AWM acquisition?

[Tony Wheeler]

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.

I believe in this case Mike the term is applied in a purely official sense, in accordance with Mech Circ 314 of April '42:

VEHICLES FROM REFUGEE SHIPS

"A number of vehicles of various types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units, have arrived from overseas. These vehicles will be allotted numbers from a special block which has been reserved for the purpose, viz.: 50201 - 51000 for wheeled vehicles"

Cab 12 FATs arrived in numbers on 6th and 7th Div convoys during early-mid '42. As brand new vehicles taken on charge in Alexandria immediately prior to sailing, they arrived as "types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units", thus falling under the heading "Vehicles from Refugee Ships."

Of course, some of these convoys were in fact diverted at sea, when Java and Sumatra fell, but that's irrelevant under Mech Circ 314.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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'.

Again, this would seem to be in accordance with Mech Circ 314. That is, having been in service for some time, they were no longer "types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units".

I'd be interested to learn more about these later Cab 12 FAT arrivals Mike. I take it they were 9th Div vehicles arriving in early '43...?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

This is one of the earliest FAT's I can find, a Guy Quad Ant:

[Keith Webb]

Nobody would believe you if you turned up in something looking like that!

But it's genuine and looks pretty interesting.

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

This is one of the earliest FAT's I can find, a Guy Quad Ant:

Attachment 79791

[Lynn Eades]

I think we should call it a Dung Beetle?(I think there's already a Scarab?)

I wonder if the nick name sticks?????

Hanno, how can it be a FAT? It's a GAQ (that's never going to go viral)

[Tony Mathers]

This should answer a few questions.



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. shown above.

[Tim Bell]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

This is one of the earliest FAT's I can find, a Guy Quad Ant:

Attachment 79791

Have a manual for that somewhere.

[Mike Kelly]

That Guy looks like a Kubelwagen on steroids .

Guy Ant, Lizard, Vixant .. maybe its a Superant !

[rob love]

Originally Posted by Tony Mathers

This should answer a few questions.

Attachment 79801

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. shown above.

I would suggest that the anti-gas feature was simply making the body all metal, as opposed to it's "beetle" shape. In the end, the vast majority of CMPs were of all metal construction.

I note the author also has the evolution of the spare tire and platform mounted on the back in their reversed order of occurrence. Mounting the tires onto the back came later, after the run-flat tires were replaced with regular tires to conserve rubber. I think you would need all six men to get a 20" runflat up onto that back, and I'm not sure the weight would have been good for the truck nor the operators having to lift it.

Perhaps this was the wrong book to quote for the museum's interpretive panel.

[Lynn Eades]

Your first para. Rob, is how I read it as well. Tin body for anti gas as opposed to wood / canvas.

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Tony,

Interesting discussion, Tony. Your post containing MECH 314 is a few back now, so the following refers to that post in particular.

MECH 314 has two sections that I believe are relevant to the present discussion and your post in particular: the section titled 'AIF Vehicles Returned from overseas' and 'Vehicles from Refugee Ships'.

You stated that: "Cab 12 FATs arrived in numbers on 6th and 7th Div convoys during early-mid '42. As brand new vehicles taken on charge in Alexandria immediately prior to sailing, they arrived as "types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units", thus falling under the heading "Vehicles from Refugee Ships."

I cannot agree with your deductions for three main reasons.

Firstly, vehicles brought to Australia with the AIF on the 'Stepsister' series of convoys and independent voyages I believe fall under the heading 'AIF Vehicles returned from overseas', wherein the last paragraph specifically states that 'Certain vehicles have been brought to Australia bearing War Office numbers. These [ ie the registration number] are to be retained as the Army Vehicle number. No AMF or AIF numbers will be allotted to these vehicles.' So if tractors (new or used, MECH314 makes no distinction) were brought to Australia on the Stepsister transports, these would have retained their WO number, and not been assigned an AMF or AIF number.

Secondly, the heading 'Vehicles from Refugee Ships' refers to shipping being 'Refugee': the ships sailing under the umbrella of the Stepsister series were certainly not 'refugee' within the broadest definition of the term, but ships assigned to particular tasking, ie transport the AIF pers and stores to assigned ports, mostly in Australia. Whereas in terms of refugee ships, there were large numbers on independent voyages that were not part of the Stepsister series, and which were diverted mid-voyage to Australian ports rather than them continuing to their original ports of destination. These were thus classified as 'refugee ships'. The cargoes landed from 'refugee ships' and requisitioned by Australian authorities were invariably referred to as 'refugee cargo'. These ranged from raw materials to tanks and amounted to tens of thousands of tons (I have several refugee cargo lists: fascinating range of items listed). The Div of Import Procurement listed over 83 different vessels from which cargoes were requisitioned during the first four months of 1942. The list is headed 'List of Refugee Vessels diverted to Australia'.

