Baz48

3 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

This Ford Van photo i have attached dates from very early in WW2 and appears to be the same Ford model circa 1937 as shown in the example above from 1944. There is no doubt this Van in the photo I have attached is in shiney RAF Blue Grey with Gloss Black mudguards so typical of prewar commercial vehicles, not just from Ford (plus the white edging typical of the period on vehicles of this colour scheme). If this vehicle was left totally unwashed and remained in its original scheme for four years I guess all of it would look completely dull and matt (like the wife's unwashed car). So why in the Ford Van above from 1944 are the mudguards still shiney. would the driver have bulled them only? Possible but strange.

If the Ford Van in use in 1944 was still RAF Blue that would be against RAF AMOs. If it was painted in SCC.2 Brown and still with Gloss Black mudguards that would be weard but more in keeping with AMOs that requested camo on all RAF vehicles.

Whether or not the '1944 Van' vehicle is dirty RAF Blue Grey or SCC.2 it is very convenient for the stain on the side panel to so perfectly follow the edging so commonly applied to RAF and British Army vehicles that had matt black or dark brown on the upper surfaces. If the photo was taken after it had just rained I might accept rainwater stains but it looks to be dry.

Without wishing to appear awkward or disrespectful of someone's opinion, it is just that an opinion my opinion the vehicle has marks on the flank in the reign one might reasonably expect to find such items as a billboard or pasted on advertisement say in aid of recruitment my speculation. The marks are doubtful of any attempt of camouflage as it would apply to the whole vehicle not just to an indent in the side panel especially as the rest or what can be seen is a very well cared for shiny vehicle bonnet/hood windscreen/windshield surround and roof line. As to why it’s not complying with AMO-whatever again speculation, interesting period photo of a vehicle type that doesn’t show up in a copy of RAF-vehicles I have published in 44, I’m always interested in period photos of Air force vehicles I think they are under represented  

Interesting topic as we have a pair of Ford Jeeps under restoration and the subject of markings British or US occurs from time to time. The Census number on the bonnet/hood M-5157011 is from the range 5155534 to 5158535 contract number QM-11424 if a Ford or QM-11423 if a Willys product, or so the Chilwell list suggests. The B/W casualty evacuation M-5473422 is from Contract SM-2275 as regards all US-Equipment supplied to Norway at the end of hostilities being from US-Surplus not UK is interesting I know of a Jimmy from Norway that carries a plaque stating it was refurbished by Rootes at Kew I believe Ex-UK war stock, sorry no photo to share  

On 9/20/2018 at 8:10 PM, LarryH57 said:

Here is a problem photo. This Ford Signals D/F van relates to a story of a Halifax in 1944, that was in need of some direction finding assistance but sadly crashed. The RAF Type number confirms it was taken after January 1944 when Type Numbers were introduced. It has traces of camo behind the passenger window, as if the roof is black or dark brown over SCC.2 brown - and yet the mudguards are left in gloss!

A a variety of Ford vehicles were delivered to the RAF pre-war, in RAF Blue Grey with Gloss Black mudguards, such as the Fordson Sussex Balloon Winches and vans like this. However vehicles from other manufacturers were delivered in a single Blue-Grey colour scheme which subsequently got over painted with camo. So why was Ford allowed to deviate from the order, and why did Gloss Black mudguards hang around when the rest of the vehicle was camo? Was the Gloss paint hard to paint over?

 

I'm not sure the vehicle in the photo is camouflaged, yes it has shiny wings and dull bodywork with nothing to suggest the colour definition along the van panelling is anything other than stains. Headlamps suggest wartime as others previously stated TYPE 1500 equates to a 15-cwt class of van used 44 onwards Interesting photo with clear markings plus a happy airman. What the colours of the vehicle are is speculative guesswork at best   

The workshop body at Duxford I think first featured as part of to me a very atmospheric Dawn Patrol tableau with the Bristol F2b Fighter and the R.E.8 along with animated dummies dialog music and sound effects bird song explosions and lighting effects plus sparks off of the grinding wheel out from the workshop. All viewed as from the inside of a shattered building broken window and all. Early eights or there about in the Hanger adjacent the vehicle ramp over to the North side of the site, happy days, regards the body being a modified railway wagon, not heard that while I was there appears a little narrow for railway use but it’s a wooden structure so why-not       

