State of British Ground Forces, September 1940, Sealion

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

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

#316

Post by LineDoggie » 20 Mar 2016, 01:34

Knouterer wrote:Among the light tanks used for training were also some Vickers 6-ton tanks, a successful design sold to many countries across the world, with a variety of armament, but never adopted by the British Army. On the outbreak of war, those that Vickers had on hand (mostly a Thai order) were requisitioned.
Caption to this picture in British and American Tanks of World War Two, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis (p. 27):

"Vickers 6 ton Type B in use with a training unit, 1940"
The Hull insignia is one used to denote "Enemy forces" in manuevers
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

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

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

#317

Post by Knouterer » 22 Mar 2016, 23:52

Thanks for the info Doggie, I was wondering what it was.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton


User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

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

#318

Post by sitalkes » 08 Apr 2016, 08:01

An interesting and very detailed article about the stop line south-east of London, between the Medway near Chatham and the Thames. Note that when it mentions 47 six pounder guns it means the Hotchkiss 6 pounder of WW1 vintage.

“The whole extent of the Newhaven-Hoo GHQ Line was 128km in length. It had 47 anti-tank gun positions, over 140 pillboxes, 17 railway blocks and at least 50 road blocks… In July 1940, the plan was to arm the GHQ Newhaven-Hoo line with 47 6-pounder guns in 44 locations.”
http://research.historicengland.org.uk/ ... px?i=15241

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

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

#319

Post by Knouterer » 08 Apr 2016, 09:49

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.
Attachments
Stoplines 005.jpg
"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

#320

Post by Knouterer » 15 Apr 2016, 08:32

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.”
Attachments
BoforsHoldings.png
Bofors.png
Bofors.png (438.58 KiB) Viewed 1534 times
Last edited by Knouterer on 15 Apr 2016, 09:19, edited 1 time in total.
"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

#321

Post by Knouterer » 15 Apr 2016, 09:16

Picture of the Mk VIII twin gun, from Ian V. Hogg, Anti-Aircraft Artillery. Single Pom-Poms were also in use in some numbers, for example the 5th AA Division (in south-western England) had 26 singles and 6 twins, according to Philson's OOB for 30 Sept. 1940.
Attachments
PomPom 001.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

#322

Post by Leros87 » 27 Apr 2016, 21:27

I am aware that a new book has been published entitled We shall fight them. Deafeating Operation Sealion: the British armed forces and the defence of the United Kingdom through CompletelyNovel.com. It appears to show for the first time the actual dispositions, resources and plans of the British armed forces in September 1940, based largely on research at the National Archives and Imperial War Museum, and it doesn't prophesise the outcome.

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

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

#323

Post by Knouterer » 29 Apr 2016, 09:30

Thanks for the tip, I just ordered it. Sounds rather like what I've been doing except that I'm planning a"what if" history of the invasion, so there will be a story (with both real and fictitious characters) and an outcome. To make it more readable for the general public I plan to put most of the orders of battle, technical stuff etc. in endnotes at the end of each chapter and in annexes.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

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

#324

Post by sitalkes » 29 Apr 2016, 10:02

Looks good, pity it had to be self-published! Still doing the rounds of the publishers myself. Will be interesting to compare it with Philson (still waiting for my volumes II& III)

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

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

#325

Post by Knouterer » 11 May 2016, 17:43

Gooner1 wrote:
Knouterer wrote:
Knouterer wrote:So, as with the 5th RWK according to the map, A Coy was defending St. Mary's Bay, B Coy was at Dymchurch, C Coy at Burmarsh. A difference was that in September only one platoon (No 18) of D Coy of the 6th SLI was defending the left forward sector up to Dymchurch redoubt, the rest of that Coy being behind the Royal Military Canal.
However, the November map shows five pillboxes for Brens in that sector, which assuming they were already there in September seems a lot for one platoon.
Upon closer inspection and reflection, the "18 Platoon Fortress" is indicated as a single point on the map: 558496 (Cassini Grid). And that's clearly one specific pillbox on the November map, see below. We have thus a single platoon defending an isolated FDL covering a fairly wide front, about 1,500 m, between Martello Tower No. 22 (mounting one Vickers MG manned by the 7th Devons) and the roadblock SW of Dymchurch Redoubt, the battalion boundary.

