Armoured OP in Inf Div ATK Regts

Found a reference to:

"A Troop consisting of 1 Armd OP and 4 Quads and Guns [17 Pdr] and 1 Jeep"

Now, is that likely to be a Carrier, Valentine or a Sherman?

Text was somewhat inconclusive and haven't found much to substantiate it either way. I believe according to Trux it should be a Carrier, but why not list it as 1 Carrier - as the Jeep/Quads are so clearly listed?

Thoughts on this vehicles ID?

 

What is the context? Is this an official establishment or in a book?

Establishment tables tend to use words such as "Armoured OP" or "cars" which allow the requirement to be met by different types of vehicle. I am not sure the word "jeep" appears in an establishment table.

The Troop commanders vehicle for Atk Troops was a contentious issue. Unlike with tanks, the troops commander did not command from one of the fighting vehicles.

 

For clarification, its from a report (compiled by three NCOs) regarding the employment of A Troop, 278 Battery, 71 Anti-Tank Regiment and their actions on 17 July 1944 (so before 53 Div receives Valentine 17 Pdr SPs). A carrier is referenced later, so would the 'Armoured OP' simply be the Troop Commander's mount, which was in this case a Carrier - or another vehicle?

 

Most likely to be a carrier. It wouldn't have been a Valentine and if it had been a Sherman his troop might have been able to fight their way out of the ambush

 

Excellent reasoning!

 

Armd could mean armed not armored. Therefore you could be looking at a Jeep or Carrier that can defend itself or use the armament to mark targets.

 

The real hero of the incident on 17th July was gunner Coster who was awarded the MM for his actions in fighting off the Germans with a Bren gun and grenades . The troop was supposed to be marrying up with infantry but Lt Graham found no Infantry at the RV. By the time he returned to the gun group they were surrounded by the Germans - using a captured Churchill tank. Coster was the hero of the hour. Most of the rest of the troop, including Lt Graham seem to have been captured. Only six men returned to British lines.

It is hard to imagine the citation written this way has the Lt Graham been in a tank of any sort .

 

A message dated 16/8/1943 from Canadian Military Headquarters, London states:

TROOPERS [The War Office] AND OURSELVES REFER TO OP IN TANK AS TANK OP AND OP IN UNIVERSAL CARRIER AS ARMD OP

 

On reading the thread from the start, I was thinking that there might be other possibilities but I'm not sure. I know some Rams were converted to OP vehicles but presumably only within the Canadian army. (Dummy gun, room for extra OP stuff inside the turret.)

But I think Richelieu has cleared things up!