fv1609

First Aid Mechanical Transport Outfit - vehicle repair kit

Works ok for me, I go on daily & no problems. Amuses me I have to go via Canada to talk Humbers to Australians:-D

You'll find that regularly there are people stripping Champs & sometimes NOS bits turn up. Having helped dispose of 2 Champs & bits in the last year I have been very sensitive to adverts popping up regularly with people selling bits. Then of course the engine & dash instruments have a commonality with other B Series vehicles. If you want Champ publications I have quite a few left including the parts book covering all models which includes the civilian model.

I think you'll find that is only if it exceeds 150 deg C then there is a risk that some decomposition of the EP additives may occur.

Arnie there is some coverage here but I can't get the link to work http://www.hmvf.co.uk/pdf/ALLCHARGEDUpPart2.pdf

Ted found it eventually Lot No.1761 Austin Office Van K2 3 Tons. Sold on 1st May 1969 (3rd day of sale) stored at Ruddington. Only other K2 on that page was MXD442 "Canteen van with cupboards, confectionary shelves etc"

Not sure that I would agree with that, I don't know on what basis someone at the IWM would say that, rather more than an experiment I would have thought: Ministry of Supply Fighting Vehicles Division Development Liason Report No. 38 17th Sept 1959 "Adaptation of Carter Stretcher Frame. This project has been completed" EMER WHEELED VEHICLES Q 027 Misc. Instr. No.4 Fitting of Carter stretcher gear Published 1964, 1965, 1966

Alec I am not sure how much of it sticks out but the bit of EMER below is quite concerned about the protrusion & obscuring stop lights. There is even reference to vehicles not fitted with stop lights, given that this is an EMER covering Rover 3, 5, 6 & 8 did any of these not have stop lights? This is part of the EMER for the Carter stretcher gear which is a much more organised arrangement than the first EMER I put up that was basically lashing the stretcher down with rope!

You didn't say what type of Rover but here is the answer for a SWB and remember plenty of rope:)

Dave I've got a sort of feeling that the Winchester auctions were conducted in an hotel. Clearly the vehicles weren't stored in the hotel carpark:) Obviously they were located elsewhere. But even many items sold at Ruddington were not actually at Ruddington so these might give rise to confusion. Just taking a 1968 catalogue of vehicles sold at Ruddington were viewed & collected from: OSDD Ruddington Home Office Sub-Store Raydon Airfield Booths Garage, Bicester Northern Command OSD Barlow RAF Hendon CVD RAOC Ludgershall COD Chilwell MT Stores Sub-Depot Derby West Riding CC Central Repair Depot 51 Command Hessay CVD Ashchurch Plant Repair Depot Wantage MPB & W Stores Depot Culham

Not on my list Robin! What a strange combination of pictures to depict "Vehicules de combat militaire" when all three are or pretending to be in a police role. Top right is picture of Pig lifted from wikipedia (where it is wrongly described) that is actually a FV1609 as once used by the RUC. On the stamp it has gained some curious white edging reminiscent of a Soviet May Day parade that is not present on the actual vehicle. The one below is painted grey in an attempt to make people think it was a RUC vehicle. I have watched this vehicle change hands for nearly 30 years & it has no RUC history, other than when it appeared on ebay dressed up like this. Recognise it Paul? The one on the left is a Pig Squirt painted blue with a stripy bumper from I don't know where.

That's it for now a couple more in a few days.

A few more Ruddingtons for Dave & the Matchless boys.

Oh gawd just look at this lot http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Comoros-Combat-Cars-Mint-Stamp-S-S-MNH-3E-034-/190585597823?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2c5fc96f7f

I searched for the NSN that gave me the Asset Code No., but curiously it didn't give any RAF Vocab Ref like it will do for RAF items. I looked up the Asset Code No. to get the nomenclature & that indeed does tie in with the ISPL Rover 10 & 11 with the WV Contract on the plate. I have AP2782E which is the Data Book of RAF Vehicles. Unfortunately it is too early for Rover 11, but it does give Rover 2, 3 & 6. These are 'Trucks' & defined as '1/2 Ton' not '10 cwt'. In the same publications under 'Cars' where a weight rating is given it is defined in terms of 'cwt' not 'tons'. So Cars in cwt & Trucks in tons? Even so it doesn't explain the rating of 10 cwt rather than 15 cwt. But perhaps that was the RAF defining the role or requirement it was fulfilling rather than its maximum payload? I think Ted would be the man to help us with this.

16A/3039 is the RAF Vocab Ref for Asset Code No. 1720-0766 which equates to Truck, GS, FFR, 3/4 Ton, Rover 11

Jules you haven't told us what model it is. I had a No.3 that used ARP12s that worked with 3v & 120v, although I suspect the HT should have been 150v. But some No.4 detectors were rebuilt & transistorised postwar, so the suffix letter is important.

Mk 3 nice, thank you Mike.