Perhaps the defenders of this lonely outpost could draw some comfort from the knowledge that the miniature armoured train was patrolling behind them :milwink:
Hi Knouterer, are you sure D Coy had two platoons behind the RMC? From that map, blown-up, the RMC would appear to be outside the Battalion boundary.
The Fortress appears to extend from the Drain just West of the Redoubt to just East of the Martello and the Dymchurch Fortress. I can make 4 MG pillboxes in the Fortress.
In the meantime, I have found out where D Coy (minus 18 Platoon) was at the time: at Court-at-Street, a hamlet about 1 km west of Lympne airfield, together with No. 6 (Admin) Platoon of the battalion. That platoon would be 98 strong normally (at full W/E), but that included 55 drivers for all the 4-wheeled vehicles of the battalion, who probably were scattered over the whole battalion area with their vehicles.
Attachments
17IDFront 001.jpg
"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

#326

Post by Knouterer » 29 May 2016, 18:19

Concerning the abovementioned publication, We Shall Fight Them by Ian Lofting, I’ll put my (provisional) review in this thread rather than in the “book review” section because interested parties are more likely to read it here, I think.
The author has put in a lot of work and certainly made a contribution to our common fund of knowledge, for which recognition is due; however, even a cursory check reveals numerous errors and omissions, which unfortunately cast serious doubt on the reliability of the whole.

The author’s declared aim is to give an overview of “the real state of the nation’s defences at the planned time (of the invasion - K)” – that is to say, the end of September 1940, or early October at the latest. However, much of the information provided refers to earlier or later periods. Sometimes several years later, as for the strength of RAF personnel at various airfields.

To quote just one example, on p. 304 we read about the coastal defences near Dover: “By September the following coastal guns were in place: 1 x 18-inch, 2 x 14-inch, 2 x 13.5-inch …” In fact, as has been noted in this thread, the 18-inch “Boche Buster” (not really a coastal gun anyway) was only moved to Kent (from Catterick) in March 1941 and was ready by May. Of the other four guns, all with the RM Siege Regiment north of Dover, “Winnie” (14”) was operational at the end of Sept., “Pooh” was not ready before February 1941. The first of the 13.5” guns (three eventually) was ready for action by November 1940. Several other batteries of more modest calibre on the coast of Kent that DID exist and were operational at the end of Sept. are not listed.

The bibliography seems rather thin – for example, Philson’s orders of battle for the Army, Royal Navy and RAF as of 30.9.1940 are not mentioned. A bit more background reading would perhaps have helped the author to put the information he collected in the proper context and avoid many errors, some of which I find a bit difficult to digest and frankly unforgivable for somebody who claims to have studied the subject for 16 years. For example, on page 320 it is stated ”… 621 six pounder guns were available, mostly in static or beach roles. The gun had a muzzle velocity of 820 metres per second and could penetrate 74 mm of armour at a range of 1,000 metres, its maximum effective range being 1,500 metres.”

As most readers of this forum will instantly realize, those data refer to the well-known 6pdr (7cwt) anti-tank gun introduced in 1942. The 6pdrs of 1940 were the tank guns left over from WWII which had a muzzle velocity of barely more than half that quoted (about 415 m/sec) and could perhaps, with luck, and preferably with multiple hits, have knocked out a Pz III or IV from the side (20-30 mm armour) at very close range.

As should be obvious, if the British army, in addition to its 600 (or so) 2pdrs, really had had 621 purpose-built AT guns available that could easily knock out any German tank at a thousand metres at any angle, there wouldn't have been much reason to worry about invasion.
"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

#327

Post by amcl » 30 May 2016, 15:36

We Shall Fight Them has its good points. It's much better bound than the Philson books and won't fall to pieces half way through the first reading. It's much cheaper than the Philson books too. And it's easily available.

Yes, there are errors that proof-reading and review would have caught, but that's always a risk with a one-person self-published effort. And professional books aren't always flawless. Where it strays from description into prognostication it's fairly weak - what-iffery is hard to do well - but as a description of what was intended it impressed me. The author's time has been has mostly been spent on ground forces, so it doesn't - and couldn't - provide the same level of detail for sea and air forces. The maps and illustrations are good if limited in number for the latter. And even with the errors, which seem fairly few in number, it gives a good impression of British home forces in the late summer of 1940. The writing's not bad either, I've suffered through much worse in professional publications.

As they say "If you only read one book, shut up!". That's as true of this book as any other, but it would be a useful addition to a library of Sealion books. I think Colin Alexander's lovely little Ironside's Line book would be useful to have to hand while reading it. My copy is in store, and I was almost motivated enough to go and fetch it while reading this.

Overall it seems like an accessible and quite comprehensive guide which represents good value for most folks' money. I wonder if the author - if he sees this - might consider selling an ebook version, in a format which would be easy to mark up with notes & comments?

