Dandelion Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Easy and simple question this time - anyone know the organisation and roughly the TOE of a UK MG battalion, WWII? Anyone have any interesting other facts or anecdotes on these? Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 According to Forty, an MG Bn (1944) consists of three MG Coys, each of three platoons of 4 MMGs, plus a heavy mortar company of four platoons of four 4.2" mortars. There is also an HQ coy, but the make up of this is not specified. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Boggs Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: According to Forty, an MG Bn (1944) consists of three MG Coys, each of three platoons of 4 MMGs, plus a heavy mortar company of four platoons of four 4.2" mortars. There is also an HQ coy, but the make up of this is not specified. Okay BritGrog, it took 9 minutes to get that answer posted. Too much GF it would seem. But maybe I'm being a little picky! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 He's not a Brit Grog. A Brit Grog would have kicked you in the cybernuts for saying "TO&E" instead of "War Establishment". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 It changed. Prior to Sicily it was four MMG companys, all with 3 pns of 4 MMGs. Post sicily it was the org given above. In Sicily ... I don't recall exactly when the changeover occurred. NZ Divs 28 (MG) Bn maintained the 4 MMG coy arrangement until it was disbanded in Jan 1945. The hvy mortars were handled by the A-Tk regt (go figure). Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted April 21, 2004 Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: It changed. The hvy mortars were handled by the A-Tk regt (go figure). Probably because they were classified as artillery and the AT regiments in Commonweatlh divisions were provided by the RA or RHA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 21, 2004 Author Share Posted April 21, 2004 Thanks all, knew of course I could count on you. 9 minutes is good time. So, 48 bzw 36 MMGs collected in a single unit. Any comment on the normal deployment and use? Experiences made? They keep these until the end of the war, must have been useful then? Why concentrate the MGs to these companies and not decentralise to the infantry regim... nay I mean of course brigades, instead? I'd ask if it was the same basic use as the German MG bataillons but it appears it was not. Were MG Btl assigned independent tasks or were they always distributed among other units? Any comment on the cut in numbers post-Sicily? War Establishment, not TO&E yes, of course. Like Kriegsstärke then. Good. No tables, no chairs, couches or the like. The Engländer corrupt "tableaux" into "table", they actually mean boards but they say table, or is it chairs? One must keep track of this. Or maybe it is not a corruption? In English schools maybe the teacher draws equations for the kids to see on a... table? Whitetables have replaced the old blacktables yet have they? Ok Michael I'll stop here before you reach the Teuton-humour part Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 It's a divisional level unit, so it's comparable to divisional artillery. There's an MG company per Infantry Brigade (all late '44, from Forty), so that could be an MG Plt per battalion, in a similar way a 25pdr battery was assigned to support a battalion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: It's a divisional level unit, so it's comparable to divisional artillery. There's an MG company per Infantry Brigade (all late '44, from Forty), so that could be an MG Plt per battalion, in a similar way a 25pdr battery was assigned to support a battalion. Ah, but if the brigade attacks as per normal, 2 battalions up and 1 back....I get the impression the MG companies were rarely split up and were assigned to a brigade frontage. Of course, if the division attacks 2 brigades up and 1 back... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Firefly: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: It changed. The hvy mortars were handled by the A-Tk regt (go figure). Probably because they were classified as artillery and the AT regiments in Commonweatlh divisions were provided by the RA or RHA. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: Any comment on the cut in numbers post-Sicily?Presumably because someone noticed that four MMG coys for a three bde div wasn't a good match, and that someone had to take over the new 4.2-in. mtrs. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ....I get the impression the MG companies were rarely split up and were assigned to a brigade frontage.Well, the MMGs in British-styled did have a distinct - and practiced - indirect fire capability, which would tend to support that. However, Rex Fendick (pn commander in an MG bn) in A CANLOAN Officer makes the point that he spent most of 1944-45 in NWE in support of specific bns, rather than supporting a the higher bde. He did do indirect fire on a semi-regular basis, but seldom seems to ahve done coy-level shoots. Based on the experience of 28(MG)Bn in 2(NZ)Div, this seems to have been a common lament of the Vickers gunners. Their capabilities were misunderstood by commanders, who tended to penny-packet them out on a pn-to-a-bn basis. BTW, Dandy, if you want to know how the Vickers were actually employed, I cannot recommend the above book highly enough. The Appendices on the organisation and employment of an MMG pn are on their own worth more than price of the book (which is quite reasonable anyway). You can only obtain it direct from Rex, and he is a very personable guy to talk to. A CANLOAN Officer Incidentally, after 28(MG)Bn was disbanded in Feb 45, each NZ inf bn gained an MG pn as part of its standard WE. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Jon Well I had a mild interest in the matter until I saw the presentation of the book at the other end of your link there. Now I have an intense interest in the matter. This is exactly what I need. Not just for the pursuit of my above question, I have other use for this as well. Too long and boring story to explain why, but it really was a sight for tired eyes. Thank you for that tip. So I wrote Mr Fendick in order to obtain a copy, and am hoping it will be no problem that I am overseas (from him). No I didn't forget to mention to him who recommended his book to me. In fact I had no idea there was a CANLOAN system either. I thought all Canadians served in their national formations. But you know it sort of explains why every major work on the larger UK battles seem to contain at least one suddenly appearing, rather resourceful (read; mad) Canadian in the middle of where he really shouldn't be. I think of Leo Heaps and such vagabonds you know. A cheerful Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 ...and as I have now looked up the word personable in my dictionary, I wish to add to "resouceful (read; mad)" above, that they appear to be very personable as well, these Canadian lone characters popping up in UK unit War Diaries. But I suppose people who lend themselves to other armies like that will have been a selection of particularly curious and adventurous types. I presume such types will have to be unprejudiced and... well, personable kind of people. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 An excellent book to read is Codeword: CANLOAN by Smith. Several hundred Canadian junior officers served in British formations as platoon and company commanders (one or two adjutants as well, I think), and many were decorated. Also 50 RCOC officers. This doesn't include those Canadian officers sent to North Africa for battle experience as platoon and company commanders with the British Army before the invasion of Sicily. The Aussies and Kiwis and South Africans et al were getting enough battle experience of their own by actually having combatant formations in North Africa so that the requirement for this type of program was uniquely Canadian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: ... I wrote Mr Fendick in order to obtain a copy, and am hoping it will be no problem that I am overseas (from him). I shouldn't think so - I'm possibly as far away from ... well, anywhere as it's possible to get without falling off the edge of the world, but I still managed to get a copy here. By pigeon post. Well, actually due to govt cutbacks we only have lame pigeons now, so its more like pigeon walk. But anyway, it got here BTW - did you 'write' to him (envelope and a stamp) or email him? I managed to get everything arranged via email, and just used post for the exchange of money and goods. The main bummer was that I still spent more on postage, exchange rates, money orders, etc than Mr Fendick got for the actual book Who said that email was bad for the postal service? Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: ... Also 50 RCOC officers.RCOC? Royal Canadian Officer Cadets? Royal Canadian Orca Catchers? Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps? Royal Canadian Overseas Creeps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 They don't have an ordnance corps in NZ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 No, we don't. Not for ... erm ... 5 years or so. All those non-combatant corps (CT, O, Ed, ...) got rolled together into a new one - RNZ Army Logistics Regt, or sumfink. Anyway, I was confused because you said "Several hundred Canadian junior officers served in British formations ... Also 50 RCOC officers" which gave me the impression that the RCOC guys weren't ... something. Officers? Canadians? Soldiers? It's the way you seperated them that got me wondering. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Ah, seen. Incidentally, we got rid of the RCOC in 1972 or so in favour of the Logistics Branch, whose history-less cap badge I not so proudly wear on my regimental headdress. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: I shouldn't think so - I'm possibly as far away from ... well, anywhere as it's possible to get without falling off the edge of the world Yes I know, you're very near Venus, and Venus is near you, and that's all anyone ever lured out of you. BTW - did you 'write' to him (envelope and a stamp) or email him? I managed to get everything arranged via email, and just used post for the exchange of money and goods.I e-mailed him at the adress given on the homepage. I am hoping it can be arranged in the way you describe. Perhaps a transfer via internet can also be arranged, with the payment I mean. Paper mail takes a lot of time sending back and forth, and I only see an end in itself with this procedure when it comes to loveletters. I don't mind contributing to the postal services really, here or in Canada. What I do mind is financing diverse delivery services and most of all the global merchant marine, known only for their savage brutality against their (mainly Filipino) employees and their extremely toxic oil. But I am used to the indignity of bankrolling their piracy. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted April 22, 2004 Author Share Posted April 22, 2004 Several hundred Canadian junior officers served in British formations as platoon and company commanders (one or two adjutants as well, I think), and many were decorated. Also 50 RCOC officers. Am I understanding it correctly then, that these (CANLOAN) officers served for the duration of the war in the British army? Or did they rotate or have some other limited time scheme? Was it part of a Canadian army poroject or was it literally a loan at the request of the British? Was there a shortage of British officer to prompt this, if so? All above not counting the Canadians serving in North Africa with the explicit purpouse of importing experience back into the Canadian army. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 As you point out Canadian troops in North Africa did brief tours before returning to their units with their battle experience. CANLOAN officers remained with their British units for the duration - I think there were 600+ infantry officers and 50 RCOC. They were divided between Italy and NW Europe, don't recall if any went to the Far East or not. There was a large shortage of platoon commanders in the British Army, and a sizeable surplus in the Canadian Army, as you deduced. A lot of Canadian regiments never mobilized war battalions, and of those that did some only served in Madagascar, Jamaica, Newfoundland, Iceland, Kiska, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 600 ... at first glance it doesn't sound like a lot, in the context of a global war. However, on a quick-and-dirty calculation I see its roughly enough to completely officer about 10 brigades, which is not so trivial. Dandy, not surprisingly Fendick talks about the CANLOAN scheme in his book. Mike, I thought most of the Canadians who went to the Med for combat experience ended up staying there (not just because they died), and not going back to their parent units. Or am I mainly thinking of Canadians in England who went to Canadian units in Sicily/Italy for combat experience? Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atiff Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 NZ Divs 28 (MG) Bn maintained the 4 MMG coy arrangement until it was disbanded in Jan 1945. The hvy mortars were handled by the A-Tk regt (go figure). Perhaps they figured the gunners needed something to shoot. I think I read that in Italy the NZ AT Regt never fired a shot in anger? (As much a testament to the fact the division was always on attack, and not that they never faced tanks.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.