Kings Dragoon Guards

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

Kings Dragoon Guards

#1

Post by David W » 20 Feb 2005, 16:45

Does any one know when the Kings Dragoon Guards had their Dingos & Marmon Herrington armoured cars updated to either Humbers or Daimlers?

Thanks Dave.

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

Re: Kings Dragoon Guards

#2

Post by RichTO90 » 22 Feb 2005, 16:19

David W wrote:Does any one know when the Kings Dragoon Guards had their Dingos & Marmon Herrington armoured cars updated to either Humbers or Daimlers?

Thanks Dave.
David, I don't have the complete armoured car listings, but it appears that KDG began converting after 10 October 1942, when they had just 37 Marmon Herringtons (taken from 3 SAAC), and 10 December 1942, when they reported having 12 Daimlers, 43 Marmon Herringtons, and 2 AEC. By 30 December 1942 they had dropped to 6 Daimler, and increased to 44 M-H, with the AEC remaining at 2. Between 14 January and 10 February 1943 holdings changed from 7 Daimler, 46 M-H and 2 AEC to 4 Humber, 28 M-H and 18 AEC. Then as of 9 March 1943 they reported 43 Humbers and 18 AEC, so the last of the M-H went during that period (but there were still 235 with units in ME Command!).

Hope that helps.


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

#3

Post by David W » 22 Feb 2005, 17:40

Yes it does help, thank you. I had imagined an update to Humbers well before October 1942.

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#4

Post by The Argus » 24 Feb 2005, 18:18

David, this might be of some use, if you haven't seen it already that is.

http://www.warlinks.com/armour/11_hussa ... ss_39.html

shane

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

#5

Post by David W » 24 Feb 2005, 18:24

Thank you Shane, that one is now saved to "Favourites"!

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#6

Post by The Argus » 24 Feb 2005, 20:08

I'm glad, the poor old PAO's usually only rate a mention thanks to the old tale about Cardigan and their colourful nickname, but to my mind they were one of the most professional units to serve in WWII.

As an unofficial member of the 11th PAO's fanclub, I can only ask that in due return for the favour, you at least give them a +2 (or better) bonus for Recce when putting the game table together :)

shane

PS Humber Mk.III's were jan 42 for them.

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

#7

Post by David W » 24 Feb 2005, 20:46

to my mind they were one of the most professional units to serve in WWII.
I quite agree. :D

2nd Derbyshire Yeomanry would be the only other Recce unit in theatre that could "hold a candle" to them, in my opinion.

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#8

Post by The Argus » 25 Feb 2005, 16:17

And there was a great deal of mutual respect between them. But to be fair, we've got to give the KDG and the South Africans a wave too.

And that's only credit on the allied side, the Germans were well up there too, and they had the right kit (at least in terms of mobility). I'd not like to sneank past A-A 3, or 33 for that matter, on some dark night.

shane

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

#9

Post by David W » 25 Feb 2005, 17:22

As a fighting unit the German A. A were much better equipped with artillery, infantry & anti-tank guns.

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#10

Post by The Argus » 27 Feb 2005, 17:14

True but a Divisional A-A couldn't provide the same level of coverage as a Brit (or other?) Cavalry reg with less manpower. In europe this might have been to the Heer's favour, but in the desert, I'd say the British had the edge in pure recce terms.

shane

User avatar
Michael Emrys
Member
Posts: 6002
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 19:44
Location: USA

#11

Post by Michael Emrys » 28 Feb 2005, 04:21

AIUI, the Germans had a different philosophy about recce from other armies. Their expectation was to fight for information, to probe for weak spots in the enemy line that could be exploited by the other resources of the division. To that end, they were a fairly well-balanced combined arms team. I suppose this could be termed active recconaisance.

The Western Allied armies, OTOH, engaged in a generally more passive form of recconaisance, recconaisance by observation. Their recce units were expected to avoid fighting as much as possible, to employ stealth and observation from a distance wherever possible. In pursuit of this goal, they were lightly armed and fast.

The Argus
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 11 Oct 2004, 11:23
Location: Melbourne Australia

#12

Post by The Argus » 28 Feb 2005, 17:17

I think every amry had its own view on recce. I agree the Germans expected to fight, their A-A's had all the elements of a 1914 Cavalry regiment just in motorised form. The British approach was more passive in some respects, but they also practiced the same idea of deep penertration as the Germans.

If my reading is any reflexion of reality, the Germans (in recce) only expected to fight to break through the FDZ, from then on, like at lest the Brits observation was the key. One of the few German cavalry officers to make it the whole way through the war was quoted as saying the most satisfactory patrols were those with clean guns. This certainly gells with British expectations too.

Like anything the tactics depended on the situation, screening, advance and retreat. My take is the Germans were better at advanceing and retreating, but the British did the screening job better, although I'm more than willing to be wrong on this.


shane

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

Re: Kings Dragoon Guards

#13

Post by David W » 06 Jun 2010, 15:57

Going back to the K.D.G, do we know when they replaced their Dingo Sqd with Marmons?

Alanmccoubrey
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44

Re: Kings Dragoon Guards

#14

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 06 Jun 2010, 21:33

David W wrote:Going back to the K.D.G, do we know when they replaced their Dingo Sqd with Marmons?
Sorry David I can't help you there, I didn't know they even had a squadron of Dingos.
Alan

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

Re: Kings Dragoon Guards

#15

Post by David W » 06 Jun 2010, 21:49

Yes, apparently as an interim until the third Sqd could be equipped with M/H

Post Reply

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