I maybe wrong but I believe there is a WW-1 RFC workshop body with equipment held at IWM-Duxford

With the top removed the internal space for an asbestos suited fire person to stand as there is insufficient space for one of the period to sit plus equipment would be minimal - I have an issue with the word dash appertaining to a Morris Armoured Car  as they are not in the same league as either Daimler offering or a Humbber af far as acceleration, top speed or cross country performance - but you could be right

The thought of a Morris Armoured Car being used as a crash tender is an interesting one given the driving position its limited internal and external stowage a lack of get-up-and-go not to mention lack of an effective shock absorbers they wallow in a quite interesting way reminiscent of being at sea in a swell just what’s required while going after an aviator in billy-do – mind you I like them fun to drive and interesting to work on

47 minutes ago, Old Git said:

 

Found it, but now questioning the date. Maybe post-war?

The yellow blob certainly looks like a  Morris Mk I or Mk II the trailer possibly a 2-wheel 8-berth Personnel modified for use as a flying control van for a gliding school but I'm guessing. I remember Bedford MW's painted yellow at Martlesham Heath along with a trailer similar to the one shown besides one possibly two open top Standard Beveretts used for retrieving wayward Gliders and cable pulling duties early fifties as I watched my older brother gain his wings, sorry no photos.

17 hours ago, MatchFuzee said:

Not real proof but.

Scale model "Follow Me" Jeeps:-

http://www.militarydiecast.com/viewmodel.php?id=4713

http://www.sagerssoldiers.com/raf32-02-raf-jeep-follow-me-by-ready4action/

 

A post war one:-

 

 

 

 

The Fighter Collection Jeep (Last photo on row 4):-

https://hiveminer.com/Tags/generalpurpose%2Cjeep

 

Interesting markings postwar Reg 69 AV 48 with a bridging classification of 3 over 2 when Appendix D RAF Vehicles gives this type of vehicle as Ford-Willys (covering all the options)  Type MB 4 X 4   5-cwt "Blitz Buggy" with a bridging classification as 1 - certainly stand out I'm sure theres a photo somewhere of one in service painted just like it

Just out of interest the book said-?? Bedford OY water tankers came as 350-gal and 500-gal capacity tanks by Butterfields single filling port midway along the spine of the tank. Both types used by the Army while the smaller 350-gal type R.A.F. use. The 800-gal petrol tanker in two compartment tank two filling ports along the spine apparently Army issue only. There are a number of each type around  

9 minutes ago, wally dugan said:

There cannot be many families in this country that have not suffered loss in past conflicts  that is history it is what has shaped us all wether it is right to portray a aspect is down to the individual to judge

Quite – it is pointless sanitizing history – if you do then nothing is learned – understand people have a choice and in the U.K for the moment we are permitted to exercise our choices within statute – I do not and never have wanted to portray a member of the armed forces or put on a uniform yet I restore ex military vehicles and have done since the late sixties – we have choice allow others to make there’s

Recollections of the Dorchester at IWM Duxford have the crew compartment as 4 individual sections one each for driver and Co-driver centre office section and a rear office section with communication hatches between each as well as sliding roof lights with sliding armoured covers and interesting to drive with limited visability

It would be a talking point and you have a photo of one in theater but the one in the background appears normal i.e dark in tone - if you paint it like the photo and your not too impressed when finished you can always say it seemed like a good idea at the time - enjoy 

Possibly the aircraft behind the subject Mosquito could be a Bristol Brigand inservice dates are about right or possibly its not an RAF type at all could be French or Italian I don't have the tallant others do of perceiving exact colors from monochrom photos 

eight-ish out of ten for the show - two out of ten for owners of exhibits who park them back on the the road thouse with civi type tents against the road with an old ripped parachute sort of hiding the fact they havant a ex-military one and you are not supposed to notice the car besides the tent - you know the ones who sit around not interested in answering questions should anyone ask about their vehicle -  I know there on holiday not actually attending a show who's visitors may like to ask a question out of pure interest - same again next year

16 hours ago, Bob Grundy said:

 

Sorry no - not a type I knew so did a search on google and that picture appeared - regards what goes here - is there any indication of a cover/doors across the back I would think it unlikely the back was left open to the element - equipment apart from hose and flange fittings possibly funnels for filling containers and measuring containers possibly an earthling lead – whatever an interesting lorry

A delightful lorry I'm assuming this is a photo of it in a previous ownership

While going through some boxes a friend came across this an Aero Screen frame off of a Bedford MW. What struck me is the width of the frame 5/8 open-ended spanner is there for reference being much narrower than those aero-screen MW’s out there. Does this mean there were two frame sizes  anyone know

1 hour ago, LarryH57 said:

There must be something else we can discuss concerning WPR, without moaning too much.

