10FM68

That's really very nice, indeed. And valuable as well, now. What tyres are you using?

Go in the first week of April - everything should be in place by then. And then, best of all, buy your silver on black number plates! A Lightweight looks so much better with them!

Exactly. As I wrote above... I took my paperwork to the post office - they weren't interested in any supporting documents, but simply sent off the V5 and within a couple of days DVLA had changed the status on line showing the vehicle as exempt from MOTs. The Post Office, despite being small and with relatively new staff, weren't phased in the slightest - they seemed to be familiar with the process, which surprised me. The replacement V5 was back within about three weeks." The Post Office hadn't been open a year at that point, yet they still knew what was required. All perfectly straightforward.

This all cropped up a few months back. I had thought that a current MoT was a necessity. "Oats and Barley" assured me that that wasn't the case and he was right. Your vehicle does not require a current MoT. This was the exchange, " "You're right - but that applies from each April. So it won't change to 1 Jan 1981 until April 2002. But... and this is the more important point: it looks as though you are quite right regarding not requiring an MoT and, for that I sincerely apologise and thank you. Because, it seems there is a form V112 on which you can declare that the vehicle doesn't require an MoT when applying to register the vehicle as historic. I had previously read the guidance notes but clearly badly as under category "r" (perhaps I didn't read that far) it includes: "(GB only) A vehicle other than a public service vehicle registered or manufactured 40 years ago and which has not been substantially changed in the last 30 years." So, that means that, if you take your V5 and a V112 to a post office which deals with VED, with a cover note or insurance certificate they will send it all off for you and you're good to go. You may even use your vehicle prior to receipt of confirmation from the DVLA. I shall try this next week and see how I get on! " This is what I wrote back to Oats and Barley having done it, "I ought to have replied more promptly to this. I followed your advice, took my paperwork to the post office - they weren't interested in any supporting documents, (as you forecast) but simply sent off the V5 and within a couple of days DVLA had changed the status on line showing the vehicle as exempt from MOTs. The Post Office, despite being small and with relatively new staff, weren't phased in the slightest - they seemed to be familiar with the process, which surprised me. The replacement V5 was back within about three weeks."

Larry, Something was a bit odd about the first link I gave you for North Hants Tyres - try this link instead. https://www.northhantstyres.com/tyre-finder.php then look for 6.50x16. They seem to have just one in stock at the moment and, while not exactly Goodyear Hi Milers, they're about as close as one can get readily in new tyres https://www.northhantstyres.com/img/tyres/sta/STA-Super-traxion-650x16.gif

