Independent Machinegun Battalions

[horsa]

I’ve been researching the 1st Battalion Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa (MG) since they are one of the units that used T-16 Carriers during the war. What makes things difficult is the unit was broken up as needed for various tasks and many of the details of their history would be associated with the units they fought with as the war went on and not collectively like a regular line infantry or airborne unit.

Looking at Normandy, they were made up of four companies with A, B and C being Vickers MG units and D being 4.2” mortars. All four companies utilized carriers. D-Coy was further split into two groups each made up of two platoons. Numbers 13 and 14 Platoon landed on D-Day with the 7th Canadian Infantry Brigade, drove up to Banville as it was getting dark. Number 13 Platoon set up to support the Royal Winnipeg Rifles and Number 14 Platoon set up to support the Canadian Scottish Regiment. Number 12 and 15 Platoons were to support the 9th Canadian Infantry Brigade. They also arrived on D-Day but didn’t disembark until D+2 for some reason. Not like there was any urgency being an invasion and sitting on an LST filled with 4.2” mortar bombs. The Platoons in the three MG Companies were each tasked to support individual Battalions of each Brigade. They all landed on D-Day.

The entire Battalion transitioned to carriers in the summer of 1943. The Battalion wartime diary only states “carriers” throughout as a generic reference to vehicles they trained on and used. Probably initially would have been traditional universal carriers but it’s also possible they had been assigned some of the first T-16s available since they were being completely refitted as a support battalion for the invasion. If they didn’t start with T-16s, when did they get them? The only specific photograph I’ve found todate of a T-16 with the Cameron Highlanders is from Operation Switchback in early October 1944. It shows one of the mortar platoon T-16s loading into a Buffalo. The T-16 can be identified as being part of the mortar platoon by its angle iron rail bolted down the length of the hull to facilitate easier loading and unloading of bombs and equipment. If they didn’t land with T-16s at Normandy, where would they have picked them up as they moved inland? It is also unlikely they would have been given a new type of vehicle to learn how to drive and maintain while on the move fighting with 3rd Canadian Division. And if the mortar company had T-16 carriers, would the other three companies have used the same type carriers to make resupply of parts easier if needed, or would it not make a difference since they went different directions by battle plan design almost from the start?

[Jordan Baker]

HI David

I know this doesn't specificaly help you out but it does give some idea for how many T-16s regular Inf Batt's were using in 2nd Cnd Inf Div.

I do remember reading somewhere that 3rd DIv was outfitted with the Mk2 style of carriers for the invaison and that 2nd div got the Carriers and T-16's. So far all the T-16 pictures Ive seen in Normandy in Cnd marking have been 2nd Div. This would mean that it was from July on that they started to show up.

http://www.class-five.com/~mlu/forum...ghlight=forbes

[horsa]

Hey Jordan,

I'd seen the post you mentioned and notes that you scanned in when searching out something else in the past. Seems they were really specific to the Canadian 4th Infantry Brigade in the 2nd Division which your RHLI and Essex Scottish were in.

Toronto Scottish (MG) was the support battalion for the 2nd Division so some of my initial questions could equally be applied to them. If their D-Coy (4.2" mortars) had T-16s, would A-C Coys (Vickers) have also had T-16s?

During the push into Caen, the two Support Battalions (2nd Division and 3rd Division) worked more as a tag-team on fire missions for the infantry units. When one came off the line, the other filled in the gap. Seems they did that on and off at least until the assault crossing that took place in October which I mentioned in the first post. Haven't researched if the 2nd Division went that way or not.

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

David, I know of no T-16s fitted out to carry Vickers Guns the way both Mk1 and Mk2 carriers were. They were, however, kitted for 4.2" mortars as well as general towing duties for the 6pdr anti-tank gun. Later on in the war there were other, ad-hoc conversions such as that seen in the famous picture of a Lake Superior carrier in Holland (which Stewart Loy has emulated with his), so who really knows? Don't count on it, though - the fact is, many T-16s never got to the continent at all for whatever reason.

Hope this helps!

[Michael Dorosh]

The Canadian Army Vehicle Data Book published in March 1944 asserts the following:

Carrier, Medium Machine Gun (No. 3, Mark II) used by MG Battalions (standard Universal type, not T16)
Carrier, Universal, T16 - used by ATk Regt and Atk platoons of infantry battalions (only) - no mention of MG battalions whatsoever
Carrier, 4.2-in mortar, T16 - used by MG battalions

Windsor production began in September 1944, anticipated roles in March 1944 were "similar to T16 carrier".

My understanding is that the Toronto Scottish and Camerons of Ottawa used the standard MMG Carrier in the MG companies, and T16s in the 4.2" mortar companies. Photographic evidence seems to bear this out, certainly for the Normandy timeframe.

[horsa]

Hey Michael,

I hadn’t seen that report but it helps to confirm that at least the heavy mortar companies of the Independent Support Battalions for each Canadian Division likely had the T-16s at the time of the invasion. Another report which would seem to corroborate that information is the 18 July 45 Report No 141 on the Situation of the Canadian Military Forces Overseas. Appendix B was compiled by 21st Army Group from monthly vehicle position reports in May 1944 and states the equipment used by the Canadian Forces at the start of operations in Normandy for June 1944. The T-16 is listed as 155 vehicles with the intended establishment being 300. The same report covers Equipment in northwest Europe effective December 1944 and 266 T-16s were held with the intended establishment being increased to 348 vehicles. So even if you factor attrition, the number of T-16s in action still increased by more than 100 during the fall of 1944 following the invasion.

Section 82 of the report covers the T-16 and it says the vehicle was first adopted by the Canadian Army in October 1943 for towing the 6-pounder guns and towing 4.2” mortars. But then says Universal Carriers were used for 6-pounders during the assault landing and continued to be equipped mainly with these. But 100 T-16s modified for carriage of the 4.2” mortar were available for issue by the end of April 1944.

Might be that they earmarked T-16s as being a priority for the Support Battalions since they knew there would be an initial shortage at the time of the invasion. So anti-tank units stayed with what they had while the heavy mortar units received new vehicles which had the modifications for mortar gear and ammunition storage.

Section 81 covers universal carriers and mentions them being adopted for the Medium Machine Gun as a new requirement in 1944. It also states these were obtained from British sources. This likely included the three machine gun companies in each of the Division’s Support Battalions even though no units are named. And that would fall in place with what Geoff mentioned. I guess if they couldn’t meet demand of T-16s for the A/T units, they sure couldn’t supply the demands needed for the carrier borne MMG units.