equipment to methods of operations and tactics and pronounce them as final proof that something did or did not happen.

Look at any photo of any group of soldiers, sailors and airmen (not on a formal parade or guard duty) of any nationality on active service and you will find dozens of variations in weapons, clothing and equipment, even in the same platoon, almost none of which is regulation. People doing a job develop the most convenient, comfortable way of doing it. Supply systems may not keep up or provide substitutes for "official" equipment. The troops get their hands on something better - even enemy equipment.

Of course there is always fashion. In a modern day large military exercise regular troops can be instantly identified from reserve/home guard troops beside them, issued with exactly the same equipment and uniforms by the way they talk, wear and carry their gear and the way they behave between themselves and with their officers amongst other pointers.

It is a brave man who says that troops on active service behaved or were equipped in a uniform way just because some official document or regulation prescribed those actions or equipment.

There are a number of reports that clearly identified the troops carrying Stens at Dieppe. In fact, the troops' unfamiliarity with these, and the fact that the magazines were delivered loaded and did not give the troop any time to inspect the weapons, led to criticisms about the Sten from raid survivors.
I will try to dig these out later.

Michael R. -Note that I only refer to Canadians in my previous comments.

Lang - Note that documents and regulations are the basis for any study. Yes, a soldier or two may have carried unauthorized equipment but that is not the basis for study. As to TSMG in Dieppe by Canadians - good luck finding .45ACP ammunition once you have expended your magazine.

Thompsons
 

Full marks to Alex for being able to recognize a Thompson....

Clive,

I think you do a good job in your historical research but while documents and regulations may be the basis for this, actual events are more likely to follow their own course than conform to the official line (even unit histories written after the fact). Historians have always had difficulty with grasping the atmosphere, relationships - both personal and in the chain of command, lack of adherance to the official line which varies according to the soldier's national traits and the soldier's reactions to the widespread leadership and management incompetance to be found in all armies.

I come from an aviation background and am aquainted with many prominent aviation historians who know more about design, performance, serial numbers of aeroplanes, squadron numbers etc than I will ever know. Unfortunately very few of them know anything about flying!

My point is, with any recounting of history the untidy, unpredictable, non-conforming and vast range of abilities found in the human side is hugely discounted in an attempt to gather "facts". As anyone who has ever had an article printed about them in the paper knows, the facts are often totally correct but the story is completely wrong.

Keep up the good work Clive as we still need the facts to use as a basis of study.

I had really hoped that this thread would not be hijacked and was hoping for comment on the six photos I posted rather than dredge up this argument again.

That said;

CMHQ Report 113, paras 16-22 inclusive. http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-...hq/CMHQ113.pdf

Over the years I have often encountered tales of soldiers pursuing independent courses of action, be it in their personal equipment, dress, deportment or approach to military life.

Equipment was both expensive and in high demand, especially in the post-Dunkirk era. Ignoring the possibility of 1 or 2 individuals 'pushing the envelope' I do not believe that the army (especially the UK-based Canadian Army Overseas of 1940-1943) was populated with individuals who took it upon themselves to decide what equipment they would carry into battle. Ignoring the difficulties of ammunition re-supply and weapon repair I must ask myself "where are they going to keep a Thompson"? All rifles were held in barracks but other weapons, including pistols, SMGs, Mortars, LMGs, etc..., were kept in the unit armoury where they were maintained and secured by the unit CQMS. Tucking an illegal TSMG under the mattress just wasn't an option. Add to this that the possession of the TSMG outside of lawful authority was a serious crime. It involved theft and, more importantly, withholding a weapon which could be issued to another soldier. With the cost of manufacture of the TSMG at over 25 Pounds it is doubtful that the average soldier would try to buy one - assuming that he could find a black market vendor. Add to this the apoplexy of the Battalion RSM when our soldier showed up at the embarkation point with his TSMG while all of his mates were trying to figure out the newly issued Sten.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. And my research has constantly dug up instances of COs, HQs, Routine Orders, etc..., stressing that discipline and uniformity were to be maintained in all respects.

Clive

Clive,

I was not suggesting individual weapons smugglers but small unit and sub unit arrangements outside the prescribed equipment scale.

You are right. This has got way off the track. Let's return it to Higgins Boats.

Has anyone got comments on Clive's photos?

Lang

Here is a page out of the Higgins manual. It is a great read with lots of diagrams on landing in all sorts of conditions. Higgins obviously had a sense of humour and didn't suffer fools gladly. There are several big notices that "These instructions are written for USA Americans who have sufficient intelligence to adjust them according to the exigencies of the conditions"