Carrier Pics

Ledsel · #1 10-09-09, 05:23

That is only the engine serial no.. The only place that the vehicle serial no. is, is on the upper armour. The carrier in your foto does not have any place left that would have any kind of numbers. But from the engine number you could be fairly certain that it was a 1944 model MK.2 probably built early in March. If at all possible I would try and rebuild that engine. Even if the cylinders are in bad condition it can be sleeved.

RichardT10829 · #2 10-09-09, 10:31

not that it helps much but the lower hull number on mine is located on the rear gunners side fender (on the angle bar itself) just so you know its there is why i have mentioned it really

Ron Pier · #3 10-09-09, 12:32

Further to Richard and Ledsel's comments. I thought I'd post some pictures of the numbers locations I found on my hull. My upper hull # TI or is it TL 79140 but then the armour was cut here. Can the experts comment. The lower hull number is as Richard states. on the lop left rear rolled edge,and so faint it's barely visible I can make out an F and 44. Would this be FMC 44 or 1944. Ron

Ledsel · #4 10-09-09, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Pier

Further to Richard and Ledsel's comments. I thought I'd post some pictures of the numbers locations I found on my hull. My upper hull # TI or is it TL 79140 but then the armour was cut here. Can the experts comment. The lower hull number is as Richard states. on the lop left rear rolled edge,and so faint it's barely visible I can make out an F and 44. Would this be FMC 44 or 1944. Ron

Picture #3 is not a serial no.. It is just the part no. of the roll edge. The one at your engine crank is the lower hull no. but I can't see it all because the crank is in the way. The one ahead of the driver is the (T) no. or (CT) no. It looks like T179140, that is what is written on the side of the carriers, It is not the serial no.

Ron Pier · #5 10-09-09, 15:59

Thanks Ledsel for your comments. Referring now to the notes I made when I restored it in 98/99, I have the following to add. The lower hull # repeated for and aft is 24130. The T# along the edge of the front armour, I think is from another vehicle, as it was acquired to replace the cut front armour. The number at the left rear corner which I was able to read before painting, is F.M.co 44. It seems to be a date stamp? What you think?

Ron

Ledsel · #6 10-09-09, 22:42

Yes Ron, All the parts are dated when they were manufactured. There is probably a part no., there too but it is sometimes hard to see. On Gary's carrier though the angle iron piece at the rear is also missing so he has no numbers but the engine no..

Philliphastings · #7 11-09-09, 05:21

Hello Gary, looks like a good project. Don't be put off by the missing bits as over time you will find, acquire or remanufacture a lot as you go.

Best of luck with your project.

Cheers

Phill

rob love · #8 11-09-09, 05:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledsel

But from the engine number you could be fairly certain that it was a 1944 model MK.2 probably built early in March.

Definitely a mk2....the area over the rear diff does not have the two large square openings.

RichardT10829 · #9 11-09-09, 10:14

also as already mentioned on all the major components is the part number and also a date which will give you an indication of its age. the gear lever housing would possibly be a good one to go from as it is unlikely to have been repaired or changed. Mind this is not a concrete method of dating as i am sure they would have used up old stock on later carriers, but it may give you an idea.

Nigel Watson · #10 15-09-09, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob love

Definitely a mk2....the area over the rear diff does not have the two large square openings.

Following on from comments regarding carrier mark can I throw a spanner or two in the works and say, many MkI carriers were upgraded to MkII spec. which including the engines being supplied for the MkII production. Also the holes over the rear diff are also missing on some later bren carriers. Identifying the mark of carriers can only be done for sure by the edge armour information (provided it hasn't come from another carrier, which also happened during the war!). It is easier to identify earlier marks as there are tell tale fixing holes for equipment only fitted to them. Armour thickness in certain areas of the vehicle was altered so this can also assist. Could the two holes on the left mudguard be the fixings for the can holder on the MkII? It would be a great find if someone could locate a document which tied the Lower Hull Number with the Upper Hull Number with the WD Number and Serial Number. Then we would be able to run the hull numbers to find out year and marks. Start looking everyone!!!

Gary, great you have saved another two and good luck with them, it is worth it.

