Home Guard and Armour ?

Sempai

Sempai

FGM Major
FGM MEMBER
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
5,328
Reaction score
575
Location
Germany
Dear Guys,

During the last time I tried to get information about how many (and what kind of) armour the Home Guard had to their use. I can´t find anything except some information about the Beaverettes and other ad hoc projects. Means this there wasn´t any single tank in Great Britain anymore after Dunkirk and during the time the empire calculated with a possible sea and air operation of the Third Reich? Would be great if one could show me some origins/links or give information himself.

Greetings
 
Maybe I empressed me a bit vague. Wasn´t there any prototype in development or old tanks not in use with the army anymore. Or selfmade "tanks" better protected and maybe armed as Beaverettes and Co.? Anything what could have used in case the operation Seelöwe/Sealion would have started? The question counts for the years 1940 and 1941.

Greetings
 
As far as I know, army-wise, the britons were basically out of the war after the fall of France until the US started supplying weapons. Not a problem really, since Sealion was never a real option, the German navy simply didn't have what it would take to keep a army safely supplied, even if it had managed to land one. And the Luftwaffe never really had a chance for air superiority needed to start a landing either.

Back to your question; anything fight-able would have gone to the army, the home guard didn't even get enough rifles, side-arms and ammunition. Apart from the Beaverettes (which were self-made) I doubt they would have anything that would count as armour.

Just my thoughts, no pretention of any expertise on the subject.
 
Thanks, Blady! So there where tanks and other heavy weapons during this time but not for the Home Guard. But the army were there as well and got all the nice toys. Sums that the things up?

Greetings
 
I can't remember where I saw it, but I think there was a UK impro armoured vehicle/mobile pillbox (call it what you like) made by putting a concrete pillbox on the back of a 3 ton truck. Needless to say it didn't work very well and was abandoned as soon as anyone could get hold of proper armour.
 
Thanks @Sempai I couldn't remember what they were called! Shows how desperate the times were.
 
Not sure of the number but Matilda Mark 1s were withdrawn from active service following the fall of France in 1940.
Even an obsolete machine gun armed tank would have been some what effective in fighting infantry with light AT guns and limited ammo support.
 
Abbasid111: Yes, there is a lot what I/one/we don´t understand. But this may be because I/one/we don´t have enough information.

So far I got information as the Home Guard had nothing at all what deserved the name "Tank". For the Royal Army it was quite different. There were Cruisers and Mathilda-IIs/Valentines in 1940 and 1941. And the tanks of the Royal Army were held centrally near London area until it would become clear where the Germans landed in real. Thanks to Steel God of theBlitz forum for that information. My next question would be wherefor there was a Home Guard at all if it was handled that stepmotherly? Wouldn´t it have been better to enqueue/enlist the members in a part of the army - maybe such as a formation of second class/second wave?

Greetings
 
Mark Felton is absolutely brilliant. I really recommend his youtube channels . Just as a teaser - did you know there were six D-Day landing beaches, not five? I certainly didn't. ;-) (look it up on his videos) He manages to find incredible stories - particularly from WW2 - that outclass most of the feeble stuff you see on TV.
 
@Sempai I think in reality the Home Guard were going to be used like the Volksturm - sacrificial units to slow down the German advance slightly while the regular army (what was left of it) prepared a proper defence. Obviously they didn't tell them that at the time, but there was no point in giving them decent weapons which would just be lost. A grim military reality.
 
BTW, the British army is just called the army. Yes, we have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force, but the army isn't. Not sure why, but probably goes back to the English Civil War where the Parliamentarian army beat the Royal Army of King Charles I (who got a bit headless about it), so it isn't a tradition that is celebrated in a name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom