AEC armoured cars

[BlueBelle]

The 44 on the RAC flash relates to the period the 13/18H were the RAC AC regiment for 11 Armd Bde (black bull, yellow background formation mark) from which the regiment departed and went into 1 BR Corps with a 131 flash number. Methinks.

[10FM68]

15 hours ago, BlueBelle said:

The 44 on the RAC flash relates to the period the 13/18H were the RAC AC regiment for 11 Armd Bde (black bull, yellow background formation mark) from which the regiment departed and went into 1 BR Corps with a 131 flash number. Methinks.

I don't know, it's all very confusing.  The photo of 13/18H DSC shows the correct 46 on red/yellow with the 11 Armd Div sign.  A separate photo shows a DSC of the same unit with a 44 on Red/Yellow with the 1 Corps fmn sign and another with 131 on red/yellow with the 1 Corps Fmn sign.  So, it seems that, while with 1 Corps 13/18H had both 44 (correct) and 131 (dunno) on their AOS signs.  The thing is, although I have pages of AOS signs and numbers, I still come across oddities:  12 Engr Gp (Airfds) in the 1970s was using 175 for example which also doesn't appear in Staff Duties in the Field.  I don't suppose we shall ever know.  In those days publications such as Staff Duties in the Field used to get dozens of amendments, many of which required individual lines to be cut out and pasted over the originals while others could be amended with a pen or by substituting individual pages.  I know from experience that many units never bothered (I took over the job of updating a sub unit's publications once and I never got to the bottom of it - there were hundreds of pubs with many copies of each and thousands of amendments - I could only do what I judged to be the most important.)  Also, one cannot rely on book captions - in the book I've been using: The RAC in the Cold War, there are many errors.  And, finally, units didn't always do as they were told, or, if they did, may have taken some time to do so or got the order wrong.  So there are many variables!

[fv1609]

2 hours ago, 10FM68 said:

In those days publications such as Staff Duties in the Field used to get dozens of amendments, many of which required individual lines to be cut out and pasted over the originals while others could be amended with a pen or by substituting individual pages.  I know from experience that many units never bothered (I took over the job of updating a sub unit's publications once and I never got to the bottom of it - there were hundreds of pubs with many copies of each and thousands of amendments - I could only do what I judged to be the most important.) 

With you on that, which is why I have 8 editions & all of them different! Apart from changes to the main sections, there were a series of Appendices from A to K. Some of these were amended & sometimes displaced by an entirely different topic. To add to the confusion in 1951 all Appendices were re-designated as Annexes. Then new titles for Appendices were added to chapters of the main text with some of these Appendices acquiring their own Annexes.

[Fleet103]

This may all be a little late in the day to answer the original post, but I can clarify the use of the post War AEC ACV (FV 11061). My first posting as a young soldier was to HQ 1^st (British) Corps based in Bielefeld, Germany; this was in 1971. The HQ – when deployed into the field – was a vast arrangement of Bedford RL Office Trucks, tentage, Land Rovers and with an ACV at Main HQ and at Step Up HQ. To try and make this simple, in the interests of survivability and dispersion, the HQ was split into 3 components: “Main” – the principal HQ which would fight the battle, “Step Up” which was a duplicate of Main, and “Rear”, which dealt with all administrative and logistic aspects. Main and Step Up would be separated by say, around 20 miles or so, while Rear would be stationed further back, literally in the rear, but this was due to its responsibilities as opposed to any status-dilution.

It follows that Main and Step Up would alternate according to the tempo of battle, staff duties and planning; command would be “passed” in the then parlance and Step-Up would become Main, and Main relegate to Step Up – I hope that’s clear!

The 2 ACVs were on charge to 14 Sqn RCT which was the supporting transport squadron to Corps HQ.

Apparently only 3 of these vehicles were built, and I suspect the 3^rd was on trial with a Divisional HQ.

During my time there I witnessed the transition of paint schemes from Deep Bronze Green to the matt black and green scheme.

I hope this helps fill in some gaps somewhere along the line.

 

 

[Fleet103]

I'm not too sure if I've attached the images correctly; anyway, I thought someone might be inetersted in these 2 x views of the beast.

