Carrier Pics

[Nigel Watson]

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]

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]

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.

[Lynn Eades]

If I recall correctly, from Nigels book, a number of carriers were built by Ford of Canada,for the U.K., using components, made in the U.K. My guess though, is that your pics are of Canadian carriers for Canada, because of the horn (and the pic of no.1000)
You are right of course about the info flow, as the net gains momentum. Great! ..aint it!!!.

[Ledsel]

Originally Posted by rob love

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.

What was the hole for ?

[RichardT10829]

here you go, canadian carriers rolling out of the ford plant 1941 fitted with british style lamps no less one near the end has an extra perspex type screen fitted...possibly trialing it for use maybe ? either way all the carriers appear to be Mk1

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=12585

[gary_bath_jr]

WOW!!! I din't mean to spark such a debate about my carrier, it is good to see everyone posting their info as all is welcome to this newb carrier owner. I am getting excited about getting me second one as I was just told that it has a working engine in it, pretty much the only thing thing missing, (only, ha!) is the armour, which a friend is going to give me his mk2 armour. II am so stoked!!!!

[RichardT10829]

Gary, is the guy your buying from called Chris by chance ?