Organisation of Independent Armd Bde Coys RASC

Discussion in 'Trux Discussion Area' started by Tom OBrien, Aug 26, 2012.

  1. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Hi,

    I've come across what seems to be an anomaly in the organisation of 5 Coy (Armd Bde) RASC in 1944 as detailed in WO171/2346 the Coy W.D.

    By 15 April the diary records that all vehicles to WE had been collected with the addition of 34 3-ton in lieu of 34 6-ton.

    By 3 May, 6-ton Macks had been recieved to replace those additional 3-tonners.

    Then, on 11 May, 145 waterproofing kits for Austin 3-tonners were received.

    On 20 May 1944, orders were received for the coy to hand in 112 x 3-ton Austins and collect 112 x 4x4 Fords.

    This handover was complete by 31 May, with a total of 122 Austins being recorded as being handed back in.

    If we assume that each transport platoon has 34 vehicles then I make the company to comprise of:

    1 x 6-ton tpt platoon with 6-ton Macks (34 vehs)
    3 x 3-ton tpt platoons with 3-ton Ford 4x4s (102 vehs)
    Coy HQ (4 3-ton Ford 4x4s)
    Wksp Platoon (6 ?? 3-ton Ford 4x4s)

    Which indicates that it is one 3-ton tpt platoon smaller than suggested by the organisation chart within the TRUX MT Coy section.

    Any thoughts?

    Regards

    Tom
     
    Aixman likes this.
  2. Trux

    Trux 21 AG

    Tom,

    A quick check suggests the following:
    Company HQ vehicles would not be Ford 4 X 4 but would remain as 3ton 4 X 2. This was normal for the administrative vehicles.
    Workshop vehicles were unlikely to have been replaced. These were a mixture of makes at the best of times.
    It was some time before reserve vehicles were delivered to units after D day. Partly because of demand for space and partly because brand new vehicles were issued so there would be little immediate need to withdraw vehicles for maintenance.

    How does this affect your sums?

    My other thought was that your War Diary does not specifically say that all the Austins were traded in for Fords.

    Mike
     
    Aixman likes this.
  3. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Mike,

    Thanks for the reply, I've found some more information:

    This from Gary Kennedy over on Axis History Forum:

    The structure for all types of RASC Coys was laid out in II/261/2, HQ of a Commander, RASC, effective 24th Feb 1943. That WE didn't recognise an Indep Armd Bde, and had the RASC Coy for an Armd Bde as an HQ, four 3-ton Pls, Comp Pl, three RDIs and a Wksp Pl. There were five amendments issued to II/261/2, but unfortunately they aren't (to the best of my knowledge) in the UK Archives; Canada is the only place I've been able to source WE amendments from!

    The WE was reissued as II/261/3 effective 13th April 1945. This allows for an Armd Bde Coy of four 3-ton and one 6-ton Pls, and an Armd Bde (Indep or non-Div) with three 3-ton and one 6-ton Pls (and one less RDI). Now these changes were no doubt incorporated via one of the missing WE amendments covering that two year plus period. The Canadians help out here (again) in their report AHQ057, which notes that "With respect to the RCASC there was a major difference, however, for on the abolition of the corps troops transport column in early 1944 an armoured divisional transport company was added to each armoured division. In addition, the armoured brigade company was increased from four to five transports platoons, and the infantry brigade company of an armoured division was increased by one transport platoon."

    Also:

    From WO171/2377 - WD of 90 Coy RASC:

    23 April 1944 PETWORTH
    Under Authy WOUM 79/Mob/6430/188 (AG5 Mob) dated 23 Apr 44, the vehicle establishment of the Company altered to read “Task Vehicles and Reliefs of 3 Transport Platoons to be 3-ton 4x2 G.S. and 1 Transport Platoon 6-ton G.S.”

    It appears possible, therefore, that before D-Day the Independent Armoured Brigade companies only had 4 tpt plns, with the addition of a fifth pln perhaps being authorised after experience on the continent?

