10FM68

Thank you both for your contribution, I am most grateful. Yes, I think the Lancia has it! So, that's cleared up a couple of anomalies for me, thank you.

Another interesting photo I had in my collection - thanks to Shutterstock, whom I acknowledge: A straightforward Guy Quad - no issues there, but I do wonder what the RTR sergeant is up to. I hope he isn't about to drive away - not with that, what appears to be, large wooden signboard stuck inside his rear wheelarch! As for the Italian car - Lancia Aprilia or Alfa Romeo, so far, any takers?

Many thanks, Niels, yes, after all it is a Ford. I do find identifying late 30s/early 40s cars quite tricky (as you can tell). Thank you also for identifying the German Chevrolets - I had the Wanderer/Horch/Opel Kubel, but wasn't sure whether the other two were German Fords or something else. So, back to the Italian job - any ideas?

Thank you Rootes 75. Of course! Quite why I didn't get that one I don't know, but it looks too narrow for such an imposing car - particularly when viewed with the Snipe in the foreground. But, you're right, no doubt about it. Thank you. As for the first, thanks MF for the link to the regiment. I had that info, but I didn't have that photo which is actually a bit clearer - note the 'CAP' in front of the census number and the emblem on the grille. Still don't know what it is though. Would people agree that this one is a Tatra 57 Kubel? And can anyone tell me what this is? The bustle boot at the rear suggests it isn't a Ford or Chevrolet. I was thinking GM of some sort, but I'm not sure what. And, finally, what do we make of this? This photo, cropped, was used by Bart Vanderveen many years ago but it is interesting as the Brit is unarmed, the driver appears to be German and the staff cars in the background are also German with another, apparently German or two, tending them. So, is the Brit a POW or are the Germans POWs and running a car service for a British HQ? It was taken in North Africa I am sure, but under what circumstances?

Here are two photographs of cars from WWII. The first is of a car used by a British regiment in Italy in 1945. I assumed it was Italian, note it is RHD, but, although it is similar to a Fiat, it isn't identical. It is also similar to a French Delage, but, again, not identical. Can anyone put me out of my misery? The second is a car in use by HQ 21st Army Group. It is a fairly important one, it's fitted with a star plate and pole for a pennant and is immediately behind one carrying Monty and the PM. It has something on the roof making it look like a taxi, but I assume that will be a field-manufactured light-up 'priority' sign. I can't decide whether it's British or captured - I suspect the former. Clearly, it is polished, though muddy in the picture - note the chrome windscreen surround. There is also a number plate under the bumper which may indicate requisitioned, but it seems a bit late for that in NWE 1944. So again, any ideas, please? Finally, just to give something back rather than be entirely on the take, I enclose this photo which I recently decoded. Apparently it is a ... horse ambulance! I wasn't expecting that!

Mark, you're just being tiring and pedantic. I don't give a damn who it is whether civilian or military - someone has to take responsibility. But, no more from me on this subject.

So are you saying that the Commanding Officer of a unit and his RSM have no say in the appearance of the infrastructure of their establishment? If they don't, then who is it who does?

They used to say that a unit could be judged by the state of its guardroom and, frankly, this applies to gate guardians as well. Gate guardians in a poor state of repair reflect very badly on the unit - particularly the commanding officer and the regimental sergeant major (or equivalent) whose responsibility it is to ensure everything about the unit is looked after properly.

http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/showthread.php?s=a6518adc3affb075fb912bf34ae1e320&t=5064&highlight=royal Have a dig around on the Maple Leaf Up site - there are quite a few photos of RN vehicles in WWII which you may find of interest.

Aren't they simply putting bombs together? Fuses one end and fins the other?

I'm not sure about 'dark sea blue' for RN vehicles. Surely, the colour was 'navy blue' which is altogether darker than the blue in your photo which, to my eyes, looks closer to an Americal colour. Certainly, straight after the war the RN were in gloss navy blue with black mudguards. Later, the black was dropped and, by the mid-80s most of their vehicles seemed to be in commercial colours with a preference for blue of whichever shade the manufacturer was using. But, it might have depended, during the war, on where the vehicles were being used. Those with a mobile role were probably in army colours whereas those limited to running around in dockyards may have retained pre-war finishes.

