British Army at home September 1940

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
Locked
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1066

Post by phylo_roadking » 30 Sep 2014, 23:47

So you're saying I didn't misquote you. Thank you.
On the contrary - applying something I said to a completely different issue is both a literal misquote and a strawman.
Oh, they don't escape me either. What escapes me is why you think civilian workers at a military airfield only used intermittently as an emergency landing ground, were so critical to its defense.
They obviously do escape you;

1/ at the time the August 12th and 15th raids occured - RAF was not an ELG, it was only downgraded as a result of them. It was at that point a forward dispersal field for Biggin Hill sector station.

2/ You are the one assuming that the "construction workers" sent from Lympne to Manston are "civilian workers"; I am not. I'm waiting for the Manston ORB to tell me more - if it does - about exactly who they were.
So you have explained exactly why you feel civilian construction workers were vital to the defense of an airfield that was only used intermittently as an emergency landing ground?
Straw man - and thus not worth discussing. You know exactly why I'm interested in the idnetity of those particular "workers", you've been told several times.
It has also been pointed out that trying to decide what airfields were operational by discovering from a secondary whether or not they had civilian construction workers present that could have put them back into operation is a bit of a round about way to discover what is explicitly stated in primary sources is a bit Quixotic to say they least
I have absolutely no interest in whether the two fields were operational or not. You keep harping on about that, but you're arguing that with noone except yourself.
You are waiting for the Manston ORB to confirm whether or not Manston had civilian construction workers present? Again, just what is the point?
Another straw man. You know exactly what I'm waiting for the Manston ORB to confirm or not. I know there were civilian workers present at Manston, buit what I'm trying to find out has nothing to do with them.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1288
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 23:38

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1067

Post by Clive Mortimore » 01 Oct 2014, 00:42

phylo_roadking wrote:
Gooner1 wrote:So, in summary, after the pages and pages of assumptions, suppositions, imagination and misdirection we still don't know the strength of the defence of Lympne airfield.

:thumbsup:
On the contrary; the Air Ministry had set numbers of defensive emplacements per airfield; so we know the absolute minimum before any evacuation in mid-August...

Originally (after France) there were to be six defensive MG or (20mm Hispano cannon) per airfield forming the AntiAircraft Flight; each of these had a crew of six RAF personnel. During the summer this was raised to eight...

And then there was the Armadillo Flight - four Armadillos with a crew of four men each...

Thus an Air Ministry establishment figure of at least 64 ORs and two officers in the RAF Lympne Defence Squadron, one officer commanding each of the two Flights making up the squadron. There MAY have been a third officer as overall comamnder of the Squadron. Lympne did not have any PAC wire defences at this time (if ever) so no "PAC Flight" in the Squadron. We do not know of any other defensive MG/cannon emplacements above the establishment figure, as noone has a defensive diagram of RAF Lympne in the summer of 1940.

So at least c.67 RAF defensive personnel, officers and ORs, on paper.

In addition to this "Defence Squadron" at RAF Lympne, we know courtesy of Knouterer there was one (1) Army company defending the airfield.

We do not know of any Home Guard contribution to the defence of the airfield, but remember the note much earlier in this thread regarding the SLI battalions stationed in the area - there were only two (2) Home Guard units in the SLI area, because of the sparse population - and both of these had roles in the defence of Burmarsh and Dymchurch alongside the SLI. The village of Lympne lies on the northern edge of the SLI area so it would be worthwhile finding out (if it CAN be found out now) if any civilian LDV volunteers from the village of Lympne were in those two previously-discussed Home Guard units, or were part of another unit entirely.

So...somewhere around 70 rifle-armed RAF personnel, and a company from a "Young Soldier" battalion - to stand off an attack from a full battalion of FJ.
Quite a few post ago I asked what divisional troops were stationed in the area. Now I asked this because divisional troops RASC, RAOC, CMP, RE, R Sigs etc. were all trained as infantrymen. Any units close to Lympne would see the Ju52s dropping their paratroopers and would have been called to stand to. When the location of their landing was known there is a good chance that they would be ordered to attack the paratroopers.