[10FM68]

Thank you for that Fleet103, that is really interesting and I am very pleased to have learned it.  I have never understood why the British Army were so keen to abandon large, wheeled ACVs after all their experiences in WW2.  The danger from shelling and air attack had we gone to war with the Soviets would have been every bit as heavy and effective as that  we experienced in NW Europe after D Day, but without the guarantee of air superiority.  I spent quite a bit of time in various HQ in the field in Germany, mostly working from a canvas 12x12 or from the back of an entirely inadequate FV432 with no room to work, think or do anything else.  And, of course, if there had been a chemical attack all the canvas would have been burned anyway.  The argument was, I understand that, in war, we would have taken over buildings and so not needed to work from vehicles or tents at all.  Still, large purpose-built ACVs would have had their place I am sure.  I would be interested to know when the last of the wartime 6x6 ACVs and the 4x4 Dorchesters were withdrawn from use.  Certainly the former were still about in the 50s though I don't know how long the Dorchesters lasted.  Anyway, once again, many thanks for your contribution - fascinating.

[Fleet103]

 

I suppose I was lucky – from a general interest point of view perhaps – in that I served at every level of formation HQ from Brigade through to Army Group. 

I too recall the cramped working conditions of the inevitable FV 432 and canvas combo; I never quite understood why we never invested in say, a Brit version of the US M577 (the M113 with raised sides); it wouldn’t have killed the designers to have had a go at that surely? The ability to stand would have paid off in spades I’m sure when it came to well, just plain comfort let alone ergonomics. 

I too was surprised at the disappearance of the wheeled ACVs; as I reported we had 2 – Main and Rear HQs, and that was that. I believe the designers envisaged far more in an HQ complex but for whatever reason, that never came off; as you identify, Soviet artillery let alone rocket launchers would have made short work of the soft-skinned office trucks, which provided the main equipment of the staff complexes in Corps HQ. The ACV was in fact the habitat of the Corps Commander; all the staff complexes were referred to as “Diamonds”; the Commander was in Diamond 2 (Diamond 1, I think, was his personal quarters and possibly senior officers’ Mess). In addition to the ACV there were around half a dozen Bedford RL office trucks, for the staff functions of Ops, Plans, Int, and possibly a Nuclear Ops/Plans – I can’t quite remember. I was ensconced in a Land Rover/9 x9 set up as part of the G Security Staff branch. The old tradition staff branches of G, A and Q were then the norm. use was made of both the extended tent sides on the vehicles (normally the domain of the respective clerks) and the sealed doors on the ACV to connect the staff functions. I seem to recall a sort of metal mesh platform facilitating the location and access to the various vehicles.

We did sometimes ensconce ourselves in German villages or disused factory complexes, but were more often dispersed somewhere in the depths of the Teutoburger forest in the Detmold area.

 The whole was encircled by Dannert wire and patrolled by members of the Mixed Services Organisations. Other Diamonds, not too far away but around say 500m or so, were all numbered to whatever SOP was in vogue; I never even saw such a volume but then I was a young private soldier and no one told me very much at all; in fact, my confusion and mystification about it all was paramount, which is why I probably remember so much – or at least the overarching ignorance of what was expected of me(!) However, other Diamonds, of similar set up but sans any ACV of course, were Arty, Engrs, Armr etc, all reflecting the Staff branches of the peacetime set-up in Bielefeld.

Incidentally, the ACV was referred to as “The Pig”; this nomenclature was nothing to do with the Humber 1T armoured truck. When I asked one of the drivers why it was so called, he simply replied “Because it’s a pig to drive”. Therein perhaps, was a clue to the vehicle’s disappearance, it might have been as simple as the supporting transport squadron not liking it very much. I wonder....

 

 

 

 

[10FM68]

Again, many thanks for that interesting recollection.  I had quite forgotten about the 'diamonds'!  It sometimes seems we lost so much that had been built on the hard experience of WWII, not least the G, A & Q branches, which, I must admit, to a young soldier were a bit confusing!  Quite who, or what a DAA&QMG was, was a complete mystery!  I did like the obvious titles, though like BOWO, CRA, CREME and so on.  Things are even worse now, with the army's adoption of US-inspired jargon - just a glance at the Army website nowadays, is utterly baffling with everyone seemingly running around 'delivering capability' all over the place.  And quite why brigades have to be brigade combat teams, I have no idea - surely a brigade is, by its very nature a combat team - if it isn't, it isn't doing its job! But, thanks again for those pictures - the first I have ever seen of the ACVs actually in use - otherwise, I think, I've only seen the FVRDE photo of the prototype.

