Found this carrier picture in a Old Book.

Jim Parker · #1 01-11-11, 22:44

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...79211096_n.jpg

Keith Webb · #2 01-11-11, 23:02

Here it is:

RichardT10829 · #3 01-11-11, 23:12

any guess on Mk folks ? it has the earlier Mk1 rear fenders but means nothing really.... its great to see carriers like this (loaded to the gunnels) anyone know where the pic was taken ?

Looks very Hollandish... dont know why but that the vibe i get....

Rich F. your good at this kinda stuff whats your take on it ?

Richard Farrant · #4 01-11-11, 23:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardT10829

Rich F. your good at this kinda stuff whats your take on it ?

Rich,

Not much to go on as the divisional sign is not visible, but .... the unit number is, 67, that puts the Carrier as belonging to an infantry battalion of an infantry division.

So for example using 67, it could be ;
2nd Batt., Lincolnshire Regt - 3rd Inf Div
1st Batt Green Howards - 5th Inf Div
9th Cameronians - 15th Inf Div
7th Batt Hampshire Regt - 43rd Inf Div
4th Batt Lincolnshire Regt - 49th Inf Div
6th Batt Durham Lt Inf - 50th Inf div
5th Batt Black Watch - 51st Inf Div
4/5th Royal scots fusileers - 52nd Inf Div
plus several other possibilities

RichardT10829 · #5 01-11-11, 23:37

ahh. i thought that number was perhaps part of the WD number usually painted on the battery box (but obscured) i could swear there is a 675 and possibly a T above those numbers... what about dress is it possible to date it roughly from issue kit ?

Richard Farrant · #6 01-11-11, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardT10829

ahh. i thought that number was perhaps part of the WD number usually painted on the battery box (but obscured) i could swear there is a 675 and possibly a T above those numbers... what about dress is it possible to date it roughly from issue kit ?

Hmmm ........... did not enlarge until you posted, and I think you are right, that is part of the census number. No signs on the back of the motorcycle unless the photo has been censored, although it is usually obvious when that was done. I would say, it is post-D-Day, so mid 1944 onwards.

That was my theory blown out of the water

RichardT10829 · #7 01-11-11, 23:59

think we have started a game here Rich

comon folks get yer bids in hehehehe

shaun · #8 02-11-11, 00:42

An interesting photo, the guy on the motor bike is a bit of a collector, he has a german K98 rifle and a german entrenching tool strapped to the bike. I would think it is Holland, that does look like a "T" number on the mudguard. Did MK1s have stacy towing attachments fitted or was it only MK2s ?

Jim Parker · #9 02-11-11, 00:56

Could they be Polish?

Little Jo · #10 02-11-11, 01:08

Hi Guys

I thought I would put my two cents worth in the pot and suggest it is definately Holland. I make this assumption due to the brick paved road, Bailey bridge over the canal, (bridges being destroyed) Style of house facade, the dead flat country side and the fact I had a warm fuzzy feeling having been born there. Ha Ha that will throw the cat amongst the pidgeons.

Cheers

Tony

RichardT10829 · #11 02-11-11, 09:15

Tony, that was pretty much how i came to the assumption on Holland too there is a vid on youtube called "Carrier Test Drive" and at the end they go wizzing along a road which looks very much like the one in this pic....and i believe that footage was shot in Holland too. Shaun i think your right about the Stacey fitting but was too scared to shout up and say it for 100%

Michael i thought that was a pile of mud... your eyes are better than mine

EDIT: Civvie guy on the right, hands on hips looking up the road also appears to have some strange footwear too.

EDIT EDIT: Also is it just me or does the right hand track (drivers side) on the carrier appear to be leaning out over....worn maybe ?

RichardT10829 · #12 02-11-11, 09:29

right i am going to put my neck on the line and say the carrier is late production Mk1. when you zoom in there is no round bar on the top of the armour (or the curved tin in cases of canadian producion Mk2's) also on the drivers side rear track guard there is some luggage sat on the rations box tin tray, the two jerry cans on the left appear to be held on with the webbing straps used to hold the tarp, the tarp itself has been strapped onto the right of the battery box. the battery box (or bit i can see if it is the battery box) appears to be shorter and more central ie Mk1 rather than the elongated Mk2 style cammo net bag and storage bin.

On the rear mudguard i can see T6751- the last digit is unreadable
i await to be shot down kids

lynx42 · #13 02-11-11, 09:53

A very interesting photo.

The M3A1 White Scout car is also very interesting. It has had the roller removed and the roof height raised. The removal of the roller was quite common in Britain, as was the raised roof. In this style, the Scout car was used as a command or office.

Some had massive speakers on the roof and were used for propaganda purposes, calling on the germans to surrender etc.

Regards Rick

shaun · #14 02-11-11, 10:03

The first photo is starting to look like Kevins street !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael R.

The refitting of Mk. I, Mk. I* to the Mk. II upgrade photo: does anyone have more similar to this, along with the source? No Stacey attachments in this picture, but when I see Mk. I fold down armour with Mk. II style split tubing and the relocated headlamp, it answers some questions.

