"AFV Profile" Series Pictures

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Lynn Eades
The very first pic you posted is a Scout (Have any survived)

Could this be one?

Source: Bren Carriers of the British Expeditionary Force recovered

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by herkman
Am I correct in thinking that LVT were not used very much in Australia.

Col, according to http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/Austanks.htm there were at least three dozen in use, well into the 1950s if I recall correctly.

Personally I think Australia had many more as they were used commercially after the Army stopped using them - see http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/lsm/dhmg/buffalos.html

Could you share a pic of Harold's wading tank?

H.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Lynn, the mount was originally for a Wireless Set No.11; British, and later Canadian, made. The set is roughly the size of a 19 set which soon replaced it (I will post a picture when I find it). The aerial mount of the type shown had a large porcelin base attached to a ring with 'teeth' to set it in any direction. The aerial sections, ("C sections", I think) as you indicate, are 7/8" diameter by 4 feet long, two of which make an 8 foot aerial. On Mk.1 Universal carriers, this aerial could be upright, or folded forward along the armour to catch on the u-shaped bracket just aft of the division plate. A spring below the base attached to a bracket on the side kept tension. Often, a large rubber condom-like insulator covered the whole aerial base with only the rods sticking out the top. With the replacement of the 11 set by 19 sets, the 11 set aerial base was replaced with a standard 19 set rubber base (No.8 for Canadians, No.10 for the British). I have made drawings of the folding aerial base I can send you, and have one original 11 set base if you need details.

[Lynn Eades]

Thanks Bruce and Hanno.
Firstly Bruce, I have all of the aerial mount, just looking for the aeriel its self. It must be pretty rigid because it would take a fair load to overcome that spring and let the mount tip over on the bronze teeth, as its designed to do. Of note is that my one is not porcelain, rather bakelite. Quite a pretty and clever design when cost is not a consideration. once again, thanks!
And Hanno, Great to see. Shame about the condition. You might be interested to note a couple of things about the construction of the brens. Firstly the air ducts that bolt to the back of the hull division plate(on either side of the engine cover, are a different shape to the universals. if you look at the pic Hanno posted you will be able to see how they curve from the outside to the bottom. The universal ones are formed from two straight lines.
The next thing that stands out in the construction is the floor pans. Universals have a basically flat floor, that is fixed to the front ,sides, and rear, by means of being riveted firstly to sections of angle iron, which in turn are riveted to the hull sides, front, and rear. The Bren floors had "returns" bent up on them, and so, the floors were riveted directly to the sides, front, and rear plates. This would make identifying one with the armour cut off easy to pick. (there are other differences)
SO......Anyone got a spare aeriel??????

[Col Tigwell]

Thank you Hanno for your as usual, your very informed reply.

I used to live in Sydney which is on the East Coast, but in retirement moved to the West Coast which is about 3000 Kms away.

The LVT is in a award part of Harolds yard, and has proven difficult to photograph. On one side it is completely shielded by a shed. On the front it is shielded by a Matilda tank, which is a goer.

The other side is only about three meters from a building.

However from the rear you can get a clear shot.

I suspect except for the rusty T16. Keith's photo could of the same vehicle, and perhaps it is the same unit, except they have found a T16, since I was last there.

Keith where is your photo taken, if it is at Narrellan, and if that is so, do you have any more photos to share.

Harold the owner used to call it a wading tank, I suspect that was because he did not know any better. The photos on the internet, appear to my untrained eye, to be the same as what Harold has.

Has anyone from Australia been to Harold's, and can clarify what he has.

Thanks

Col Tigwell

[Keith Webb]

Hi Col

No, the pic with the T16 was taken at the Melbourne Tank Museum, owned by John Belfield who has (I think) 4 of them.
I do have some more pics of them archived if you're interested.

[Col Tigwell]

Thanks for the information.

I did not think it was the one at Narrellan.

If you ever get up that way, you will find the boys intereted and interesting.

Regards

Col

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by herkman
Thank you Hanno for your as usual, your very informed reply.

Col, you might as well get used to it... Hanno is a walking, talking encyclopedia of everything to do with this business and especially of everything that's gone on in MLU the last seven years. He scares ME, and that takes some doing (mind you, he's a big bastard too)...

