State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#331

Post by Knouterer » 31 May 2016, 16:20

A few notes on the Small Arms School in Hythe, in part based on “History of the Small Arms School Corps” by Frederick Myatt (1972).
Training of recruits, including weapons training, was a task of the Regimental Depots (renamed Infantry Training Centres in 1940).
To become qualified trainers, suitable officers and NCOs were sent to the School of Musketry in Hythe (from 1919 the „Small Arms School“) to be trained as “musketry instructors“. The 1937 War Office Manual on “Infantry Training” stated that “Whenever possible, N.C.O.s selected for the training staff at a depot should have previously qualified at the Small Arms School, Hythe Wing.” At battalion level, there were supposed to be a few Hythe-qualified instructors as well.
The SAS also tested new weapons, organised special courses for high ranking officers, etc.

From 1926 the SAS was split in two, the “Netheravon Wing” (in Wiltshire) taking responsibility for Vickers MGs (later also 3in mortars and 2pdr AT guns).
The „Hythe Wing“ occupied itself with rifles, LMGs, hand and rifle grenades (later also, as they were introduced, 2in mortars, .55 Boys AT rifles, Thompson SMGs, etc.).
In the 1930s there were several "Young Officers Courses“ per year (seven weeks for a maximum of 80 participants), and simultaneously "Long Qualifying Courses“ for NCOs (10 weeks for a maximum of 144 participants), plus special courses to introduce new weapons etc. It may be assumed that after the outbreak of war the rythm of the courses was stepped up and the numbers of participants increased. Myatt: „The strength of the SASC (Small Arms School Corps, that is, the instructors entitled to wear the cap badge - K) at Hythe in September 1939 was thirty-nine, but this was increased fairly rapidly, partly by the recall of reservists and partly by the compulsory transfer of the best of the Infantry students.”

Further quote from Myatt (Page 50):
„After the fall of France in 1940 Hythe was very much in the front line; hit and run raids by German bombers became more and more frequent, and students and staff found themselves spending far too much time in manning the defences, many of these being the original ones built against Napoleon nearly a century and a half before. All this extra-curricular activity had a serious effect on training, so towards the end of 1940 the School was moved to Bisley.”
That was in early November, to be exact.

As a practical example of a unit having recourse to SAS training, the 18th Royal Fusiliers were formed in April 1940, as an Infantry (Pioneer) Battalion, and their War Diary (WO 166/4543) mentions, as you would expect, many officers and NCO’s being sent on a variety of courses in the first months, among them:
22.4.1940: “4 N.C.O.’s proceeded to Hythe to attend an all platoon weapons course.”
3.6.1940: “2nd Lieuts J.L. Wigley and K.W.P. Chilvers proceeded to Hythe to attend an All Platoon Weapons Course for four weeks.”
(2nd Lieut. Wigley, by the way, some weeks later had the somewhat dubious honour of being put in command of the battalion’s bicycle-mounted “tank hunting platoon”)
"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: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#332

Post by Knouterer » 01 Jun 2016, 17:38

Knouterer wrote:Similarly, at the other end of Beach B, Lofting omits to mention the presence of 450 men of No. 6 Commando at Littlestone (see previous page of this thread), and the 280 men of No. 3 Independent Company and the Royal Marines at Dungeness Point, which in addition to infantry (Somerset Light Infantry) and artillery units on that stretch of coast would put the success of the (initial) landings in serious doubt.
I was a bit too hasty with this criticism, he does mention them elsewhere in the book. My bad, as they say.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton


amcl
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 30 Apr 2011, 04:11

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#333

Post by amcl » 03 Jun 2016, 01:48

Knouterer wrote:Similarly, at the other end of Beach B, Lofting omits to mention the presence of 450 men of No. 6 Commando at Littlestone (see previous page of this thread), and the 280 men of No. 3 Independent Company and the Royal Marines at Dungeness Point, which in addition to infantry (Somerset Light Infantry) and artillery units on that stretch of coast would put the success of the (initial) landings in serious doubt.
The presence of 6 Commando and 3 Independent Company actually does get a mention in the notes on 45 Division (p. 192), so better proofreading would have picked this up.

