"Armored Reconnaissance Regiment" Topic

Just beginning on UK forces and already a bit of confusion. Right now picked the 2nd Armored Battalion Irish Guards, 5th Guards Armored Brigade, Guards Armored Division to model for Rapid Fire for Northwest Europe 44-45. No trouble there but decided to do at least one Squadron for the 2nd Armored Battalion Welsh Guards for part of the Armored Reconnaissance Regiment.

Using the Concord Armor at War Series #7069 "British Armour in North-West Europe: Volume 1. Normandy to Arnhem" by Dennis Oliver one finds this explanation of the Armored Reconnaisance Regiment of a UK Armored Division during this period:
"The armoured divisions also contained an armoured reconnaissance regiment organized almost identically to the armoured regiments but containing 5 troops in each squadron, all equiped with two Cromwell tanks and two Stuart light tanks. Each squadron HQ had two 75mm armed Cromwells and two CS versions with the 95mm gun. This was in effect a fourth armoured regiment and the recconnaissance role was actually carried out by the Corps armoured car regiments or by the Stuart tanks of the regimental recce troop"

Now I did a search here and indicates that the troops of the 2nd Welsh Guards had 3 tanks, not 4 and all Cromwells, not a mix of Cromwells and Stuarts. Appears this description in the Concord book is in error at least in regards to the Guards Armoured Division but I take it for all the UK armoured divisions? I did find it curious while quite a few pictues of Cromwells of the 2nd Welsh Guards none of the Stuarts which, if the description was correct in the book, should have been nearly as numerous.

Anyone familiar or have this book know of any other glaring errors in the descriptions in the Introduction?

I always though they had all Cromwells and were brigaded with the Welsh guards infantry..I don't ever recall reading of the tank equipped recce regiment ever doing any recce.. except with its stuartt troop..

Oh good lord. God alone knows where he came up with that, but ignore it. In Italy, Armoured Recce Regiments were indeed 50/50 Stuarts and Shermans, but this was not the case in NW Europe.

The 2nd Welsh Guards were organised much as the other two British Armoured Recce Regiments in NW Europe (i.e. those of 7th & 11th Armoured Divisions). Each squadron initially had five troops, each of three Cromwells. The Squadron HQ had a 75mm Cromwell and a pair of 95mm CS Cromwells. When Challengers arrived in late August/early September 1944, the squadrons were reorganised into four troops, each of three Cromwells and one Challenger.

As with other Armoured & Armoured Recce Regiments, the 2nd Welsh Guards had a Recce Troop of 11x Stuarts (mainly Mk VI with some Mk V), organised into a Troop HQ of two Stuarts and three Sections of three Stuarts. Unlike some units, the 2nd Welsh Guards do not appear to have reduced the size of the Recce Troop or 'jalopied' (i.e. de-turreted) any of the Stuarts.

CH, to answer your question, the Guards Armoured Division reorganised at the end of the Normandy Campaign, with the three armoured regiments, one armoured recce regiment, one motor battaliona nd three infantry battalions being grouped into four regimental Battlegroups, each of one armoured unit and an infantry unit. By a happy coincidence, the Grenadier, Coldstream, Irish and Welsh Guards each had an armoured ad an infantry unit in the division, so they were grouped by regiment, as 'Grenadier', 'Coldstream', 'Irish' & 'Welsh' Groups. Thus the 2nd Welsh Guards were paired up with the infantry of 1st Welsh Guards. The indivudual infantry companies and armoured squadrons also worked as joint teams. Each group also had divisional support elements permanently assigned. Command of each group was by committee and the overall concept eventually proved wholly unsatisfactory.

There were precious few opportunities for them to do any recce in Normandy, but they did manage to do some in Operation 'Bluecoat'. Ironically, the Armoured Recce Regiments' finest hour came just after they had been effectively relegated to being 'ordinary' armoured regiments, during the 'Great Swan' across France and Belgium.

