Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

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
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#1

Post by The_Enigma » 01 Jul 2012, 17:04

The issue of the 7th Armoured Division’s performance in Normandy seems to crop up a lot, and it would appear the main answers always seem to lay with the division was battle exhausted and the men – fighting from the start – had done their part etc. Granted some elements and personnel had been fighting since the start of the war, but the division had been reorganised and reinforced on a number of occasions so what shipped back to the UK in 44’ was essentially not the same formation that launched the raids on Capuzzo or launched the great swan to Beda Fomm. It was further reorganised, with men being swapped around units and other divisions, and reinforced when it got back to the UK.

Other than the major actions of Battleaxe, Crusader, Gazala, and what would appear to be a small role in the various el Alamein battles until taking on the Italian armour and then swanning about after Rommel, the division sat in reserve for the vast majority of its time. I am unclear on how much fighting they took part in during the Tunisian campaign, although I am under the impression First Army bore the brunt of the fighting, and finally the division was deployed to Italy for two months – having missed Operation Husky. It would appear that for the vast majority of the division’s overseas service, it sat in reserve or not in action, and when it was casualties – other than tanks- were not that high.

Could have the vast majority of the division been battle exhausted? Did old habits, also picked up by the FNGs, play a role in how the division operated? Was the performance more due to the indiscipline so many commentators also note, and does the removal of so many commanding officers suggest poor leadership was to blame rather than the state of the men? Is focusing on the “sluggish” performance of the division doing a disservice to the German defenders?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#2

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Jul 2012, 17:59

I recently had to look into the casualties of 23rd Hussars and was quite suprised to find the unit (and 11th AD) basicaly had 2 days of combat in June and 2 in July. August was exceptional in that they had a week of heavy fighting but in comparison the infantry tankers had it relatively easy


ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#3

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 01 Jul 2012, 18:37

I would be interested in knowing the 7th AD's tank losses/replacements as opposed to tank strength running though the months from May 41-May43, in North Africa.


Also, given how long the 7th AD was in the Mediterranean, I can imagine it did run up a significant of number of "Battle Days", and that number could be compared to the average number of days for other units that was considered to be the cut-off for being called "worn out". After a while I don't know if the numerous/lenghty "breaks" between combat or continual attrition/replacements, may have helped much.
Was the performance more due to the indiscipline so many commentators also note, and does the removal of so many commanding officers suggest poor leadership was to blame rather than the state of the men?


Both I would say,

Same thing happens when units spend too much time "in the field" even in peace time. After about 9 months , a unit goes to "pot". It takes alot of time off and turnover to fix.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#4

Post by The_Enigma » 01 Jul 2012, 19:20

I recently had to look into the casualties of 23rd Hussars and was quite suprised to find the unit (and 11th AD) basicaly had 2 days of combat in June and 2 in July. August was exceptional in that they had a week of heavy fighting but in comparison the infantry tankers had it relatively easy
One is quickly developing the opinion that being a BLI in an armoured division was a much more healthier option than being a PBI in an infantry division.

Chris, interesting stuff. How does one difine battle days: a whole day in battle, a brief skirmish in the morning etc? It would be interesting to see how many days of battle the various units of the division did actually see during their time in Africa and Italy.

The below is the order of battle for Normandy, and the time the regiment (rather than the majority of personal) had been overseas:

1 RTR: As far as i can tell, pre-war so about 52 months overseas during wartime?
5 RTR: 1 month in France, and 36 months in the Med
4 CLY: 26 months in the Med
1 RB: A few days in France at Calais, so considering am sure everyone there surrendered i guess that doesn’t count. From Joslen's OOB the earliest i can make out the battalion being active was from Nov 41 onwards so 25 months overseas.
1/5 Queens: 1 month in France, and 17 months in the Med
1/6 Queens: ditto
1/7 Queens: ditto
8 Hussars: pre-war, so 52 months of war time?
11 Hussars: ditto

For simplicity sake I have just counted the day they arrived in Egypt etc to 1st Jan ‘44

Edit: In addition to the above, am glancing through Delaforce's Churchill's Desert Rats (mostly unimpressive so far imo) and the author gives one the impression of there being quite a number of 18-20 year olds making up the fighting men. That leaves me with the impression that the "old desert hands" were either somewhat in the minority, or they had not all been away for the length of the time the regiments had. Its only one source, so i cannot really draw solid conclusions from it.

In addition i do recall somewhere else it was mentioned that on returning to the UK, vet commanding officers were transfered to other regiments and divisions to provide experience. Was there an over-indulgance of inexpereienced officers now within this "vet" division, and how did the men transfered out cope ... where they just as "sticky"?

