View Single Post
  #11  
Old 30-11-15, 22:26
David Dunlop David Dunlop is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 3,392
Default Hi Ed

Totally what I was looking for, but not after wearing my thinking cap about it for so long I had to open all the doors and windows to clear the smoke!

It never ceases to make my head spin regarding wartime and post war wireless equipment, when it comes to the amazing number of manufacturers involved in the production process and the number of subtle, and not so subtle, variations in how specific things were made. I consider myself quite fortunate that the Mk II and Mk III 19-Sets I have came with their own Spare Valve and Parts Cases. The variations in both makers and styles of these two items alone could probably fill a small warehouse.

With the signals satchel for my C42, my initial thought was to go with any wartime Canadian used Signals Satchel, because large numbers of this equipment from wartime production were in the system and still being issued to fill requirements in the early 1960's. When I finally noticed the description in the C42 Manual, I decided to go with any satchel I could find with the correct NATO, ZA Number or date (or combination thereof) in the hopes it might set it apart a bit from the wartime issued satchels. I was completely sold on the idea when I finally also noticed the front of the C42 and PSU were both stamped with the British WD Broad Arrow, not the Canadian Broad Arrow C.

This satchel was the first to show up NOS with the correct NATO number and date and it does make for an interesting contrast to the Signals Satchel No. C1 ZA/CAN 2120 dated 1944 that came with my NOS Cdn 58 Set. That satchel is a light Khaki Green with Khaki interior and web straps.

Now I just need a Canadian Issue 1944 dated Signals Satchel for my Mk III 19-Set (hopefully not another C1) and either a Canadian or US made satchel dated 1942 or 1943 for my Mk II 19-Set. But first I need a drink. Happy Hour is starting to call me.

Cheers for now,

David
Reply With Quote