Hi Dave, I just cut and paste, then highlight it again here in the response box. Click the 'link' button in the toolbox above, and paste it again. --------------------------- I've the book on the A13 from Wydawnitwo Militaria. They have a chart laid out of when each batch of cruiser were ordered, the total amount, and the associated range of War Department numbers for each order. The type IVA has five entries: T 7030 - T 7060 T 9160 - T 9190 T 15215 - T 15294 T 18096 - T 18130 T 18131 - T 18160 The pdf file mentioned earlier had the number T 7041. So it was from the the first batch ordered in January, 1939. Odd though the same order included the earlier type IV with Vickers mg armament. Has it ever been concluded that this earlier type never saw African service? regards, Jack
...and... ...and several other post before and after... Now, I know I'm coming to this awfully late, but I would caution anybody quoting any books as being an authority on this. As already pointed out, they disagree with one another. Which one is right and which is wrong? Secondly, the authors seem to make some assumptions that are not based in evidence available (then and now). And, to DavidW's suggestion of a definitive book, well there are several already out there which sort of claim to being 'definitive'. Will another one really help? There was, at the time, a laid down instruction on how vehicles were to be marked. Several instructions in fact that changed the rules each time a new instruction was published. And then, each unit essentially did what it wanted to do depending on how 'brave' the CO was to go against the laid down instructions. Then, to add insult to injury, ME Command had a different set of instructions to HC!!! Some of the books, and some of the experts in this field stick to the theory of what the markings should have been according to the written instruction extent at that time. Some of the books, and some of the experts in this field go with what they can evidence in period photographs. The two do not match. Queue heated debate, discussion, argument and peacock-like demonstrations to advertise 'supreme expert' status. Now, I am no expert in this matter as it is not really a area of interest to me. So I'm not going to tell anybody what was, or was not, the definitive answer. What I will do is merely point out some of the things that I have found in my research. 1) According to theory, markings changed depending upon the timeframe and the subordination of the unit concerned. If you know where a unit was in the orbat, then you can easily identify its AoS at any given moment. 2) According to evidence, the practice sometimes agreed with the theory, and sometimes it didn't. Here are some examples I have stumbled upon. Immediatly prior to leaving the UK, 2RTR was part of 3rd Armoured Brigade, 1st Armoured Division. Their vehicles carried, as per the theory, AoS 61. When they unloaded in Egypt, they were still carrying the markings of 3rd Armoured Brigade, 1st Armoured Division - hence the 61 you see in the original image posted. The theory then states that 2RTR should then have changed its AoS to one in the correct order of the 7th Armoured Division heirarchy. Or should it??? For administrative purposes, it seems to have been regarded as a 3rd Armoured Brigade, 2nd Armoured Division asset - note the change from 1st to 2nd Armoured Division which means a change of div markings. Moreover, should B/2RTR have adopted the 3Hussars AoS since they were assigned throughout Op Compass to their command? Photographs dated shortly before Op Compass show 2RTR vehicles with no AoS and no div badge at all. Some vehicles seem to have carried no markings at all, not even squadron markings and possibly not even census number. It's a real mixed bag. Similarly, at the time of Op Compass, images of 7Hussars and 8Hussars show no AoS or div badge. I'm not sure about 6RTR or 3Hussars, and 1RTR appears to carry markings which do not accord with the theory. At least, they carried AoS 24 before Op Compass and during the latter half of their stay in Tobruk under 32 Army Tank Command. I have seen one image which I suspect is a 1RTR tank circa Spring 1941 and it appears to be without an AoS. After Op Compass, 1st Armoured Brigade, 2nd Armoured Division went to Greece and both its tank regiments remarked their vehicles according to the theory: 4Hussars changed from AoS 53 to 51 and 3RTR from AoS 62 to 52. At the very same time, 3rd Armoured Brigade, 2nd Armoured Division in Cyrenaica, 5RTR carried the AoS 63 that it brought with it from the UK (when theory proposes it should have changed to 62), I don't know what 3Hussars carried, but 6RTR splashed AoS 30 onto some of their M13s when theory says it should have been AoS 63!!!! This is why 'experts' are unable to agree with one another. That is why some modellers are convinced that their creations are perfectly marked, and yet they're not!
