Baz48

I did not specify any theatre of operation only the white star was used by the Allies and yes the 2nd Tactical Air Force did occasionally use the allied star on vehicles in preference to the Roundel - in the time I have been involved in restoration of vehicles and there marking I have become very careful of saying the word never or supposing I know more than the one I'm talking to as this can lead to gross embarrassment and humble pie time - thank you for the information on use of the A/C I like them

Morris Car Light Reconnaissance Mark I and Mk II were very capable vehicles used in there intended rolls of reconnaissance. Get in, look and depart without upsetting the opposition being quiet, low silhouette even the 4 x 2 Mk I. they were quiet when running with reasonable cross-country performance and lower silhouette compared to the Mk II. Bouncy over undulating ground used by forward air-controllers often with the turret removed. Never issued to the Home Guard and a white star on the side of a vehicle during WW-2 is not an indicator the vehicle is in use by American forces – it is an Allied Star. Used by the Army – RAF and apparently the US-AAF

its also a righthand drive tank so probably a wana-be tank

responsive - good power to weigh when towing or pushing - quick - nice vehicle - there was never any time or monies allocated to look after it

expensive tank's

drove it a few times when it required moving

The recovery 55 when it arrived at Duxford the drivers instrument panel had been chopped out

just love the engineering and tooling really good solid workmanship

The Daimler Mk-1 shown is just after its arrival at Duxford Summer of 74. It came from storage complete except for the stock and trigger for the main armament. Its interior everything was painted silver drivers instruments included but came to life after a few hours of TLC a tyre change and was and suppose still would be a lovely drive. This vehicle is mentioned in a Daimler web page as being recovered from the ranges as a wreck and the author states was rebuilt at Duxford. It never was a wreck and never a ground up restoration even though it has had several repaints/reworks in it time with the museum and one of my all-time favourite vehicles to drive and crew

When free site transport was available on site the LWH often toped the customer satisfaction questionnaire on leaving site. That was before the LWH was closed for extended periods of the year due to a number of reasons one being staffing levels and cleaning of facilities. Also what was the thinking behind designing the AAM a structure to house aircraft requiring the whole glazed frontage to be removed to allow movement of exhibits that didn't pass through the double doors. yes it won awards became listed and is totally impractical and out of keeping with the site.

Duxford Airfield always has and always will be an ever-evolving assemblage of objects. The history of Duxford airfield/landing ground is well documented coming into the guise of a museum by a roundabout route in the early seventies. Artifacts held by the museum on all sites are noted on a list along with the reason the museum holds them. How and when obtained I believe with a rating as to there desirability and relevance to the core collection. As mentioned, Duxford is ever evolving often driven by the key personnel within the museum at the time driven by strategies emanating in London. What ever the trend set by London Duxford and other museum sites within the grouping follow. Items at the fore are removed, Duxford has a long list of gifted items that appear to have slipped into obscurity occasionally emerging in other collections/ownership. When an artifact is gifted to the museum ownership is totally the museums to do with as they want, the only safeguard a politician who’s desk the piece of paper crosses for signature authorising disposal, a pure formality. Yes, the demolition consent on the Land Warfare Hall is still active as are the plans for the building next to the road and I would suggest the American Air Museum might be a candidate in the effort to return Duxford to a 1940’s feel. It’s the museums site they can do as they wish with their toys.

Think this is a Vickers Valentia Troop Transport into service 1933/4 serving into 1943-ish - bet the pilots were pleased to be flying such a machine

Sorry didn't say the above pic's taken at Duxford a long time ago

The B/W photo taken during the making of the film Men of Orange some time in the seventies the plexiglass dome a stage prop. The artillery piece a 21-cm Krupp's cannon usually transported in two sections taken just before a show also seventies. The barrel on its own set of wheels while the carriage forms another load for I think two 18-ton half tracks.

If its humble pie time on my part for being forthright in my comments, then I’m happy to oblige. Vehicle colours are always open to interpretation when the guide to a colour is a description. I as I suspect other contributors to this debate have their own reference to authentic colours and I’m always happy to learn but what is SCCS-1A or SCCS-2 below is part of the descriptions I have including SCCS-4 for interest. STANDARD CAMOUFLAGE COLOUR SHADES 1A (dark brown almost black) Description: Colour a deep rich brown appearing black in some applications. Medium contrast with Standard Camouflage Colour Shades 2, Standard Camouflage Colour Shades 14 Black was used as an alternative colour. In use: 1941 to 45 as disruptive over the base colour in Military Training Pamphlets 20 and Military Training Pamphlets 46/4A schemes. Used from 1942 in ME Command patterns as an alternative dark shade. STANDARD CAMOUFLAGE COLOUR SHADES 2 (Khaki brown / service drab) Description: Rich dark brown with a slight hint of ‘khaki’. In use: 1941 to 45 a basic colour Standard Camouflage Colour Shades 1A otherwise known as Standard Camouflage Colour Shades 14. STANDARD CAMOUFLAGE COLOUR SHADES 4 Description: Dull medium earth colour “dark earth” the R.A.F. colour “dark earth” is lighter more yellow. In use: Occasionally 1942 to 44 as a tone in conjunction with Standard Camouflage Colour Shades 2. I always enjoy chatting people at shows, you never know what you’ll learn when you have an open mind. Sadly, some owners actively discourage conversation but most once asked the question positively gushing with knowledge about and enthusiasm for their vehicle. I’d put Mr Corbin in the latter category, attached are some old photos of I believe his vehicles.

