fv1609

Dan is the blue horizontal with the top half in yellow or might it be a top diagonal yellow? Is there any remnant of a number on top of this badge? That would pin things down. Try looking for badges of the front sloping armour above the radiator & see if anything is clearer. Then work your way through these to see if anything matches up. http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?7897-Post-War-British-Army-Markings Also look for post 1977 unit markings which will be in white characters about an inch high on the off side wing eg SE/123. I know yours only has one original wing that has the locker. The wing without a locker is a NI replacement & unlikely to bear this marking. Near the 'apex'' of the top radiator armour you may find a white 2" sided square with a red circle or disc. Not an indication that it was used by the Japanese(!) but a common BAOR marking indicating that antifreeze has been added.

I'm not sure whether these effect rotatabilty EMER WHEELED VEHICLES U 207 Mod Instr No.13 June 1964 Certain 1/2 Ton trailers "..removing drawbar assembly from trailer, dismantling & modifying draught eye pivot & bracket" "Items effected: Drawbar assembly for FV2300 series trailers, Clas 1 & 2 (ACI 187/62 refers), except the first 8000 Mk 1 chassis (FV2301) which can be identified by the single relay brake lever operating through a slot in the drawbar." EMER WHEELED VEHICLES U 207/8 Mod Instr No.13 Dec 1981 Certain 3/4 Ton trailers including FV2361, FV2363, FV2364, FV2366, FV8368 (possibly typo for FV2368) "This instruction introduces a two piece drawbar eye assembly which is to be fitted on failure of existing one piece drawbar eye assembly." EMER WHEELED VEHICLES U 209/8 Misc Instr No.3 Nov 1974 3/4 Ton trailers FV2360 series "This instruction refers to the fitting of a redesigned draught eye assembly with increased shaft diameter which will be issued as a replacement when existing stocks have been exhausted."

Hmm that is very strange. I think they must have changed their minds because in Craftsman of the Army it bemoans the fact that it was due to close by 31 March 1964. It obviously didn't because later it states that 23 BW Wetter played an important part in the run up to Op Granby PS Put my proper glasses on it says 31 March 1994:wow:

23 BW at Wetter BAOR closed March 1964

Any Humbers in that pile of photos Philip?

I believe that these were also FV1622 Humbers at Pounds. The compressors apparently were stripped off & used to charge diver's air bottles.

Are you absolutely sure that NSN is correct? I've search digitally but that is rather hit & miss trying to find something close to it, even searching on fiche I can find nothing close.

Ken, I enjoy electrical issues having been a licensed radio amateur since I was a schoolboy. I like the fact that you can measure things directly & have tangeable evidence to build up a diagnosis. What I am particularly hopeless at is interpreting the nuances of engine noises & drawing any legitimate conclusion. Thankfully there are people around who enjoy that sort of thing & ready to help me out. Best of luck with it Ken, I'm sure there are a lot of people on here feeling for you & intrigued with what outcome will. Not just on the basis of goodwill but to file away in their memory in case they have the same problem arise!

Nick did it have any of the compressor or alternator fittings in the back at that stage? Were you aware of the specialised nature of the truck or was it just chosen as it was in good condition? As it was part of a specialist unit I imagine it was better looked after than a run of the mill GS in service with any old Army unit. Were there any other FV1622s there? I have a picture at Pounds of what I believe are a couple of FV1622s.

Andy yes that took nearly 1.5 hours! I write rather slowly & then it has to be re-written because of the dyslexia. Certain problems I can feel for people's anguish & frustration. Places we have all been. An external observer can sometimes be more analytical & cautious at making assumptions that such & such is ok, when perhaps it isn't. Awful as these experiences are for an owner it can unravel like a good detective story because one can be led to make assumptions that aren't really valid on the evidence presented!

Yes I saw that on Breakfast. I thought it was very good, sensible collectors & for once a sensible reporter, without any special angle of neo-nazis, playing soldiers, dressing up, guns etc. Just for once focussing on the automotive side of MV collecting, although guns on the AFVs were mentioned we were reassured that they were de-activated or just replicas. Seemed good PR for all, although tanks only make up a relatively small part of MV collecting.

