10FM68

I was looking at these two photos of collection points for surpuls vehicles.  I have had copies of both for a while, but only just noticed that the unit seems to be the same - RAOC 674 - though I don't know what the formation sign is - is it Canadian?

The picture of the armoured cars (and others, I know) suggests surplus after the campaign in North Africa given the general stone colours of the vehicles, while that of the breakdown tractors would seem to be NWE.  So - both could be Italy.  But I don't know.  They're interesting photos in any event, but can anyone suggest where and when they were taken and what the unit might be?

As I recall, there was a half-way house for indicators with a kit which could enable the side and tail/brake lights to be flashed - there had to be a visible flashing lamp on the dashboard.  My father had such a set-up on his 1954 Hillman Husky.  I don't know if it is still the case, but it meant that, for a very long time, indicators could be amber or white at the front and amber or red at the back.  I think the same applied, though for longer, in the USA where the amber indicators took longer to become popular.

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?

33 minutes ago, Niels v said:

this is a 1938 Ford Delux Phaeton

and these two are Chevrolets and a Horch/Opel/Wandere on the fare left 

 

see Another Umbau-wagen? - MLU FORUM (mapleleafup.net)

 

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!

3 hours ago, Mark Ellis said:

You're presuming that the location of the Gate guardian has a military Commanding Officer and RSM, and that they're responsible for a vehicle or vehicles on military land which might have no relevance to their unit

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.

16 hours ago, Mark Ellis said:

I think it's all changed now, with regards to who looks after what

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.

1 hour ago, john1950 said:

Looks like a bomb disposal class. 

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.

18 hours ago, robin craig said:

The first image, in the second line from the left has a Land Rover hardtop with a cat flap to oppose the tailgate below.  This suggests the vehicle was built with a tailgate and the hardtop may have been scrounged from somewhere. The second image has in the centre a 109 with a truck cab  The last picture while holding nothing rare it does show a Carawagon conversion 

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!

3 hours ago, fv1609 said:

Just going through some old photos & thought that this might be of interest.

Appears to be 98 ZR 45, I saw it at Pound's yard in 1992. I think the story at the time that it was going to go to Bovington TM as a project for FoTM, whether it actually got there I don't know.

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.

On 8/28/2023 at 8:51 PM, Fleet103 said:

It gets worse (to my mind) – we now have a “Ranger Regiment” in the British Army; I mean, really? 

Anyway, back to vehicles and more confounding. The Dorchester is indeed roomy; I had (an illegal) stomp around the one in the Signals Museum at Blandford a few years ago, albeit briefly. I am surprised that they didn’t soldier on a bit longer; being based on the Matador spares and running expertise would not have been a problem I feel; I recall Matadors still giving good service when I visited 94 Loc Regt RA as a young member of the ACF in, I think, 1968.

However, I note that the 6x6 could field 8 (crew) plus 2 in the front, so perhaps it was preferred because of that, or, perhaps with comms kit conceivably getting smaller, it sort of evolved into a roomier version? And what happened after 1959? Did formation HQs slip effortlessly into the command version of Saracen? If so, it’s not especially well documented that’s for sure. If Corps HQ ever had the 6 x 6s, perhaps they continued with BBVs until the AEC ACV came on the scene in what must have been the late 60s. I consider Corps to be a sort of sui generis in the HQ world as it was so large, but if Saracen was adopted for the Brigades and Divs, then there must be evidence at Blandford, and in a way, there is as I’m sure they have a Saracen ACV amongst their collection; probably time for another visit!

The topmost pic of the 6 x 6 is interesting in that it would seem to confirm the stowage rack as a common fitting (also shown on one of the pics I offered up earlier); I also wonder what “D5” means? To my mind, it indicates that there may have been at least 5 such vehicles in a Div HQ – supposition I admit.

As for the Dorchester with “42” on it, I would suggest that this is the wartime AOS number for a Gunner Field Regiment; why and how they’ve acquired an ACV I don’t quite know. I say this as the serial number has not been replaced by the post war registration numbers (featuring the “Z” for wartime kit), so what I’m suggesting is that this is a wartime pic.

To my (tidy clerical) mind, it would seem logical that the Dorchesters were binned for whatever reason, and replaced by the 6x6 version; as identified earlier on the site there were 150-odd made so that would be enough (with some spare – training?) for most of the Formation HQs we had, and certainly those in BAOR. A Div HQ at that time, I would have thought (more supposition I admit) a vehicle per staff function viz:

1 x Comd

1 x G Int

1 x G Ops

1 x G Air

1 x Plans

1 x CRA

1 x CRE

1 x Chief Signals Officer (CO of Regt/OC of Sqn?) but also perhaps a Cipher function?

SD and Trg branches not included as on deployment the Staff concerned would augment the HQ in general – or be at Step Up.

