10FM68

The wool mix shirt came after the KF, first in a darkish khaki then in an olive green - which used to fade badly to an almost grey. KF shirts with collars attached, on the other hand were on issue from the end of the Second World war - once other ranks - ORs (your enlisted men) were allowed to wear the collar of the BD blouse open, they needed a shirt with a collar so a tie could be worn. The 1949-pattern battledress couldn't be done up at the neck so was always worn with a collared shirt and either a tie or, in the field, sometimes, a face veil. That shirt was made of khaki flannel. The shirt which followed the wool mix was the shirt GS which was more like a heavyweight cotton. And it's no good trying to judge orders of dress by looking at officers as they have traditionally dressed differently from the ORs with all sorts of variations, some small, others very obvious. For example even in the 1970s RE officers, on commissioning, were required to buy a light coloured khaki tie for wear with combat dress and a dark khaki tie for wear with Service Dress and barrack dress. Equally, in many regiments officers until the mid-70s wore puttees of a different quality and shade of khaki to ORs. And so it went on. Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders officers wore grey shirts - the King's Regiment officers wore a bluish-grey shirt and, during the decades of the KF shirt (and the wool mix shirt) officers regularly wore their No2/barrack dress shirts with combat and working dress, which, in most cases, were a light khaki (while officers of the Guards and one or two other regiments wore a shirt of a darker khaki than the KF!) Unlike most armies the British Army was never, and still isn't, truly unified. It is made up of a collection of regiments and each regiment has its own way of doing things and is allowed a great deal of freedom by the Army Dress Committee - though less now than in the past. The army was put together from regiments owned and raised by individuals, some of whom fought for the King and some of whom fought for Parliament during the Civil War - in other words, on opposing sides. Each regiment wore a uniform designed, chosen and paid for by the man who raised it - the Colonel - hence the start of all the differences which continue to some degree today. The trouble is, this is such an enormous subject it is impossible to cover all the variations, customs and so on in a thread such as this. So I'm going to stop now!

Ratingen, I would suggest - about 12kms from Duesseldorf

I think this photo was taken when the Cheshires were in Hong Kong 84-86. They have doubled up their water bottles and are wearing tropical DPMs while the observing NCO is in warm weather barrack dress and the civvy a lightweight suit. (Plus it's sunny - so they aren't in Wales anyway!)

Was that the awful, cheap thing with buttons which were too small to stay done up and a collar which had no "stand" and used to stick up above the HD pullover collar like a pair of wings? Its only saving grace was that it wasn't scratchy, but it faded badly, the sleeves were too short - a horrible thing - its predecessors and its replacement which stayed until the end of combat shirts were so much better - mine still get an outing in retirement!

In the above example, Clive, you quote blouses battledress - the word blouse was always used for a short jacket cut to the waist while a long one with a skirt below the waist could be a tunic, a jacket or a smock! Shirts were shirts, I think! As for the combat cap, I never really understood why they were so unpopular. They were modelled on the Norwegian cap with ear flaps for cold weather. I wore mine quite a bit in the field in preference to a beret. They had a peak which kept the sun or rain off the face, they were easy to keep in a pocket and easy to wash. Gen Moore wore his Norwegian one throughout the Falklands campaign and he was a Marine and certainly no "crow". And I have seen it worn in the field by individuals in SF quite happily. I see one was produced in multicam but I have never seen it worn - just appearing, new, for sale on eBay. The more popular beret, by comparison was useless in sunlight, useless in the rain, difficult to wash, bulky to keep in pocket and provided nothing beyond warmth for the top of the head. It is interesting to see how wearing headdress in the Army is itself becoming less common. Not long ago headdress was ALWAYS worn outside - no exceptions. Often it was worn inside as well. Then the Police gave up on it and, it seems the Army is following suit - saves them having to salute in public I suppose! I liked the bit about officers dressing the same in civvies! ... Might be true... a bit...!