Ken this is as perplexing as it is infuriating for you! When you say it was checked before it was fitted, how was that done? Just with an ohmmeter or did you actually run it up & see if it worked fully? A few years ago I decided to check the 9 starters I had. All of them passed on an ohmmeter but only 4 actually ran up properly. Those that failed were nice looking ones I bought from nice looking people who said they were take-offs or thought they worked the last time they were used. But I suppose I was also seduced by the silvering on the terminals & the nice paint. Whilst it is in situ I would suggest these tests. Put a voltmeter across both batteries & check that it still reads 24v when you try to start it. If it still gives 24v the batteries are ok. If not one of the batteries is at fault. Connect a voltmeter across each in turn & check if 12v is still maintained on starting. If not that is your defective battery. To check the link cable between the batteries put a voltmeter on the terminals (not the link cable) there should be no reading & none when you engage the starter. If there is a flicker of the needle (yes needle I would recommend an analogue meter, not a digital one which I find usually adds confusion that you don't get with an analogue!) go to a lower range & see that it should be virtually zero or no more than a fraction of a volt. If there is more than that there is some high resistance defect in that link cable/connectors. Unless you have added an isolating switch, the battery supply comes via heavy duty cable to the starter. The fact that the –ve supply happens to be earth is not directly important here as the starter gets its supply in this independent way. Check that 24v is being delivered to the starter terminals. Check also that this voltage is still there when you try to start. You might expect this to loose a few volts as the starter runs. If there is no voltage reduction & you can hear & feel the solenoid clicking when you feel the case you have a defective starter motor. If the voltage drops by more than a few volts there is a high resistance in the battery feeds (by high I mean it is higher than it should be bearing in mind something like 75-100 amps should be drawn, even 0.25 ohms could be significant & measuring that sort of resistance on a meter is problematic) To test which cable is at fault. DO THIS WITH THE CABLES STILL CONNECTED Connect the -ve of the voltmeter to the -ve battery terminal & the + ve to the starter –ve terminal. If there is a drop of more than a couple of volts then the –ve supply cable is at fault. Repeat this for the other cable. DO THIS WITH THE CABLES STILL CONNECTED Connect the +ve of the voltmeter to the +ve battery terminal & the - ve to the starter +ve terminal. If there is a drop of more than a couple of volts then the +ve supply cable is at fault. However the +ve supply goes via the intervehicle starter socket box. Put the +ve prod of the voltmeter on the input terminal B+ & the –ve prod on the output S+. When you start up there should be barely any voltage measured. If there is reading of several volts or worse there is defect in the terminals or connectors. Although there are two thermal cut-outs inside they have no part to play in the direct supply to the starter. If you have an isolating switch making sure it is switched on repeat the above test making sure there is no voltage drop, implying a high internal resistance or poor connections. I’ve assumed that there is sufficient voltage to make the starter solenoid click. To ensure that this is adequate to make it fully engage, put the voltmeter –ve prod to chassis & the +ve to the SOL terminal inside the ignition junction box & check that is 24v when you try to start. If that is ok undo the cover of the plug that feed directly into the starter & measure it on B & make sure there is 24v when you try to start & when it is plugged into the starter. Remember if there is even 0.25 ohms in the starter supply cable system it is sufficient to cause problems. Buzzer or ohmmeter continuity checks are of little value in assessing the performance of the cables when significant current is being drawn.

It may outwardly look like a normal GS but it is a Power Supply, Electrical & Pneumatic, Truck Mounted, Malkara, 1 Ton, Humber FV1622 It went into service in Jan 1963 with the Missile Test Troop, Cyclops Sqn 2 RTR. Here is that very same vehicle at Kandahar Barracks at about that time. I have just sent the clip to the Missile Test troop Sgt who used this very vehicle. It has a governed engine & its most obvious feature was a compressor to run up the gyros when testing the Malkara ATGW centre bodies that were accommodated in the Test Equipment, Guided Missile, Trailer Mounted, Malkara, 1/2 Ton, 2W, Sankey FV2308R which was towed behind it. Some years ago I covered it in an article in Windscreen, I must post it up here sometime as there is quite a bit to its operation. I was told by the EME that the bottom line was in the event of a catastrophe with a Hornet engine then the FV1622 would have to be a donor.

Might not seem very dramatic, but after being idle for well over 10 years it was nice to hear the B60 come to life. This I believe is the only surviving FV1622 of 8 produced. I know the Test Troop Sgt who used this very vehicle 18 BK 91 in Cylcops Sqn 2 RTR

Deepcut I suppose. Not sure whether there would be anything on MERLIN, if you are in EMLRA it is worth the £5 fee to try a search there first. I remember I got some some sort of history for a FV1620 & FV1612.

