Help with Carrier ID

Ron Pier · #1 26-01-10, 17:20

I could use some help to ID my carrier exact model etc. It's a 1944 Canadian MK2. I've been checking the numbers I have. The front armour number starting by the dash overlap is T179140? but the whole or part of this armour might have been replaced. the hull number front and rear is 24130. The date 1944 is stamped on the left rear corner of the hull. I see terms used such as No2 MK2 and MK2*?? Can anyone assist in any way to tell me what mine is.

Thanks in advance Ron

Tony Smith · #2 26-01-10, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Pier

I could use some help to ID my carrier exact model etc. It's a 1944 Canadian MK2. I see terms used such as No2 MK2 and MK2*?? Can anyone assist in any way to tell me what mine is.

Thanks in advance Ron

If it's Canadian, it's a "Universal Carrier, No2, Mk2*". If it's UK built, it's a "Universal Carrier, No2, Mk2". The * refers to the slight construction differences in the Canadian built models.

Ron Pier · #3 27-01-10, 10:06

Thanks Tony. It's Canadian, so a No2 MK2*. Anyone know about the numbers?

Ron

Lynn Eades · #4 27-01-10, 11:21

As Tony has eluded Your carrier is a MkII* ( the "*" designating Canadian production. I'd guess Tony's example was focussed on the "*"
The other part of the designation is the "No." As in "Carrier universal No.1 Mk2*" The No. part relates to the engine fitted to it, Basically there were 3 horse power variants. 60 h.p.= No.1. 85 h.p.= No.2. and 95h.p. =No3
the engines in the Candian universals ( according to Nigel Watson's book) are all No.3. (Engine part no. CO1UC-6097 ANH) (14mm spark plugs)
So your carrier would be a " Carrier universal No.3 MkII* Does that help?

Ron Pier · #5 27-01-10, 13:43

OK thanks Lynn. So a No3 MK2* it's great how it all comes together once explained. I have both volumes of Nigel's book. I'll have to devote more time to reading and less time in the shed. I restored my carrier with the engine that came with it. I'll need to peek in the engine bay and take some notes. What should I look at and where are numbers to find? Ron

rob love · #6 27-01-10, 13:51

Canadian carriers were 85HP motors.

cletrac (RIP) · #7 27-01-10, 21:30

Here's the info on the Mk1, Mk2, and Windsor from Gregg's Military Vehicle Profiles. It should answer most questions.

Ron Pier · #8 27-01-10, 22:39

Thanks for the information chaps. Ron

Neil Ashley · #9 28-01-10, 18:14

Ron

The engine of course may not original to the carrier as they did not last very long in service.

Confirmation of the engine number will I assume aid in confirming the date of manufacture.

Yours must be a fairly early Mk2 from memory having the hole in the side of armour to take the early pattern of flame thrower.

From memory I think the front remaining part of your armour is original. You should be able to look up in the Chilwell listing for the contract number.

Ron Pier · #10 28-01-10, 19:45

AH Neil I wondered when the hibernation in Wilton came to an end. I thought you might have some info. I've not really bothered to look till now. I suddenly decided to glean some of the historical information. How do I get to those records at Chilwell? Can I do it on line?

Ron

Lynn Eades · #11 29-01-10, 22:27

In Nigel Watsons first book ,on page 210. There is a list of engines used in universal carriers. (this is where I went wrong)
All the Canadian carriers(those with "*")are listed with the Canadian built engines (CO1UC-6097)and identified as No.3's.
There is no listing for a Canadian No1 or a No.2.
According to this page of Nigels book, ALL the Canadian universals are No.3's.
I now see on page 217 a contradictory item where the CO1UC -6097 ANH motor is listed as an 85 H.P. engine. As the 85H.P. engine is a No.2 (see photo)
From Dr. Greggs book, and various other material I agree with Rob

,and concede,

that your Carrier Ron, is a; No.2 MkII*

Neil Ashley · #12 03-02-10, 09:21

Ron

I have consulted up my two sources of information namely Nigels book and and a very badly reproduced list of Carrier Contracts which the person who gave it to me thought came from Bovington.

On the Bovington list serial numbers T178800-T181058 are allocated to contract S/M 1349 which is listed as being for Windsor Carriers. Having said this all the contracts listed immeadiately prior to this cover both Windsors and Universals so perhaps a mistake was made on the list..

Unfortunately in Nigels book Contract S/M 1349 is listed as having serial numbers T28149?-T286848. I could not immeadiately see your number in Nigels book but I assume you have a copy to check.

Others may be able to comment on the first contract but the number on my own Mk2* also falls into a grey area.
Bovington do have some Canadian Contract Cards but I have never checked for Carriers.

I live in Trowbridge as well not Wilton. I am busy these days instructing in the Army Cadet Force having come out of the TA aftter 18 years. About a third of the detachment come from Poland so its getting more like WW2 everyday

Ron Pier · #13 03-02-10, 09:57

Thanks for that Neil and sorry for relocating you. I will get down to some research soon.

