AWM acquisition?

[Tony Mathers]

This should answer a few questions.

Quads.jpg

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.

[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

[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:


P03113.002 Cairns, Qld. Probably 10th Australian Light Anti Aircraft Battery.jpg

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

[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!