I was in REME in the 70s, I patrolled the streets of Belfast and the jungle of Belize as an infantryman, I am sure my predecessor in the RAOC workshops would have been capable as me to do so.
Clive


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

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1068

Post by RichTO90 » 01 Oct 2014, 01:22

phylo_roadking wrote:On the contrary - applying something I said to a completely different issue is both a literal misquote and a strawman.
No, it is not and I did not. You said they were not accounted for in the Lympne ORB. I simply pointed out that they were, but not in the way you thought.
They obviously do escape you;

1/ at the time the August 12th and 15th raids occured - RAF was not an ELG, it was only downgraded as a result of them. It was at that point a forward dispersal field for Biggin Hill sector station.
Phylo, I'm afraid that's why I suggested you should refer to some more primary sources before you went off on your odd tangent. Lympne was never "downgraded" since it had never been "upgraded". It was occupied by a Care & Maintenance unit and was not considered an operational station on 12 August. "Lympne was not an operational station, and if it had been wrecked beyond repair the fighter squadrons would hardly have felt its loss; in any case it continued to be used as an emergency landing ground until early in September when it was no longer wanted." (AIR 41/15, Air Defense of Great Britain, Vol II, Battle of Britain, p. 125.)
2/ You are the one assuming that the "construction workers" sent from Lympne to Manston are "civilian workers"; I am not. I'm waiting for the Manston ORB to tell me more - if it does - about exactly who they were.
They are either civilian contract personnel or Air Ministry civilian personnel. There is zero evidence that they were RAF personnel.
Straw man - and thus not worth discussing. You know exactly why I'm interested in the idnetity of those particular "workers", you've been told several times.
No it isn't and no I haven't. Its just now that I am realizing you are assuming that RAF personnel from the C&M unit at Lympne were sent to Manston to do repair work. Now present some evidence for that.
I have absolutely no interest in whether the two fields were operational or not. You keep harping on about that, but you're arguing that with noone except yourself.
Okay, then again, what is your point?
Another straw man. You know exactly what I'm waiting for the Manston ORB to confirm or not. I know there were civilian workers present at Manston, buit what I'm trying to find out has nothing to do with them.
What then are you looking for? Perhaps if you clued us all in on what the mysterious search was for we'd be able to help. I'd be happy to search my BoB files for whatever you think you are looking for.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1069

Post by David Thompson » 01 Oct 2014, 02:53

phylo_roadking -- Please source the images you include in posts. Our rules require it.
Listing the source of the images
The administration appreciate that many of the discussions require illustrations, including period photographs. At the same time, we would like to maintain the high quality that the Axis History Forum is known for. Therefore, we require that our members list the source of the photographs they post.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=5&f=2#p5
Let me just remind you all that it is required to list the source of the images you post in the forum. Posting images here falls under fair use (*) but please note that it is still required to include the source of the images.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=191153

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1070

Post by Gooner1 » 01 Oct 2014, 14:57

phylo_roadking wrote: On the establishment number of LAA emplacements? On the use of the "young Soldier" battalions? etc....take a look at the first chapters of Kingsley Oliver's book on the RAF Regiment.
Does Kingsley Oliver's book contain any relevant information on the defence of RAF Lympne in Summer/Autumn 1940?
Or perhaps that of any Class I airfield in the same time frame?

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1071

Post by Knouterer » 01 Oct 2014, 19:32

Gooner1 wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote: On the establishment number of LAA emplacements? On the use of the "young Soldier" battalions? etc....take a look at the first chapters of Kingsley Oliver's book on the RAF Regiment.
Does Kingsley Oliver's book contain any relevant information on the defence of RAF Lympne in Summer/Autumn 1940?
Or perhaps that of any Class I airfield in the same time frame?
Still working on that - for the record, I never wrote that there was just one infantry company at RAF Lympne at the the end of Sept., IIRC I wrote "at least one company".

The normal complement for a Class I airfield was two companies, Taylor recommended a dedicated army garrison of 300 men, that would make 2 companies plus some AA gunners.

