10FM68

If it was a 'rare' CVR(T) - one of only four, then what a shame it was turned into a 'bitsa' by fitting a new and incorrect turret. As such I can't see the value of any 'provenance' 10 68

Many thanks for the reply and for the links. I have a current obsession with post-war British armour and particularly WWII stuff which remained in service. Was the word 'Honey' actually used as a designation by the British military or was it simply unofficial?

Andy, There were no howls of derision about the photo. No one disputes that the photo is of Milton, that it was probably taken just after the war, that there are tanks in the storage area and that the main road then went through the village itself. I am sure tanks did use the road - they used most roads in the country in those days so don't be silly - these are not the things we are derisive about. We aren't daft either. We accept evidence, we accept logic and we accept reasoned argument. Your case offers none of this. You never answer a direct question directly, you present no evidence of anything remotely relating to your story - the presence of a storage depot at Milton is proof of nothing other than the existence of a storage depot in Milton which no one disputes. Whether your father was billeted there I have no idea but, seeing as he was supposed to have retired from the army when all this happened, I have no idea why he should have been. And we accept logic. There is no logic whatsoever to your story. Why would anyone wish to bury large quantities of tanks under a working airfield when they had a scrap value and the Ministry of Supply had plenty of easier places to bury them had they wanted to do so? Why remove the data plates from vehicles which were being buried and which were not subject to lend-lease or anything else - you said they were British-built Churchills? Why do it in secret? Why get a civilian ex-NCO to do it when the Army was full of people with little to do and disposal of wartime munitions was part and parcel of Service life at the time? There is no sense in any of it - it is pure, unadulterated rubbish. You have some sort of bee in your bonnet about Lord Hammond and another about establishment conspiracies. Furthermore, you have consistently been rude to us. You have told us to 'be patient' while you released information slowly, bit by bit. You took ages before you told us it was Waterbeach - why? Why could you not have been frank with us from the beginning? You made offensive remarks about how we valued sprocket bolts when you knew where hundreds of intact tanks were. And so it goes on. Andy, if you have some real evidence, can offer a logical story or reasoned argument, can stop being patronising and can manage to answer direct questions then you might, just might, salvage something from this. If not - forget it. For my part, I'm going back into purdah - I have nothing more to add to this thread.

Many thanks for this. Confirmed what I thought about the Greyhound and you are probably right about the Stuarts - though when they were converted to gun tractors, I don't know

Many thanks for your reply, REME, much appreciated. I had a vague recollection of the Charioteer being in TA service, so thanks for the confirmation. And that makes sense about the Pershing, certainly. Thanks again,

I would be very grateful if someone were able to tell me whether the following tanks were in service with the British Army after 1945 and, if so, when they were in service and, if possible where and who with: M24 Chaffee. I understand that these remained for a while with recce troops of tank regiments in Germany, but I would like to know when they were withdrawn from service and, roughly how many were in each tank regiment. M26 Pershing. Were these ever in British Army service - I have seen a picture of one on the back of a 40-ton trailer and a reference to their census numbers in Dick Taylor's book, but, otherwise, I have never heard of the British having any. Greyhound armoured car. I have neither seen nor read of these remaining in post-war British service, but others may have done so. Charioteer. This was a British piece of kit which was exported (to the Finns at least) but was it ever used by British Army units - perhaps TA tank regiments? Stuart Mk5. I have seen pictures of turretless ones used as gun tractors with post-1949 VRNs, but did any retain their turrets beyond WWII in British service. I'd be grateful for any information anyone may have. Many thanks 10 68

No apple cart upset! You just have to look through Andy's story to see that it makes no logical sense. A Vulcan, being handled wildly with an apparent issue with its payload which then is unloaded in a casual manner by an incompetent crew (can't even fit a screen up properly). We aren't told whether this was the Vulcan's home base, but, if it was, then the procedure would have been conducted, probably inside a hangar, at least in front of one, by a dedicated, extremely careful and precise crew. If elsewhere, then why? But, even then the procedure smacks of incompetence. No, not credible even though nuclear weapons may well have spherical objects inside them - where had the casing gone and how and why... Pure unadulterated codswallop - perhaps Andy was sharing a flagon of cider with the jolly reapers!

Tony, please don't go down this rabbit hole... you are in danger of getting as bad as Andy! This post isn't terribly coherent and uses Andy as the supporting witness. Not a great place to start. Most of Andy's post was rambling tripe - an awkward landing by a very tired-looking Vulcan and a half-arsed attempt to conceal the unloading? It just isn't the way these things would have been done - RAF procedures for handling nuclear weapons were very precise - not half-baked. The whole story lacks credibility.