On the carriers with the deep fording plates: the Mk. I* battery box has been removed, the bolt and cable holes plugged. The number range? Is that 163804?

The soldier is Private Hamilton, Highland Light Infantry, dated 19 May, 1944. Pretty hard to miss the large "67"

Finally another modified Mk. I* mounting a Browning 1919A4 .30 cal.

RichardT10829 · #15 02-11-11, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaun

The first photo is starting to look like Kevins street !

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

nah there is not enough carriers there to be Kevins place

tankbarrell · #16 02-11-11, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardT10829

On the rear mudguard i can see T6751- the last digit is unreadable
i await to be shot down kids

T6751* was a Valentine. T67221-T67865 being Valentine II, V and bridgelayer built by Metro Cammell.

However, T5751* was Ford built Universal MkI.

Lynn Eades · #17 02-11-11, 11:21

Its a 3" Mortar carrier. nothing else carries the crank handle up where it is, at the top of the rear plate.
Nigel's Vol. 2, page 68, shows one with the towing attachment.
How about T167??? (up to T167581)

tankbarrell · #18 02-11-11, 11:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynx42

A very interesting photo.

The M3A1 White Scout car is also very interesting. It has had the roller removed and the roof height raised. The removal of the roller was quite common in Britain, as was the raised roof. In this style, the Scout car was used as a command or office.

Some had massive speakers on the roof and were used for propaganda purposes, calling on the germans to surrender etc.

Regards Rick

Not sure about the raised roof, I think it's just the elevated view point with the scout car coming down the off ramp. It still has the standard canvas, most of the command ones I have seen pictures of had hard roofs.

Marc van Aalderen · #19 02-11-11, 18:56

Hi,

I know I have seen this pic before but can't remember where.

My guess is in one of the museums in Eindhoven area. It is definately somewhere in Holland. Hope I remember as it will keep me awake at nights now...

Cheers,

kevin powles · #20 02-11-11, 21:31

Hi The Carrier as Lynn says is a 3" Mortar carrier, it actually still has the base plate in its stowage position and I suspect the barrel underneath all that equipment.

Nice photo.

kevin.

andrew honychurch · #21 02-11-11, 23:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankbarrell

Not sure about the raised roof, I think it's just the elevated view point with the scout car coming down the off ramp. It still has the standard canvas, most of the command ones I have seen pictures of had hard roofs.

Just having my tuppence worth. That is definitely a raised roof on the Scout Car.

lynx42 · #22 03-11-11, 00:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankbarrell

Not sure about the raised roof, I think it's just the elevated view point with the scout car coming down the off ramp. It still has the standard canvas, most of the command ones I have seen pictures of had hard roofs.

Adrian,

Not that I want to get into an arguement, but I don't agree with your assessment.

I have studied 1000's of photos of White Scout cars over the years. I have had my own since 1986 and have travelled more than 100,000km. in 25 years in it. I have been the main restorer in the restoration of 3 others.

There is no way that the roofline can be seen as raised up if it hasn't been. The original canvas runs parallel to the underside of the body after it raises up only about 3 inches to the first hoodbow. That canvas looks to be up about 12 inches in that photo. This would be done to give more headroom for the chaps sitting at the desk in the back.

regards Rick.

Lynn Eades · #23 03-11-11, 00:49

You dont get it wrong very often, I know.

Is the armour plate is too thin for you?

Jim Parker · #24 03-11-11, 02:24

You would figure that the picture was taken from a step ladder.

Lynn Eades · #25 03-11-11, 03:21

Or maybe from the top of another vehicle?

Ken Hughes · #26 03-11-11, 09:51

Motorcycles do not appear to have tail lamps as well?or am i wrong,have been known to be wrong before!

shaun · #27 03-11-11, 10:00

As Lynn says, its probably from the guy standing on top of all the kit in the next carrier who has taken the photo. i love all the detail in these photos, i have one of a Daimler Armoured Car an old crewman gave me of his vehicle and it is just so jam packed with day to day detail, i have studied it for hours - there is so much to learn from such items.

tankbarrell · #28 03-11-11, 12:30

Blimey..... it was just a thought! As it still has the standard canvas, the lower edge would presumably not reach the hull side top edge if it were raised up 9" or so, that was my idea.

I'm certainly not looking for an argument, just a friendly discussion!

tankbarrell · #29 03-11-11, 12:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

You dont get it wrong very often, I know.

Is the armour plate is too thin for you?

I reckon you're right! Mind you, I too have a scout car and have driven it all of 0 miles......

Ron Pier · #30 03-11-11, 16:57

On the nearest bike which is a BSA WM20 you can make out the little brass contract plate on the rear mudguard. Just above that and in the shadow of the rear carrier is a rear lamp (Known as a "Fag End") It's on two little legs in the middle of guard. I don't think the other bike is a BSA. The bottom edge of the rear guard looks more like Norton or Matchless. But the more I blow up the picture the fuzzier it gets. Ron