    When I next get to Kew I intend looking at the officer nominal list for 5 Coy RASC to see whether it indicates how many tpt pln commanders were part of the WE. However, the Fd Return for 16 Sep details that 5 Coy had 5 Lts, and if we compare with the Fd return of 16 Sep for 1 Coy (Armd Tpt) which also included 5 Lts these were allocated as 1 i/c HQ platoon, and 1 i/c in each of A, B, C and D Tpt Plns.

    It seems that nothing is simple when it comes to RASC WE's!

    Cheers,

    Tom
     
  4. Aixman

    Aixman War Establishment addict Patron

    Tom,

    may I add to the confusion with the following:



    Gary Kennedy researches in his books of the 21 Army Group mainly divisional units. For these WE II/261 and the following (to 268) describe the R.A.S.C. units of divisional units. The concern of WEs' Volume II is "Infantry and Armoured Division and Tank Brigade". Besides this series of WEs volumes III and IV contain more R.A.S.C. WEs, so as for volume III ("HQ and fighting units of GHQ, army and corps troops") III/115, /116, ..., which would probably better suit for an Independent Armoured Brigade. There are even more R.A.S.C. WEs in other volumes (IV/92 and 93, V/701, VII/270, XIV/1833), just to mention some examples.
    If one could think of volume II/261/3 (effective date 13th April, 1945 – sorry, of the here relevant version /2, effective date 24th February, I sadly do not own copies of the original document, only Gary Kennedy’s books) being suitable for an Independent Armoured Brigade, it does mention in Nr. 19 (of 30 in total):
    “Task:
    Transport for the carriage of 2nd line scales of ammunition, petrol and anti-gas reserves, and of supplies on single echelon on unit basis for all units of an armoured brigade (non-divisional).
    Descriptive wording to be shown in brackets after Company Number of unit concerned:
    (Armoured Brigade) N.B. – Independent or non-divisional
    Headquarters of a Mechanical Transport Company, R.A.S.C.:
    1
    Transport Platoons, R.A.S.C.:
    3 x 3-ton
    1 x 6-ton
    Sections of Composite Platoon, R.A.S.C.:
    A B C D
    Relief Driver Increments, R.A.S.C.:
    2
    Workshop Platoon, R.A.S.C.:
    1“

    In contrary to this, WE III/115/1, effective date 28th July, 1941 (here, sadly again, I only have copies of versions 1 and 3, not of the version 2 concerned here, again relying on Gary Kennedy’s books) gives the following in No. 3 (of 24 in total):
    “Task:
    Transport for ammunition, petrol, anti-gas reserves and supplies for units of an armoured brigade.
    Title of unit:
    Armoured Brigade Company, R.A.S.C.
    Nature of unit provided:
    General transport company, R.A.S.C. (3 platoons)
    Headquarters of a Mechanical Transport Company, R.A.S.C.:
    1
    Transport Platoons, R.A.S.C.:
    3
    Ammunition Platoons, R.A.S.C:

    Supply Platoons, R.A.S.C.:

    Composite Platoon, R.A.S.C.:
    1 (less C and D sections)
    Relief Driver Increments, R.A.S.C.:
    3
    Workshop Platoon, R.A.S.C.:
    1“

    Both WEs contain besides the given types of units several other types of units which are not affected by these WEs.


    Gary Kennedy mentions - concerning the difference regarding version 2 and 3 of the II/261 WE: "The amendments made to subunitsin the revised War Establishments issued in April 1945 only affected transport and weapon totals ...".
    So personnel - and of course structure of the units, remained unchanged. Otherwise I wouldn't have dared mention the "wrong" versions.


    And Gary Kennedy seems to access to the amendments ...


    I am not really sure about the meaning of the above mentioned for a certain Independent Armoured Brigade. Compared to relatively small number of Independent Armoured Brigades, there seem to be more R.A.S.C. WEs.


