Seelöwe: British Defensive Measures - Tanks, Flak, Artillery

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

#16

Post by Eugen Pinak » 18 May 2007, 17:55

RichTO90 wrote:Also by that time the initial shipments of equipment sold to Britain by the US had arrived, including 895 M1917 and M1897 75mm guns (enough to temporarily replace all the field guns lost in France and to give the field artillery a strong antitank capability as well), each with 1,200 rounds of ammunition, 300 3-inch mortars, each with 325 rounds of ammunition, 1,157 Lewis MG, 7,071 Vickers MG, 10,000 M1917 MG, and 25,000 BAR.
BTW, do you know dates of arrival of this weapons? The only mention I was able to find is "September 1940" - which is certainly not enough. And according to this - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Arti-c1-3.html - NZ gunners received 75-mm "French guns" (certainly US made) at the end of July :?

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

#17

Post by LWD » 18 May 2007, 18:27

I've seen referances to a large shipment of artilery from the US arriving in July of 1940. I did find this:
...Little success had attended Army efforts in the spring of 1940 to halt the release abroad of other Army-owned munitions for which the hard-pressed Anglo-French mission was then pleading. On 22 May, the day when General Marshall resisted the Treasury's airplane proposal, the Chief of Ordnance provided the Chief of Staff with a list of ordnance items that might be released without imperiling the national defense. It was strikingly close to an Anglo-French request of the day before, and included 500,000 Enfield rifles, 100,000,000 rounds of .30-caliber ammunition, 500 75-mm. guns, 35,000 unmodified machine guns and automatic rifles, and 500 3-inch mortars with 50,000 rounds of ammunition...
at: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/csppp/ch10.htm
A bit of searching and I found: http://www.bartleby.com/67/2587.html
...These were released by the War Department (June 3), and three weeks later a first shipment, including 500,000 rifles, 80,000 machine guns, 900 75-mm field guns, and 130 million rounds of ammunition, reached Britain....
And http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/guns ... %20Service
...# Stop-gap US guns included the following, all had been modified for vehicle towing by the US Army:

* 75-mm Gun on 18-pdr Carriage, almost 900 were provided and equipped defence regiments and some field regiments in low priority divisions in UK, some were transferred to Greece...
Near the bottom is a nice table that sumarizes artillery lost by the UK in France plus what was left on hand, where, and expected production in the next 3 months. From that table it looks like domestic production alone would replace around 2/3 of the losses in France by either July or August depending on when the 3 months started

Note however that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_an ... rld_War_II
states
By July 1940, an additional 100 75 mm field guns had been received from the USA
The referance for the above is: Evans, 2004, p68. refering to Evans, Martin Marix (2004). Invasion! Operation Sealion 1940. Longman. ISBN 0-582-77294-X[/quote]

Found another one: https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/E ... nsep98.htm
... By June 11, hundreds of cannon, thousands of rifles and machine guns, over 130 million rounds of ammunition, and assorted explosives and bombs were being loaded onto a dozen British freighters docked off New Jersey....
The above also has an interesting list of US aircraft and their status in British service as of 30 Sept 1940.


RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

#18

Post by RichTO90 » 18 May 2007, 19:57

[quote="Eugen]BTW, do you know dates of arrival of this weapons? The only mention I was able to find is "September 1940" - which is certainly not enough. And according to this - http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Arti-c1-3.html - NZ gunners received 75-mm "French guns" (certainly US made) at the end of July :?[/quote]

Hi Eugen, LWD covered part of this, I'll add what addtional details I have been able to find.

US War Department sales for cash during 1940 totaled 1,095 75mm guns broken down as:

200 M1917 to Finland
395 M1917 to the UK
500 M1897 to the UK

The Anglo-Allied request for purchase was made 21 May 1940 and the War Deprtment acknowledgement declaring the first 500 guns surplus (so eligible for sale) was on 22 May and another 100 were declared surplus by 3 June. The full 'bill of sale' was completed 11 June, so they were available for shipping from that date.

By September I've so far run into mention of at least four 75mm guns emplaced in beach defenses and as we've seen a number of Commonwealth field regiments and batteries had already been issued them:

55 Field Regiment (14 – 75mm)
142 Field Regiment (10 - 75 mm)
96 Field Regiment (12 - 75 mm guns)
5th NZ Field Regiment, E and F Battery (8 - 75mm each)

But of course as 25-pounder became available many of the 75mm were re-issued, first to the 'Home Counties' brigades and later divisions and then to the Home Guard. However, a fair number of them may have been shipped to Egypt, since the 75mm shows up there in the Western Desert as well. I'll check but I believe some arrived there as early as November or December of 1940, evidently coming from England?

