Scots guards (British TOE question)

[Xavier]

Hello,

I would like to know if this unit had in July 44 only Chuchill MkVII or a mix of MKVI, MKVII and MKVIII?

Thanks in advance:)

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Xavier:

Hello,

I would like to know if this unit had in July 44 only Chuchill MkVII or a mix of MKVI, MKVII and MKVIII?

Thanks in advance:)

Certainly not all Mk. VIIIs, but as far as I can discover it's very hard to tell what specific variants were used (I tried to find this out when researching a battlefield walk for Operation "Bluecoat", for which the Staff College 1947 battle study was useful, but did not contain this particular detail).

Terence Cuneo's painting "Action of the Right Flank at Caumont" shows Robert Runcie's troop vehicles as having square hatches, and I'd say they are intended to represent Mk VIs.

Charles Farrell's "Reflections" states that the CS tanks of "S" squadron, which he commanded, were equipped with the 3-in howitzer, used only to fire smoke. That would make it a Mk I, II or IICS. I suppose these could be modelled reasonably well in CM:BO by giving a Mk V an all-smoke amn load, although you miss the dubious benefit of having a 2-pounder as well.

I am pretty sure that there were some 6-pounder Churchills around in Normandy, too, although whether mostly IIIs, IVs or IXs I don't know, and CM:BO doesn't include them anyway.

Now, ask me the names of the tanks in 3 SG and I can give you the full list...

All the best,

John.

[Xavier]

Thank you very much, your informations are very useful !

[Andreas]

Some further info - CS tanks were only two to a squadron of 19 tanks (including the ARV). Troops in 9th RTR (Churchills) were organised three tanks to a troop, five troops to a squadron. IIRC in 9th RTR the ordinary Churchills were a mix of variants, but were probably all 75mm equipped - at least there is a short reference to a fitter replacing the 6pdr with a 75mm before embarkation. For the Mk variety - I guess unless you had it shot from under you, they would not give you a new one anyway.

Weren't a lot of the Mk Is converted to AVsRE John?

[Kingfish]

Commonwealth Regiments

[Andreas]

Kingfish, you've lost me now. It is a great site, but how is that going to help him the types of Churchills used by the Scots Guards in WW2? I can not find it there.

[Aunty Jack]

Further complicating the matter is that many Churchills underwent a remanufacturing program, bringing them as much as possible up to later marks. These were issued as replacement vehicles as well as new ones, so it was quite possible for various units to have many different marks in their strengths. Fletcher has a great deal about this in his book on Mr.Churchill's tank I believe.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Kingfish, you've lost me now. It is a great site, but how is that going to help him the types of Churchills used by the Scots Guards in WW2? I can not find it there.

Me neither.

But you're doing well enough if you realise that you should be looking for the Churchill-driving Scots Guards under "infantry".

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Some further info - CS tanks were only two to a squadron of 19 tanks (including the ARV).

Indeed -- in S Sqn 3 SG these were the 2-i-c and SSMs tanks.

A curiousity I have discvered in Chamberlain & Ellis is that some Mk IIs had the 2-pdr replaced by a 3-in howitzer, giving 2 such weapons, one in the turret, one in the bow. They also say that the Mk IICS never saw action, and also that the 3-in how variants were only used in North Africa and Italy, which contradicts Farrell.

Troops in 9th RTR (Churchills) were organised three tanks to a troop, five troops to a squadron.

Page 50 of B T White's "British Tank Markings and Names" (A&AP, London, 1978) gives a list of tank names for 3 SG in June 1944, and indicates 4 troops of 3 gun tanks plus Sqn HQ of 4 tanks and an ARV. The squadrons are, of course, in accordance with Guards tradition, called Right Flank, S and Left Flank. RHQ has 4 tanks, 3 OP tanks and an ACV. The recce troop has 12 Stuarts, and the intercomm troop 11 scout cars.

[snips]

Weren't a lot of the Mk Is converted to AVsRE John?

I suppose I shouldn't grumble about German seperable verbs when English has infixed plurals...

AIUI AVsRE were mostly on Mk III and IV chassis, and a lot of Is went for ARVs or BARVs.

Now, what grog is going to tell the group why the one Mk III intended for conversion into an NA 75 was not so converted?

All the best,

John.

[Xavier]

Yes Great site, but still a lot of "work in grogress"(hep, I mean "progress" )

[Kingfish]

Granted, no TOE listed, but it might provide a contact from which to obtain such a list. Perhaps posting a question on their FAQ site, or going directly to the unit's official website might point him in the right direction.

[Traject0ry]

The MkI was widely used as a CS vehicle in the 21st and 25th Tank Brigades in Tunisia and Italy but there is no reference of use in Normandy. As only 303 were built (some were lost during "Jubilee") and most were later converted or shipped to USSR (They had some - that much I know) along with a good number of II's it is possible that some were present at the Normandy landings unmodified though in such numbers that including them in the game would only make the lists longer and add a vehicle that no1 dares to use anyway...

Some were used as training carriages (with turrets removed) or as range training tanks. To add a rumour four were dug in to defend an airfield somewhere in Britain but I am not sure where (these had severe engine problems after Dieppe).

The II's are a different matter as 1127 were produced, over 900 converted to Mks III and IV (some further on to funnies) or shipped to USSR. What happened to the rest or how many were actually converted in June 1944 I do not know. It is therefore possible that they were used with their original guns on the beaches but once again excluding them from the game just serves the purpose of not seeing them in self made scenarios. I would concentrate on using such vehicles that can certainly be placed on Normandy as making of a historical scenario author desperately needs all the details of the actual encounter he can get.

Unsure about the equipment means that the scenario author does not know enough and in non- historical scenario only enjoyment, balance and playability count!

Please ask me about Russian or German armour

[Brian]

As Aunty Jack suggests, many early Churchill marks were reworked to similar standards as later marks. These included:

Mk.IX - a Mk.III or IV which its hull armour improved brought up to "near Mk.VII standard" and had the turret of the Mk.VII added.

Mk.IX LT - a Mk.III or IV which retained its original turret (LT - Light Turret) and had additional applique armour applied to it externally, along with the hull. It retained the 6 Pdr.

Mk.X - A Mk.VI reworked to Mk.VII standards with the Mk.VII turret added.

Mk.X LT - a Mk.VI reworked along the same lines as the Mk.IX LT.

Mk.XI - a Mk.V reworked with heavy turret as on Mk.VIII.

Mk.XI LT - Mk.V reworked as per other "light turret" vehicles above.

Obviously none of these vehicles would be as good as a real Mk.VII or VIII. However, they were issued and were used throughout the NW European campaign.

[Traject0ry]

Once more the British engineering produces a challenge in game designing with several Churchill variants. The truth is though that as in such detail levels as armour is handled by CM:BO differences would be noticeable but then again any accurate information of the models and refits used is extremely hard to get thus making the use of the basic models with varying quality of armour an excellent choice. This game has weaknesses but in my eyes they are elsewhere... I guess we have wandered off a bit from the original question and my conclusion is that using mixed variants of Churchills and aforementioned formations should produce historically accurate scenario if necessary maps and especially German troop compositions and deployments are somehow available. Good luck...

[Andreas]

John, I am curious about the quote you provide saying that SG had only 17 tanks. That is contradictory to Peter Beale's 'Tank Tracks', which gives 5 troops of three. That is a book I think is a very good source, seeing that Beale was a Squadron OC or troop commander(can't remember which) in 9th RTR. He also gives the names for most of the tanks.

BTW - he also authored the British version of 'Death Traps' - 'Death by design'. Anyone read it? Would be interested in whether it is any good.

[Traject0ry]

As I could not sleep i spent my nights in research

It seems that the number of tanks could cahnge from unit to unit and though the 3 * 5 + 4 was common some infantry tank units were also remodelled after the 4 * 4 +4 formation. It was not uncommon to have "missing tanks" as some units in other armies had assault guns in paper but bicycles in real world. This should be kept in mind as trying to figure out the unit strengths. Good guess is often better than paperwork done by the brass. They get the knowledge of casualties, breakdowns and sudden transfers often slower than the troops on the field. Especially during wartime when the paperwork is overwhelming

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

John, I am curious about the quote you provide saying that SG had only 17 tanks. That is contradictory to Peter Beale's 'Tank Tracks', which gives 5 troops of three. That is a book I think is a very good source, seeing that Beale was a Squadron OC or troop commander(can't remember which) in 9th RTR. He also gives the names for most of the tanks.

