PDA

View Full Version : MCP 2Lb Anti-Tank portees


cliff
17-12-06, 08:23
I found this photo in the AWM data base. It is Australian Anti- Tank units at Tobruk in 1941 but the trucks look to me like 1940 Chevrolet 4X2 units with the open cab similar to the LRDG chev's (Egyptian assembled?) rather then the normal CMP portee.

I date them as 1940 rather then 1941 because of the seperate side light on the mudguard in the rear vehicle rather then the side light being on top of the headlight in the 1941 model. But then again not been able to see the grill for positive ID they may be 1939 models.

Can anyone confirm this and if possible show more photos of them?

Cheers
Cliff :)

grant fincher
17-12-06, 09:05
This photo is currently listed for sale on E-bay. Listed as
'anti tank unit"
Interesting.
Grant Fincher

Hanno Spoelstra
17-12-06, 14:06
Originally posted by grant fincher
This photo is currently listed for sale on E-bay. Listed as 'anti tank unit" AUSTRALIAN ANTI-TANK UNIT TOBRUK 1941 OFFICIAL PHOTO Item number: 300061285963 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300061285963)
Description


6th Australian Division Anti-Tank Unit Photographed at TOBRUK in January 1941. Official Photo.

Accompanied by the British 7th Armoured Division, on Jan 21st 1941 the 16th & 17th Brigades of the 6th Australian Division assaulted a heavilly defended Tobruk which fell by Dawn on the following day.

We are Pleased to offer this stunning Vintage (1942) 20 cm x 15 cm Sepia b/w Photographic plate from a series Published by The Australian War Memorial in 1942.

A superb and Vintage 1942 Image Of A Momentous Campaign Of WW2 on Wartime Stock Photographic Paper which will make a fantastic conversation piece and would look stunning when professionally mounted & framed under glass.

NOTE: This Verifiably Authentic WWII Period Vintage item is NOT A Modern Scan Or a Modern Reproduction.

Kuno
17-12-06, 14:39
Just thinking:

> AWM sells its fotos so I assume that they have the copyright on them.

> If somebody buys one foto from them; would he be allowed to sell it again (as here on Ebay)? Or would such already violate the copyright.

:confused

Hanno Spoelstra
17-12-06, 14:45
Originally posted by Kuno
Just thinking:
> AWM sells its fotos so I assume that they have the copyright on them. And I was thinking it is probably cheaper to buy direct from AWM?

H.

servicepub
17-12-06, 19:22
There is always a lot of confusion about who owns a photographic print and who owns the Intellectual Property (copyright).
Regardless of where a photo was obtained (Aust War Museum or your Auntie Belle) it can be bought, sold, trsded, etc... for free or for profit. Limitations come into effect if you wish to reproduce the photo. Even a Xerox copy would not be allowed except under some very strict rules (use in a classroom, personal use, etc...) but if the reproduction is for commercial use and profit then the rights of the creator come into play.
Copyright laws vary by country but most have a number of years where only the creator can benefit. In Canada it is currently 50 years after the creator's death. However, in the case of photos taken by employees (newspaper photographers, military Film & Photo guys) the copyright belongs to the employer. For Canadian Army photos this 'Crown' copyright expires 50 years after the photo is created.
The additional 'wrinkle' imposed by many museums is their ownership of the actual image. In other words, only the Aust War Museum has this picture so if you want a copy to use in a commercial endeavour you have to agree to pay a reproduction fee. Most museums charge this. BUT, if you find the same image from a 'free' provider or you buy a print from e-bay, a store or a flea market, then you can do whatever you wish with it provided you can show that the photographers or employers copyright has expired. An example of a free provider is the Cdn Library & Archives who only charge for the cost of the photographic print and do not charge reproduction fees.
I have often gone trolling in the IWM on-line photo collection then go to the Cdn Archives to find the same photo. This way I avoid the IWM's insanely high reproduction costs.

cliff
17-12-06, 21:47
Accually the photos are now out of copywrite here and it is more the fact that the AWM holds (one of) the originals that they can reproduce it. As Hanno said with the price of the one on e-bay original or not it is cheaper to get a copy of it from the AWM.

Could we now get back to discussing the original question rather then a too expensive photo on e-bay please? :)

Cheers
Cliff :)

Shane Lovell
17-12-06, 23:48
Gentlemen

It is my view that what we see is a portee from one of the British Royal Horse Artillery units and is not Australian at all. My reason for this view is that to the best of my knowledge, 1st Anti-tank Regt, the organic anti-tank regt for 6 Aust Div was not actually involved in the Operation Compass battles.

The portee my belong to one of the Australian infantry brigades involved as each had an organic anti-tank company, however, all suffered from major equipment deficiencies, and at least later in 1941 it was not uncommon for them to be equiped with captured Italian guns. I think the likelihood of this picture being from one of the Brigade anti-tank companies is low.

Happy to discuss further.

Shane Lovell
Canberra, Australia

cliff
18-12-06, 00:13
To the left in the photo is a soldier wearing what appears to be a slouch hat but none of the crew members on or near the trucks are wearing one.

Never the less I am still interested in knowing more about the trucks whether they are Australian or not as I find it interesting that they are 4X2 MCP units rather then CMP's.

Cheers
Cliff :)

Shane Lovell
18-12-06, 00:23
Cliff

Still think they are British and that they are 'in support' of one of the Australian brigades which explains the Australian soldier in the picture. I assume that these vehicles are a local modification, however, note some discussion about the use of portees by the BEF.

I am also interested in these vehicles from a modelling perspective, along with the other portees used in the ME.

I need to identify which RHA unit they are and will ask a British friend to copy the war diary for me, which I hope my shed some light on the matter. I'll keep you in the loop if I find anything. Did I share with you may Portee notes?

cheers

Shane

cliff
18-12-06, 00:39
Originally posted by Shane Lovell
I'll keep you in the loop if I find anything. Did I share with you may Portee notes?

cheers

Shane

No you did not send me the portee notes Shane but if you would'nt mind I would enjoy looking at them.

If I discover anything new on these I will let you know.

Cheers & Thanks
Cliff :)

PS> I do not doubt you saying they are more likely to be British and in support of the Australians. :salute:

cliff
18-12-06, 00:47
I believe these vehicles to have been built in Egypt by the local GM company as I suspect they are flat cowl export models the same as the LRDG Chevrolet depicted in the Tamiya LRDG Chev kit. But having said that if they are 1939 models, like the AWM picture below, and not 1940/41 they would have a totally different grill so the Tamiya model could not be converted to one.

If I discover anything new on these I will let you know.

Cheers
Cliff :)

cliff
18-12-06, 00:54
sorry unsure where I got this photo from.

Lynn Eades
18-12-06, 05:25
I would guess the wheels to be same as your last photo.(16 inch, not 13inch)

cliff
18-12-06, 08:40
Originally posted by Lynn Eades
I would guess the wheels to be same as your last photo.(16 inch, not 13inch)

Yes the wheels are the same Lynn it was mainly the front sheetmetal that I was trying to show the differences of.

I have a feeling though due to the small side light on the front mudguard that they are the later model as shown in the second photo.

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
18-12-06, 12:01
Dear Colleagues,

May I respectfully draw your attention to my thread:

http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7614

which informs you of Demand Supply-Mechanical S/M 2005 for 4 x 2 Chevrolets for Egypt? Also, the agreement by the ERC to allow the use of dollars to pay for Chevrolets supplied through GM Near East Ltd in Alexandria?

cliff
18-12-06, 21:34
Originally posted by David_Hayward
Dear Colleagues,

May I respectfully draw your attention to my thread:

http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7614

which informs you of Demand Supply-Mechanical S/M 2005 for 4 x 2 Chevrolets for Egypt? Also, the agreement by the ERC to allow the use of dollars to pay for Chevrolets supplied through GM Near East Ltd in Alexandria?

