Hello Knouterer,
Knouterer wrote:I really don't think all this hair-splitting about one tank more or less is very useful, but in any case the situation is clear enough to me. According to the CAB documents used by Newbold (Return of Tanks etc.), which by the way I would not trust to be 100% accurate, the 1st Army Tank Brigade had 27 A11 (Mk I) tanks on 4 Aug., and this number remains unchanged in the returns for 27 Aug., 15 and 29 Sept., and 20 Oct.
It is undisputed that these were all with the 8th RTR.
...
Therefore, the tank strength was continually changing. The sources do not say that A and/or B squadron were ever equipped
exclusively with Mk Is in Aug. - I don't think so because it looks as if the battalion had a full complement of 50 tanks even then - but even if they were, one or both must have received a few Mk IIs as well in Sept.
Operation Instructions for Milforce No. 1 (9 Sept.), No. 2 (14 Sept.), No. 3 (18 Sept.) are in the WD of Milforce, No. 4 in the WD of 8th RTR as quoted. Changes are minimal; 3 and 4 agree that C squadron will be in the lead with Milforce and the slower A and B squadrons will follow on later.
I can think of no earthly reason why C squadron, having been fully equipped with Mk IIs (max speed 15 mph), would have exchanged any for Mk Is (8 mph) again in the course of September, thereby slowing Milforce down considerably - unless you want to argue,as some people like to do, that the British were doing everything possible to handicap themselves, just to give the invaders a sporting chance
It's not your fault, but it doesn't resolve my (immediate) query.
For many years, I have posited a theory amongst a number of friends/aquaintances that the 'mixed' configuration of the Army Tank (ATk) battalions was deliberate. I proposed that this configuration was intended on doctrinal/tactical basis and NOT just a hodge podge.
Btn: HQ with 2 x A.12 + 4 x LT
coy: HQ with 1 x A.12 + 1 x LT and 5 tps of 3 tanks: 2 x A.12 tps (6), 3 tps of A.11 (9). [Total 7 x A.12, 9 x A.11 and 1 x LT]
coy: HQ with 1 x A.12 + 1 x LT and 5 tps of 3 tanks: 2 x A.12 tps (6), 3 tps of A.11 (9). [Total 7 x A.12, 9 x A.11 and 1 x LT]
coy: HQ with 1 x A.12 + 1 x LT and 5 tps of 3 tanks: 2 x A.12 tps (6), 3 tps of A.11 (9). [Total 7 x A.12, 9 x A.11 and 1 x LT]
Grand totals for the btn: 23 x A.12, 27 x A.11 and 7 x LT.
The 23/27/7 configuration was how 7RTR deployed to France in May 1940. I contended this was an intended establishment, other contended it was merely a hodge podge of whatever could be thrown together. It this followed that 8RTR would be similarly configured back in the UK. I also suggested it could have been an deliberate establishment from as early as March.
All of us were just looking at this issue as an interesting talking point, and saw little profit from the time, energy and expenses of trotting off to Kew to prove either one side or the other. For many years, we all happily agreed to disagree.
Over time, the internet has thrown up a number pieces of evidence with have ultimately proved my theory. You mention the Newbold PhD thesis which is one of those. Then, more recently, I was shown a copy of Peter Browns article which demonstrates it was actually doctrinal thinking back to late 1939 and there was also the intention - when possible - to convert 4RTR in France to this establishment.
In this thread, which I only came across a couple of days ago, you have posted 2 excerpts of information concerning the same subject: that this 'mixed' coy establishment was, in 8RTR, task organised in the summer of 1940 to create 'uniformly' established coys. I have absolutely no problem in accepting that this happened. My interest is purely in the date that this occured and who issued the instruction.
The first excerpt you post indicates it was an order issued on 24 August 1940 - but do not state where this information came from. Was it 1 ATK Bde HQ, 8RTR or other?
The second excerpt you post indicates that the task organisation would come into force on 18 Sept 1940. This time you quote your source as MILFORCE WD.
Confusion:- Why the apparent contradiction? Did the order take almost a month to effect? Was the change implimented twice with an unknown chaange occuring between? etc etc etc
So, from you Knouterer, I'm not really interested in how many A.11 existed, I'm trying to establish
when exactly the task organisation occured and upon
whose orders.
Can you please provide some information as to where you obtained your information regarding 24 August 1940. Was it the 8RTR WD, the 1 ATK Bde WD or something completely different? Second, if you could put some more meat on the bones, it would be helpful to irradicate the confusion flowing from the MILFORCE. If you have copies or access to the documents your information comes from, I'd be extreamly grateful if you could shed some enlightenment.
And finally, your second post may clear up some confusion for other posters here. It seems to confirm that, as of 13 September, A and B/8RTR were task organised out of MILFORCE and placed under command 5 Bde or their own initiative (direct NZ EF cmd, perhaps).
Thank you.