Thanks for the input Mark. It serves to illustrate why there is a need for a definitive book on the subject, (as opposed to a "sort of claim" to be definitive) whilst also seeming to prove that one would be impossible to create.
I disagree DavidW, I do not see any need at all. It would just be another book claiming to be definitive - just like the others. How would you, the buyer, know it was definitive? Because the author says so? Because a modelling friend who's opinion you trust says so? Because an anonymous internet poster says so? I am not a modeller and do not fully understand or appreciate what motivates modellers. However, it seems to me that the desire to pin down exact markings of a specific tank on a specific date is more driven than just wanting to produce a model which is 'represetantive' of the time frame. It suggests a desire more based in persuing historical accuracy (for personal reasons?) than pure modelling enjoyment. To me that is a rather admirable pursuit. However, the implication is that the modeller ought to be far more procative in following the historical context and realities than just lifting information from a book claiming to be definitive. Let me illustrate what I mean. In mid-January 1941, as the WDF was chasing the Italians out of Cyrenaica, a decision was made to concentrate their tank units. Instead of 6 significantly weakened battalions in 7th Armd Div, they would send the personel of two back to Egypt for a spot of R&R and divvy up their tanks amongst the remaining 4. Thus, on the 18th of January, 2RTR received 11 A9 Cruiser Tanks and 5 Light Tanks from 6RTR. 5 of the A9 Cruiser Tanks were handed to A Squadron. At that point 2RTR had 49 tanks total. On 1 February they recorded 35 fit (27 Cruiser and 8 Light), and 26 fit when they started their march for Beda Fomm on the morning of the 5th (19 Cruiser and 7 Light). Then came the Battle of Beda Fomm. According to their report on Beda Fomm, all of those 26 were still fit at the end of the day. Now, I think most people who have studied this a bit will believe that A/2RTR was an A13 equipped squadron - and uniquely so. It is only partly correct. Firstly, it had 14 A13 and 2 A9cs to start Op Compass with. On the 18th of January it consisted of 10 A13, 1 A9cs and 5 A9. What it had at Beda Fomm is not identified with precision but would have been those tanks on the 18th less those falling out in intervening period. The report notes C Sqn having 7 Cruisers on the morning of the 6th - that leaves 11 split between RHQ and A Sqn (probably 4 and 8 respectively) with no additional information on types. However, by 1125 on the 6th, A Sqn only had 2 fit A13s remaining - 6 down due to the morning's fighting but no indication of what types those 6 were. What's the point? There is no indication in the WDs as to whether the A9s transferred from 6RTR had new markings applied. In effect, you could build an A9 model with C/6RTR (C Squadron 6RTR) markings and claim it is a perfectly accurate representation of an A/2RTR (A Squadron 2RTR) tank at Beda Fomm. Many will argue with you and even perhaps have a laugh at your expense. But they will be incapable of proving you wrong - whilst you have a very solid (albeit not infallable) chain of evidence to argue your case. Alternatively, you could replicate an A9 with A/6RTR (A Squadron 6RTR) markings and claim it is a perfectly accurate representation of an C/2RTR (C Squadron 2RTR) at Beda Fomm and for that there is written evidence of C/2RTR having 4 A9s at 1125 on the 6th. At least 2 of these must be ones handed to them by either A or C/6RTR! As you can see, about a 1/3rd of the A/2RTR tanks at Beda Fomm were not A13s nor originally 2RTR tanks. Probably half of C/2RTR tanks at Beda Fomm were ex 6RTR. If, for example, one wants to model the tank that one's grandfather was in at Beda Fomm, how on Earth is one to even get the right tank type - let alone the markings correct - unless one really puts in a large amount of individual historical research. And even if one does get it spot on, no doubt one will have a queue of 'experts' telling one that one has screwed up big time!!!! Do you think any book on vehicle markings could ever get down to that degree of historical data for every vehicle for every date? It's impossible since there is not a photographic record of each vehicle in each day of its existance. One's only hope of getting anywhere close to that level of historical accuracy and understanding, and trusting it to be correct, is to delve into the records and documents oneself. On the otherhand, if one is not looking for that level of accuracy, and just wants information representative of the time, then the books already out there do the trick. Hence I don't see the need.
