Can anyone tell me if this list of Tank battalions for Western desert is complete? The timescale is 10th June 1940 - 30th November 1942. 1 RTR 2 RTR 3 RTR 4 RTR 5 RTR 6 RTR 7 RTR 8 RTR 40 RTR 41 RTR 42 RTR 44 RTR 45 RTR 46 RTR 47 RTR 50 RTR 2 Hussars 3 Hussars 4 Hussars 7 Hussars 8 Hussars 10 Hussars 2 Q.O.D.G 3 CLY 4 CLY 9 Lancers Royal Scots Greys Notts Yeomanry Staffs Yeomanry Warw Yeomanry Wilts Yeomanry Thanks!
Compare against this list. I have included armoured car units as well. Western Desert Service - British Cavalry and RTR Regiments 1st King's Dragoon Guards - Armoured Cars The Queen's Bays (2nd Dragoons Guards) - Tanks 1st The Royal Dragoons - Armoured Cars The Royal Scots Greys (2nd Dragoons) -Tanks 3rd The King's Own Hussars - Tanks 4th Queen's Own Hussars - Tanks 7th Queen's Own Hussars - Tanks 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars - Tanks 9th Queen's Own Lancers - Tanks 10th Royal Hussars (Prince of Wales's OWn) - Tanks 11th Hussars (Prince Albert's Own) - Armoured Cars 12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales's) - Armoured Cars The Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry (Prince of Wales's Own) - Tanks The Warwickshire Yeomanry - Tanks The Nottinghamshire Yeomanry (Sherwood Rangers) - Tanks The Staffordshire Yeomanry (Queen's Own Royal Regiment) - Tanks The Yorkshire Dragoons (Queen's Own) - Motor Battalion 2nd Derbyshire Yeomanry - Armoured Cars 2nd Royal Gloucestershire Hussars - Tanks 3rd County of London Yeomanry (Sharpshooters) - Tanks 4th County of London Yeomanry (Sharpshooters) - Tanks 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Royal Tank Regiment - Regular - Tanks 11th Royal Tank Regiment - War-Raised - CDLs (Briefly in September 1942 in Egypt) 40th, 41st, 42nd, 44th, 45th, 46th, 47th, 50th Royal Tank Regiment - Territorial - Tanks
I know this is an slightly older thread but at the risk of counding pedantic I'd just like to point out that the UK didn't have "tank battalions". It had (and still has) tank regiments, some of which are old cavalry regiments.
Hussar.... Quote - " UK didn't have Tank battalions " sorry about that but the UK DID have Tank Battalions - in fact the 21st Army Tank Bde had two of them - the 12th and 48th TANK battalions as well as the 145th REGIMENT of the RAC The history of this goes back to WW1 when the Tank CORPS was formed of Tank regiments.....then in 1922 the Royal Armoured Corps was formed and incorporated the Royal Tank Corps - which became the Royal Tank Regiment - with BATTALIONS from 1 - 51 and some say beyond.... You are correct however in saying that MOST Cavalry units retained their REGIMENTAL status within the Royal Armoured CORPS- as did the many Infantry battalions which were converted to Tanks - i.e - 145th RAC = 8th BATTALION of the Duke of Wellingtons... 142 RAC = Suffolks..et al.....but ONLY 1st and 2nd Battalions of the RTR remain - but not for long now.... Cheers
Have to take issue there Tom. I can understand that there may have been a couple of tank Battalions, as there is always an exception to the rule, but the RTR was organised into regiments and still is. For example, if you look at 1RTR's website here http://www.royaltankregiment.com/en-GB/1rtr.aspx you'll find that they constantly refer to themselves as "the regiment" (meaning the first). The Wikipedia article on the subject explains it well: It should be noted that in British terminology, a "regiment" of cavalry or of armour is a battalion-sized unit; this leads to the unusual situation of the Royal Tank Regiment consisting of two full regiments. However, it is still only one regiment for ceremonial purposes - battle honours and the like are held by the Royal Tank Regiment as a whole, and prior to the 1920s the individual units were titled as subordinate battalions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_regiments_of_the_British_Army#Modern_cavalry So as you can see, during WW1 the Tank Corps (before the "Royal" prefix) was organised in Battalions but that ceased to be after they were renamed Royal Tank Regiment and incorporated into the Royal Armoured Corps with the Cavalry of the Line who were gradually converted to armour, the last to convert was the Greys, in Palestine. After 1940 the entire RAC was organised along cavalry lines which included referring to each battalion sized formation as a Regiment and the sub-formations as Squadrons.
