Intended FJ role in Sealion

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Freikorps, Reichswehr, Austrian Bundesheer, Heer, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Fallschirmjäger and the other Luftwaffe ground forces. Hosted by Christoph Awender.
Post Reply
Leros87
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 17 Apr 2016, 01:35
Location: Kent

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#346

Post by Leros87 » 03 Jun 2016, 00:15

Lympne map.pdf
RAF Lympne defence map. Blue is Army, Red is RAF.
(228.02 KiB) Downloaded 101 times
Text from Operation order No 1 dated 19 October 1940 for Defence Flight (RAF Personnel) RAF Lympne.

Information.
1. The aerodrome is a likely landing ground for enemy troop carrying aircraft. It is likely that a dive bombing attack on our defences will precede:
- The landing of parachutists on or around the aerodrome
- The landing of troop carrying aircraft on the aerodrome.

2. Defence Flight is under command of OC RAF Defence Lympne. Consist of LMG Section (1 F/Sgt and 25 airmen), Hispano gunners (1 Cpl and 21 airmen), Armadillo crews (1 Cpl and 8 airmen).

3. Intention. To prevent the enemy from using Lympne aerodrome for the landing of troops.

4. Method. The following are responsible for the destruction of enemy aircraft or personnel landing on the aerodrome.
- 3 Hispano Suize guns
- 3 hydraulic forts (under construction). 6 Vickers MG
- 3 Section posts (Nos. 4, 8 and 12). 6 Browning MG
- All personnel are armed with Ross rifle and .303 ammunition
- 1 armadillo (armed with COW gun and 4 LMG's
- 8 AALMGs (without sights).

5. AA Defence. Until the general alarm is sounded the AA guns (3 Hispano guns) will be mounted at 2, 3 and 4 AA posts (see map).

6. State of readiness. By day Hispano posts manned from 0700 to 1830 hours. All prersonnel not on duty to be at 15 minutes notice.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#347

Post by Knouterer » 03 Jun 2016, 11:03

Thanks Leros, that's very useful.

A few remarks:

- "hydraulic forts" refers to the Pickett-Hamilton retractable fort, see for ex. http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/a ... lton-fort/ However, the reference to "6 Vickers MG" is a bit puzzling as these "forts" were armed with a single LMG each.

- I notice that the map shows two "Bisons" just to the north of the field; these were concrete pillboxes placed on (old) lorries which would normally remain static during a fight for the airfield.

- Armadillos: these were lighter vehicles (old 4x2 trucks/lorries) with an "armoured" box on the loading bed, consisting of a double layer of wooden planks with a filling of pebbles in between. Picture shows an improved Armadillo Mk III with a 37 mm "Coventry Ordnance Works" gun as mentioned. Normally, a Class I airfield such as Lympne should have four Armadillos; the War diary of the 6th Somerset Light Infantry reports on the Aug. 15 attack on Lympne and mentions among other things "One armoured car burnt out."

- 20 mm Hispano-Suiza guns: a description of the attack in the evening of Aug. 12: « Most of the personnel dived for cover and gun crews (meaning presumably the RAF machine gunners) were taken by surprise, leaving only the two Hispanos to spray their small shells at the raiders.“ From The Battle of Britain: The Greatest Air Battle of World War II, by Richard Alexander Hough and Denis Richards, about Lympne on 15 Aug. (page 164): "Not far away, at Lympne, our conscientious Inspector-General turned up as promised, examined the bomb damage and promptly put in his report. It praised the courage of AC2 Anderson and his party, who had promptly extinguished a burning petrol fire above a tank dynamited (sic) for demolition, and it recommended the supply of more men and machines to fill up the 380 bomb craters. Some strengthening of the anti-aircraft defences – four Hispano guns – was also strongly urged." So that tallies reasonably well.

-
Attachments
Armadillo_MK_III.jpg
Last edited by Knouterer on 03 Jun 2016, 11:29, 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: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#348

Post by Knouterer » 03 Jun 2016, 11:27

The Hispano-Suiza guns could also be used in the ground role, at least that was the idea. I don't have the exact reference handy, but during a conference of the Group commanders of Bomber Command around that time, on the subject of the defence of airfields against airborne attack, someone brought up the possibility that the Germans might land light AFVs from the air. The C-in-C (Portal) opined that the Hispanos should be able to deal with lightly armoured vehicles, if and when AP ammunition for them would be issued.
Attachments
CH17235.jpg
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#349

Post by Knouterer » 03 Jun 2016, 18:16

Some selected entries from the Operations Record Book of RAF Lympne concerning the RAF officers tasked with its defence in 1940:

24.6: F/Lt D.H. Montgomery arrived and assumed command vice F/O T. Hogan (Montgomery remained as C.O. for the rest of the year – at least, he was still signing the OR Book in January)

26.6: P/O C. Trenchard reported on posting for defence officer duties.

4.7: P/O F. Kennedy arrived on posting for defence duties

21.7: P/O B.N. Cull arrived on posting for defence duties.