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by herkman
If you ever get up that way, you will find the boys intereted

Sounds faintly obscene, old man... does it have anything to do with sheep?

[cliff]

Originally posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball
Sounds faintly obscene, old man... does it have anything to do with sheep?

Hmmm I think you are thinking of the wrong country. It is New Zealand that has the sheep

[Keith Webb]

Originally posted by cliff
Hmmm I think you are thinking of the wrong country. It is New Zealand that has the sheep

Aren't you a refugee from "Na Zillun" Cliff? Or should that be "Cluff"? (spoken with that delightful Kiwi ick-sunt, or burr.)

Why is it we Aussies are the only ones without an accent?

[alleramilitaria]

Why is it we Aussies are the only ones without an accent?

keith,
as someone blessed without a accent and married to someone from coffs harbour i can assure you that not only do you have a accent but you are great fun to listen too.

i have to watch the crock hunter and Mclauds doughters to understand y'all.



dave

[Keith Webb]

Those heartless Canucks would laugh at me almost every time I opened my mouth?
(no, they're laughing AT you not WITH you)
And I thought I had a great sense of humour too.

They even think I'm saying Jif when really I'm saying Geoff.

[alleramilitaria]

hey i can do a canuck accent to, ay

i can listen to anything as long as it does not have that evil vegi stuff in it.

by the way im planning to build a scout carrier here within the year.

that way i will be well on the way with the entire set

[cliff]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
Aren't you a refugee from "Na Zillun" Cliff? Or should that be "Cluff"? (spoken with that delightful Kiwi ick-sunt, or burr.)

Why is it we Aussies are the only ones without an accent?

LOL yes Aussies have an accent and like the North and South in the USA it can be different between states as well.

I also do get caught out occassionly as a Kiwi but only on certain words now.

The difficulty I have is in the way you say some place names here. Like Hervy bay is pronounced Harvy so how the hell do you get HA out of HE? LOL.

Mind you I also got a bit of paper from the govt here that says I am an Aussie but then again we all know how truthfull most polititions are as well don't we? :

[Col Tigwell]

Harold Thomas from Narrellan, who unfortunately suffers from Parkinsons , from a technical point of view, has to be one of the best technical minds I have ever met.

He did his training with Kingfords Smiths airline, but has a great interest in tanks and older motor trucks. His son who is in his fifties likewise has inherited his fathers talents. They have about six military vehicles including a White half track, which they imported from Europe.

Nice guys who when they discover who you are, will show you all.

Regards

Col

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by herkman
Harold the owner used to call it a wading tank, I suspect that was because he did not know any better. The photos on the internet, appear to my untrained eye, to be the same as what Harold has.

Col, I guess one could call the LVT4 a wading tank. It really is a barge like vehicle with tracks to propel it on land and in the water. Attached goes a period pic showing how a LVT4 could take on loads like a Jeep.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Keith Webb
No, the pic with the T16 was taken at the Melbourne Tank Museum, owned by John Belfield who has (I think) 4 of them.

Four LVT4's you mean, eh? Surely not four T16's?!?

Originally posted by Geoff Winnington-Ball
Col, you might as well get used to it... Hanno is a walking, talking encyclopedia of everything to do with this business and especially of everything that's gone on in MLU the last seven years. He scares ME, and that takes some doing (mind you, he's a big bastard too)...

Ok, ok, I'll get a life!! :

H.

[Keith Webb]

Yes, that was the LVT, not the T16!

[Adamicz]

Anybody know what are the differences between "Carrier, Bren, No.2, Mk.I" and "Mk.II"? Not Universal Carriers Mk.I and Mk.II, I just want these two early types.

And second question... how many of them were produced? (Again, I mean only early types Mk.I and Mk.II), thx

[Ryan]

Please correct me anybody if I'm wrong.
Was it that the Mk.1 was fitted for the Vickers M/G and the Mk.2 was fitted for the Bren gun?
Hope this helps.