The information about Hawkinge - where no squadrons were stationed either, although it seems to have been rather busier than Lympne -in the same time frame is fairly complete.

According to various sources, during the BoB period this airfield was defended by:
- seven 3in guns (Royal Marine AA Regiment in 3 or 4 battery postions nearby),
- four Bofors (army, 55 LAA Regt),
- three 20 mm Hispano guns, and eight Lewis MG's (RAF).

According to the operational plan of 2nd London Brigade dated 10 July (as quoted in a history of the Kensington Regiment) Hawkinge would be further defended by 1 company each of the 6th (HD) Buffs and the 1st (Battalion) London Rifle Brigade, together with the 1 LRB mobile column. The 1st LRB (HQ in Lyminge) was to carry out a coordinated counterattack supported by artillery (64 Field Regt) if the airfield was taken.

For Lympne, as before info is hard to pin down. From fragmentary evidence it seems likely that another one of the 6 companies of the 6th (Home Defence) Buffs (HQ in Folkestone) was assigned to Lympne. at the end of Sept. As we have seen, D Coy of the 6th SLI was also nearby behind the RMC and may have been tasked to provide the "immediate assistance column" - although if Sea Lion had gone off going to the assistance of the rest of the battalion on the coast might have been a higher priority.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1072

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Oct 2014, 20:23

No, it is not and I did not.


It is and you did.
Phylo, I'm afraid that's why I suggested you should refer to some more primary sources before you went off on your odd tangent. Lympne was never "downgraded" since it had never been "upgraded". It was occupied by a Care & Maintenance unit and was not considered an operational station on 12 August. "Lympne was not an operational station, and if it had been wrecked beyond repair the fighter squadrons would hardly have felt its loss; in any case it continued to be used as an emergency landing ground until early in September when it was no longer wanted." (AIR 41/15, Air Defense of Great Britain, Vol II, Battle of Britain, p. 125.)
Any chance we could see the ENTIRE paragraph rather than one sentence taken out of context? P.125 happens to be one page of James that I can't see online.

It may have been in Care& Maintenance, but it was in use as a forward dispersal field by squadrons at Biggin. No, there were no squadrons posted there - but it was operating as a dispersal field. Same as Manston; I would hate to have to go through Tony Robinson's RAF Fighter Squadrons in the Battle Of Britain page by page to note down the number of times a flight or flights or occasionally a whole squadron was dispersed forward to operate out of Manston, serviced by No.600 Sqn's ground staff - including the occasion when all of the aircraft of one squadron were taking off when Manston was raided 8O...but I know you're aware this forward dispersal occured.

(which is incidently why Fighter Command liked grass airfields - if necessary, whole flights or an entire squadron could take off at once, rather than one after another in a long line on a metalled runway.)
They are either civilian contract personnel or Air Ministry civilian personnel. There is zero evidence that they were RAF personnel
OIn the contrary - there is zero evidence they were civilian workers or Air Ministry workers. If there was, Overy wouldn't have described those who arrived at Lympne AFTER the August 12th raid in the way he did. And if they were Ministry of Works civilian workers, they wouldn't have been under RAF authority to send to Manston anyway...
Straw man - and thus not worth discussing. You know exactly why I'm interested in the idnetity of those particular "workers", you've been told several times.
No it isn't and no I haven't. Its just now that I am realizing you are assuming that RAF personnel from the C&M unit at Lympne were sent to Manston to do repair work. Now present some evidence for that.
Yes it is - I've referred you now twice to the post where I explained the position and it couldn't have been clearer.

