99 Field Regiment at Kohima

Discussion in 'Royal Artillery' started by Charles Vernon, Dec 26, 2010.

  1. Casualty
    I'm researching the death of Gunner Geoffrey Mark Shrubsole on 20 April 1944. I have discovered he was a driver mechanic who was killed by a mortar bomb shortly after delivering Capt. Moreton and his OP to Garrison Hill in a Universal Carrier. Gunner J Dove was killed and Gunner C Bailey mortally wounded at the same time. They were members of 394 Battery.
    Casualty
    Casualty

    99 Field's 3 Batteries were 393 (8 x 3.7" How), 394 and 472 (8 x 25lb). I have been unable to determine from the War Diary what 394 Battery was equipped with. It is described as an SP Battery, its manpower establishment is listed as being II/189/1 whereas 472 is described as a Field Battery with establishment II/187/1 modified for India.

    Help!

    Charles Vernon
     
  2. Skoyen89

    Skoyen89 Senior Member

    Hi Charles

    Farndale's History of the Royal Regt of Artillery, The Far East Theatre 1941-6 gives 394 battery as being equipped with eight 105mm Self-Propelled Priests in Oct 43. The Priest was an American 105mm howitzer on a Sherman tank chassis. The other batteries are noted as being equipped as you say, all on p.361. It then says 394 battery as having eight towed 25 pounders from March 1944 and they changed whilst at Dimapur, prior to Kohima. See p.201.

    Hope this helps.
    Skoyen89
     
  3. Thanks so much - what a time to change equipment, just a couple of weeks before a major battle!!

    Charles
     
  4. Looking again at the War Diary I'm not sure if Maj Gen Farndale is correct. The Field Returns for 23 Apr still shows 394's War Establishment based on II/189/1 which I've discovered is for a Priest Battery. My copy of the Return for 30 April is a bit fuzzy but it looks the same. From 17-24 April 394 was under command 10 Field so I've requested a copy of their War Diary from Kew.

    Charles
     
  5. Having now obtained a copy of 10 Field's War Diary I'm more confused.

    99 Field's Diary 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?

    Charles
     
  6. redlynch

    redlynch Junior Member

    Having now obtained a copy of 10 Field's War Diary I'm more confused.

    99 Field's Diary 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?

    Charles

    Did you ever manage to get a conclusive answer to the question of the equipment of 394 Fd Bty? By mid-44 did the Bty have M7 Priests of had they reverted to towed 25 pdrs? I should be very interested to know the expert opinion. Thanks. Mike
     

Share This Page