Defence Service Eye Spacing

[MIKES]

Does anyone have an official drawing of the dimensions and spacing of the defence service lifting eyes fitted to the front of British Army vehicles. I would also be interested in the history of this, when it was a requirement and were they retrospectively fitted to any vehicles.

 

Many Thanks

[fv1609]

There are EMERs relating to recovery eyes for various wheeled vehicles, I can only find one for lifting eyes. I don't have my DEF STAN collection to hand but I would think there would coverage there & perhaps traceable back to a STANAG. I'll look when I next get a chance. 

[David Herbert]

I was working in the drawing office of Fodens when the 8 x 4 and 6 x 6 tactical trucks were designed in the '70s. It was me that designed the front bumpers and front lifting eyes and certainly at that time the only requirement was that "lifting eyes were provided". It was left up to us to decide all dimensions and the general style, the only requirement being that they were strong enough.

I was also responsible for the transfer box mounts on the 6 x 6 versions if anyone wants to complain about them !

David

[attleej]

Dear All,

You cannot make a better claim than "I designed it"!  However, I don't think that memory is serving David very well.  IMHO the last British heavy military vehicle not to fitted with Defence Eyes were the Leyland Martian and the AEC Militant Mk 1 and II.  In the case of the latter it had lifting eyes only.  If you tried to tow or winch on them they simply tore away because the fasteners taking the load were simply too few and to small.

In the case of the Foden 16 tonne 8 X 4 and 6 X 6 range, they would simply not pass the recovery assessment tests at FVRDE Chertsey if they were not fitted with Defence Eyes.  How would you recover a loaded 8 wheel tanker if you could not use holleybones connected to the Defence Eyes.

The design and tolerances of the range of Defence Eyes is carefully arranged so that it is easy to connect up a tow, esp with the Holleybone system.

An oddity is the Bedford TM 8 tonne.  The largest shackle that will fit in its eyes is a 6 ton bow shackle.  Thus the largest winch pull that can be applied is 12 tons.  However, it is easy get an estimated pull (EP) of much more than that.  The eyes should have been the next size up to take the 20 ton bow as in the case of the 14 tonne 6 X 6 Bedford TM.

I hope that someone can come up with the STANAG of Def Stan.  I do have a catalogue of recovery equipment for ref.

John

[David Herbert]

Thank you John for challenging my memory of events 42 years ago !

I certainly never saw a STANAG or anything resembling a specification for the eyes. However that is not evidence that there wasn't one so if John is certain that there was an actual standard of design details rather than recovery assesment tests that had to be passed (functional tests) after the pilot vehicles were submitted to the MOD then I think that the explanation must be as follows.

I was asked to design the front bumper , initially for the 6x6 limber vehicle. I had had quite a bit of experience with off road vehicles and was convinced that the conventional one piece bumper was too easily damaged, usually by just one end being bent. Also the range of vehicles that were being considered would need variations to the bumper that could be accomodated if a modular design with seperate sections inside and outside the width of the chassis were used. If the connection to the chassis was made big enough there would be no need for a brace from the end of the bumper back to the chassis and the centre section would form a massive cross member, stiffening up the front of the chassis. This concept was aproved and while drawing it up it became clear that a seperate flat plate incorperating lifting / recovery eyes could be sandwidged between the outer bumpers and the chassis. This could easily be adapted to different needs and would be simple to replace if damaged. Again this was aproved and I drew up what I thought was suitable and it was aproved (by my boss) unaltered. It is possible that my boss had a specification for the eyes and had not shown me because I was only supposed to be designing the bumper but I never saw it.

I am sorry that this is not as clear cut as my original answer but I have great respect for John's views and as he says we need someone to find a copy of the STANAG . It will be interesting to see its date and detail level.

[ruxy]

Google on the two words  -  Holebones recovery , lots comes up , many previous details on past HMVF threads , named after the REME Officer who invented it in 1942.  Details of several attachments due to variations of attachment points on vehicles - so I doubt if any  'standard(s)'  ..

[ruxy]

6 hours ago, attleej said:

Dear All,

You cannot make a better claim than "I designed it"!  However, I don't think that memory is serving David very well.  IMHO the last British heavy military vehicle not to fitted with Defence Eyes were the Leyland Martian and the AEC Militant Mk 1 and II.  In the case of the latter it had lifting eyes only.  If you tried to tow or winch on them they simply tore away because the fasteners taking the load were simply too few and to small.

In the case of the Foden 16 tonne 8 X 4 and 6 X 6 range, they would simply not pass the recovery assessment tests at FVRDE Chertsey if they were not fitted with Defence Eyes.  How would you recover a loaded 8 wheel tanker if you could not use holleybones connected to the Defence Eyes.

The design and tolerances of the range of Defence Eyes is carefully arranged so that it is easy to connect up a tow, esp with the Holleybone system.

An oddity is the Bedford TM 8 tonne.  The largest shackle that will fit in its eyes is a 6 ton bow shackle.  Thus the largest winch pull that can be applied is 12 tons.  However, it is easy get an estimated pull (EP) of much more than that.  The eyes should have been the next size up to take the 20 ton bow as in the case of the 14 tonne 6 X 6 Bedford TM.

I hope that someone can come up with the STANAG of Def Stan.  I do have a catalogue of recovery equipment for ref.

John

Regarding bow shackles & nom. sized.   I would expect a pick to me made from a Crosby bolt-type.  There is quite a range between 6T and 20T for Crosby and similar better makes used for registered lifting tackle.  There are some dodgy shackles out there ,  the worst I have come across were 'single-trip' shackles used for ship export lashings and branded with SWL - on proof test they crumpled before 1/4 of  WLL achieved.  Some high tensile shackles , even meeting BS are below such as a Crosby

 

 

Edited September 30, 2018 by ruxy
spelin

[ltwtbarmy]

Funnily enough, there is mention in the Foden 6x6 recovery opertaor's manual of a defence standard 25-6 with regards to towing and lifting equipment. At the moment, I can't find the relevant section on the manual so I can't say if it's relevant to the  topic being discussed. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519228/DE_S_FOI2016_03001___Attachment-_Recovery_Vehicle_Wheeled_GS_6x6_Foden.pdf) and I can't locate def stan 25-6, other than to say that it was cancelled. 

I found another reference on page 38 of the DROPS/MMLC manual -

Front and rear towing points

173. The front bumper incorporates a towing pin and jaw, the rear chassis cross member a towing pintle. Recovery eyes to DEF STAN 25-6/3 are fitted to the front and rear of the vehicle. Recovery eyes can only be used for suspend tows. 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519226/DE_S_FOI2016_03001___Attachment-_Truck_Load_Handling_DROPS_15_Tonne_8x6_LHD_MMLC.pdf

Edited September 30, 2018 by ltwtbarmy
Spelling, more information

[MIKES]

Thanks to all who have replied - most enlightening. I thought that this was a simple subject - wrong as usual. I've seen the many ends for the Holebones but had an inclination from something previously read that there was a standardisation of those in more recent years on wheeled vehicles. Interesting if DEF STAN 25-6 was cancelled after being referred to in other documents.