10FM68

Because I just can't leave these things alone, I have been searching Google Street View and I believe that the photo was taken in the approximate vicinity of the Church of St Antonio, on what is now Corso della Repubblica.

 

That's an impressive bit of analysis/research. And I reckon you're spot on!

10 68

As to your Dad's Ferret is that an adjudicator's white cross on the turret? Although the pennant further gives his position, might it being used to indicate he is 'hors de combat"?

White markings, often crosses, do not always designate umpires, or "adjudicators". They are used widely for "neutral org", ie, those vehicles, and, indeed, personnel, in an exercise area which are not being exercised - not part of "blue" or "red" forces. So, yes, that will include umpires, but it will also include visitors, higher command or flanking units assisting - perhaps providing "bangs", probably the exercise controlling staff - EXCON - damage control units, DAMCON - such as RE troops detailed to repair damage to roads, fences, verges and so on - an absolute essential in BAOR in the Cold War period where troops exercised outside training areas, over private land. There used to be a term "NODUF" which was used on radio nets to indicate traffic which wasn't part of the exercise - so real casualties for example, genuine problems, breakdowns and so on could be passed and acted upon by neutral org elements. These would certainly include the real medical cover for the exercise (so the dedicated ambulances would have white markings), and it might also include REME units tasked with maintaining critical equipments, the loss of which might inhibit the exercise - and, of course, it could be that, for any given exercise, REME aren't being exercised, so, as they move around the exercise area they display white markings. Sometimes these were painted on - quite often white "minefield marking" tape would be used. You'll see similar worn on combat uniforms - perhaps a white arm band or, since the introduction of a combat helmet with elastics on, tied round the helmet.

10 68

 

 

Vol 4 Warpaint, as previously indicated in my Libya thread has glaring inaccuracies. One such is the statement that vehicles never wore camouflage paint!

I think you may be thinking of another book - Vol 4 clearly shows a photo of a camouflaged Queen's Bays Centurion in Libya and Vol 3 says, "In 1959 the regulations stated that the colours specified for MELF were stone or light stone..." He makes no reference there to camouflage schemes, but acknowledges that vehicles in the North Africa area have tended to be in a one-colour... scheme" but does mention disruptive schemes in the Persian Gulf in the same period. I can find no use of the word "never", but, yes, there are one or two inaccuracies, whether they are glaring or not is debatable.

But, I have yet to find any publication which covers anything I have been intimately involved with which is entirely accurate. Dick Taylor covers an enormous field - 100 years - and does so well and with generally a higher degree of accuracy than many who write on considerably more limited fields - I think of the various learned tomes on Land Rovers, for a start. And there's always the "Weapon of Magnesium..." which gets trotted out at regular intervals!

But, let he who is without sin... If, in due course, you do write your book, then I would implore you to employ a good, and knowledgeable, proof-reader. A writer cannot do that for him, or herself as he will be blind to the errors, reading only what he expects to see. That is where so many of the kinds of book which we read fail - and once it is in print, it's too late! I go through all my reference books, but I only correct in pencil because sometimes, just sometimes, I'm wrong myself!

10 68

This is a huge subject, particularly if you are thinking of WWII or earlier. Post war, with all armour and many soft skin vehicles having radio, the wearing of pennants on aerials pretty much disappeared, except for ceremonial and the odd particular purpose. Guidons are the light cavalry equivalent of the infantry's colours, while pennants, or pennons, were the red-over-white swallowtail "flags" borne on lances (from the colours of Poland, incidentally).

Some other flags do continue on vehicles - some commanders still use them on staff cars, defence and military advisers and attaches abroad in some, but not all, countries have them and so on, but these, of course, are not carried on aerials. I understood that one of the reasons pennants disappeared from aerials, apart from their dubious value, was the increased speed of vehicles putting undue strain on the aerials.

A useful book covering the subject is Volume 4 of "Warpaint - Colours and Markings of British Army Vehicles 1903 - 2003" by Dick Taylor. He served in RTR in all ranks from tpr to maj and is also an historian - so he knows his stuff!

10 68

No, Ruxy, you aren’t splitting hairs, you’re simply wrong - it isn't a Rover 11. The vehicle is a Rover 9. ERM 18DM44 from a batch of 227 from Apr 1961. It was probably serving with D Battery 3 RHA, Seederseer Lines, Aden in the period Aug 62 - Feb 63.

10 68

That looks like a standard 109" wheelbase General Service Series 2A Land Rover, in military parlance a Rover 9, dating from the early sixties.

10 68

It doesn't look British, could it be Irish?

10 68

Strange as it seems, when I uploaded the colour photo above of the three POWs, I thought I knew that guy on the right from somewhere, the one who is possibly wearing a US Army or British Army shirt. So I had a trawl through some 300 IWM photos I have had for about 40 years and found this photo. As you can see they are Luftwaffe but I'm not sure they are Paras but the relief at being away from the fighting is clear to see! Sadly the British soldiers in the front, despite their half smiles, show a sense of apprehension. They still have another year of fighting to go before they can truly relax!

Note the Jeep has two different tyres on the front and bashed fender and lights and no pioneer tools.The canvas covering the windscreen looks to be Italian or German in origin.

 

[ATTACH]126732[/ATTACH]

Do you know any more about the jeep crew? A closer look suggests the passenger may be Indian, quite likely in that theatre and he is with a probable Brit who has no visible badges of rank, but, possibly the single ribbon of an MC. He is also wearing a shirt with a collar. And age? He may be a WO or officer, perhaps - if from an Indian unit, would that make him someone from Bn/Regt HQ - QM, RQMS, someone like that. The absence of tin hats, webbing and weapons, suggest thy are a bit closer to the rear at this stage than when the PW were taken. And I think there are at least three different tyres! No surprise, matching tyres in those days wasn't the priority it has become since! Sad - makes showing an authentic jeep at a show much more difficult! Sidelights aren't quite up to MOT standards either!

10 68

I was going to say perhaps give greater reliance to the printed word, rather the on line word. But that particular magnesium myth has been harvested from the net & appears in a recently published book. :nut:

I think that pre-supposes that the printed word is somehow more reliable. I am not sure. The same myths existed before the arrival of the internet and some of it will have found its way there from paper in the first place. The trouble is, there is so much information available these days, and so many different people offering views and opinions which may or may not accurately reflect the reality and so little of which can be verified.

Even when it comes to official documents there can be problems - an official order being issued from Whitehall was no guarantee that it would be implemented by a minor unit in a distant theatre for a multitude of reasons. I d, though, accept, they are the probably the most reliable source - at least as far as top-level thinking on a subject was concerned. Even recollections of those who were there can be very tricky - think of siblings' shared memories of their childhood - often varying markedly one from another. And mere presence at an event does not of itself guarantee an understanding of the big picture, while at the same time, a higher headquarters' war diaries may not reflect precisely what happened, only what they thought (and had been told?) happened.

And then there was the official secrets act - for example, biographies of famous leaders from WWII written prior to the revelations of wartime SIGINT in the early 70s will generally credit leaders with more skill in outwitting their axis opponents than those written later. But, at the same time, those written thirty years and more after the events they describe, will have memory faults and probably b written by those who did not live through the events they describe and struggle to put them in context - so neither can be taken as gospel.

Of course, much of this doesn't matter, as truth will always be a touch subjective and rely on interpretation. One thing I would say, though, as far as modern commercial publications are concerned, and that is that most would benefit from far more rigorous proof-reading, particularly in getting photo captions to match the narrative, or compiling lists of abbreviations. As you say, the WOMBAT howler goes on and on, but it isn't alone. I tend to annotate my reference books, correcting errors as I find them - but I only ever use pencil as, from time to time, I find that I have been wrong myself! And, I am sure there are many who served in the military for years who would swear blind that MT stood for Motor Transport, but it didn't!

10 68

Thank you for your replies, I will have a look for any markings, I did wonder if they were off a type of French vehicle, but I have found nothing similar. Q.

I looked at your photo and, before had reached your explanation of it having served in the French Army, I had thought, "they look French", so I would continue to look in that direction if I were you. They certainly don't smack of being American.

10 68.

The Weeks book is very good.

 

If you need the background on BATs it is more informative & accurate than the drivel you get from online encyclopaedias that is passed from site to site without further research, "weapon of magnesium" for goodness sake! :nono:

Perhaps we ought to start a thread for debunking urban myths?

10 68

If you liked that, you'll probably like this :-D

 

 

Priceless!

10 68

Superb, you've done a lovely job. And congratulations on getting it licensed. Pretty little things, aren't they? And a fantastic engine noise.

10 68

Oh I do like para 254, Clive. That really made me chuckle. But it does go a long way to explaining why so many soldiers I encountered over the years had no idea where their medical documents were! Including me!

10 68

I've learned a lot from this show about history. I knew there was some of what was described in the British army between the lower and upper classes, but never the extent of it until last night.

Bruce kept saying " amazing that there was never a revolution" , that's putting it mildly.

 

 

Please don't judge the incredibly complex relationship between officers and soldiers which has existed in the British Army since its very beginning by the remarks to camera of one man on a silly TV programme. Firstly, you have to remember that one cannot judge the past by today's standards and looking at that past through the prism of present day experience will inevitably make things look rather odd. Was it LP Hartley who said, "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there"? And if you seriously think that the officers were miles behind their soldiers, then you might wonder why the life expectancy of a subaltern in France in WWI was three weeks. Look at the casualty lists - they make sober reading.

Secondly, it is almost impossible for someone who has not served to understand the closeness which can, should, and usually does, develop between a platoon commander and his men and the subtlety of that relationship. As in every army at every time there would have been good and bad officers and good and bad soldiers, but, remember, in the British system, officer cadets are trained, at Sandhurst, primarily by NCOs not by officers. It is fair to say that, probably at any time in history, the British soldier was thought more highly of by his officers than would be the case in any other army.

Don't forget, in war each, whether soldier or officer, pledges to give his life for the other - and thousands have done so and more will do in the future. And, after the "Old Contemptibles", increasingly the Army comprised volunteer and conscripted civilians, not professional soldiers - the same in the Second World War after Dunkirk. These men, for they were mainly men in those days, served with distinction of the highest order - both soldier and officer. It is all too easy and glib for us now to see their world as some sort of Blackadder parody. And, even the generals were subalterns once - they did their apprenticeship! Read a few biographies of those who served and you'll get a rather more balanced view.

10 68

The squadrons would not have stayed afloat for months at a time, .

A small “afloat” armoured component of a half-squadron of Centurion MBTs was maintained in the Persian Gulf aboard LSTs from around 1960. One reason was the need to reinforce Kuwait in the face of Iraqi aggression. The LSTs were based in Bahrain - HMS JUFIR, I believe. Their crews served aboard with their tanks, though, sometimes during the summer months where the LST lacked air conditioning, life for embarked troops could be pretty grim. In those circumstances the tank crews would be left ashore and brought forward from Aden to join the ship at Bahrain.

Through the deployment of a second LST, the crews would be rotated between the squadrons of the armoured regiment based in Aden, thus enabling a permanent deployment.

Certainly they would have been involved in exercises in the Gulf region, and, in fact, the tanks were landed for operations in Kuwait in 1961 - OP VANTAGE.

The concept of maintaining troops afloat was well understood in those days and was being developed as part of an overall British strategy to maintain forces capable of rapid deployment, both by sea and also by air - you may recall the emphasis being placed on introducing new transport aircraft into service during the late 50s and 60s (C130s arriving in 1967, for example).

