65th A/T Regiment R.A (Norfolk Yeomanry T.A).

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

65th A/T Regiment R.A (Norfolk Yeomanry T.A).

#1

Post by David W » 09 Sep 2007, 12:14

I have the 65th A/T Reg as being present in North Africa in May 1941. But not fit for action until October of the same year. Why was this? Training? Lack of guns?

Also. I have them on 194, 195 & 196 Bty.

But an O.o.B dated May 1942 has them on 257, 258 & 259 Bty.
What happened to the original 3 batteries?

Finally, do we have a firm date for when they were upgunned to 6Pdr?

Thanks :D

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#2

Post by JonS » 10 Sep 2007, 10:21

They were under HQRA 8th Army in the Western Desert in late 1941 (Crusader), with 194, 195, and 196 btys (Farndale, Appendix F)

Farndale, Page 208: 257, 258, 259 & 260 Btys, Nov 1941, with 4th Indian Div (CRUSADER also ... go figure)

Farndale, Page 168: 65th ATk Regt arrives in ME with 257, 258, 259, 260 btys, May or June 1941 "having already fought in France"

Farndale, Page 84: May 1940 in France, "it amalgamated all that was left of 258th and 260th Btys". Earlier in the book it mentions that the regt sailed to France with 257, 258, 259, and 260 Btys, so I would assume that 194, 195, and 196 is a typo from somewhere.

Don't know why they weren't ready till Oct 1941.

Don't know when they got 6-pr.


User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

#3

Post by David W » 11 Sep 2007, 00:20

Confusing! :?

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#4

Post by JonS » 11 Sep 2007, 00:36

Sorry - I should have left that amalgamation comment out. It was simply in there to show that 65th had 257, 258, 259, 260 Btys in France in 1940 as well as later in NA in 1941/42. I would hazard that the amalgamation of 258 and 260 was purely a short term, tactical improvisation due to losses, and would have fairly quickly been undone once the regt got back to England.

Also, I was reading the book backwards based on the page numbers in the index, because the end of the book is where the most relevant info for your question is located.

Ah - here we go. From Derek Bartons site: 65th LAA Regt contained 194, 195, and 196 Btys. I would assume that that is where the confusion slipped in. Someone has mistaken 65th LAA for 65th ATk.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

#5

Post by David W » 11 Sep 2007, 00:40

Ah - here we go. From Derek Bartons site: 65th LAA Regt contained 194, 195, and 196 Btys. I would assume that that is where the confusion slipped in. Someone has mistaken 65th LAA for 65th ATk.
Well spotted! :)

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

#6

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Sep 2007, 05:01

JonS wrote:Don't know why they weren't ready till Oct 1941.

Don't know when they got 6-pr.
Hi Jon,

It seems they were ready, albeit short 16 guns to the new 64-gun WE (but then most were), but just split up between different garrisons. At least until the eve of CRUSADER (13 Sep) one troop of 260 Bty was at Siwa and the other two at Giarabub. Two troops of 257 Bty were at Bagush, and 258, 259 and 1 troop of 257 Bty were with 7th Support Group. By 21 October they were: 257 Bty – Coast Sector, 258 Bty – Desert Sector, 259 Bty – Desert Sector, 260 Bty (- 2 Trps?) – Siwa, 1 Trp (?) - Melfa (?), 1 Trp, 260 Bty – Giarabub.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

#7

Post by JonS » 11 Sep 2007, 05:15

Ya, Farndale has them scattered all over the Middle East too. Must have driven the poor CO fecking nuts, trying to keep track of all his guns.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

#8

Post by RichTO90 » 11 Sep 2007, 15:19

JonS wrote:Ya, Farndale has them scattered all over the Middle East too. Must have driven the poor CO fecking nuts, trying to keep track of all his guns.
Well, at the time the RA was apparently desperately short of prime movers, they not with great glee the arrival of American trucks as prime movers in September 1941. So I suspect that some of the inland and coastal defense groupings may have been more or less immobile for a while, which apparently had direct bearing on 65 AT?

Ooops, nearly forgot also, in the RA State of ??? shoot, the files at home, I think it was mid August?, 65 AT was one of the regiments noted with 'LAD' and 'Sigs' crossed out, so they may have been very limited in those capabilities as well?

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”