LarryH57

The RAF made use of the Bedford OXD for airfield defence circa 1941. The OXD had a wooden fighting box on the rear compartment full of pebbles and sand and I am looking for photos of one. The Bedford OXD is not to be confused with the Bedford OXA with a 'steel body' and Boys AT rifle or the 3 Ton Bedford OY with a 1.5 pdr COW Gun. I cannot find any photos on the web

But surely Ruxy, if my Lwt was a proper Military Vehicle and the history says it was with the Royal Artillery, surely any comments concerning shortages of Land Rover CL's is not relevant (without being rude)

I guess it looked like this?

Has anyone got info on the set up and equipment used by a FOO?

Dear HMVF members, Thanks for your posts on alternative fuel sources for my Lwt and also for how things were 100 years ago. There might be hope yet of getting a WW2 Jeep to the 100th Anniversary of D-Day parade, albeit with a pre-announced health warning for spectators and the man walking in front with a red flag! For those of you who like me believe in 'Man Made Global Harming' I will leave you with this!

A Forward Observation Officer is another good possibility, so I can now add all the parifinalia, for such a role, such as stripped down body, no tilt, with roll bar, twin GPMG, and every bit of kit known to a soldier, lashed to the outside. If a FOO was 'up the front' directing fire for the troops the RA was supporting, would it be all camo'd up, otherwise it might be a target for enemy gunners? Interestingly I have remembered that the tilt was painted too with matt black paint, when it was cast which was un- authoried but this could have been done by anyone, not just a FOO.

Lets forget the Lwt FFRs for the moment. I know Officers used them, under sufferance, but as far as I can remember I never saw a Royal Artillery Battery Commander with a GS Lwt with a single /sole Clansman radio in them for comms. So it must have been for a less important role / rank.

Yes, the question is why and for whom. Plus a photo of the bracket to support the Dexion for a Clansman, that the clips in the Lwt suggests was mounted behind the driver, who I guess hadf to drive and listen out on the net for radio comms, that his 'ever so important passenger' didn't

As Clive and Ruxy have pointed out my Lwt has those brackets fitted on the side of the rear tub, with four bolts each side, which I don't often see at MV shows. I was sent an 'exploded diagram' of the bracket and how the diagonal support for the dexion racking bolted on to the top. It was there when the Lwt was cast. So for me the question is why did the Army and RA in particular convert a 12 V GS to have a Clansman, when there was never a shortage of FFRs? Whom ever it was used for, the Lwt needed to be contactable but didn't need to work the Net on several Frequencies like an FFR office set up. There was no Radio shelf in this set up. In the 1980s Army that I remember, the set up in my Lwt just reminds me of a vehicle good enough for a roving NCO to visit lonely positions perhaps with some tea and a bit of grub on a cold night but not roomy enough for an Officer, unless a GS Lwt was sufficient for a Padre, if they had one in RA Regiments?

Incidentally my Lwt was with 4th Field Regt RA, at the time it was in the Falklands but I dont claim it was ever in the Islands, and was probably left in the UK. Or was it, and would a GS Lwt, with a single 351 or 352 Clansman be sufficient for more than just keeping the Padre or Battery Sgt Major informed. Did they have a roving role to fulfil? Also I agree that it is hard to justify a shortage of LWB FFRs, as the TA were not short of them at this time.

Of course the HAC was a bit different from the 7th Para Royal Horse Artillery, with 25 pdrs instead of the 105mm Light Gun,and I bet they never went off road in the very shiny Lwts.

As members may remember I have a 1980 GS Lwt that was fitted with a Dexion racking to hold a Clansman 351 or 352, connected to a TUAAM on the offside (UK drivers side) and plenty of clips to show the routing of the cabling. The Lwt was used by the 4th Field Regt Royal Artillery and 7th Para RHA, both equipped with the 105mm L118 Light Guns towed by 1 Ton, Land Rover 101s. The units had LWB Series III Land Rovers in support such as FFRs and perhaps a few LWB GS types for REME and Cooks, so who would use a GS Lwt adapted to have a single Clansman 351 or 352? Battery Commanders and Officers didn't like an adapted GS Lwt as it wasnt an FFR and even those didn't have much room for their kit. So who might settle for a 'second best' option, who just needed to be contactable on the Radio Net, but doesn't need a multiple channels? A roving Senior NCO and driver or perhaps the Padre and his driver? Anyone else? By the way I am ignoring the use of it by the Paras as a Lwt Recce Vehicle as I have no evidence of such use in the Para RHA.