Yes I'm often told that that is wrong as "the Army always painted them silver" (well aluminium actually) If they read the info board they would have seen the answer. Well I have a modeller to thank for that. You can often spot a modeller around your vehicle, they will not be content to take just a photo of the front of the vehicle they will take shots from all directions & will have a notebook. Fortunately for me an enthusiast did just that in Aug 1969. Not only did he take photos in the workshops from various angles, he also wrote in his notebook "interior white". Indeed he gave me copies of many pictures that subsequently appeared with others he took in that excellent book. As regards the other two Pigs, I can't help but feel opportunities have been missed. Although I feel that enhances the historical status of mine as the only RUC one to survive in its original role & as it happens is marginally older than the other two. Making it the oldest surviving Pig in the world being made in 1956.

Dan you mustn't reproduce pictures from the book. However a number of pictures in the book are my copyright including these: http://www.warwheels.net/HumberPig_Elliott.html You are welcome to copy & post those as you wish as long as you acknowledge the source. You will notice these are a better green than in the book which has produced a strong bottle green. This adds to people's criticism that I have got the 'wrong' colour. I don't really feel that is in the right section in the book under FV1611 as it is a FV1609. However it was something of a 'stop press' to get them inserted in time, so I'm grateful enough to get them included. I had considered putting it into its original soft top configuration. That would certainly make it stand out as being different. The trouble is I have seen a cut down Pig fitted with a lot of stuff to the owner's fancy on the basis that "it looked the business" & the "public liked it" & I'm afraid I wanted to distance myself from that sort of thing. I accept being mistaken for a normal Pig & that adds to the satisfaction when someone (not necessarily with great technical knowledge) comes up & realises that some things are different from normal, although they might not know quite what. On any vehicle I own I don't like soft tops from a security & weather protection point of view. I originally painted it Light Admiralty Grey as in 1961-2. But with any vehicle you need to decide on an era you want to depict & try to stick to it with whatever accessories you display with it. I know of two other ex-RUC Humbers which were subsequently up-armoured under Op Bracelet. Like me the excess armour had to be removed. They have been painstakingly rebuilt with considerable skill, but for reasons I don't understand they have been built to represent a standard Mk 1 FV1611 a vehicle which it never was. Seems an opportunity missed, but each to own I suppose. So far I have identified 57 differences between a RUC FV1609 & standard Mk 1 Pig FV1611. So the colour & the hard top allows me to depict 1962-69, this fits in with my Shorland that is restored for the period 1966-69.

Yes publications don't have to be just books. Indeed I have some Army Coded Publications that are CDs, DVDs, leaflets, pamphlets, aide memoirs & posters. But the original query was the way in which the 1917 WO Code system flipped between 26/Manuals/xxx & 26/GS Publications/xxx & 26/Publications/xxx

Up to 23 April 1972 a total of 4,755 vehicle protection kits were fitted to up to 25 types of vehicle. But these kits are not all what has come to be known as VPK in the accepted sense meaning GRP + Makralon. Some of the kits for non Rovers could just be Makralon or mesh protectors. At that time 292 kits had been fitted to Pigs of 316 ordered. That's not to say there were that many Holy Pigs! Yup 2996OI No that is 3071EZ which actually was a standard Mk 1 FV1611 modified to RUC requirements. Unlike the other 9 Pigs which were FV1609. It is not known what happened to 3071EZ. A couple of years ago a Pig bearing that registration appeared on ebay which was a hoax, as not only was it a Mk 2 but I have tracked the ownership of that particular Pig for 25 years.

Well from the NSC the DMC would be Z1 ie radio communication equipment. I can't find an exact match but the neighbouring NSNs are Z1 & are referred to as "Rack".

The polycarbonate was produced by Beyers under the trade name Makrolon. Maj Reg Pearce 2ICREME developed a range of protective shields, screens, visors etc this included Pigs & Ferrets. This all started in 1969 several years before the Mk 2. Makrolon seems to be such a widely misused term in that it gets confused with the GRP panels on Vehicle Protection Kits developed in 1971 that merely used Makrolon over the windows. A large number of innovations were instigated by Maj Pearce who appreciated the extreme urgency of saving the lives of troops. He was clearly frustrated & at times infuriated by the slowness, lack of interest & formalities of organisations like MVEE, SCRDE, RARDE. This why many of the manufactured items & modifications don't have the documentation that is normally produced eg EMERs etc. It is indeed Yes have a look at the acknowledgements, there are some of my pictures in there & three of my vehicles.

Here's one: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/melaugh/portfolio8/f8p5.htm

Yup that's right.

Dan it was probably a Holy Pig which was a NI conversion.

I'm afraid you cant tell without having the record card for the vehicle that became 22MS02. "Military Sales" sequence is not directly related to its in service ERM. It just depends when a particular vehicle was offered up for sale where it was in the MS sequence at the time.