None of this supports your theory that the tanks were buried. Why remove data plates and bury tanks when the government is concerned about a Soviet invasion? And, again, insults - who are the G&T Oxford brigade? How about explaining how you went from 326 tanks to 1400? Where's the picture of you and a digger on this thread? Where is the second pit? What is your explanation for choosing a live air station for secret burial when there were masses of empty government-owned bits of land all over the place? Why the inconsistencies regarding the tanks: some German ones apparently in your early post, some Bren carriers and Oxfords, loads of spares, some rubbish about lend-lease or having to pay the Canadians. Offer us some answers to those questions. But, I'm afraid, Paul Connor has hit the nail on the head: he's given scientific proof that there are no tanks buried at Waterbeach - proof, not opinion, assumption or speculation which is all you have been able to counter with. We aren't ganging up on you, we aren't secretly working to undermine you on behalf of Lord Hammond, it is just that we think you have deliberately toyed with us which, as I have told you before, I find rude and insulting and nothing you have said makes any coherent sense - on any level: the tanks aren't there and you could come up with no reason why they should be. Sadly, I think your dad was pulling your leg!

That's the badger! Do they make granite at the Rock Factory by any chance?

Goodness knows why I wrote Brightlingsea - I don't even know where that is - I meant Bridlington!

I think that the longest runways built in Britain during the war, and certainly the widest, were the emergency ones on the east coast. They had no facilities or permanent squadrons, but they had bulldozers and ambulances and were kept lit. The idea was that, if you were returning from a raid over Germany and your aircraft wasn't going to make it home, then you plonked it down on one of these emergency sites, the aircraft would be bulldozed to the edge of the runway, any casualties carted off and that was it. RAF Manston was one, as was RAF Woodbridge and a third was near Brightlingsea: all are clearly still visible on Google Earth and, yes, they're very distinctive.

I have followed this thread closely since the beginning, though chose to withdraw from comment after becoming increasingly exasperated at Andy's reluctance to answer straight questions and his determination to avoid 'coming clean, but I carefully logged all his comments in a word document so I could watch as changes took place - which they have done, repeatedly. Andy enjoyed giving us all the run around with occasional rude remarks about our being 'know-it-alls' as he went along. Just how long did he take before he would admit to the site being Waterbeach, when, of course, he knew it was Waterbeach all along? No, we had to be given coordinates and then one of the pair was wrong. There was no need for that and his demand for our 'patience' every now and again I found simply rude. Two holes are mentioned from time to time - are we to be told where the second site was? The whole story made no sense from the very beginning: Why choose an active airfield belonging to the RAF when the Ministry of Supply was already holding these tanks elsewhere? I believe that, at this time responsibility would rest with the MoS rather than the War Office, though I may be wrong. And, of course, why bury them at all? We were given a load of contradictory nonsense about the USA and lend-lease, then something about the Canadians and so it went on. Why was it necessary to remove the data plates when, presumably, the secretly buried tanks were never to be found anyway. Apparently Andy was given a map by his father in 1959, but only discovered the site to be Waterbeach after, what was it, ten years of looking? again, it makes no sense. If my dad were telling me such a story and providing a map when I was in my late teens or early 20s, you can be sure I'd want to know where it was and as many details as I could possibly get out of him, not wait for many years until the sale of some dataplates prompted me to look at the issue. Bizarre. It was really excellent to get Paul Connors' input given his credentials and his contacts - that, Andy, is the proof you claim you were looking for when you started this thread - it just isn't the proof you wanted. I must say, though, it is credible while your story isn't - in any way at all. The only thing I do agree with, and that has been raised by @No Signals above, is that the pictures of Milton allegedly taken after the war does seem to show some British kit: the first of the two tank transporters looks more like a Scammell than a Mack to me (though I accept that more Macks were used by the British than they ever were by the Americans) and, in the first row, bottom right, after what appear to be open-top Greyhound armoured cars seems to be a Churchill with a possible row of scout cars - Dingoes perhaps, at right angles to that row. The idea about the Buffaloes is daft, of course, as burying them hull down would be no defence as they aren't tanks, but, holding them in the eastern counties after the winter of 1947 makes some sense given that they were used in flood relief. Ironically, some being buried to provide dykes! Whether the photo does show Buffaloes, though, is open to debate. Like everyone else, though I find this thread fascinating, for which Andy must be thanked, but, could I ask him (and I know my plea will fall on deaf ears as Andy doesn't do answering straight questions) now to reveal all the other bits he claims to be withholding - not the nonsense about Hammond - wrong forum for that, but, if he has any other real or imagined insights into military historical matters, please let us have them! We'd be delighted to read more - conspiracy theory or fact - it's all grist to the mill!