Mark, how did the non-motorized infantry battalions keep up with the tanks?

Mark, how did the non-motorized infantry battalions keep up with the tanks?

All the infantry battalions in a British Armored division were motorized. The three battalions in the infantry brigade had trucks, the motor battalion a mix of 1/2-tracks and universal carriers. So there should have been no problems keeping up with the tanks.

Another Mark

All the infantry in an Armoured Division are motorised, either by lorry or for the Grenadiers Guards motor battalion in their M5 halftracks.

The battle group structure also incorporated the artillery assets. My father was an OP with the 55th West Somerset Yeomanry, C troop Q battery, with towed 25lbrs. They worked principally with the Welsh Battle Group.

The Infantry Brigade of an Armoured Division was indeed motorised with 3-ton Troop-Carrying Vehicles (TCVs).

HOWEVER, after the post-Bluecoat re-organisation and establishment of the regimental battlegroups in August 1944, three companies of each Guards infantry battalion actually rode ON the tanks of the squadron to which they were attached. This theoretically allowed the Squadron-Company Groups to support each other more effectively (though it can't have been much fun for the infantry!).

The 'spare' fourth infantry company of the infantry battalion was lorried and followed on as a reserve. However, the fourth companies of the Irish and Coldstream Guards were disbanded just before Market-Garden to make up the losses in the other companies. The fourth company of the Welsh Guards was also disbanded following Market-Garden. The 1st Grenadier Guards meanwhile, were a Motor Battalion equipped with halftracks and Carriers, so they simply used their own AFVs for transport.

The redundant TCVs were still available if needed – they were co-located with the regimental echelons and were also used to help out local infantry divisions with their transport requirements (Infantry Divisions only had enough TCVs to lift one brigade at a time).

Just to point out that the three Inf Bns of the Inf Bde were largely the same as other Inf Bns, just a few extra wireless 15-cwts and some more motorcycles in place of bicycles.

The Rifle Coys and elements of Bn HQ and HQ Coy were motorised courtesy of the Troop Carrying Vehicles (TCVs) in the Div RASC. They didn't provide 'tactical transport' as found in the Motor Bn (which could lift all personnel with organic tpt), but could bus the inf. One of the oddities is that the RASC only had two TCV equipped Pls in an Armd Div, each of which was capable of lifting the marching personnel of an Inf Bn.

With the move to Groups in both 7th and Gds Armd Divs, I've never been able to ascertain whether the two TCV Pls had to form a third, provisional unit so that all three Bns could be lifted, or if not what soultion they found.

Gary

I've seen photos of TCVs of Guard AD with both the RASC AoS flash/serial AND the Aos flash/serial of the infantry battalion painted on them, which would tend to suggest that each battalion in the division had a TCV unit permanently assigned.

As always many thanks to all. Wealth of information here.

Marc

Ditto.

And no one noticed my deliberate mistake in saying 7th Armd when I meant 11th…phew

My 28mm reduced squadron of Cromwell from the 2nd Armoured Recce battalion, Welsh Guards (1 HQ Tank and 3 troops of 3 tanks)

Olivier

Follow on question if I might.

The self same source states the squadron signs were in white due to the unit being an "un-brigaded regiment" and indeed I note on Olivier's superb vehicles the white markings.

Can some one illuminate me on this concept and how the Welsh Guards, which it seems has at least two brigades differed from say the Irish Guards?

Not quite sure what you mean re the WGs having at least two Bdes? As the Welsh Gds Armd Bn was officially the Div Recce Regt, the various markings on their vehicles would still reflect this, even when in practice they were operating in a more normal Armd role and working with the WG Inf Bn.

Gary

I agree with Gary. The 'white' markings are the ones of an Armoured Recce Battalion. The markings are identical to the ones of an Armoured Battalion : Triangle, Square and Circle for the tanks squadrons. Diamond for the HQ / Recce units.