If it's a different unit, it's not "contradictory". Do you think the British Army organises itself according to some kind of standard?

Seriously, though, you'll see from my "britorg" file that most of the infantry tank organisations listed there are as you describe. The one from the Staff College "Bluecoat" battle study (a battle in which 6 Gds Tk Bde and 3SG played a starring role) says "24 tanks" for a squadron, which I can only make sense of by interpreting it as 4 Stuarts (from the recce troop) plus 5 tps of 3 gun tanks and a 5-vehicle SHQ (2 gun tanks, 2 CS tanks an an ARV).

Nonetheless, four troops is what White's book shows. As it's dated June, the reduction in strength cannot possibly be accounted for by battle losses. I have a copy of Helion's 1939-1943 Commonwealth orbat book by Mark Beavis, and it mentions some 4-troop organisations for infantry tank regiments.

I don't know whether there were different authorised War Establishments for different kinds of squadron, but the Guards have always been a little idiosyncratic. I wonder if anyone at BTS would be prepared to change the CM engine so that British Guards HQs never move "fast"? ("In the Guards, we are never late. Therefore, in the Guards, we never run. A Guards officer always walks. And it is not enough to walk -- you must walk sumptuously").

BTW - he also authored the British version of 'Death Traps' - 'Death by design'. Anyone read it? Would be interested in whether it is any good.

It's OK, but how many times does the story of British tank development during WW2 need to be told? If you've already read Smithers' "Rude Mechanicals" (which shows a strange affection for TOG) or whatever-David-Fletcher's-book-is-called (I haven't read it) or even just the relevant Bovington booklets or Chamberlain & Ellis, you'll know pretty much how it goes.

All the best,

John.

[edward_n_kelly]

From Mr Churchill's Tank by David Fletcher:

...(April 1944)(7 RTR) moved to their concentration area, at Blackdown in Hampshire where they received a number a number of new Churchills from the 6th Guards Tank Brigade.... (p.139)

and

...the brigade was obliged to hand over its new 75mm gun Mark VI Churchills to the 31st Army Tank Brigade in April 1944.....and before they finally embarked for France the 6-pounder tanks they had recieved instead had to be converted to 75mm by brigade workshops.

(p.141)

As an aside or two...

Fletcher also mentions that a V1 landed on Brigade Workshops on Sunday, 24 June with 51 killed and 40 injured.

Also a Church Parade in June 1944 was held at Canterbury Cathedral and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Present was a junior subaltern of 6th Bn, Scots Guards - who was he and what was one of his claims to later fame ?

Edward

[Kingfish]

OOBs of Brit armored forces

[Viceroy]

The Scot Guards served in the 6th Tank Brigade. Bouchery says that the Coldstream Guards of the 6th Tank Brigade had 5 troops of 3 Churchills in each squadron until 21st Aug and after that 4 troops of 4. Each Squadron HQ is given as having 2 95mm Churchills.

Ed Kelly,

that 2nd Lt was Willie Whitelaw, right?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

From Mr Churchill's Tank by David Fletcher:

Present was a junior subaltern of 6th Bn, Scots Guards - who was he and what was one of his claims to later fame ?

Edward

Lieutenant Hedley McDonald, late of Glasgow - he invented the Fish and Chip.

[Chupacabra]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

OOBs of Brit armored forces

Somehow I suspect at least one of the posters on this thread is aware of this one already

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by edward_n_kelly:

[snips]

Also a Church Parade in June 1944 was held at Canterbury Cathedral and presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Present was a junior subaltern of 6th Bn, Scots Guards - who was he and what was one of his claims to later fame ?

Edward

I have no idea.

But the troop commander (his tank was "Lochinvar") of 2 troop, Right Flank, 3 SG later became Archbishop of Canterbury.

All the best,

John.