Surely 1 RTR is the 1st Battalion Royal Tank Regiment. 2 RTR is the 2nd Battalion Royal Tank Regiment. etc etc etc
Well in the war diaries they refer to themselves as battalions. E.g. 2 R.T.R. war diary for 25 Nov 41, 1600 hours "Bn moved to a point 10 miles SW of Maddalena and leaguered just north of a landing ground" or 4 R.T.R. war diary for 29 Nov 41 "The Bn was disposed as under..." On the other hand, in April 41 1 R.T.R. referred to itself as 'the regiment'. My guess is that they were the exception, and the other guys the rule. All the best Andreas
Hussar You can go along with wiki all you want BUT - I go with the facts - as far as you claim there MIGHT have been two battalions - howcumm those two - 12th and 48th were both in my Brigade - and ooops - the 51st RTR was in the 25th ATB - 2nd - 6th and 8th battalions RTR were in 7th AB...1st - 5th RTR were in 22nd AB - 40th - 46th - 50th RTR were in 23rd AB....and that was just 8th Army - then we had 4th - 7th 11th I have to go along with DavidW as CORPS have REGIMENTS - REGIMENTS have BATTALIONS - ergo the RTR have Battalions - what MIGHT be confusing is that some Cavalry regiments - e.g Royal Gloucesters and Lothians and Border Horse - Derby Yeo had TWO REGIMENTS which technically should have been BATTALIONS - but weren't......similarly many Cavalry Regiments were amalgamated which became 4/7th - 14/ 20th - except my lot which became 16/5th Lancers - why - because they said so and refused the King by wearing RED tunics instead of Blue - so the awkward sods spent 25 years uninterrupted in India.... ALL that is left of the original RTC = RTR - as David W points out are the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the RTR / RAC - which I understand will be long gone shortly Cheers
Andreas The 1st battalion RTR always referred to themselves as the REGIMENT....because they were the first in the WW1.....after WW2 - they became the "experimental" Battalion which swelled their heads further - now i think they are headed for the Army Catering Corps - along with the 2nd battalion ....shame really.. as the did well in the desert with Hobo and 8th AD Cheers
Tom I feel I have to point out that the Royal Regiment of Artillery has, and has for a considerable time had, Regiments rather than Battalions, though I will of course concede that much of its history is vested in its Batteries rather than its Regiments. It is reputed that, should a new (in the meaning of one that is not currently embodied) Battery of artillery be raised, the vaults at Woolwich will shortly send along the silverware belonging to the battery with that number. Chris
Chrisgrove I am sure that your posting #11 is all very interesting , however we were NOT discussing Artillery as I did mention RTR which is of course ROYAL TANK REGIMENT... Cheers
Frederick's Lineage book states that the Royal Tank Regiment became a wing of the Royal Armoured Corps on 4 April 1939 as the Royal Tank Regiment. He adds, though, that the Battalions were called Regiments when part of armoured formations. In addition all battalions were termed regiments from 19 September 1945. Also up to September 1939, there were companies of the Royal Tank Regiment located in India, which would reinforce the battalion terminology. Note that Peter Beal's book on the 9th RTR is titled '9th Battalion Royal Tank Regiment 1940-45". Similarly Peter Gudgin's account of the 48th RTR is entailed "With Churchills to War: 48th Battalion Royal Tank Regiment at War 1939-45". He continues to refer to the battalion throughout the account. Based on other accounts, both terminologies existed during the war, which is probably why the terminology regiment was confirmed in September 1945.