If I want to do another Armoured Recce troop for the Welsh Guards Bn, I should use a white diamond.

Olivier

Maybe not clear. The Welsh Guards are described as being an "unbrigaded regiment" and not sure what exactly that term means.

As to a second brigade thought the Welsh Guards had the 2nd Brigade, armored, which was as pointed out the recce regiment, though operated as an armored regiment, and the 1st Welsh Guards which were a motorized brigade.

As to markings, once again, my understanding is in the Armored Division the senior regiment would have its symbols (diamond, triangle, square and circle) in red, followed by the 2nd Regiment in senority being yellow and the junior regiment being blue. However the markings for an unbrigaded regiment is in white. Hence my question on this term. Is that term, from the same source as quoted above, misleading or wrong?

I do apologize if mudding the waters.

You're confusing the words 'Battalion' and 'Brigade'. The Grenadier, Coldstream, Irish and Welsh Guards each had two Battalions in the Guards Armoured Division.

In the British Army, Armoured, Reconnaissance and Artillery 'Battalions' are called 'Regiments'.

An armoured division had two brigades – one armoured brigade and one infantry brigade. The Armoured Brigade consised of three Armoured Regiments and a Motor Battalion, while the Infantry Brigade comprised three Infantry Battalions. In addition to these were 'divisional troops' – the armoured recce regiment, the artillery, engineers, MG company, etc.

The armoured regiments of the armoured brigade had coloured squadron signs (red, yellow, blue, green), denoting their seniority within the brigade. This also tied in with the 'Arm of Service' flash and serial number.

Unbrigaded regiments were those regiments that did not belong to a brigade. E.g. Armoured Recce Regiments who reported directly to an armoured division headquarters, Recce Regiments who reported directly to an infantry division headquarters or Armoured Car Regiments who reported directly to a corps headquarters.

Guards Armoured Division therefore initially looked like this:

5th Guards Armoured Brigade:
2nd (Armoured) Bn, Grenadier Guards – red signs & 51 AoS serial on red flash
1st (Armoured) Bn, Coldstream Guards – yellow signs & 52 AoS serial on red flash
2nd (Armoured) Bn, Irish Guards – blue signs & 53 AoS serial on red flash
1st (Motor) Bn, Grenadier Guards – green signs & 54 AoS serial on red flash

32nd Guards Infantry Brigade:
5th Bn, Coldstream Guards – '61' AoS serial on green flash
3rd Bn, Irish Guards – '62' AoS serial on green flash
1st Bn, Welsh Guards – '63' AoS serial on green flash

Divisional Troops:
2nd (Armoured Recce) Bn, Welsh Guards – white signs and '45' AoS serial on green/blue flash
1st Independent MG Coy, Middlesex Regt
55th Field Regiment RA
153rd Field (SP) Regiment RA
21st AT Regiment RA
94th LAA Regiment RA
RE, RASC, etc.

When the division was mixed up into battlegroups, each brigade was reformed with two armour/infantry battlegroups, which included elements of divisional troops. However, as these were only temporary, 'local' and unofficial organisations, all markings remained the same.

To further confuse matters, the 2nd Household Cavalry Regiment, which was officially the VIII Corps Armoured Car Regiment, was then brought in as the unofficial divisional recce regiment. However, as this was again unofficial, they retained their original VIII Corps markings.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain all this, will print out for further reference!

Just one further question, not to complicate things, you mention the battalions are called regiments. I do know the rich history of UK regiments. So as far as lineage and tradition would it be proper to refer to say the Irish Guards Regiment with the 2nd Armored Battalion and 3rd Battalion Infantry of the Guards Armored Division being part of that Regimental structure? I realize not necessarily for command and control purposes but would guess for recruiting, training and historical pruposes?

A shame not to be able to meet with more folks here and give a proper thanks over a pint.

