my new mk 1 carrier

[protruck]

you can never take enough photo's.

 

good luck with the resto and keep posting plenty of pics.:-D

 

 

Clive

[eddy8men]

will do clive

 

cheers

 

eddy

[steveo578]

Bluebell

That would be Carrier Universal No2. MkI* (No3 =95 h.p., No2= 85 h.p. No1 = 65 h.p)

I understand that all the Canadian MkI's were 85bhp

I was under the impression that the designations No1, No2 and No3 refered to the national origin of the Ford multinational motors 221 ci. used in their manufacture

 

No1 = British manufacture -irrespective of output 65bhp and 85bhp.

 

No2 = U.S manufactured. No2 = GAEA and No2A equiped with a GAE motor. (UK manufactured U/Cs)

 

No3 = Canadian manufacture. The * star in the carrier designation refered to the complete vehicle.

 

While some No1 (British engined Universals) had 65bhp rating later models had 85bhp motors and as the No1 designation continued into No1 MkII and No1 MkIIIw -which would not have happened if the No1 refered only to 65bhp power unit. The only 95bhp 239ci units fitted in UCs were those built as 2pdr equiped SPGs and of course Windsors and 95bhp Ford Mercury GAU fitted to T16s.

 

Steve

[Bluebell]

I was under the impression that the designations No1, No2 and No3 refered to the national origin of the Ford multinational motors 221 ci. used in their manufacture

 

No1 = British manufacture -irrespective of output 65bhp and 85bhp.

 

No2 = U.S manufactured. No2 = GAEA and No2A equiped with a GAE motor. (UK manufactured U/Cs)

 

No3 = Canadian manufacture. The * star in the carrier designation refered to the complete vehicle.

 

While some No1 (British engined Universals) had 65bhp rating later models had 85bhp motors and as the No1 designation continued into No1 MkII and No1 MkIIIw -which would not have happened if the No1 refered only to 65bhp power unit. The only 95bhp 239ci units fitted in UCs were those built as 2pdr equiped SPGs and of course Windsors and 95bhp Ford Mercury GAU fitted to T16s.

 

Steve

 

Steve my info comes from page 3 of "Universal Carriers" Service instruction book IFV (first edition) 63/63, Dated Janruary 1943.

The wording is;

The prefix numbers(No1, 2 or 3)represent the alternative types of engine fitted as follows;

No1 is the 65h.p. engine,

No2 is the 85h.p. engine,

No3 is the 95 h.p. engine. (end of quote)

What say you?

[eddy8men]

this is getting interesting !

[ajmac]

The prefix numbers(No1, 2 or 3)represent the alternative types of engine fitted as follows;

No1 is the 65h.p. engine,

No2 is the 85h.p. engine,

No3 is the 95 h.p. engine.

 

I have a copy of a war office drawing (dated March 1944) in front of me and it says:

No1 Mk1/2 = 85HP V8 British Production

No2 Mk1/2 = 85HP V8 USA Production

No3 Mk1/2 = 85HP V8 Canadian Production

 

The 95HP was the USA produced Mercury engine, I understand that when Mercury redesigned the V8 in 1941(?) that Ford upgraded too although they kept the smaller bore diameter, thus the Mercury mods resulted in a 95HP Mercury Flathead and an 85HP Ford Flathead, up from the original 65HP. How the Dagenham production shadowed this change I don't know.

There is also a variation within Engine type nomenclature, as the No1 could have either US sourced electricals or Lucas sourced parts!

Edited July 2, 2010 by ajmac

[Adrian Barrell]

This all shows how even original documentation needs to be used as a guide only! There are similar discrepencies in Cromwell designations, manufacturers literature not always conforming to Government details.

 

There was a war on you know.....!

[eddy8men]

hi fella's

 

have we decided what it is yet, i think i now know why everyone just called them bren gun carrier regardless of it's true designation (because no buggar really knew).

 

all the best

 

eddy

[Adrian Barrell]

Well one things for certain, it isn't a Bren gun carrier!

[eddy8men]

as ever adrian, technically you are right but every veteran i've met has come up to me and said "oh you've got a bren gun carrier" and then they've gone on to relate some tale involving it, although if i'm being honest i've only met 3 so far but you know what i'm saying. it's a generic term and if that's what they called them then that's good enough for me.

 

eddy

[steveo578]

eddy8men

.....but every veteran i've met has come up to me and said "oh you've got a bren gun carrier"

Hi Eddy

 

With no disrespect to any vetern, outside the user arm of service most army personel have the attitude towards tanks tracked SPGs and carriers of "its green and has tracks -it's a tank."

 

Bluebell

Steve

......What say you?