David I have read that and will say again that it is a really good piece of investigating BUT that still does not tell me whether the pictured portee's are 1939, 1940 or 1941 model Chevrolets!

David_Hayward (RIP)
18-12-06, 21:39
1940 Models. If the sidelight is correct namely on the fender/wing! Also if that date is correct then there was not enough time to assemble 1941 Models!

You can therefore take your pick from:
a) Contract V.3352 515 units, 30-cwt Chevrolet WA, 266 G/S, 94 Water Tankers, the rest probably for local bodying, in Egypt. My understanding is that 19? were used by the LRDG together with 14 from the Egyptian Army.

b) 360 lorries destined I believe for GM International, Denmark, were seized by the RN and then sold of as prize cargo, and I suggest that these were acquited under V.4028 which covered Duple? cabs and bodies as they were lhd and chassis cowl: L 241482 to 241837. These probably had 133" wheelbases, as Model WA, and we know that a number were released onto the domestic market.

c) We know also that 158" w.b. 1940 Model 1543 Canadian amd US WB chassis were issued to the civilian essential users by summer.autumn 1940 so there may have been some assembled and then shipped out.

My suggestion is that these were 1940 Models, and either comprised in the V.3352 contract or late 1940 Model 1543 Canadian lorries covered under S/M 2005. The 1941 Models did not go into production until October, and Chevrolet commercial production for the British had started early September. In fact '41 production did not start until the very end of October.

I hope that this helps!

cliff
18-12-06, 21:53
Originally posted by David_Hayward
1941 Models.

Sorry David but I am afraid I have to disagree with you. 1941 had the sidelight on top of the headlight where as 1940 had them seperate on the outer side of the mudguard as did 1939. The rear truck shows this side light quite clearly but not clear enough for me to tell for sure which model. The 1939 had a streamlined 'civilian' (for want of a better word) type sidelight & the 1940 had a non tappering tube type similar to that seen on CMP 13 cabs.

A lot of the LRDG Chev trucks I have seen photos of also show this sidelight indentifying them as 1940 models (I can see the grill in most of these photos) so these would have been part of the order in your other thread as it is more likely that 1940 models would have been supplied initially to fill this order.

The trouble is that there were also a lot of the 1939 Chevrolets used as well and I have seen LRDG Chevs of this type as well. They are not as well known as the 1940 models but they were used.

Now having typed all this I realise that 1941 can be deleted as they did not have the seperate sidelight on the front guard!

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
18-12-06, 22:25
The big order was for 1940 Models, and I have just looked up printed photos of military trucks in Egypt in the 1944 book by GM Overseas Operations. The grille looks to me to be 1940. I should add that studying photos of those plus Egyptian Government order trucks in GENERAL MOTORS WORLD February 1940 shows that neither the '39 or '40 Models assembled in Alexandria had sidelights! Perhaps they were going to get smashed? So the sidelights may be a red herring. I have also found a photo of a '39 or '40 without sidelights that was on this forum..the top of the grille is not clear to differentiate...deep top grille is '39, narrow is '40.

In addition to 1939 and 1940 Models there were also 1938 Models used by the WD in Egypt and Trans-Jordan, etc. So I entirely agree with you but my impression is that these are 1940 Models. As these have sidelights, I suggest that they are to S/M 2005..but there is a qualification here...they were officially "160-inch" wheelbase [158 actually] and these trucks seem to be 158? The 1939 Models that I have seen in photos were the shorter wheelbase. The WA order mentioned previously was the shorter wheelbase so I have just realised that these vehicles seem to be from a different batch! I therefore suggest that these are Canadian '40 Model 1543 CC60L unless I am wrong on wheelbases again!

cliff
19-12-06, 00:26
David you are right about the wheelbase as I too would say that they are 158 inch as well.

Thanks very much for your help and input on this.