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

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

#328

Post by Knouterer » 30 May 2016, 22:13

I grant it's a useful addition, but I can't quite agree that the errors "seem fairly few in number". Let's take Beach B between Folkestone and Greatstone as an example. It's clear that the landing here was absolutely vital to the success of the German plans. This is where they had to link up with the Fallschirmjäger (7. Fliegerdivision) and where they hoped to capture an airfield (Lympne, and Hawkinge later on) and a port (Dover, accessorily Folkestone). Accordingly, the forces scheduled to land here (17th and 35th Infantry Divisions) had two of the four battalions of submersible and swimming tanks (minus one company) available for the whole invasion force. Also, this was the only part of the invasion force to benefit from cross-Channel artillery support (erratic though it would have been at that range), and it may fairly be assumed that the Luftwaffe would make a special effort there as well.

For all those reasons, one would expect Lofting to devote special attention to his description of the defences there, but he drops quite a few stitches.

Looking at the coastal batteries first (leaving aside the heavy railway guns for the moment), he mentions (p. 306), going along the coast from the NE:
338 Bty, Folkestone East, Copt Bay, 2 x 6" guns
339 Bty, Folkestone West, 2 x 6" guns
340 Bty, Hythe, 2 x 6" guns
358 Bty, Dymchurch Redoubt, 2 x 6" guns
374 Bty, Lade, South of Greatstone, 2 x 4.7" guns.

This is incorrect/incomplete on several points. 338 and 339 (overlooking the harbour) are correct. These batteries could not cover the landing beach itself, but might have scored a few hits (at long range) on the convoys as they steamed by.
However, there was also 412 Bty with four 5.5" inch guns (removed from HMS Hood in May) at Mill Point, 200 feet or so above sea level, which had an excellent field of fire.
340 Bty (in front of the Imperial Hotel) is correct.
358 Bty was not in the Redoubt, which held no guns until 1941 (earliest mention June) but a few miles further south at St. Mary's Bay (see map)
415 Bty at Greatstone, 2 x 6" guns, is not mentioned
Neither is the MNBDO battery (Royal Marines) with 3 x 6" guns at Dungeness Point, installed in September.
Finally, 374 Bty was not at Lade Fort but a bit to the west of Dungeness Point.
Map is from Walter Schenk's book with my additions in red - the railways guns are not correctly indicated (I'm working on it ...), but the emergency coast batteries are, I believe. Of course it's just a schematic representation.
Attachments
LandingBeachB 001.jpg
"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

#329

Post by Knouterer » 30 May 2016, 22:57

Further to the defences along Beach B, Lofting misses a few other important elements as well. On the right wing, one of the two Vorausabteilungen (a reinforced infantry battalion, with assault engineers, a few flamethrower tanks and mountain guns, etc.) of the 17th ID would land to the NE of Dymchurch Redoubt, on the rifle ranges there. These would be defended, behind a thin screen provided by No.5 (Stevedore) Holding Battalion R.E., by the Small Arms School Hythe, the strength of which Lofting puts at 20 Officers and 118 Other Ranks, according to the General Return of the Strength of the British Army as of 30 Sept. 1940, mentioned before in this thread. Which is correct as far as it goes (apart from female support staff: an ATS platoon with 1 Off and 45 “Members” - there were at least two other ATS platoons in and around Shorncliffe carrying out “General and Clerical Duties"), and includes 67 Instructors, i.e. men entitled to wear the Small Arms School Corps Badge: 19 Off and 48 ORs (all Warrant Officers and sergeants). All of them not only sharpshooters, but very fast as well – for demonstration purposes, they all had to be able to hit a target 4 feet high at 300 yards (270 m) 30 times (so including two reloads) within a minute.
But in addition, there were the students, all junior officers and NCOs, who had been selected to be trained as "musketry instructors" for their units. Meaning that they were better than average shots, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Their number can be guesstimated as in the region of 400-500, quite possibly more, in view of the number of new battalions being raised and the many freshly baked NCO’s and subalterns who were in need of such training.
So, in short, considering that these troops would be plentifully supplied with LMGs and ammunition, plus AT rifles and 2" mortars which were also part of the curriculum, there seems to be a strong possibility that the German Vorausabteilung , landing there in dribs and drabs in their little plywood assault boats and rubber boats, would be massacred without gaining a foothold.
Last edited by Knouterer on 30 May 2016, 23:34, edited 5 times in total.
"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

#330

Post by Knouterer » 30 May 2016, 23:10

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 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”