Edit: Which you said in the post immediately above this one. Oops! That'll teach me not to read to the end of the thread.

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#334

Post by Leros87 » 16 Jun 2016, 23:34

Knouterer wrote:A little map showing where the (main) stop lines were in relation to the planned German bridgehead. I drew this a while ago and I notice I made a few small mistakes, but it does show that the initial bridgehead (which would be held for at least a week until the second wave, including Panzer divisions, would be ferried across) was nowhere closer than about 15 miles to the main GHQ line south of London, which would therefore play no role in the initial fighting.

I tend to believe that all those (mostly thin-walled) pillboxes would have contributed little to the defense of Britain, and might even have been a negative factor. During the postmortem discussions on various large-scale exercises in 1940-41 it was observed that some units tended to develop a passive "pillbox mentality": once they had occupied their assigned part of the line they took no further initiative, such as, for example, sending out strong patrols to make contact with the enemy, find out what he was doing and impede his progress.

TW = Tunbridge Wells, where the HQ of XII Corps was.
In addition, there were a range of Command, Corps and Divisional Stop Lines. The 45th Division defence plan referred to its stop lines as fences and gates. The GHQ Newhaven - Hoo Line had a loop around the south and east of the town and ran across the Hoo Peninsula between the Medway and Thames. The east Kent line ran further west, to Graveney near Faversham. All these lines faced one way and had ther field fortifications spread out, with some concentrations at key points. Much of these remain in situ today. Further development of the defence lines were largely halted when Alanbrooke took over and began to remove much of the weaponry. He also moved the field forces way from the role of manning these lines, with training units and home guard taking this role on.

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#335

Post by Leros87 » 16 Jun 2016, 23:53

Knouterer wrote:A note on LAA defences: the field army had to rely almost entirely on MGs. The two armoured divisions each had an LAA/ATk regiment which should have had 24 Bofors guns (and 24 2pdr AT guns) but in fact both were completely equipped with Lewis and (twin) Bren LMGs.
The 53rd LAA Regiment (157, 158 and 159 Btys), transferred from A.D.G.B. to Home Forces mid-September, was the only LAA unit with Bofors guns in the entire field army. Philson lists it as under command of VII Corps, but it seems that at the end of Sept. 158 Bty was split up between the 1st and 2nd Armoured Divisions, in both cases with defence of the Div HQ as the primary task. 157 Bty was attached to the NZEF by the end of Sept.; one troop (4 guns) with Milforce.
(In France with the BEF (II Corps) this regiment, with the same three batteries, had 22 x 40 mm guns and 28 AA MGs as of 10 May)

The Mk VIII listed below was the 40 mm "Pom-Pom" which existed in twin and single versions, hence the reference to "barrels". The twin Mk VIII version was a very heavy piece (a tad under eight tons); 300 guns had been ordered in 1937, principally for the defence of dockyards and naval bases (and other "vulnerable points"), but as it became clear that the Bofors was much superior, most of the Pom-Poms were canceled again.

The table shows that it was proposed to issue 8 more Bofors guns to the field army at home in the coming month (out of a total production of 135), but sadly it didn't happen. At a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff on 23 December 1940 (CAB 79/8/36) “ … SIR ALAN BROOKE said that Home Forces were not receiving the regular allocation of light A.A. guns which had been promised them some months ago. He had expected to receive about 8 guns per month but had so far been allocated two over the whole period of the last three months. These guns formed part of the equipment of army formations, and it was vitally important that his mobile divisions, and in particular the armoured division, should have their quota if they were to play their part in repelling invasion.”