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
19-12-06, 01:05
Cliff, thank you for your input, as always. I believe that the presence of the side lamps points to Canadian origin, and not Tarrytown, NY. These were British orders, but what happened to the cabs? Were they removed on assembly, or modified locally? Cliff, any ideas please? The 1941-2 LRDG 1543X1 trucks pictured were delivered it seems as built in Oshawa. Earlier 1939-40 lorries assembled in Alexandria had an open cab with canvas roof.

cliff
19-12-06, 01:40
Originally posted by David_Hayward
Cliff, thank you for your input, as always. I believe that the presence of the side lamps points to Canadian origin, and not Tarrytown, NY. These were British orders, but what happened to the cabs? Were they removed on assembly, or modified locally? Cliff, any ideas please? The 1941-2 LRDG 1543X1 trucks pictured were delivered it seems as built in Oshawa. Earlier 1939-40 lorries assembled in Alexandria had an open cab with canvas roof.

David if you look at the 1940 LRDG 30cwt photo I put up earlier in this thread you will notice it has the side lamps on BUT has a locally producted body or seems too have. Maybe I only think they are local bodies and as you say are in fact built like that in Oshawa?

is there a possibility that these portee versions were flat cowl models assembled locally? Or were they imported from Canada as flat cowl models fully assembled with bodies as per the LRDG type pictured and then converted to portees?

This would explain the missing cabs. I doubt they would remove the cabs when they put portee bodies on them although in most cases of portees they did have a open topped cab.

The point is though that the LRDG Chev's were 30cwt's and 134inch WB models mainly and not the 3 ton 158inch WB that I think the pictured portees are!

We may have to hope that a better detailed photo or photos turn up to help us solve this little mistery.

Cheers
Cliff :)

cliff
19-12-06, 09:21
while browsing the AWM again I found the photo below, neg # 010769, with the caption....
A BRITISH ANTI-TANK GUN IN POSITION IN THE WESTERN DESERT AND A KNOCKED OUT ITALIAN TANK IN THE FOREGROUND.

This is the earlier 1939/40 model Chevrolet.

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
19-12-06, 10:21
a) I have been looking up my books and it does seem that the side lights were not always fitted. The Master Parts List says that they are "parking lamps" and "(special equip.)", the same parts being used 1937-9. Photos of '39 trucks show that they were not always fitted, and so I suggest that parking lamps on fenders were optional? The 1940 Models had them as standard I gather, with different lamps for passenger cars and commercials.

b) The other easy way I always suggest to differentiate between the 1939 and 1940 Models is the number of grille bars, but I can never seem to decide which is which and I believe that the cabs vary in height so the grilles vary likewise. However the '40 has a deeper top grille strip with "Chevrolet" script, though I am certain that military models may have had painted, not chromed, strips and no script. The Parts List suggests that the strip is actually part of the hood and so the '40 hood must be deeper in the fron thant he '39.

c) The WA 1940 Model was available in three versions: chassis with flat face cowl; chassis with cowl and chasis with cab. The same applied to the 1940 Canadian series, 15XX although the US trucks had a 1/5 ton rating and the Canadian 2 tons. The XX by the way was the Canadian cab style, and Oshawa produced all three versions in theory. The WA had the 133" wheelbase, the WB the 158 1/2" w.b. We know that some WB trucks made it to the UK as well as WA. I have always assumed that these were diverted French/Belgian orders and prize seizures. I may however be wrong! There were also '40 Model 1543 2-ton Canadian trucks imported, and I cannot see that these were diverted but without seeing a photo to see if it has lhd I have no idea. We know that the WA trucks used by the RAOC etc. were lhd, and chassis with flat-faced cowl so I am certain that these were in the "360" seized.

d) I may well be wrong in assuming that the 3-tonners delivered to Egypt under S/M 2005 weer Chassis with cab 1543 Models. I assumed that they were the same as CC60L because of the civilian versions registered in the UK. I can now see the logic in delivering at least the 1940 Models as Model 1541 flat-faced cowl for local bodying and cabs. That said the LRDG 1941 Models included some 1311 1/2 ton 115" chassis with flat-face cowl [as per 1311X3 to India] plus "200" 1533 134 1/2" w.b. chassis with cabs, delivered minus cabs and modified grilles!