Yes, its a piece of recovery gear and used in the UK too

My fear for MV owners is that our freedom will be curtailed and the next thing we know is that the Police will require a square hatch of armour being cut in the drivers side of any preserved AFV. Or MVs will be banned as dangerous whatever they are

MV owners are very law abiding and I am pleased that by and large we are alloed to drive what ever we own, but this guy whoever he is, isn't doing us any favours!

Another Commer Q2 4x2 and flatbed trailer, with a ?50 marking on the cab door that might suggest another variation of numbering the stock of vehicles at an MU. The vehicles has an RAF Registration, and briging plate and has a camo paints scheme, which gives an indication of the year but no RAF roundel yet Also it looks like the chalk marks are still visible between te camo as a guide to where each colour should be painted.

I guess Ted you are on to something. Firstly that MUs involved in aircraft recovery in WW2, were never short of work! With sections of each aircraft recovery MU being despatched to various locations, it would be logical and quick & easy to number your vehicles, for the job, rather than recite their standard RAF registration numbers and RAF Group Number in Maintenance (M/??) in any local orders. I guess also that an MU might have an official base but only despatch, what was needed to the locations as required for the job. It could also be that the entire MU fleet was numbered for a potential move. However logic says in war the CO's Tilly or staff car would not be Vehicle No.1. Consequently, the Officer in charge of despatch would just see what was available by random vehicle number (rather than RAF registration) and list them in his orders by their single of double digit number and the RAF drivers would go to their 'MT yard', prepare the correct vehicles and off they would go. Also is there a Maintenance Command list of all the subsections in each Group; Are these available in an AMO, somewhere, plus details of the patch they covered, especially for aircraft revovery? Their work surely needed a patch to cover, wheras the Aircraft Storage MUs would have different requirements, related to aircraft type etc and be as far away from the Luftwaffe aa possibl..

I am beside myself with excitement ( Perhaps I dont get out enough!)

Adrian, thanks for your considered opinion. Please do post this query of the RE BD site. You are probably right that a lightly armoured vehicle would not be of use for GP 250 kg bombs for example, but the explosive element of a fire bomb would hardly blow up the armoured car. So, Adrian you might be on to something as fitting something intricate to an armoured car for a job so menial as clearing leaves, for example would be odd However, I do think the a/c set up shown here was an experimental set up and that the caption to the photo above was a post war guess. It may be like Bryan suggests; what to do with a little used vehicle, that proved to be no use that none were ever copied for service!

But the use of an armoured vehicle is not explained, as I have a photo somewhere of Austin K3 with a plough.

My point exactly, Citroman! Also a secondary shield suggests a blast protection set up. An old friend of mine (since deceased) who was in the Fleet Air Arm in WW2, on a UK land base,was 'voluteered' with his mates, by his CO, to act as Crash Crew and used to have to deal with bombs that fell off the wing mounts of USAAF P-47D Fighter Bombers (on take-off) and they were literally dragged off the runway and dealt with later. A plough and some blast protection would have been better than what he had; ie his bare hands and a tow truck! Also why Armour a vehicle for a simple cleaning job?

And yet with the plough on small wheels, it's not going to clean much as push larger objects out of the way. I dont think airfields were covered with logs and large branches or brick rubble?

This weeks mystery photo is from 1944 and shows a strange RAF Beaverette with a plough, but for what purpose? It doesn't really fit the visual description of a snow plough. As some of these armoured cars were used for crash rescue, allbeit in cut down form (as seen painted yellow in the 1944 Bomber Command film with Lancasters) so could this be used to push wreckage out the way or live bombs still onboard? And what is mounted in the turret, some kind of water canon / Co2 / foam dispenser? I guess it was a one of its kind. Your thoughts.

Thanks all for your thoughts on this matter.

Yes Ferg, my point exactly. My great grandfather died at the age of 62 in 1923 of old age and he looked like a very very old man in photos but I guess he had a hard life. Now a 70 year old is considered not so old as then, so the DVLA need to be told if they are intent on changing the law should start looking at the over 90s age group, some of which I know, who still drive but only locally, and relatively slowly.