A couple of interesting points have been raised in this thread which prompted me to look a bit deeper. I am fortunate in having a copy of the FVRDE “Notes for Acceptance Meeting on Lightweight Landrover” dated 20 April 1967 in which these points are clarified. Attached to the Notes is an additional 4-page summary of the “Lightweight Version of Short Wheelbase Land-Rover” which gives the initial requirement, description and “Standard Specification – Land-Rover Models, Model – 88” Lightweight W.D”. It claims that the oil cooler has been deleted, suggesting that it is an earlier document than the “Notes for Acceptance Meeting…” But, disappointingly it lacks any further provenance. I refer to it below as “the attachment”. FVRDE’s own figures in the Notes state that, “the Lightweight vehicle is about 260lbs lighter than the comparable Mk.8 in both built-up and stripped forms”. That is significantly lighter – over 18 ½ stone: a fully-equipped infantryman. Elsewhere in the document the weights are detailed: “Unladen (without fuel): Mk.8 Rover 3220lbs completely weatherproofed, 2856lbs stripped, compared with the Lightweight Rover’s 2957lbs and 2593lbs respectively. These figures are for the GS version as, at this stage, the trials FFR was still using the radio harness of the Mk8 – the URS had yet to be designed. Reading the Notes, it is clear where the weight-saving came from. There was a small amount in the chassis in that its overall width was reduced. The same is true for the front bumper and, of course, the bulkhead was narrower and lacked the parcel shelf. The rest of the bodywork differed markedly with resultant weight loss. And of equal significance was the replacement in the Lightweight of the heavy-duty springs used on the Mk8 and the change to 5.00Fx16 well-base wheel rims from the Mk.8’s 4.50Ex16 divided rims. Incidentally, according to the Notes, both the springs and the wheels adopted for the Lightweight were to have been introduced on the Mk.8 had that remained in service, as an economy measure and with a resultant loss in weight of that vehicle. Initially, the oil cooler was discarded, but, during the trials it became clear that one was required and so the weights above include one (there is an alternative, lower, weight in the attachment of 2795/2495lbs unladen: it is possible that these weights refer to the vehicle minus the oil cooler, as it further states, “to save weight, well-based wheels replace the W.D. divided type, the oil cooler is deleted and standard suspension replaces the normal W.D. heavy duty one. This is acceptable due to reduced gross weight. If required, any of the deleted items could be fitted in service”. Regarding tyre sizes. The Lightweight was certainly designed and passed its acceptance trials on 6.00x16 tyres with the understanding that the Mk.8’s 6.50x16 tyres might be used if required in service at the cost of 8 ½lbs additional weight per tyre (34lbs all up). The attachment also mentions that 7.50x16 tyres are optional and adds that, “provision is also made to fit 7.50x16 tyres if required”. And, of course, the fitting of sand tyres would also have been considered. Separately, I was particularly intrigued that, among the summary of some 24 user comments (from the trials vehicles) one complained that, “the fitting of the rear view mirrors to the door hinge is unsatisfactory”, leading to the FVRDE advice that, “Present location and (sic) [of] mirrors as for Mk.8. Improved type of mirror will be specified.” So they put them on the wings – that WAS an improvement wasn’t it? What can be read into all that? Well, compared with the in-service Mk8 (Rover 8), FVRDE certainly considered that the Lightweight WAS lighter at the introduction into service stage by a considerable margin. And it was this comparison which mattered, not a comparison with any other Land Rover type. What happened to it thereafter as it developed through into the Series 3 is another story. And, of course, FVRDE had no qualms about running the Lightweight on 6.00x16 tyres, or, indeed 7.50x16, the latter being specified, of course, by some overseas users and did appear on occasion on British in-service Lightweights towards the end of their careers. (There is, incidentally, a photo of 00WA25 on 7.50x16s undergoing trials at Chertsey in Mark Cook’s book, though this was an early Series 3). But, 6.50x16 was the production tyre of choice whether Bargrips, Dunlop T29s, or, latterly, Goodyear Xtra Grip Hi milers.

https://www.northhantstyres.com/img/tyres/sta/STA-Super-traxion-650x16.png Try them. Easier than going to the Far East or the USA. But, also keep your eye on Bay and Withams. I bought a pair of genuine HiMilers about two months ago NOS and shortly after Withams had a set of four in one of their auctions.

Absolutely stunning - a lovely job. Good luck with the registration process and road testing 1068

This really does have to be utter tosh. So the man who bought the land knew the history of the vehicle because the guy who sold him it admitted to him that he had stolen it? More to the point, anyone with any knowledge of military accounting in the 1970s/80s could never give credence to such a story. Some soldiers steal a vehicle... the unit then allows the platoon sergeant to "sort out the problem" but he fails. So the regimental quartermaster does what? The CO does what? The soldiers who, presumably, have been returned to the unit do what? They don't claim at their own court martial that the sergeant took the vehicle off them? The sergeant does what? No, if a military vehicle were to go missing it would be both an RMP and a civil police matter - as would the absence of the soldiers (AWOL soldiers can be arrested by the civil police) and no commanding officer would have any interest in asking a sergeant to sort it out, particularly if the theft of a vehicle was concerned he'd get the RMP involved straight away - he couldn't afford not to, after all, he too is responsible to the chain of command. Valuable items in the Army are accountable, they can't just be accepted as being lost and put down to misfortune. If a prismatic compass or a G10 watch goes missing there is a board of enquiry, so a vehicle? No, I'm with Nick Johns on this one... I expect the vehicle was used to move crates of hidden Nazi gold... 10 68