22.7: F/O T. Hogan appointed to the rank of A/F/Lt for defence duties.

23.9: F/O C. Trenchard posted to 1 S.F.T.S. (Service Flying Training School)

From which we can conclude that by the end of Sept. one Acting Flight Lieutenant (Hogan) and two Pilot Officers (Kennedy and Cull) were responsible for the defence of the airfield. Apart from Montgomery and those three, there were about half a dozen officers with other duties (Medical Officer, Code and Cypher Officer, etc.)
"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: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#350

Post by Leros87 » 03 Jun 2016, 20:11

I have tried to upload the defence map for RAF Hawkinge but the small size allowable has thwarted all attempts so far. It is an interesting and detailed map.

Back to Lympne, I also have a document that shows the defence scheme for 6 Buffs (home defence), though there is no date for it. It involves 4 platoons but the nearest elements of this recently restructured battalion was its HQ and C Company based near Shorncliffe Garrison (Coolinge Lane) and which was its reserve. If I can't get this uploaded I will transcribe it.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#351

Post by Knouterer » 04 Jun 2016, 11:02

The WD of the 6th Buffs (part of Shorncliffe Garrison, Sub-Area A.4) seems to be missing from the NA. This battalion, as far as I can make out, provided companies to guard both RAF Lympne and Hawkinge, and also a couple of coys for Dover, but they were rotated regularly, so it is difficult to pin down who was where when. My notes, on the basis of various other sources, on the situation end of Sept.:

6th Bn The Buffs (HD battalion) (1 cy at RAF Hawkinge ?): B, C, D Coys at Folkestone, A and F Coy near Dover. Strength 34 Off 1,585 OR. In Nov.: A at Lympne (V.P. 97), B at Hawkinge (V.P. 119), C at Wye Fuel Depot (V.P. 9), D also at Lympne?

In WO 166/1214 (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.”

Try opening the Hawkinge map with Paint (or similar program) and reduce the size somewhat?
"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: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#352

Post by Leros87 » 05 Jun 2016, 01:20

I was able to confirm the location of 6th Buffs and its companies through several other papers. Around 25 Sept, in addition to HQ and C Coy mentioned above, A Coy at the Duke of York's School at Dover (radar station), B Coy was at Ramsgate and D Coy at Sandwich. Strength on 30 Sept 34+1585.

70th Buffs was formed on 19 Sept from the young soldier coys of 6 Buffs. These battalions were formed to improve the training of the young soldiers. A Coy at Hawkinge, B Coy at St Margaret's Bay, HQ and C Coy at Folkestone, D Coy was at Whitstable. The Bn moved to Westenhanger on 11 Oct, which would have placed it firmly in the middle of the airborne landings. Strength on 30 Sept was 36+886.

Both battalions essentially had guard roles and were not equipped, trained or expected to be robust infantry formations.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#353

Post by Knouterer » 05 Jun 2016, 10:39

Re the 6th Buffs, the Dover Defence Scheme dated 24.9 (in the WD of the Dover Garrison, WO 166/1343) lists A Coy as being on the eastern perimeter, and F Coy as being at St. Margaret's. Apparently the bn consisted of 6 rifle companies (4 platoons each?) with an average strength of about 250. As a HD battalion, it would not have a carrier platoon or a mortar platoon, or the 50 or so drivers that an infantry bn at full War Establishment would have, so I would expect the HQ Coy to be small, fewer than 100 men probably.

From all of he above we can (tentatively) conclude that by the end of Sept. HQ plus one coy were at Folkestone, one at either RAF Lympne or Hawkinge, two at Dover, and one or two somewhere north of Dover.
Last edited by Knouterer on 05 Jun 2016, 11:46, 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: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#354

Post by Knouterer » 05 Jun 2016, 11:16

According to the operational plan of 2nd London Brigade dated 10 July (as quoted in a history of the Kensington Regiment) Hawkinge 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. By September 2nd London Brigade was still around, but it is possible that local airfield defence, a typical task for Home Defence Battalion, was by then completely taken over by 6th and/or 70th Buffs.

From an interview (in 2004, BBC WW2 People’s War) with a former gunner of the 64th (7th London) Field Regiment:

"“At one period of our stay at Acrise Park working parties from the regiment were detailed to fill in craters caused by enemy bombing on Hawkinge Airdrome some two or three miles away. Not a very pleasant job because at the time the Germans were concentrating on destroying the runways. As it happened all went well but in any case I was lucky enough to be away on a course at that time and only found out that my friends had been shifting earth, on my return. At another time we had to dig gun pits and a command post on some high ground overlooking the airfield so that we could occupy them in a hurry if the enemy decided to make an airborne attack to try and capture it."
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#355

Post by Knouterer » 05 Jun 2016, 18:43

On second thoughts and closer inspection:

- if a large number of "immatures" (boys not yet 19) of the 6th Buffs was in fact split off and organised in a "Young Soldier" battalion as of 19 Sept., it would seem a reasonable assumption that the former unit was no longer over 1,600 strong by the end of the month.

