62nd Anti tank Regiment

[wright61]

Which beach on D Day did this Regiment land Juno or Sword ?
thanks

[Andy H]

My understanding is that the regiment landed on Sword as part of the British 1st Corp.

Regards

Andy H

[wright61]

OK, if it was attached to 1 Corps HQ what does that mean?

[Michael Emrys]

OK, if it was attached to 1 Corps HQ what does that mean?

It was part of 1st. Corps OOB and could be attached to any 1st. Corps units or deployed in any 1st. Corps area. Does that answer your question?

Michael

[wright61]

OK, if it was attached to 1 Corps HQ what does that mean?

It was part of 1st. Corps OOB and could be attached to any 1st. Corps units or deployed in any 1st. Corps area. Does that answer your question?

Michael

No, if you are attached to HQ does that mean you are a combat unit or does it mean you are a defensive unit, so in the case of the 62nd anti tank would they have landed on D Day or later on as they would not be deployed in an offensive capacity. I suppose what I mean is if a unit is attached to HQ is it a bodyguard unit so to speak employed to protect the HQ
Regards Robert

[Kingfish]

OK, if it was attached to 1 Corps HQ what does that mean?

It was part of 1st. Corps OOB and could be attached to any 1st. Corps units or deployed in any 1st. Corps area. Does that answer your question?

Michael

No, if you are attached to HQ does that mean you are a combat unit or does it mean you are a defensive unit, so in the case of the 62nd anti tank would they have landed on D Day or later on as they would not be deployed in an offensive capacity. I suppose what I mean is if a unit is attached to HQ is it a bodyguard unit so to speak employed to protect the HQ
Regards Robert

No, it just means that the 62nd was a Corp asset, and as such was under the direct command of the Corp HQ as opposed to units which were normally under divisional control. It also meant that the unit could have been used in any manner the Corp deemed suitable at the time, including both offensive and defensive actions.

Here is a good breakdown of the British I Corp:
http://www.ornebridgehead.org/order_ICorps.htm

There you see the units directly under the control of the 3 divisions which made up the British I Corp, and at the bottom of the page the units which were under the direct control of the Corp.

[wright61]

So if you are attached to HQ are you a reserve unit held back and sent where you are needed, then recalled back to HQ when your mission is over. Or can any unit no matter where it is initially deployed become attached to HQ. What is the purpose of being attached to HQ and how is this manifested in the field. As a matter of fact what is the HQ?
sorry for the confused question
Regards Robert

[Kingfish]

So if you are attached to HQ are you a reserve unit held back and sent where you are needed, then recalled back to HQ when your mission is over.

Correct, although they may not necessarily be held back in a reserve role. They could just as well be attached to a division and used in the opening attack. Again, whatever the Corp deems necessary to fulfill the mission.

Or can any unit no matter where it is initially deployed become attached to HQ

Corps rarely broke off divisional units to use as Corp reserves, especially when the division is already a complete entity on the battlefield. They preferred to keep divisions intact as much as possible. That said, the Corp HQ does have the final say, so if an emergency arose the Corp HQ would not hesitate to reinforce one unit from parts of another, even if they were divisional assets.

What is the purpose of being attached to HQ and how is this manifested in the field

Gives the Corp HQ some flexibility to deal with certain tactical situations. For instance, in the case of the 62nd Anti-Tank regiment the Corp had the capability to reinforce the D-day perimeter against attacks by enemy armor, or to beef up the advance in case they ran into enemy armor.

As a matter of fact what is the HQ?

The level of command directly below that of the army HQ. A Corp is generally responsible for 2-3 divisions plus independents. Below that is a division, above that an Army.

[Michael Emrys]

A corps HQ is a link in the chain of command of an army. It is also usually a conduit for supply to its subordinate units. It is to coordinate the activities of those units. It usually provides various kinds of support to its major subordinate units. How much and what kind depend on the overall army structure and procedure.

Michael

[thesquire]

The 62nd Anti-tank regiment was in fact landed on Juno beach and as part of 1 Corp was attached to the 3rd Canadian Division. It consisted of 245 and 248 batteries with M10 seld propelled 17 pounder anti-tank guns and 246 and 247 batteries which were equipped with 17 pounder 'towed' guns. My late father was with 246 battery which came to grips with the 12th SS Panzer unit (Hitler Jugend) most in the region of Caen and especially Carpiquet airport. regards

[thesquire]