PM sent

You're quite right, Tony, I didn't mean Dunlop Trakgrip, I meant Good Year Bargrip - which was, after all, the point of the discussion and they are what are fitted to this example. Quite why I made that mistake I have no idea. But I am not sure the Trakgrip was any more common on Lightweights than Bargrips, though. Trakgrips were very common on AFVs such as Ferrets, but the early Lightweights used Dunlop T29s which were of a very different pattern. Interestingly, I have a photo showing HiMilers fitted to an RAF Land Rover in 1966 which seems very early to me. We had our Bargrips replaced with HiMilers in the middle 70s, a decade later. I've had a look through my photo library and I can't actually find any photos of Lightweights with Trakgrips - do you have any? Here are a few photos illustrating the choices I have found: Bargrip & HiMiler on 00 18, Dunlop T29s on 38 11 and some Dunlop Trakgrips which were, I believe, for sale on this site at some time. Finally, a Good Year Bargrip for comparison

Certainly Dunlop Trakgrip tyres weren't common on Lightweights, but... never say never! As I recall this was the Lightweight belonging to the OC of the Corps Lighting Troop RE. (Credit to the photographer - I found the image a while ago on the web). The funny colour is explained by the fact that it was about to go off on an adventure training trip to Norway! More important, though, is getting the size right. I see the Accurate Armour say that their replacement wheels are for, among others, the Tamiya ambulance model. But the Ambulance would not have had 6.50x16s, they'd have been 7.50x16s. 7.50x16s weren't unknown on SWB military Land Rovers, but they weren't common and, on a model, don't quite look right.

You're quite right; these will be local additions where individual soldiers and small groups thereof will have got hold of a hard top and got their REME workshop to fit it for them. This was actually pretty common in my experience with the rule being that, provided the vehicle could be returned to standard if it was to be handed over or, sometimes, if there was a PRE - some units would be stricter about this than others, then anything went which would aid efficiency/comfort or whatever. Often these additions would move from vehicle to vehicle as one was replaced by another. The cab top was on the LWB belonging to the linesmen and, if you look closely, it was a pretty beaten-up old Land Rover - doors didn't fit very well etc etc. But it wouldn't have got a lot of use not being used for domestic transport in barracks and only going out on exercises and so on. That's why quite often some quite important vehicles such as command vehicles might actually be rather older than the less glamorous ones - they hadn't reached their cost limit whereby they were beyond economic repair. In 2 Fd Sqn in 1983 there was a single 10ton 6x6 Leyland Martian GS - never got used, never went anywhere never got cast while the Millies did all the work! Here's another Land Rover with, this time, a home made upper rear door - wood & perspex while the tailgate has been fitted with side-mounted hinges - this was deliberate as the vehicle was used for storing lots of stuff which was needed frequently and getting the tailboard out of the way made reaching into the back much easier. And under the canvas is a sheet of XPM so that the tilt wouldn't drip water onto maps & paperwork beneath. It also meant you could walk around on the roof which made camming up easier. One unit I was in I had the Land Rover radios turned round so that they faced forward rather than into the tub which meant they could be tuned and operated from the front seats without anyone having to clamber into the back! That, I recall, was really useful! Yes, I'm sorry you can't read the ERM on the Carawagon. I knew you had one and it would have been nice to find out if it was yours. I don't think I have any other photos of it, but I'll have a look.

This one is my thread, so no danger of ruffled feathers here! Trying to work out the organisation of HQ within 1(BR) Corps at any particular time is fraught with difficulties because nothing stayed the same for 5 minutes! Equipping the Corps must have been a logistician's nightmare - just keeping up with the changes and working out which unit got what! The number of vehicles deployed in even the smallest formation HQ is surprising - apart, of course, from the staff branches the signals requirement is huge and there also needs to be the admin & catering staff and the GS vehicles for 'staff movers' - contractor-owned coaches nowadays I expect - a 4 tonner is no good, too few seats! I have posted these photos before I think - but they show part of HQ 19 Inf Bde on exercise in Germany in autumn 1983. Photo 2 is Bde TAC HQ about to deploy from Main and Photo 1 is most of the Land Rover element of the HQ at the docks with the recce regt - QDG Ferrets & Sultans on transporters on the right. Note the RCT Tpt & Mov Leyland Sherpa! This was in Hamburg if I remember rightly. I do like your Corps HQ - it would have been easier if you had used cam nets - you'd only have needed matchboxes under them then! Helicopters available for senior officers' recces - my those were the days, eh? I too have been fiddling with models - in 1/56 scale. There's quite a lot of resin & 3D printed stuff available now, some of which is really good quality and, in comparative terms, cheap as chips - I sold all my 1/35 scale models - too expensive to keep adding to, too difficult to store and, to be frank, my modelling skills would no longer do the model justice - I simply can't see what I'm doing easily enough any more and 1/76 is too small, though probably the easiest scale in which to replicate larger quantities of kit. That having been said - I couldn't resist a 1/35 Gecko DAC which awaits construction when I have a moment!

