RAFMT

Well I’ve had a reply from the Mack Museum and done a little extra digging, and it’s looking more and more likely that the mysterious “15 ton, Type 86” is the EXBX, although with a lower rating quoted for whatever reason. Firstly according to the company records the only military ordered vehicles at the time of the AP I found (late 1940) in that weight range were the 18 ton EXBX and the 10 ton NR1 – it’s unlikely that they would quote the NR1 as being 15 ton and risk it being overloaded and causing damage. Secondly, as Ted kindly pointed out to me and I have double checked, when the RAF introduced the later system of type numbers to be painted on the doors of vehicles (allegedly for ease of identification) the EXBX2 was allocated a number – 1208 in case you were wondering. It would appear that the Type 86 designation was something used, possibly by the British Purchasing Commission, to identify different American vehicles as I have also found references to White vehicles with Type numbers instead of other designations at the same time as the Mack Type 86. Rest assured, the search continues!

The RAF inherited a lot of their Rolls Royces from the War Department who in turn had taken over from the RNAS and the early RNAS 1914 pattern had shallower sided turrets than the later patterns. So as Fletcher says, it's quite possible for a '14 pattern body to have survived on three different chassis. As to the earlier diversion, it appears that it was Samson himself who organised for the LGOC buses, that had been supplied to support the Eastchurch Squadron, to be armoured for the Marines so that they could support his cars!

Perhaps they decided to it as well independently. I know Samson is usually cited as the person proving the utility of the armoured car to the British establishment. I have a copy of Fletcher's War Cars at work, so I'll have a look tomorrow and see what it says. Back on topic, a Fordson would have to be desert colours as 2 Armoured Car Company, RAF were the only users of the type.

If we're going to get picky, then the primogenitor of British armoured cars was Cmdr C R Samson. He led the Eastchurch Squadron over to France in 1914, but due to the unreliability of those early aircraft too many became U/S. Instead, inspired by the Belgian armoured cars, he armed a couple of the squadrons vehicles (these were various makes of Tourers and Sports types owned by the pilots themselves) with machine guns and undertook patrols. Eventually they were fitted with some form of armour at Dunkirk. It’s in his autobiography “Fights and Flights” a fantastic read for anyone interested in the era. It was the RNAS that were the main armoured car using air force – the RAF wasn’t formed until 1st April 1918, don’t forget! – and used a range of vehicles. Also, “Steel chariots in the desert” only deal with the First World War, fine for the early pattern Rolls Royce, but the Fordson didn’t come around until the sequel. Still a very good book though.

There was a period newspaper article about it i have somewhere, the journalist spent some time with the unit. they used to run it around camp, and sometimes would just switch it on and let it run around on its own.

I have a question, as i'm not as well versed on the engine complaints as others seem to be. Why did it affect the K5 in particular? If the K2/3 and K6 had the same engine why weren't they affected in the same way?

What is impressed into the hub? It will tell you what aircraft type it was designed for.

Where abouts on the Bofors is it stamped? and are there any other marks with it, such as lettering, or just the cross on its own?

Yes, my mistake- I had noted it down on a reference sheet without mentioning it was the version that was re-designated K6. Sorry

Ted- The K3 is listed in the the early MoS Databook of RAF Vehicles; the one you don't have yet.

