AWM acquisition?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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'.

Hello Mike, thanks for the clarification!

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

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

Thanks for the query. For an excellent developmental history of the “beetleback” or Quad tractor see Ventham and Fletcher’s Moving the guns : the mechanisation of the Royal Artillery, 1854-1939, pp.80-85.

[cliff]

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.

[Mike Cecil]

..... 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

[David Dunlop]

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

[Mike Cecil]

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

Mike

[motto (RIP)]

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

Dave