fv1609

Ah you're thinking this is one of those upside down objects? Nope, note a floatation device. It is the right way up.

Not for rearing animals. The ladies will tell us the art of keeping up interest is to only reveal a little bit at a time. I'll just wait til Richard comes in & eats his beans on toast. If he doesn't have a stab at it (the quiz that is, not the toast) Then I'll reveal a teeny weeny bit more, but too much & it would give the game away.

It does look a bit that way, no flap & not corrugated but it is aluminium.

It was struck off to them on 20/8/89. As Jerry asked what else is in your tuck box of curiosities?

Not entirely, but that is a very interesting picture Lee, for several reasons. I have not seen that lower spacing before on the early 3-bar rams. It was usually like this: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/Ram3.jpg[/img] So I wonder was the lower bar cut off & moved nearer to the ground to block things being rolled under the vehicle, like metal beer kegs? Or did it break off & then fitted lower. You can see plates showing how it was extended down. Very unusual to see a mesh screen like this on a Mk2, more the province of Mk 1s like Paul's & my other one. This more substantial, shows no sign of attaching it to the bonnet in the down position. Perhaps it is up permanently? Now what is really very interesting is the VRN of 27 BT 97 which indicates it was once a RUC FV1609. It has been re bodied from another vehicle, but as a FV1609 it was originally 32 BK 99 & was issued to the RUC in 1958. Now what are these soldiers doing with this pig on some mud which it seems to have driven over a lot & a galvanised sheet behind them. Why have they no head protection? Despite this, why are they so relaxed? Why has the wing mirror not been replaced? Why are the wing mirror stalks not moved to the front wings as they soon were for improved vision? Is it because the wing mirrors are not needed? Why are there no radio aerials? Why is the mesh up permanently? I think is because these soldiers know the worst that will be thrown at them is an empty tin can by others soldiers 'rioting'. I think this was being used at a Northern Ireland Training Establishment in the late 1980s.

Never seen a preserved one Lee, probably about as common the Swingfire Saracen :dunno:

Nope

The slaughter house :cry:

What's this all about? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/App0634b.jpg[/img]

Yes, I believe now that something like 80% of components in new equipment already have a NSN allocated. This helps the services of course & it is something that manufacturers go out of their way to achieve, if it can shown that a major part of any new equipment will already be in the supply chain it will make the new equipment more saleable. Apart of course from the costs to the manufacturer in getting a component codified!

Just trying to fathom out how far the definition of a replica could be stretched. I hope to resurrect the Mk 1 Shorland after 12 years without showing it. I used to have the perforated outer tube of a .3 Browing. The actual "barrel" inside was just a piece of water pipe. When on the road I would roll a canvas cover over it. A Shorland turret without some sort of gun looks ridiculously impotent. So I was going to fit the canvas cover over a wire support made out of coathanger wire to support the cover. So is this a replica? If so is a roll of canvas the replica or the coathanger? If I walked down the street with a roll of canvas is it still a replica? or if I held the roll of canvas up like aiming a rifle does that make it a replica? If so if I held my umbrella in that fashion does it then become a replica? I'm tempted to mount the umbrella in the turret to support the canvas is that a replica? Perhaps we should have an amnesty to hand over unlicensed umbrellas?

COD Chilwell is a RAOC Depot, not REME. Incidentally part numbers (NSNs) are now allocated by computer at the National Codification Bureau, Glasgow

The overall supply of equipment & ordnance was responsibility of the Ministry of Supply. For aircraft it was the Air Ministry until 1940 when the Ministry of Aircraft Supply was formed. This continued until MoAS was amalgamated into the MoS in 1946. But in 1959 aircraft stuff became the responsibility of the Ministry of Aviation. I have a 1943 piece of infra-red stuff which still has the stores label on it, marked Ministry of Supply. What I don't know is whether the MoS selected part numbers or whether depots handling certain classes of stores did. I suspect MoS would lay down the group structure vocabs but the detail of particular items would be chosen by the particular ordnance depot for the allocation of part numbers for which they would be responsible for distributing. For example I have a 1943 Vocabulary Sections & Subsections for AFVs, B Vehicles Cranes etc published by Central Ordnance Depot Chilwell. I'll email you the the VAOS sections it is 12 pages.

I think this is the picture that everyone remembers: That speaker is intriguing, certainly not Cambridge & Westminster had barely come out at the time. http://www.pyetelecomhistory.org/ Judging by the speaker box with the knobs it was intended to be mounted that way up as you can see a rain shield above the grill. The reentrant PA speaker on the upper left. I used to have one of those . Definitely military, it was very long. But there was something very strange about it, high impedance, 200 ohms & I think needed some line supply of 100v. But I found it impossible to use for a straight PA on my vehicle set up.

Yes that's a good view of the towbar. I wasn't really sure what it might be like.

Koenig, I have to congratulate you in your depth of knowledge & enthusiasm in trying to untangle all this for your project which is most intriguing. I'm afraid I have no V section VAOS. So it looks as if the expanded W10 was created for not just new items but V items reclassified by adding W10 to the front. Although I can't see why VC 7471 couldn't have been re-classed just as W10/VC 7471? I have a scan of 1943 VAOS sections, but I expect you have that ok. I am now intrigued as I have a wartime New Zealand VAOS catalogue to stores accounting & I want to see how they handled the V & W sections, but can't find it amongst all my stuff that I am moving into a larger room!

How many horsepower was the engine in those days then Tony ;-)

What is the vocab reference for the item you are interested in? If you don't want to reveal it fully, what is the bit in front of the last 4 or 5 digits? It may be that another code from a full or obsolete section is immediately after W10. That would help trace back the item to another earlier VAOS & perhaps reveal its original point of introduction.

I've seen no evidence of Cambridge, but the were EMERS TELECOMMUNICATIONS produced for: F 850 - F 859 AM Bantam F 860 - F 869 FM Bantam F 340 - F 349 Remote Westminster F 350 - F 359 AM Westminster F 360 - F 369 FM Westminster F 370 - F 379 FM10P F 390 - F 399 FM10B G 400 - G 409 F100FM

Yes if it involved disenfestation, delousing etc

Yes well done! :yay: GMC yes, but I don't know nuffink else about it. Mark sent this to me, perhaps he has more details? It's just so that you don't all think my MOs are all missiles, latrines & Humbers ;-) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/gmcgrowsersik9.jpg[/img] Degsy - teasing Jack? Moi?

Nope, probably not what you are expecting.

Not a trailer

Nope

Nope, this should help: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v684/fv1620/plate02.jpg[/img]