Mark. You argue a strong case! I admire the detail to which you have gone into in order to make your point. Certainly for that timeframe I must concede that definitive is indeed impossible. And overall probably impractical. We shall have to make do. It seems we are doomed to "experts" eternally arguing to and fro over the possibilities. As a modeller who tries to build and paint and mark his kits to represent an actual vehicle, these discussions are invaluable, As there are rarely good quality, correctly captioned photographs sufficient alone to fulfil the need. kind Regards, David.
You're too kind DavidW. There is nothing to admire in my last post. All I did was lift a handful of details from the 2RTR WD. Publically available, free of charge, at TNA/PRO. Anybody desirious of information pertaining to a particular unit (vehicle details, personal details etc etc), in my book the first port of call has to be the appropriate unit WD. If that doesn't produce the information you need, then there is a good chance it won't be found anywhere. If it is somewhere else, it's a long, long journey of trial and error. Across the many message boards you frequent, how many times have you seen people posting requests for specific information and receiving back a series of very well-intended but quite unhelpful and contradictory information? In the mass of contradictory responses, how is one to ascertain which provides the correct information one requires? If any. How many times have you yourself been caught out believing an anonymous poster, and then later finding it to be duff gen? For those who cannot get to TNA/PRO, you can get the file without even leaving home. Get the TNA/PRO staff to make a digital or photocopy and send it on, or engage a private researcher to do similar. The latter offer excellent service at excellent rates - I can personally recommend two who lurk this forum.
Good answer again. What is the approximate cost of getting a digital copy of a typical WD from TNA/PRO? It would need to be cheap, as I would need so many! Actually, not that many, considering how many times I have had good info. But enough to be an annoyance. And certainly you offer a solution. Thanks again. David.
DavidW, My previous 2 posts have been discussing with you, not about you. My words have been formulated around the questions and needs of individials with a very limited scope of information-need. In other words, an individual with a one-off request for information with specific time, date and unit: a modeller wanting specifics for a modelling project, a relative putting together a history for or about a loved one. For £10, £20 or £30 you cannot beat the level of information and reliability of a WD. It's a minimal investment that gets you closest to the best answer out there. In one hit. For a relation looking to understand the history of a grandfather or uncle, £30 for a genuine momento of what they were doing in the war is peanuts. You can't buy a decent pair of jeans for £30; a copy of the actual unit WD of your grandfathers expoits is a priceless momento. See where I am going? Unfortunately, you're not after the odd tidbit of specific information, you want the lot. And for that, you'll need a few months of your own full time effort reading and copying at Kew or the willingness to shelve out several thousand £££ to accrue all the WD etc etc. Apples and oranges DavidW, apples and oranges. Now here's a teaser for you... You decide you want to model this tank, Caption: On the outskirts of the Libyan town of Derna, the crew of a British tank surrender to Italian soldiers. Libya, April 1941 (bigger, clearer version here: The Surrender Of A British Tank Crew Pictures | Getty Images) Which unit does/did this tank belong to and what is the context, ie location, date and how it got to where it is? PS. Forgot to write... Cost of a file? Depends who you engage and how big the file is. A file might contain a single 5 page report and cost 50p or £5 if there's a minimum fee. A file might contain 1,000 pages and be £100. You need to speak with the guys who do this.
Mark. Yes, I do want a lot, but I am patient. I do like a quiz! Off the top of my head.... A9. 1 R/T/R. If the date is correct then retreating along the coast road from the direction of Benghazi, towards the haven of fortress Tobruch. Let me know how I did! And I'll look at other sources for more detail. Cheers, David.