Anti Aircraft Command assigned 120 3.7in HAA and 84 40mm Bofors guns to GHQ for mobile use by the main field forces in August. Many of these units were only to be grouped upon invasion (codeword Bovril) and would require moving large distances. Their key role would be protecting the lines of communication, HQ and concentration areas for the counterattack forces. Specifically, 1st AA Brigade was to cover East Anglia with 24 3.7inch and 12 40mm guns, 2nd AA Brigade the south east with 24 3.7inch, 8 3inch and 12 40mm guns and south (Southern Command) 3rd AA Brigade with 56 3.7inch and 36 40mm guns. Northern Command had 12th AA Brigade with 16 3.7inch guns. 2nd AA Brigade had its HQ near Tunbridge Wells and was to have assigned 2 batteries of 80th HAA Regt from Portsmouth, 2 btys from 89th HAA Regt (1 at Littlehampton and 1 at Chatham) and 1Bty from 11th LAA Regt in Gillingham. As you said, Milforce had a troop of 4 40mm guns, also from 53rd LAA Regt, while the rest of that Bty (157th) was to move from Detling to support the NZEF upon invasion. 159th Bty was assigned to VII Corps. The Regt had a strength of 36 40mm guns in September.

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#336

Post by Leros87 » 17 Jun 2016, 01:22

Thanks for the feedback on my work, which I have only just got round to reading due to other commitments. I accept that with all works things can get missed or placed wrongly. However, having examined the available war diaries of the units in place and cross checking with command papers (as well as numerous visits to this lovely bit of Britain) I can only re-iterate the operational readiness and locations of the batteries came from them, or their higher command. A lot of the emergency batteries' diaries are bereft of any detail but Divisional, Corps and Command CRA papers confirm my records. I believe that reference to the 18 inch gun was taken from a Cabinet Office paper; however, in my list of coastal artillery I do not allocate a unit or location to it, so would be inclined to discount it. A number of dummy coastal batteries were constructed at this time, including at Dungeness. The 410 series of coastal batteries were formed on or after 24 Sept. The war diaries for 410 to 414 Batteries only start in 1941 but 415 isn't listed at all at Kew. 55th Fd Regt RA had deployed a single 18pdr gun (F Troop) at both Dungeness and Littlestone in beach roles and 273 AT Bty (4 4inch) was deployed at Greatstone. Which RM MNBDO Bty was at Dungeness? The only one equipped with 3 6 inch guns was Kent Bty (not really a MNBDO unit) at Lowestoft and I have never come across one deployed to the area in the time period.

The RM Siege Regt diary recorded that it was formed on 9 Sept, though A Bty was operational by 7 August with 1 14 inch railway gun ("Winnie"). B Bty had the 13inch rail gun "Sceneshifter".

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#337

Post by Leros87 » 17 Jun 2016, 01:22

5 Stevedore Bn RE had 17 Coy deployed to Dymchurch Redoubt, Botolph's Bridge and RAF Lympne (plt in each) , 19 Coy at Seabrook (east of Hythe) and 18 and 20 Coys at Saltwood. These latter two would likely have been among the first inland to react to KG Meindl, though 501 Fd Coy RE (1st London Div) at Sandling Park would have been the most immedately impacted. As with most AMPC and RE units, it detached sub units to various engineering tasks during the day; its primary anti invasion role was to demolish the remaining bridges across the Royal Military Canal, a task that would have taxed it greatly with the airborne landings.