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#5

Post by Andy H » 02 Jul 2012, 01:36

Hi

A lot of it came down to perception of the 7AD, that they had done there bit (be that bit Xyrs, Xmths or Xwks), whereas there were divisions/brigades/regiments etc who had done nothing since returning to the UK in June'40, or since they were formed many yrs prior to '44. Having a cushy number at their expense. The British Government up until late 1942, expected a German invasion attempt of some sort, and thus kept a overly large number of men and materials based in the UK.

It doesn't take a whole lot of men to foster resentment, that can spread around new recruits very quickly. So that they to become 'indoctrinated' with a sense of persecution even though they weren't even in the unit that lead to the initial resentment.

Regards

Andy H

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10054
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#6

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 02 Jul 2012, 03:56

management consultants have a saying "The fish rots from the head". I'd recommend taking a close look at the leaders of the 7th AD from the Dic commanders down to company grade.

User avatar
The_Enigma
Member
Posts: 2270
Joined: 14 Oct 2007, 15:59
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#7

Post by The_Enigma » 02 Jul 2012, 05:08

Having just finished "With the Jocks" by Peter White, who was a member of the 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division, i can’t help but make comparisons between his detail of infantry life and that of the personal accounts provided by Delaforce.

While it may not be entirely appropriate, and there are a huge number of factors to take into consideration. I did note that White comments numerous times if the men had dug proper slit trenches, made them deep enough and covered them, casualties were generally very few unless there was a direct hit. From what I recall from his accounts, the worse they suffered from stonks was when they were not dug in proper or could not due to the terrain. On the other it seems, according the men of the 7th themselves, anytime there was a stonk guys were dropping left right and centre. Maybe the shelling was worse and White and co never experienced shelling to the same degree as the chaps in Normandy, but it does kind of seem like infantry not digging in proper. Prehaps they did and am just being too harsh.

But then there was also an account of a squadron of tanks taking up overnight positions, which ended up with them being in full view of the enemy. The result was the squadron coming under fire and being picked off, the ordeal coming to an end when the guy now in charge ordered the remaining tanks to break out and every man for themselves? :S An account from some members talking about the 131 and 22bde not getting along (i.e. the infantry and tankers)! :O Not to mention the accounts making it sound like desertion was rife in the division.

I can’t help but think there were major and serious problems, never mind war exhaustion, with the division: discipline, training, and as Carl as stated above leadership issues.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#8

Post by Urmel » 02 Jul 2012, 11:28

The_Enigma wrote:
The below is the order of battle for Normandy, and the time the regiment (rather than the majority of personal) had been overseas:

1 RTR: As far as i can tell, pre-war so about 52 months overseas during wartime?
5 RTR: 1 month in France, and 36 months in the Med
4 CLY: 26 months in the Med
1 RB: A few days in France at Calais, so considering am sure everyone there surrendered i guess that doesn’t count. From Joslen's OOB the earliest i can make out the battalion being active was from Nov 41 onwards so 25 months overseas.
1/5 Queens: 1 month in France, and 17 months in the Med
1/6 Queens: ditto
1/7 Queens: ditto
8 Hussars: pre-war, so 52 months of war time?
11 Hussars: ditto

For simplicity sake I have just counted the day they arrived in Egypt etc to 1st Jan ‘44
Doesn't really tell you much though. E.g. 1 RTR was bottled up in Tobruk during the siege, so very stressful throughout, then pulled out for 7 months almost. 4 CLY entered battle in November 41, got wiped out in 10 days, and then not in action for another 7 months (12/41 to end of 5/42).

You really need to look at battle days for this. But my guess is that won't mean much. They were probably just hacked off that after years overseas that get home to Blighty, find that their 'trouble and strifes' are fancying the Americans more, are then put into what they consider crappy British tanks, and are being sent off again.

Ps. Don't waste money on Delaforce. Nice to buy for the 1st person accounts if you can find them in the Poundbuster bookshops.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#9

Post by Gooner1 » 02 Jul 2012, 13:19

If you can get hold of it "Press on Regardless : The Story of the Fifth Royal Tank Regiment in WWII" by Edward Wilson is worth reading.
I certainly did not get the impression that the regiment was battle exhausted in Normandy and they had already seen a LOT of action ..

