CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY D.M. CLARKE Arming the British Home Guard, 1940-1944 SECURITY STUDIES INSTITUTE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND SECURITY CRANFIELD DEFENCE AND SECURITY PhD THESIS Academic Year 2010-2011 Supervisor: Professor R. Holmes December 2010 ©Cranfield University 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright owner. ABSTRACT Arming the British Home Guard, 1940-1945 The Second World War saw British society mobilised to an unprecedented extent to meet the threat of Total War. ‘Total Defence’ was manifest in organisations such as the ARP and Home Guard. What sets the Home Guard apart was its combatant role. This thesis examines the arms provided for the Home Guard, and concludes that its combat power has been seriously underestimated. It benefitted from huge quantities of high quality smallarms purchased from the United States, which were not issued to the Regular Army, because they chambered American ammunition. What is extraordinary is that these weapons are always characterised as ancient relics, yet the oldest of them was years younger, in real and design terms, than the British Army equivalent. In 1940 Britain lacked the capacity to manufacture arms in the quantities needed to repair the losses of Dunkirk and meet the needs of the expanding armed forces. The remedy was unorthodox weaponry such as the ‘Sticky Bomb’ and the ‘Blacker Bombard’. These are always associated with the Home Guard, yet saw active service against the Africa Corps. These unconventional weapons were more capable than many modern authors suggest, but they suffer from an impenetrable ‘orthodox view’ that characterises Home Guard weapons as ancient, whimsical and inefficient. This has its origins in the Local Defence Volunteers’ disappointment when the Government failed to meet its promise to arm every volunteer; their dismay at receiving foreign equipment; the way in which the media portrayed the Home Guard; and the fact that the great threats the Home Guard existed to combat – invasion and subversion – appeared to be illusory, making the Home Guard itself seem quixotic. This study strips away that conventional narrative, and exposes a Home Guard that was well equipped for its tasks – frequently better equipped than other components of Home Defence. CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction 17 Chapter 1, The Threat 52 Chapter 2, The Carriage of Arms 71 Chapter 3, The Rifle Crisis 101 Chapter 4, Improvisation 119 Chapter 5, Pistols and Automatic Weapons 157 Chapter 6, Sten Guns and Sticky Bombs 195 Chapter 7, Sub-artillery 228 Chapter 8, Artillery 278 Chapter 9, Auxiliary Units 310 Conclusion 315 References 324 Primary Sources The Home Guard fights to hold a network of isolated localities spread over the whole country. Thus, its main body impedes and breaks the cohesion of the invader’s armies. (From Home Guard Instruction, No. 51, Battlecraft and Battle Drill for the Home Guard, Part III, Patrolling. GHQ Home Forces, January 1943) Principles of Home Guard Defence Defence is final. A defended locality must fight to the last man and last round. Defended localities must be sited in depth. The enemy may infiltrate between localities, he may overrun one, but the impetus will be slowed down as he advances and he can be dealt with by vigorous counter-attack. Aggressive defence. Defence must not be static. Every commander must have his mobile reserve to dominate his front by fighting patrols and snipers and to destroy the enemy by counter-attack. Defence must not be concentrated. Seeds, not soldiers, survive distribution in penny packets. It is fire power that stops an attack. Keep the size of a locality small enough to produce concentrated weapon fire. Defend essentials only. Mutual support. Enfilade fire by machine guns and anti-tank weapons is more effective than frontal fire. It often assists concealment. It allows one locality or strongpoint to support the neighbouring ones. Concealment is paramount. A post located can often be neutralized. A vital element in successful defence is surprise. Conceal yourself, your positions, your weapons. Don’t let the enemy draw your fire. Hold it until he attacks in force. (From Home Guard Instruction, No. 51, Battlecraft and Battle Drill for the Home Guard, Part IV, The Organization of Home Guard Defence. GHQ Home Forces, November 1943) Introduction Two serving members of 32 (Surrey) Battalion, Home Guard, pose to illustrate the transformation of Britain’s Second World War civilian militia, from the Local Defence Volunteers of May 1940, armed with little more than a brassard and a sense of purpose, to the well equipped and trained (and, in many cases, conscripted) Home Guard at ‘Stand-down’ in November 1944. (IWM HU 18501) This thesis explores the arming of Britain’s Home Guard between its inception on 14 May 1940 and ‘stand-down’ in November 1944. The Home Guard was never called on to fight, the invasion it stood by to repel might never have been a practical possibility, or even a real intention, and the weapons it used are a byword for the obsolete, improvised, naive and whimsical. So why does it matter? During the latter half of 1940, and well into 1941, a Nazi invasion of the United Kingdom was, for the British, a probability if not a certainty. The threat of invasion and the need to guard against raids and sabotage, provoked popular, political and media demands that civilians be armed. ‘Total Defence’, as it became known, transformed the political, military, social and physical landscape of Britain. The population was more politicised than it had been during the First World War and war, as an extension of politics, rather than patriotic duty, became a matter for the citizen militant – raising important legal and ethical issues over the nature of ‘combatants’, and placing the government answerable to a vociferous, demanding and engaged public. This resulted in the formation of the Local Defence Volunteers – subsequently re-named the ‘Home Guard’ – and thus the need for the British Government to arm not only a rapidly expanding wartime British Army, but also a paramilitary militia, numbering well over 1.5 million men. In June 1940, this was