11th armoured division battlegroups 1944

[Aber]

Ever feel like Captain Ahab?

[JonS]

* 77 Med Regt (in sp)

Just curious, what was this unit equipped with?

Either 100% 5.5-in, or 50% 5.5-in and 50% 4.5-in. I'll try and figure out which later

Edit: each Med Regt had two batterys, each of eight gun/hows.
Edit2: two of the med regts in NWE were on the 50/50 split, but I forget exactly which two. All the rest were 100% 5.5-in.

[JonS]

There is a bit of a disconnect between the number of RASC Pls with TCVs, and the number of Inf Bns in a Bde. [massive snip]

I used Bouchery as well. I'm a bit doubtful regarding his nomenclature for non-combat units.

I was looking at at a TOE for a lorried inf bn recently (ie, the bns in 159 Inf Bde) that indicated that each inf pn was allocated it's own TCV ... which I guess means that each TCV platoon, with 30 task vehicles, could carry 10 companys, which is more than two bns-worth. I also recall seeing a comment to the effect that this allocation was essentially permanent, and the RASC units identifed so closely with 'their' passengers that the trucks carried the tac sign of both the relevant RASC parent unit, and the inf bn they carried.

[JonS]

Does that mean that all Inf Bde or Armd Bde RASC Coys were equipped with Bedford QLTs? If so, that would be great news for someone looking for Austin 3-tonners, a whole load of RASC war diaries that I don't have to look through.

I don't know if Austin also made a QLT?

From another tack, all the Armd Divs were fully involved in the pursuit to Belgium, so I doubt their RASC companies were pulled for duty on RED LION anyway.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Jon
IIRC the RASC Coy was structured so that one platoon would carry one bn.

Did QLT stand for something then?

The After the Battle book on Op Market Garden contains several photos of Guards Armd Div QLTs - thet have both the Coy serial no and that designating the infantry bn they are carrying.

Cheers

Tom

[gjkennedy]

I know this is a subject I kicked around before for another project but could never pin down the details to my satisfaction. This will stray some from the original post, so possibly Andy H might want to segregate us in another thread

Tracing the history back to 1940, when the British deployed the 50th Division as a Motor Division in France, it required two RASC Troop Carrying Coys, one to lift the marching personnel ofeach of its two Inf Bdes. RASC nomenclature of the time differed from that used later, and the Troop Carrying Coy was organised into three Sections (effectively Platoons), each of five sub-Sections (which later became known as Sections), rounded out with a Coy HQ and Workshop. A sub-Section had five 3-ton vehicles and a motorcyclist.

The WE noted that for normal purposes one Section would be attached to each Inf Bn in the Bde. The five sub-Sections were allotted one per Rifle Coy and one for Bn HQ and HQ Coy. At this time a Rifle Coy was 100 all ranks, with some Coy HQ personnel having transport. That would suggest the bog standard 3-tonner was only expected to carry about 15-16 men, meaning two for a Rifle Pl (29 or 30 men), with the marching Coy HQ bods spread around the six vehicles.

Move forward a few years to late 1942. In 8th Army at least two of the Inf Bdes of 44th (Home Counties) Div were reorganised as Lorried Inf, and attached to Armd formations. These Bdes were not Motor units in the Motor Bn sense, but they were organised slightly differently to Inf Bns proper. Their fourth Rifle Coy was changed to an Atk Coy with sixteen guns on Portees, and the Bns were provided with sufficient RASC vehicles to transport their marching personnel. Their WE states that they needed four RASC vehicles to lift the marching elements of BN HQ and HQ Coy, and six vehicles per Rifle Coy, total 22 vehicles.

By this time the RASC had adopted a standard MT Platoon of HQ (which included three spare task vehicles) and five Sections, each of six task vehicles and a motorcyclist. The spare vehicles were 'supposed' to be used to maintain lift capacity, not supplement it. However, to lift three Lorried Inf Bns would require 66 x 3-tonners, and two RASC Pls each of 30+3 gives you 66. I wish I could prove it, but I can't, but it does sound right.

http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/ww ... me017.html

The above link gives some nice little insights into 131 (Queens) Bde operating in the Lorried Inf role. Note they mention that each 3-tonner carried half a Pl, and 8th Army Rifle Pls were 32 all ranks, including a driver for the Pl vehicle (normally 15-cwts, but 3-tonners in the 8th Army Lorried Inf Bns). That works out nicely to 15-16 men as was the case for 50th Div a couple of years earlier.

I think the thing that both these transport allocations share is that they were based on normal 3-tonners, not purpose built troop carriers. If someone can point to or provide a better description of the TCV proper it would be helpful, but in the meantime this is one I found at an unusual location!

http://www.hobbymastercollector.com/HG4804.html

This again states 30 personnel, based on 29 in the back and one in the cab. A full strength Rifle Pl in 21st Army Group (moving beyond 8th Army shennanigans) was 37 all ranks. That suggests the TCV could not be used to transport a full Pl in a single vehicle until they've been on campaign for a period, when the strength will reduce as a result of action. I don't think planners would have taken that into consideration when deciding transport requirements at the outset of deployment, or for manoeuvres around England (not much good for morale if nothing else).

If we go with 30 men as the capacity for the TCV (excluding the driver), then an RASC Pl equipped with thirty such vehicles can lift 900 men. The marching personnel for an Inf Bn based on the 1943-45 WE was just over 500. All of Support Coy and the Admin Pl were motorised, as were portions of Bn HQ and the Sigs Pl. You're only looking at the twelve Rifle Pls, a few details of each Rifle Coy HQ, about half the signallers and the stretcher-bearers.

On that basis, you could, I think, quite easily fit those 500 men into three Sections of TCVs (18 TCVs x 30 men each, total 540 seats). That would enable the sixty TCVs of the two RASC Pls to easily lift the three Inf Bns. What it doesn't do is allow them to maintain the RASC Platoon structure. It's interesting to note from Tom that RASC vehicles were badged for 'their' Inf Bn in the Guards Armd Divs, which strongly suggests a permanent attachment. I can't visualise how they might have allocated Sections from two Pls to three Bns. Possibly the RASC were happy enough with their modular system of standard subunits arranged in various ways to provide all possible needs they didn't want to mess with a specialised one for troop carrying, which it could be argued was only ever a transitory affair.

Right, I think I've talked myself out now, told you I'd been down this road before!

Gary

[Rigger]

The next very difficult questions is: any chance to know which RASC companies were asigned as transport to the infantry battallions in the 11th armoured?

Emilio Moskowich
[/quote]

CRASC 11th Armoured Division
171st Armoured Brigade Company RASC (29th Armoured Brigade)
174th Infantry Brigade Company RASC (159th Infantry Brigade)
173rd Armoured Division Troops Company RASC
649th General Transport Company RASC (Armoured Division)

Logically the QLT's for the marching personnel of the Infantry Battalions in the 159th Infantry Brigade would come from the two TCV Platoons (60-66 QLTs) in the 173rd Armoured Division Troops Company RASC. RASC companies were generally flexible in their organisation and there were always extra officers for various tasks. I can imagine one Captain per TCV column of 20-22 task vehicles plus a couple of trucks and motorcycles for each, enough for lifting the marching personnel of an Infantry battalion.

[Sheldrake]

Bit of a zombie thread, but raises some interesting points.

