"1st Armoured Div France 1940" Topic

Hi Folks

I'm looking for a breakdown of the types of vehicle used in the various regiments of the 1AD in France 1940.

In particular I'm trying to find out whether the different cruisers were mixed at company level and in roughly what proportion. Also were the light tanks mostly in separate companies or mixed with the cruisers.

Any pointers to sources that give detailed breakdowns would be appreciated, my Google-fu has failed on this one and I can't find any paper references in my limited library.

Try Here
link

Thanks Jarrovian

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to match the quoted strength of the unit. I have overall figures for the tanks by type but now I'm wondering if those are accurate. In particular it shows one of the RTR units with 21 MkVI light tanks – which they aren't supposed to have.

There was originally a light armoured (mark 6's) and a heavy armoured brigade (cruisers) in each armoured division but they were changed to just armoured brigades. IIRC, they distributed the light and the cruisers amongst all the regiments to even the divisions because there were insufficient cruisers to supply all the regiments.

the division had 134 mark 6's and 150 cruisers A9/A10/A13?

establishment was 340, which highlights that there were insufficient cruisers to even fully equip one full brigade.

Proposed squadron establishment was hq of cruisers and CS support + 4 troops of 3 cruisers.

Actual establishment after the removal of the light and heavy designation seemed to be 2 troops of cruisers and 2 troops of mark 6's.

It seems the regimental hq also had the mark 6's.

What is interesting about your number is that It tallies exactly with this structure.

3 squadrons with 6 mark 6's each and the regimental hq with a further 3 for a total of 21.

They would also then have a total of 9 cruisers per squadron including 1 CS with a potential extra couple at the hq so 27-29 cruisers. 48-50 vehicles all in.

how does that tally up with your figures? IIRC, the A9's or A10's tended to be CS versions. If your totals allocate them say 3 A10's or 3 A9's you can guess what they were.

Kevan

Thanks for that, I actually had the 'new' organisation but took what my sources almost all say – that the proposed change to all Cruiser armament was not implemented by the time the division was sent to France – and didn't consider it relevant. Your addition about the interim organisation is new to me and it helps a lot – thanks.

Right, this is starting to make some sense.

BUT … what if they mean it wasn't FULLY implemented.

We know that tanks were delivered to the division while in France (but not which types) and that it is likely that the figures you give (which match those I have) are for the 5 regiments actually together in France and don't include the 2nd RTR.

If they retain all their CS tanks from the old organisation that would only account for 16 of the 55 A9/A10's listed. Logic says that mixing slow A9's in with faster A10 or A13 would not make sense so I'm going to work on a troop of A9 per company/squadron and see how that pans out against what info I already have plus your ideas/info.

Its late here so I'll do it tomorrow and post again when I think I have it sorted.

Tony H

Tony, there was a whole series of articles on "Early British Cruisers" by Peter Brown in Military Modelling magazine over the past couple of years. He had listing of tank types down to squadron level IIRC (mine are stored away, so I can't dig them up in a hurry). Troops, not companies BTW! Peters research tends to be very good as he uses the original unit returns etc, so I'd accept his figures over most other sources.

Huw

I haven't seen a Military Modelling mag for years, I didn't even know it was still published. It would be nice to get that data but I've no idea how to come by it now.

Tony

Tony,

I second what Kevin has said. The new organisation was'nt in place and since units would have been left units solely with MkVIs it was decided to swop tanks around to give a balance to each unit/regiment/battalion, presumably by the divisional command.

Dave H

"Logic says that mixing slow A9's in with faster A10 or A13"

Umm, I really wouldn't go assuming that sort of thing. Even in the ideal organisation, 'light' and 'heavy' cruisers were mixed within units. Armament rather than mobility characteristics seem to have been the deciding factor.

Mixed light tank/cruiser squadrons is the way to go, as that is what they ended up doing.

Martin

I wasn't planning to suggest separating out the A9's into separate squadrons, just into separate troops or in the HQ. As the A9 was the only 'Heavy' cruiser at the time and there were only 24 of them in the division this should be feasible as well as logical.

I did't think that squadrons mixed cruiser and light tanks together, do you have any references for that mix ?