It's not an assumption - Overy's use of English clearly indicates that they were something different to the Air Ministry workers and civilian workers that arrived at Lympne AFTER the raid...and there is a VERY finite list of other possibilities. RAF personnel is one - the Royal Engineer detachment at Lympne is another. That's why I want to see the Manston ORB, to see how IT describes them, from the Manston end...

if there's anything in your BoB files that supplies THAT information...?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1073

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Oct 2014, 20:39

Gooner1 wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote: On the establishment number of LAA emplacements? On the use of the "young Soldier" battalions? etc....take a look at the first chapters of Kingsley Oliver's book on the RAF Regiment.
Does Kingsley Oliver's book contain any relevant information on the defence of RAF Lympne in Summer/Autumn 1940?
Or perhaps that of any Class I airfield in the same time frame?
Of Lympne specifically? No. Of the defence of RAF airfields? Lots.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1074

Post by Knouterer » 01 Oct 2014, 20:49

phylo_roadking wrote:
Really? Any halfway credible source for that? When the Royal Engineers went looking for them much later they were certainly not "laying across the grass", but between 3 and 6 feet under the surface
Is that an intentional misquote, or a strawman?

I didn't say they were laying on the grass, I said they were laid across grass airfields...
What I mean is: what makes you think the RAF went to the trouble of digging ditches to lay them "horizontally", instead of just driving them into the ground at a (shallow) angle as elsewhere? Source?
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1075

Post by Knouterer » 01 Oct 2014, 20:59

As evidence that two infantry companies was the norm (at least for Class I airfields) I might quote WO 166/1214 (HQ Home Counties Area):
Extract from letter from Brigadier J.S. Davenport, Commander Home Counties Area, to HQ XII Corps, of 21 Oct. 1940:
“When the 11th Bn. E. Surrey Regiment leave this Area the immediate operational effect will be: –
1. The strength of the Army ground defence personnel at BROOKLANDS, GATWICK and BIGGIN HILL Aerodromes will necessarily be reduced from two Coys to one Coy in each case.
2. Immediate assistance columns will no longer be available for either BIGGIN HILL, GATWICK or REDHILL Aerodromes.”

This WD further mentions that as of 22 Nov. 1940 A Coy of the 6th Bn. The Buffs would take over the defence of Lympne Aerodrome (V.P. 121), “relieving Fd Force Tps. at present there and Det “D” Coy 6th Buffs.”
Another company from the same battalion was at Hawkinge in Sept. as noted, and A and F companies at Dover.

As a curiosity, since the "Young Soldier" battalions have been mentioned, the National Army Museum has among its artefacts an "Ashtray, trench art, nd; inscribed '70th Batt. The Buffs Lympne 24.3.41' with Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) dragon. From the collection of the former Buffs Regimental Museum."
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1076

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Oct 2014, 21:21

Still working on that - for the record, I never wrote that there was just one infantry company at RAF Lympne at the the end of Sept., IIRC I wrote "at least one company".

To be fair -

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1834410
In WO 166/1214 (War Diary of HQ Home Counties Area) it is mentioned that as of 22 Nov. 1940 A Coy of the 6th Bn. The Buffs would take over the defence of Lympne Aerodrome (V.P. 121), “relieving Fd Force Tps. at present there and Det “D” Coy 6th Buffs.”
Another company from the same battalion was at Hawkinge in Sept.
It would have been very strange indeed if Lympne, so close to the coast and to ports (Dover and Folkestone) that the Germans would likely try to capture, had been left undefended. Even the small airfield at Penshurst (a few miles SW of Tonbridge), which contrary to Lympne was REALLY not in use (according to Ken Delve: The Military Airfields of Britain – Southern England, no military aircraft landed there before 1941), was guarded by a company of the RWK Regt, and a number of airfields in Kent rated two companies, plus an “Immediate Assistance Column”.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1873708
On the subject of the "immediate assistance columns" that were assigned to all RAF airfields, certainly in directly threatened areas like Kent, I haven't quite figured that out yet for Lympne, but according to the operational plan of 2 London Brigade dated 10 July (as quoted in a history of the 1st Bn Kensington Regiment) RAF Hawkinge next door would be defended by 1 company each of the 6th (HD) Buffs and the 1st (Battalion) London Rifle Brigade, together with the 1 LRB mobile column. The 1st LRB (HQ in Lyminge) was to carry out a coordinated counterattack supported by artillery if the airfield was taken.
The HQ of 2 London Brigade was in Postling, about as far from Lympne as from Hawkinge, or a even bit closer, so I would assume similar arrangements were in place for Lympne.
At least, that seems a more logical assumption than that the British intended to hand an airfield to the invader free of charge, as some people seem to believe.
...etc., etc.., if you search on "company Lympne" in the forum search function.