I ought to have replied more promptly to this. I followed your advice, took my paperwork to the post office - they weren't interested in any supporting documents, (as you forecast) but simply sent off the V5 and within a couple of days DVLA had changed the status on line showing the vehicle as exempt from MOTs. The Post Office, despite being small and with relatively new staff, weren't phased in the slightest - they seemed to be familiar with the process, which surprised me. The replacement V5 was back within about three weeks. I am very glad you challenged my preconception regarding the MOT as it enabled me to get on and use the vehicle without having to wait for one, which, in the current climate would have been a pain. So, thanks for that! Cheers! 10 68

It's second only to one which was on eBay a few months back - my all time favourite! It had a large sign over the windscreen "LAD Armourer" and it was covered with every piece of REME recovery kit you could imagine. It had a cab top with grilles over all the windows and, because of the weight of the snatch blocks on the bonnet, a patent screw assisted mechanism for raising the bonnet with a large handle at the front - just beside the enormous vice. And, funnily enough, that was a good lightweight underneath as well. I kept a photo of it, but, for some reason it won't download. 10 68

I was told in school woodworking classes that wooden tools and handles should never be painted or covered with anything which prevented them from breathing. Painted wood dries out and loses its flexibility and so is more prone to cracking or snapping. The best treatment for wood is something like linseed oil. Certainly in the Sappers after coming back off exercise wooden tools had the mud washed and brushed off them, they were then allowed to dry naturally before being given a good rub with a rag or cotton waste dipped in linseed oil. Rather like the traditional treatment for cricket bats. We didn't have any wooden ladders, so I can't speak for them - but we were always a bit sniffy about units which painted their shovel handles green! 10 68

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/military-infrared-headlight-covers-land-rover-101/274378984760?hash=item3fe2430d38:g:5yoAAOSwelheznhn This chap reckons they're worth £600 a pair - and he'll still expect you to pay £2 for P&P!

Yep, really nice and, as Ferg and Terry said, good to see one in post-war British colours. 10 68

Post-war registration number for an RN-owned trailer. May well have been issued to an RM commando. Many RM vehicles had RN registrations. In fact, I think I have seen a picture in a book somewhere of a similar trailer being towed behind a Series 1 Land Rover with RN markings. 10 68

You're right - but that applies from each April. So it won't change to 1 Jan 1981 until April 2002. But... and this is the more important point: it looks as though you are quite right regarding not requiring an MoT and, for that I sincerely apologise and thank you. Because, it seems there is a form V112 on which you can declare that the vehicle doesn't require an MoT when applying to register the vehicle as historic. I had previously read the guidance notes but clearly badly as under category "r" (perhaps I didn't read that far) it includes: "(GB only) A vehicle other than a public service vehicle registered or manufactured 40 years ago and which has not been substantially changed in the last 30 years." So, that means that, if you take your V5 and a V112 to a post office which deals with VED, with a cover note or insurance certificate they will send it all off for you and you're good to go. You may even use your vehicle prior to receipt of confirmation from the DVLA. I shall try this next week and see how I get on! Thank you again.

You are confusing the issue. As I said, a vehicle can be registered as a vehicle of historic interest from the 1st of April following the year in which it reaches 40. As any vehicle being so registered requires a current valid MoT on the date the application is made, then the date of MoT renewal thereafter is completely irrelevant as, once the vehicle is VHI, it will no longer require an MoT. But, if the MoT runs out prior to the application being made, then the vehicle cannot be registered as a VHI and a new MoT must be obtained. I am in that position myself as I cannot get an MoT at the moment. 10 68

Not until the 1st of April 2021.

