RAFMT

I wouldn't agree that all other colours look normal, but then I think this is a situation where we will have to agree to disagree. To me that upper colour is either Black, or Dark Tarmac.

Type 2703 was most likely added because someone realised the RAF were still using Fordson and Case Roadless conversions.

On 8/5/2023 at 1:16 PM, Smithy said:

Just like the IWM experienced this week on Twitter/X - if something is indexed or catalogued incorrectly then the stated caption is likely to end up in print or online, with people taking it as gospel. 

Having worked in the industry myself I can vouch for captions not always being correctly labelled! And as others have said, there aren't always those of us with a military vehicle interest in the office. 

I can also vouch. The WW1 RFC/RNAS/RAF casualty cards held at the RAF Museum were digitised and made available online for the WW1 Centenary. The Museum then started receiving complaints that so-and-so's name is wrong, or his unit is wrong, etc. We literally just scanned the original cards, and copied the data as presented on the card for the searchable database. Any mistakes are a century old, and it would take hundreds of man-hours to check each one, we can only add extra info when someone draws our attention to it.

As for the original photo in the article, I've lost count of how many times I've looked at period publications (including official ones) where they have incorrectly labelled photographs. I've seen an RAF photographic log of 5 M.T. Coy movements that labels P-61 Black Widows as Lightnings. It happens. Instead of getting on a high horse, perhaps politely contact the people involved and inform them so they can update their records.  

You need to be very careful trying to judge shade from period colour film as it is notoriously crap actually picking up what is in front of it. Having said that, depending on when this vehicle was painted, and when the image was taken, there could be any number of reasons it doesn't fit right in. For a start, while the paint for canvas and those for wood/metal were colour matched as closely as possible they will weather differently and if the canvas needs to be replaced they wont necessarily repaint the whole vehicle just to match the newly painted canvas.

To me, that's a Brown, Special, No.2 with Black, Quick Drying, Matt Finish, which has, a: fade slightly; and b: the faded colour shows up funny on the old colour film.

Probably bridging plate, with two numbers indicating this vehicle would frequently tow a trailer? It's too early for group numbers, which were introduced in 41, after the roundel was in use on the front offside.

Can't recall ever seeing the Command letter/Group number combo in a circular pattern before. 

16 hours ago, Pzkpfw-e said:

And flying!

OK, it's a replica, but by my reckoning, the first 262 in British airspace, since November 1945.

IMG_6220.MOV

And the first 262 to spend more than 5 minutes in the air without and engine falling out/falling apart 😆

Civvy reg plate, definitely early war!

Thanks Ted

As for the paint, this photo seems to be taken early war and could pre-date the service-wide introduction of formalised camouflage paint schemes. At that time, building distemper (as you suggested) was a common enough material to use when those airfield in the south east began to face German attacks. Or an over-thinned application of Dark Earth/Dark Green, perhaps, trying to make a small amount cover as many vehicles as possible.

Further to Ted's response, I don't believe all the numbers were issued, blocks would have been reserved for particular uses but the changing nature of the war meant planned units were never formed.

V was the command code for Transport Command, as Ted alluded to, and not specific to 44 Group.

RAF railways were an odd beast, but essentially they existed only at particular depots/stations, and were the responsibility of that facility.

I did have, somewhere around here in one of my files, a list of MT companies. If I can find it, I'll post it up here.

As I posted on the other thread, I haven't seen any ads before on this site. I use Chrome with AdBlock installed, but that claims that it isn't currently blocking any ads.

Google Chrome user, with AdBlock installed (for free) and I've never seen ads on here. I use chrome on both my pc and my phone. I wouldn't have even known ads were a problem here if not for this thread. In fact, AdBlock is currently saying that it isn't blocking any ads.

I'm genuinely shocked there are people out there now, browsing the web without an adblocker installed! I also don't understand why people have been given this simple solution but would still rather declare that they are never coming back?!

Interesting titbit, 51 MT co. referred to their 15cwt CMPs as Blitz Buggies even in some official documents. I bet that caused some head scratching back in London.

And yes, in North Africa the number was always carried in both western "arabic" and true arabic numerals.

Hi Larry,

The suffix indicates which specific equipment is carried. In the case of the Type 394:

A: two CR.100

B: four CR.100

C two AR.88

D four AR.88

The Type 393 only had the one set of equipment so they are all technically of the A suffix: two T.1190.