By "standard" I think you mean what most people think of as a Shorland ie with a turret this is a SB300 (assuming it is a Mk 3) This was an APC but meaning Armoured Patrol Car. These scrapped Shorlands look like normal SB301 Shorlands. They couldn't call them an APC as that terminology had been used on the SB300, so these were APVs, Armoured Personnel Vehicles. Ignorance of geography again, Singapore had four RHD SB401 in 1983. 401 radiator much further forwards to accomodate V8 engine, 301 just had 6-cyl.

I'm afraid my geography is none too good. Might those be the two RHD SB301s supplied to Indonesia in 1976?

SB301s I wonder who they were issued to?

Keith excellent thank you for posting that which is a missing link. I have repeatedly been told over the years by people who know about this era that in WW2 the maximum weight of the vehicle rounded up equated to its Bridge Classification. Yet I knew in the immediate postwar period a more sophisticated calculation was required. But here it is, proof that in WW2 this method of allocating a Bridge Classification was already in place & was not just a weight issue.

Robert this is the history of bridge classification over the years that I have pieced together from official documents. In 1909 it seemed to be the responsibility of a general staff officer at the approach to a bridge to give instructions to commanders of units about the suitability of the crossing. By 1911 the responsibility of giving the bridge a load classification passed to the engineers in the unit constructing the bridge. They were required to indicate at each end of the bridge the greatest permissible load. The examples below take little account of motor transport: “Bridge to carry infantry in fours” “Bridge to carry infantry in file” “Bridge to carry guns not heavier than 18-pr” “Not for animals” “Bridge for all arms. No road engines” By 1924 a simpler classification was in use: “Foot-bridges”- Infantry in single file. “Pack-bridges” - Infantry in single file, cavalry in single file, pack animal transport. “Medium bridges” - Infantry in fours, cavalry in half-sections, horsed transport, cars, armoured cars, light & med artillery, 3-ton lorries & all ordinary MT up to 5½-ton axle load. “Heavy bridges” – Heavy artillery, tractors & MT up to 16-ton axle load, tanks up to 18 tons. “Super-heavy bridges” – Axle loads & tanks in excess of above loads. By 1935 the classification in use was refined further: “Assault”- Infantry in single file. “Pack” - Infantry in single file, cavalry in single file, pack animal transport. “Light” - Infantry in fours, cavalry in half-sections, vehicles & weapons with forward units, horsed transport, horse & field artillery, cars, ambulances, lorries & AFVs max 4½-ton weight. “Medium”-All loads normally with a division, 4-whld MT up to axle load of 5.7 tons, 6-whld vehicles max axle load 3.6 tons or a rear bogie of 7.2 tons. “Heavy” - All loads normally with an army in the field. All 4-whld MT, 6-whld MT up to axle load of 8.25 tons or bogie load of 16.5 tons, tracked vehicles with sprung tracks up to 19.25 tons, provided track bearing length is not less than 13 feet. “Super-heavy”- Vehicles whose weights exceed “Heavy” By 1939 all bridges where classed according to the maximum weight of a vehicle in tons giving the following Classes 5, 9, 12, 18 or 24. It should be noted that bridges classes apply not just to fixed bridges but to pontoons bridges as well. Notes on M.T. Administration W.O. Code No.11060 issued in November 1954 suspended Bridge Classification Signs in the U.K. In overseas theatres this sign could still be used at the discretion of the C-in-C and G.O.C-in-C. where considered necessary. In fact such classification was only ordered in Bridge Classification Signs (Overseas Only) W.O.Code No.8229. Although vehicles at that time were classed in multiples of 1 ton, it was not just the laden weight. They were calculated from data which included the load capacity, tyre sizes etc. Bridges classes were extended as follows: 5, 9, 12, 18, 24, 48, 50, 60, 70. Bridge Load Classification (STANAG 2021) Introduced 1960-63 The bridge load classification was said to originally have represented by the rounded up weight of the vehicle in tons. "The new system relates to the characteristics of the vehicle which includes overall weight, number of axles, distance between axles, axle load (unladen & laden), tyre size, ground clearance etc and bears no direct relationship to the former system." It must be remembered that is a STANAG, which is a NATO Standard applicable to many countries. The UK had already taken some account of factors other than weight. What changed in the U.K. was that the mechanism for calculating a figure was more comprehensive and now standardised with other NATO countries. The classification of bridges was also changed to take account of the effects that particular vehicles would have on the bridge. However the application of the system is the same as before, in that only a vehicle load class less or equal to the bridge load class number may cross the bridge. The load class number is based on vehicles travelling at normal convoy speeds at a spacing of 100 feet. The classification also relates to ferries, and takes into account an assessment of the state of the approaches to the crossing to produce an overall classification. There was no point in UK based vehicles having a Bridge Class displayed, as the Joint Service Road Transport Regulations JSP 341 states that: The UK will not prepare classification signs for civilian bridges and ferries in UK territory in peacetime.

At least we were taught maths in those days. I remember when we were learning our "tables" we were much relieved to have learnt the 12 x table only to discover that our AH then required us to learn the 13 x table! Our punishment for not learning this was to transcribe Psalm 119 which I recall is the longest Psalm. The consequence is that I now care little for Psalms or the 13 x table