Where this thread going as it appears to be a few digs at someone who restored two vehicles. Firstly, at the top is copy of an article praising the fact that the original owner restored the Fordson WOT-1 Fire Crash Tender to running condition before criticising the colour scheme. It is a unique vehicle finished in the colours suggested I believe by the people at Hendon, now those colours are disputed why. Because it doesn’t match an opinion. Lower down its mentioned that for a greater period of the war British military vehicles were brown not green. That I understand was due in some part to the chemicals required to produce green paint being in short supply. So, browns became the chosen colours until the agent required became available again and green ascended (just mention I have done 3-vehicles in browns). With the declaration of war an order went out requiring Royal Air Force vehicle be camouflaged. As no paint other than what had been supplied for camouflaging buildings being available, that is what was used a water-based emulsion. I’ve not seen that scheme applied to a preserved vehicle and if it was what would the comments be. As far as I can ascertain out of the thirty or so colours listed in M.T.P’s there are very few with British Standard colour designations. Accept the vehicle is correct as variations to colour occur. The colour on this vehicle I understand taken by matching panels not subject to daylight so not degraded when matching paint. The scheme is right for that vehicle as research happened. Regarding the WOT-3 tructor again unique vehicle if it’s of interest search on here for the rebuild. Really worth the search and shows the lengths the owner has gone to achieve what you see. So why comment that the scheme displayed today is different to of 77 years ago.

How's the back, last time I saw you you were having trouble with it -

A mildly interesting topic and one that has me wishing to see the original article. I remember the vehicle in question when the then owner had it running at one of the initial Duxford Military Vehicle shows before he restored it. The vehicle has I believe won several awards, is a unique example of the type and I think finished exactly as it would have appeared at its time of manufacture. I find it frustrating that critics come forward offering a copy of text taken from a document of the period in question offering it as the gold standard. Forgetting it is no more than a piece of paper containing an objective not definitive. Colours applied to any vehicle are subject to such basic vagaries as ambient temperature at the time of application. The humidity at the time of application also the method of application used, paint brush or spray gun all influence the final colour. I too have several Military Training Pamphlets including the one mentioned above what is noticeable there are very few British Standard colours mentioned non appertaining to the colours or scheme mention above. The War Office issued directives about all aspects of the conduct of the war including vehicle camouflage and the colours required to conform to that requirement. What was desired and what was acceptable in substitution it was not scientific but practical expedient often the decision as to colour in the Army left at the C.O’s discretion likewise the R.A.F the station commander had the final say if Group had not approved. Knowing other restorations completed by the guy who restored the WOT-1 Fire Truck. I doubt very much he has the colours wrong as I’m sure he did his research. As a note to this I along with two friends restored a Scammell, that Scammell now resides in a national museum when we along with the keeper of exhibits went to paint the vehicle the colours chosen by the museum was by eye off a colour chart so accept a differing opinion. I am surprised the magazine who ran the original article found they had space to publish such a prejudiced opinion.

Nice to hear of another Ford (Model) GTB going into preservation If you’re unsure what version you have and there’s no rear body then take a look after the break master cylinder. Is there a Hydro-Vac-Unit if yes, it’s a cargo body version if not are there helper springs on the rea axle then it’s a Bomb Service Truck? If you have both then possibly a Wrecker. The first GTB’s were single wheels all round with 3-prototypes built one being reworked into Navy Specification twin rear wheels and the first with winch. GTB – S general service with and without winch GTB – A bomb service truck with and without winch GTB – B wrecker with winch Total 15,274 all models Interesting you mention positive ground I thought that should be negative ground attached to 120-ahr battery mind you the fuel tank on a GS is quite flat mounted outside of the right had frame while a bomb service truck is mounted centrally between the frames – enjoy your GTB they are fun to drive

Looking good

Yes we had been told what was about to happen - I'm told the Jeep was a Hotchkiss with a quick paint job a few extras and plenty of rote in-it I think a Ford Escort lump under the hood - appeared to drive ok and looked the part - but the stunned silence was amazing - wish I'd taken more photos of those around the arena -

Hi Adrian, thought you might recognise your APC in the background. Thanks for the date I knew it was early ninety something now I can date the rest of the photos in that series

War and Peace at the Hope Farm several decades ago when it all went quiet around the arena as spectators didn't believe what they had just witnessed priceless

The trailer shown is a F.V.2401 Trailer 1-ton 2-Wheel with a box body suitable for a variety of uses produced from the early Fifties onwards. That type of body or similar is shown (at the head of this thread) fitted to a CMP (Chevrolet) C-15-A with a No-12 cab fitted produced 1940-41. This cab followed on from the very similar No-11 also known as the alligator cab used on the first CMP Cab-over-Engine designs before the more usual and spacious No-13 cab entered production I think late 1941 onwards. Whatever the origins of the vehicle show at the head of this thread are it is an interesting vehicle and well-presented but not 1938 as described

I have a copy of Military Training Pamphlet No 74 Rafting and Bridging that list Army and RAF vehicle types along with their bridging classifications - the pamphlet is dated April 1944 so covers vehicle types used in northern Europe - while Chevrolet C-15A's are mentioned they only refer to vehicles used by the Army - RAF Chevrolet types are confined to 4x2 3-ton-GS this list may have omissions and I am unable to find any WW-2 era photos of Cheves in RAF use in NW-Europe - if type correct for the RAF the roundel is most likely hand painted roughly on the side of the rear body with its reg/census number on the front bumper and at the back with the type designation on the left hand side of the body in white - the vehicle is very unlikely to be blue in colour - the manufacture date of 1938 is odd - the first contract number I can find on the Chilwell list for wireless telegraphy House bodied Chevrolets 30-cwt 4x4's lorries is L-4952859 to 4953033 Contract number SM-2567