entirely beyond the capacity of the British 1 weapons manufacturing industry, state and private – although this could not possibly be admitted for obvious military and political reasons. The result was investigation into the use of unconventional production techniques, non-strategic materials and innovative technologies. Indeed, the very definition of a ‘weapon’ was called into question – leading, for example, to the formation of the Petroleum Warfare Department – as was the matter of whether any limits could be, or should be, imposed on the means of fighting for national survival. Even the landscape became a weapon, as it was divided into fortified compartments by those who favoured a medieval-style concentric defence to defeat German use of, what would now be termed, ‘manoeuverist’ warfare – albeit in an effort swiftly rendered redundant by the adoption of a ‘manoeuverist’ defensive strategy. This study examines the weapons provided for the British Home Guard between 1940 and 1944. In a broader context, it also explores the process through which a perception hardens into orthodoxy, and that, in turn, can crystallise into an accepted ‘historical fact’. The perception in question is that the wartime British Home Guard was badly armed, ill equipped and poorly trained. The ineptitude and impotence of the Home Guard is a byword, even, I. M. Baxter would have us believe, in comparison to their ramshackle German equivalent, the Volksturm (Baxter, 2001, p.16): These men, and later women, that joined Germany’s Home Guard battalions were not like the soldiers of the Home Guard units that were called-up to defend England against a possible German invasion. The Volksturm were better armed in comparison, and most had greater knowledge of battle tactics. Unlike the British Home Guard, the German Home Defence units were better trained in the art of tactical defence, and could be deadly adversaries to an advancing enemy tank. This is deeply unfair, but it does reflect the prevailing view that the Home Guard represents a nadir of military effectiveness. In this study we will examine the way that perception formed, in the first few months of the organisation’s existence, as a result of a logistic crisis that the government could not possibly expose, was sustained through the period when the force actually flourished, became part of the post-war mythology of the Home Front – and went on to become the cornerstone of an academic argument that the Home Guard itself was little more than an elaborate public relations exercise. 2 In the future the Home Guard will continue to arouse interest and will increasingly be studied. Most British families provided a member of the Home Guard, and the organisation will be studied as part of the experience of the Home Front in the National Curriculum, as well as one of the manifestations of the ‘citizen militant’ that shaped post-war Britain. It is important, therefore, that some attempt is made to differentiate between fact and perception, and to point out the dangers of unthinkingly adhering to a largely illusory ‘orthodox view’. There are real lessons to be learned about the way Britons reacted to a perceived threat, the way that reaction was handled, and, somewhat topically (writing while the British Army is engaged on operations in Afghanistan), the dangers of failing to meet public expectations where the provision of military equipment is concerned. The study takes as its framework the author’s Masters Degree dissertation.1 Whilst an effective primer on the topic, a dissertation proved too restrictive to fully explore the subject of arming the Home Guard. It was necessary to omit entire areas such as anti- aircraft and coastal defence, and space precluded an effective examination of the extent to which ersatz weapons, which posterity associates with the Home Guard, were used by other sectors of the defence forces. This has been remedied in this greatly expanded study. We will start here by introducing the topic, explaining the origins and methodology of the project, and examining the historiography of the Home Guard. In subsequent chapters we will touch on ‘the Threat’ and the subject of ‘Civilians in Arms’, before examining the Home Guard’s weapons, grouped loosely by type. It is important to stress that the aim is not to produce an encyclopaedia of Home Guard weapons, but to use weaponry as a prism through which to examine issues surrounding the Home Guard. Modern smallarms are a subject that very few British students have the opportunity or inclination to explore. The author of this study is in an unusual position, having been employed for many years as an armourer to the film and television industries; much of that time spent with Bapty & Co. Ltd., the UK’s largest and oldest supplier of warlike stores to film, television and the theatre. During the Second World War the company’s stock, and the collection of its owner, noted collector and authority, the late Mr Mark Dineley, were placed at the disposal of the Home Guard 3 (vide Lyall, 1976). After the war, the company acquired additional stock, which included ex-Home Guard material. It was during the mid-1990s, while sorting, re- assembling and restoring these items that the author became convinced that the military potential of the Home Guard was being consistently underestimated. The Bapty collection represents a remarkable resource, further enhanced by an un-catalogued library/archive, containing a wealth of period documents and illustrations.2 References to the weaponry of the British Home Guard are characterised by misunderstanding and misrepresentation. Misunderstanding stems from the fact that very few Home Guards, or subsequent historians, have been ‘weapons specialists’, and as a consequence simple mistakes, myths and old wives’ tales have gained undeserved currency. Misrepresentation is a matter of context: terms such as ‘old’, ‘ancient’ or ‘Great War’ were associated with Home Guard weapons from the outset, for journalistic effect, ignoring the fact that many of small arms and artillery fielded by the British Army in between 1940 and 1943 were of First World War or Edwardian vintage.3 The wartime British public assumed, with simple chauvinism, that the weapons