British Infantry Regiments are largely recruiting organisations rather than tactical ones. A Regiment can raise multiple Battalions, or shrink to a single one, and still be regarded as a Regiment.

Infantry Brigades could be made up of Bns each from a different Regt, though on occasion you might find a Bde of three Bns from the same Regt.

Gary

Ooo, madly complicated subject…

The word 'Regiment' can mean many things – as can 'Corps', 'Brigade', 'Company', 'Division', etc, etc, depending on the army and period in history.

In the case of the Guards, the term 'Regiment' is usually used to describe the five Guards Regiments – Grenadiers, Coldstreamers, Scots, Irish and Welsh. These Regiments will raise battalions and the newly-formed battalions will each be given a number and then sent off to join Brigades.

This is one of the key differenced between the British Army and other armies such as the German, Russian, Japanese or US Armies. In other armies, the Regiment is a tactical unit, controlling a number of battalions in the field. In the British Army, each battalion is independent of its regimental headquarters and only really refers to it in matters of recruitment and heritage/tradition.

I would describe the British system as 'Administrative' regiments and the foreign system as 'Tactical' regiments. However, the British Army does use the term 'Regiment' in a tactical sense and that confusion creeps in thanks to cavalry regiments.

British cavalry regiments did not normally form battalions, so when they were converted to armour, each battalion-sized unit was a Regiment in its own right. The term 'Regiment' was then used to describe all armoured tactical units of the same organisational size, so battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment became tactical 'Regiments'. The battalions of the RAC also followed suit when they were formed and the Guards battalions converted to armour were also known tactically as regiments. Some Yeomanry cavalry regiments also then formed battalions, but each battalion was still known int he field as a 'regiment'.

So an Armoured Battalion of the Guards is a 'Battalion' from a historical and designation point of view, but it is also a 'Regiment' when described in tactical terms.

Clear as mud…

Did I mention that the Rifle Brigade is really a Regiment…? ;o)

Don't you just love our eccentricities…

Gentlemen, as always, I am in your debt. Thank you.

Marc33594 wrote:

Just one further question, not to complicate things, you mention the battalions are called regiments.

Sometimes battalions are called regiments, the Rifle Brigade is a regiment, the Brigade of Guards includes five regiments, and the Royal Regiment of Artillery includes all the artillery, whose tactical units are regiments.

Confused yet?

Gary Kennedy wrote:

British Infantry Regiments are largely recruiting organisations rather than tactical ones.

This is the key. Lots of innocent-looking organisational terms in the British Army have multiple meanings. A big difference is between the traditional/ceremonial organisations and the tactical/operational ones.

In the traditional structure, the infantry of the line is composed of a number of regiments (which are now organised into Divisions, such as the King's Division and the Queen's Division, but weren't in WW2). Each line infantry regiment might typically have two battalions (formed from the pairing of numbered battalions when named regiments were introduced in the Childers Reforms of 1881), each with a regimental HQ in its own recruiting district. Higher-numbered battalions might be territorial battalions. The Brigade of Guards and the rifles (KRRC and Rifle Brigade) are likewise organised into regiments, but without the same territorial affiliations.

The regular cavalry, on the other hand, retained numbering from the pre-1881 era, and referred to their units as regiments. Reserve cavalry was not raised as additional units to regular regiments, as in the infantry, but by seararate named, territorially-affiliated Yeomanry regiments.

Away from the Regiments of the teeth arms, the Corps (such as the Corps of Royal Engineers, the Royal Corps of Signals, or the Royal Army Ordnance Corps) tended not to have any such confusing traditional organisation or territorial affiliations (except for the reserves).