dryan67 You may very well be technically correct inasmuch as both 9RTR and 48thRTR started life as units of ARMY TANK BRIGADES 9in 34th ATB and 48 in 21st ATB progressing during that conflict to Tank Bdes and finally ARMOURED bdes owing to the advent of "Battle Tanks" both were equipped with the heavy Assault type of Tank called the "Churchill" which was close support for walking Infantry whereas the Armoured bdes invariably had motorised Infantry keeping up with their faster Sherman type Tank and as you state both 9th and 48th were categorised as Battalions as were 12th RTR and 51st RTR - and many others in ARMY TANK bdes...this obviously changed with the onset of ALL being made Armoured....after the war..! Cheers
There's no doubt in my mind that after the general order which made the change from battalion to regiment that many old soldiers would have continued to use the term battalion. That's what happens in the British Army, custom and practice often defies the standard. The fact is though that officially after 1940 all tank battalions adopted the cavalry practice of calling themselves regiments with sub formations of squadrons and troops instead of companies and platoons. Therefore if you belonged to 45 RTR you didn't belong to the 45th Battalion of the Royal Tank Regiment, you belonged to the 45th Royal Tank Regiment. As for Cavalry of the Line who amalgamated, yes it was a practice to retain the original numbers and combine them such as with the 4th/7th Dragoons. The one exception being the 16th/5th Lancers. There is much urban myth about the reason behind this. Tom says is was because they refused to wear blue jackets; most others say it is because the officers of the 5th Royal Irish Lancers mutinied in the Curragh when they heard they were to be deployed to Ulster but the real reason is the fact that they were disbanded in 1922 and lost their seniority in the line. Cavalry don't have 2nd battalions or formations such as that but there have been occasions when Yeomanry units did have a 2nd battalion, the Debyshire Yeomanry being a good example. And Tom: I don't rely on Wikipedia for answers. I am an ex-cavalryman and an historian. I only write about what I know for certain but it's often helpful to refer others to a Wikipedia article if it's factual and well written. A couple of other urban myths to dispel. Valentines and Matilda's were not known as "Battle Tanks". They were referred to as "Infantry Tanks" because of their heavy armour and slow speeds. A Battle Tank (nowadays called a Main Battle Tank) is a tank which combines the armour of an infantry tank with the speed of a cruiser and which possesses a gun which can fire both AP and HE effectively. The first tank recognised as such was the Centurion. The main reason for this is that most combination gun tanks up to the end of the war were known as "Mediums" Centurion was the first Heavy Cruiser on the A9 pattern. 1 RTR never had the title "experimental". That was 43 RTR. What may be the case however is that 1 RTR became RAC Demo Sqn after 1945 but that appointment was and still is on a rotation although curiously it IS 1 RTR at the moment. Chrisgrove, you're quite correct. The Royal Regiment of Artillery does have sub-regiments as well as batteries.
I'm sorry, but that's just too B&W. I just gave you two examples where two different battalions kept calling themselves that after 1940, in official documents (the war diaries). So it's not just 'old soldiers' who hated change. Nevertheless, they referred to Squadrons and Troops. I never heard anyone use the term 'battle tank' before your post in reference to the Matilda and Valentine. All the best Andreas
Hussar looks like you will believe what you think is gospel and I shall do the same - BUT please don't try to teach me how to suck eggs - the Valentine and Matilda were always known to me as Infantry tanks until superceded by the Churchill marks - in fact the 21st ATB still had some Valentines on landing after Torch in March of 1943....Battle Tanks only became known to us on being designated Armoured Brigades in late '44 when the Cromwelll - Comet and Centurion came into the field in NWE...... and Tom DID NOT say the 16/5th amalgamated with 5th Irish because of wearing Red instead of Blue tunics.. as TOM does know the facts of that saga long before the Irish threw their toys out of the pram- and the 16th Lancers were knownas the scarlet Lancers... You continue to trip yourself up with noting that the Derby Yeo had a second BATTALION - well NO they didn't - they had along with the Royal Gloucesters Hussars REGIMENT and the Lothian and Border Horse REGIMENT -SECOND REGIMENTS as they were original cavalry - but then you are the Historian - not me Cheers
That's often the way with the army though. An Army Order goes out for a change and some regiments don't accept it. That's why you have all these little idiosyncrasies with regiments who keep spelling sergeant as "serjeant" or using the term "Cornet" for 2nd Lts long after the order went out to cease the practice. The term "Battle Tank" was first used by Tom in post #14. It isn't a term which was used in WW2 at all. Nobody's trying to teach you how to suck eggs Tom. This is a discussion and I hope you're as happy to share information as I am? The issue seems to be one of custom and practice which I freely admit is a very strong influence in military units. I, like yourself, have witnessed this at first hand as a serving soldier. The Cromwell and Comet were introduced as cruiser tanks and the Cent came in as a heavy cruiser just after the war. Officially it was never known as a "Battle Tank" (or as it's now referred to as a "Main Battle Tank") until the introduction of the 105mm gun. Before that it was simply referred to officially as the "Universal Tank". Now if you want to tell me it was custom and practice to call it a "Battle Tank" then I do want to hear it. In post #9 you clearly state that the 16/5th Lancers were so called because the 16th refused to wear blue tunics. I simply pointed out the correct reason for the improper fraction. Nor did I trip myself up referring to the 2nd Bn of the Derbyshire Yeomanry as such because it is the correct terminology in this case. I need to stress to you that I'm not here for an argument. I'm discussing these issues with you and hope you continue to enjoy the discussion as such. Don't see my interjections as criticism of you or your recollection. Only by discussing the matter with you can I find out what the custom and practice of the units you served with actually was.
Hussar Many thanks for your invitation to continue this discussion as at aged - shortly to become 89 - I find that any discussion on any subject invariably end in agreement by one or the other and in this case I see no hope of that eventuality and I wish you the best of luck... Cheers