wally dugan Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 MACKS served after 1949 and were registered in the BN SERIES of numbers and most came from Canadian forces as their force's were reduced in europe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Herbert Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) OK guys, I give up ! Its not a Mack NO2 because of the wrong body and the front overhang is actually shorter than a DT 980. However I can't reconcile the very long bonnet of the DT with the quite short bonnet of the one in the photo. There is just not enough space between the cab and the front axle. As an aside, I clearly remember my local vehicle recovery company in Maidenhead, Leach and Jackson, taking delivery of an absolutely mint Mack NO2 in about 1969. As a schoolboy of about 15 I was most impressed by its sheer presence. They also got a very nice Matador at about the same time which I think replaced a blue painted R100 that sat outside their scrapyard premises. David Edited May 17, 2020 by David Herbert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 17, 2020 Share Posted May 17, 2020 (edited) Where is the photo interpritation unit of RAF Medmenham when you want it. A few dimentions- Diamond T Length 23 feet 4 inches Wheel Base 14 feet 11 1/4. Mack NO2 L 24f 5in. WB 15 feet. Albion CX22 L 25f 6 in. WB 14f 8in. Mack has a high front end look because of the front axle steering mechanism necessitating a high front axle. Mack still appear to use this type of steering drive transfer without C.V. joints to this day. Edited May 18, 2020 by john1950 addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 I think there was an M19 rig for sale on this forum early last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the DT guy Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 9 hours ago, john1950 said: I think there was an M19 rig for sale on this forum early last year. that set is know in the US with a collector, used to live just 4 miles from me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogmaner Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 Could this be a trial setup for the trailer truck combination ,as the prototype Civilian antar would be around in 1948 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 That rig has gone back home then. Dyson s FV 1301 50 ton drawbar trailer seems to have been in service well before the Antar came out for road test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally dugan Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 THE civilian ANTAR did its off road trials at FVRDE before it was ever considered as a candidate as a replacement for military use l have the trials on the ANTAR when it was considered also the trials reports on the DYSON 50ton for use with the ANTAR and the modifications needed some of which were going to be used in a book on the ANTAR the trials for the DYSON were carried out using the DIAMOND T as the prime mover the need for a trailer with a 50 ton load capability was recognized in the late 1940s as the weight of Centurion went up from 40 tons to 45 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the DT guy Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 the dyson was more of a replacement for the rogers as the rogers was never designed and couldn't really carry the centurion as not enough tires and they were for ever blowing out. my rogers was definitely used post war so would have carried centurions and it does show. early post war years british army were trialing ballasted versions of the dragon wagons and other trucks before antar but even between 45-48 it was already decided the DT's were going to stay in service which is why many got re engined with the rolls engines around 1950 on wards. think last DT was with drawn in the early 70's so a 25-30 year service life, so would that be the longest serving tank transporter model in british army history??? i don't know anything bout the antar and commanders service history. regards sam 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Signals Posted May 20, 2020 Author Share Posted May 20, 2020 Every day on this site is like an excellent day in school. Thanks gents for the continuing discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 I think the Antar concept started as an oilfield hauler. An inter axle third diff was incorporated at their request. When used on the Snowey Mountain project they were having problems with lubricating diff bearings because of the slow speed high load operation. Austrailian engineers designed a local fix pumping oil to the affected bearings keeping engineers at the factory informed. This led to factory modification to cure the problem on later trucks. I think this was after a much larger Leyland prime mover was cancelled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally dugan Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 Just one of the contenders for the replacement of the DIAMOND T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 That is a giant truck is that the Leyland behemoth, dwarfing what looks like an early Champ. I would imagine loaded the centre of gravity is high. A design concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attleej Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 Dear All, It was a monstrosity called, I think, and FV1000 or 1100 or 1200. Wally can remind us!. It was supposed to be a cross country tank transporter, something that does not exist even now. They had such problems that they had to buy the commercial