To produce a formation for operations, units (battalion-size force elements) would be combined into brigades, which might be further combined into divisions. As Gary says, it might sometimes happen that three battalions from the same regiment form an infantry brigade, but it would be the excpetion rather than the rule. A famous example is the lorried infantry brigade of 7th Armoured Division late in the war, 131 Infantry Bridgade, made up of 1/5th, 1/6th and 1/7th battalions of the Queen's Regiment. Thus the formation might sometimes informally be known as "The Queen's Brigade" (not to be confused with the modern traditional formation of the same name). The additional names units sometimes go by do nothing to help make things any clearer; to continue the example of 7th Armoured, the SP artillery regiment (a battalion-sized unit) was 5th RHA, of which 'G' battery was traditionally known as "Mercer's Troop", notwithstanding the fact that it is a battery (company-sized) rather than a troop (platoon-sized).

Now, as final note of hideous confusion, and getting back to Guards Armoured, note that although the armoured guardsmen were acting in a tactical role indistinguishable from that of cavalrymen or R Tanks, they insisted on preserving the Guards tradition that "A Guardsman is always a Guardsman", so the units in their armoured brigade were still called battalions (even after R Tanks and the Recce Corps had gone over to cavalry nomenclature, and called their units "regiments"), and their war diaries are indexed in the PRO under "Infantry", not "Royal Armoured Corps".

All the best,

John.

Not eccentricities Goomba, but a complex defence mechanism designed to ensare Fifth Columnists or other potential infiltrators masquerading as British. This stuff is much harder to learn than the baseball stats the ones infiltrating the US had to memorise!

All of those British organisatorial eccentricities must have given quite a headache to enemy intelligence officers trying to figure out what they were actually facing.

Granted, also some other armies had certain organisatorial oddities, like the German StuG brigade (essentially battalion sized unit) or Soviet tank corps (essentially division sized unit).

Still, I can imagine the confused look on the face of a German general when he is told that the piece of desert that he wants to conquer is defended by:

- Infantry brigade consisting of battalions from King's Own Scottish Borderers, Royal Welsh Fusiliers and Queen' Own Buffs
- Inniskilling Dragoons Yeomanry regiment
- Royal Horse Artillery field regiment
- Machinegun corps company
- Battery from light anti-aircraft artillery regiment
- Boys Own scout and antitank rifle troop

"But how mäny Engländerz ich dat?" he enquires from his divisional intelligence officer.

By the way, the 4th battalion Scots Guards has been disbanded before the north africa campaign. The "S" Company fought with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards and the "X" Company with the 3rd Battalion Irish Guards.

Olivier

Confusing indeed and doubly so to intel types. I was deputy J2 (deputy chief of staff, intelligence) for United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) former Yugoslavia in 1994. There the British contingent, which I visited, was the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment. I still remember a British Brigadier mumbling under his breath when a briefer referred to them as the 2nd battalion Royal ANGLICANS saying did they think the unit was from the Church of England. :)

Considering that even Princess of Wales and Inns of Court have their own regiments, it would not surprise me to find out that Church of England was sponsoring a regiment or two.

Marc33594 wrote:

There the British contingent, which I visited, was the 2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.

Ah, you mean The Poachers.

Gary Kennedy wrote:

Not eccentricities Goomba, but a complex defence mechanism designed to ensare Fifth Columnists or other potential infiltrators masquerading as British.

And according to legend, it sometimes backfires -- I have heard tell that on one occasion some over-eager Field Security Police arrested as fifth columnists men with the shoulder-flash "Hallamshire", on the grounds that there was no such regiment to be found in the British Army's order of battle (the Hallams were a Territorial battalion of the York and Lancaster Regiment).

All the best,

John.

In other words, the British do not properly use (or, apparently, understand) the English language, as they obviously cannot distinguish between a battalion and a regiment. Not like us good ol' 'Mericans.

Considering that even Princess of Wales and Inns of Court have their own regiments, it would not surprise me to find out that Church of England was sponsoring a regiment or two.

Well, perhaps not the C of E but there's always the Cameronians! link
link

but there's always the Cameronians!

Does their close combat drill include bible-bashing in addition to the more usual bayonet training?