Eddy8men

have we decided what it is yet, i think i now know why everyone just called them bren gun carrier regardless of it's true designation (because no buggar really knew). :-D

I am fairly certain my description of the designation system of U/Cs is correct -the same system was used in Loyd carriers too- it is a particularly cumbersome system -the curse of the demented penpusher again, we can only be glad he wasn't a first division civil servant or no doubt the designations would be in Latin:nut:- however until Eddy finds a T or CT number or a DND (which may define it as a home Canadian service vehicle) no one can be sure- although it was found in Canada that doesn't mean it was born there- it could be British.

 

Just to confuse things further there were 5714 examples of "Universal Carriers" built by War Supplies Ltd U.S.A. around the time that 13000 odd T16 Universals were built at Ford Somerville Mas. USA. Can anyone confirm the War Supplies vehicles were actually T16s or were these standard U/Cs being built until the T16 contract could start- the contract for T16 was slow to start at Somerville.

 

Steve

[mcspool]

Just to confuse things further there were 5714 examples of "Universal Carriers" built by War Supplies Ltd U.S.A. around the time that 13000 odd T16 Universals were built at Ford Somerville Mas. USA. Can anyone confirm the War Supplies vehicles were actually T16s or were these standard U/Cs being built until the T16 contract could start- the contract for T16 was slow to start at Somerville.

 

Steve,

 

I have read about these, but those carriers were not actually built in the US but in Canada. War Supplies Ltd was formed in May 1941 to negotiate and receive orders from the US Government for war supplies to be manufactured in Canada (see this 1943 publication), also referred to as a Canadian front company coordinating all British-American-Canadian military procurement arrangements. IIRC these carriers were supplied to the USSR, either under US Lend-Lease or British military aid arrangements.

 

Hanno

[steveo578]

mcspool

 

Hi hanno

 

thanks for that info, it's been a question I wondered about for a while as it would have increased the number of T16 produced substancially- there still seems a lot more produced than is apparent from their distribution.

 

Steve

[eddy8men]

hi fella's

 

just thought i'd post a few pics of the tracks, although the track was mostly free about a third was rusted solid, however after a little (4hrs actually) persuasion with the sledge they all succumbed. the next job is to shot blast them and then coat them with a bit of thinned down bitumen paint.

one interesting thing i noticed is apparent on the second pic the majority of the track pins have a domed head on both ends to hold the pin in place but some small sections of track have the dome on one end and a washer and split pin on the other which is normal but there are also some sections that have had the split pin removed and the end flattened over, although the washer was still free to rotate, this looked to be an old modification and i assume would have been done while still in military service. does anyone else have an idea or knowledge of this practice.

 

 

 

 

all the best

 

eddy

[steveo578]

I'd imagine it has something to do with shortening track that has stretched, they loose up 8 or so links through there life and it would not be possible as a field repair to remove the pin domed at both ends, also they do have a tendency to shed in service and two or three easily split sections might make putting them back on.

 

Steve

[eddy8men]

thanks steve i know what you mean when you say splitting them into sections makes them easier to handle mine are still full track lengths and it near enough gives me a herna rolling them up.

 

cheers

 

eddy

[steveo578]

eddy8men

.... and it near enough gives me a herna rolling them up.

 

It is description of U/Cs being a light AFV makes people think they are actually light weight:-D:-D, but then again consider the Churchill 20 odd kilos per link -and thats for the light track:shocked: I take it there were no signs of any T numbers on the U/C then?

 

Steve

[eddy8men]

i found the wd no. but i can't make them out, see what you think but it looks like a ct at the begining and there's an 8 as well

 

 

 

[steveo578]

Nop can't make it out.:-(

[Adrian Barrell]

Isn't the T number stamped into the top edge of the visor plate?

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell Isn't the T number stamped into the top edge of the visor plate?

 

 

Don't know if it's the same piece of tin but the top edge of the pulpit was cut off.

 

I've played with other photos -zooming in, lightening, darkening, etc and get the impression it could be CT29718 it will be interesting to see if anything turns up under the paint to confirm this.

 

Steve

[Adrian Barrell]

Don't know if it's the same piece of tin but the top edge of the pulpit was cut off.

 

I've played with other photos -zooming in, lightening, darkening, etc and get the impression it could be CT29718 it will be interesting to see if anything turns up under the paint to confirm this.

 

Steve

 

 

It should be stamped into the top edge of the vertical plate directly in front of the driver.

 

I have CT29718 as a Canadian Ford Universal in the range CT28841- CT29790 so it could be!

[steveo578]

Adrian Barrell

It should be stamped into the top edge of the vertical plate directly in front of the driver.

 

Thanks for the clarification -probably would lead to too many sub forums but perhaps there should be a sticky post to help out new owners with this sort of information.

 

Steve

[eddy8men]

thanks for your help fella's i'll go to the yard today and check it out.

 

thanks again

 

eddy

[ajmac]

Nice to meet you yesterday evening Eddy, as I said, all take two of the Gearboxes and depending on how wrecked my wrecked Flatheads are, I'll have a chat about one of your V8s, both looked to be in good condition, a nice find.

Good Luck on hitting your target date.