Antars as a stop gap. Fortunately, they found that an Antar could do everything that was needed apart from carry a tank cross country. It could, of course, carry a tank along a track. An Antar (or a Commander) does not need a metalled road. They found the solution was to tow the dead tank with an ARV to the Tank Transporter Pick Point. If the tank was so badly damaged that an ARV could not tow it to the Tank Transporter Pick Point it was not going to affect the outcome of the battle! With regard to the third diff on the Antar. I asked Blackie Widdows of 19 Sqn fame if it would be a good idea to fit a third diff to my Antar. His very strong advice was NO as they were nothing but trouble. Without a third diff it is necessary to keep the tyres the same size. Easy in the Army as it is a big firm and they all get changed at the same time when worn out. I used to run my Antar at 107 tons gross train weight carrying the Conqueror ARV and we never had any problems with the axles. In the range of vehicles with this monstrosity there was a heavy artillery tractor, again with a fuel injected Rover Meteorite engine. That was put to sleep as well. Only the Leyland Martian that we all love came into service but I believe that an AEC Militant was better in all respects. Again, the AEC was basically a commercial pattern vehicle militarised. Of course, the Champ had its own problems and was soon superceeded by the Landrover which was far cheaper and more reliable. Probably not as much fun though! Why did they waste all this money developing these ridiculous vehicles? Because Defence was told to re-arm and spend money. A lesson for the future if, god forbid, we have to re-arm again big time. John 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally dugan Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 (edited) It was the FV IOO3A the MUDLARK at the side was the in between the GUTTY MUDLARK then the CHAMP a hell of a lot more fun then the land rover and much maligned Edited May 22, 2020 by wally dugan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 As the third diff was added basically as an after thought I would have expected it to be a pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XS650 Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 1 hour ago, attleej said: Why did they waste all this money developing these ridiculous vehicles? Because Defence was told to re-arm and spend money. A lesson for the future if, god forbid, we have to re-arm again big time. I digress but with almost no commercial vehicle industry now we would be dependent on other countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XS650 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) Double post Edited May 23, 2020 by XS650 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) We know what it should be, we can see what it looks like, the image is nearly right, the camera never lies, it just clouds the issue sometimes. But the jury is still out. Edited May 24, 2020 by john1950 correction addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally dugan Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) JOHN I think this may be what you were thinking of by LEYLAND Edited May 23, 2020 by wally dugan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) I have never seen a one before. Thank you for posting a picture and information, It actualy looks stylish and as if it could do a job. I can see where the design had influence on the Martian. Edited May 24, 2020 by john1950 addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally dugan Posted May 25, 2020 Share Posted May 25, 2020 Well going back to the question after much looking at plans and comparing the scale of them l have got to say that l believe that it is a DYSON 50 ton pulled by a DIAMOND T its a pity that there are no more pictures of this particular rig or more important the trailer as a NUMBER would confirm it was one of the first fifty to be used for assessment trials 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted May 26, 2020 Share Posted May 26, 2020 In the absence of any contradictory evidence that is the logical conclusion. It is the relative positions of the winscreen, front mudguard, and apparent front overhang that is causing the speculation. I suspect we will not get a definative answer, but who knows what information may surface in the future. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john1950 Posted June 22, 2020 Share Posted June 22, 2020 (edited) There are some photos of Tank transporters on various sites on the internet, including an M9 trailer with an M4 Sherman on, behind a White 666. That has a covered dog house like a Diamond T. An american recovery team blew some rear tyres on an M9 recovering a King Tiger towards Spa railway station, eventually completing the trip with a captured Gotha heavy transport trailer that appears to have solid tyres. There is also a picture of a tank loaded 4 axle 50 ton headed by what looks like a DT. Edited June 22, 2020 by john1950 addition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wally dugan Posted June 22, 2020 Share Posted June 22, 2020 on the subject of the possibility of it been a WHITE the only candidate wartime would be the 1064 6 x 4 after the war the british army were issued with a WHITE 6 x 6 but to late for the photo these came from the M A D P mutual assistance defense program and were registered in the series XX BP XX also the pent house cover seems to long compared to that of a DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.