Anyone able to help identify a carrier

[horsa]

Posting this on behalf of James Fritz in Canada who has been trying to join MLU for quite some time. He can read but can't post so here is what he says...

Is there someone on the MLU forum who would be able to help me identify the carrier using both numbers? Also how best to raise the number if at all possible.

In looking at the hull number I think the number is 138?2 or 38?2 or 13??2 or 3??2. I don't know if the 1 is indeed a 1 or a just a marking from the stamping process. There also may be an additional symbol or marking to the right of the 2. I didn't want to brush too hard in case I did damage.

The one of the motor shows the engine to be #8095 and that it was rebuilt in Nov. 1952.

[rob love]

It would have to be either in the 3000 serial range or in the 13000 range. Does it have signs of being an early carrier? Things like the horn, or rubber back steps. That would indicate that it may be in the 3000 range.

Personally I think it looks more like a 13000 number, and I have seen carriers in this serial range located in Canada.

One way to raise the numbers is by scrubbing them with a wire wheel. As you polish up the area, the harder metal that was stamped will react differently than the softer metal surrounding it. I have used this method to raise serial numbers on a gun that was ground off.

[horsa]

James sent this in answer:

My carrier doesn't have much left on it. No horn or rubber steps left on the back. I hope to make another visit to the carrier within this coming week and may end up with a better photo of the hull number. I also sent a contact email off to RCEME this past weekend asking if they have any old records that can be researched regarding the engine rebuild.

[rob love]

I am pretty sure you would be looking for something that does not exist wrt the records. When we were still using paper, we would keep old workorders for 7 years after the equipment was released, then into the dumpster. All that paper was gone by the late 90s, when we finally went to computers, however any records regarding this engine rebuild would have been gone long long before that.

I see the workshop on the tag is listed as 204 base workshop. I have a map here somewhere showing all those shop numbers. Only 202 remains today with that number, all other bases go with their full names now or their Wing or service bn number now. A quick google search shows that workshop to have been at Hagersville ON.

[James Fritz]

Originally Posted by rob love

I am pretty sure you would be looking for something that does not exist wrt the records. When we were still using paper, we would keep old workorders for 7 years after the equipment was released, then into the dumpster. All that paper was gone by the late 90s, when we finally went to computers, however any records regarding this engine rebuild would have been gone long long before that.

I see the workshop on the tag is listed as 204 base workshop. I have a map here somewhere showing all those shop numbers. Only 202 remains today with that number, all other bases go with their full names now or their Wing or service bn number now. A quick google search shows that workshop to have been at Hagersville ON.

Hello there, this from James in OS

I sent an email to RCEME but have not received a reply as yet and as you have suggested probably will not.

I hope to visit my carrier on Sunday (weather permitting) and will try to get a better photo of the hull number as the division plate has been cut off and so no carrier number identification left on it. I will try to find the actual engine number and take a photo of it as well.

In the mean time I have a question for all of you. I have seen bren gun universal carrier and T-16 universal carrier wheels (straight spokes versus curved spokes) but I have just recently seen a photo a wheel of the same size but 100% solid. Does anyone know what it would be off? My carrier has solid steel top carrier wheels and just recently have seen a photo of rubber covered top carrier wheels. Are the rubber ones off newer BGC models or T-16s? Are they interchangeable?

Also. Were the BG carriers and T-16 engines interchangeable, parts wise?

Thanks in advance.

[Michael R.]

You will likely find most of this information with a read through the archives. If you consider buying Volume I and II of Universal Carriers by Mr. Nigel Watson, you should enjoy that immensely. Mr. Watson writes a good book: as well as being a superb host for wandering Colonials who occasionally venture across the pond. Nigel shares that character with the likes of S. Hindle, S. Garrett, M. van Aalderen and T. Jones. I digress.

In Ontario, a purchase of the carrier manual copies UC-F1 and FUC-03 from Brian Asbury in Acton (BCA on MLU) will provide hours of distraction and cloud your mind with useless trivia.

Straight spoke bogie wheels on T16 to serial number 1900. Offset spokes before solid disc Kelsey Hayes.

All steel return rollers can be found on late MK-I*, as well as the MK-II*, and T16. I have a 1943 MK-I* within a few hundred numbers of yours, it has rubber return rollers. Perhaps you started off with rubber, but at some point in service life they were replaced with the all steel return roller? With your engine being rebuilt in 1952, I wager there was other work completed to service your carrier.

Who knows what has been done after disposal by DND.

T16 engines are not the same as U.C. MK-I* or U.C. MK-II*. However, an interchangeability list does exist in the American produced T16 SNL manual for a small number of engine parts and other bits off the Canadian production MK-I*.