The K2/3 and K6 manuals I have looked at are all APs, however unlike pilots notes and many other APs these were published by Austin themselves. Hence why it seems strange in that report (which appears to be dated 1946) they claim they didn't know 30HD oil was being used and that they needed to change the engine. Although i must admit the August 42 K6 drivers handbook does not specify a particular oil. Having said that the October 43 drivers handbook is pretty much identical to a late 44 drivers handbook except a change of cover and that specifies 30HD oil, long before the problem became apparent, again negating their claim of ignorance. As for the maintenance manual, the earliest I have is Jan 44 for the K6 and June 44 for the K2/3 but these, again, are identical to later editions. Which is odd because if the problem only showed up during the Normandy campaign then it should have been altered sometime between Jan 44 and June 45. We do have some Vol. 2 part 1 which is the modification sheets, i can try and go through those to see if they mention anything about changes to the engines. As i said above (but in summary form this time ) i am also using info for the K6, which according to the manuals had the same engine, as well as the K2/3 In the August 42 Drivers Handbook it gives no detail of the oil to be used. In the October 43 Drivers Handbook, and later editions of the same, it specifies 30HD oil The Maintenance Manuals from January 44 onwards state 30HD oil All of these manuals were printed by Austin, so they must have known from at least 1943 that there was a change in the oil type being used. In fact even up to 1945 they were giving the exact same engine details including those given by NickAbbot above:

Right, I've had a look at some K6 manuals as well, and that also seems to have had the same engine. Both the K2/K3 and the K6 manuals have exploded views of the engine in their later (arond mid-44 onwards) editions which i shall try and scan. The 1942 edition of the K6 manual has exactly the same cutaway diagram to show lubrication flow, as the later editions, which again i will try and scan

And i've gone through half a dozen manuals for the K2/K3 ranging in date from October 1943 to January 1946, and they all stipulate 30H.D. as well.

I know! clutching at straws. it's the sort of idea you come up with at 3am while being kicked in the head by an infant! Going to fire off an email to the Mack museum, see if they can help clear up the mystery of the type 86!

As mentioned in the RAF Oddities thread, the RAF issued a manual for "Mack, 15 Ton Chassis, Type 86" late in 1940. However as I'm clueless when it comes to American vehicles (and many other things according to my Wife!) I was hoping someone over here might be able to tell me which Mack they are talking about. Many Thanks Bryan

Just a thought chaps, and I'm also clueless on yankee vehicles, so don't shoot me for this. From what i understand the EXBX was ordered by France and the deliveries taken over by Britain after the formers fall, this vehicle was then developed into the NR4. The NR4 led to the development of the entire NR series, am I correct so far? We are all aware that such administrative jobs as compiling the Bridge Classification chart fell upon "Clerks, General Duties" who's MT experience is saluting to OC when he gets out of his staff car. (drum roll please) Could it be that EXBX was being used in the same sense we use Hoover when talking about vacuum cleaners or Sellotape when we mean sticky tape. Thus in this context EXBX could be used to mean the entire family? As I say, I could be well out with that theory and probably am, but it's nice to think that even the miltary administration don't know what they're doing sometimes. It's either that or the RAF used the EXBX chassis with a different body on it making it hard to identify in photos. I'm going to raise the 15 ton Chassis, type 86 in the American section of the forum, maybe it will get the attention with the answer.

Other armoured cars aren't a problem- plenty of pics of Rolls Royce, Lancia, Fordson, Straussler, Otter, Marmon Herrington, Morris Light Recce, Humber Light Recce, Beaverette. The list goes on, but the use of Staghounds by the RAF Regiment/Armoured Car Companies was a new on me - and others it seems, unless it's a mistake. But to put it in the list and specifically state Med and Middle East only suggests to me it's meant to be there. GPWRookie- it's possible, all the memoirs I have read, and official documentation I've seen merely state 3 Ton trucks were used, but don't specify which. Although I'm wondering if it's a Regiment thing again. As for the armoured cars with chains i seem to recall they used obsolete marks of the Beaverette (then again all Beaverettes were obsolete really) As to the new question of Macks, I corresponded with Ted while the forum was down- the RAF did issue an AP for a "Mack 15 ton chassis, type 86" although neither of us have as yet identified which model of the Mack was the type 86. Anyone else out there know this one?

