This question as often intrigued me. It seems obvious but it is not. In 1948 the threat from Red China of Communist aggression against the West was at its highest level and resulted in North Korea attacking the South. In 1949 the Govt. responded and we assembled a ‘scratch force’ to defend Hong Kong, later known as the Hong Kong Flotilla. I know that we were to prevent ‘strategic materials’ reaching Communist China, even post Korean War 1955-1957 and to watch for their aggression against the West. Our observations were from Hong Kong waters up the Pearl River to Canton. In my time 1955-1957 this included the observation of the River traffic mostly to identify for Red Chinese Navy craft. We consulted that large photograph album of such vessels with which we were supplied.

That made some boring watches interesting. The albums and large Aircraft type Camera were provided for this observation. We were watched over and communication with the Coast Watching Stations mostly the one at Tai O’ (Blue).The Albums consisted of photographs of mostly heavily armed Landing Craft , sub-chasers, and a motley smaller ships, mostly American supplied vessels captured by the Reds from their opponents Nationalist Chinese.. Discussing this recently with my Captain Peter Hudson HKF 1954-1956 HMML 3510, then he sent me a marvellous email with his view. That opinion seemed to provide the best answer yet. Remembering that the Police mostly dealt with illegal immigration, except when they sought our assistance. As far as ML3510 and Ml 1326 are concerned we never stopped any vessel to board and search. We laid in wait, often at night, close to the Green Island passage mostly, waiting to stop and prevent high speed boats which were supposed to be carrying strategic fuel in drums, so was the buzz. We waited for hours stood to, and ready and I wrote in my diary, it was a waste of time, “Green Ferrets” we named the Pirates, and time wasted watching for “Red Herrings”. 

​

 When we discussed the armament we carried, Peter commented on the 6 pounder piece ability to target anything, as “Not so much hit and miss, but Miss and Miss” Moreover “Why were we there”. Not so much with much of an ability to defend Hong Kong, we stood not the slightest chance, as in 1941, but to identify aggression, clearly demonstrated in the Pearl River Incident. Result of that was a lot of Newspaper coverage and not much else. Except seven valuable lives lost.  If we were consistently attacked then we presume, ‘they meant business’, aggression defined, Formosa (Taiwan) would have been next, then with the American 7th Fleet fully deployed, and ‘little’ us, of course. Post War Government of Prime Minister Atlee really wanted to hand Hong Kong to China. It was President Roosevelt’s planned to handover to Nationalist China.   

​

THE MOLINS GUN. in order to meet a perceived need for a rapid-reaction vehicle-mounted anti-tank gun, the notion was developed of fitting the 6 pdr 7 cwt with an auto loading mechanism and mounting it in a fast, wheeled tank destroyer. The Molins Machinery Company (previously mainly noted for making cigarette manufacturing machinery) duly designed and produced a suitable mechanism. By the time it emerged, however, it had been realised that the 6 pdr was not powerful enough to defeat the new Tiger tank so the British Army dropped its requirement. 

THE NAVAL MOLINS- the Six Pounder-originally used with some effect in our WW2 Desert Army defeats and final victory at El Alamein. (Thanks Dad)  

​

PictureDespite this setback, the Molins gun with its rapid firing ability unknown in the Desert was adopted by the Royal Navy and was fitted to many MLs and MTBs in the power operated Mark VII mounting. In this form it used the shorter 43-calibre barrel of the Mk 2 AT gun, had a feed capacity of six rounds in the autoloader - plus one in the breech and another twelve in a ready-use rack on the mounting - and fired semi-automatically only (the gunner had to press the trigger for each shot) at a rate of about 40 rpm. It was probably the most powerful gun fitted to naval craft of this class and was regarded as very successful. Complete in its mounting, it weighed 1,747 kg, and the gun was known to the RN as the 6 pdr QF Mk IIA. Nearly 600 of these guns were made. The RN developed its own loading for the ammunition, consisting of a 2.7 kg HE shell fired at only 655 m/sec. The low velocity may be due to the fact that the RN specified a flash less propellant charge, presumably because MLs/MTBs usually operated at night. 

​

The RAF then became interested in fitting the Molins Gun in the de Havilland Mosquito, to form an airborne anti-tank weapon to replace the Hurricane IID which had been equipped with a pair of Vickers 40mm Class S guns. The aircraft was duly developed as the Mosquito FB Mk XVIII, popularly known as the "Tsetse", but by this time the RAF had lost interest in the anti-tank gun role so the aircraft were brought into service by Coastal Command for anti-ship (and specifically anti-U-boat) purposes. The Tsetse, of which about thirty were built, served with No.248 Squadron during 1944 and is credited with sinking a U-boat.