Thirdly, the wheeled vehicles landed in Australia from refugee ships were assigned numbers within the 50201 to 51000 block, hence we see arrivals such as Albion and Bedford workshops, Austin K2 Ambulances, and so on, all being assigned numbers within that block. The 'Quad' tractors, which includes the one the AWM has acquired, also fall within that block.

Seems to me we are dealing with a tractor that was not originally intended to land in Australia, but did when the ship it was on was diverted to Australia, ie a refugee ship landing a refugee cargo. Hence its inclusion within the 'vehicles from refugee ships' number block, and the annotation 'refugee' adjacent to the entry (as with most entries within that number block).

Mike

[Tim Lovelock]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

This is one of the earliest FAT's I can find, a Guy Quad Ant:

Attachment 79791

Am I mistaken or are the body sides wood?

[Lynn Eades]

Yes Tim, I believe we are looking at wood. It was a commonly used material at that time in British vehicles.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

I think we should call it a Dung Beetle?(I think there's already a Scarab?)

I wonder if the nick name sticks?????

Hanno, how can it be a FAT? It's a GAQ (that's never going to go viral)

The Guy was listed as Tractor 4x4 and built under Contract No. V3245 for 16 vehicles, they were listed as 'less winch' and 'with winch', so looks like they were probably trials vehicles as later on Guy was to supply the Quad Ant FAT which also had the 'beetleback' style body as the Morris Commercial, and it is from these that the CMP FAT's were spawned.

Lynn, you may not know, but when the WD were trialing the 15cwt 4x2 trucks in late Thirties, Commer was a contender along with Bedford, Morris, etc. and the name of the Commer ........ Beetle!

I think the name 'beetleback' goes back a long way when referring to the Morris Commercial C8 FAT, probably back to service days, much the same as the names for Scammell Pioneer ... Coffeepot and AEC Militant Mk1 ...... Knocker. Most FAT's were referred to as plain Quads over here and I can remember my father saying that in the Fifties, when we regularly saw demobbed ones working on erecting precast concrete barns around the country.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

You stated that: "Cab 12 FATs arrived in numbers on 6th and 7th Div convoys during early-mid '42. As brand new vehicles taken on charge in Alexandria immediately prior to sailing, they arrived as "types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units", thus falling under the heading "Vehicles from Refugee Ships."

I cannot agree with your deductions for three main reasons.

Actually Mike I make no deductions here, I'm simply trying to follow instructions, as staff at the time would have done. Let me rephrase:

Cab 12 FATs arrived in numbers on 6th and 7th Div convoys during early-mid '42. At that point in time, no A.I.F. unit had previously operated this type. Consequently under MECH 314 they were subject to the instruction: "A number of vehicles of various types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units, have arrived from overseas. These vehicles will be allotted numbers from a special block which has been reserved for the purpose, viz.: 50201 - 51000 for wheeled vehicles"

This instruction is quite explicit. It is not open to interpretation. I cannot ignore it simply because the heading under which it appears seems inappropriate to me. That's not for me to decide. It's way above my pay grade. I'm paid to follow instructions, and a heading is not an instruction.

Another instruction I'm paid to follow is this one: "Certain vehicles have been brought to Australia bearing War Office numbers. These are to be retained as the Army Vehicle number. No AMF or AIF numbers will be allotted to these vehicles."

Again, I follow this instruction without question. Any vehicle with a War Office number stays that way. Except of course - "types which have not previously been operated by A.I.F. Units". These get a new number like all the others, because they're subject to the same instruction.

These instructions make sense to me Mike. MECH 314 is designed to identify vehicles foreign to Army use, because that's what matters in practical terms. It's not designed to identify refugee cargo per se, because that's of no concern to the user. It's just that when MECH 314 was hastily drafted in April '42 in response to vehicle arrivals, it was naturally assumed that the principal source of any vehicles foreign to AIF use would be refugee cargo - hence the heading "Vehicles from Refugee Ships", which then passes into the ledger.