I'm glad you enjoy a good quiz, because this one could be a real challenge. And, before you ask, no, I cannot provide a definitive answer. It is a curiosity that I'd like to solve too. A bit of a challenge. But not one that I'm going to put too much effort into resolving beyond having a bit of fun going through the possibilities. The ANTELOPE marking certainly suggests 1RTR. The AoS 30, agrees with the theoretical marking system for 1RTR. 1RTR was certainly equipped with A9 (and others) before and after April 1941. All good so far. Now, the puzzle begins. I know you've got all the relevant data, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to look up: who were the units that were retreating back from Benghazi etc to Tobruk in April 1941?
Very happy with the location. Impossible to confirm or deny the date. When I found that picture a week or so ago there were three others of the same tank at the same source. The other three are taken from further away and offer nothing on the ID of the tank. However, they offer a wider perspective of the countryside and I think it alsmost certain, 99.9%, that it is on the wind up the escarpment leading out of Derna towards Tobruk. The airfield would be at the top of the hill. Also in the other pictures are a variety of German vehicles, trucks etc, and a bus carrying a huge swastika flag to warn off the Stukas. In otherwords, can't be earlier than 6/7 April 1941 - but no way of knowing when after. Here's one of them... Larger and clearer pic here: Lorry column with supply goods on the mountain road to Derna - passing a wrecked british tank. May 1941 Pictures | Getty Images
Peter Brown's article certainly does seem to have yet another picture of the same tank, which helps us identify it at T7216. However, does he confirm it to be a 1RTR tank? Nevertheless, let's assume it is a 1RTR tank. Looking through all your notes and books, can you suggest how and when it got there? I mean, when did 1RTR pass through Derna?
I don't know is the short answer. I don't think they were involved in the retreat in April. So perhaps it was there since Derna was captured from the Italians. January? Which as it doesn't appear to be wrecked beyond repair is odd.
As I posted earlier, I cannot provide a definitive answer. However, I do know that 1RTR did not pass through Derna in January. They got close, but then turned south and let the Aussies take Derna. However, they would have passed through Derna AFTER 'Beda Fomm' during February on their way back to Egypt. Thus, in my opinion, that tank had probably been sitting in that very spot for 4, 5 or 6 weeks before the first Italians and Germans came through with their cameras. If you are following an AHF thread where I also posted those pictures, you will have noticed that that tank was still being counted in mid-April as being serviceable and held by an operational unit!!! Now, this thread was all about vehicle markings not broken useless down tanks. The AoS is clearly '30' which matches the theory of 7 Armd Div marking scheme written up in several books and modelling articles - such as the Peter Brown article you linked. Any thoughts on these... MK VIB Light Tanks of 7th Armoured Division on patrol in the desert, 2 August 1940. THE BRITISH ARMY IN NORTH AFRICA 1940. © IWM (E 443)IWM Non Commercial Licence A Cruiser tank Mk IV A of a unit of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment which is operating in the Tobruk area in support operations for the defence of the Tobruk Garrison. Note the unit identification number (24) and the nick-name "Amy" given to the tank by it's crew on the front of the tank. 8 October 1941 No caption, I found it on the internet... But the only British users of captured Italian M13s were HQ 3rd ArmdBde, 3Hussars and 6RTR. The AoS would, of course relate to end March, beginning of April 1941. The same timeframe as the A9 pictures above. The AoS marking on a vehicle is DIRECTLY related to the orbat. It is the units role and place in the orbat which defines which number is to be carried. So, when did 1RTR switch from '24' to '30' and then back to '24'? According to the theory, this sould have occured as it went from 4 Armd Bde to 7 Armd Bde (assuming it was the senior and junior regiment respectively at the time) and then back again to 4 Armd Bde! Also notice how 'AMY' carries the 7th Armd Div rat, when 1RTR at this time was undercommand 32 Army Tank Bde part of the 70th Infantry Division. They had not been part of 7th Armd Div for 6 months!
I hadn't thought about that. February it is. I'll look at those other photos one at a time starting tomorrow.