What's the modern saying? "Haters gonna hate"? I have to admit, I was more than a little jealous of you, but thats no reason to be negative. Good luck with the restoration classes. Bryan

I've done a lot of research in the past on the RAF Servicing Commandos, even had contact with the association. They used Jeeps, Motorcycles and 3 Tonners but no armour I'm afraid. Ted- I know 51MT used the NR6 and NR9 Macks, but I assume you mean the EXBX was it? I'm sure I have come across references to them before- I'll have to have another look. I just presumed it was for something like hauling the heavy plant of the Airfield Construction Branch.

Ted- Thanks for that, most of the QL series photos i have are from the front, so maybe I just didn't notice that little extra bit of length on the body. Also it wasn’t mentioned in any of the wartime literature, although I’m only just making headway into the post-war Databook. (P.S. the papers were sent out today) Gordon- There is an excellent series of books published by the Small Craft Group, a class directory of all the marine craft used by the RAF. It does include, in the last volume on assorted sundries, a single DUKW locally and completely unofficially acquired somewhere in the Med. for jollies by the airmen. But that would be no reason to include it in the bridge classification system. Wally- I had wondered the same with regards to it being a direct copy of the Army list. However it is otherwise absent of “Army specific” vehicles, if that makes sense?

I was going through a couple of RAF Air Publications and have come across a couple of vehicle types I was unaware the the RAF used. In the second edition of AP3090 Mechanical Transport regulations 1949, the section on bridge classification numbers contains: GMC DUKWS also marked as obsolescent Bedford QLTC presumably QLT, although why would the raf need to carry that many troops GMC (Staghound Armoured Car) listed as Mediterranean and Middle East Also the 1951 edition of the Databook of RAF Vehicles includes and entry for the Vickers Light Tank MkVI with a cross ref. for an AP. This AP is also listed in AP113 Index of Forms and Publications. Now, am I being and these are all in fact quite obvious and I'm just unable to find images. Or is it a case they really are oddities, and if so does anyone have images of any in RAF service? Regards, Bryan

No, this was a different green to 8 & 9 which are also in the set, this was just labelled "Special Green".

The SCC2 in Starmer's work is pretty spot on the example at work- although i must point out this is without any varnish applied. Of the rest of the SCC colours in the same book SCC7 is slightly out- but not so you'd notice much, but SCC14 is way too light compared to our example. As the samples in the cabinet were from February 1942 there is no SCC15 "Olive Drab" but there is a "Special Green" which is a bright green colour.

Ted- I hadn't really thought about the fact that BS381C changed post war! I also have to admit I cannot now find the source that led me to match it to 591 Deep Orange, although 1965 edition of AP1086 does include that colour for use on "static radio vehicles and equipment on airfields"- confusingly this was after vehicles should have been using golden yellow instead! NOTE: I have now found the amendment that introduced Golden Yellow was issued September 54. In fact even the 1951 edition of 1086 doesn't include 33A/125 although it's still supposedly in use. Unfortunately Hendon, as you say, doesn't have a wartime copy of the section containing paints. They do however have a 1924 copy where ref. 33A/125 is Paint, Dry, Yellow, Chrome, Orange tint. The other colours listed under "Yellow, Chrome" are Lemon tint and Middling tint. So the options that present themselves are: 1) The orange used was one of the colours on the pre-war BS381C later changed for one of the new colours. Unlikely as the paint in question had been around before the standard was created. 2) The orange was a completely new colour that was later incorporated into the post-war standards - this had happened with aircraft colours (Sky anyone?). 3) The colour remained an unquantified orange, completely separate from the British Standard scheme until the post-war colour charts came out when it became easier for the Air Ministry to order from a catalogue. My belief is that option 3 is most likely, many of the dry paints listed in the 1924 edition are still listed in the 1951 edition. If the AM had decided to create a Prepared For Use paint of the same colour it would have been given a completely different stores ref.

AMO 731/40 states Bright Orange and the 486/44 is the one that brings in 33A/125 Bright Orange. Can't find my copies of the later orders though. As for the Post 54 bits i've had some mixed success, i'll send you an email about it tomorrow.