18-pdr anti-tank guns in 1941; which Regts?

[Gary Kennedy]

I've had a search through previous posts, but couldn't find a single answer. I was wondering if anyone has a definitive list of which RA Anti-tank Regts were issued with 18-pr guns in North Africa in late 1941? I know they were used by New Zealand and South African Regts as well, but outside of 73 Atk Regt I'm not sure which RA units had them.

Thanks,

Gary

[dor1941]

I'm not sure which RA units had them.

WO 169/949 HQ RA GHQ ME (posted 9 Feb 2011 in the AHF Topic "Rommel on the Australians" by Michael Kenny) dated 4 Nov. 1941 shows only the 73rd and 149th Anti-Tank Regiments R.A. had 18-pdrs then-this was only two weeks before Operation Crusader. The 73rd was assigned to 22nd Guards Brigade at the start of the offensive, with four batteries-less C Battery in the Oasis Group (Brigadier Reid). The sixteen 18-pdrs were in the fourth four-gun troop of each of the four batteries. The troop arrangement of the nine 18-pdrs in the 149th AT Regt is unknown to me-it was the only anti-tank regiment in Tobruk during Crusader. Those CW anti-tank regiments with the 18-pdrs (1st and 2nd S.A. and 7th N.Z. AT Regts) had the same gun distribution in their sixteen troops as the 73rd.
You will note that the other three anti-tank regiments in Eighth Army in November (3rd R.H.A., 65th and 102nd R.A.) had no 18-pdrs according to the WO document, and I've not seen any information in the Official Histories to indicate any 18-pdrs were added to them during Crusader.

David R

[Gary Kennedy]

Thanks very much for that. There were three War Establishments issued in Oct 1941 for Atk Regts, RA, which each allowed for a different scale of equipment -

VI/358/1 for 64 mixed guns (48 x 2-pr and 16 x 18-pr)
VI/359/1 for 48 guns (all 2-pr)
VI/360/1 for 48 mixed guns (36 x 2-pr and 16 x 18-pr)

I've never been sure if all three types of Regt were actually fielded, or whether they simply allowed for the possibility of them being issued with guns on these scales. It may be that 3 RHA, 65th and 102nd Atk Regts were on VI/359/1 if they reported no 18-pr equipments.

Thanks,

Gary

[dor1941]

It may be that 3 RHA, 65th and 102nd Atk Regts were on VI/359/1 if they reported no 18-pr equipments.

The WO document which shows forty-eight 2-pdrs only for 65th Atk Regt R.A. suggests your assumption is correct for that regiment, and I can confirm that none of the OH's for Crusader mention any 18-pdrs for it.
The Sidi Rezegh Battles 1941 (the S.A. OH) confirms the WO document in showing 3rd R.H.A. Atk Regt and 102nd Atk Regt R.A. with only thirty-six 2-pdrs each during Crusader-no 18-pdrs. So they do not conform to any of the WE's you mentioned. Interestingly, these two regiments provided all the anti-tank guns for the three armoured brigades in 30th Corps, whereas those atk regts with 18-pdrs were all assigned to infantry divisions/brigades. Perhaps there was some preference for the 2-pdr portee to support the armour instead of the towed 18-pdr(?)

David R

[Gary Kennedy]

Blimey, that almost counts as a breakthrough!

Yes, the WE does show the 32 x 2-prs as being Portee and the 16 x 18-pdrs as towed by artillery tractors. It is possible the 18-pdrs weren't utilised because of their towed nature, perhaps even the ammo supply was a consideration.

Thanks for digging, I'd always wondered where these variations had fitted in and this gives me an idea now.

Gary

[Tom from Cornwall]

Gary,

I've got a copy of the 3 RHA WD for Nov and Dec 41. I'll have a look and see if there are any details of which E they are conforming to.

Regards

Tom

[Tom from Cornwall]

These are details from the WD of 3 RHA - interesting comment on reactions by the CO to official instructions!

WO171/1428 – 3 RHA

10 October 1941
A new W.E. (1/34/1 for an A/Tk Regt) was received with the information that it would shortly be promulgated.

14 October 1941
The Colonel forwarded some pertinent observations on the new W.E. to B.R.A. The W.E. had proposed drastic curtailment in personnel, both in tradesmen and non-tradesmen gunners, which did not cater for the “desert establishment” or take into consideration the extreme dispersal usual in desert operations.

16 October 1941
Authority received for promulgation of new W.E., but in view of its incompatibility with the requirements of desert warfare, no action was taken.

Appendix III

SD/14047 of 13OCT...

2. Strength. Offrs 22 ORs 447 Vehs 160 Guns 36

The WD also contains an interesting Order of Battle for 7th Support Group for Op Crusader which I'll post if anyone is interested.