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#10

Post by Andy H » 02 Jul 2012, 15:00

Gooner1 wrote:If you can get hold of it "Press on Regardless : The Story of the Fifth Royal Tank Regiment in WWII" by Edward Wilson is worth reading.
I certainly did not get the impression that the regiment was battle exhausted in Normandy and they had already seen a LOT of action ..
Hi Gooner

Reading pages 285-288 in the above, you can read that the Regiment was unhappy about how it was treated on its return to the UK, and the delays in going on R&R, no comforts and the training they started almost upon return (as if they were raw recruits).
It states (emphasis is mine) in part:-
The War Diary for Jan'44 is remarkably uninformative and would not, needless to say, have recorded the mens feelings. As it happens, a good number did express their feelings and the 'pulse' of the Fifth is pretty fully documented. Above all, The Fifth was not a happy regiment and, for this, the CO had a lot to answer.
Regards

Andy H

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#11

Post by Gooner1 » 02 Jul 2012, 16:49

Andy H wrote:
Hi Gooner

Reading pages 285-288 in the above, you can read that the Regiment was unhappy about how it was treated on its return to the UK, and the delays in going on R&R, no comforts and the training they started almost upon return (as if they were raw recruits).
It states (emphasis is mine) in part:-
The War Diary for Jan'44 is remarkably uninformative and would not, needless to say, have recorded the mens feelings. As it happens, a good number did express their feelings and the 'pulse' of the Fifth is pretty fully documented. Above all, The Fifth was not a happy regiment and, for this, the CO had a lot to answer.
Regards

Andy H
Cheers, that had slipped my mind. It wasn't too long into the campaign before they'd got a new CO (Gus Holliman?) as I recall and things started to improve?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#12

Post by Urmel » 02 Jul 2012, 17:00

[quote="The_Enigma]One is quickly developing the opinion that being a BLI in an armoured division was a much more healthier option than being a PBI in an infantry division.[/quote]

Have a look at the casualty figures in Dobler's 'Closing with the Enemy'. It's on the US Army, but the numbers are not going to change much. The highest infantry division had 290% casualties of establishment strength from entry into battle in Normandy to the end of the campaign in Germany. The highest armoured division (IIRC) 180%. So yes.

Keep in mind also that casualties fall predominantly on frontline units. So for a division to suffer 290% means that a rifle company would suffer many times that.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#13

Post by Andy H » 02 Jul 2012, 18:20

Hi

Just for information purposes, but here is a link to a 2003 thread that gives the 7th AD OoB through the war:-
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 14&t=18939

Regards

Andy H

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#14

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 02 Jul 2012, 19:06

The_Enigma wrote: Chris, interesting stuff. How does one difine battle days: a whole day in battle, a brief skirmish in the morning etc? It would be interesting to see how many days of battle the various units of the division did actually see during their time in Africa and Italy.

?
I think a battle day would be any day, a unit is in artillery range of the enemy(i.e. the line).

While of course there were more serious battle days than others; Being in the line, is pretty grueling, because no matter if nothing much happens, units are still under the stress of increased combat zone SOP's i.e. -watches, patrols, entrenching, noise/black-out discipline, difficulties of maintenance/supply/morale/lack of sleep, etc. and of course the threat of enemy actions. That wears out people and equipment.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Just how wore out was the 7th Armoured Division?

#15

Post by Urmel » 03 Jul 2012, 10:30

Here is something from JonS on the matter.
The_Enigma wrote:One is quickly developing the opinion that being a BLI in an armoured division was a much more healthier option than being a PBI in an infantry division.
Have a look at the casualty figures in Doubler's 'Closing with the Enemy'. It's on the US Army, but the numbers are not going to change much. The highest infantry division had 290% casualties of establishment strength from entry into battle in Normandy to the end of the campaign in Germany. The highest armoured division (IIRC) 180%. So yes.

Keep in mind also that casualties fall predominantly on frontline units. So for a division to suffer 290% means that a rifle company would suffer many times that.
The same is true of Armoured divisions, of course, with most of their casualties being concentrated in the three infantry battlaions and (to a lesser extent) the three armoured battalions. And, given that armoured divisions had relatively fewer ‘teeth’ battalions (6 vs 9), it wouldn’t surprise me much if – at the battalion level – overall loss rates weren’t much different between infantry and armoured divisions. Still, I think it’s well safe to say it was much healthier to be in a tank – almost regardless of how cruddy that tank was – than to be roaming the battlefield protected by nothing more than a cotton shirt.I’m surprised no one has mentioned Buckley’s “British Armour in the Normandy Campaign”. He devotes a whole chapter to morale, and specifically addresses the 7th Armd Div as a case study.

Jon
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Post Reply

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