Ron

Nigel Watson · #14 04-02-10, 21:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

In Nigel Watsons first book ,on page 210. There is a list of engines used in universal carriers. (this is where I went wrong)
All the Canadian carriers(those with "*")are listed with the Canadian built engines (CO1UC-6097)and identified as No.3's.
There is no listing for a Canadian No1 or a No.2.
According to this page of Nigels book, ALL the Canadian universals are No.3's.
I now see on page 217 a contradictory item where the CO1UC -6097 ANH motor is listed as an 85 H.P. engine. As the 85H.P. engine is a No.2 (see photo)
From Dr. Greggs book, and various other material I agree with Rob

,and concede,

that your Carrier Ron, is a; No.2 MkII*

All Parts Manuals,Documents & Research Material I have show that Carriers fitted with the C01UC-6000 or 6097 unit, have the designation of No.3 prefixing the Carrier Mark. All this means is that the Canadian built carrier was factory fitted with the Canadian built engine. It is highly possible for our carriers to be fitted with an American or English unit at some time after, most likely due to failures and breakdown. This would of course have changed the nomenclature of the carrier. Engine id should determine this Ron.

To clarify another point, or two! for those who have been unable to get a glimpse of my books!; No.1 is an engine of English origin fitted with American or Lucas electrical equipment and 18mm sparkies; No.2 and 2A are of American origin with 14mm sparkies; No.3 is an engine of Canadian origin with 14mm sparkies. All are 85hp.

Lynn I don't follow where you say there is a contradictory item as the units on page 210 are all 85hp and on page 217 it shows also as 85hp! The CO1UC -6097 ANH motor was an 85hp unit that superceded the C01UC-6000-CN and -AN motors, and was itself superceded by the C01UC-6097 unit.

Does this all make sense guys, or have I misunderstood the engine problem?
No doubt I'll find out soon enough!

Nigel

Lynn Eades · #15 05-02-10, 00:57

If you go back to my last post, and look at the image. It is from the Chilwell catalogue No.63/63 Jan 43.
Of course this workshop manual is for British carriers.
Your material on page 210, lists all Canadian Mk1 and Mk2 universals, as No.3.I believe they No2
I am confused. From the British manuals, a No3 is 95 hp, but you are telling me that a No.3 means a Canadian built engine of 85hp. ...... No bloody wonder people get confused!
Nigel, you've done a lot of research. Can you clarify?

Neil Ashley · #16 05-02-10, 09:48

Nigel

Presumably you cannot add any further clarification to the serial number question?

Nigel Watson · #17 05-02-10, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

If you go back to my last post, and look at the image. It is from the Chilwell catalogue No.63/63 Jan 43.
Of course this workshop manual is for British carriers.
Your material on page 210, lists all Canadian Mk1 and Mk2 universals, as No.3.I believe they No2
I am confused. From the British manuals, a No3 is 95 hp, but you are telling me that a No.3 means a Canadian built engine of 85hp. ...... No bloody wonder people get confused!
Nigel, you've done a lot of research. Can you clarify?

Hi Lynn
The Illustrated Parts List for Universal Carriers dated 1945 Chilwell 63/76 under Identification of Vehicle Types show all No. 3 Carriers across the whole range of carriers as the C01UC-6097 unit. All the engines mentioned in this Parts List under Identification of Engine Types are 85bhp with the C01UC-6097 being fitted as the standard engine to MkI*, 3"Mortar and 2prAT (presumably because these were all based on the MkI*. Could it be a misprint? Is your manual British or British but for Australian/New Zealand use perhaps? It is for carriers and not trucks etc? More research called for I reckon.

Anyone else have any observations/thoughts?

Neil sorry still can't crack the Serial No. to Hull Numbers to WD Number link. Still hopeful to come across something.

Nigel

Neil Ashley · #18 05-02-10, 15:15

It was the conflicting T numbers for contract S/M1349 which I was wondering about.

I don't know what source you used for your book.

"On the Bovington list serial numbers T178800-T181058 are allocated to contract S/M 1349 which is listed as being for Windsor Carriers. Having said this all the contracts listed immeadiately prior to this cover both Windsors and Universals so perhaps a mistake was made on the list".

"Unfortunately in Nigels book Contract S/M 1349 is listed as having serial numbers T28149?-T286848. I could not immeadiately see your number in Nigels book but I assume you have a copy to check".

Nigel Watson · #19 05-02-10, 18:44

At the back of my mind I knew I had seen something about a No.2 MkII* and as I was looking at Volume 2, there it was a carrier id plate with Universal Carrier No.2 MkII*. Assuming this was fixed to a carrier and not a mock up, Canada produced carriers fitted with the American made V8. Having just found that I came across my reference for engine types. Neither of these contradict each other but simply say Canada produced carriers fitted with Canadian made V8s as well as American and hence the Carriers Nomenclature altered. England did the same so Ron if your MkII* has an American V8 you can call it a No.2 MkII* if you like!!!!

Nigel

Nigel Watson · #20 05-02-10, 19:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil Ashley

It was the conflicting T numbers for contract S/M1349 which I was wondering about.

I don't know what source you used for your book.

