AWM acquisition?
 

The AWM's Facebook page is advising the acquisition of a Cab 12 Ford Field Artillery Tractor, although it hasn't hit their website blog news yet.

I believe this was restored by Lloyd McCarthy in Queensland.

As Hanno pointed out on the CMP Facebook group, they're saying some odd things about it's origins and design features.

Pic is from their post.

That's correct, Lloyd did restore this vehicle, and did so to fabulous standard.

Never heard the description 'beetle back' before. Guess a trend has to start somewhere.

Does any one have any interior pictures of it.
I have heard the therm "beetle back" for many years with regards to the early Morris FAT

'Beetleback''Monkey Face Blitz'!?
 

I have never understood the fascination of made-up names for vehicles and I find this particularly disturbing when they are being perpetrated by a national museum. What is wrong with calling it what it was, a Field Artillery Tractor?

These folks share a trait with the Brits (logically), in that they have nicknames for everything:

Tinnies

Chippys

Tiffies,

Roos, etc

or mayhaps it"s too hot to use all the letters in a name?

The terms beetleback and monkey face to describe the FAT and Cab 12 originated many, many years ago as an easy way to differentiate the types. They were terms used by Aust veterans, so I think being critical of the AWM staff member who used the terms in the entry is unwarranted. Personally, I would not have used them: 'Tractor Field Artillery (Cdn)' would have been enough.

I've not heard that the shape was associated with decontamination before - perhaps someone could enlighten me?

The tractor's registration number (British and Australian) is known, and the register entry clearly states it was refugee cargo, but I've not heard the term 'distress' applied to such cargoes before.

I think, overall, the entry could be improved. Keith: who made the facebook entry (I don't access face-thingie....)?

Mike

These are all the photos I have. Taken over a couple of years, either on ANZAC day or at the MJCQ event at Canungra, QLD.
Attachment 79768

Attachment 79769

Attachment 79770

Attachment 79771

Attachment 79772

Attachment 79773

Attachment 79774

Attachment 79775

Attachment 79776

Attachment 79777

Attachment 79778

Attachment 79779

Attachment 79780

Thats all of them.

Ed, The CMP to the average Australian is a "Blitz". This has been the case since WWII.
While talking about names. The Universal carrier is almost always referred to as a Bren carrier (by your countrymen and mine) It isn't right but it's a tide I doubt we can turn.
I do agree that a museum should be making an effort to correctly identify a particular exhibit, but then for joe average who only knows these things by a nickname, it is also important to tie the two together.
This is always going to be a battle and I find it particularly annoying when a vehicle is knowingly labelled (for many years) as something else. A crime made worse when it is a reputable (national) museum. At least for me this particular vehicle is now not on display (which is worse! :bang:)
I do like the fact that you bang away at this stuff, because someone needs to. :salute:

Post
 

The post on Facebook was one by the AWM from their official Fb page, shared by another Fb user.

Here's what I wrote earlier:

Two things (1/2): "The unique shape was derived from a design to make the vehicle easier to decontaminate in the event of a gas attack" - where on earth did they get this idea?!? The back on the original Quad FAT was slanted because it had to carry the gun platform on the back and it could be slid on and off the sloping back easier than from a horizontal surface.

Two things (2/2): "This ‘beetleback’ arrived in Australia in 1942 as ‘refugee’ or ‘distress’ cargo; i.e. cargo that was at sea when the British and Dutch territories fell to the Japanese and had to be diverted to Australia" - was it really refugee cargo, or was it shipped back after doing service with the Australian Army in North Africa? For certain, it was not a diverted shipment to the Dutch East Indies.

Hi Hanno,

As mentioned in my earlier post, the register entry states it was received as Refugee cargo. That generally means on a ship diverted to Australia in early 1942, to avoid areas that were already under Japanese control. So on their way to British units in Malaya, perhaps? Either way, the register entry is quite clear.

Cab 12 FATs were not provided to Australian units in North Africa until well into 1942, and those that can be traced to that origin arrived much later than the example acquired by the AWM. Moreover, where such tractors were brought to Australia by the returning AIF, most were not then transferred to the Australian register, and those few that were do not have the accompanying entry 'refugee'.

Like you, I am puzzled by the decontamination comment in relation to the body shape, and wonder at its origins.

Mike

Couldn't somebody ask on their facebook page what is meant re the decontamination? The masses need to know.

Personally, I do not venture onto that site.

Hi Rob,

Give me a few days and I'll see if I can correspond about the tractor and the FB post by more direct means.

'In contact ....wait, out'

Mike

I'm only a poor dumb whitey, with minimal education, but do I understand correctly that this vehicle did NOT serve in Africa....at all?

'twould seem so from the information about his particular tractor that has come to light more recently. The majority of Cab 12 tractors that ended up in Australia were ex-North Africa, and arrived later. This was apparently one of a small group that arrived in the first few months of 1942.

Apparently the reference to the design shape is contained in a Mechanisation Board minute featured in Ventham and Fletcher’s Moving the guns : the mechanisation of the Royal Artillery, 1854-1939, p81. I don't have a copy of that book, so am unable to see exactly what was said, but someone on here probably has a copy. Learn something new everyday, eh?

Mike

Hello Mike, thanks for the clarification!

I asked for a source for my question #1, this is the reply from AWM's FB page:

I spoke to Lloyd at Christmas time and he told me then that the AWM had purchased the vehicle from him and that he was told that they were only purchasing this one due to it having proven "Wartime Service in combat"!

Now where that service was I do not know. :confused

..... and does it matter at this point? Aust wartime service is surely enough: now the AWM has the full range of the more common wartime wheeled field artillery tractors used by Aust forces between 1939 and 1945 (and beyond): 'Tractor, Artillery, (Aust) LP3/3A' (can't remember which!), 'Tractor, Artillery (Cdn)' and 'Tractor, Artillery (Aust) No.9': now that's a great result.

I was also puzzled by the reference to 'distressed' cargo as an alternative to 'refugee' cargo. Well, learned something new again: it was the term applied to such cargoes coming to Australia in the US official history!

Mike

So why are they using an American description for a Canadian vehicle that arrived and served in Australia? Too much knowledge is a dangerous and oft confusing thing.


David

Now that's a fair question, but one I am unable to answer. :giveup

Mike

A bit like the Kokoda Trail / Kokoda Track moniker. Who knows how these things get started? Not all discussion is logical. :drunk:

Dave

Inside
 

Here is a picture of the inside (well part of it) of a monkeyface beetleback blitz artillery tractor. Its a lousy picture, taken through a perspex screen at the NZ Army Museum at Waiauru (spelling?), partly because I was not at all sure I was allowed to take pictures there at all. I assume it was a Cab 12, but could have been Cab 11 (if FATs with that existed) as I can't remember. Anyway, I doubt the inside differed much if at all.

Incidentally, Fletcher's book on 'Moving the guns' shows the first prototype of the beetleback (Morris) as being canvas covered; not much chance of carrying a traversing platform and sliding it off from that!

HTH

Chris

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p...psfhfa9wj4.jpg

Yes the book has several paragraphs on the design features of the Artillery tractor incorporated to assist in cleaning up after a gas attack.

It that the main reason that led to the sloping back design?

What about storage of the gun platform?

H.

Thanks for the picture, I can see from it that I need 4 more rifle clips,,,,, Darn

I would seriously doubt that the gas attack was anything to do with it.
....Or at least would like to see proof.

I checked the design branch records and see no indications of this. I'll have to read through them further and see if there is a section on decontamination in general.

Fabulous pics Tony, thanks for posting. I've saved them to file where I can drool over them at leisure!