The point is that they only needed to be a stopgap to fill the minor shortfall between new production of 25-pounders and the losses sustained in France. Thanks for the reminder about Nigel's wonderful site, we know that the numbers of artillery in the UK as of the end of May 1940 were:

126 18-pdr
269 18/25-pdr
90 25-pdr +252 produced June-September = 342

So 737 total field guns, sufficient for 30 regiments with a small reserve of 17 pieces. That's enough to fully equip 10 divisions. Now a quick check shows there were just 17 regular regiments in the UK at that time, plus 5 RHA, while there were 82 TA, so 104 regiments to be equipped and a requirement for 2,496 pieces in total. That of course amounts a minimal shortfall of about 864 guns to WE, even if we add in the 895 US guns.

321 4.5-inch howitzer
14 60-pdr guns (being converted to 4.5-inch)
5 4.5-inch/60-pdr guns (converted)
94 6-inch howitzer

There were something like 27 medium regiments formed, so a requirement for 432 pieces. The 434 available were just sufficient, especially when the production of June-September is added in.

20 6-inch gun
14 8-inch howitzer
39 9.2-inch howitzer (siege)
29 12-inch howitzer (railway and siege - note that 10 of these are accounted for with XII Corps)

There were some 12 heavy regiments to man these pieces and to supplement personnel manningthe coast defenses.

Later, Lend-Leased 75mm totaled 230 guns, all M1916, 170 to the UK and 60 to other minor nations. Since those were Lend-Lease rather than Cash-and-Carry, I expect the earliesr that shipments could have reached the UK was after March 1941.

Eugen Pinak
Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 17:09
Location: Kyiv, Ukraine
Contact:

#19

Post by Eugen Pinak » 18 May 2007, 20:32

Thank you, guys - that's a lot of info!

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#20

Post by Jon G. » 19 May 2007, 18:17

RichTO90 wrote:...
US War Department sales for cash during 1940 totaled 1,095 75mm guns broken down as:

200 M1917 to Finland
395 M1917 to the UK
500 M1897 to the UK

The Anglo-Allied request for purchase was made 21 May 1940 and the War Deprtment acknowledgement declaring the first 500 guns surplus (so eligible for sale) was on 22 May and another 100 were declared surplus by 3 June. The full 'bill of sale' was completed 11 June, so they were available for shipping from that date...
Hi Rich, as an aside of sorts do you know how much the US Army charged for the 75 mm guns and the ~1 million shells that went with them? The reason why I am asking is because I came across an old article about the US Army's switch to the 105 mm howitzer immediately pre-war. Marshall prices the 6,000,000 75 mm shells which the US Army had on hand in 1940 at 10$ each in the article. The decision to finally switch from the 75 mm to the 105 mm made the 75 mm available for export.

I've lifted this chart of 75 mm gun perfomance from the same article

Image

The article is More Bang for the Buck in the Interwar Army: The 105-mm. Howitzer by Janice McKenney.

AdrianE
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 23:07
Location: Ottawa

#21

Post by AdrianE » 02 Jun 2007, 23:21

Jon G. wrote:
Hi Rich, as an aside of sorts do you know how much the US Army charged for the 75 mm guns and the ~1 million shells that went with them?
According to "Nineteen Weeks" by Norman Moss the price paid was $37,619,556.60. The US government sold the weapons to US Steel who sold them to French and British governments for the exact same amount.

He gives the timeline of June 4, 1940 sale approved and orders given to army depots and arsenals to ship the weapons to Raritan, New Jersey. Same day 12 British freighters are re-routed to Raritan.

Then on June 11 the deal is signed and loading commenced. On June 13 Moss says the first freighter "Eastern Prince" departs for England.

Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

#22

Post by Jon G. » 03 Jun 2007, 19:02

Thanks a lot for that info, AdrianE. And welcome to the forum :)

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#23

Post by Andreas » 05 Jun 2007, 21:34

I moved a post by Gooner1 to the Naval and Air defensive measures post.

All the best

Andreas

John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

#24

Post by John T » 14 Jun 2007, 21:26

Used Google earth and found this

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2169691

Cheers
/John T

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2792
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

#25

Post by Gooner1 » 22 Jun 2007, 00:43

Taken from 45th Divisions defence scheme of October 1940, Appendix "U" on the details of V.P.'s (Vital Points) in the divisional area.