[Fleet103]

I suppose that in my trade of Staff Clerk RAOC, the arcane designations in the Staff world became, quite early on, second nature to me, so the many iterations of confounding titles soon fell into place, but that was primarily because I wanted to learn; it was, after all, my first posting, and as an ex Junior Leader (remember them?) I was keen to make my mark.

“BOWO” always caused me some amusement, though never to the incumbent’s face; and as my postings changed I recall a DOWO, and even a FOWO. Others took a bit of work such as “SC(A) Disc” (Staff Captain Adjutant General’s Branch – Discipline), or “DADOS” (Deputy Assistant Director Ordnance Services). As I say, it all fell into place relatively easily. In my first posting I was assigned to G Branch – albeit the “Security” bit of it; I noticed that amongst my peer trade group, those in G Branch considered themselves to be better than those lesser mortals in A or Q, which I suppose is no bad thing for young soldiers to feel! 

I have to say that I too feel the Army has lost its way to no small degree, although this has been going on for years; I too deplore the adoption of so many Americanisms, but this has been largely down to the predations of a particular CGS, who embraced all things US, to the point where we now, to my mind, laughably, even have an Army Sergeant Major – absolutely risible – in my opinion of course; but then, for the past couple of decades we’ve endured some pretty mediocre CGS’. However, I’m sure this isn’t really the site to let off my fears over the Army, suffice to say perhaps, we are now so muddled that we have bastardized the old maxim “The Army recruits from society” to “The Army must reflect society” and have reaped the whirlwind accordingly, with all the adoption of the social mores of a weak civilian ethos now prevailing at every level.

Rant over(!) 

I’ve been giving some thought to the question of the use of the 6 wheeled AEC ACVS, which was the second question when this thread began; I know that at Div HQ in WW2 there were at least 5 ACVs (as described in Kenneth Macksey’s “Battle”). Whether or not these were the Dorchester type or the latter 6 wheeled versions I don’t quite know. I suspect that the Dorchesters faded from view, especially post-war as the larger 6 wheelers would have been perceived simply as better (and roomier of course). The formation HQs would still have been a mix of ACV and BBV.

Rooting around several R SIGNALS websites (and others), I’ve discovered that the 6x6 versions certainly seem to have been employed at both Brigade and Div-level HQs, (supported by a Sig Sqn and Sig Regt respectively as I'm sure is known). Here is an image from a Bde HQ in 1953 and an image from the National Army Museum showing a vehicle from a Div HQ. The text from the latter cites that the 6x6 was in use until 1959, which feels about right. I hope this is of interest even if not a defining result. The Div HQ vehicle was assigned to the CRE, according to the text.

 

 

[10FM68]

Quite funny actually, as I too was on a rant and had to edit what I had originally written rather extensively!  I certainly agree about the army sergeant major!

But, thank you for the date of 1959 for the earlier 6x6 AEC ACVs - I hadn't got that, though I do have those photos you have posted.  I understand, though, that the 6x6s had less headroom than the Dorchesters which were so named because they were thought as roomy as rooms at the Dorchester Hotel!  Whether that is true or not, I don't know.  Apparently, Dorchesters were also used as RE demolitions vehicles and I wonder whether this is one given its AOS marking on a plain background suggesting it belongs to a Sapper field park company (see below photo of 6 Armd Div and 42 AOS marking).  There are one or two others floating around on the internet.  I don't know who to credit for these pictures but the Canadian pair (with the Dorchester in the background, probably came from Maple Leaf Up.  As I said, I am very interested in the 1950s and what WWII vehicles were still in service then so I collect as many photos as I can of that period.  Sadly, there is a dearth of photos taken in the Far East which might have some interesting Dodge WC series in British service in them as well.  But now I am wandering off thread!  I wonder whether the '1026' number on the mudguard of the Canadian one is the unit identity number which, if I had a list, which, sadly I don't, might enable me to see where it came from.

Edited August 28, 2023 by 10FM68

[john1950]

There was a thread on this forum about a Dorchester being restored.

[Fleet103]

It gets worse (to my mind) – we now have a “Ranger Regiment” in the British Army; I mean, really? 

Anyway, back to vehicles and more confounding. The Dorchester is indeed roomy; I had (an illegal) stomp around the one in the Signals Museum at Blandford a few years ago, albeit briefly. I am surprised that they didn’t soldier on a bit longer; being based on the Matador spares and running expertise would not have been a problem I feel; I recall Matadors still giving good service when I visited 94 Loc Regt RA as a young member of the ACF in, I think, 1968.

