10FM68

Magnificent!  You've done a fantastic job.  The DBG looks brilliant and really complements the tanker - every inch a true British military classic.  Just great.  Well done.

Andy, this is a quote from you on 9 May, " being naïve I had worked on the assumption that if you asked a straight question you could expect a straight answer..."  Looking back through your posts, it is clearly a dictum you aren't prepared to follow yourself: you have carefully avoided ever answering a direct question, in fact you seem to have delighted in trying to give us all the run-around.  This is, quite frankly, childish, discourteous and boorish.  I, for one, am pulling the plug on this thread - I'm bored with your silliness and leave you to indulge in your conspiracy theory fantasy on your own.  Sorry.

2 hours ago, Old Grumpy said:

He's just a con-merchant who has pulled a few strokes, he's not a mass-murderer. He's got a brass neck for sure but nobody got hurt. As the old saying goes, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Good luck to him.     Pete.

As Wally says, this has cost the taxpayer thousands - and that includes you!  I think most of us on this site are reasonably free to cast stones, given that I doubt many of us have taken advantage of our positions in such a way to the detriment of the country, the tax payer, his regiment, other collectors, those who bought his stolen goods, those who have lost their confidence and faith in buying from others.  There's no such thing as a victimless crime.  Not impressed with your moral compass!

51 minutes ago, ruxy said:

True ,  Sir Maurice Oldfield was for a period  Head of Mi6

During WW2 Mi5 & Mi6 were supposed to be joined at the limb.   As I said earlier  (I'm not prepared to swot up)   4 or 5 copies were made by Mi5 of this particular document and most certainly Mi6 would have received one of these copies - the COPY I have - I believe is the one supplied to Mi6. 

When Maurice was 'Head' he was in the best position of anybody for access to files, and he did because he tried to get the answer where there had been much speculation.    Maurice , for quite a few years received the blame for a stolen Mi6 file (that was seen by a 'few' in Holland).  This file was later sold for top$ ,  it did not address what I was interested in - the real conundrum,  I was aware the "photo-copy" was in a museum , and I think the book possibly accused Maurice , but there are other sources that lay the blame.

I am certain the museum photo-copy is a copy of my COPY.

This museum has changed location ,  I have never been - IIRC it was in a polis shop but now in a proper prison.

I can only operate by keeping a 'low-profile'  ,  the only clue I will give you -  get the Book   ,  a weighty tome as oiled bible paper ,,

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crime-Through-Time-Black-Museum/dp/1902578171

=========

Not that I had anything to do with the Crime through Time , other than I visited the printers works on Tyneside.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Joris actually declined to review the book I wrote chapters & handed it on  LoL

 

All good stuff.  Doing research and analysis can be great fun, but frustrating unless you have the necessary access.  I can't say I have an interest in crime and horror, though - not a book for me, I'm afraid.  But, regarding your copy - usually with highly classified papers which were on limited distribution there would be a list on the inside cover stating precisely who was to receive each and the pages would all have "Copy No ... of ..." with repro copies having similar legends, "Repro copy ... of ..."  That might help.  Dating pre or post 1944 is easy also as prior to 1944 British "top secret" documents were "Most Secret"; "Top Secret" only came in when the US became the major partner and brought that classification with them - apparently to Churchill's chagrin - he preferred the correct use of English!  Anyway, too much of this and Andy will wonder what we're on about.

39 minutes ago, ruxy said:

I do have form / notoriety , according to Mark Barnes (War History online).  I ghost-write /part write under a nom-de-plume (this particular book -if you searched you would find my name  ISTR as a "contributor"..  MB did NOT get a complementary for the following book , and I very much doubt if he will get a free-bee for the book that should have been published June/July gone , however it was delayed due to inclusion of new material ,  I don't always agree with everything deduced by the main author , especially in a far earlier book going back 10+ years , two weeks ago I was able to give him evidence that may re-write history - so with luck that will create even more delay on the new book, that is if this contentious matter is re-evaluated..

But Maurice Oldfield didn't work for The Security Service, MI5, he was in an entirely separate organisation altogether.

1 minute ago, andy brown said:

When I get time I will answer this suffice to say it took me five six years to find in the archives pics of the airfield at the time ...

Well, it doesn't take time.  Are you saying the tanks are at Waterbeach or not?  Simple yes, or no I'd have thought.

2 hours ago, ruxy said:

  I then purchased a important  WW2 Mi5 document off this dealer. I had known of the existence of this document because a COPY of it appears in a book (this copy is displayed in a museum).  I had a hunch this museum copy was taken off the COPY in my possession.   The COPY I have being one of four/five copies produced by Mi5 and each was marked for traceability of handling from the Registry etc.  I believe my COPY is the authentic and was  "weeded"  by Maurice Oldfield and he kept it safe for  'historical' purpose.  I believe the paper of the COPY I have if ever had the paper forensic tested etc. then it would be confirmed Mi5 genuine.