Of course, if this analysis of MECH 314 is correct, it would mean all Cab 12 FAT arrivals during this period, including those on Stepsister convoys, would receive 50201 - 51000 numbers. Does the ledger reflect that Mike?

[Lynn Eades]

Thank you Richard, I never knew about the Commer Beetle.
The thread is very interesting and my jest is probably out of place.

When Tim asked "are these bodies made of wood" It brings me back to reality.
I assume people know what I know and forget there are younger people who have no knowledge on this sort of thing (no slight meant or implied,Tim)
It is important that people do ask these sort of questions otherwise much will be lost. Good question Tim.
Back to topic.....

[Mike Cecil]

Tony,

"Of course, if this analysis of MECH 314 is correct, it would mean all Cab 12 FAT arrivals during this period, including those on Sistership (sic) convoys, would receive 50201 - 51000 numbers."

I disagree with that analysis:

(1) vehicle with WO numbers arriving via Operation Stepsister from the Middle East retained their WO numbers no matter what type.

(2) vehicles arriving on refugee ships were alloted AMF numbers in the 50210 to 51000 block. The AWM Quad arrived on a refugee ship. The AWM Quad is in this group.

Seems straightforward to me, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of MECH 314.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

(1) vehicle with WO numbers arriving via Operation Stepsister from the Middle East retained their WO numbers no matter what type.

(2) vehicles arriving on refugee ships were alloted AMF numbers in the 50210 to 51000 block.

How then do we explain this one Mike:

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Seems straightforward to me, so I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of MECH 314.

Again, what matters here is not how we ourselves might interpret MECH 314, but how staff applied it at the time. Until we know that, we can't know the meaning of 50201-51000 block records. I would point out however that if the purpose were to identify vehicles from refugee ships, the instruction would simply read:

A number of vehicles have arrived from overseas on refugee ships. These vehicles will be allotted numbers from a special block which has been reserved for the purpose, viz.: 50201 - 51000 for wheeled vehicles

[Mike Cecil]

Image: Quad from a refugee ship: the register labels it as such, ie 'refugee', and it has been allotted an AMF number within the block allotted to refugee cargo, as per the instruction. But instead of using his initiative and common sense, the staff in the OVP didn't obliterate the Brit number because the instruction didn't specifically instruct him to do so. So now it has two: one useful, one useless within the Australian system.

Since neither of us really know just how the staff at the time interpreted the instruction, it will remain a mystery!

Mike

[Mike Kelly]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

Lynn, you may not know, but when the WD were trialing the 15cwt 4x2 trucks in late Thirties, Commer was a contender along with Bedford, Morris, etc. and the name of the Commer ........ Beetle

The trials were held after the Morris 15 cwt was already in production , the prototype Morris being built in 1934 . The other brands were on trial , not the Morris

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

The trials were held after the Morris 15 cwt was already in production , the prototype Morris being built in 1934 . The other brands were on trial , not the Morris

Thanks Mike,
I should have said Guy not Morris. Brain is too muddled at present with Corowa preparations.

cheers Richard

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

But instead of using his initiative and common sense, the staff in the OVP didn't obliterate the Brit number because the instruction didn't specifically instruct him to do so.

Like I said Mike - that's way above his pay grade! Mind you, in fairness to staff they did face a conundrum under MECH 314. That is, Cab 12 FATs bearing WO numbers technically fell under BOTH headings, and were subject to BOTH instructions, because they were "types which have not previously operated by AIF Units". It's possible therefore that Cab 12 FATs arriving in Stepsister movement were allocated 50201-51000 numbers, bringing "refugee" entry into the ledger, and in the case above, someone had a bob each way!

Of course, we're assuming OVP had access to full shipping information, which may not have been the case during this chaotic period.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Since neither of us really know just how the staff at the time interpreted the instruction, it will remain a mystery!

Exactly - we're trying to second guess staff who themselves were trying to second guess instructions in the middle of a war almost 75 years ago!

I notice Australian Armour and Artillery Museum have ARN 46425, which suggests another "Refugee" block was opened. Do we have any record of this one Mike?

[Mike Cecil]

Actually, Tony, I don't believe you can 'mix and match' the individual requirements as listed under each heading - I think each stands alone - which leads me to conclude that therein is the basis of the difference between how we each see MECH314, but that's just me.

46425 is an easy one: the front shell is off a 3 ton 4x4 GS cab 12, chassis/engine number 2G44509F, part of UK Order 889. It is ex-The Beck collection (where I think the image was taken), now residing at the Cairns A&A Museum. Syd was always keen to add the missing bits when he could.