Yes, many thanks for that, Clive, I am certainly very interested. Giving my favourite hobbyhorse a gallop - what a shame there are so few British vehicles of that period in preservation! I hope this one sees the light of day in due course (post below noted). 98ZR45 - just 2 away from the 11 Armd Div one in the photo above - 98ZR43.

I do apologise for not getting back to you straight away - for some reason I missed this post and only caught up with the thread with the arrival of Clive's this evening. Having a Ranger Regiment, I suppose is no more daft than having nearly all the infantry in the Rifles, given that they are supposed to be "to the left of the thin red line" - not replacing it! However... I think your supposition that divs and bdes adopted Saracen ACVs is a good one and, later, of course, the FV432 became the standard and remained so for many years (may still be for all I know). By the time I was involved Corps and above were using unarmoured Bedford BBVs. I would agree with you that, at a Div HQ, those 7 appointments would have been likely to have ACVs as they would have been co-located and may well have been replicated for a step-up. The R Signals gang would have had quite a sizeable group of vehicles as well and, if ACVs were used by them, and I don't see why they wouldn't have been, then perhaps we're looking at a further 3-6. There would have been at least one Terminal Equipment Vehicle, a Teleprinter vehicle, a cipher office, Comms Ops, probably and perhaps others. Of course, some of this may have been done from penthouses, tents and soft-skin vehicles, but, I would have thought that, if the HQ was under armour, then the Comms facilities serving it (and so closely co-located) would also have been. The note about there being just one at Bde is interesting - mention is made of the R Signals HQ, but, perhaps there was another one or more serving the Bde HQ staff - seems likely that, in the reverse of the logic above, the Bde staff would be under armour if the sigs staff were. I'll stick with my RE Fd Pk Coy for the 6 Armd Div Dorchester with the AOS number 42 because, a, the sign seems to be of one colour without the split necessary for a red/blue of an RA unit and, b, because it is in such a poor state - that is definitely more Sapper than Gunner, particularly for an HQ vehicle! I have seen, and collected, a number of post-war photos of RHA units with Comet or Cromwell OP tanks and Sextons and have also seen photos of Alecto in the Middle East. I think ME-based units had to soldier on with older kit for longer than their BAOR compatriots as all the 1950s/60s photos of WWII-era kit come from there - exceptions certainly being, as you note, the Matadors which I too recall seeing in service in UK probably as late as 1970 (and I have mentioned elsewhere Leyland Hippo 2s still appearing for Ex CRUSADER 80). There remains a lot more for us to learn about the British Army of the 1950s - it is surprising there is so little about as it isn't really that long ago (at least not as far as most of us on this forum are concerned - stand by for incoming!) Anyway, thank you again!

I agree, I cannot imagine any BC using a GS with a manpack. RA communications were vital and, of course, very reliable (they had to be). You will know that, as far as the rest of the Army was concerned, the Gunners were more likely to be able to 'get through' on their radios than R Signals (as exemplified by the Paras at Arnhem, I think). It could be to do with the fact that the Gunners were always allocated different sets of frequencies from the rest of the Army - hence different radios - C45/B48 v C42/B47 if memory serves. No, a BC would have needed two sets anyway: to the guns and back to the brigade or battle group he was supporting. Role rather than rank, though as, generally, rank meant command and command meant entitlement to comms. There must be an ex-Gunner on this forum who could expand on this. I can't help - I was the wrong side of the blanket - a sapper!

