Bridge weight sign & TAC sign

[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