The rifle ranges at both Lydd and Hythe remained in use throughout this period, despite the attentions of the Luftwaffe. Lydd was designated a nodal point, though it was interesting to note from its defence plans that the range camp was outside its perimeter. 6 Commando's primary roles were to protect the Canadian heavy guns and counter attack on Littlestone, 3 Coy was to protect Dungeness battery as well as act as a counter attack force. As I mentioned, I considered the Lydd-New Romney sector was the best defended stretch, though the Dymchurch sector had the benefit of the most super heavy artillery. The Return on 30 Sept also recorded a miscellaneous detachment of 232 men of the Royal Fusiliers at Hythe. A lot has been written about the abilities of the Small Arms School to decimate the invaders but I do not attempt to decide on the outcome. It is likely that (as with Normandy) their positions could have been outflanked and destroyed piecemeal by more successful units landing to the west, possibly supported by the paratroopers fire from the high ground behind. Hythe ranges offer little opportunity for concealed movement (as I know personally) so extrication of the defenders could well have been costly.

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

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#338

Post by Knouterer » 17 Jun 2016, 14:57

Leros87 wrote:Which RM MNBDO Bty was at Dungeness? The only one equipped with 3 6 inch guns was Kent Bty (not really a MNBDO unit) at Lowestoft and I have never come across one deployed to the area in the time period.
The “Kent” battery of the M.N.B.D.O. (War Diary ADM 202/168) occupied Dungeness Point in the autumn of 1940.
Mobile Naval Base Defence Organisations, of which there were two eventually, were formed by the Royal Marines to provide protection for naval bases at home or overseas, as required, and included AA and coast defence batteries, an infantry element, and various other units such as a Boat Company, a Workshop Company, etc.
MNBDO 1 was formed in Sept. 1939 at Portsmouth and was about 4,500 strong by mid-1940. Initially it was needed for home defence, but in 1941, with the army better able to guard Britain’s shores, it was moved to Egypt. Part of it fought on Crete.

It had been my impression that the three-gun battery at Dungeness was installed earlier than the emergency batteries (see http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index ... .msg136172 ) but that was not in fact the case.
The “Kent”battery (of the RM coast artillery brigade) set up near Lowestoft in May, with three 6-inch guns. These were mounted on so-called Arrol-Withers Platforms, which could be assembled and disassembled relatively quickly and transported on tank transporter (or similar) trailers towed (in this case) by AEC Matador trucks.
As we know, many if not most of the emergency batteries were initially manned by the Royal Navy/Royal Marines, and then gradually taken over by the Royal Artillery, generally speaking in the course of July. That is also confirmed by an entry in this WD for 2 July:
“From Admiralty CONFIDENTIAL. R.N. & R.M. manning naval 6” or 4” batteries installed for Coast Defence will be relieved by Army personnel as follows: Worthing, Shoreham, Aldeburgh, Southwold, Lowestoft, Folkestone (2 Batteries), Poole, Newhaven, Hythe, Frinton, Littlehampton, Felixstowe, Mablethorpe (spelled “Mapletorpe”). Advance parties will arrive between 15th and 17th July, & main bodies twenty-four hours later.”
Since the battery at Newhaven Fort was already manned by the army, it is in all probability the battery at Seaford that is meant, which was taken over by 343 Coast Bty. R.A.