"On the Bovington list serial numbers T178800-T181058 are allocated to contract S/M 1349 which is listed as being for Windsor Carriers. Having said this all the contracts listed immeadiately prior to this cover both Windsors and Universals so perhaps a mistake was made on the list".

"Unfortunately in Nigels book Contract S/M 1349 is listed as having serial numbers T28149?-T286848. I could not immeadiately see your number in Nigels book but I assume you have a copy to check".

Hi Neil
My source for the WD Nos and subsequent Contract Nos. come from a Bovington Document entitled Schedule of Allocation of WD Numbers to AFV Contracts by Chilwell dated August 1944 Chilwell Ref: 215.14. Which Bovington List do you refer to?

What is interesting is that it states T178800-183799 was for Universal Carriers to Contract S/M 1349 placed with Loyd! I have a note to say that this Contract was originally placed with Ford and then changed to Loyd (Can't find the source of the note at the moment). However CT179405 is a Canadian built Carrier with Serial No. 24753 and Upper Hull 179405? and Lower Hull 23773 (Again I have it as a note against this Contract but can't find its source either. Belongs to someone we know I feel! Anyone?). I wonder if a certain amount were produced by Ford before the Contract was placed with Loyd?

The reason you couldn't find the numbers in my book is most likely because you were looking under Commonwealth Production. They are under UK Production because of the Contract being placed with Loyd latterly.

We'll all sort this out one way or another.

Nigel

Ledsel · #21 06-02-10, 04:39

Mine is a No.2 MKII* and its original. BUT I don't know if it has a Yankie engine and I can't look because it's in the shed at the farm. I don't think it says made in Canada on the head.

Lynn Eades · #22 07-02-10, 10:39

Heres some pictures of the manual. Its obviously a British Carrier manual, with no references to N.Z.

Ron Pier · #23 07-02-10, 11:25

Likewise I need a spare hour or so to get in my engine bay. From memory I'm sure I saw MADE IN USA on one of the heads?? I'm heavily into a couple of other projects in the shed at present. But I really want to check the numbers and confirm what I have got. It seems to have been an issue worth talking about though. Thanks for the comments chaps. Ron

Ledsel · #24 07-02-10, 16:04

Lynn, That looks like a nice manual. I've never seen one before.

Nigel Watson · #25 07-02-10, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Heres some pictures of the manual. Its obviously a British Carrier manual, with no references to N.Z.

Hi Lynn
Thanks for posting the manuals. They seem to describe carriers in a totally different way, very interesting. I wonder if they standardised things later, after your manual? Here is where I got info from.

I wonder what is in the Service Instruction Book for Carriers...Chilwell 63/53? I don't have a copy, anyone?

Have also noticed the description of a MkI having a step on the side.

Nigel

Lynn Eades · #26 07-02-10, 22:48

Over here we have been lucky enough to have a range of different carriers. Although the numbers are not big, we have had British built carriers, Canadian built carriers, as well, the Australian ones were copied and some 600+ were built here, along with the 6 proper 1938 Bren carriers, that came here pre-war, and the 40 LP1's that were patterned from them.
Because of this we can compare the differences between the different types, that you guys in Canada are unlikely to see.( We have not had T16s or Windsors)
I note that even in the U.K., a U.K built carrier is fairly rare. (most of the guys in the U.K. on this forum have Canadian built carriers.)

Nigel The manual has amendments dated to April 1945.

Eric Korhonen · #27 28-03-10, 00:45

I went out and checked for numbers on my carriers. They are no where near complete, not started on restoration they are just the way I have found them.
One lower hull # 9300 Front armour in front driver CT 113449 10 30 42 followed by Ford 11301

One that has not much left of it all I could get is engine # TL 9379

One only had lower hull # 5066

One more but have to uncover it and look for #'s on it when dryer outside
One more engine to look at as well.

Eric

Lynn Eades · #28 28-03-10, 03:48

The first one is easy. CT113449 built 30th. october 1942. A universal carrier (Mark not stated) fron contract CDLV213, about 2/3d of the way through a batch of 951. The others, I cant help with.

The Bedford Boys · #29 28-03-10, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Over here we have been lucky enough to have a range of different carriers. Although the numbers are not big, we have had British built carriers, Canadian built carriers, as well, the Australian ones were copied and some 600+ were built here, along with the 6 proper 1938 Bren carriers, that came here pre-war, and the 40 LP1's that were patterned from them.
Because of this we can compare the differences between the different types, that you guys in Canada are unlikely to see.( We have not had T16s or Windsors)
I note that even in the U.K., a U.K built carrier is fairly rare. (most of the guys in the U.K. on this forum have Canadian built carriers.)

Nigel The manual has amendments dated to April 1945.

We have the dash for a windsor carrier sitting in our shed at the moment. So either we did have at least one windsor here in NZ or someone has brought it in from overseas. I think one of Dad's friends has the exhaust system for a t16 aswell.

Eric Korhonen · #30 28-03-10, 16:26

I believe the carrier hull #5066 is the remains of a 2 pounder tank hunter. Not a lot left of, has been cut down alot but has the rounded hood that they had.

Eric