e) The truck in the last photo looks to me as though it is a 1940 Model by the radiator grille, and the lights. The photos I have seen of 1939 Models assembled in Alexandria for the Egyptian Government "civilian" use have no parking lights and neither do the 1939 trucks assembled for the WD. I am only too willing to be proven wrong but that's my suggestion.

cliff
19-12-06, 21:38
Originally posted by David_Hayward


e) The truck in the last photo looks to me as though it is a 1940 Model by the radiator grille, and the lights. The photos I have seen of 1939 Models assembled in Alexandria for the Egyptian Government "civilian" use have no parking lights and neither do the 1939 trucks assembled for the WD. I am only too willing to be proven wrong but that's my suggestion.

David I too think it is a WB 158 1/2 inch wheelbase model as well. If it is not a locally (Alexandria) built body it would suggest that some of these 'Flat Cowl' 3 ton models were bodied as softtops or even complete portee's in Ottawa and shipped either PKD or as complete units.

This is the first that I have heard of what I refer to as the 'LRDG' body style (or local Egyptian type) been built in Ottawa or for that matter the US. I know the 'Indian pattern bodies' were similar with their open cabs.

I would also take a stab now and say that my original photo is almost certainly 1940 WB 158 1/2 inch wheelbase trucks rather then the later YS 160 inch wheelbase model.

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
19-12-06, 22:51
The next question then Cliff is whether these were from Bloomfield, NJ Boxing Plant CKD; Tarrytown, NY PKD, or Oshawa, Ont. SKD. I cannot imagine at the moment that these were US-sourced, but rather were part of the massive S/M 2005 Demand which would have arrived I would suggest late December. In that event I would put them as 1541 Chassis with flat-faced cowl rather than the almost identical WB Chassis with flat-faced cowl. However we need proof either way to be certain.

I am going to hopefully do some voluntary work at Bovington on record cards next year. I would hope to have by then looked at the S/M 2002-6 records cards if they exist to see if there is any information on them about bodying locally.

cliff
19-12-06, 23:37
David I would say Canadian. I said USA in my last post as I am totally unsure whether this open cabbed type was fully made in any of the Canadian or US plants.

I will keep looking as well and if anything new turns up I will post it here.

Cheers
Cliff :)

Bill Murray
19-12-06, 23:43
Evening Mates:
Sadly, my faithful computer of the last four years died a few weeks ago and a lot of my document files are temporarily not available. One of, the major one, my Christmas presents is to have a home computer expert come to the house and retrieve and install on my new PC all of my old files.

Having said that, the first vehicle is in my opinion a 1940 model with 158" wheelbase. I cannot yet prove it because of my document file problem but I am rather sure I am correct.
Bill

David_Hayward (RIP)
20-12-06, 00:01
Cliff may well be right. I believe though that the 1938-9 WD trucks were all US-sourced, most likely CKD from Bloomfield Boxing Plant for asembly at the Rue de Ptolomees plant in Alexandria. That would have allowed the plant to add their own open cab design. I believe that the various Haj transports featured in GM World, Feb 1940 that had woodie station wagon bodies were built in that plant.

As you know the GM Near East plant was bombed, and then as it was clearly useless for anything else, was leased to the WD for essential work on military Chevrolets, etc.

David_Hayward (RIP)
22-12-06, 13:32
A 5th July 1942 memo relating to vehicles for the 9th Australian Division from GHQ, MEF, refers to releases, and mentions "To this total must be added some 50 lorries 3-ton portee issued with the AT guns". As at August 1942 there were "W.E." 118 AT 3-ton Portees, with 74 on strength, 44 deficient, and "3-ton with winch" were issued in lieu of the deificiencies. There were 144 FWD Artillery Tractrors "W.E." of which there were 123 on strength, 21 deficient, and again 3-ton with winch were issued in lieu. Do I take it that the 3-tonners were actually 2-pounder Portees which we know were "3-tonners"?