By the end of August the MNBDO battery had packed up and loaded their guns and platforms on railway cars, and had received orders to occupy a new position at Stone Point. An advance party (T/Lt Blount and 22 men) arrived at Southampton on 31.8 and started work on the position in the following days; however on 4 Sept. they were redirected to Lydd.
Since this War Diary gives a good impression of what was going on in such a battery (keeping in mind of course that the Royal Marines did some things differently from the army), I’ll quote a bit more extensively from it:
5 Sept., 1920hrs: “Arrive Lydd Town Station and met by Captain Elsworth. Sleep on site at Dungeness.”
6 Sept.: “Collect rations from Shorncliffe Camp & Gun Mounting stores from Fort Langdon, Dover. Working on new site. Mounted A.A. Lewis Guns.”
7 Sept.: “Advance Party start to receive rations from 5th Somerset Light Infantry. Dig Arrol platform pits. Laying concrete rafts for Arrol platforms. Offloading 8 Nissen Huts from Railway Waggons.”
8 Sept.: “Guns to be mounted at Dungeness 1,000 yds (approx.) to the E of the lighthouse and adjacent but also to the E of the 374 Coast (R.A.) Battery (2 4.5” guns)*. Nothing but shingle for four miles in all directions. Railway & Road (Track) to within 200 yds of site. Continue to dig & concrete Arrol platform pits. Laying sleeper roadway across shingle from road to site (150 yds). Capt. Johnson R.M. arrives to advise on S/L’s.”
9 Sept.: “Battery & Train arrive from Lowestoft. Troops quartered in Lee Camp, LYDD. Five second-lieutenants join battery for instruction on installation, etc.”
10 Sept.: “Officers living on site rest of Battery about five miles away at LYDD Camp. R.A.S.C. fail to supply necessary lorries as arranged. Offloading stores after transport arrives – very wet & continual Air Raids with numerous hostile planes overhead at times. Considerable time is lost returning five miles to camp for meals. Also building sleeper roadway to site.
Leyland ‘Matador’ & transporter arrive from Fort Cumberland with certain gun-mounting stores, three Lewis Guns and four Marines (Lewis Gunners).”
11 Sept.: “No 1 Arrol Platform, Pedestal & Cradle mounted. Offloading stores. All loads have to be man-handled along sleeper roadway across shingle. Only one transporter available.“
12 Sept.: “No 1 Gun completed. Building road to No 2 pit. No 2 Arrol laid. Offloading stores & levelling sites for Nissen huts.”
13 Sept.: “Nissen huts erected by Garrison Engineer, Shorncliffe Camp, already constructing permanent 374 Coast (R.A.) Battery at Dungeness. Also Arrol platform pit concrete rafts & brick walls (in the shingle) & brick galley of Dining Hall. No 2 gun completed & building roadway to No 3 pit.”
14 Sept.: “Five second-lieuts leave for Fort Cumberland. Lay Arrol & mount No 3 Gun.
15 Sept.: “All three guns completed ready for test mounting & arrangements for proofing made with C.F.D. Dover. Battery site visited by the Prime Minister who is shown the guns by Maj. Stewart.”
16 Sept.: “Accomodation stores collected from Sealterhead (? handwriting ….) Surrey (or “Survey”?). One proofing round fired from No 1 Gun but visibility prevents further firing. Brigadier Burrowes visits Battery & has tea in Officers’ Mess. No 2 S/L mounted & ready for action. Digging ready use magazine.”