How about making the Medway Field the centre of the show for vehicles and green camping and have a very large arena.

Also let the re-enactors have a bit more space in Medway around the edges so as not to be one group on top of another?

Yep I like a moan went without expectation two visits over the week as mentioned before caught sight of one jobsworth only enjoyed both days no idea where medway or america field where don't recall seeing any signage for them just enjoyed the walk 

28 minutes ago, k2lofty said:

This would have come of the production line Green,  when camouflage paint was added, would that be applied to the inside of the cab, front axle etc, I think not,    All K2Y Ambulances were green, and if painted sand, surely only surfaces visible to the enemy would receive attention,  A big problem now when restoring such a vehicle is,  you would to have to do the unthinkable and finish in green and then RUSH a coat of required camouflage colour, either brush or spray, no masking (perhaps a bit of card and a well painted hand if blowing it on) and that its. That's NOT something anyone could to bring themselves to do, so I guess TOTAL authenticity will never again be seen. Well that's the way I see it

The contract date is stated as April 1940 manufactured date could be anytime after that in some cases a year or more after issue, film and anecdotal evidence backs the above comment regarding the underside of the chassis inside the cab and  engine bay being left in the colour it was when it arrived in theater, as was the case when my late father arrived in Egypt 41 with there AEC Matadors all areas on the outside and above painted sand inside left Brown - still it looks nice so who cares about authenticity 

34 minutes ago, Pzkpfw-e said:

Since there are Willy's Jeeps on there, for up to £25k, then I suppose it's not that much. 

Asking price and price sold at are two totally different things there are several vehicles up-for sale on Milweb again that did not reach the asking price first time around or second and in some cases almost annually. Realistic with the price and it will go or am I correct in my assumption some vehicles are done purely for the financial gain

Just noticed the asking price for this vehicle very deep pockets £22.500 an eye watering amount 

I'm not saying this is gospel but heard somewhere the US-Marines WW-2 used/modified US-standard "jerry-can" with a flip top spout of the German/British type as did the French post war - picked one up recently

I admire your ambition and possibly contact the National Army Museum via their website and see if they can assist through their archives 

As with all shows there are those who gripe continually and always will whatever the organiser do won’t satisfy those who are looking to find fault. To some the show will never be as good as it was in the old days when whoever you like was running it. For me it would be back before any W&P back to the show at Tenterden and its preserved railway along with a friendly informality but things develop, move on, evolve, and grow into what W&P has become. I’m not a fan of job’s worth’s who perpetuate petty officialdom found them at every show and W&P I’ve been to exhibiting or visitor they were there only this year only witness one in action while a vehicle was being booked in.  As for stall’s I/we tend to get our spares whatever by contacts built over the years as well as off the net seldom by chance off a stall at a show. But I’m always looking and occasionally pick something up as I did this year, as others had done on the same stall only the stall holder was much to intent on a mobile phone conversation about fixed speed cameras, momentarily stopping talking to tell those of us waiting to pay he had a call and moved away so he could hear continuing say he wasn’t doing anything special at that moment. What I’d chosen from his assorted bits I left on the seat of the chair he’d just vacated as others who’d been waiting longer than I had done. The guy’s we know on the stalls all said the same, yes they paid a lot for the spot and people were looking but few buying. I enjoyed the show the two days there, meet friends I’d not seen in a while, put the world to rights, bemoaned the passing of the good old days when ex military vehicle could be bought for sensible monies such as the Dodge I bought for thirty quid and wishing I still had it along with any one of my QL’s, Dingo, Munga, K6, K9, Mk-1 432 with fully equipped Peak turret. Those were the days  as these are the days of someone else’s youth enjoy it and move on to next year and many of the comments on here now will reappear then .