The following Chevrolet 2-pdr Portees were issued to the AIF:
L 4623008, L 4623053, L 4623061, L 4623452, L 4623541 plus
L4516072 L14418712 L4516466 L4514359 L4516492 L4413524 L4514782 L4514865 L4514809 L4514803 L4412964 L4412889 L4514860 L4412893 as @ 25/07/1941 L4516467
[thanks Shane!]

cliff
22-12-06, 22:07
Originally posted by David_Hayward
Do I take it that the 3-tonners were actually 2-pounder Portees which we know were "3-tonners"?

As the artillery tractors were marked as FWD and the 3 ton lorries with winch were not then I assume the lorries were 4X2 and not 4X4. This plus the fact that they were called 'Lorries' and not many of the 4X2 vehicles were fitted with winches (wreckers/breakdown excluded) would point towards these being 2lb portees rather then normal GS lorries.

Still wondering though if any of these Chevrolet portees were 'YS' 160in wheelbase models rather then the 'WB' 158in wheelbase.

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
22-12-06, 23:44
Cliff, I looked again at the papers and it does not state whether the "Lorries" i.e. ober 1-tonners, were 4x2 or 4x4/FWD or not. I think that the fact that as we can prove that 2-pdr Portees were issued to the AIF, the suggestion that the issues of these from stocks has grounding. I am no expert, so ask what other 3-ton CMPs had winches other than .... the 3-ton S/M 2613 C60L 6-pdrr Portees but in the absence of any known delivery dates I can only suggest that they were summer 1942-on assembly, with delivery months later. The only fly in the ointment is that the 2-pdr Portees were officially 30-cwt lorries, and yet we know from the Canadians rated the FAT chassis on which they were based as 3-tonners. I assume that the rebuilds to G/S lorries were also 3-tonners, and not 30-cwt.

cliff
23-12-06, 00:53
I have a photo of 12 cab CMP portee's in convoy formation in the middle East so they could be these.

But why mark the artillery tractors as FWD (four wheel drive or 4X4) and not the lorries with winch?

The marking of one as FWD and not the other is why I assume the lorries with winch are A/ 4X2 and B/ because they are 4X2 and have a winch they are more likely to be portees.

In British english were CMP's generally know as 'lorries' either GS (General Service) or otherwise or Lorries FWD?

Cheers
Cliff :)

David_Hayward (RIP)
23-12-06, 07:19
The War Department used FWD to describe tractors such as the Quads..Guy/Morris/AEC/Chev/Ford etc. from at least 1938. Lorries were up from 1 ton capacity, Trucks were up to 1 ton, and it seems "Bantams" were Jeeps in this 1942 paper! The bodies were listed then under types, so Lorry 3-ton GS, or ....Water... or stores, etc.

Shane Lovell
26-12-06, 15:03
Cliff

If you are basing your comments on the use of /A and /B on Portees on the 1942 3 Aust A/T Regt material I sent you, I have another theory.

It is that the they were used to differentiate 2 pdr and 6 pdr equipped portees on paper. Thus, the /A were 2 pder fitted while the /B were 6 pdr fitted. I assume the fittings needed for both carriage of the guns and ammunition were different.

cheers

Shane

cliff
26-12-06, 22:44
Originally posted by Shane Lovell
Cliff

If you are basing your comments on the use of /A and /B on Portees on the 1942 3 Aust A/T Regt material I sent you, I have another theory.

It is that the they were used to differentiate 2 pdr and 6 pdr equipped portees on paper. Thus, the /A were 2 pder fitted while the /B were 6 pdr fitted. I assume the fittings needed for both carriage of the guns and ammunition were different.

cheers

Shane

No I am not basing this on the material you kindly sent me Shane but rather on some material you sent David where it refers to artillery tractors as 4X4 but trucks with winches as neither 4X4 or 4X2. (look at David Haywood's 3 post up from here)

My question is are these trucks noted as 3 ton with winch accually portees and or MCP's or CMP's. If CMP's why are they not also designated as 4X4?