I can't answer your question about sizes of shirts, but as for the rest the answer is "fashion". It became very popular to blouse the combat jacket by tying the bottom drawcord tightish at the waist and then pulling the skirt down. This resulted in the skirt pockets being folded in two and, if a belt were worn, its being round them making using the pockets impossible. At the same time it bulked out the upper part of the jacket making it look a bit like a battledress blouse. It was a very popular thing to do for a while, but, to me, never made any sense and I didn't copy it. The hood was very rarely attached - some units didn't even issue it to their soldiers. Generally it was scorned because our training NCOs rightly railed against anything which reduced a soldier's senses in the field and wearing a hood diminished hearing - particularly if it was raining - so it was seen as being something no frontline soldier wished to do. But, again, fashions change and later the smock was issued with a hood (as was, of course, the SAS smock even at that time). So, merely fashion. The same applied to the combat cap - when the DPM version first appeared it had a great following, even being worn with a capbadge - for a very short time before it became unpopular for some reason - it was always more useful in the field than the alternative at the time which was a beret (the wearing of helmets in the field only became universal with the introduction of the plastic one, prior to that the "tin hat" was worn only in defence or under direct fire being carried for the rest of the time). The credibility of the combat cap sank yet further as it became used as a headdress for recruits who had yet to earn the right to wear their regimental headdress by "passing off the square". Regarding holding up combat trousers... fashion. At one time it was seen as very unprofessional to wear combats with a stable belt - your 58 pattern belt or something similar which avoided your having to break down your webbing, (you were only issued one web belt) such as a spare 37, 44 or 58 pattern web belt or the awful dark green plastic woven belt would be used. Later, it became fashionable for units to wear the stable belt with combat dress as it probably is currently. Some regiments and corps adopt habits frowned upon by others and customs come and go. in the 1960s, early 70s anyone likely to wear radio headsets used the "double pull" on his beret - cap badge in centre and roughly equal amounts of cloth each side. That went right out of fashion by the mid 70s. 20 years later it was popular to wear the beret with the badge over the left ear while Paras wore theirs rather like a flat cap with the spare cloth pulled forward over the forehead. Shrinking berets, on the other hand was always popular after the end of national service! Looking at your photo above you will see that the full length of the boot is left clear of the trouser ends. Again that was a fashion when high boots were introduced replacing ankle boots and puttees or web anklets. Prior to that it had been fashionable to pull the bloused trouser ends as far down as possible concealing nearly all but the body of the boot. Nowadays, it seems, the fashion is not to blouse the trousers at all. All these things change over time. But, it is a really useful way to date old photos!

I agree, you're doing a fantastic job. I am simply awestruck by the skills some of you on this forum have. And the doggedness to tackle what often seem to be hopeless cases, or projects way beyond the capabilities of one man. There should be a special thread somewhere on here with just the words and photos of the restorer for us to scroll through on winter nights to appreciate the work done and enjoy looking at the finished result without the superfluous comments ,like mine! But, anyway, well done and, while I'm about it, Merry Christmas to you all on the forum.

That was certainly an interesting link Tony offered to the MOULD site, but, as Richard says, the vehicle above has no connection. The MOULD vehicles were, according to Fletcher/Taylor 109" CLs in the ERM batch 03HJ71 to 04HJ03. 22 were insertion vehicles and 11 repair vehicles. They were also supported by CL GS stores vehicles. He is correct in that they were fitted with jerrican holders on the front and, in the photo he shows of them in civilian garb, the holders are all visible. As are the civilian style chrome aerials on the front wings and the diagnostic roofrack which was of very substantial construction. I doubt they would have been winterised - they had no overseas deployable role (hence their being CLs) and vehicles were only converted where there was a likelihood of their being deployed to the NATO flanks - 3 Cdo Bde, the RAF Harrier force, AMF(L) and so on. No, I think the vendor is on the right lines - he has an FFR with the correct details - even the lifting rings on the front bumper appear in the "in-service" photograph and the roof rack is of a regular pattern. The ERM is right, the fact that it's an FFR etc etc. As for what was inside, well it would have been equipment sourced from a number of different places and they were very heavily laden. Here are a couple more photos of the troop on exercise in Norway - again credit to the copyright owner on the internet.

This topic cropped up a couple of years ago on this forum. As shown above, the mount was intended for the B vehicle fleet generally and a large number of short-barrelled .5" Brownings were procured. They were put in storage but appeared pretty much for the first time for OP CORPORATE. There are a few pictures floating about of their being used on ground mounts. The cupola ring was similar across the fleet identified by the little ball mounts. At some point the idea faded away as, for example, it was only the early batches of Bedford RLs which had them, the later ones having a simple plain cupola with no mounting. I think someone on the forum imported some of the mounts and passed them on to members.

If only he'd move his foot! But... it's close. These vehicles were very uncommon - a handful at most which, as can be seen from the spiel, were specially equipped by Racal and used by 640 Signal Troop for the out-of-area and NATO flanks role carried out in BAOR by 14 Signal Regiment (EW) - so had a similar role to some of their larger 1 tonne Land Rovers. This photo - credit to the owner via the internet - shows the same or similar vehicle with 640 on exercise in Norway - hence the winterisation. As I said, they were very rare and wouldn't have been held in TA centres. I suspect what Tony is referring to are the MOULD insertion vehicles which were used by TA R Signals units to support the MOULD VHF emergency network which entered service in the early 80s, or, if that is too late, to their predecessors. The MERLIN record shows that this vehicle in fact went on to serve with 14, probably after that regiment returned from BAOR to new barracks in UK. Quite what the connection with the Dutch Embassy is, though, I have no idea, unless it was involved in some demonstration for them!