Description - Unit finding guard Strength (Officers/Other Ranks)

R.D.F. Station Rye - 2/8 (HD) Bn. Royal Sussex (2/68), 35 Lt. A.A. Bty (-/59)

C.H.L. Station Fairlight - 2/8 (HD) Bn. R. Sussex (1/50)

R.D.F. Station Pevensey - 2/8 (HD) Bn. R. Sussex (2/71), 136 Bde. A/Tk.Coy. (-/12)

C.H.L. Station Beachy Head - 70 (HD) Bn. R Sussex (-/14)

also

Newhaven Group - 2/8 (HD) Bn. Royal Sussex (8/215)

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2792
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

#26

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Aug 2007, 13:15

Tad more on the 1st Motor Machinegun Brigade.

On relieving the 3rd Division they became known as 'Brocforce' from their commander Brigadier Montagu Brocas Burrows and grew into a divsional sized formation. The force boundaries were on the left Saltdean (excl.), adjoining 45th Division and on the right Bognor Regis (excl.) adjoining 4th Division. The front was divided into two Sub-areas.


On 4th August 1940 its composition was:-

Force H.Q.
16/5 Lancers
17/21 Lancers
2 Lothian & Border Horse
60 A.Fd. Regt. R.A.
69 Med. Regt. R.A.
45 A.Tk. Bty. R.A.
R.M. 42 Bty. ) 12pdrs manned by Army personnel
R.M. 43 Bty. )
263 Fd. Coy. R.E.
3 Boring Sec. R.E.
Force Sigs. (based on 1 Motor M.G. Sig. Sec.)
5 Devons (M.G.)
9 (O.G.) [?] Bn. E. Surreys
8 (H.D.) Bn. R. Sussex
5 A. & S. H. (M.G.)
Brocforce R.A.S.C.
165 Cav. Fd. Amb.
1 Motor M.G. Bde. L.A.D.

For operational purposes 41 Survey Traning Regiment R.A. and 1 Training Battalion R.A.S.C. were under command.
Moving forthwith to be placed under command were 88. Fd. Regt. R.A., 236 Fd. Coy. R.E. and 50 (Holding) Bn. Queens Regt.
I.T.C. [Infantry Training Centre?] Royal Sussex Regt. were also moving into the area and placed under command for operational purposes.



The coast was to be defended by three battalions: -

Right. 9 E. Surrey (less two Coys) with under command one Coy. 5 Devons, one Coy. 5 A. & S.H., four 6-inch mortars.

Centre. 5 Devons (less one Coy.) with under Comd. one Coy 9 E. Surrey. Two 6-inch mortars.

Left. 5 A. & S.H. (less one Coy.) with under command one Coy 9 E. Surrey. Six 6-inch mortars and for operational purposes 41 Survey Traning Regiment R.A. 50 (Holding) Bn. Queens Regt. and 1 Training Battalion R.A.S.C.

In support was:

Right - 16/5 Lancers
Centre - One Sqn 17/21 Lancers
Left - 2 Lothian and Border Horse

In force reserve 17/21 Lancers (less one Sqn)


As at 3rd October 1940 artillery in Brocforce area was:-

Four Batteries 6" Naval Guns (2 guns per Bty) Static.
Four 4" Naval Guns - one 3" Naval Gun Static.
Eight 6" Medium Howitzers.
Two Field Regiments - 25 Pdr. 4.5" How. and 75 mm.
Eight 12 Pdr Guns on Lorries.
Seven 6 Pdr Guns - Static.
Four 3 Pdr Guns - Static.
Twelve 6" Mortars - Static.

Walter_Warlimont
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 24 May 2007, 02:59
Location: Germany

Seelowe: TANKS......Both British & German

#27

Post by Walter_Warlimont » 04 Aug 2007, 15:43

Ok, I looked before I leapt & realized that there hasn't been any real discussion as of yet pertaining to tanks & other Armoured Fighting Vehicles for either the defending forces of the United Kingdom nor the the invading forces of Germany.

While right at this particular minute I cannot provide any sources for any information, I'll start by asking a question or three.

I have "read" where the British were so desperate for armour that they were even incorporating tanks left over from World War I, such as the "Independents" & Mk VI Rhomboidal Tanks.

I have "read" that the new British Valentine Tanks were just beginning to come into being near the end (December) of 1940, and that there might be as few as 12 in September 1940.

I have "read" that with many of their tanks & other AFV's being left behind @ Dunkirk & other places of evacuation in France, that their was a LACK of proper Heavy Tanks (Matilda II's) & that the majority of British Tanks would consist of both Light Machine Gun Tanks/Tankettes & also other Obsolete Tanks.