You've made lots of assumptions that the Army defence had to be the same as other airfields - but didn't ever say "at least one company".

In fact, what you DID say was...

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9#p1873309
Army presence: as discussed before, a couple of Bofors guns and infantry in about company strength, as far as can be determined. There would also have been a “relief column” not too far away.
The normal complement for a Class I airfield was two companies, Taylor recommended a dedicated army garrison of 300 men, that would make 2 companies plus some AA gunners.
Yes, we know what Taylor recommended; the question is - how fast was it acted upon, and was it acted on across the board...
The information about Hawkinge - where no squadrons were stationed either, although it seems to have been rather busier than Lympne -in the same time frame is fairly complete.

According to various sources, during the BoB period this airfield was defended by:
- seven 3in guns (Royal Marine AA Regiment in 3 or 4 battery postions nearby),
- four Bofors (army, 55 LAA Regt),
- three 20 mm Hispano guns, and eight Lewis MG's (RAF).
To be equally fair - Hawkinge was a hugely different airfield to Lympne, both in size and facilities - such as its underground hangars!......and its "value" to the RAF as Britain's "premier" fighter station.

The important part of the above is "three 20 mm Hispano guns, and eight Lewis MG's (RAF)" - important because it indicates that Hawkinge received more than the establishment figure of LAA in the end, enough for eleven AA positions, as opposed to the establishment figure of eight. But we don't know what the situation was for Lympne.
For Lympne, as before info is hard to pin down. From fragmentary evidence it seems likely that another one of the 6 companies of the 6th (Home Defence) Buffs (HQ in Folkestone) was assigned to Lympne. at the end of Sept. .
And once again - only an assumption.
As we have seen, D Coy of the 6th SLI was also nearby behind the RMC and may have been tasked to provide the "immediate assistance column" - although if Sea Lion had gone off going to the assistance of the rest of the battalion on the coast might have been a higher priority
One would have thought that their war diary would have said so...

But if German plans didn't gone awry in the first minute...the FJ landing immediately south of the RMC would actually have drawn the SLI on the line of the RMC into combat very early on the morning of S-Day.

Meanwhile, depending on how effective the defence right on the coast was between positions like the SAS at Hythe, Dymchurch Redoubt, Fortress Dymchurch etc...as we've seen, German forces landing between more heavily defended positions on the coast were to turn towards the RMC once inland. Depending on how fast the more northerly of these forces cover the only 2-3 miles between their beaches and the RMC - they could also be in contact with the SLI on the Royal Military Canal before the attack on Lympne ever takes place mid-morning 8O
As evidence that two infantry companies was the norm (at least for Class I airfields) I might quote WO 166/1214 (HQ Home Counties Area):
Extract from letter from Brigadier J.S. Davenport, Commander Home Counties Area, to HQ XII Corps, of 21 Oct. 1940:
“When the 11th Bn. E. Surrey Regiment leave this Area the immediate operational effect will be: –
1. The strength of the Army ground defence personnel at BROOKLANDS, GATWICK and BIGGIN HILL Aerodromes will necessarily be reduced from two Coys to one Coy in each case.
2. Immediate assistance columns will no longer be available for either BIGGIN HILL, GATWICK or REDHILL Aerodromes.”
I would have thought that you could have appreciated the difference between one well-trashed airfield in Care&Maintenance...and a major Bomber Command airfield, an airfield where the Army garrison was also protecting TWO of the country's most importantr aircraft factories, and one of Fighter Command's frontline Sector stations...

...rather continue to tease out an assumption.

