ArtistsRifles

Some one should tell the EEC where to go stick their stupid <censoreds>!!! Hell - if artillery salutes are too loud I shudder to think what they'd say if a Stalwart did it's party trick near them - probably have them drop dead in fright!! Come to think of it..................... :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Just took a look at the Dartford Crossing web site - http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4075.aspx - FAQ page and there it says that to qualify for free crossings a vehicle that is tax exempt has to be so due to clauses 18 or 19 of Schedule 2 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act. This - in a nutshell - says the driver has to be registered disabled! Relevant part of the act:

No you don't if you have a free tax disk.. Pardon??????????? Are tax exempt vehicles also toll exempt now???? There was me wasting all that good worrying about how to pay the toll from the drivers seat of a Stalwart :? :?

Not an aspect of MV ownership thats likely to cross my path but... Surely if you are going to carry passengers in a vehicle not equipped with front or rear facing seats and belts and you have told those riding there that this is the case and that they ride at their own risk you would be covered in such an eventuality???? Also - lets be honest - the way most MV's are constructed a whack up the backside is going to be negligible. I was driving a RL through East London many years ago when it was hit up the backside by an old CA van - not one of the people in the back were harmed yet the CA hit hard enough that the towing pintle on the RL was in between the front seats.....

Thanks Lee- good point that I forgot to mention!!! You know - it's be a hell of a lot simpler if they just declared a set period - say 40 years - after which a vehicle becomes a Historic Vehicle and is thus exempt from all the "C1"/"C1E" licensing crap. These are really only there for those driving for hire or reward - just say anything over 40 years cannot be used for hire and reward and thus can be driven on a B license. Failing that - introduce a non-vocational "C1" or "C1E" that cannot be used to obtain employment, only for limited use in driving Historic Vehicles and drop most of the OTT requirements inc the medical ones for the non-vocational ones.

Signed up back in October - they reckon it's going to go live somewhere around the end of April - mid-May time!!

This - potentially - is a bit of a minefield and as Clive rightly says no one wants to drop the movement into the cack! With that thought in mind I asked a friend who is a long-time serving traffic police officer what the story would be for me driving a 1960's Stalwart on a "B" license - this is his reply (no names - no pack drill) As any vehicle I get will be carrying information boards for display carrying technical information on the vehicle, the vehicles history both generic and specific as well as exactly what a"HMLC" really is my feeling is that section q WILL cover me. Of course - if plans for a Stalwart fall through for any reason and I rever to plan C (plan A was a DUKW - now priced out of reality) then that will be anything from the 1950's and the entire question becomes academic as any vehicle pre-1960 is exempt from the weight regulations provided it is registered as a historic vehicle.

Heading home from where we store our caravan today I noticed a farm site in Berwick Pond Road, just outside of Rainham in Essex had a notice board up saying "storage units available" No prices and no idea of unit sizes but the phone number is 01708 552370 if ayone is interested.

Cara - you can drive these on your car ("B") license because they are pre- 1960 build. It's one of the crazy apects of UK motoring - With just a "B" license you can drive - say - a 20 tonne Scammell or Antar because it's pre 1960. Soon as it goes into 1961 you need the "C1" license unless you are prepared to go and argue the case for one of a very few exemption categories. I think all historic vehicles, irrespective of age should have the specialist license requirements removed - these categories should only be for vehicles used on a daily basis & for hire and reward.

Suppose the argument could be that they are no longer in Crown service so ordinary rules apply! As another example - vehicles in Crown service (read military of any arm) are officially exempt from all tolls etc. We used to carry toll warrants pointing this out and saying that as a concession H.M.G. would pay the toll even though it was not required. If we never had a warrant we would stop and xplain this to the toll operators personnel then carry on without paying - they would (if they were so inclined - contact the MOD and request payment. Try getting away with that now

This is only irrespective of weight or also of tracked or non-tracked? Weight I believe - AFAIK - you would still require the group "H" test for the tracked vehicles.

You wouldn't like all the tax bills over here - especially the ones on fuel :cry: Just checked the DVAL website - forgot the rules changed for those who passed their test after 1st Jan 1997. If you passed your driving test after this date then to drive a vehicle between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes you need an additional group - "C1" - added to your license which means taking another test. Unless the vehicle is registered prior to 1960 - then as a historic vehicle it can be driven on the ordinary car licence (group "B") irrespective of weight...... You can see all the requirements here: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/drivers/vehicle_cat_desc.htm

Over 3.5 tonnes - no. Over 7.5 tonnes - yes. But there are some "get out" clauses on the DVLA website which can cover you on this - my favourite being the "mobile display unit" (or words to that effect). For a tracked vehicle you need to get group H added to your license which means taking a driving test on a track laying vehicle steered by it's tracks.