However, I note that the 6x6 could field 8 (crew) plus 2 in the front, so perhaps it was preferred because of that, or, perhaps with comms kit conceivably getting smaller, it sort of evolved into a roomier version? And what happened after 1959? Did formation HQs slip effortlessly into the command version of Saracen? If so, it’s not especially well documented that’s for sure. If Corps HQ ever had the 6 x 6s, perhaps they continued with BBVs until the AEC ACV came on the scene in what must have been the late 60s. I consider Corps to be a sort of sui generis in the HQ world as it was so large, but if Saracen was adopted for the Brigades and Divs, then there must be evidence at Blandford, and in a way, there is as I’m sure they have a Saracen ACV amongst their collection; probably time for another visit!

The topmost pic of the 6 x 6 is interesting in that it would seem to confirm the stowage rack as a common fitting (also shown on one of the pics I offered up earlier); I also wonder what “D5” means? To my mind, it indicates that there may have been at least 5 such vehicles in a Div HQ – supposition I admit.

As for the Dorchester with “42” on it, I would suggest that this is the wartime AOS number for a Gunner Field Regiment; why and how they’ve acquired an ACV I don’t quite know. I say this as the serial number has not been replaced by the post war registration numbers (featuring the “Z” for wartime kit), so what I’m suggesting is that this is a wartime pic.

To my (tidy clerical) mind, it would seem logical that the Dorchesters were binned for whatever reason, and replaced by the 6x6 version; as identified earlier on the site there were 150-odd made so that would be enough (with some spare – training?) for most of the Formation HQs we had, and certainly those in BAOR. A Div HQ at that time, I would have thought (more supposition I admit) a vehicle per staff function viz:

1 x Comd

1 x G Int

1 x G Ops

1 x G Air

1 x Plans

1 x CRA

1 x CRE

1 x Chief Signals Officer (CO of Regt/OC of Sqn?) but also perhaps a Cipher function?

SD and Trg branches not included as on deployment the Staff concerned would augment the HQ in general – or be at Step Up.

 So, again in my fantasy, there would need to be some vehicles duplicated at Step Up, so we’re probably talking about 10 or so at the supporting Div HQ Signals regiment? That’s assuming the duplicate HQ/change of command function was applied of course.

The alternative might be that most of the above functions would be undertaken in Box Bodied Vehicles – Bedford QLs then RLs (as I knew at Corps). This is further confounded by a Signaller’s account I came across earlier today when describing his interaction with the 6 x 6:

Above is an AEC Armoured Command Vehicle Signals Centre as used by 6 Armoured Division Signals circa 1953/56, it weighed in at 21 tons and had a 6x6 axle base. Each brigade in the division had one as standard equipment. This particular unit was at HQ 20 Armoured Brigade at Munster and I was its crew chief for 2 years. It carried a crew of ten, crew chief (Sigs Office Supt), driver, switchboard op, ciphers (2), Sigcen (3), base lineman, Fuller phone/wireless operator, a bit crowded even for a pig of this size. It was a 'beast' but could lick along at 45/50 mph, it had to be fast to keep up with the rest of our armour (Centurions). Possibly  Class A (Specialist), I don't know of any outfit that had them, I never saw any at 7 Armoured or 11 Armoured Divs, that was the other two armoured divisions plus 2 Infantry Div that made up 1 Corps in the 50's.

Taken from the BAOR Locations website.

This sort of shoots down my theory! So perhaps there was only 1 x ACV at each Fmn HQ used as a specialist Comms vehicle as described. Bugger! However, it doesn’t really make sense given that there were so many, apparently in good nick, ACVs available.

I suppose all I’m really doing is making the waters muddier.

As to WW2 vehicles in service in the 50s, I agree it’s a fascinating subject. I have seen somewhere, and I’ve been racking my brains, footage of an Alecto in Egypt; I’m sure too I’ve seen images of Dodge vehicles also in Egypt. Also Cromwell tanks used as AOPs alongside Sextons, all bulled up as only the RA can manage. I’ll get searching!

(Thanks for posting the pics)

 

 

 

[fv1609]

Just going through some old photos & thought that this might be of interest.