In terms of groupings, the 11th Armd Div Op Ord for BLUECOAT (dated 29 July) has the following:

159 Inf Bde Gp.
* Two two inf bns
* One armd regt
* RE det incl 4 AVsRE
* Three Crocodiles
* One tp 119 A Tk Bty
* 75 A Tk Regt (less two bts)
(and less two tps whd))
* Pro det
* 179 Fd Amb

29 Armd Bde Gp.
* Two armd regts
* 8 RB
* One inf bn
* 119 A Tk Bty (less one tp)
* RE det incl 4 AVsRE
* Three Crocodiles
* two tps (whd) 75 A Tk Regt
* 18 Lt Fd Amb
* Pro det

HQ RA
* 13 RHA
* 151 Fd Regt
* 25 Fd Regt
* 77 Med Regt (in sp)
* 117 A Tk Bty

RE
* 13 Fd Sqn
* 612 Fd Sqn
* 147 Fd Pk Sqn

Div Tps
* 2 N YEO
* 2 HCR (less one sqn)
* One Sqn LOTHIANS

The other sqn of 2 HCR was with 15 (S) Div, who also had another of the sqns from LOTHIANS, and the rest of the Crocodile sqn from 141 RAC. Names of the inf bns and armd regts in the two Bde Gps are not given.

It is a bit of a cop out to list the three field regiments as under command without identifying their direct support affiliations, because this is one aspect of battlegroup organisation where there is no "Normal practice" to follow. The artillery C2 matteres because it was the rpoute to accessing firepower.

Artillery in "Direct Support" of a Brigade or unit (infantry battalion or armoured regiment) provide a physical liaison element in the form of an artillery command structure with communications and vehicles coolocated with the supported arm. 13 (HAC) Regiment RHA (SP) usually provided its commanding officer's party to HQ 29 Armoured Brigade, and the three Battery commanders, each accompanied by two Troop Commander FOOs mounted in tanks for the three armoured Regiments of the Brigade. Each battery would have an affiliated Armoured Regiment. 151 (Ayrshire Yeomanry) Field Regiment (25 Pdr) provided its CO, three BCs and six FOOs mounted in AOP Carriers for the three battalions of 159 Infantry Brigade.

Except that an Armoured Division was established for eight manouvre units which is two more than the number of batteries in its established two regiments. (This worked better for an infantry division where the nine infantry battalions in three brigades were provided direct support by nine field batteries from three field regiments. )

if you re-organise the division into four battlegroups:

a. Did the BCs and FOOs stay with their affiliated armoured or infantry units, but report to a different artillery regiment affiliated to the brigade their infantry or armoured unit has joined? If so did they stay on their own regimental frequency and call from their own guns or didn they change frequency to the direct support regiment of the broigade to which they had been regrouped?
OR
b. Did the BCs and FOOs stay under command of their own regiment and regroup to the infantry or armoured unit joining their brigade?

How was the command and control of artillery managed within a mixed armoured/ infantry battlegroup with two BCs in direct support?

I am not sure I managed to understand how this was fully resolved in Op Bluecoat. 25 Field Regiment provided direct support elements and it seems to have been managed with common sense.

[Tom from Cornwall]

any chance to know which RASC companies were asigned as transport to the infantry battallions in the 11th armoured?

Rigger,

Looking at WO171/2403 (WD 173 Coy RASC (Armd Divl Tps) there are some mentions of TCVs, for example:

3 July 1944
T.C.V. Pls arrived in Coy location for the purpose of rejoining Coy in order to carry out maintenance, etc, in the opportunity afforded by their temporary non-requirement by Comd 159 Inf Bde.

The Field return for 16 September 1944 shows the WE as 1 Major, 6 Captains (incl 1 R.A.), 6 Lieutenants.

Their appointments were as follows:
Major - O.C.
Capt. - 2 i/c.
Capt. - Coy HQ.
Capt. - Coy HQ.
Capt. - Comp [Pl].
Capt. - W/Shops.
Lieut. - Tpt Pl.
Lieut. - Tpt Pl.
Lieut. - Tpt Pl.
Lieut. - Gen Dty.
Lieut. - HQ Sub.
Lieut. - Tpt Pl.
Capt. R.A. - Amn Offr.

I hope that helps.

Regards

Tom

[Rigger]

Yes, thank you! Very enlightening! 2x TCV Platoons, 60 - 66 vehicles to lift the 3x Lorried Infantry Battalions of 156 Inf. Bde.

P.S. The original question was put forward by Emilio Moskowich.