"Of Buffaloes and Bulls" Topic

To the people in the know:
What type of organization were LVT-4 Buffaloes organized into at the troop or squadron level in the British 79th Division? How many vehicles would be in a troop? If they could carry three crew and 28 passengers on paper, what would they carry in reality when one factors in the heavy weapons, extra ammunition, provisions, etc.? I figure 20 – 24 troops at a maximum. Would an infantry company take its company H.Q. carrier with it on amphibious operations? At the squadron level, what proportion would have 20 mm cannons and what proportion would have 75 mm guns or Ronson Flamethrowers? Any information will be greatly appreciated, so thank-you in advance.
Rod Robertson.

It did vary a bit. 5th Assault Regt, RE, began with three Troops of eight LVTs, plus one at Sqn HQ. 11 RTR adopted a different organisation, with three Sqns each of a HQ with two LVTs and five Troops, each with six LVTs. The additional Armd Regts converted to the LVT role used the same format as 11 RTR.

While there were specific War Establishments issued for the various Regts of 79th Armd Div (Flail, CDL, APC, AVRE), none was issued for the LVT units. Post-war 79th Armd Div issued its own proposed version, based on four Sqns to facilitate moving an Infantry formation.

There were compromises required to move an Inf Bn by LVT, a little reminiscent of glider loadings in some respects. Someone passed me a good example, of 5th Assault Regt shipping a Bn of the Royal Scots Fusiliers during Op 'Vitality II'. The Bn took all four Rifle Coys, only two 6-pr dets, the Mortar Pl seemingly marching, plus attachments of an MMG Pl, a 4.2-in Mortar Pl, RE personnel and signals. Rifle Coys were based on one LVT per Pl, plus two for Coy HQ and 'balance of Coy personnel'. That's only one example and I'm sure other people can provide different takes.

Gary

Gary
Thanks for the information, it is much appreciated!
Rod.

I concur with Gary, but my notes also point out that in addition to the different squadron organisation, the 5th Assault Regt had four squadrons instead of the usual three squadrons.

My notes also state that two squadrons in each regiment had mixed Buffalo II and Buffalo IV, while the remainder had exclusively Buffalo IV.

Buffalo II were normally armed with .30 Cals, though some had .50s.

Buffalo IV were normally armed with a Polsten 20mm and two .50s, though some had .30s as secondary armament.

There was one troop equipped with LVT-4(F) Sea Serpent flame carriers, with 6-8 Sea Serpents. It is not clear if this was an independent unit, or whether it was a troop belonging to an existing Buffalo regiment. It may even have been the Flamethrower Troop of the embryonic 34th Amphibious Support Regiment Royal Marines (which was formed in the UK from the RM Infantry Battalion that had been formed from the disbanded RM Armoured Support Group and was sent to India in 1945). The Sea Serpent had two Wasp flamethrowers mounted in small open-backed boxes at the front of the passenger compartment, plus a .50 on a ring-mount at the rear (probably scavenged from halftracks).

It's also worth mentioning that the Recce Troops of the DD Regiments used in the Rhine Crossing were re-equipped with 4x Buffalo II and 2x Buffalo IV, plus 2x airborne bulldozers that were carried by the Buffalo IVs. Two of the Buffalo IIs would carry rolls of 'Chespale' corduroy matting that could be used as a fascine or as a carpet over soft ground. Their mission was to secure and improve exit points for the DDs on the riverbank.

R Mark Davies:
Thank-you for the information and especially the fact that the LVT II`s and LVT IV`s were mixed into the same units. Does anybody know if company carriers would be transported along with the troops during the initial assault/ landing or would the carrier be left behind out of battle?
Rod Robertson

Had a check back through some of my bits and pieces re the LVT II and IV allocation for Regts. The first one for 11 RTR had 36 IIs and 60 IVs, each Sqn with twelve IIs (two per Troop and each Sqn HQ), the balance IVs. That dates to late 1944.

The next split for early 1945 changes to 24 LVT IIs and 72 LVT IVs per Regt, with each Sqn HQ and one Troop per Sqn fully LVT II, the balance with LVT IV. That also tallies with the Unit Entitlements of 21 Army Group AFV returns for the same period. The holdings aren't detailed to unit level, and those papers are currently buried away with lots of other A3 stuff that's just too big to file…

Rod, afraid I can't give you a definitive answer, it quite likely varied by operation. That loading table I mentioned doesn't mention carriers. An LVT IV is shown to bring in balance of Company personnel, with another an M29 Weasel. My suggestion would be that was used as the HQ 'runabout' on this particular op, perhaps in preference to a carrier because of its own amphibious ability.