Nigel

gary_bath_jr · #11 15-09-09, 06:31

Hey all

Thanks for the very helpful info, unfortunatly this carrier has been attacked very viciously with a cutting torch and any number other than the serial on the engine has long been cut away by a farmer trying to keep dry, (fenders were cut off and steel added to make them higher), I am getting my second carrier in a week and a day, it has a lot more to it, ie: the tracks are on it, I believe the steering wheel is attached and several other items are there, I was told that the armour seems to be the only thing missing, will post pics as soon as I can

rob love · #12 15-09-09, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Watson

Following on from comments regarding carrier mark can I throw a spanner or two in the works and say, many MkI carriers were upgraded to MkII spec. which including the engines being supplied for the MkII production. Also the holes over the rear diff are also missing on some later bren carriers. Identifying the mark of carriers can only be done for sure by the edge armour information (provided it hasn't come from another carrier, which also happened during the war!).
Nigel

I don't see the hole in the floor at the front beneath the co-dvrs feet either, which would indicate a mk2 hull.

Are you saying that the Cdn factory installed mk1 armor and stowage onto mk2 lower hulls? I have seen a mk1 carrier that overlapped mk2 production, and other than the large "FORD" plate behind the driver's head, the rest of the hulll was typical mk1.

Nigel Watson · #13 19-09-09, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob love

I don't see the hole in the floor at the front beneath the co-dvrs feet either, which would indicate a mk2 hull.

Are you saying that the Cdn factory installed mk1 armor and stowage onto mk2 lower hulls? I have seen a mk1 carrier that overlapped mk2 production, and other than the large "FORD" plate behind the driver's head, the rest of the hulll was typical mk1.

Firstly Rob when I cut and pasted the comments about identifying marks it was only your quote that came up and I was referring to everyone's comments. So it wasn't just aimed at your comment Rob and apologies if it seemed like I was getting at you, not my intention (or anyone else).

I have no hard evidence/documentation that says anything about the hole you talk about beneath the co-dvrs feet being only on MkII hulls. I presume you refer to the commanders/gunners position? So I can't answer your next question. My intention was not to bring anyone to task, but merely to rein back folks obvious enthusiasm, just a wee bit, for fixing a mark on a carrier, just trying to share my knowledge that's all. If I can give you one example of a similar sort of thing. When I entered the world of carriers people were identifying Canadian made carriers by their distinctively shaped headlamps. Subsequently the British made Carriers were therefore identified by the conventional cone shaped lamps. Seemed a reasonable method. However I discovered documentation that showed Canada ordered the cone shaped lamps to put onto carriers they were building! So that particular method of identification was no longer accurate.

In the big picture does it matter? As long as we share our knowledge then we all are more accurate and better informed. For my part I am just pleased you all are as interested in these wee machines as I am and I hope the information in my books has helped with that. You all are still coming up with details, parts, pictures that are new and unanswered which is great.

So that's where I am coming from. Desperate to learn as much as I can about these vehicles which is what is so good about this forum, the way information is given.

The one difficult area I have come across and hope my books would help sort are the carriers I have come across in museums which are labelled incorrectly.
I suppose time will fix this as those in charge become better informed! No names so don't ask!!!!

Nigel

"The noise of the tracks slapping against the underside of the mudguard, the smell of the engine fumes burning your nostrils, the clouds of dust making your eyes stream, and the fear. What could be nicer as your carrier speeds over the ground?"..................."Everything!"

Tony Smith · #14 20-09-09, 03:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Watson

....... just trying to share my knowledge that's all.

If I can give you one example of a similar sort of thing. When I entered the world of carriers people were identifying Canadian made carriers by their distinctively shaped headlamps. Subsequently the British made Carriers were therefore identified by the conventional cone shaped lamps. Seemed a reasonable method. However I discovered documentation that showed Canada ordered the cone shaped lamps to put onto carriers they were building! So that particular method of identification was no longer accurate.

Nigel

Nigel, there is also photographic eveidence of Canadian Ford Carriers being manufactured with the UK-pattern cone headlights. How many? Certainly at least, up to the first 1000 (Probably!

Possibly

Maybe?

).

I agree that sharing information from a variety of sources without flaming people has seen the amount of collective information rapidly multiply in the last few years. It is always hard to provide a definitaive, concrete finding on some subject as someone will likely find proof of the exception to any rule at some later date. So the knowledge base keeps evolving and being refined.

rob love · #15 20-09-09, 04:08

Nigel
I'm straying a bit off topic, but the hole I referred to is on Mk1 carriers, and yes, just below the gunner. As I don't see this rectangular hole (I think it's about 4" X 4"). I would use that to support the likelihood that this is a mk2 hull.

Re the cutoff for the early Lucas headlamps, the parts manual gives a cut off of approx serial 2083 and 2084 for the changeover to the Cdn lamps.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode