10FM68

On the subject of Humber FWDs, can anyone tell me why there are two different windscreen arrangements? I read somewhere that there were two versions; one general one and a second for senior officers with some variations, including an opening roof. I also read that these had strengthened window pillars. Is that the explanation or is there another one? The BBC vehicle above has the second type of windscreen but I enclsoe below a photo of one in Korea showing it in-service - so it wasn't a post-war civilian refurb. The second photo was an original Humber one, the first, a private one, possibly from this Forum.

I never noticed this post at the time, but, this couldn't have been less clear if they had tried. I don't think whoever drafted it had English as first language. This sentence, "Should a vehicle be presented for an MOT test with conversions before 1 April 1986 they must not be failed with immediate effect." as written suggests that the vehicle will not fail as long as it is presented for MoT prior to 1 Apr 86 - clearly an impossibility as this notice was issued in 2021! Though it also suggests that it is the MoT which has, or had, the conversions - also ludicrous! While this sentence, "Vehicles presented with converted halogen headlamp units first used on or after 1 April 1986 will continue to be failed." clearly implies that only vehicles (of any age) fitted with converted headlamps which had been in use prior to 1 Apr 86 would pass - again, an impossibility! I am really surprised to see such appalling wording in a legally-applicable document. What a shame more care wasn't taken, but I think it would be an impossibility to obtain a conviction in a court of law based on the wording of these notices - their ambiguity is significant.

I'm not sure you're sending out quite the right message attaching them to a water bowser! They are actually for vehicles which have had their radiators drained. Before the universal introduction of antifreeze it was commonplace for vehicles to have their radiators drained overnight and when not in use to prevent damage from freezing - you'll notice quite a lot of older military vehicles had drain taps and markings pointing out where they were. The custom died out. Later on, in very cold climates, a jar of diluted anifreeze would be positioned on the windowsill of the unit guardroom. If that started to thicken, then duty drivers would be called out to start engines of vulnerable vehicles. It didn't happen very often.

I think they have been bought out by one of the major paint companies now - probably Dulux, but Farrow & Ball have been the 'go to' for house paints for Cotswolds dwellers for a generation, now - all the muddy green windows and doors? Yep, expensive F&B paints! You need to catch up on your subscription to "Country Living", Clive! Seriously, though, I expect F&B were one of the many manufacturers of Paint PFU during WWII! What is of interest, to me, anyway, is the frequency with which ACIs were amended updating regulations on paint. But, because they were always accompanied by exhortations to carry on using the old paint 'until stocks were exhausted' and repainting only if necessary, it is entirely conceivable that some vehicles made it all through WWII never having been repainted at all and still in either pre-war DBG or early war Khaki Green G3 livery - it would be nice to see what colour those Bedford MWs with aeroscreens photographer post-1950 had been in! Can't tell with B&W photographs, though sadly, as even contrast is of little help as photographers used filters deliberately to emphasise contrast.

If you want to get as close to an authentic colour for a wartime British Army Olive Drab, then you can't go to the modern BS381C range as the olive drab there dates from 1988 and isn't actually very close to the wartime Olive Drab. My advice would be to buy a 14ml tin of this for £3 +p&p: "SCC15 Olive Drab" from these people, https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/collections/british-army then paint a swatch and take it to a paint dealer and get it matched. Currently Colourcoats paint is about the closest you can get for WWII British AFVs. The only disadvantage is that they sell out quickly as they only make the paint in small batches (SCC2, the base paint for Olive Drab's predecessor, for example, is currently sold out). Unfortunately, the Standard Camouflage Colours (SCC) weren't named until No15 Olive Drab, but SCC2 is close to dark earth though more frequently called simply brown. Any disruptive camouflage pattern would then be in SCC1A - a dark brown, or SCC14 a blue-black. (There are other combinations involving the shades in use prior to the introduction of the SCC range and these were in use prior to 1942 (and in many cases long after) These include Khaki Green G3 and Dark Green G4 (later Dark Tarmac G4) - all a bit confusing! Mike Starmer wrote a useful, if, in places confusing, book on the subject for modellers and he includes smalll swatches. Service Brown really means the, usually gloss, brown used for painting ammo boxes and the like.

I had a look through Merlin just now and there is indeed a small batch of Spartans from 00GS01 and a Samaritan with DIS's of 1982 - so a 2-4 year wait from the contract date - probably about right for A vehicles which would have been a lot slower off the production line than the --GT-- Bedfords, for example.

The DIS dates will be subsequent to the contract dates. Sometimes one will follow the other quite quickly, particularly if of a large batch from a major manufacturer. Sometimes there can be lengthy separation - an example, I think, is the --BM-- registrations for Leyland Martian recovery vehicles which, according to their ERMs would have entered service soon after 1952/53, but, actually appeared in service in 1961/62. Some 1 Tonne Land Rovers on FL were similarly late appearing as well, I think, but to what extent I can't remember. Some had been held on temporary --CC-- registrations (--CC-- originally being 1958/59 A vehicles), but, in their case they were registered as 'chassis cabs' in the 70s. For the --CL-- Bedfords and Millies, there is little to suggest there was any undue delay, so a year or two at the most, probably. My --HF-- Land Rover was DIS in 79 off a contract date of 78/79 - so fairly typical of most, I expect. --GS-- were A vehicles, --GT-- B and --GU-- and --GV-- C vehicles - there are plenty of photos of all of the B & C vehicles fro those contract dates around - I haven't looked for A vehicles with --GS-- as that isn't a particular area of interest of mine..