    I only wanted to show that there are lots of possible sources.


    Mike (Trux) might help ...!?


    I love British WEs for that: Every time you solve a mystery you find several new ones.
     
  5. Trux

    Trux 21 AG

    Note that the Trux information on the organisation of RASC GT Companies is from a War Establishment table for March 1945 and incorporates a number of previous amendments. For those tables where I have been able to compare the March 1945 tables with earlier versions there are few changes and those are of a minor nature (ranks, trades or replacing 4 X 2 15cwt with 4 X 4 etc.)

    No actual amendments have been found. In my brief experience these were printed sheets which some one had to cut up and paste in the correct place. They were however usually left loose and have been lost.

    Mike
     
  6. Gary Kennedy

    Gary Kennedy Member

    Aixman,

    I have II/36/1 of 28th July 1941, which is the Volume II version of the CRASC WE table. That includes the same details you quote for line 3 and likewise runs to 24 different RASC Coys. I follow what you mean that there were different issues in Vols I to IV, but my understanding is that these are actually the same WE table.

    For instance the Vol III WE you have was from the Corps and Army level units series, and the Vol II I have is from the Inf Div series. Now my II/36/1 shows RASC Coys for Inf Div, Armd Div, Tk Bde, AA and RA RASC units and LoC units, and I'm guessing your III/115/1 covers the same slew of unit types.


    In short, I don't think there was any difference between the Coy types detailed in II/261/2, III/115/2 or IV/92/2 (though the actual personnel for IV/92/2 would appear to have been slightly different from those in the other two versions). There was a history of certains WEs being issued as Vol I tables for Armd units and Vol II tables for Inf Div units, even though they were identical.


    None of which is getting closer to solving Tom's query! I've had a look back and definitely the RASC Coy for a Non-Div Armd Bde with a Mot Bn is shown in the 1945 staff table as having five Tpt Pls, which ties in with the 1945 WE. The Canadian records don't help here because they didn't have any Indep Armd Bdes with a Mot Bn, just the standard three Regt variety which likewise fits with the BWE.


    Crunching the numbers Tom had originally posted the only way I can get 112 Austins is to say three Tpt Pls each of 34, one in the 6-ton Pl, and 9 in the Wksp Pl, which would exclude the 4 in Coy HQ and the 2 in the Comp Pl. Not entirely convincing I know. Also I can't reconcile 145 waterproofing kits; I get either 118 or 152 3-tonners depending on three or four Tpt Pls. Did they have a habit of providing spare kits at all?


    I may well have got my wires crossed on the Indep Armd Bde RASC Coy way back when I was trying to undo the Gordian Knot of RASC org. If they had taken the decision to increase the Armd Div RASC element by two Tpt Pls overall, I don't know why the non-Div Bdes would be kept on the old scales. It's either one of those things I found some obscure reference that convinced me, or I went with the balance of probability (there were a few things on the service side I could never nail down to my satisfaction).


    Gary
     
  7. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Sorry to cause so much confusion!

    I'm guessing that the contradiction between the 145 waterproofing kits for Austins and the issuing of 112 Fords is that the 33 difference in numbers was caused by the receipt of 33 6-ton Macks as re-equipment for one of the transport platoons. This makes it:

    3 x 34 Fords in three tpt plns - 102 vehs
    1x 33 Macks in one 6-ton tpt pln
    with the other 10 Fords being spread between the Coy HQ and W/S Pln, and possibly a domestic veh or two for the 6-ton pln.

    I'm now looking at the war diary for 90 Coy which was the RASC unit with 27 Armd Bde and it will be interesting to see what happened to it after the bde disbanded. Any possibility that the spare plns were spread around hence increasing the WE of the remaining Coys? Thus leading to the larger WE in March 45?