Appears to be 98 ZR 45, I saw it at Pound's yard in 1992. I think the story at the time that it was going to go to Bovington TM as a project for FoTM, whether it actually got there I don't know.

[Niels v]

3 hours ago, fv1609 said:

Just going through some old photos & thought that this might be of interest.

Appears to be 98 ZR 45, I saw it at Pound's yard in 1992. I think the story at the time that it was going to go to Bovington TM as a project for FoTM, whether it actually got there I don't know.

It went to the Cadmans, and it is currently being restored 

 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Niels v

[10FM68]

On 8/28/2023 at 8:51 PM, Fleet103 said:

It gets worse (to my mind) – we now have a “Ranger Regiment” in the British Army; I mean, really? 

Anyway, back to vehicles and more confounding. The Dorchester is indeed roomy; I had (an illegal) stomp around the one in the Signals Museum at Blandford a few years ago, albeit briefly. I am surprised that they didn’t soldier on a bit longer; being based on the Matador spares and running expertise would not have been a problem I feel; I recall Matadors still giving good service when I visited 94 Loc Regt RA as a young member of the ACF in, I think, 1968.

However, I note that the 6x6 could field 8 (crew) plus 2 in the front, so perhaps it was preferred because of that, or, perhaps with comms kit conceivably getting smaller, it sort of evolved into a roomier version? And what happened after 1959? Did formation HQs slip effortlessly into the command version of Saracen? If so, it’s not especially well documented that’s for sure. If Corps HQ ever had the 6 x 6s, perhaps they continued with BBVs until the AEC ACV came on the scene in what must have been the late 60s. I consider Corps to be a sort of sui generis in the HQ world as it was so large, but if Saracen was adopted for the Brigades and Divs, then there must be evidence at Blandford, and in a way, there is as I’m sure they have a Saracen ACV amongst their collection; probably time for another visit!

The topmost pic of the 6 x 6 is interesting in that it would seem to confirm the stowage rack as a common fitting (also shown on one of the pics I offered up earlier); I also wonder what “D5” means? To my mind, it indicates that there may have been at least 5 such vehicles in a Div HQ – supposition I admit.

As for the Dorchester with “42” on it, I would suggest that this is the wartime AOS number for a Gunner Field Regiment; why and how they’ve acquired an ACV I don’t quite know. I say this as the serial number has not been replaced by the post war registration numbers (featuring the “Z” for wartime kit), so what I’m suggesting is that this is a wartime pic.

To my (tidy clerical) mind, it would seem logical that the Dorchesters were binned for whatever reason, and replaced by the 6x6 version; as identified earlier on the site there were 150-odd made so that would be enough (with some spare – training?) for most of the Formation HQs we had, and certainly those in BAOR. A Div HQ at that time, I would have thought (more supposition I admit) a vehicle per staff function viz:

1 x Comd

1 x G Int

1 x G Ops

1 x G Air

1 x Plans

1 x CRA

1 x CRE

1 x Chief Signals Officer (CO of Regt/OC of Sqn?) but also perhaps a Cipher function?

SD and Trg branches not included as on deployment the Staff concerned would augment the HQ in general – or be at Step Up.

 So, again in my fantasy, there would need to be some vehicles duplicated at Step Up, so we’re probably talking about 10 or so at the supporting Div HQ Signals regiment? That’s assuming the duplicate HQ/change of command function was applied of course.

The alternative might be that most of the above functions would be undertaken in Box Bodied Vehicles – Bedford QLs then RLs (as I knew at Corps). This is further confounded by a Signaller’s account I came across earlier today when describing his interaction with the 6 x 6:

Above is an AEC Armoured Command Vehicle Signals Centre as used by 6 Armoured Division Signals circa 1953/56, it weighed in at 21 tons and had a 6x6 axle base. Each brigade in the division had one as standard equipment. This particular unit was at HQ 20 Armoured Brigade at Munster and I was its crew chief for 2 years. It carried a crew of ten, crew chief (Sigs Office Supt), driver, switchboard op, ciphers (2), Sigcen (3), base lineman, Fuller phone/wireless operator, a bit crowded even for a pig of this size. It was a 'beast' but could lick along at 45/50 mph, it had to be fast to keep up with the rest of our armour (Centurions). Possibly  Class A (Specialist), I don't know of any outfit that had them, I never saw any at 7 Armoured or 11 Armoured Divs, that was the other two armoured divisions plus 2 Infantry Div that made up 1 Corps in the 50's.