issued to the British Army were the best available. This, as we shall see, was not necessarily true. Indeed, we will make the case that re-equipping the Home Guard in line with the British Army, in 1943, actually represented a degradation of performance. Professor Nigel Hamilton (2000, p.19) has insisted – albeit with reference to biography- that a historiography must now extend beyond the written volume to include film, television and electronic media, and encompass fact, fiction and ‘faction’. This certainly applies when studying the Home Guard. Since the 1970s, it has been impossible for any commentator to mention the Home Guard without reference to the BBC Television situation comedy (also radio series, books and feature film) Dad’s Army. The point is less trivial than it seems: when reporting, in September 1999, the release of ‘The MI5 Files’ – a series of documents relating to Home Defence during the Second World War, the Daily Telegraph illustrated the feature with a photograph of the imaginary “Walmington-upon-Sea platoon” across five columns.4 In the public mind Dad’s Army was the Home Guard, and the Home Guard was Dad’s Army. More than that, Dad’s Army is seen to represent the armed aspect of the Home Front. In fact Dad’s 4 Army did not accurately represent the historical Home Guard – any more than its cousin ‘Allo ‘Allo can be said to accurately portray the French Resistance.5 Although writers Croft and Perry drew on their own experiences, as did the cast, considerable liberties were taken, and omissions made, for the comedy formula to work. Indeed, entire demographic groups are omitted – specifically, female auxiliaries, men of military age in reserved occupations, and the political (left-wing) element that was so influential during the earlier part of the Home Guard’s existence. One result of this was the need to create the portmanteau character ‘Corporal Jones’, an unlikely composite – simultaneously representing the ‘traditionalist’ and ‘unconventional warfare’ elements of the Home Guard – which only succeeds because of the skill of the writing and actor Clive Dunn’s talent. As we shall see, the actual composition of the Home Guard directly affected its expectations of, and reaction to, the weapons that the authorities provided and the tactical role it was assigned.6 The Home Guard may be deeply embedded in British popular culture, but it has been largely ignored by the academic establishment – despite the fact that the formation of an armed ‘peoples’ militia’, numbering, at its peak, almost 2 million men and some tens of thousands of women, and incorporating the framework of an organised, post-invasion resistance force, are among the UK’s more dramatic responses to ‘Total War’. A short popular history, Norman Longmate’s The Real Dad’s Army,7 was published in 1974 to capitalise on the success of the BBC series: the author discreetly accentuating the first few months of the organisation’s existence, when it most closely resembled the TV portrayal. But despite, or perhaps because of, the Dad’s Army phenomenon, the Home Guard continued to occupy an academic vacuum. It was not until 1995, that S. P. MacKenzie, Assistant Professor of History at the University of Carolina, Columbia, published The Home Guard,8 the first academic work wholly devoted to the subject, and, inevitably published in paperback with the sub-title ‘The real story of ‘Dad’s Army’. Professor MacKenzie’s conclusion may be summarised in a sentence: ‘National Morale, in short, determined the course of Home Guard development rather than strictly military considerations’ (MacKenzie, 1996, p.179). This study will not attempt to challenge his entire hypothesis: 5 … national morale was a key component in sustaining a viable war effort. And what the people in arms wanted badly enough, they either got or appeared to get [my italics]. The LDV had been formed, after all, in order to control the burgeoning demand for civilian defence that manifested itself in the spring of 1940 rather than because there was an overwhelming military need for such a force (MacKenzie, 1996, p.176). We will, however, undertake a very critical examination of one of the most important planks of his argument: that the weapons issued to the Home Guard were simply a sop, gestures to appease a vociferous political lobby – as MacKenzie puts it (1996, p.177): ‘weapons which in reality were of dubious fighting value, but which in all probability would never have to be fired in anger and could be presented as worthwhile.’ Published 12 years after Professor MacKenzie examined the Home Guard from the political perspective, Professor Penny Summerfield and Dr Corina Peniston-Bird’s Contesting Home Defence explores the organisation in its societal context.9 The authors endeavour to tease out the social reality of the Home Guard from subsequent mythology and contemporary public relations, in order to determine whether it really served as a unifying focal point for national defensive spirit, or proved divisive, as the Left, the Right, traditionalists, modernists, and – most particularly – men and women, pulled in their own directions. Summerfield and Peniston-Bird examine the extent to which the wartime Home Guard has been mythologized, and, indeed, was actively mythologized during the four-and a-half years of its existence, and the effect of the Dad’s Army on perception of the Home Guard – themes that will be encountered again in this study, albeit from a different angle. If there is a single, signal contribution for which the present author is grateful to Professor Summerfield and Dr Peniston-Bird, it is the way in which the two academics have exposed the difficulty of obtaining useful oral history from survivors of the Home Guard generation. The effect of Dad’s Army can be likened to that of Shakespeare’s depiction of Richard III, in that a portrayal has become so powerfully established that it insidiously alters reality: Whether they regarded Dad’s Army as an accurate representation, were critical of its omissions, or… rather unwillingly accepted its judgements, men remembering their own Home Guard experiences could not escape Dad’s Army. As the dominant representation of the Home Guard from the 1970s into at least 6