As far as the maritime component was concerned, two LPDs (HMS FEARLESS (1964) and INTREPID (1965)) were commissioned and they were joined by six LSLs (The Round Table Class). Together, these gave a considerably enhanced capability - being faster, more modern and considerably better adapted to the littoral warfare role than the earlier LSTs. HMS BULWARK and ALBION had, by that time, already been converted into helicopter carriers in order to provide platforms for RM deployments (in 1960 and 1962 respectively).

10 68

Well, the Chieftain tank commander is wearing a red lanyard, and he’s RTR, so that should make him from 1 RTR. The Chieftain itself is carrying the formation sign of 24 Inf Bde which was in Aden from Oct 64 until the withdrawal in Nov 67. The Chieftain also has the squadron marking on the forward edge of the turret of a circle - signifying C Squadron. That it is also highlighted in red, suggests it is 1 RTR. 1 RTR were in Falaise Lines, Aden with A and C Sqns afloat in the Persian Gulf (in LSTs) as theatre reserve from Dec 65 until Feb 67 - the two sqns alternating roles. And the photographer says Aden, 24 Bde says Aden, the camouflage scheme says, probably, Aden. So, it seems rather probable that at least two Chieftains found their way to Aden, perhaps for trials, sometime in the period Dec 65 to Feb 67. Over to others.

10 68

Hi, does anybody know what's written on the back of the Land Rover on the first Picture? It looks like "Vcran" or something. What does it mean?

 

Regards, winkle :-)

Looks like T/CRAN - RAF Training Command/RAF Cranwell.

10 68

Not sure of exactly when but think it was late 70's a number of WW2 Leyland Hippos were brought out of storage from a British vehicle depot in Belgium to supplement the heavy vehicle fleet until the Foden 16 tonne came into service.

Certainly a number of Leyland Hippos were brought out of storage for Ex CRUSADER 80. I was with 3TRRE at that time and a number came to us to be issued to TA units deploying on the exercise. In fact we retained them at Hawley and lent them our Militants instead, as they were thought likely to be more reliable and, good grief, faster! (well, everything's relative!). They had delivery mileage on the clocks and, the mod record showed very little except something like "turn lights fitted, 1963" - nothing else.

At the same time a number of fixed-fork Triumph motorcycles were issued as well, but, as I wasn't interested in motorbikes,stupidly, I didn't take much notice. But, talking of WWII kit lingering on, the Movement Light Squadron RE(V) at that time still had WWII searchlights with trailer-mounted Lister generators. I remember looking closely at one at the time - it had a brass maker's plate dated 1937 and, on the canvas, the faded outline of Mickey-Mouse-Ear camouflage could still be seen, quite clearly. And, certainly there were one or two QL office bodies about in the 70s - generally in support arms where annual mileage was very limited, but they met a specific requirement.

10 68

the primary function was of AIRPORTABILITY

I think you will find that lifting was only secondary. The prime reason for fitting bumperettes, to the front and to the rear of Land Rovers, was for the reason I gave - to meet a NATO requirement for pushing. The fact that some designs had built-in lifting eyes was a bonus - most didn't as you concede. And, at that stage, there were few helicopters capable of lifting Land Rovers - hence the design of the "Lightweight". And the various tie-down schemes for stowing Land Rovers inside aircraft wouldn't require bumperettes. More relevantly would be loading onto ships' decks, but, at the height of the Cold War and with the various landing ships then in service, that wasn't normally of tactical concern (though Fearless and Intrepid had yet to be commissioned, of course). Had lifting been the primary concern, there was a much cheaper way of doing it - the method in fact used in the majority of cases, fitting a simple lifting eye to the rear and front cross members. Anyway, 'nuff said.

Fred

And what was interesting is that it appears to have its front diff painted white. I have seen this many times on restored vehicles - a result of a misunderstanding, but never on an actual military vehicle.