Taken from the BAOR Locations website.

This sort of shoots down my theory! So perhaps there was only 1 x ACV at each Fmn HQ used as a specialist Comms vehicle as described. Bugger! However, it doesn’t really make sense given that there were so many, apparently in good nick, ACVs available.

I suppose all I’m really doing is making the waters muddier.

As to WW2 vehicles in service in the 50s, I agree it’s a fascinating subject. I have seen somewhere, and I’ve been racking my brains, footage of an Alecto in Egypt; I’m sure too I’ve seen images of Dodge vehicles also in Egypt. Also Cromwell tanks used as AOPs alongside Sextons, all bulled up as only the RA can manage. I’ll get searching!

(Thanks for posting the pics)

 

 

 

I do apologise for not getting back to you straight away - for some reason I missed this post and only caught up with the thread with the arrival of Clive's this evening.  Having a Ranger Regiment, I suppose is no more daft than having nearly all the infantry in the Rifles, given that they are supposed to be "to the left of the thin red line" - not replacing it!  However...

I think your supposition that divs and bdes adopted Saracen ACVs is a good one and, later, of course, the FV432 became the standard and remained so for many years (may still be for all I know).  By the time I was involved Corps and above were using unarmoured Bedford BBVs.

I would agree with you that, at a Div HQ, those 7 appointments would have been likely to have ACVs as they would have been co-located and may well have been replicated for a step-up.  The R Signals gang would have had quite a sizeable group of vehicles as well and, if ACVs were used by them, and I don't see why they wouldn't have been, then perhaps we're looking at a further 3-6.  There would have been at least one Terminal Equipment Vehicle, a Teleprinter vehicle, a cipher office, Comms Ops, probably and perhaps others.  Of course, some of this may have been done from penthouses, tents and soft-skin vehicles, but, I would have thought that, if the HQ was under armour, then the Comms facilities serving it (and so closely co-located) would also have been.

The note about there being just one at Bde is interesting - mention is made of the R Signals HQ, but, perhaps there was another one or more serving the Bde HQ staff - seems likely that, in the reverse of the logic above, the Bde staff would be under armour if the sigs staff were.

I'll stick with my RE Fd Pk Coy for the 6 Armd Div Dorchester with the AOS number 42 because, a, the sign seems to be of one colour without the split necessary for a red/blue of an RA unit and, b, because it is in such a poor state - that is definitely more Sapper than Gunner, particularly for an HQ vehicle!

I have seen, and collected, a number of post-war photos of RHA units with Comet or Cromwell OP tanks and Sextons and have also seen photos of Alecto in the Middle East.  I think ME-based units had to soldier on with older kit for longer than their BAOR compatriots as all the 1950s/60s photos of WWII-era kit come from there - exceptions certainly being, as you note, the Matadors which I too recall seeing in service in UK probably as late as 1970 (and I have mentioned elsewhere Leyland Hippo 2s still appearing for Ex CRUSADER 80).

There remains a lot more for us to learn about the British Army of the 1950s - it is surprising there is so little about as it isn't really that long ago (at least not as far as most of us on this forum are concerned - stand by for incoming!)

Anyway, thank you again!

 

 

[10FM68]

3 hours ago, fv1609 said:

Just going through some old photos & thought that this might be of interest.

Appears to be 98 ZR 45, I saw it at Pound's yard in 1992. I think the story at the time that it was going to go to Bovington TM as a project for FoTM, whether it actually got there I don't know.

Yes, many thanks for that, Clive, I am certainly very interested.  Giving my favourite hobbyhorse a gallop - what a shame there are so few British vehicles of that period in preservation!  I hope this one sees the light of day in due course (post below noted).  98ZR45 - just 2 away from the 11 Armd Div one in the photo above - 98ZR43.

Edited October 12, 2023 by 10FM68

[Fleet103]

Sorry Folks - only just caught up with these.

FV1609. Great pic - I only hope that Cadman's  - as identified by Niels V - whomsoever they are - but apparently restorers - do it justice. It would be great to see it in the flesh as it were, but I just wonder who or what (museum) would be bothered with it? It would be a great shame for it to be restored but then to languish. That said, one would have thought that the AEC ACV I knew, with only 3 being built, that one would have been worthy of saving, and not just cast to the mercies of the ranges. Shame really.

10FM68. Sadly, I agree that the British Army continues to self-combust; I suppose I'd better not relate as to how I really feel(!)

