Were these two units "Infantry" or not?

[The_Enigma]

Hi,

browsing the net before i came across an order of battle posted here as an example of a typical OOB you will find in Orders of Battle, 1939 to 1941 by Hughes, Ryan, and Broshot.

This OOB is for Operation Brevity (North Africa, May 15-16 1941), anyhoo here is the section which has thrown me:

7th Armoured Brigade
Composite Squadron 2nd Royal Lancers -- motor company
259th Anti-Tank Battery, RA -- 12 2pdr guns portee
2nd Royal Tank Regiment -- 6 A9, 17 A10, 7 A13 Cruiser tanks
6th Australian Divisional Cavalry -- about 28 Mk VI Light tanks
11th Prince Albert Victor's Own Indian Cavalry -- motor battalion

Now i know this was a sort of quick slapped together op, however this OOB shows an armoured brigade being rather infantry heavy which seems to contradict doctrine at the time (i.e. Armoured Divisions being made up of two armoured brigades and the support group which had the infantry over the later organisation of one armoured brigade (with more infantry) and an infantry brigade) as well as the role the official campaign history describes them having - screening the flank and to engage armoured forces (something along those lines) and actually no nitty gritty infantry fighting.

The two highlighted entries, to me appear to look more like cavalry formations i.e. tanks or armoured cars however on this OOB they are stated as being infantry, i was also under the impression only British and Aussie forces took part and Indian forces didnt play a role other then lending there trucks to the 22nd Guards Brigade.

Finally, just to throw a possible spanner in the works and annoy the authors the 2nd Rifle Brigade actually supplied men to support the 2RTR, while the rest of the battalion attacked via the coast road. Wouldnt have the small number of infanty (platoon iirc) have been enough to support them in such a screening role (when compared to 3 battalions sent in to clear out the heavily German-Italian invested areas)?

Anyhoo, anyone know what the deal is with the above two highlighted regiments?

[Lannes]

Both the units in question are Indian cavalry formations.
The general lack of equipment prevalent in the Indian Army meant that to start with, the regiments were converted form horsed to motorised. The intention was to give them tanks as they became available, but several were deployed in the ME before that could take place, and they were in effect motorised infantry. Take a look at http://www.histofig.com/articles/20_article_02_en.php for an article on another Indian Cavalry regiment of the time.
I'll take a look at "The Tiger Strikes" to see if it has any details on Brevity actions.
best regards
Aris Kosionidis

[The_Enigma]

That explains quite a bit, although if the intention was to give them tanks or armoured cars in trade of there horses yet that didnt happen does this mean the cavalry men were retrained in an infantry role with plans to then retrain them at a later date as tankers etc?

Cheers for having a route around around as well to see if they did partake, from all the regimental histories and other sources i have so far checked i am under the impression that they didnt take part.

[Lannes]

There was nothing in "Tiger Strikes" or "Tiger Kills" about the Regiments' participation in "Brevity". This could be an artefact of the writing process, as "Strikes" ends in April '41 and "Kills" starts with Battleaxe in June '41. However both the Lancers and PAVO had lost heavily when the 3rd Indian Motor Bde was encircled during Rommel's first offensive, so there's a good chance they were hastily reorganised (note that the Lancers are fielding a "composite squadron") and used as reserve or flank guard, not seeing action in the two brief days of the particular campaign.
The issue of the mechanisation of the Indian cavalry is a complex one. There is one book, by a G. Singh Sandhu, a highly decorated Indian officer, called "Indian Armour" that apparently deals with it quite extensively, but...I've never seen it. My understanding of the process is based on a few other sources (notably the history of the 19th Lancers and David Fletcher's two volumes on British armour in WW2). Mechanisation started only in 1939, and proceeded in a regiment-by-regiment (or occasionally brigade-by-brigade) basis. Since at the time the whole idea of mechanised warfare was being thought out, it is not surprising that the role of various regiments was reconsidered several times, some being labelled "Motor Regiments", others "Light Armoured" or "Armoured Car" and so on. This was also affected by the limited availability of armoured vehicles, and in fact initially of any vehicles at all. My impression is that the emphasis was to get the regiments motorised as quickly as possible, to at least get the men familiarised with the technology and operating requirements of mechanised warfare, and then to proceed with the transition to a proper Armoured Force. As an example, the 19th Lancers handed in their horses at the end of 1940, were eventually reorganised as an Armoured Car Regiment, but were not fully equipped as one until well into 1942.
As to the "retraining" of the cavalrymen in an infantry role, I think that from the '20s-'30s on, the cavalry was operating as mounted infantry, so their training already included a fair bit of that- plus, in India, the occasional operation against various "enemies of the Empire" to provide some live-fire excercises .
best regards
Aris Kosionidis