Gary

Gary and R. Mark:
Here is why I am confused. In or about early September of 1944 the 5th Assault Regiment of the Royal Engineers of the 79th Armoured Division received a "Flotilla" of 100 LVT II`s and IV`s, forty Terrapins and some Weasels to train with. By October of `44 they were tasked with moving the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade across the Scheldt and into the Braakman Inlet as part of Operation Switchback. The North Nova Scotia Highlanders were given half the LVT`s (less than fifty due to maintenance problems) to complete their part of the operation. Their first wave consisted of three reinforced companies landing. The infantry of three companies which were at about 80% strength and some supporting M.G.s were loaded into 12 LVT`s (presumably LVT 2`s). The supporting arms were given 37 LVT`s to move mortars, A.T. Guns, Engineers, Field Medical units, etc. These approximately 50 LVT`s were matched by a second group carrying three reinforced companies of the Highland Light Infantry. These taskings and organizations seemed to be ad hoc rather than following some clearly delineated T.O.E. So my question is "Were they making it up as they went, or was there some organization behind this "Flotilla" unit in October of 1944?"
As to the question of the company`s run-about carriers, the war diaries seem to show that some companies had them and others did not; and there seems to be no discernible rule to figure out whether they brought their carriers with them, or left them behind, or brought them but had them commandeered for other more urgent duty Its all bloody chaos! I am trying to design a scenario inspired by the Braakman landings with a landing of a reinforced company of the H.L.I. at Amber Beach (the code name for the mud flat or "groyne" where they landed) but the contradictory evidence is driving me nuts!
Once again thanks for your earlier imput – it is much appreciated.
Rod.

Rod,

I don't have any information at all on the 'early' LVT organisation under 79th Armoured Division – all my info is from 1945.

What is true re 79th Armoured Division, is that while units of all types were organised into squadrons and troops, these were often merely administrative organisations. In the field, the 79th would almost always form task-oriented battlegroups, which could be formed from a number of mixed units.

Re squadron carriers – I would say that they would be left behind. Everything I've read of LVT operations emphasises that they were merely ferries and would usually depart as soon as possible after depositing the troops, so as to bring reinforcements across. I would therefore expect the squadron carrier to remain with the squadron echelon on the 'friendly' bank.

Incidentally, I've got plans and photos here somewhere for a deck that was installed on Buffalo IIs that would allow 17pdrs, Carriers and 15cwt trucks to be carried.

The total of 100 LVTs matches with the organisation used by 5th ARRE at the time; still four Squadrons then as R Mark mentioned, each with 25 LVTs. Each Troop had three LVT IIs, the balance in the Squadrons were all LVT IV. The 40 Terrapins were initially divided out eight per Squadron, which included the attached 82 Squadron from 6th ARRE in late 1944. For 'Switchback' they were all handled by 82 Squadron, which had previously had 20 LVTs – confusing isn't it?!

I'd recommended you view the situation as something akin to chaos, just that organised variety familiar to operations of the period. The LVTs had recently been issued and Switchback was one of the first outings for them with the 79th. They were learning on the job in live and very dangerous conditions, as too were the Infantry et al they were ferrying in.

The Final Report of June 1945 says the following about the LVT organisation and infantry units, referring to the 96 craft Regiments used by 11 RTR and later 33 Brigade.

"51 LVTs are required to carry an Infantry Battalion at assault scales. An Infantry Battalion with its attached officers (e.g. Battery commander, FOOs and RE officers) can, therefore, can be convieniently carried by two Squadrons of LVTs (64 craft). A LVT Regiment can, therefore, carry an Infantry Brigade assaulting with two Battalions up and Brigade HQ.

Recent operational experience in this theatre has shown that the present three-Squadron organisation is not suitable. This organisation has to be broken up in order to carry an Infantry Brigade assaulting with two Battalion up.

Furthermore, it is considered that the maximum number of craft a Squadron Leader can control is 32 (the existing establishment) and that a Regiment of two Squadrons, ech capable of carrying one Infantry Battalion, is not practicable."

As I mentioned, I'd liken it to a glider operation, where there was a lot of compromise on just who and what could be taken, depending on lift capacity. Mechanical breakdowns as you say reduce that capacity even before the off.

By the by, if anyone knows what 'assault scales' actually meant personnel, vehicle and weapons wise I'd love to know!

Gary

R Mark:
Did you mean 17 lbrs. or 6 lbrs.? Would a 17 lbr. be able to fit into the bay of an LTV II? Even with a deck over the dual drives down the centre of the bay, would the vehicle`s bay be long enough to hold the gun`s carriage? Those are pretty long trails on a 17 lbr.! I imagine the gun shield would also stick up well above the vehicle since the whole thing is sitting on a raised deck! I don`t think I could fit my model 17 lbrs. into my model LVT II`s and they are a slightly larger model (smaller scale) than the guns! That is mind blowing!
Thanks for the comments and especially the esoteric information and I shall just have to come to terms with operational uncertainty of Oct. 1944!
Thanks too to Gary for the sage advice even if its for 1945.
Cheers.
Rod

Hi Rod,

A 6pdr or 25pdr could fit within the bay of a Buffalo IV (in Italy 25pdrs were even fired from them!). However, the 17pdr would not, as you point out above. The solution therefore was to fit a deck (looking like a small assault bridge) on top of a Buffalo II, which would allow 17pdrs and larger vehicles to be transported across the river, albeit rather precariously!).

R Mark:
Ah! On top. I had a notion of a very large basketball player stuffed into a tiny tub – with limbs sticking out everywhere. So did the Brits aim to capsize their amtracs? Were they jealous of the French and Jacques Cousteau and felt they had to push the envelope of submarine-amphibian warfare? This seems to me be be a very risky method of moving heavy kit. Archemedies would not approve!
Rod.

Yes it would seem like that, but the Buffalo, and particularly the Mk II, had a very low centre of gravity, so this was actually a viable option. The biggest problem however, was loading/unloading – not something you'd want to be doing under fire.