RAF Beaverette with strange plough?

[LarryH57]

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.

Edited September 2, 2023 by LarryH57

[MatchFuzee]

Appolgies for the poor quality of the caption but a screenshot was the only option to have both the photo and caption together. 

Photo and caption here:-

http://panzerserra.blogspot.com/2013/09/beaverette-mk-iii-part-01.html

The caption:-

Beaverette Mk III with Vickers turret
Notice the improvised airstrip cleaner device adapted in his nose
England, 1944.

[fv1609]

[REME 245]

The Turret looks like the standard late pattern which could take 2 Bren's or Vickers K Guns.

[LarryH57]

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?

[REME 245]

It may be small items which which fall off aircraft on landing which might burst a tire or cause other damage such as with the French Concord.

[Citroman]

The "plough" has castors it seems so small things would pass under it??

[LarryH57]

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?

Edited September 4, 2023 by LarryH57

[Oh Five]

Dropping a load of butterfly bombs and small 1kg or 2kg incendiary bombs over an aerodrome would almost guarantee that some would land on your runway and taxi ways.  Perhaps the plough is intended to clear such tarmac or concrete areas, it would not be as effective on grass, for operations to quickly resume.

During the clearance the driver might be able to push the devices into piles for them to be destroyed in bulk rather than having to remove them individually.

According to the 'Bombs Away UXO' website: butterfly bombs were dropped in containers that held up to 108 devices; while the incendiary devices containers held up to 700 devices.  

An awful lot to clear

Dan

[RAFMT]

I would say it's for general runway clearing, rather than explicitly for explosives. Just pushing off bits that may be left when a "failed landing" occurs.

Yes there is a gap underneath, but we aren't dealing with jet engines, anything small enough to go under that gap isn't likely to cause much consternation. And could easily be removed with that ubiquitous bit of station kit: Erk, Broom Carrying, Mk. 1

[LarryH57]

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

[RAFMT]

Because pretty much every airfield had them sitting around not being very useful? Besides, many crashed aircraft have a chance of spontaneously bursting into flames, whilst having ammunition on board.

[Adrian Dwyer]

Morning all. 

The term used in the caption 'airstrip cleaner' is not one I've ever encountered as a euphemism for UXO tasks.  I do know the fear of the SD-2 'butterfly bomb' certainly taxed the RE BD units, particularly from '43 onward: not least of all because, by visual means, it could be problematic to determine if the fuze was a failed impact fuze, a time-delay variant or an anti-disturbance option. The first airfield to be attacked by the SD-2 was Harlaxton ,Lincs, on 18 August 1941: 70+ were deployed with only 11 impacting on Air Ministry property.  However, between June-October 1943, almost 10,000 SD-2s were dropped.  The late Arthur Hogben (in this excellent book 'Designed to Kill') noted that in the August of '43, 3000 SD-2s were dropped by Luftwaffe fighter-bombers that followed allied planes back to their airfields in Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk.  A tactic repeated thereafter elsewhere: so, the problem certainly existed and minds must have been focused!

In terms of the family of incendiaries known as Elektronbrandbombe, they would typically burn to nothing relatively quickly or remain inert.  The incendiary with the high-explosive element (in the nose or tail) was much less common than the straight pyrotechnic type. 

As a former Royal Engineer I know very little about WW2 RAF BD, but using such a thin-skinned vehicle to 'push' enemy UXO off an airfield would no be my first guess.  The theory about dealing with unarmed bombs that detached unexpectedly from our planes may be right, but still sounds a bit odd.  However, someone must know.  I'm happy to post the question - with the photo - on the RE BD EOD history page - if that would be considered helpful?

All the best.

A

[LarryH57]

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!

Edited September 5, 2023 by LarryH57

[Adrian Dwyer]

Done!  I await the side-splittingly humorous responses suggesting its function was brylcreem-related!

A

[Adrian Dwyer]

Larry, there is some support for the SD-2 theory.  I think there will be a post here giving more detail.