Still trying to find out if any 1940/41 model YS Chevrolet 160inch wheelbase 4X2 trucks were used as portees.

Cheers
Cliff :)

PS> I hope this post is understandable :yappy:

Shane Lovell
27-12-06, 02:14
Cliff

Understandable. For your info I probably should explain where I have been and what I have from a research perspective.

I started from the perspective of wanting to build a model of a CMP portee with a 2 pdr gun.

Looked at war diaries of 1, 2 and 3 Australian A/T Regts. Of these, only 3 A/T Regt has any info, and it is very detailed. 1 A/T Regt went to Greece, however, there are no entries for their time there. Pity really, as I'd love to know more about any possible use of portees in this campaign. 2 A/T Regt is also pretty slim.

71 LAD (att 3 Aust A/T Regt) is a corker. They generally include copies of their monthly work load. This includes the WD no, unit and work carried out for each vehicle duirng the month. Ohh for all AEME diaries to have this material, especially the armoured units.

I then went and looked at Liaision officer reports. Quite a bit of material her, primarily related to difficulties equipping units, and the use of captured Italian pieces.

The CO of 3 Aust A/T Regt has his personal papers lodged at the AWM. Unfortunately, these have not yet been access examined, though I have commenced the process. We'll see what they provide.

Hope this helps. Email me your snail mail address to work and I'll send you copies of everything I have.

cheers

Shane

cliff
27-12-06, 11:47
Thanks Shane I will do. I would like to build a 1/35 scale model of a 'YS' model Chevrolet Portee using the Tamiya LRDG Chev kit as a base but want definate proof they were used as well as the 'WB' 1940 Chevs.

I also find this very interesting history wise and while I originally started off collecting information to make models I now find myself looking and collecting any information I can on WW2 Australian Forces vehicles, especially softskins.

Cheers
Cliff :)

Shane Lovell
28-12-06, 00:52
Cliff

I know exactly what you mean regarding being drawn further into the historical research area. I find it happening to me all the time and even though my principal interest is Australian armour I have diverged to include Portees and Tank Transporters. Worse yet, I find myself drawn into further into 'B' vehicles when I find material of interest to David Hayward.

Can't add anything regarding the conversion of the tamiya LRDG Chevrolet, however, in reviewing my hard copy material on 1 Aust A/T Regt, noted they were issued Bedfords to carry their 2 pdrs whilst in the UK. They were an element of the Australian forces that went to the UK and didn't arrive in the ME until early 1941, which explains why they missed Operation Compass.

The real core problem from a portee perspective is the lack of an injection molded 2 pdr at a reasonable price. Are you aware of the injection Bofors 37 mm. You can also get an ABER etch set for this kit.

cheers

Shane

cliff
28-12-06, 01:05
Originally posted by Shane Lovell
Cliff

The real core problem from a portee perspective is the lack of an injection molded 2 pdr at a reasonable price. Are you aware of the injection Bofors 37 mm. You can also get an ABER etch set for this kit.

cheers

Shane

Yes there is only the Sovereign 2000 resin/whitemetal kit for the 2lb gun and a kind US friend sent me one of the plastic 37mm bofers kits which I have not opened yet.

I emailed my address to you at the work addy. The home addy one bounced back to me. Just working through the Northern Command war diaries on line at the AWM and tracking down 5 Motor Regiment which was based at Gympie in 1941/42. 1 Lt Field Ambulance appears at Gympie in Jan 1942 as well. Will look locally for more info as well.

Cheers
Cliff

Shane Lovell
02-01-07, 14:50
Cliff

I was wrong in saying that no Australian units during operation Compass had 2 pdrs or portees. I have been looking at the 6 Aust Div organisation on another site and found that the anti - tank companies of 16 and 17 bdes had some; 16 A/T Coy had 9 and 17 AT Coy had 2. Further investigation in the 16 bde on line war diary for Jan - Feb 1941 categoriacally states the use of one gun from a portee. I need to investigate this further.

cheers

Shane