 

 

Blimey Tony, you're getting as bad as Andy!🙂

21 minutes ago, andy brown said:

The airfield was closed for upgrades early 1950 to mid 1950 ..this is when the aprons I have identified were laid along with the widening of both ends of the operational runway all to accommodate the anticipated arrival of b 29s as were a number of other airfields..

OK.  First then: are you telling us, categorically, that your tanks are buried under the apron at RAF Waterbeach in 1950?

As far as I am aware, the aprons were originally laid during wartime, so while they may well have been upgraded, in the few months between Transport Command leaving and Fighter Command coming in, it remains highly unlikely that there would be sufficient space, secrecy and willingness to bury loads of tanks there at that time.  I cannot confirm that the RAF were not considering upgrading for B29s, but I'm not sure why they would have chosen an airfield they had just allocated to Fighter Command and which would host USAF F84s for training when there were plenty of other airfields belonging to Bomber Command to upgrade.  As for burying stuff, why choose an active RAF air station when, at this time, the choice of alternative, abandoned military property was immense.  It just doesn't add up.

3 hours ago, David Herbert said:

After the war a lot of RAF land was used for storage of returned armoured vehicles and trucks so the fact that one of the co-ordinates is at Waterbeach Airfield is not in itself a problem. Whether there is anything there is another question....

David

Well, as far as Waterbeach is concerned, it is a problem. At the end of the war Waterbeach was a busy operational airfield in Bomber Command, passing to Transport Command in September 1945. The squadrons were busy all through the Berlin Airlift then Fighter Command took it over in 1950. During the Korean War thee were even some USAF aircraft stationed there for a time. Fighter Command kept it busy until 1963. It was used thereafter by the Varsities from 5FTS at RAF Oakington who continued to use the airfield even after the arrival of the Royal Engineers. So I don't see any point in giving this particular hare any sort of exercise at all.

Well, the first set of coords are Waterbeach Airfield.  The second Little Fen Drove some way to the east.  During the war and afterwards Waterbeach was an active RAF station - not a likely place to bury tanks.  Much later it was home to the Royal Engineers Airfield Damage Repair regiment - 39 Engr Regt (Airfds).  They certainly had the capability to dig huge holes, but the coords show the concrete apron outside the hangars which will have been in situ long before the Sappers had it and, anyway, the Army had Waterbeach long after any old WWII vehicles would need to be disposed of.  I served myself at Waterbeach many years ago.  Today the airfield has been sold.  Little Fen Drove has nothing of interest to be seen from Google Earth - no signs of undue excavations or reinstatement of the ground.  So... sadly, this adds nothing as far as I can see.  Andy... look back through the threads and try and answer some of the more useful questions, please.

3 hours ago, Surveyor said:

Just found this old picture when my land Rover was delivered direct from Witham, red pintle.

Just spotted that the 12v sign was not replaced after the crash, need to source one

 

You won't have to go very far to find gloss  red-painted tow hooks.  It was quite a common habit among soldiers given the task of tidying up their vehicle post-exercise.  Once the tin of red paint was opened the brush would be hovering looking for somewhere to land and the tow hook was often the place - the maker's name plate being another.  But... the fact remains that it was unauthorised and not required.  Red lead, basic black, or bare greased metal are correct, gloss red isn't.  You'll come across all sorts of justifications for doing it, but most are bollox.  One chap suggested that the Marines painted them red so they'd be easier to find underwater!  Quite what sort of marine would need red paint for him to find the towing hook on the back of a Land Rover I can't imagine... even the dark most of us found no problem finding them - usually with our shins!    So, you are perfectly at liberty to use red paint - it will be completely authentic - in the same way as bits of rubbish, oily cotton waste, the odd bit of graffiti and sometimes penknife marks on Series 3 dashboards are authentic!  

3 hours ago, ploughman said:

My 1978 CL Series 3  has a gloss red tow hook.

From before I acquired it.

If I get to repaint the vehicle it will probably remain red as is.unless it can be proved what it should be.

This topic is forever coming up.  Lots of units painted their towing pintles bright red - as they did towing eyes, wheel nuts, makers name badges and all sorts of other details.  But, by rights they ought not to have done (apart from securing nuts on split rims).  It was done to make things look a bit smarter, because the guy with the tin of paint was bored and for a host of other reasons.  Most commonly, though the towing hitches were left in their original state: usually black, sometimes red lead and occasionally sprayed the same as the rest of the vehicle.  Sappers were also quite keen on white paint back in the 80s with quite a few vehicles having towing and lifting eyes painted white and white circles appearing round lifting holes - whether that habit continued for long, though, I have no idea.  So, best advice?  Clean it off and give it a light spray of gloss black.

