The Management of Change

1 The Management of Change - Mechanizing the British Regular and Household Cavalry Regiments 1918 -1942 Roger Edward Salmon DMS., BA (Hons). A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy October 2013 This work or any part thereof has not been presented in any form to the University or to any other body whether for the purposes of assessment, publication or any other purposes. Save for any express acknowledgements, references and/or biblographies cited in this work, I confirm that the intellectual content of the work is the result of my own efforts and of no other person. The right of Roger Edward Salmon to be identified as author of this work is asserted in accordance with ss.77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988. At this date copyright is owned by the author. Signature………………………………………………………… Date……………………………………………………………….. 2 Abstract The mechanization of British Cavalry regiments took place between the two World Wars and on into 1942. This thesis describes the process by which horsed cavalrymen were re-trained in armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) and the experiences of some of the regiments managing this change. Extensive use has been made of the oral testimonies of many of the soldiers involved, a number of whom are still living, as well as regimental and War Office archives. The reason given for the delay in cavalry mechanization, cited in some military histories, much influenced by Sir Basil Liddell Hart, was resistance from the cavalry to parting from their horses. This thesis refutes this assertion regarding the cavalry as a whole, but details the exceptions of two regiments that lobbied on their own behalf. The principal reason for the protracted process of mechanization, argued in the thesis, was the lack of suitable and sufficient AFVs. Examination of the Vickers papers have revealed that tank production was taking place during the mid-1930s, but for overseas clients. These tanks could, speculatively, have been procured for British units. Why this did not happen is examined, and the following factors considered: the influence of an Army Council member regarding the future usefulness of tanks, the pressure of public opinion, in which the Britain by Mass Observation archives have been illuminating, and the economic priorities of inter-war British Governments. Following the abandonment of the ‘10 Year Rule’ in 1932, a defence policy was formulated that gave the army the lowest priority for rearmament of the three services and this also impacted on cavalry mechanization. 3 Contents Acknowledgements – page 5 Introduction – page 9 Methodology – page 36 Chapter One – page 48 Mechanization – The First Phase 1918-1929. Chapter Two – page 131 Mechanization Phase Two 1930 – 1936. The Experiment - the dragons porté and the 3rd Hussars. Chapter Three – page 198 Mechanization - The Third Phase 1936 – 1939. The Mobile Force in Egypt and the Mobile Division at home. Chapter Four - page 273 Mechanization - Finalé Conclusion – page 370 Bibliography – page 400 4 Appendices Appendix A - page 441 – British Regular Cavalry Regiments – Order of Battle and full titles. Appendix B - page 446 - British Army commitments and Cavalry regiment locations and organization 1919-1939. Appendix C - page 503 – Biographies. Appendix D - page 516 – The Labour Party General Election results 1900 – 1935 and its growth in electoral support. Appendix E - page 517 – United States President Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’. Appendix F - page 521 – Analysis of the result of the Peace Ballot, June 27 1935. Appendix G - page 522 - Provision of Army Estimates for the purchase and maintenance of animals and vehicles 1927 – 1938. Appendix H - page 523 – The maintenance and repair tasks for AFVs to be learned by cavalrymen. Appendix I - page 524 – An example of the standard required for the classification for a Diver eligible for Tradesmen’s Rates as a Driver Operator. Appendix J - page 525 – Definitions – mechanization / mechanisation motorization armour charger Appendix K – page 527 – Interviewees by Unit 5 Acknowledgements There is really no order of precedent for my appreciation, for I am equally grateful to each of the following academics, archivists, curators, librarians, regimental secretaries, friends and family, all who have provided pieces, great and small, in this jigsaw that eventually have formed a completed ‘picture’. I must, however, and understandably, place at the top of this list the veteran servicemen and women who allowed me to interview them, and to confer and clarify points with them on a number of subsequent occasions. The detailed list of these officers and men and women, and their units, can be found in the bibliography. All had checked the transcripts of their interviews that were then amended if necessary. I am sad to report that some have since died and I dedicate this work to their memory and to their comrades who live on, now all aged in their 90s. The Veterans – Kay Ash 1920-2013 William Bate 1925-2012 John Bennett 1921-2008 Thomas Bishop Raymond Bullock Stanley Chapman William Cross Robert Cruddace 6 William Davidson MBE 1921-2012 R L Val ffrench Blake DSO 1913-2011 Joseph Hodgeson 1921-2011 George Husband Basil Jeffcut Ronald Lucas Charles Need 1914-2010 James Randall MID Aiden Sprot MC Margorie Stead The Academics – Professor Stephen Badsey - The University of Wolverhampton Dr Phylomena Badsey - The University of Wolverhampton Professor John Buckley - The University of Wolverhampton Dr Robert Bushaway 1952 - 2013 - The University of Birmingham Mr Peter Hart - The Imperial War Museum London Dr Robert Self - The London Metropolitan University Professor Peter Simpkins - The University of Birmingham Professor David Stephenson - The London School of Economics Archivists, Curators, Librarians and Regimental Secretaries of the following – The National Archives – Kew 7 Imperial War Museum – Department of Sound Records – London The Tank Museum - Bovington The Cambridge University Library The University of Birmingham Library Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives, Kings College – London The permission of The Trustees of the Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives to use selected quotations is gratefully acknowledged. University of Sussex Library - Brighton The University of Wolverhampton Library Essex County Library Services - Loughton The British Library – St. Pancras and Colindale - London The Household Cavalry - Windsor Royal Scots Greys – Edinburgh The Queen’s Hussars – Warwick The Queen’s Own Hussars Home Headquarters – London The Queen’s Royal Lancers - Grantham The 9th/12th Lancers – Derby The 15th/19th Hussars – Newcastle Friends and family – Peter Armitage FCA Susan Debnam Malcolm Clough Charles Mathiesen 8 William M Salmon John Sly Susan Smith David Thomas 1947-2011 And for their love and encouragement, my son and daughters – Glenn, Emily and Paula Salmon. 9 Introduction For the British horsed cavalryman undergoing ‘mechanization’, the move from horses to vehicles, there were many changes to which he had to adapt other than the form of transportation and weapons platform.1 In tanks, or other armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs), the cavalrymen’s individual role changed. As a horseman he had a dual role of being part of a mobile arm, but was equipped and trained to fight equally well mounted or on foot.2 In his new role in a vehicle it was different; he became part of a crew. His personal armaments were exchanged, swords and rifles for revolvers.3 The weapons platform transferred from an individual conveyance, ‘grace laced with muscle and strength by gentleness confined’,4 to a clanking, hot, claustrophobic, metal capsule that had to be shared with other men.5 George ‘Yorkie’ Husband of the 16th/5th Lancers6 explained, when interviewed for this thesis in 2010 and having undergone mechanization, that ‘the training was better as a horseman than [in] a tank. Tank life [he remembered], takes a bit of getting used to, one horse and you together and then you finish up with five of you, it was a different world’.7 Sharing, mutual dependence and teamwork brought a cultural as well as a mechanical change to cavalry regiments. Horsed troopers, unless they were in a specialist group, such as machine-gunners or signallers, were all trained for a 1 See Appendix J for definitions and terminology. 2 Personal interview with ffrench-Blake (2006); by the author. 3 Personal interview with Randall (2006); by the author. 4 From a poem by Ronald Duncan collected in Way, The Poetry of Horses, p.59. 5 Interview with Parnell by Dr Peter Liddle; Tape 623 – The Second World War Experience Centre. 6 See Appendix A for the Regiment’s full title. 7 Personal interview with Husband (2010); by the author. 10 similar role, and with their horse were solo performers. More importantly, mounted cavalry officers both lived and worked separately from the men they led.8 A tank crew had to form a team, equal in status, except for the commander, but nonetheless mutually dependent as a driver, signaller, gunner or commander. The commander of a tank could be any rank from a lance corporal to a major, or sometimes the commanding officer of the regiment, who would ordinarily be a lieutenant colonel.9 Tank crews fought, cooked, ate and slept together, totally reliant on each other, for each other. As a consequence of mechanization and because of this new closeness between officers, NCOs and troopers, the style and nature of the leadership changed.10 The management of mechanized training appeared to have been similar in each cavalry regiment. Tried and tested, and no doubt honed by experience, it followed the principles of the original programme ordered by the War Office in 1928 for the conversion to armoured cars of the 11th Hussars and the 12th Lancers.11 The troopers were organized into cadres of around twenty men.12 Cavalry regiments had a higher proportion of NCOs to men, about 1 NCO to 6 or 7 troopers, than did infantry regiments.13 This ratio was ideal for effective leadership and would have enhanced the efficiency of the training.

Load more