    Regards

    Tom
     
  8. Gary Kennedy

    Gary Kennedy Member

    Tom,

    I was wondering if the Canadian ref to "the abolition of the Corps Troops Transport Column early in 1944" might be a clue also. I tend to get a nosebleed above Div level for the British, and don't pretend to have any info on Corps level RASC unit disbandments circa early 1944, but the extra Pls might well have come from such changes? If it's possible to ID any equivalent British units that were disbanded at the same time, their WDs might mention the Pls being reallocated.

    I'd also be interested to see if there's any detail from 8th Armd Bde RASC, if you get chance while looking for your defective Austins!

    Gary
     
  9. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Gary,

    The 8th Armd Bde RASC Coy (552nd) is top of my list for next visit to Kew - hope to make it in October and will report back any findings.:)

    Regards

    Tom
     
  10. Aixman

    Aixman War Establishment addict Patron

    Gary,

    What a pleasure to meet you here. I didn’t realise you were in here – or perhaps forgot again.
    I would now like to thank you for having written your 21 Army Group series, which provided one winter’s evenings and weekends with pleasure.

    I didn’t think that I would come into any discussion with you, but there seem to be some misunderstandings “in the air” that I try to solve in the following post.

    I found out that R.A.S.C. would be well worth a volume of its own of the size of your21 AG volumes or two (maybe even three or four) if one would research the whole thing over the different levels, with all the special solutions for every case one could think of. But perhaps the whole service thing maybe a bit over-clerk-ed.
    :)

    By the way: What does an English War Establishment researcher do in an Axis History Forum, for there are the comparatively boring Kriegstaerkenachweisungen, becoming more and more theoretical with the war’s progress?
    ;)
     
  11. Aixman

    Aixman War Establishment addict Patron

    Apologies!

    Obviously, I provided some misunderstandings.

    Please, let me try to explain:
    When I read Tom’s mentioning of WE II/261/2, to me clearly a divisional WE according to the volume’s title, as describing an a R.A.S.C. company for a (non divisional) “Independent” Armoured Brigade, this meant to me a contradiction. So I checked the (younger) CRASC WE II/261/3 of which I have copies from the originals. I found in the description of the units under control of a CRASC, which Gary doesn’t mention at all in his book. When I found indeed the “unsuitable” company for an Independent Armoured Brigade in No. 19, I tried to find the corresponding unit within the WE of the (to me) more suitable volume III WE (for corps, army … units). Having copies of version 1 and 3, Already a bit late and being sleepy, I made the mistake of comparing the older (1941) III/115/1 with the newer (1945) II/261/3, showing the differences in the company structure, which is:
    + 1 6-ton Transport Platoon
    + Sections C and D in the Composite Platoon
    + 1 Relief Driver Increment

    But the difference came from the years between the WEs, changing details based on experience and necessity. So when comparing the more suitable version 3 of 1945, Gary is surely right concerning the same details in the different volumes.

    Sorry for that!

    I underestimated the service thing.
    And I shouldn’t research late in the evening …
    :)

    Remain the questions:
    Why is there a mention of R.A.S.C. companies for (the few) Independent Armoured Brigades in different volumes of the same dates???
    Which one would be right if there were differences???
    A mere citation through the volumes doesn’t seem to be plausible, let alone the immense administration effort and the source for mistakes resulting in redundant information.

    Any idea?
     
  12. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Just to add to the mystery is the following entry in the 90 Coy RASC WD:

    "29 March 1944 Troqueer Mills, DUMFRIES
    Unit redesignated to 90 Coy RASC (Armd Bde – Assault) under ACI 459 of 1944."

    Which seems to suggest that the WE of a Coy RASC (Armd Bde) assigned to an independent armoured brigade and a Coy RASC (Armd Bde - Assault) assigned to 27 and 8 Armoured Brigades for Normandy might also be different to eachother and when compared to the Coy RASC (Armd Bde) assigned to an Armoured Division.

    I'm off to lie down in a dark room with a towel over my head!:D

    Cheers

    Tom
     
  13. Gary Kennedy

    Gary Kennedy Member

    Aixman,

    Glad the books helped you pass a few nights, they certainly kept me busy quite a few as well!

    I'm intrigued to see what Tom unearths now on his next trip to Kew. Looking at his earlier post on the changes to Army level GT Coys, there seems to have been a lot of shuffling of units and vehicles to meet requirements prior to Normandy.

    Another factor may have been that non-Div Armd Bdes were a relatively new thing for Home Forces, though quite common in North Africa and the Med where 4th and 8th Armd returned from prior to D-Day. 27th was separated from 79th Armd Div in Oct43 and 33rd was a Tk Bde up until Mar44. It's quite possible the WEs simply didn't reflect these developments.

    One thing that did occur was whether the designation of Type "A" and Type "B" Armd Bdes in Feb45 affected the RASC format. The slightly more detailed staff tables produced after the war show the Type "A" with five Tpt Pls and the Type "B" with four Tpt Pls in their relevant RASC Coys and tie in exactly with the details for II/261/3. Possibly that formalised what might have been a slightly adhoc situation before.

    Oddly though, the Canadian details for their RCASC Coy types dated to early 1944 tie in precisely with the details for the final 1945 WE; excepting of course they didn't have non-Div Armd Bdes with Motor Bns to compare against. Unfortunately I don't have any RASC amendments to throw into the mix.

    I will feel slightly miffed if they changed things much later on than I'd anticipated, but it won't be the first booby trap encountered in WE research!

    Gary
     
  14. Gary Kennedy

    Gary Kennedy Member

    Just to add to the mystery is the following entry in the 90 Coy RASC WD:

    "29 March 1944 Troqueer Mills, DUMFRIES
    Unit redesignated to 90 Coy RASC (Armd Bde – Assault) under ACI 459 of 1944."

    Which seems to suggest that the WE of a Coy RASC (Armd Bde) assigned to an independent armoured brigade and a Coy RASC (Armd Bde - Assault) assigned to 27 and 8 Armoured Brigades for Normandy might also be different to eachother and when compared to the Coy RASC (Armd Bde) assigned to an Armoured Division.

    I'm off to lie down in a dark room with a towel over my head!:D

    Cheers

    Tom

    Tom,

    I'll play a hunch that it wouldn't be massively different, if at all, given the fact that the Canadian 2nd Armd Bde was also roled for assault landing, and they don't mention it in the same reports that detail other RCASC changes. Given the Bdes were equipped with a portion of DD tanks perhaps the RASC Coys involved were entitled to different equipments, and the change of title indicated such?
     
  15. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Gents,

    Some sanity at last.:D

    From WO171/2434 - 310 Coy RASC (Armd Bde) of Gds Armd Div it appears that it was organised as expected with:

    1 Tpt Pln (E) of 33 x 6-ton Macks (plus 1 domestic 3-ton GS)
    4 Tpt Plns (A - D) each of 34 x 3-ton Canadian Ford 4 x 4.

    This gave a vehicle establishment of 33 x 6 ton and 146 x 3 ton 4x4s.

    Regards

    Tom
     
  16. Tom Canning

    Tom Canning WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    Might there not be some confusion with an independent ARMOURED bde and an Independent TANK bde as the Armed bde was for pursuit whereas the Tank bde was for Assault purposes only

    By December '44 - in Italy - ALL were renamed Armoured as to recognise the advent of the Battle Tank in NWE - which would have thrown the RASC into a tiz woz

    Just a thought
    Cheers
     
  17. Gary Kennedy

    Gary Kennedy Member

    Tom,

    Well glad to see the Guards were following establishments (for once), and support the five Pls per Coy model I understood had been adopted prior to D-Day. Just one niggle, you've got 146 3-tonners; did you mean 136, as in 4x34, or does the record actually state 146 4x4s? The Coy should have had 157 3-tonners overall, including Coy HQ, the Wksp and Comp Pls.