In fact - if anything...
This WD further mentions that as of 22 Nov. 1940 A Coy of the 6th Bn. The Buffs would take over the defence of Lympne Aerodrome (V.P. 121), “relieving Fd Force Tps. at present there and Det “D” Coy 6th Buffs.”
Another company from the same battalion was at Hawkinge in Sept. as noted, and A and F companies at Dover.
...the fact that the Army defence of RAF Lympne was before their arrival made up of an unnamed posting of troops, and a detachment of a company, that doesn't bode well for assuming there were two full companies!
As a curiosity, since the "Young Soldier" battalions have been mentioned, the National Army Museum has among its artefacts an "Ashtray, trench art, nd; inscribed '70th Batt. The Buffs Lympne 24.3.41' with Buffs (Royal East Kent Regiment) dragon. From the collection of the former Buffs Regimental Museum."
Curiosity, yes; relevant...?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1077

Post by phylo_roadking » 01 Oct 2014, 21:34

Knouterer wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:
Really? Any halfway credible source for that? When the Royal Engineers went looking for them much later they were certainly not "laying across the grass", but between 3 and 6 feet under the surface
Is that an intentional misquote, or a strawman?

I didn't say they were laying on the grass, I said they were laid across grass airfields...
What I mean is: what makes you think the RAF went to the trouble of digging ditches to lay them "horizontally", instead of just driving them into the ground at a (shallow) angle as elsewhere? Source?
Well...first of all, the RAF did EXACTLY that with the mines they laid by mole plough :wink:

But if we accept that your problem is indeed in my use of the word "horizontally", where I should perhaps have said "in lines"...as opposed to "cross-hatching" them, or covering large areas at random. "Cross-hatching" them - although the diagrams were very pretty - is how they were used to undermine hardened items, like roads, railways, rail junctions etc. They were rammed in in lines across airfields...

And the source for that is actually the same as Gooner; http://pillboxes-suffolk.webeden.co.uk
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1078

Post by Knouterer » 01 Oct 2014, 21:36

Regarding the local AA defence of RAF airfields, it seems that in the 1930s the RAF considered various weapons such as the 40 mm Pom-Pom and the .5 Vickers MG, but decided in the end to spend its money on aircraft, so that on the outbreak of war only Lewis guns were available. The .303 Vickers K aircraft gun, which had a higher rate of fire than the Lewis or the Bren, was also considered but apparently no spare guns were available for ground use yet in 1940 (the SAS and Commandos used them later on).

The .5 Vickers, while not as powerful as the American .50 Browning, would certainly have been an improvement on the Lewis as regards range and penetration of light armour plate; the twin version in armoured tubs as used by the Royal Navy on MTBs would have been very useful for airfield defence IMHO, certainly more so than oddball inventions like the Hamilton-Pickett turret.

The 20 mm Hispano guns became available in 1940 because production was ahead of that of the aircraft intended to be armed with it; according to a report by the 6th AA Division (Official History) they did not give entire satisfaction but nevertheless they remained in use for a long time on various fronts - the third IWM picture is from North Africa 1942 allegedly.

According to a (short) history of the RAF Regiment:

"In 1937 the Air Council directed that flying stations were to be issued with up to 8 Vickers or Lewis guns for Anti Aircraft Defence.

In Sept. 1939, 100 Lewis Guns for Anti Aircraft Defence went to France with the AASF, supplemented by later additions of Lewis guns and Ground Gunners In May 1940, there were 433 machine guns and 835 Ground Gunners.

In Great Britain, 365 RAF stations were equiped with Anti Aircraft Machine guns manned by 3000 Ground Gunners, subsequently supplemented by 376 Hispano 20mm cannon on ground mountings."

Apart from AA machine guns, it seems that RAF stations also had MGs purely for ground defence; RAF Eastchurch, for example, received 5 .303 Vickers ground MGs for local defence in August 1940. The 2nd Kensingtons (MG battalion) were requested to provide instructors.
Attachments
CH4624.jpg
CH17235.jpg
CM3931.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