A little 'ps' the description 'anti-tank' signifies a defensive role but in the case of Normandy and in particilar the fierce panzer attacks there it meant most anti-tank units were in constant action. The 62nd was 'at work' from 'D-Day' onwards and suffered many casualties. The Canadian staff at the Juno Beach centre were able to supply me with much of this information and their seems to have been a great comradeship between the 62nd and their Canadian comrades who they were in constant close action alongside. regards again - Chris

[Michael Kenny]

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/th ... +Normandie

[RichTO90]

The 62nd Anti-tank regiment was in fact landed on Juno beach and as part of 1 Corp was attached to the 3rd Canadian Division. It consisted of 245 and 248 batteries with M10 seld propelled 17 pounder anti-tank guns and 246 and 247 batteries which were equipped with 17 pounder 'towed' guns. My late father was with 246 battery which came to grips with the 12th SS Panzer unit (Hitler Jugend) most in the region of Caen and especially Carpiquet airport. regards

A minor point from my work in progress:

"The SP batteries in the corps and armored division AT regiments were intended to be at least partly equipped with M10 SP carriages converted to carry 17-pdr guns, which became available at the beginning of May. “It was decided that this gun should be issued to complete 50% of unit S.P. equipment in all regiments in Second Army and in First Canadian Army, followed by issues to the Armoured Replacement Group and to the Polish Armoured Division. By 31st May twelve equipments had been issued or were in transit, to each Armoured Divisional and Corps Anti-Tank Regiment in the two Armies, and issues to the Armoured Replacement Group were in hand” (The National Archives (UK) (TNA) WO171/155 – Appendix ‘A’ to R.A. Branch Headquarters 21st Army Group War Diary May 1944). The result was that the corps AT regiment was initially equipped with 12 M-10, 12 M-10 17-pdr and 24 17-pdr. (towed)."

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine when the remaining 3-inch M10 were replaced by 17-pdr SP.

[edit] Whoops, didn't read my own paper closely enough. On D-Day 245 Battery with 17-pdr M-10 SP was attached to 3rd Division and engaged 21. Panzer Division northeast of Caen. 248 Battery had the M-10 3-inch SP and was attached to 3rd Canadian Division for the assault. [/edit]

Hope that is of interest.

[rogcal]

Hi all

I'm being a bit cheeky but by replying to this topic I'm hoping to get into contact with those of you who discussed the subject at the time.

My interest in the 62nd AT Regt is through my late father-in-law, being the driver of an M10 (and possibly an Achilles)with 248 Battery.

I found a photo on Philip Reinders website "Royal Artillery Units Netherlands 1944 - 1945" showing an M10 somewhere in the Netherlands in Oct/Nov 1944 with the crew sitting on it and I have positively identified my father-in-law among the crew.

I've emailed Philip using the email address given on his site but as yet no response and I was hoping one you you guys may know him and have alternative contact details for him.

I would also appreciate learning more about the exploits of 248 Battery (I've read quite a bit on this forum) but any extra info would be invaluable to my research.

Just a bit of info on my late father-in-law's military service from the records I have.

John Jerwood was born in Southwark, London in 1919 and joind the 62nd Regt RA (TA) 248 Battery at Brixton, London in May 1939 and stayed in that unit throughout the war. He trained as a specialist driver before embarking for Normandy on 4th June 1944 and was demobed in 1946.

He spoke little of his "fighting" exploits to his children other than to tell them he had his machine knocked out on three occassions and spoke more about the deals he struck with German soldiers when he was guarding them as POWs. He was always a "wheeler dealer" and I suspect he enjoyed making a few extra bob on the side.

The photo I found of him shows a corporal named Wally Shea standing in front of the M10 and Wally features in discussions on another forum where it looks as though his Achilles named "Chelsea" was knocked out at an early stage of the invasion somewhere near Caen.

I have no evidence to support my belief that Wally and John were part of the same crew at this stage of the Normandy campaign but given the fact that Wally possibly joined up at the same time as John at Brixton, as he (Wally) lived in Lambeth, my gut instincts make be think that being local lads, joining the local TA Regt was a commonplace event.

I only have studio photos of John in uniform with his wife and none of him in action so to speak, so you can imagine my delight in finding the photo on Philip's website and hence the need to contact him in the hopes that he can supply a higher definition copy of the image, as the one I've "grabbed" from his site is very low res and doesn't enlarge very well at all.

Sorry to have gone on a bit but the more you know the better.

Thanks in advance and in hopes that someone will respond,

[JonS]

Rogcal,
there is a quite good article on the 62nd by Tony Foulds - a subaltern in the unit 1943-44 - inthe journal Canadian Military History, Vol. 7, No. 2, Spring 1998.

The journal can be purchased here (I think. I have no financial interest in this, just passing on info ) or downloaded here