Mike

[Tim Lovelock]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Yes Tim, I believe we are looking at wood. It was a commonly used material at that time in British vehicles.

Thanks, Lynn,

[Keith Webb]

Not only was it a cab 12 front from a F60L, the whole lot was sitting on a cab 13 F15A chassis. You can see the centre mount for the cab 13 front shell.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

46425 is an easy one: the front shell is off a 3 ton 4x4 GS cab 12, chassis/engine number 2G44509F, part of UK Order 889. It is ex-The Beck collection (where I think the image was taken), now residing at the Cairns A&A Museum. Syd was always keen to add the missing bits when he could.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Actually, Tony, I don't believe you can 'mix and match' the individual requirements as listed under each heading - I think each stands alone

Certainly that's the literal interpretation Mike, which I believe would apply in 99% of cases. However, in the case of Cab 12 FAT, it would lead to some vehicles getting around with WO numbers (Stepsister ship arrivals) and others with 50210-51000 numbers (refugee ship arrivals). Rightly or wrongly I don't believe that was the intention at the time, so I've deliberately circumvented MECH 314 ("mix and match" interpretation) to achieve the required outcome.

What I'm suggesting here is that MECH 314 was policy on the run which did not cover all possibilities, and hence needs to be applied judiciously in certain cases. This requires an understanding of policy intentions at the time, in which OVP staff would have been instructed, but which we ourselves can only deduce from surviving evidence.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

which leads me to conclude that therein is the basis of the difference between how we each see MECH314

Yes, but the difference exists only in relation to Cab 12 FAT, because I see it as an anomaly which was not anticipated when MECH 314 was drafted. That is, a vehicle type brought back by AIF which had never actually been operated by AIF.

Ultimately it all comes back to our understanding of 50210-51000 block and "Refugee" entry in the ledger. I think we need to challenge our assumptions here. It's my strong suspicion that the word "Refugee" in this context may not mean what we think it means, but is more of a beaureacratic label. I believe it's worth exploring because it may open the possibility of AWM FAT being ex-Stepsister movement, which is far more significant provenance than mere "refugee cargo".

Of course, it's also possible I'm barking up the wrong tree completely!

[Tony Wheeler]

Mike, I wonder if we can track these Cab 12 FATs trans-shipped at Colombo en route to Australia. Photo undated but presence of Andes indicates late February after Orcades returned from Java debacle (Andes embarked Suez 18 February carrying advance party 2/11 Field Regiment; disembarked Adelaide 16 March). Orcades disembarked Adelaide 14 March. If WO number H4522081 can be traced in vehicle records it may shed light on how these vehicles were eventually processed under MECH 314.

[Mike Kelly]

Don't know if this means anything but one of the Morris CS8's I have here has the British WO census nr. on the bonnet . And the first Morris PU 8cwt I aquired, has the strange "O" prefix number on the bonnet - these "O" census numbers appear on vehicles in Palestine , as seen in the AWM Palestine photos . Specifically, Morris 15 cwt and 8cwt trucks on issue to the AIF . Nobody can tell me what these numbers mean - their origin . This anomaly has everybody stumped

[Mike Cecil]

Tony,

H4522081 is not listed within the Refugee block.

All tractors within that block are (later?) H454XXXX registrations.

Mike

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Nobody would believe you if you turned up in something looking like that!

But it's genuine and looks pretty interesting.

It all looks quite Heath-Robinsonesque, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Hanno, how can it be a FAT? It's a GAQ (that's never going to go viral)

You mean GQA?

For other readers: FAT stands for Field Artillery Tractor, the name of the type of vehicle. Chevrolet built the CGT, Ford the FGT, etc., etc., all FAT's.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Mathers

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. shown above.

Thanks Tony for the scan of the book.

Originally Posted by rob love

I would suggest that the anti-gas feature was simply making the body all metal, as opposed to it's "beetle" shape. In the end, the vast majority of CMPs were of all metal construction.

I note the author also has the evolution of the spare tire and platform mounted on the back in their reversed order of occurrence. Mounting the tires onto the back came later, after the run-flat tires were replaced with regular tires to conserve rubber. I think you would need all six men to get a 20" runflat up onto that back, and I'm not sure the weight would have been good for the truck nor the operators having to lift it.

Perhaps this was the wrong book to quote for the museum's interpretive panel.

I concur with Rob's remarks above. Sorry to see the esteemed writers clearly missed the bat on this one!