Yes, there is no connection between the ERM --CL-- and 'Commercial' - I have photos of both Bedford RL and Millie Mk1 s with CL plates - it was, I understand, merely the ERM for contract year 58/59. Equally ERM --CT-- wasn't used for 'Combat' (or at all in fact) and 'GS' was contract year 77/78

--DC-- is the ERM for 60/61. As discussed on another thread, there were also the fourteen M113s from Israel used in Afghanistan with the Exactor missile system but that was very much later - their ERMs were KM which were miscellaneous vehicles so difficult to age. --FE-- would be 1971/72. T he attached photo of 00DC51 - also from a previous thread, suggests that it was taken in a 'museum environment' of some sort, so probably at RMCS after its time with FVRDE and the turret is no longer there.

Here's the M113 with a Scorpion turret. If I remember rightly, this subject cropped up on here a few months back. Soth is photo may well have been provided by another member.

I've just had a look at the Profile Publications No 53 dated Jan 73. The photos there show the derelict FV421 at Lulworth - so it was already derelict by then. Some of the other photos Wally posted above are also there. An early FV434 (W5) is shown as 06EB00. FV434 (P2) is shown with civilian VRM 521FUW. Clearly, 06EB01 was given to at least two different vehicles the FV431 above and the FV437 in Thailand - which seems odd, but suggests that the 06EB-- batch was FV430 generally for prototypes. Unfortunately, there is little information in the Profile about FV437, merely saying that it had a capstan winch which paid out forwards and hydro-jet propulsion.

And the M113 1/2 is registered 50BT05 in Aug - Oct 1966 so, presumably, was with FVRDE long enough to be registered and under trials 2 years later than the Horsea Island tests of June 64.

What a fascinating film - interesting to see the FV421 being put through its paces as well as a Saladin, Ferret Mk4 etc. Not much freeboard left on the snorkel/conning tower of the wading Centurion, though! Interestingly, whereas in the film of the Thailand trials the FV432 always bogged left-wing-down, they floated pretty level. I wonder why the RTR officer was armed - the others didn't appear to be - seems odd for a trial such as this - on the R Weser in Germany, I presume. (I was watching with the sound off so it may actually have answered that last point!)

Sorry, this thread isn't about the Oxford Carrier per se, it is about the uniforms of the crew so I have retitled it.

Could the Australians have used them in Korea? And, if so, were the Australians still in SD by then or had they adopted BD?

Thanks both, but the mystery of their uniforms (and turnout, come to that), remains unsolved. Very odd.

Thank you for that tip - it worked for me to good effect cleaning up a photo I had. Now we need a way of restoring all the old images which have disappeared from the forum as a result of the introduction of charges by photobucket and the passage of time. (Wish)!

Browsing through old threads I came across this photo originally posted by rnixartillery of the crew of an Oxford 6 Pdr [PR in photo] ATG. I was wondering, though, what are they wearing? Are they actually British or could they be, for example, Australian? Presumably it is a post-war photo, but they seem to be wearing pre-war service dress or something similar with collar dogs and, possibly, brass buttons, carrying SMLE No1 rifles and wearing Mk2 helmets, though the chap on the right seems to have a Sten machine carbine. There is also a 22 mortar and a Bren by the look of it.. Any ideas?

Thank you for that, Dan. That would make sense and may well explain, in conjunction with Wally's offering above, why the vehicle had a TM ERM, though, like you, I am surprised that the change was made. I assume it was in use at an Army aerodrome given the army ERM, but... one never knows.

That's possible, I suppose as the vehicle in question was probably pretty static on the airfield though would need some sort of engine to power the office in the back even if unable to move itself.

Thanks for that SIRHC. I was confident about it meaning Military Sales, but I hadn't come across systematic re-numbering of auction lots before. Do you know, whether this re-numbering applied to all disposals, or just those from BAOR being brought back to UK for sale and do you know, was it in use for a limited time only in this regard or for a protracted period? I have seen MS applied to new vehicles being sold abroad direct from manufacture/reserve stocks but, as I say, not for general disposals.

I knew that, so that is why I was surprised to see it on a Karrier Bantam.

Equally, I always thought it was 'military sales', but both are possible, I suppose. But, as we have found with 'SA' you can't trust all you read - I also saw a photo of an old Karrier Bantam airfield control van with a 'TM' ERM which seems odd and out of sequence. So there were a lot more exceptions to the rule than perhaps we are aware of.

In the photo of the line-up of Stalwarts, I see that they have painted on 'MS' ERMs suggesting that they were military sales ones, though they look pretty standard to me as do the paint schemes.

Well, I'd sooner trust your evidence than mine given how long ago it was. Certainly 15/19H were there at that time because I was given a ride in one of their Centurions and allowed to fire the turret Browning! But, it looks to me as though those Ferrets certainly don't have the 15/19H badge on the turret - they look much closer to the RWY.