This is the question - why! I'm not convinced of the case of the 'roving NCO'. There has to be a strong enough reason for the Army to respond to the need officially and a casual requirement wouldn't make the cut, I would have thought. The only explanation I can think of is that there was a shortage, perceived shortage or expected shortage of FFRs. Perhaps the sudden increase in the number of available Land Rovers following collapsed export orders mitigated the situation and the problem never arose but the solution did. But, please don't think SWB Land Rovers weren't used by officers or that they would necessarily get to choose. Some might (commanding officers of regiments or battalions, perhaps), but if a LWB Land Rover was allocated to someone it would be because there was a need, not simply a matter of preference. In the 70s an RE troop commander would have had an SWB Land Rover while the staff sergeant 2ic a more comfortable LWB. The reason was simple: the troop commander's task was primarily recce and command not lugging stuff around while the staff sergeant would be using his vehicle for carrying stores equipment, POL, rations other people and all the rest of it. Meanwhile the recce sergeant had a ferret and a rubber dinghy! All three vehicles were FFR with a C42 and a B47 the dinghy, however, lacked radios of any sort! I know for a fact that the GOC of 3 Armd Div at this time used an FFR Lightweight as his rover - I saw it myself and observed the discomfort of there being three people in the vehicle: the general, a driver, and an ADC. Perhaps, at times, there were four if he was accompanied by a radio op!

I don't think anyone is denying that there was an official modification. The question is why and for whom.

I'm not entirely sure it is fair to compare the HAC and 7 Para RHA by referencing the former's ceremonial gun troop. The war role of the HAC was every bit as demanding as any regular army RA unit and, certainly, their vehicles would have gone off road! On a less frivolous note, I have never quite understood the need for manpack fitments in Land Rovers and never came across them during my service. That is not to say they weren't used, but I just don't know why. Every unit has a scale of issue of kit - its 'establishment'. There is a Peace Establishment (PE) and a War establishment (WE) and these would allocate and authorise an entitlement to equipment based on the role and expected employment of the unit. To that end, it would be worked out what communications were needed by that unit and radios and supporting equipment, including FFR vehicles, authorised for issue accordingly. In consequence all the units I served in had FFR Rovers for all unit appointments who needed to be on the unit net and/or those of higher and subordinate commands. The only reason I can think for employing a GS 12V Land Rover in a communications role is an officially recognised shortage of the proper 24V FFR Land Rovers such that a unit was significantly handicapped to the point that a replacement substitute was designed and issued, suggesting that it was an enduring problem rather than a temporary one. I never heard of there being a shortage of 24V Land Rovers, but, then, there was no reason why I should have done unless I had been personally affected. Perhaps someone else on here can shed some light. Regrettably, that doesn't help identify for you a potential user, I'm afraid.

Wow! They're excellent, thanks, Kevin Big beasts aren't they? And that must be one half of the 240mm gun - like some sort of siege engine! I am busy digging out pictures of the less usual vehicles in British service at the moment, just another little research cul de sac which I am following - or bee in the bonnet if you prefer. I have just come across some pictures of FWD HAR1s for example - a type I knew little of - apart from a brief mention in Bart Vanderveen's book - apparently they were used by RPC smoke generating units and, sure enough, I found a photo of one with such a smoke generator. The other great gap in photo availability seems to be vehicles in use by British forces in Burma and the Far East - where there was a preponderance of US vehicles such as the Dodge WCs which were rather less common in British markings closer to home. Which reminds me of a fascinating series of photos I came across of Dodge Power Wagons with post-war British ERMs - in service with the Trucial Oman Scouts, I think they were. All good stuff, but a bit off-topic from the M6s - sorry!

I would be pleased to see some photos of one in British service - that alone is pretty rare. Even the illustration of an M6 in the R E Smith book, British Army Vehicles and Equipment Vol 2 Artillery of 1964 is of a model - not even of the real thing! There was that set of very fascinating photos taken in the early 50s at Woolwich with CMP Oerlikon LAA guns, a couple of Dorchesters etc where one or two appear, but, otherwise, very little. Interestingly, that seems to be true of medium & heavy artillery tractors in general - not many photos about at all.

That really does look a lot better in green! Lovely looking vehicle as well - sad that they really weren't as successful as intended, but the RASC's loss seems to have been the RE's gain!