I posted a while back a scan I made of a 1946 document compiled by a signals officer, it can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tsktp9df1bbntla/RVT Listing 1946.pdf?dl=0

All the best

Bryan

More than possible Ted.

I've seen a photo (which I'll have to try and find) of a K2 GS carrying aircrew earlier in the war, but this could be one of those oddities, a random vehicle that found its way into use. 

Hi Simon

The short answer is there isn't one.

The long answer: The type numbers were introduced in preparation for the planned invasion of the continent. They were meant to facilitate easy communication for replacing lost equipment. If your 3 ton tender broke down/was lost at sea/got stolen by some brown jobs then you could request a Type 1300 replacement. It didn't really matter what make of 3 ton tender you got, they all did the same job.

For whatever reason there was no type number allocated for Tenders, 2 ton. The Domestic Fire Tender, based on the K2, was given the number 2201. The Ambulance (not that the RAF used them at home in any numbers before the war ended) would have carried the number 1700.

Perhaps they were given the number 1400, for 30 cwt Tender? What jobs would they be doing that required a 2 tonner that couldn't be accomplished with either a 30cwt or a 3 tonner?

I am still here, for my sins.

Took a picture of the same site today, not much has changed

Tony was a lovely chap to talk to, and always had a good story to tell. 

There's also some great stories about him, but probably not for a public forum!

What is it you want to know? There's not a lot to them, mechanically speaking.

In all of the RAF literature I've consulted, they use the Thames name interchangeably with the 7V designation.

Steve, I've had a look at work, and it appears that in the mobilisation plans drawn up in September 1938 it was No. 7 Air Ammunition Park that was originally instructed to be formed at Staple Halt.

1st October 1939 it was re-designated 97 Maintenance Unit in the plans.

97 MU officially formed 20th May 1940, and closed 10th July 1940 when it was replaced by 36 MU at Snodland.

Both 97 MU and 36 MU were Explosives Storage Units.

On 10/11/2022 at 9:26 PM, Cheshire Steve said:

One thing that intrigues me is the RAF take-over of Staple station from May 1940 to August 1940. I wonder what they were doing there? They allowed through trains, but closed the station for passengers and goods (except their own). They left and handed the station back in August, only for it to become one of the locations for the rail-guns from September 1940.

I would be interested to know who the RAF squadron were and what they were doing

 

Certainly worth looking into. It could be something to do with the nearby Wingham airfield? Certainly at that time any airfield and flying club were being used to train pilots in a rush!

Drop the RAF Museum a line: askcollections@rafmuseum.org

There should be examples in the library

That's AMO A1397/42.

I'll dig it out and send a copy over for you

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't look at the image properly. That is the entirety of the AMO right there. The previous AMO on the subject (which this one cancels) is AMO A820/42 from August of that year. The next relevant AMO is A891/43 issued early September 1943.

Assuming it is the same chassis as used for the tipper, then according to the Databook of RAF Vehicles it should be 9'10"

On 1/23/2022 at 10:33 AM, ChrisR said:

And in answer to Bryan’s question, (of 9 years ago!), mention is made of red wings on an RAF Bomb Disposal Humber car in May 1942 in the book ‘A Cold Blooded Business’ by S/Ldr Haarer, so they must have followed the army’s lead very quickly, as they did when the BD insignia was introduced for the army’s uniform.

I've flicked through the book, and I don't want to impune S/Ldr Haarer's memory, but it would be really great to see something concrete from the time for red wings on RAF BD vehicles.

The first Air Ministry Order to cover red wings on vehicles doesn't appear to have been until A32/54 of 18th February 1954. I'm certain there was something earlier, but I've yet to come across it. There is AMO A619/41 of 7th August 1941 titled "Marking of Bomb Disposal Squad Equipment" which states "2. All bomb disposal equipment is to be painted with two red bands, one inch in width. The bands are to be suitably spaced so that the number of the squad and the letters "B.D.S." may be painted between them...." But no mention in there of vehicles. Perhaps something exists in the N series of AMOs, but that requires the time to trawl through them.

For reference, the RAF bomb disposal badge was introduced via AMO A69/41 of 23rd January 1941. It was available to armourers who had passed the bomb disposal course (bomb disposal wasn't yet a substantive trade) and could be worn by airmen assigned to bomb disposal work but only whilst employed for that work.