I feel sure that the Formation HQs of the 50s must have utilized the 6 x 6 ACVs; even given the idiosyncrasies - and even personal whims of Commanders - it must have made tactical and survival sense to utilise a fleet of these vehicles. I take your point about the requirement of extra vehicles for the R Signals - squiggly amp never my strong point.

I've scrutinized my copy of "The British Army in Germany (BAOR & After) - An Organizational History 1947-2004", which perhaps not 100% accurate is all I could find from open sources; I chose 1957-58 and in addition to what I refer to as Corps Troops, there were 4 x Divs: 2 Inf, 4 Inf, 6 Armd,  and 7 Armd, all composed of 3 Brigades each.

If say (loads of supposition here I admit, again) each Div HQ had a Main and a Step-Up, then working to, roughly 12 ACVs at Main and perhaps 6 at the respective Step-Ups, that would require some 72 ACVs; I've cut down some of the Staff functions which could have been in Box-Bodied Vehicles (BBVs) and not really factored in the R Signals efforts - not least as we've only 150-odd to play with. Once I do a similar computation with the 12 x Brigade HQs, even working to a greatly reduced number of say, 5 vehicles at Main, and perhaps only 2 at Step-Up, then there simply aren't enough ACVs to go round!

However, I am sure that given the differing type of Divisions, some of the HQs would conceivably have been a mixture of soft-skinned vehicles and tentage, nary an ACV in sight eg the Infantry Divs. Ditto, in a way in the Brigade HQs. So, perhaps the Armoured CVs were only allocated to the Armoured HQs - which would make a bit more sense I feel. it would replicate that I encountered in the mid 80s, when at 1st Infantry Brigade (which had the UKMF role); we were all based on Land Rovers and tentage (as was 3 (UK) Div when at Bulford in the early 70s), whereby in BAOR, of course, our opposite numbers were under armour (432 series).

Anyway, this is all really fantasy island really, though I've tried to apply a certain logic(!) As you point out, there's an awful lot we don't seem to know about the 50s, and even the 60s, especially regarding Command and Control.

Incidentally, I am also a keen military modeller - labouring mostly in Cold War subjects in 1:35 scale; however, last year I began a model of Corps Main (in the wargaming scale of 1:300 - and "Yes" I nearly did go blind) . I just wanted to try and replicate the layout of the Diamonds, and not least a model of the Commander's ACV. it's just about completed though I need to add a few more figures and an extra helicopter. The spacings are an artificiality as even in this relatively tiny scale, I had to compress distances. I appreciate this might be the wrong part of the forum to do so but here's a brief overview (I've a few more than just the one but I don't wish to ruffle any feathers/site protocols). For what it's worth then, Corps Main (if I can remember how to attach pics):

I've remembered where I found lots of images from the 50s; it's on the very comprehensive site offered up by the Farndale family; enjoy:

farndalefamily.co.uk/Individuals from 1922/FAR00911 - Martin Baker Farndale.htm

 

 

 

 

[10FM68]

This one is my thread, so no danger of ruffled feathers here!  Trying to work out the organisation of HQ within 1(BR) Corps at any particular time is fraught with difficulties because nothing stayed the same for 5 minutes!  Equipping the Corps must have been a logistician's nightmare - just keeping up with the changes and working out which unit got what!

The number of vehicles deployed in even the smallest formation HQ is surprising - apart, of course, from the staff branches the signals requirement is huge and there also needs to be the admin & catering staff and the GS vehicles for 'staff movers' - contractor-owned coaches nowadays I expect - a 4 tonner is no good, too few seats!  I have posted these photos before I think - but they show part of HQ 19 Inf Bde on exercise in Germany in autumn 1983.  Photo 2 is Bde TAC HQ about to deploy from Main and Photo 1 is most of the Land Rover element of the HQ at the docks with the recce regt - QDG Ferrets & Sultans on transporters on the right.  Note the RCT Tpt & Mov Leyland Sherpa!  This was in Hamburg if I remember rightly.

I do like your Corps HQ - it would have been easier if you had used cam nets - you'd only have needed matchboxes under them then!  Helicopters available for senior officers' recces - my those were the days, eh?  I too have been fiddling with models - in 1/56 scale.  There's quite a lot of resin & 3D printed stuff available now, some of which is really good quality and, in comparative terms, cheap as chips - I sold all my 1/35 scale models - too expensive to keep adding to, too difficult to store and, to be frank, my modelling skills would no longer do the model justice - I simply can't see what I'm doing easily enough any more and 1/76 is too small, though probably the easiest scale in which to replicate larger quantities of kit. That having been said - I couldn't resist a 1/35 Gecko DAC which awaits construction when I have a moment!