[Lynn Eades]

Hi I do not have access to my books but here goes with an opinion which may stand to be corrected.
I dont know that there was a "Carrier Bren No2 Mk2.
I believe the "Bren carrier was obsolete once the Mk1 Universal was in production.
The Mk2 universals are easily identified by the side mounted steps, which the Mk1's dont have.
The "No2" relates to the H.P. of the motor (85) The No1, and No3 being 65 and 95 horse power.
I do not remember the nomenclature of the Machine gun carrier with the Vickers and the flat, sloping front guards, that preceeded the Carrier Bren No2 Mk1.
Hope that helps, and if I have it wrong, please let me know. I'd rather not live under the mis-apprehension.

[Adamicz]

Originally posted by rynoki
Please correct me anybody if I'm wrong.
Was it that the Mk.1 was fitted for the Vickers M/G and the Mk.2 was fitted for the Bren gun?
Hope this helps.

I think that rearmament from Vickers MG's to Bren guns was implemented already on MG Carriers No.1 Mk.I

And talking about Mk.II, it probably didn't exist, I've just seen this marking on some sites without any closer specification. I just wanted to be sure

[Adamicz]

Ok here's my second question. Now when reading some info about Universal Carriers, I'm confused about their official marking.

I suppose first versions were "Carrier, Universal, No.1 Mk.I" But then? Don't know if Mk.II's existed only in 85hp engine version (No.2) or if also No.I Mk.II was produced... and so on... could anybody help? Thx

[Lynn Eades]

Sorry. All my info is drawn from memory, because all my books are buried in a shipping container.
So the best advice I can give is for you to locate a book called "The British Carrier story" It's probably the most reliable book out there on the subject, because there is a lot of wrong info out there in print about carriers.
I cannot remember the two authors, but the book is well known by some on this forum, and it may be that someone may even scan the appropriate pages and post them here for us both.

[Adamicz]

Another question, where was the first use of Universal Carrier in combat? In France as Bren Carriers?

[Rich Payne]

If the first combat use was in May 1940 then it was probably in Belgium as British Forces advanced to the Dyle line to meet the Germans. Some reconnaisance units went further.

The three mentioned earlier in this thread might have been among the first to come close to action.http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...&threadid=1429

Whilst I'm on, a friend on another forum has been looking for a positive ID of Carrier type in this picture showing 2nd Wilts in Italy in 1943.



Can anyone help ?

[Lynn Eades]

Universal Carrier, No.1,2,or3 (engine H.P.) Mk.1.

[Rob Beale]

"Making Tracks, British Carrier Story" by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis Profile Publications 1973 80pp

Carrier MG No 1, Mk I had a flat front plate with a gap for the Vickers MMG

Carrier MG No 2, Mk I had the stepped front plate, but with a flat plate hinged above the Vickers MMG

Carrier Bren No 2, Mk I and II had the stepped front plate, but with an angled hood hinged above the Bren LMG (to clear the magazine)

Chamberlain and Ellis make no comment on the difference between the Mk I and Mk II Bren carriers, though they mention that the Boys AT rifle could be carried as well or instead.

They note that most Carrier MG No 2, Mk I were reworked to Bren carrier standards

Ellis published a series of 13 articles in Airfix Magazine ending July 1970 (I have copies of Part 8 - 13)
They both authored the AFV Profile No 14 "Carriers" in 1970.
There are slight differences between them, most likely corrections were made as earlier versions were published.

The Carrier Universal Mk I designation also applied to Bren and Scout carriers that were converted to universal standard.

No 1 English 65bhp engine
No 2 American 85bhp GAEA engine
No2A American 85bhp GAE engine
No 3 Canadian 85bhp engine

I am unsure about the 65bhp rating. They state 85bhp for the bren carrier, and refer to the british, american and canadian enginesas being of 221 cu in capacity, and being interchangeable.

In NZ we refer to 21 stud and 24 stud V8 motors
Can some one clarify this please? Nigel, Lynn.

Rob

[Rob Beale]

Mike Cecil's Australian Military Equipment Profile no 2.
Jeff Plowman's Kiwi Armiour series.(most have carrier photos)
David Fletcher's Osprey New Vanguard book no 110 "Universal carrier 1936-48"

and check out Nigel Watson's thread on his forth coming books

Rob