10 Field Regiment, Kohima

Discussion in 'Royal Artillery' started by Charles Vernon, Dec 31, 2010.

  1. I am trying to locate copies of 10 Field's War Diary for the period 17-24 April 1944 whilst 394 Battery of 99 Field was under its command. Having been told by Kew that it will cost £60 for one month's entries and not planning to go there soon I hope there is someone out there who can help.

    Charles Vernon
  2. I have checked that the Firepower Museum does not have a copy of 10 Fld war diary.
    My real enquiry is to ascertain the equipment of 394 Battery. Maj Genl Farndale thinks they re-equipped from Priests to 25lb at Dimapur after their personnel arrived there on 10 April 1944. The 99 Fld Regt war diary has the Battery providing an infantry company for local security and they were the first to move off towards Kohima on the 17th so it's unlikely they were re-equpping.
    The Field Returns attached to the war diary state their war establishment was based on 11/189/1 - a Priest S.P. battery.
    Is there an Artillery expert interested in the Far East out there?

  3. PsyWar.Org

    PsyWar.Org Archive monkey

    Charles, I think this is the war diary for 10 Field Reg RA for 1944:
    Detecting your browser settings

    TNA ref: WO 172/4641, South East Asia > Burma > Royal Artillery > Field Regiments: 10 Regt.

    I can copy the whole of the April 1944 section for 10p per page (minimum charge of £2.00). A month could be anything from 20 to 150 pages long.

  4. Lee - that's what I'm after. Can you copy it please. How can I pay you?

  5. PsyWar.Org

    PsyWar.Org Archive monkey

    Lee - that's what I'm after. Can you copy it please. How can I pay you?


    Charles, I'll send you a private message about it.

  6. I'm pleased to say Lee has now provided me with a complete copy of 10 Field's War Diary for April 1944 (great service which I can recommend). However it does not agree with 99 Field's!!

    99 says their 394 Battery was under command 10 Field from 17 to 24 April. 10 Field's diary which is much more detailed than 99's says 72 Battery of 16 Field joined them on 17th. My theory is that 394 Bty, equipped with Priests was a bit of a 'bastard child' that 25lb equipped Regiments found difficult to integrate into their command by telephone wire gun positions (each Priest had a radio). Therefore they may have been co-located but not even using the same ammo would have operated as a self-contained unit.

    Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?


Share This Page