Problem there is that 3.5 tonne bit - a Stalwart is anywhere from 9 to 11.5 tonnes and the RAC or AA would object - quite strenuously - to recovering one of these :?

Cheers Matt - sounds like a deal to me!! The one issue CMV list as out of print is #01 June 2001 / Page 48 - if acopy of that is available too I'd apreciate it

Been looking through the available back issues of CMV wih regard to the Stalwart and they have a few isues listed. However it doesn't specify whether the info inside is just a photo or a proper article!!! Articles in question are: #11 April 2002 / Page 59 #23 April 2003 / Page 38 #26 July 2003 / Page 50 #42 November 2004 / Page 24 Any out there have these issues at all and can verify which, if any have actual articles in?? TIA,

If you can get a reply as to how they recover vehicles I'd appreciate hearing it - been asking diverse firms for ages whther they can/will recover on a low-loader rather than suspended tow and no ones telling me!! :cry: Got plenty of "come and join us "letters though.... Reason I need to know being I've been told that Stalwarts (and I'm guessing Saladins and Saracens) can't be recovered on suspended tow unless you first go through the protracted and messy job of removing the sun gears from the axle.....

D.I.N. = Deutsche Industrie Norm

Sadly NO Gov't whatever their political flavour or colour has ANY interest in preserving things for the future!!! All any of them have is the short-sighted view of "how much is it worth now" and "How much of that can I get into my own bank account". Crooks, liars and scum the lot of 'em!!

Ah yes - rifle drill - did it in 215 Sqdn RCT - inc the (by me) dreaded "pokey drill" wherein one was required to hold the SLR by the flash eliminator and lift the weapon up level with the ground and hold it. Never did rifle drill in 21 tho' - at least not with the SLR. Only formal parade we ever did was the opening of the Royal Academy (well - we were the Artists Rifles) and that was done using the silenced 9mm SMG AKA the Apache. I think that ceremony has been canned now due to security issues! The L1A1 SLR was used in the field sans carrying handle and sling swivels and for us wounding was not really an option. Encounters with "the other side" would have meant either those encountered were down permanently or - rarely - were taken alive for interrogation. The mod to the sear was known, frowned on but done. The other one of using the LMG mags was not so good. Mainly because the springs in the LMG mag were too weak as the LMG was gravity fed as opposed to the SLR's force fed mechanism but also because it was a touch too long and when firing from the prone position the bottom of the mag would hit the ground - further compounded by having two mags taped together as some did.

AFAIK - the ony 7.62mm rounds in use within NATO these days are for the GPMG and whatever the snipers weapon is these days (in mine it was the SMLE Mk IVT). AS ever - fully open to correction on this as I've been out of touch nigh on 30 years. Again - AFAIK - we went to the 5.56mm round in part due to political lobbying over the fact that in an urban environment the 7.62mm round is so powerful it will go through the wall of a house and still have enough power left to kill whoever is the other side of the wall. The facts that some of the time the wall penetration was intentional because IRA/UDLA whatever lowlifes where sheltering there and that the groups doing the most lobbying were the political arms of these factions are of course purely coincidental. I guess, though, that reducing the risk of injury to non-combatants is a valid reason. That said - having seen what a 7.62mm round will do and what a 5.56mm round will do at the 200 to 300 metre ranges my personal preference will always be for the 7.62mm as I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of the art of war being to make sure the other person dies for his country instead of me for mine!! Never come across the VERY unauthorised modification to the safety mechanism that converted the L1A1 to fully automatic as per the original FN????

Sorry - followed the family tradition of military insanity but not in Dads footsteps. Wound up in the Artists Rifles instead of 10 Para much to his dismay

If any one is interested in the subject of the British Forces in Palestine during the Irgun/Stern Gang uprisings then a web site has just been set up for veterans of that era from 3rd battalion ,The parachute Regt. The site has some good photos of the men in uniform and some vehicles. (inc. my father - but don't let this influence you at all! ) URL is http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bill.watts/Index.html

Or not as the case might be......... :cry:

Think the problem is the link itself. For example this one: http://www.morris-recce.150m.com/My%20Pictures/Morris%20Light%20Recce%20car/Morris%20Mk%20I/rafregtmk1.jpg doesn't work but this one does: http://www.morris-recce.150m.com/morrislrc.jpg So if you modify the first link to be: http://www.morris-recce.150m.com/rafregtmk1.jpg this works too!! All you need to do is modify the image URL's to get rid of the My%20Pictures/Morris%20Light%20Recce%20car/Morris%20Mk%20I/ text and all will be OK. FWIW it's usually considered good practice to: (1) NOT have any embedded spaces in a URL - this avoids all the %20 gibberish appearing and makes it easier to type a URL (2) Store all images in a sub-folder off the root web called - strangely enough - "images"