Regards

Tom

[Gary Kennedy]

Thanks Tom,

I/34/1 was the 'standard' WE for an Atk Regt in an Armd Div (wef 28th Jul 1941), and replaced the former mixed LAA/Atk Regt of Jan 1940. By comparison to that, I/34/1 allowed for more atk guns in an Armd Div, with three Btys each of twelve 2-prs (I/1931/6B/1 had authorised 24 x 40-mm and 24 x 2-pr guns across four Btys).

The WE called for 24 offrs and 397 ORs, with 44 MCs and 100 cars, trucks and lorries. I wonder whether the CO was a bit miffed at being expected to shed all those 'excess' vehicles!

Gary

[dor1941]

The WD also contains an interesting Order of Battle for 7th Support Group for Op Crusader which I'll post if anyone is interested.

Yes, please !

David R

[David W]

David R.

Thanks for the 18Pdr info.

May I ask a few questions that that have arisen.

I have no records of any 18pdrs in 2/3 Aus A/T Reg. Can you confirm how many were present and when?

I have only 4x 18pdrs in the 2nd Bty of 1st S.A A/T Reg. Can you confirm if and when they got the others.

I can't place any in 76th A/T Reg, but I'm not sure if they arrived in N.A in time anyway.

Nor can I place any in 149th A/T Reg. Can you again confirm numbers and dates please.

All other units mentioned, I agree with!

Thanks very much.

Best wishes,

David W

[Alanmccoubrey]

Can I add a question to this thread please ?

Just which type of 18 pounder are we talking about here ? The WW1 type or the modified WW2 type ?

[dor1941]

David R.
Thanks for the 18Pdr info.
May I ask a few questions that that have arisen.

I have no records of any 18pdrs in 2/3 Aus A/T Reg. Can you confirm how many were present and when?

I don't believe there were any during its sojourn in Tobruk. The WO documents posted from Michael Kenny I cited above-and other sources-do not indicate that it acquired 18-pdrs then. Those in Tobruk were originally in field batteries. Of course, they might have been assigned some of those guns after leaving the Fortress.

I have only 4x 18pdrs in the 2nd Bty of 1st S.A A/T Reg. Can you confirm if and when they got the others.

I'm not sure if I understand your question. The S.A. OH makes it clear in the text that the regiment had in each of the four numbered batteries (each with four lettered troops) only one troop of 18-pdrs during Crusader.

I can't place any in 76th A/T Reg, but I'm not sure if they arrived in N.A in time anyway.

The regiment was mentioned in the WO document dated 4 Nov. 1941 as having 36 2-pdrs only, but in any case I understood it was still in transit to the ME at that time and not involved in the battles in Marmarica in 1941.

Nor can I place any in 149th A/T Reg. Can you again confirm numbers and dates please.

Again, the WO document dated 4 Nov. 1941 mentioned in my first post here notes that regiment-in Tobruk-had forty 2-pdrs and nine 18-pdrs on that date, and also lists an additional eight more 2-pdrs in route to the garrison.

I noted that same WO document lists 26 37mm Bofors anti-tank guns remaining in Tobruk then, and also records the presence of 42 captured Italian 47/32 pieces there-presumably parceled out to the posts on the outer perimeter, the "Red Line".

David R

[dor1941]

Just which type of 18 pounder are we talking about here ? The WW1 type or the modified WW2 type ?

None of the sources I've seen identify the specific Mark of the gun in those five anti-tank regiments equipped with them during Crusader. There is some record of 18-pdr Mark 5 guns in the ME in 1941. I would speculate (which I rarely do) that those pieces in the five units were 18-pdr Gun Marks 4A or 4B on Carriages Mk 4P (box trail) or 5P (split trail).

There is also the possibility that many of those 18-pdrs mentioned so broadly in the UK/SA/NZ Official Histories of Crusader were in fact the US Lend Lease 75mm M1917 field gun-the British "Ordnance QF 75mm on Carriage 75mm/18pr Mark 1PA". For a discussion and photos, see the AHF Topic "British 75mm AT gun...".

David R

[Gary Kennedy]

"There is also the possibility that many of those 18-pdrs mentioned so broadly in the UK/SA/NZ Official Histories of Crusader were in fact the US Lend Lease 75mm M1917 field gun-the British "Ordnance QF 75mm on Carriage 75mm/18pr Mark 1PA". For a discussion and photos, see the AHF Topic "British 75mm AT gun..."."

The WEs that prompted my original post do refer to the guns as being "18-pdr or 75-mm", but give no more detail than that. I once asked about the 18-pdr atk guns on another forum and made the mistake of mentioning the 75-mm aspect, which took over the entire discussion as I recall. Having seen the length of the thread quoted above on this forum I decided to just ask about the 18-pdr allocation!

Gary

PS, if 76th Atk Regt were coming over as part of 1st Armd Div I'd expect them to be on the I/34/1 WE discussed a few posts above, and 36 x 2-prs would match that.

[Alanmccoubrey]

David/Gary, Thanks, although I have read Hogg since asking and he says that all the Mark 4 guns on Carriage Mark4 had bee converted to 25 pdrs by 1941 so might that suggest that they were on the split trail Carriage Mark 5 ?