17 Sept.: “Five more proofing rounds fired. All satisfactory.”
18 Sept.: “Tubular arrives from Fort Cumberland for constructing Battery Commander’s Post. General installation.”
19 Sept.: “Party of Marines from the Landing & Maintenance Unit lent by Major Salter R.M. from Greatstone (5 miles distant) to erect tubular tower to raise B.C. Post in air.”
20 Sept.: “General installation. Lt. Col. Lukis & Capt. Johnson arrive from Portsmouth. S/L generator arrives from Portsmouth by road after repairs.”
21 Sept.: “Four Marines join battery as Lewis Gunners. Erecting No 1 S/L position & general installation, magazines, etc. Tubular tower for B.C. Post completed.”
22 Sept.: “Lt. Col. Lukis & Capt. Johnson return to Portsmouth. Offloading stores and ammunition. Constructing magazines. Erection & installation of B.C. Post completed fifteen feet above ground on tubular tower.”
23 Sept.: “Four Marines (Lewis Gunners) leave Battery to rejoin A.T.M.B. Pom/Pom Battery at Plymouth leaving their guns here.”
24 Sept.: “General installation. Handover quarters in Lee Camp, Lydd to Barrack Warden. Whole Battery sleep in camp for first time as five Nissen huts are now complete. Temporary galley built, ablutions, latrines, etc. until Garrison Engineer constructs the permanent buildings.”
25 Sept.: “Hostile bomber drops four bombs 400 yds in rear of Guns. 3 H.E. & 1 Heavy Oil Type. The Britannia Inn & other bungalows damaged. One female removed in Military Ambulance. Erection of all eight Nissen Huts completed. General installation.”
26 Sept.: “Continued general installation. 1700 (hrs): Hostile bomber drops stick of bombs on the battery which explode in the sea 150 yds from the guns. 2250. Violent explosion in close proximity to Battery – it is supposed bomb exploded in sea near guns. Tubular arrives by road from Fort Cumberland to build overhead & side cover on B.C. Post.
(entry about postings of several officers)
27 Sept.: “Hostile aircraft overhead nearly all day. Several bombs dropped in immediate district but none appear to have been aimed at the Dungeness Garrison. G.P.O. telephone installed in B.C.P. but not yet in working order. Brigadier Burrowes R.A. visits the Battery in the afternoon his chief business being Fire Command details with Major Stewart.”
28 Sept.: “General installation. Constructing magazines. Completing temporary ablutions, latrines, galley, etc.
29 Sept.: “Vice-Admiral Round-Turner & Admiral Sir Michael Hodges visit Battery Site.”
30 Sept.: “Hawker Hurricane makes forced landing half-a-mile behind Battery Site. Plane little damaged & Polish pilot unhurt. 1715. Hostile twin-engined bomber flies over battery from W to E at 100 to 200 ft. It was observed to be a Heinkel 111K. The Battery Lewis Guns opened fire & many hits were observed by tracer particularly on the pilot’s windscreen but the machine flew on towards Dover. Further developments are expected as a result of this reconnaissance.
On 10th Sept major Stewart was appointed Fire Commander of the Dungeness Area. This consists of seven Batteries 1. Dymchurch Redoubt (when formed). 2. St. Mary’s. 3. Greatstone. 4. Kent. 5. 374 Dungeness. 6. Jury’s Gut & 7. Winchelsea. With the exception of No 1 all guns mounted by 30th Sept. This appointment entails considerable travelling & administrative work on the part of Major Stewart in addition to his own Battery routine.”