    T'other Tom, I'm reasonably sure we are looking at two different RASC units. The Indep Armd Bdes were themselves of two types, those with and those without a Motor Bn. My interpretation has been that the Indep Armd Bde of three Armd Regts, and the Tk Bde of three Tk Regts/Bns used the same basic organisation of four Tpt Pls in the RASC Coy, the only difference being the Indep Armd Bde had one Pl equipped with 6-tonners instead of 3-tonners. Tom's original query was whether the Indep Armd Bdes with a Motor Bn had a fifth Tpt Pl prior to Jun 1944, which I was confident they had, until he burst my bubble somewhat with his pesky facts!

    Tom O, have you been able to look at the WD for 8th Armd Bde at all, so see if there is any detail of their RASC set-up? It could be worse you know, I was looking at this post last night and wondering how the RASC org was changed in 6th Armd Div when they added a third Bde?!

    Gary
     
  18. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Tom,

    Good point about the renaming of the brigades but I think the RASC re-organisations I am trying to understand were all pre D-Day in the UK.

    Gary,

    Definitely 146 3 ton vehicles - I'll try to post up the exact distribution as per table of organisation into Main and Residue parties.

    Re 8th Armd Bde RASC Coy which was 552nd Armd Bde Coy RASC (WO171/2498) - I'd completely forgotten that I had copied this.:) Thanks for the reminder. Important details are as follows:

    19 January 1944 SOHAM
    1800 Order to mobilise in W.O.U.M. 79/Mob/5774/632 (A.G.5 Mob) dated 17 Jan 44 received. Constitution of Coy is now Coy H.Q., 5 tpt plns, 1 composite pln of A, B, C + D Sections, 3 R.D.I’s & W/Shops pln Serial 5. The Serial No of this Unit is now 56681.

    26 February 1944 SOHAM
    Orders received that Coy would now mobilise on 4 Pln basis + not 5 Plns.
    W.O.U.M. 79/Mob/5774/788 (A.G. 5 Mob) of 23 Feb 44 refers.

    1 May 1944
    33 x 6 Ton Vehicles collected from 511 Coy RASC. 33 x 3 Ton Vehicles handed over to 1654 Med. Pln. R.A.S.C.

    20 May 1944
    112 Dodge 3 Ton vehicles to be handed in + 112 Ford 4 x 4 3 Ton to be drawn from 24 VRD.

    Regards

    Tom
     
  19. Gary Kennedy

    Gary Kennedy Member

    You know I actually went 'Yes!' outloud when I read the Jan entry, and 'Uh?' when i saw the next one...

    The Jan 1944 entry is fully consistent with the amended Armd Bde RASC Coy allowed for in the Armd Divs, including the number of RDIs, the Comp Pl and the Wksp serial. Then they go and spoil it by not having the fifth Tpt Pl after all. The Coy should, if following the WE, then dropped an RDI and reduced the Comp Pl and Wksp Pl slightly. Wonder what 4th Armd Bde did (cough, hint...)

    Just comparing the numbers again, and it might be that Coy HQ and the Comp Pl still had 3-ton 4x2s (4 and 2 respectively), which just about accounts for the difference.

    Gary
     
  20. Tom OBrien

    Tom OBrien Senior Member

    Gary,

    I also looked up the WD for 170 Coy RASC (Tank Brigade), the RASC company attached to 34 Tank Brigade and came across a similar tale:

    10 March 1944
    W.E. of Coy reduced to:- Coy H.Q., 4 Tpt pls, Wksps (Serial 4), 2 R.D.I., and Comp. Pl. (A, B, C & D sections). Authority:- W.O.U.M. 79/Mob/5774/801 (A.G.5 Mob) d/d 27 Feb 44.

    23 April 1944
    W.E. of Coy amended to three Tpt Pls of 3 ton vehicles and one pl of 6-ton vehicles. Authority WOUM 79/Mob/6430/188 (A.G.5 Mob) dated 23 Apr 44.

    Regards

    Tom
     

Share This Page