Of course, as forum users will know only too well, the reason for a white-painted diff is so that it reflects the light from the convoy lamp when in use at night, but that applies, of course, only to the rear diff not to the front. So, I suspect, if the colour is indeed white, some bored military policeman, told to smarten up his Land Rover - and in all other respects, and notwithstanding the crushed windscreen, it is immaculate - took a tin of white paint to the front diff either by accident or design (and, of course, many MP Land Rovers, used for escorting senior officers were routinely "bulled" with additional painted "detailing", even white-wall tyres (ugh))

Anyone else got a better theory?

Oh and it has interesting tread on the tyres.

10 68

Because it is RAF - it does not have the Army air-lift bumperettes.

 

 

I am not sure that bumperettes have any link to airportability, or purely to the Army. RAF Rover 8s had them as well (though, as with everything, there are exceptions, though these seem to be on RAF and RN Land Rovers without a tactical (field) role, and, of course CLs).

I have always understood that the bumperettes were introduced to meet a NATO standardisation requirement for vehicles of similar type to be able to push one another, bumper-to-bumper, without locking or damaging bodywork.

10 68

In 1956 8 RTR were in Barker Barracks, Paderborn. Were they involved in trials with the Caernarvon or Conway tanks? If so, was there an issue with the overall strength of steel somewhere in the construction?

10 68

The article does suggest there are unanswered questions and that these were never issued - which sounds right, as otherwise how would 14,000 odd dog tags return to one place?

 

 

Odd that thousands of dog tags should be stamped up (badly) and never issued, though, unless it's a cover story.

I think it unlikely they were "never issued" as such as they would have been stamped only after a recruit had been attested - by, as Ferret Fixer states, the unit orderly room. (I couldn't remember whether it was Records or the unit which stamped them, so thank you for that FF). The varying quality of stamping is also explained by the fact that it was done at unit level. FF also reminds us that, normally, they were held with the individual's documents and issued, against a signature, only when required for operations. Thus it is perfectly possible that thousands of soldiers, particularly those serving for limited periods, either as part of National Service, or with the regulars, never actually received their discs personally even though they would have been "on their file" in the unit orderly room because they were not deployed. The discs would then have been returned to the Records Office along with the soldier's other docs once he left the service. The paper documents would have been archived, but, presumably, there was no requirement to archive the discs and, eventually they were discarded or scrapped. So, I think it most likely that this collection is from those which were returned to a Records office somewhere from units following discharge of the soldiers to whom they belonged and eventually found their way to a dump. Before Records Offices were centralised in Glasgow, there were regimental and corps records offices all over the country, it is possible that, given the location of the find and the regiments to which the discs can be traced, the particular records office which got rid of them can be ascertained.

10 68

Interesting, but I am surprised by the story that they trace back to WWII. For much of the first half of the 20th century British soldiers had "regimental numbers" - ie, on attestation recruits were issued with numbers from blocks allocated to particular regiments or corps. Later these were replaced with "army numbers" whereby all recruits, irrespective of their future regiment or corps were allocated a number from the same army-wide series. Quite when the change was made I cannot recall, but someone on the forum will know, I am sure.

The examples shown in the photo are 8-figure numbers starting with 22 and 23. The army was only up to 8-figure numbers starting with 24 when I joined in 1975 and many older colleagues had numbers in the 23 series, but they weren't WWII veterans.

I wouldn't expect them to have been stamped in the factory, either. I am sure the WD/MoD(A) would have purchased them as blanks and then had them stamped to suit the individual sometime after attestation once his particulars had been recorded officially. During the same period, while soldiers had 8-figure numbers, officers had 6-figure ones, officially starting P/ such as P/490786, though in routine use the P/ was dropped. The current British Army system is different.

In the US military, I understand, they use the individual's social security number. The different styles chosen by different armies is interesting - the British army used two - one to be left on the deceased and one to be returned to records (for a while three were issued, with the third being attached to the respirator, if I remember correctly). In Germany they used a single tag with duplicate details on two halves with a serration down the middle In the event of death, the tag was broken in two, with half remaining with the body and the other half being returned to records.

10 68