- and in fact the General Return of the Strength of the British Army as of 30.9.1940 gives the strength of the 6th as below: 34 Off 697 OR, and that of the 70th as 888 OR, including 6 Warrant Officers Class II and 29 Staff-Serjeants and Serjeants – postings for the officers had not yet come through apparently. Makes 34 Off 1585 OR in total.

With these numbers, it seems indeed likely that each bn had only four rifle companies, not six. Apparently this split caused some confusion in the official records, which are pretty confused anyway for this period.
Attachments
OffReturn6Buffs 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: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#356

Post by Knouterer » 06 Jun 2016, 08:34

It takes a little puzzling, but it is possible to bring the various sources to agree to some extent. For example, if - as seems to have been the case - in early Sept. the 6th Buffs had 6 coys numbered A through F, and if we assume that after the split E and F became A and B of the new 70th Buffs (and C and D were newly formed), then B Coy of the new bn was still listed as F Coy (at St. Margaret's north of Dover) in the Dover Defence Scheme of 24.9 because the officer who drew up the list of units had not yet been informed of the split and the new designations.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#357

Post by Knouterer » 06 Jun 2016, 09:06

As an example of how the official records of that period need to be treated with due caution, here's another page of the same Official Return showing the units allegedly present at Littlestone (on the coast in Romney Marsh) as of the end of Sept. 1940.

- No. 6 Commando is correct;

- The 5th Royal Horse Artillery was not at Littlestone, but at Little Easton in Essex. Presumably this info was passed over the telephone and misunderstood;

- No. 1 Section (about 60 men) of the 160th RCC (War Diary WO 166/3647) had indeed been at Littlestone/New Romney to lay gun spurs for the railway guns there, but they had finished and left on the 21st of Sept.;

- the 161st RCC (War Diary WO 166/3648) was in Scotland at the time and remained there until well into 1941.

Only one out of four right - not very good for a published official document :(

Regarding the 160th RCC, during the last days of September No. 1 Section was working on a new siding near Monkton, on the line from Canterbury to Minster. Nos. 2, 3 and 4, plus presumably (most of) the attached AMPC company, were at St. Margaret’s Bay, where presumably they were laying track etc. for the heavy 14" and 13.5" railway guns that would soon arrive.

But we're getting away from the Fallschirmjäger ...
Attachments
Return 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: 1663
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#358

Post by Knouterer » 06 Jun 2016, 11:35

No. 3 Independent Coy, by the way, was not at Lydd, but at Dungeness Point, protecting the two coastal batteries installed there:

No. 5 Independent Coy (C.O. Major J. Peddie) arrived at Dungeness on 16th September 1940 and left again for Manston on the 19th (WO 218/13). In November 1940 this Coy was still at Manston.

No. 3 Independent Coy (C.O. Major A.C. Newman) arrived at Dungeness on 13th September 1940 and stayed there till 10th November 1940 (WO 218/11).
(War Diary 13 Sept): "Move by M/T to Dungeness Point (from Ramsgate - K). A chastening experience for the entire coy. to sit behind barbed wire defences on a desolate stretch of shingle."

The attached RAMC personnel (1 medical officer, 3 orderlies) in the list above were presumably sent to Lydd because the large army camp there had medical facilities where they could make themselves useful, while at Dungeness Point there was not much of anything.
"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: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#359

Post by Leros87 » 17 Jun 2016, 01:36

Leros87 wrote:I have tried to upload the defence map for RAF Hawkinge but the small size allowable has thwarted all attempts so far. It is an interesting and detailed map.

Back to Lympne, I also have a document that shows the defence scheme for 6 Buffs (home defence), though there is no date for it. It involves 4 platoons but the nearest elements of this recently restructured battalion was its HQ and C Company based near Shorncliffe Garrison (Coolinge Lane) and which was its reserve. If I can't get this uploaded I will transcribe it.
I hope that attachment works now......
1st Bn London Rifle Brigade had its HQ and B Coy in Lyminge, A and D Coys at Shorncliffe and C Coy at Arpinge. This is west of Hawkinge and the locality included a section of A HAA Battery RM (2 3inch guns). 64th Field Regt RA was located at Acrise, a hamlet to the north of Paddlesworth. RAF Hawkinge defences included a Coy 70th Buffs, another section of A HAA Battery RM (2 3inch guns) and 655 General Construction Coy RE. The LAA detachments have aready been covered. Parts of D Coy 8th Bn Kent Home Guard were also included as they lived nearby.
Attachments
IMG_2538_2.jpg
RAF Hawkinge

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

Re: Intended FJ role in Sealion

#360

Post by Leros87 » 17 Jun 2016, 01:38

This is the glossary from the previous map.
Attachments
IMG_2539_2.jpg
RAF Hawkinge - map glossary

Post Reply

Return to “Heer, Waffen-SS & Fallschirmjäger”