Bridge weight sign & TAC sign

[RichardT10829]

Folks just after the ID and OD Of the yellow ring on the bridge weight sign for my carrier ?

Anyone able to help ?

Also the ID FLASH sign (red white red) which is on the lower front hull plate, was this sign displayed anywhere else on the carrier, or just the front ?


Cheers

Richie

[RichardT10829]

Anyone At all ?

[Ron Pier]

Here are some excerpts from two of my MV markings books.
1st two are from British Military Markings (Hodges & Taylor)
2nd two are from WW2 MV Markings (Terence Wise)

Ron

[RichardT10829]

Thanks Ron. That's the RAC flash sorted...... What about the diameter of the bridging class ? Any chance someone can measure one ?

Also I have seen carriers displaying 5 for the class, and 4.... Which is right ? My reading has only found that windsors were the only carrier that should have displayed 5..... The rest were 4 however I have seen many a war dated image that would contradict this.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Richard,

See the section "Bridge Classification Signs" at http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/vehi...lemarkings.htm

This webpage lists a diameter of 6" for the sign itself, an confirms class 4 for Universals and class 5 for Windors. That's what the regulations said anyway, I'm sure in practice things were mixed up every now and then. As the lowest bridge class was 5 tons, it does not matter if a small vehicle displayed a "3" or a "5", they would be allowed to cross a class 5 bridge anyway. I think that's where some of the confusion comes from.

HTH
Hanno

[Ron Pier]

I don't think there is anything cast in stone here. The bridging classifications will depend on the theatre of operation and how the engineers have defined the bridges.
The standard steel bridge plate is 9". It seems that painted on bridge numbers could vary in size dependant on the surface available.
I studied books and original images and with rough scaling, came up with this 8" circle for my British marked carrier. Ron

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Ron Pier

I don't think there is anything cast in stone here. The bridging classifications will depend on the theatre of operation and how the engineers have defined the bridges.

Can't agree on that. It was "cast in stone" as there were plenty of regulations and instructions, see the link to the web page. Yes, there were differences in how these were interpreted and applied, so in practice it could differ from army policy.

H.

[Ron Pier]

The link doesn't work for me Hanno. I also don't agree with your statement of uniformity. See the page I reproduced from Terence Wise's book, where he list UC's in the normal regulations as coming under bridge classification No5. And yet the website that you refer to has it at No4. In the follow up page from yet another book that I reproduced, they show three different examples of Bren carrier numbers taken from original pictures which shows 3, 4 or 5.
I have read that different theatres of operation had different bridge weight classifications...... Did the Yanks have a different system to ours?

Ron

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Ron Pier

The link doesn't work for me Hanno. I also don't agree with your statement of uniformity. See the page I reproduced from Terence Wise's book, where he list UC's in the normal regulations as coming under bridge classification No5. And yet the website that you refer to has it at No4. In the follow up page from yet another book that I reproduced, they show three different examples of Bren carrier numbers taken from original pictures which shows 3, 4 or 5.
I have read that different theatres of operation had different bridge weight classifications...... Did the Yanks have a different system to ours?

Hello Ron,

Apologies, I first posted the link using my dumb-phone, it is fixed now.

I am not going to debate over this - I am only pointing out that the armed forces had regulations and instructions for every conceivable subject, and that restorers these days apply many degrees of freedom about paint colours, markings, all sorts of additions to their vehicle, etc. as "that's how things go in the army"

There are only a couple of starting options for a restoration in my humble opinion: as-built (factory fresh), used & maintained as per regulations, or based on actual in-use photographs or documentation. Everything else is a figment of the imagination, which is perfectly acceptable to me, as long as people do not portray it as historically correct.

Hanno

[RichardT10829]

Well the RAC signs are painted onto the sides now.. What an aiming point for the Germans ! Hence I positioned them towards the rear of the carrier

Matt humbrol paints used, the red is insignia red.

Other side

[RichardT10829]

Got the front flash and bridging insignia finished tonight.