Jump to content

Morris Commercial gallery


Rick W

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Morris CDSW early gun tractor of 97 field regt Kent Yeomanry in the Somme area 1940

 

Les

 

Over on another forum - WW2Talk - we are trying to identify what Arm of Service numbers went with which GHQ units in the BEF in 1940. We are making some progress.

 

I saw your picture of the CDSW with the AoS 16 here and have not seen that number anywhere else. I hope you don't mind that I have added it to the 'collection' in our thread here: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/1940/30097-bef-army-troops-vehicle-arm-service-markings-others-16.html

 

Your identification of the unit as 97 Field Regiment has led to a lot of comment and interest. Can you tell me where the unit identification came from?

 

Thanks

 

Andrew Foulkes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Les

 

Over on another forum - WW2Talk - we are trying to identify what Arm of Service numbers went with which GHQ units in the BEF in 1940. We are making some progress.

 

I saw your picture of the CDSW with the AoS 16 here and have not seen that number anywhere else. I hope you don't mind that I have added it to the 'collection' in our thread here: http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/1940/30097-bef-army-troops-vehicle-arm-service-markings-others-16.html

 

Your identification of the unit as 97 Field Regiment has led to a lot of comment and interest. Can you tell me where the unit identification came from?

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Andrew Foulkes

 

Andrew

 

Don't know where Les got his photo from, but the pic appears in a book by Boris Mollo entitled (and about) The Kent Yeomanry who, by 1940 had become 97 (Kent Yeomanry) Fd Regt RA (and also 143 (Kent Yeomanry) Fd Regt RA). According to the RA wartime website (www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk) 97 Fd Regt were then belonging to 3 Corps as the Army Fd Regt. Not many of those about, which may account for the rarity of the AOS code 16. The caption to the pic in the book confirms what Les said about it, and says (confirming what people on WW2Talk are saying) that it was in January 1940 and on manoeuvres at Marieux on the Somme. Not many pics of the BEF period in that book!

 

HTH

 

Chris

Edited by chrisgrove
1. Grammar! 2, Additional info.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew

 

Don't know where Les got his photo from, but the pic appears in a book by Boris Mollo entitled (and about) The Kent Yeomanry who, by 1940 had become 97 (Kent Yeomanry) Fd Regt RA (and also 143 (Kent Yeomanry) Fd Regt RA). According to the RA wartime website (www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk) 97 Fd Regt were then belonging to 3 Corps as the Army Fd Regt. Not many of those about, which may account for the rarity of the AOS code 16. The caption to the pic in the book confirms what Les said about it, and says (confirming what people on WW2Talk are saying) that it was in January 1940 and on manoeuvres at Marieux on the Somme. Not many pics of the BEF period in that book!

 

HTH

 

Chris

 

Chris

 

Thanks for confirming this. I will now add this number and unit identity to the list of GHQ AoS numbers we are compiling.

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris

 

Thanks for confirming this. I will now add this number and unit identity to the list of GHQ AoS numbers we are compiling.

 

Andrew

 

Andrew

 

From WW2-Talk, it still seems uncertain whether 16 is really the 97 Fd number or, I think, 1 RHA. I have registered with WW2-Talk, but not got my activation e-mail yet, but that thread is very interesting and has some good pics, even if I can't see half of them yet.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew

 

From WW2-Talk, it still seems uncertain whether 16 is really the 97 Fd number or, I think, 1 RHA. I have registered with WW2-Talk, but not got my activation e-mail yet, but that thread is very interesting and has some good pics, even if I can't see half of them yet.

 

Chris

 

Chris

 

I think the conclusion was that in January, when the picture was taken, 97 Fd was still complete and the transfer of a battery to 1 RHA did not happen until later. This indictates 16 is 97 Fd. Thanks again for your help.

 

Seasons Greetings!

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This photo appeared in the January 2007 issue of classic military vehicles, i have been unable to find out more on this conversion on the CDSW so need now to look further afield. It would seem to be some sort of wireless or communication body and i am certain no production run occured and if it did it would have been very limited, any ideas out there

cheers

Les

morris cdsw.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This photo appeared in the January 2007 issue of classic military vehicles, i have been unable to find out more on this conversion on the CDSW so need now to look further afield. It would seem to be some sort of wireless or communication body and i am certain no production run occured and if it did it would have been very limited, any ideas out there

cheers

Les

 

Hello Les,

 

There were a very small number of 30cwt 6x4 Office trucks in the census list, the first two contracts only 10 vehicles in total, there were two more contracts, but numbers were also low. Doubt if it was a CDSW, to be precise, as the W meant it was fitted with a winch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about the louvres on the cab/bonnet sides? There seems to be two large holes on this example in stead of a single row of louvres....would that be early or late?

 

Alex

 

and to add more, going by the front sidelights and headlights, it must be early war period. Just a thought about the louves, I wonder if it has a PTO driven generator and the bonnet has extra venting for static running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Les,

 

There were a very small number of 30cwt 6x4 Office trucks in the census list, the first two contracts only 10 vehicles in total, there were two more contracts, but numbers were also low. Doubt if it was a CDSW, to be precise, as the W meant it was fitted with a winch.

 

:embarrassed: :embarrassed:

 

Re. my post above, I am now thinking that the Office trucks found in the census list were in fact CDF types as one contract was also for GS trucks as well, and as far as I am aware, there were not any GS trucks looking like CDSW's. More confused now, perhaps it is not an office, there are a strange row of holes below the roof line at the front as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • 1 month later...
this one in here?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]63816[/ATTACH]

 

Mike

 

That's a pretty unusual picture. Great to see these vehicles in colour. Where and when was it taken?

 

Regards

 

Andrew

Edited by May1940
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...