No mention of brylcreem as yet...

A

[LarryH57]

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

[Adrian Dwyer]

Morning Larry - an authority on the history of SD-2s made the comment (copied below) on the RE BD facebook page.  I think he hopes to join HMVF so may be able to add even more!

'Beaverettes were also used by the RAF to clear airfields of SD2s in another way: a long thick rope or chain was dragged between two Beaverettes, rather like minesweeping ships.'

[Adrian Dwyer]

Re: the 'box' attached to the front of the Beaverette.  One means of dealing with SD-2s adjacent to runways (but also elsewhere) was to build a small enclosure using sandbags.  (This was probably the case in terms of SD-1s, although their impact fuze was less problematic than the fiendish SD-2  time/disturbance types.)  Similarly, dumping sand/earth on a burning 1kg incendiary was a common countermeasure. 

I wounder if the purpose was to quickly (and with a bit of protection whilst en route) deliver sandbags, etc to scattered UXO posing an imminent threat to aircraft?  Having now read the well-researched book by Michael J.F. Bowyer - 'Air Raid! The enemy air offensive against East Anglia, 1939-45', and noted the extensive use of such weapons against airfields (more extensive than I had realised) - I think this is a plausible hypothesis.

All the best.

A

[LarryH57]

Adrian, I guess the 'plough' with mini castors is shaped like the letter C with squared off corners but the board behind, needs a horizontal shelf space for the sandbags?

[Adrian Dwyer]

Afternoon Larry - I am not certain that the object attached to the Beaverette shows a complete assembly (nor, for that matter, its purpose was definitely UXO-related)!   My theory is that sandbags may have been placed to the front of the taller screen, as shown directly in front of the engine, and then moved manually to surround the UXO pending BD action.  The lower 3-sided 'box' on casters doesn't look sufficiently rigid to hold many sandbags and seems a bit low to deflect fragmentation: so doesn't quite fit the theory.

However, I remain puzzled by the employment of an 'armoured' vehicle if the role didn't demand protection of its crew.  Maybe the very low ground clearance, and the visible casters (to prevent sagging/grounding) do mean it was used for pushing UXO in a desired direction?  In that regard I note comments concerning the limitations of the minesweeping option - a rope or chain between 2 Beaverettes.  That technique had a good chance of disturbing an SD-2 but not necessarily of 'capturing' it (i.e., some went under or over).  What we need is the diary of an RAF Beaverette driver . . .

On a practical point, do you think the 3-sided 'plough' assembly is fabricated entirely from metal - and does it have a base? The taller screen element seems much thicker - and is timber? (Possibly to reduce the likelihood of fragments entering the drivers vision slits/further protect the engine?)

So, in summary, I still don't know but I'm enjoying finding out!

A

[LarryH57]

I guess Bryan is correct in stating that the RAF had a surplus of Beaverettes once the Army had proper armoured vehicles, so I wonder if these attached are also experimental?

I have seen the one with for gun turret and wonder if it was a gunnery trainer.

Why the other Beaverette had a dust bid turret , I do not know

Edited October 9, 2023 by LarryH57

[Noel7]

1 hour ago, LarryH57 said:

I have seen the one with for gun turret and wonder if it was a gunnery trainer.

It looks like the Frazer-Nash turret off a Boulton-Paul Defiant, which was hydraulically driven and with belt feeds for the guns. Quite a few lost their turrets in 1942-3, converted for target towing and so forth. Might it be for airfield defence? It seems somewhat excessive for training on the ground and could not reproduce the sheer speed of reaction required for aerial combat.

[MatchFuzee]

3 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

I have seen the one with for gun turret and wonder if it was a gunnery trainer.

The Beaverette Mk III Anti-Aircraft, with Boulton-Paul type A turret. 

[Adrian Dwyer]

My knowledge of Beaverettes is new-found; but I have seen reference to turrets being fitted for airfield defence.