 So, again in my fantasy, there would need to be some vehicles duplicated at Step Up, so we’re probably talking about 10 or so at the supporting Div HQ Signals regiment? That’s assuming the duplicate HQ/change of command function was applied of course.

The alternative might be that most of the above functions would be undertaken in Box Bodied Vehicles – Bedford QLs then RLs (as I knew at Corps). This is further confounded by a Signaller’s account I came across earlier today when describing his interaction with the 6 x 6:

Above is an AEC Armoured Command Vehicle Signals Centre as used by 6 Armoured Division Signals circa 1953/56, it weighed in at 21 tons and had a 6x6 axle base. Each brigade in the division had one as standard equipment. This particular unit was at HQ 20 Armoured Brigade at Munster and I was its crew chief for 2 years. It carried a crew of ten, crew chief (Sigs Office Supt), driver, switchboard op, ciphers (2), Sigcen (3), base lineman, Fuller phone/wireless operator, a bit crowded even for a pig of this size. It was a 'beast' but could lick along at 45/50 mph, it had to be fast to keep up with the rest of our armour (Centurions). Possibly  Class A (Specialist), I don't know of any outfit that had them, I never saw any at 7 Armoured or 11 Armoured Divs, that was the other two armoured divisions plus 2 Infantry Div that made up 1 Corps in the 50's.

Taken from the BAOR Locations website.

This sort of shoots down my theory! So perhaps there was only 1 x ACV at each Fmn HQ used as a specialist Comms vehicle as described. Bugger! However, it doesn’t really make sense given that there were so many, apparently in good nick, ACVs available.

I suppose all I’m really doing is making the waters muddier.

As to WW2 vehicles in service in the 50s, I agree it’s a fascinating subject. I have seen somewhere, and I’ve been racking my brains, footage of an Alecto in Egypt; I’m sure too I’ve seen images of Dodge vehicles also in Egypt. Also Cromwell tanks used as AOPs alongside Sextons, all bulled up as only the RA can manage. I’ll get searching!

(Thanks for posting the pics)

 

 

 

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!

2 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

Lets forget the Lwt FFRs for the moment. I know Officers used them, under sufferance, but as far as I can remember I never saw a Royal Artillery Battery Commander with a GS Lwt  with a single /sole Clansman radio in them for comms. So it must have been for a less important role / rank.

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!

9 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

 So for me the question is why did the Army and RA in particular convert a 12 V GS to have a Clansman, when there was never a shortage of FFRs? 

Whom ever it was used for, the Lwt needed to be contactable but didn't need to work the Net on several Frequencies like an FFR office set up. There was no Radio shelf in this set up. 

In the 1980s Army that I remember, the set up in my Lwt just reminds me of a vehicle good enough for a roving NCO to visit lonely positions perhaps with some tea and a bit of grub on a cold night but not roomy enough for an Officer, unless a GS Lwt was sufficient for a Padre, if they had one in RA Regiments?

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!

14 hours ago, ruxy said:

I have several different Clansman User Manuals , out of dozens I suppose they were semi purchased blind.

Note  ,  QUOTE  -  User handbook for Clansman radio installations in Trucks,1/2 and 3/4 ton,FFR snd GS Rover

You take a port/Starboard Dexion kit  ,  Series 3 or slightly different Defender kit does it , best avoid ancient S2A kits as differing parts. 

You know when a LWT has been fitted as the brackets are each bolted  4 bolts to the upper body side (these anchor the bottom of the diagonal stays.  These brackets to properly fit to a LWT - you reverse them  convenient.  Most often at demob these brackets are left in situ.  but if you see 4 qty. holes you know has been fitted.

Now notice Trucks &  1/2  , at one time I was of the opinion this indicated a 88"  CL  ,  however the conversion to "FFR"  (12 volt)  was not uncommon.

See also the MJC book  -  page 186   EMER  Q  027   Mod Nos  62 + 65     (June 78 (No.2)  ,   my position - as I don't know any more  =   'sit-on-fence'  ,  it seems there is good official documentary evidence .     Many show vehicles have private owner DIY install - often a total shambles , it has a Manpack cradle bolted on  (IIRC - I have 3 or 4 types).  In service - I suppose they could mout the extra battery /  charger unit , so I suppose for any passenger/driver who needed a neat instalation (ISTR it does qualify for a wing-top TUAAM) 4 section antenna with penant ,,

https://www.greenmachinesurplus.com/user-handbook-for-clansman-into-land-roverprc320prc3512vrc353z61590pt10supp-28-3778-p.asp

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

5 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

Of course the HAC was a bit different from the 7th Para Royal Horse Artillery,  with 25 pdrs instead of the 105mm Light Gun,and I bet they never went off road in the very shiny Lwts.

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!