You don't think it might have been this, do you? "Scientists find black sand-like dust and gas from distant asteroid Ryugu inside sample capsule from Japanese space probe Hayabusa-2" Courtesy The Mail Online.

Very unlikely. It was the wrong side of the A360 for the Imber ranges. The vehicles stored at "the Round" went out onto the Westdown and Larkhill Impact Areas for the RSA. The School of Infantry usually kept their doomed fleet at the top of Sack Hill.

I said I would look out the photo of the DAC on Salisbury Plain in the 1960s. I reckon this will be about 1968. The other photos show a Conqueror and a 155mm SP How at "The Round" on the road between the Bustard and Market Lavington at around the same time, I should think judging by my size. Pleased to see Dad wearing a jacket and tie for a trip in the country at that time! 10 68

Feel better now you've given the hobby-horse a bit of a gallop? 10 68

If it was rescued in about 1971 by a unit in Tidworth, then it probably came off Salisbury Plain. I spent a lot of weekends up there in my youth and frequently wandered into the impact area when the red flags were down, simply following my Dad's advice (and common sense) to watch where I put my feet and not to touch unexploded shells - of which there were huge numbers lying around in those days. There were dozens of old armoured vehicles set out there then, both as targets and for use as reference points, including a number of DACs. Where they were lying away from the public road they were usually in excellent condition with little damage from vandalism and, if they hadn't been hit, from anything else. Engines would be complete, as would instruments, seats and internal fittings, though, of course, anything removable would have been taken off. I have a photo of me in the turret of one of them at around that time. I'll see if I can find it. I can remember rotating the turret using the little handle - it still worked perfectly smoothly. One wood was stuffed with Conquerors straight from service and still in very fine condition. They were there for months before they were towed onto the range and positioned individually as targets. But the majority were Comets, Churchills, Cromwells and Shermans. I remember one old gun which had been dug in had wooden spoked wheels and I am sure there was a German 88 up there somewhere as well. Sadly, Salisbury Plain isn't what it was then - it was still wild and largely undisturbed. Now, there are specially-built military roads everywhere and much of the public access has been ended. In the 60s the soldiers were always happy to encourage interest from small boys and I was given several rides - in Centurions, Saladins and FV432s. I even got to fire the coax in a Cent one afternoon - something of a highlight for a boy interested in the Army! Still - the recruiting pitch worked - they got nearly 40 years service out of me!

What a fantastic find. After all, I don't suppose there are that many about at the best of times. I hope you are able to do a deal and get what you need. Of course, we all have you down as that spotty "urban explorer" wandering around with his iphone now😊 - the one I was whinging about earlier this week on another thread. Good luck!

All very fascinating, but taken by a trespassing toerag. I know I'd be bloody livid if I discovered someone had been onto my land with a video camera and uploaded the results to U Tube. The owner has every right to collect what ever he wants and to maintain it in whatever condition he chooses and not expect to find his collection advertised for tealeaves on the internet by self-styled urban explorers. I wonder how much theft and vandalism has resulted from this video.

All good news! How do the new springs feel? let us know. I was reading something the other day - can't remember what or where, but it said that, if the vehicle is not fully laden then the tyre pressures on the rear can be lowered from 30psi to 25 to make it more comfortable. I haven't tried that yet, but I can quite imagine that there would be some improvement. I have new springs which have seen very little use and are pretty hard.

Britool Chrome Alloy Steel Service Tools

That's OK, I'm glad you have that catalogue as it is so much better than the Brooklands copy of the earlier MOD one. If yours is like mine, though, you have to turn the computer sideways to read it! If your Lightweight is from that batch then, providing the running gear is original, you are from Contract no FVE22A/115 a batch of 390 RHD GSs. Mine is from the previous large contract of 300 placed in 78 and delivered into 1979. - so tax-free now - which is nice! Let me know if you want any of the other catalogues, if you don't already have them. 10 68