I agree with Simon.  It looks as though the 74 and the 6 are of different sizes and, given the length of service this vehicle will have seen, that is entirely reasonable - the Arm of Service sign would have been repainted a number of times over the years.  74 on red/blue background split horizontally would certainly fit - a divisional field regiment RA both during the war and afterwards - well into the 50s, if not later.  46 would give you a post-war inf div fd regt RA while a 126 would offer up a Corps med regt or Corps CS regt from 1959 /1962 respectively.  I'm offering post-war options as they are most likely to be closest to the surface, and thus easiest to read and, of course, if the vehicle was rebuilt post-war as so many were, then it is likely that any earlier markings would be completely eradicated during the bodywork repreparation process.

I wouldn't consider the Germans in 1940 France to be "owners".

I don't think this is actually a captured vehicle as such.  It looks to me as though it has been used as a static crane - for unloading canal barges of gravel, perhaps?  The rear bogie isn't straight, there is a missing bogie - no sign of any controls in the cab and it is settled on bits of plank in addition to its jacks.  Just a thought.

Here's a photo of typical UK-based NT trailers of the period.  These are from HQ 19 Inf Bde deploying through Hamburg in the autumn of 1983 for exercises with 2 Div.  They have no markings at all and the black paint is added pretty much at the whim of the painter - very often simply avoiding the tricky bits!  The camouflage nets and hessian covers are tied on top of the trailers.  There seems a lot of camouflage because this formation used complete hessian covers for their vehicles - rolls stitched together with green string - with black lines painted on in a rough brick pattern.  These were used in the place of camouflage nets when camouflaged close to buildings - usually the HQ would be located in a "gut" - a German farmstead.  The nets were only used when deployed into woods and fields.  And, of course, nets were universally augmented by black hessian strips around the lower half of vehicles covering wheels and bogies as well as over windscreens and windows.

No, it isn't 2 AGRA. That formation had gone by then, disbanded finally in 1962.  I did know which regiment it was, but I can't remember. Wally is correct with the other Formation sign - it is London District, but, again I can't remember which regiment - though an RA specialist could work it out

Steve,

Here are a couple of photos of Martians which I took when I was a boy - so about 1968-70, something like that.  They are of two separate TA units: the first is an AD regiment - with Bofors 40/70 and the other was a regiment equipped with 5.5" howitzers.  They aren't great as it was a very simple camera and an even simpler person behind it!

5 hours ago, Mike Maddams said:

 

the RAF police Munga in the picture seems to be lighter in colour than the military police model. Do you know if they were RAF blue or green? 

It would becaue RMP vehicles in Berlin were usually gloss black as in the case of the photos above.   I would expect the RAF Police ones to be gloss RAF blue. 

7 minutes ago, Rootes75 said:

Sometimes its hard to simply understand the scale of what was left behind, so so many vehicles.

If you think that's bad, just think how many Wehrmacht vehicles were left behind at the end of the war!

Undercover Covers do a lot of British military canvas tilts etc, both stock items and bespoke.  I do not know, however, whether they have SCC2 canvas, but they're worth talking to.  The quality of their stuff is reportedly absolutely excellent.

Have a look at your online entry - on the DVLA site and see whether your vehicle is now marked as exempt from MoTs.  Mine had been so within a couple of days of having submitted the form, even though the V5 took a couple more weeks to come back to me.

1 hour ago, Zero-Five-Two said:

Don't remember the crane incident, but do remember the bridge and the show.  I was at 3 Training Regt at Cove  that summer.  Some of our training group were allowed to "volunteer" to do car park marshalling and the like.  Turned out to be a good crack.

Were you still at Cove the following year on the night of the general election when the Sgts' Mess burned down?

59 minutes ago, ploughman said:

Back in 78 we were building a footbridge over the A3 in Guilford for the county show.

2 of the 3 cranes we had were parked up on a path with a ditch alongside. 

Overnight it rained and washed out the ditch causing the 2 cranes to roll over.

 

Bridging cranes were a nightmare.  Our troop had a couple of Mk5s and a couple of Hydra Huskies when I was in Germany.  Both spent more time in 37 Rhine Workshops than on the vehicle park - safe load indicators and boom extension sensors - they'd work their way through the line in the workshop, get to the end and go straight back to the beginning again as something or other would be out of date.  The other thing was the pressure test certificate for the damn servicing trailer - the one piece of kit in the troop which never worked once during my 2 years in the troop.  Even the Leyland Martian got a bit of a run out.

We built an EWBB Bailey bridge over the main road for the Army Air Corps day using two Hydra Huskies - probably along the same lines as you did at Guildford - and at around the same time.  We'd got as far as we could short of actually placing the span across the road for which we were going to get the police to close it for an hour or so.  Typical conversation ensued - crane op, MPF, tp comd etc "nah, we don't need to wait, it'll only take us 10 minutes" (it was already dark and there was no traffic).  So we did - but it was a close-run thing.  Both cranes were at their limit - warning buzzer switched off - watching to see neither tipped by keeping an eye on the tyres - if the "squash" started to go out of them and they began to bounce we'd stop...  But, we did it!  Drama over, but the thought of tipping a crane onto the road when we were bending the rules was a bit "half-a-crown-sixpence"!

The navigator can't be up to much, then - Valencia is in Spain!