 

[robin craig]

As a self confessed Land Rover anorak, among other epithets, I find your 3 pictures 10FM68 quite interesting. Each has a tasty morsel within. The first image, in the second line from the left has a Land Rover hardtop with a cat flap to oppose the tailgate below. I have see one in British usage before. This suggests the vehicle was built with a tailgate and the hardtop may have been scrounged from somewhere. The second image has in the centre a 109 with a truck cab which again was a rare item to be seen at time of issue and I think someone was a good scrounger. I only ever saw this body style used by the Royal Marines training staff at Lympstone on a CL 109. The last picture while holding nothing rare it does show a Carawagon conversion but regrettably no identifying marks. As the owner of a Carawagon I lust for more in service images of my vehicle. Thank you for posting

[10FM68]

18 hours ago, robin craig said:

The first image, in the second line from the left has a Land Rover hardtop with a cat flap to oppose the tailgate below.  This suggests the vehicle was built with a tailgate and the hardtop may have been scrounged from somewhere. The second image has in the centre a 109 with a truck cab  The last picture while holding nothing rare it does show a Carawagon conversion 

You're quite right; these will be local additions where individual soldiers and small groups thereof will have got hold of a hard top and got their REME workshop to fit it for them.  This was actually pretty common in my experience with the rule being that, provided the vehicle could be returned to standard if it was to be handed over or, sometimes, if there was a PRE - some units would be stricter about this than others, then anything went which would aid efficiency/comfort or whatever.  Often these additions would move from vehicle to vehicle as one was replaced by another.  The cab top was on the LWB belonging to the linesmen and, if you look closely, it was a pretty beaten-up old Land Rover - doors didn't fit very well etc etc.  But it wouldn't have got a lot of use not being used for domestic transport in barracks and only going out on exercises and so on.  That's why quite often some quite important vehicles such as command vehicles might actually be rather older than the less glamorous ones - they hadn't reached their cost limit whereby they were beyond economic repair.  In 2 Fd Sqn in 1983 there was a single 10ton 6x6 Leyland Martian GS - never got used, never went anywhere never got cast while the Millies did all the work!

Here's another Land Rover with, this time, a home made upper rear door - wood & perspex while the tailgate has been fitted with side-mounted hinges  - this was deliberate as the vehicle was used for storing lots of stuff which was needed frequently and getting the tailboard out of the way made reaching into the back much easier.  And under the canvas is a sheet of XPM so that the tilt wouldn't drip water onto maps & paperwork beneath.  It also meant you could walk around on the roof which made camming up easier.  One unit I was in I had the Land Rover radios turned round so that they faced forward rather than into the tub which meant they could be tuned and operated from the front seats without anyone having to clamber into the back!  That, I recall, was really useful!

Yes, I'm sorry you can't read the ERM on the Carawagon.  I knew you had one and it would have been nice to find out if it was yours.  I don't think I have any other photos of it, but I'll have a look.

[DINGODOUG]

I just came across this and was reminded that I have a Service Instruction Book and a Workshop Manual for the AEC armoured car which I intend to sell. There is a cancellation stamp on one which might have given a clue as to when they were taken out of service but there is no date on it, I am sure the Tank Museum at Bovington would know. It sould have been related to the phasing out of the ammunition though the 2 pounder was retained for the Daimler. If anyone is interested in the manuals email me on douglasmatheson@btinternet.com 

[BravoFoxtrot]

I purchased what was described as an aircraft chair at an auction in the West Midlands.

Investigation shows that it is a perfect match for one of the "comfy" swivel seats in the AEC Dorchester.

As it was a low seat someone has made a 5 inch drum to make it usable.

We have been repairing the seat base and lining the cushion to make it usable and removing the drum.

It has a swivel shaft with imperial sized  ball bearings at the base. The seat cushion under the leather is hessian sack over horsehair.

It is marked on the base with K5 and a scratched MF - I don't know if either is relevant.

Attached an interior shot from the Britmodeller forum for comparison.

 

 

 

Edited April 7 by BravoFoxtrot