I know for a fact that the Germans were going to be bringing with them PzKpfw II's, PzKpfw III's & IV's, along with StuG III Assault Tanks & some PzKpfw I's that had been converted into Flame Thrower Tanks.

I don't have any concrete information pertaining to other Armoured Fighting Vehicles other than the FACTS about the.....ahem.....giggle.....British Beaverettes.

My question is, that in an operation such as "Sealion" wouldn't it have made sense to include the incorporated Czech Tanks & any working British Tanks that were captured @ Dunkirk & in France itself (or) do you suppose that these might have been used in the Defence of Germany in the rear areas that bordered with Russia, just in case Stalin got a wild fly up his arse & decided to take advantage of his "Ally" and attack him before he was attacked?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#28

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Aug 2007, 15:58

Coming very late to this, but there's a couple opf points in here worth noting;
And there were a plethora of Light Tanks available, of 1,340 built, 321 had been lost in France and 275 were in Egypt, leaving over 700, more than enough in theory to equip the dozen or so regiments formed to War Establishment
I've just taken this sentence from Rich's post on page one as an example. The total availability of tanks in the UK by type and number doesn't tell the full stroy...and they were actually scattered a lot more around the country than the "totals available" would have you believe. For example, right in the middle of the period in question, late summer 1940, there were a considerable number of Vickers Lights in Northern Ireland not only for defence but also in training depots here. If anyone has access to unit records, it would be better to work from instead of full availability totals...the numbers of type and mark fielded by unit - against that unit's geographical location. (remembering that there were invasion worries about a number of locations as spoilers until concrete evidence was supplied otherwise - Northern Ireland and the coast of Yorkshire around and north of Humberside being the other.)

The other issue is...
Part of the problem with the battery listings is that they are complete, but as I said it's impossible to tell when they became active
...not so much active - as fully protected. I live very close to a preserved coastal defence battery here in NI of the twin naval gun type, and from the photo record assembled for the small museum there, of both Grey Point and others in England - the first emplacements were open bases - the addition of full reinforced concrete protection was a much slower undertaking. The majority of all the batteries and installations listed could of course been in operation within hours of their armament being mounted - but minus full concrete mantlet protection they were concrete bases and holes in the ground...and thus very vulnerable to air attack or counterfire. Army and Royal Navy records of various types won't give you this information - as it would have been carried out by the Ministry of Works....

As a p.s. - by Summer 1941, I've seen in various locations a total varying from 800 to 900 "75mm guns from America" supplied to the Home Guard as anti-tank weapons; which is remarkably close to the totals mentioned above for overall imports?

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2792
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

#29

Post by Gooner1 » 04 Aug 2007, 17:37

phylo_roadking wrote: I live very close to a preserved coastal defence battery here in NI of the twin naval gun type, and from the photo record assembled for the small museum there, of both Grey Point and others in England - the first emplacements were open bases - the addition of full reinforced concrete protection was a much slower undertaking. The majority of all the batteries and installations listed could of course been in operation within hours of their armament being mounted - but minus full concrete mantlet protection they were concrete bases and holes in the ground...and thus very vulnerable to air attack or counterfire. Army and Royal Navy records of various types won't give you this information - as it would have been carried out by the Ministry of Works....
How long would you estimate 'much slower' to have taken? Over the summer of 1940 the British were pouring an astonishing amount of concrete into pillboxes and anti-tank blocks, a concrete protected gun emplacement wouldn't be that much more difficult technically and surely wouldn't be on lower priority.

Very nice page here http://www.findonvillage.com/0615_1940_in_findon.htm with pictures of the 6-inch battery in Worthing.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#30

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Aug 2007, 18:12

Grey Point, a individual twin barbette installation, took four months to complete the concrete gun houses. When it comes to installations like this you're talking heavy machinery, wooden formers, the steelwork and cutting/welding. You don't just pour, you have to pour it into a shape containing the stell reinforcement. At the same time they were building airfield fighter bays, laying new aprons, building off-field auxiliary control bunkers for airfields and airfield defences - a WIDE variety of other calls on the Ministry of Works and its workgangs, let alone the quarrying and transporting of aggregate. As for the steel and wrought iron - all that had to be produced and transported. I'm not setting this up as an argument - I'm saying that the nature of these batteries may not be as all-singing all-dancing as the bare figures would suggest, and that you'll not find that information in military records.

THIS is Grey Point for example - and relatively Stuka-proof...

Image

This for example, in Scotland, would not have been....

Image

The difference between the two is a relatively major engineering project....

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”