here's the link to the Merlin website: https://merlinarchive.uk/ But Merlin goes back only so far - somewhere about the mid to late 80s, perhaps (someone should be able to correct me on that) and recorded only those vehicles which were taken onto the Merlin accounting system. The other problem with it is that it shows the Unit Identification Number of the then current user. SO, for example: if the UIN of 1 Glosters was A12345A and, following amalgamations through RGBW and then the Light Infantry, that same UIN was allocated to, say 1LI, then, even if the vehicle left service before the amalgamations, it will be shown as having been allocated to 1LI. This can be a bit confusing and misleading.

There's also this one of the net and still in service - again I don't know who to credit. Not in colour, of course, but it's a fair bet it's white and that the crosses are red! Those will be orange indicators on the wing tops rather than blue flashing lights, I suspect.

I have these which both came from the internet. I cannot credit their originators, though the first is from the Imperial War Museum.

I don't know, it's all very confusing. The photo of 13/18H DSC shows the correct 46 on red/yellow with the 11 Armd Div sign. A separate photo shows a DSC of the same unit with a 44 on Red/Yellow with the 1 Corps fmn sign and another with 131 on red/yellow with the 1 Corps Fmn sign. So, it seems that, while with 1 Corps 13/18H had both 44 (correct) and 131 (dunno) on their AOS signs. The thing is, although I have pages of AOS signs and numbers, I still come across oddities: 12 Engr Gp (Airfds) in the 1970s was using 175 for example which also doesn't appear in Staff Duties in the Field. I don't suppose we shall ever know. In those days publications such as Staff Duties in the Field used to get dozens of amendments, many of which required individual lines to be cut out and pasted over the originals while others could be amended with a pen or by substituting individual pages. I know from experience that many units never bothered (I took over the job of updating a sub unit's publications once and I never got to the bottom of it - there were hundreds of pubs with many copies of each and thousands of amendments - I could only do what I judged to be the most important.) Also, one cannot rely on book captions - in the book I've been using: The RAC in the Cold War, there are many errors. And, finally, units didn't always do as they were told, or, if they did, may have taken some time to do so or got the order wrong. So there are many variables!

Well, I went and bought the book. After I had pressed 'buy' from Amazon, I looked again and thought it looked familiar - it should do, I had a pristine copy already on my bookshelf! Ho hum! Anyway, I looked at the various photos of armoured cars of 13/18H taken at around the same time. The AECs had '131' on their AOS sign as did some DACs. But... other DACs in the same series of photos had '44'! Any ideas anyone?

OK, well, in that case, the sort of thing you have suggested is a good start. You might add some chinagraph pens, or Lumocolour if a bit later. A message pad, a pad of logsheets for the watchkeeper to record events and messages. The used ones would be held on bulldog clips pinned up somewhere, I think the map would be best on the facing wall rather than on the table itself so that entries could be made on it direct while the watchkeeper was still listening or jotting them down on the logsheet. You'll need a rag for cleaning the map (which must be under talc or perspex). You might add a large clock hanging somewhere in view, again for the watchkeeper to record times of events and messages etc and, most importantly, a mug of tea or coffee!

It really depends on what sort of table you're trying to replicate. What level of working are you thinking about; battery or equivalent, battalion or equivalent, brigade, division...? Do you have a photo of the table?

Thank you for this very interesting contribution. I am not surprised about the AOS number being from an unallocated batch - it seems to me almost to be the rule rather than the exception. I spend a lot of time looking at photos and trying to work out who the vehicles belonged to and when and am often frustrated to find that the AOS number isn't shown in my comprehensive list. I was wrong, incidentally, about it being a 2 - I was thinking of the Corps RAC regiment - the armoured car regiment, according to Staff Duties in the Field for all editions in the 50s, should have been 44. But, thank you very much for the photos - it's all grist to the mill.

Seen - many thanks indeed, most kind.

Typical, no consideration at all!

Ah! Thank you for that. That's exactly the sort of information I was after. So, still serving with the regulars in the middle 50s! Good that suits my ideas. Sounds as though they were the 1(BR)Corps armoured car regiment - should have been a '2' on red/yellow on other mudguard then.