So this confirms the existence, as of 30.9, of
St. Mary's Bay bty (358) (sometimes also called the Dymchurch battery or the New Romney Battery, adding to the confusion)
Greatstone bty (415)
MNDBO bty (Dungeness Point, 3 x 6")
374 Bty, just round the point, 2 x 4.7"
Jury's Gut Bty (416, reported on 5 Oct. as "ready by day only", presumably meaning that the searchlights were not yet installed.
Winchelsea Bty (360)

The batteries NE of Dungeness are also mentioned in a document of Dover Command ("Operation Napoleon") dated 4 Oct.

Installing guns in Dymchurch (Grand) Redoubt took a while longer. The earliest mention of a battery there I have found is in a "Location List" of June 1941 (in the War Diary of the 2nd/5th Queens) which states that the Redoubt was occupied by 236 Bty of 550 Coast Regiment. This regt. was formed that same month; the battery may have predated it but probably not by much.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#339

Post by Leros87 » 22 Jun 2016, 23:55

It really annoyed me to find that I had not correctly included the information in my book that has been raised here. I did in fact already have some of it in the vast collection I had gathered. I will be updating my book soon and putting it publishing it.

I was able to visit Kew recently to triple check this and other information. The following is what I found:
160 Rail Construction Coy RE moved to Hothfield from Redhill on 5 Sept. Only 1 Stn worked at Littlestone whilst the others were engaged on the other heavy rail gun sites over the month (Great Chart, Shepherdswell, Golden Wood, Eythorne, Ruckinge). 3 & 4 Stns were working with the RM Siege Regt. In March 41 it began to move back to Redhill on supply route work. 161 Coy was in the South Highland Area, HQ at Pitlochry.
Kent Bty moved to Portsmouth on 4 Jan 41, leaving its guns and stores to the newly formed 423 Coast Bty. From the descriptions it would place it in a largely east facing position (374 would have to be south facing).
According to the Jan 41 list in the XIi Corps CRA (CD) file 412 Bty was located at Clifton Crescent, Folkestone (just west of The Leas). The Admiralty had asked for 2 of its guns to be returned; these were dismounted before the order was rescinded and so remounted. The Hythe and Folkestone batteries were controlled by 12 Coast Artillery Group, based in Sandgate Road, Folkestone.
According to the same list 13 CAG, based in Madeira Road, Littlestone, controlled the batteries from Hythe to Dungeness. HQ for 358 was in the Sands Hotel, St Mary's Bay. 416 at Jury's Gut (east of Camber) had 2x6inch and was formed from 370 Coast Bty.
14 CAG, based in Broadoak Manor, Cooden, controlled the batteries from Winchelsea to Eastbourne.
The GHQ Coast defence file (WO 166/11) proved to be a little more informative, especially on when the 400 series batteries were installed. It recorded that on 30 Aug the Chiefs of Staff decided that coast defence artillery needed to be strengthened between North Foreland and Dungeness, with Eastern Command being informed of this on 3 Sept. It recorded that Kent Bty RM reported as being in action (operational) on 13 Sept. On 26 Sept 412 Bty reported being in action by day (limited operational, probably without searchlights). On the following day 415 Bty declared the same and on 30 Sept so did 416 Bty.
The file also recorded that in Nov the first 15 coast defence radar detachments (establishment of 23 men each, including 9 guards) were authorised to cover from North Foreland to Littlehampton. The first 2 sets were delivered on 28 Dec (to Fan Hole and Lydden Spout Btys near Dover).

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

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#340

Post by Knouterer » 25 Jun 2016, 12:15

Leros87 wrote: Kent Bty moved to Portsmouth on 4 Jan 41, leaving its guns and stores to the newly formed 423 Coast Bty. From the descriptions it would place it in a largely east facing position (374 would have to be south facing).
.
A map showing the positions of the two batteries, taken from http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index ... pic=4802.0
Attachments
DungenessDefences.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#341

Post by Leros87 » 27 Jun 2016, 22:34

It seems strange that the two Dungeness batteries would have been barely 150 metres from each other (according to the map references)? The photo on the link clearly shows the easternmost lighthouse and places the Kent Bty on a ESE facing site, able to engage in to St Mary's Bay. Would the other Bty have the capability to traverse to cover both Rye and St Mary's Bays? If not then it would have a limited effectiveness surely.

Looking at the Greatstone Bty the map ref and photo places it at the southern end of the defensive zone for that village.

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#342

Post by Leros87 » 27 Jun 2016, 22:48

I have identified where the St Mary's Bay Bty was. It was in the grounds of the Sands Hotel, which was demolished to make way for the Sands Holiday motel in the 1970's, which has also since been demolished. It's remains can be found where the sluice for New Sewer empties it into the bay (south end of the village).

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

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#343

Post by Knouterer » 29 Jun 2016, 09:51

Yes, there's a good picture of it (on Kenthistoryforum http://www.kenthistoryforum.co.uk/index ... pic=9207.0 and elsewhere):
Attachments
StMarysBayBatteryAP05.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#344

Post by Leros87 » 29 Jun 2016, 17:51

Of all the coastal batteries this one and the one at Winchelsea would have had the dubious honour of facing the amphibious tanks that were due to land opposite them.
No.1 gun above is almost placed over the Sewer that runs diagonally from top left to bottom right (the outfall pipe leading away from the beach).

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

Re: State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

#345

Post by Knouterer » 30 Jun 2016, 11:12

Given that the submersible tanks would be blind and unable to rotate their turrets and use their guns at the moment they emerged from the water, they would be at a disadvantage, I imagine. And a 100 lb HE shell slamming into a Pz III or IV tank at 2,500 fps or so wouldn't leave much of it.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”