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

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1079

Post by RichTO90 » 01 Oct 2014, 21:50

phylo_roadking wrote:It is and you did.
Would you please stop playing childish games?
Any chance we could see the ENTIRE paragraph rather than one sentence taken out of context? P.125 happens to be one page of James that I can't see online.
I'm not using "James" or Google Books, I'm using the original, which I have been recommending to you for some time. The "chance" would depend on whether I feel it necessary to demonstrate further how far off you are in your assumptions based upon secondary sources and wish to spend the time transcribing it to do so.
It may have been in Care& Maintenance, but it was in use as a forward dispersal field by squadrons at Biggin. No, there were no squadrons posted there - but it was operating as a dispersal field. Same as Manston; I would hate to have to go through Tony Robinson's RAF Fighter Squadrons in the Battle Of Britain page by page to note down the number of times a flight or flights or occasionally a whole squadron was dispersed forward to operate out of Manston, serviced by No.600 Sqn's ground staff - including the occasion when all of the aircraft of one squadron were taking off when Manston was raided 8O...but I know you're aware this forward dispersal occured.
Oddly enough, I was aware that after it had been transferred from the RN to the RAF it was intended to use Lympne as a dispersal field, but its deficiencies as such were quickly realized and it was no longer being utilized as such by the time of the 12 August raid.
OIn the contrary - there is zero evidence they were civilian workers or Air Ministry workers. If there was, Overy wouldn't have described those who arrived at Lympne AFTER the August 12th raid in the way he did. And if they were Ministry of Works civilian workers, they wouldn't have been under RAF authority to send to Manston anyway...
Your quote from Overy:
The attack on Lympne on 13 August was particularly heavy, with 400 bombs falling on the landing ground alone. Repairs were slow because construction workers had been sent to Manston to help with the attacks of the previous day. The Air Ministry sent 100 of its own building workers to help, and 150 men were found from firms in the surrounding district. When Lympne was attacked once more, on August 15, the local men were so upset that they left, with only a small alnding strip yet clear. They were induced back only to be hit by a third raid on 30 August. This time five local workers were killed when a bomb hit a slit trench; work was once more delayed. Park took advantage of this unfortunate history to press the Air Ministry to supply at least one bulldozer and one excavator at each aerodrome, and to allocate repairs from a central pool of government workers.
Now, the problem, which had already been pointed out to you and that you should immediately have noticed. Lympne was not bombed on 13 August. It was bombed on 12 August, the same day Manston was bombed. How were workers sent from Lympne to Manston to repair damage from the "previous day" when in fact it was the same day?
It's not an assumption - Overy's use of English clearly indicates that (snip)
Forgive me, but Overy's use of English only indicates that he is seriously confused by the sequence of events in this case. Mind you, it might be helpful if you could identify what source or sources Overy used in confusing these sequence of events. Or are you unable to access the page in Google Books where that is found?

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: British Army at home September 1940

#1080

Post by Knouterer » 01 Oct 2014, 22:01

phylo_roadking wrote:
As evidence that two infantry companies was the norm (at least for Class I airfields) I might quote WO 166/1214 (HQ Home Counties Area):
Extract from letter from Brigadier J.S. Davenport, Commander Home Counties Area, to HQ XII Corps, of 21 Oct. 1940:
“When the 11th Bn. E. Surrey Regiment leave this Area the immediate operational effect will be: –
1. The strength of the Army ground defence personnel at BROOKLANDS, GATWICK and BIGGIN HILL Aerodromes will necessarily be reduced from two Coys to one Coy in each case.
2. Immediate assistance columns will no longer be available for either BIGGIN HILL, GATWICK or REDHILL Aerodromes.”
I would have thought that you could have appreciated the difference between one well-trashed airfield in Care&Maintenance...and a major Bomber Command airfield, an airfield where the Army garrison was also protecting TWO of the country's most importantr aircraft factories, and one of Fighter Command's frontline Sector stations...
I would have thought that by now you would have understood that the size of the army garrison had little or nothing to with what squadrons were operating from an airfield, or what factories were nearby - that would only have been relevant for the scale of the AA defences - but with the likelihood that the Germans would try to take it and the use they could have made of it. Which puts Lympne very close to the top of the list.

And allow me to point out once more that it's REALLY not necessary to quote and comment on every single sentence I write - I'm sure our readers would be greatly relieved if you would limit your comments to those rare occasions where you have something worthwhile to say.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Locked

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