I know it was done out of desperation in the Desert and probably even in ad-hoc formations in France, once numbers had fallen enough to combine squadrons, but not as an 'official' TOE.

Tony

"I did't think that squadrons mixed cruiser and light tanks together, do you have any references for that mix ? "

3th RTR at Calais?

I don't have my OB books at work, I'm pretty sure they had mixed squadrons though. Maybe not?? I'll check when I get home. Maybe I'm getting mixed up with Operation Compass.

Martin

Actually that same force had hit my brain after I posted so I had a look at the one book I have that had some mention of the 3rd RTR. Unfortunately it only detailed the actions and not the vehicles involved with one exception where it specifically mentions them having to retire when threatened by enemy armour as they had no way of defeating them. These MUST have had only MkVI tanks.

I do seem to recall that, when the unloading of the tanks was going so slowly (due to enemy air attack), he just sent units to the front with whatever had been unloaded. That is quite possibly how they ended up with mixed squadrons, if they did so.

3 Battalion, 3 RTR had 21 Light and 27 Cruiser tanks (A9, A10 CS, A13) at Calais. CS tanks had few HE rounds, mainly smoke rounds. Many did not have machine guns due to barrels and stocks being left behind in England. Few Radios were working also due to parts missing.

OK, I've considered the info to hand and I've done the breakdown of the 'original' TOE (with Lt & Heavy regiments). Much to my surprise it takes very little 'fiddling' to get it to fit the numbers for the division that I have – provided that you allow for it having only 5 regiments.

Left over are 2 A9 and 10 MkVI – these could be either spares or the Divisional HQ Sqn.

Having done that I then tried to fit the number of tanks into the 'new' idea of the TOE with 4 troop Sqns.

My first attempt has assumed that there will be two Cruiser Sqn (4 by 3 tank troops) and 1 Light tank Sqn (4 by 4 tanks troops) per regiment. This fits as well and my reasoning for this approach was to minimize re-assignment between squadrons and keep as much 'punch' as possible by combining the Cruisers into the intended 'all Cruiser' squadrons – even if there are only 2 instead of 3.

To my mind this is the most likely possibility, even if the details are not exact. It comes out with an Armoured Regiment having 25 lights and 30 cruisers – pretty close to the 3RTR given by Eagle65 and it also adds up (within fair limits) to the totals given for the division as a whole in France.

Next I plan to look at the other option – mixed Squadrons, and see if that fits any better.

Thans for all the help so far.

Tony

I've now tried the mixed Squadron TOE with 2 troops of 3 Cruisers and 2 troops of lights per Sqn. Making the Light troops with 3 tanks falls 24 short of the number of lights given as present (and so too many to be just HQ and reserves) and 4 per troop needs more than are available and nothing left for Divisional HQ.

OK, you could say they just went with some troops of 3 and some of 4 – not unreasonable considering it was a pretty ad-hoc arrengement but I feel that this does lead me more toward the previous TOE, without mixed Sqn. It is more logical, fits the numbers better, would be a simpler move from the original TOE (Light/Heavy Regts) – with minimum of re-assignment of personnel and would be more combat effective.

I re-checked. 3rd RTR didn't have mixed squadrons, but used light squadrons and heavy squadrons. Sorry about that. I think I was confused by the IABSM scenario where the whole regiment is represented by a bathtubbed 'squadron' with mixed lights and cruisers. The perils of relying on rules!

Martin

Thanks for that – what do you think of the synopsis & reasoning in my earlier post (which this now seems to support) ?

Am I assuming too much by applying logic where information fails ? It is the British Army, after all – not an organisation to whom logic had much appeal.

Tony

"Am I assuming too much by applying logic where information fails ?"

No, you need to base stuff on Inherent Military Probability sometimes, that is the whole thrust of Phil Sabins approach to modelling Ancient battles.

The only slightly odd thing is that it looks like 3rd RTR might have had four squadrons, the only way I can see that working is if the one (or both) of the two light squadrons was understrength, BHQ with 3 x cruisers, 2 x cruiser squadrons with 4x3, one light squadron with 4x3 and another with 3x3. Anyway, a strange unit in strange times.

For the rest, your analysis of the squadron composition looks spot on.