Yep! Those were the days - fuel coupons tax-free from the pay office. But redeemable only at certain garages - Esso and BP until the 90s as I remember and only for use in Germany. So the last BP filling station on the autobahn home was at Wankum, close to the border at Venlo. Fill up there, a couple of jerricans as well - refill the tanks before the ferry and ditch the can (borrowed, as you say, from the MT park) as the ferry operators objected to them (full or otherwise). Of course, there was a bit of planning involved as the coupons were only sold in multiples of 10 litres - so you only filled your tank in multiples of 10 litres! By contrast, the Americans sold their coupons in little books which contained a variety of coupons: some for 10l, some for 5 and a few for one litre. Rather more convenient. Enough reminiscing. Happy Easter to one and all - keep safe.

I don't remember units ever bothering to paint their jerricans. They were in whatever colour they left the factory. The colour would depend on their age - which is easy to tell as they all have a year of manufacture stamped on them. Looking at your picture, though, is the left hand one actually a British military jerrican? With that "20l" marking and the milky green paint, it looks more like a civilian one you'd pick up in Halfords. I may be wrong, but check that it has the broad arrow on it. But, some post-war British military jerricans were painted deep bronze green up until the 70s while more recent ones tended to be a matt olive drab. If they're a bit scruffy then leave them that way as that reflects how they usually were in service - they led quite a hard life being bashed around and scraped against each other and the sides of vehicles. Old BAOR hands may well remember seeing small numbers of them abandoned beside the E34 at Zeebrugge or Calais - can anyone remember, or guess, why?

The centaur with VII underneath may be 7 Air Defence Group RA. Years ago it would have been the insignia of 7th AGRA, but that was disbanded well before that piece of paper was printed. Why the badge of the Coldstream Guards (reversed) is on there as well, though, is mysterious. 125 Field Company, may be a REME sub-unit. F Company should be Scots Guards - with the RLC (Logistic with no "s") AOS sign having been added by the RLC cooks, perhaps, and B Company - well could be anything, as you say - most non-mounted units will have a B company of some sort. But, sadly, I'm not certain of any of them - others may be able to give more certain answers. 10 68

Quite by chance, and topically, I came across this last week - being used as a bookmark! Clearly it's been around for quite a while.

Not unless they make a further change to the interim rules. As things stand, vehicles making the transition to vehicle of historic interest require a valid MoT in order to complete the paperwork. I have fallen into the same pit. My Lightweight is currently on SORN and I was going to get an MoT in this last fortnight in order for it to have a current one for registering it as a VHI which, as a 1979 model it was entitled to be from 1st April. Unfortunately, I missed the boat- my local MoT centres are not accepting non-vital vehicles (which mine clearly isn't) for the forseeable future. So, it'll have to wait, which will be a shame as I'll miss the good weather. But, as we aren't allowed to make non-essential journeys anyway, I suppose nothing has been lost. But, as I understand things, exemptions come on 1 April each year, not 1 January - hence my 1979 model only becoming eligible on 1 April this year. 1068

I agree - one thing which caught my eye was the number of Centurions maintained in war stocks as late as they were. I wonder when they finally went. I'm always interested in lists of equipment held. When I was in the Sappers in about 1982, among the ubiquitous Mk 1 Millies we had a single Leyland Martian GS. No idea why, we just did. It wasn't particularly reliable and wasn't used a great deal - I think it towed the servicing trailer, but as that was always VOR (usually lacking a test certificate for the compressor tank - because other bits missing precluded its being sent for testing), it didn't get out much. As I recall, the servicing trailer was the only piece of kit in the troop which never worked while I was there (closely followed by the Mk5 Coles cranes which spent so long going through the REME system having the safe load indicator certified that it came out of 37 Rhine Workshops was it(?) and went straight back in again!) The Hydra Husky could be a bit of a pain for the same reason - and they added a boom extension sensor for checking as well! After that the least reliable was the LMD. Muir Hills were generally pretty good as were the Allises - which were also more popular than the Terex. The Barford was also thought more highly of than the Haulamatic with its heated rear loadbed which precluded stowing a lot of stuff in it for deployments. Hey ho - happy days!

Great find, Bryan. Thanks for the link. Fascinating - like you found old units - a number of them actually! But, my goodness, where did it all go? Seemed so solid at the time and that it would last forever.