Larry, Regrettably it is considerably more complicated than that. You need a copy of the Parts Catalogue for the Series 3 88” ½ ton military vehicle (Air Portable – Lightweight) 12v and 24V Part Number RTC9968FA of June 1993. I offered to send you one in a PM, but I didn't hear back. I won’t quote everything as there is too much for one shortish post, but starting with springs: Driver’s side front either 562623 to Contract No WV11367 or 562627 from Contract No WV11367 Passenger’s side will be 562624 or 562628 respectively Rear springs are relatively straightforward: Driver’s side 562631 and passenger’s side 562632 Bottom Spring Plate Front Left Hand 559636 (note 1) or 624077 (note 2) or NRC3696 (note 6) Bottom Spring Plante Front Right Hand 559843 (note 1) or 624078 (note 2) or NRC3695 (note 6) Front U Bolts (3 of each) then go: 562640 (note 1) 562641 (note 2) 624030 (note 5) NRC5002 (note 6) Front U Bolts 1 of each) 562636 (note 1) 562637 (note 2) 624036 (note 5) NRC5007 (note 6) Nuts for the above: 251323 7/16BSF (note 4) 8 required or NY1120416 M12 (note 7) And so it goes on with the notes reading; Note 1 12V from contract no WV10787 to WV11367 item 1 inclusive Note 2 12V & 24V from contract WV11367 item 2 to contract no FVE22A/115 inclusive Note 3 24V from contract WV10775 to WV11430 inclusive Note 4 Applicable to U Bolts 562636/7 & 562640/1 Note 5 12V from contract no WV11367 item 2 to FVE/115 inclusive & 24V contract no WV11701 to FVE22A/95 inclusive Note 6 Vehicles built 1980 starting with front axle serial no RHD – 2010654E and LHD 20410264E Note 7 applicable to U Bolt 624030/6 & NRC5002/7 So there is quite a lot to it. You must, though, refer to the original rather than what I have just written as it is perfectly feasible I have written the odd number down incorrectly or transposed the odd figure as I was flipping between applications on my computer as I copied from the parts catalogue. But, although it is complicated, it is "doable" provided, as you restore your vehicle, you know what you are starting with and you can actually find all the numbers you need on the vehicle beneath the crud. The ERM (mil reg no) is only a guide now, as these vehicles have been so long in private hands many will no longer be on their original running gear, so you have to check everything - a pain, but, as I say, doable and, it is great when you get there. Good luck with your restoration and, if you want a copy of the IPC on a CD, PM me. 10 68

Actually, this isn't really a military item. Some years ago, it was realised by Greyhound owners that, as their racing dogs aged, they missed the track, they missed their friends and rivals and generally became depressed. But, chasing the hare proved all too much. So, White City introduced a veterans' day for retired racing greyhounds. It included some bottom-sniffing, a set of lamp posts were set up for competitive pi**ing (height achieved, quantity and colour were all judged) and the highlight was the closing event... the veterans' race. Chasing after a hare at their age would have clearly been impossible and so... thinking back to their childhood fairy tales the organisers remember the tale of the hare and the tortoise. This is one of the tortoises which were pulled, very slowly round the track in front of the old dogs.... I'll get my coat.

Thanks for that, Tony, you're quite right. The and/or is implied rather than actually stated.

That's a shocking experience and |I feel for you - it wou;d have been worth pursuing to get the money back. The one time I took a vehicle for an SVA at a VOSA station was rather better. I imported an Uaz 469. I went along to Avonmouth, frankly expecting to have the tyres kicked and be told to bugger off. Not a bit of it. He went through it with a fine toothed comb and it failed on 22 different items. I was amazed at just how much failed to comply with (the then) EU conformity. I thought I was going to be stuck with a pup which I couldn't use and wouldn't be able to sell. But... the tester then took about half an hour telling me exactly how to go about fixing every one of the points he had identified to enable it to pass next time. 21 of them I was able to do myself, the only one I couldn't was to re-profile the front bumper - cost a fiver. So I was lucky. But, coming back to Lightweights and MOTs... I see that the last MoT mine got before I bought it advised that there were: "Under-trays fitted obscuring some underside components Engine covers fitted obscuring some components in the engine bay". Somewhat unlikely, I think on a bog standard Lightweight! The only other MoT annoyance has been on my car at a main dealer which caused a mighty row. I asked the garage to replace some discs and pads and THEN give it an MoT. So they gave it an MoT - failed it on discs and pads and then fitted the new ones. When I blew up about having an MoT failure on the record the service manager justified it by explaining to me that, as an MoT centre they were expected to fail a certain proportion of cars they inspected and, not in so many words, that this was a perfect opportunity to keep their numbers up! Needless to say, I now go elsewhere for all my MoTs - to a garage I know well and which is an expert on Land Rovers. But, whether you, Larry, have a case regarding "corroded, covered with oil and dirt" I'm not so sure as I think the wording is corroded and/or covered.... in which case, the likelihood is that, given the construction of a Land Rover, brake lines will nearly always be, at least part covered with oil or dirt. The key, sadly will be the "and/or". 10 68

You're doing a really lovely job with it. I've much enjoyed following your thread.