fv1609

OG I don't think it is going to be on the intranet. I have 3 editions of Catalogue of Army Publications AC No.12123 Part V Index of CES for 1984, 1999 & 2000 None of those you want are in there, in fact none in 5500x sequence I'm afraid.

Eh? Well that stuff there Rick. 8.5 kg of manuals & two vehicles.

My collection to show the changes over the years.

Rick, Patt No. was often an abbreviation for Admiralty Pattern No. Unfortunately there are no other clues with that because the current Navy Inventory Management Code fills G300 section with sewage, garbage, shredders etc :undecided:

Today the sign into Wellow had another sign attached "Twinned with Atlantis"

Yes as Bernard said a bit too much "over-thinking" but this normal. Many previous MOs have triggered ingenious suggestions that I had never even dreamt of. The determination of MEH is quite interesting.

Nope Well done Alec, yes the wireless aerial system for normal MF, IF & HF communications required for all vessels. This was a major preoccupation trying to accommodate various aerial combinations onto vessels of varying sizes & configurations. One of the great problems was choosing the appropriate frequency and power levels to get maximum or a tactically required maximum communication range for a series of different vessels. To help with comparisons for all the various aerial combinations a value of mean effective height (MEH) of the aerial was devised. In the paper dealing with smaller motor vessels this sketch for the landing craft had been added. These figures relate to calculating MEH.

Good idea Bernard, not that. Real answer coming up in a moment.

Nope Wally not weather protection.

Nope Lauren not marker buoys.

Not bungees Mike

Andy not a buoyancy aid.

Yes above the vessel but not a docking station.

More cable-like than solid Tony.

Well it is an additional structure on the vessel & attached to it at certain points. But it is not an essential structural part of the vessel. The vessel was built independent of this structure & it can function perfectly well without it. The red structure was later imposed on it for an additional purpose. I think I'm going to bed now, but I suppose its the middle of the day for you;)

Richard nope not that, but you have a clear field it seems everyone else has given up/gone to bed.

Yes Richard we've moved onto what are the things marked in red?

Richard its not a submarine or a support vessel for one. Nor directly related to submarine warfare.

Richard nope its not a cloaking device.

It's always worth having a go, but its not that. This rather modest sketch is from a very detailed research file commissioned in Feb 1941. The implications of it were absolutely crucial on the ability of the Royal Navy to defend the UK. It includes many graphs & calculations, in fact I should really give it to a museum. I say that in case anyone thinks this stuff was just be googled up.

Nope its not that Andy. Sorry I realise there are several other dotted lines. The significant ones are the red lines

Well done Jerry, yes very good! It is indeed a "Tank Landing Craft" Just remains to work out the purpose of the dotted lines.

It looks that sort of thing Davey, but this is marine.

The dotted lines are the real crux of the drawing really & it is marine Bernard.

Could be one of those daft shaped ones Wally they come in all shapes & sizes these days. But it's not one of those.