Carriers and WD numbers question

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Jack Geratic

Hello Michael, thank you for your interest.

Not sure what more I can add, other than I'm looking at NE Europe 1944-45 time frame. . .
Other than that, any info that can be added would go towards the building of a 1/35 scale model.

Jack

If the Algonquin Regt experience in NWE ‘44-‘45 was similar to other Canadian infantry regiments, you may find images of mortar carriers that show the ‘operational’ customized examples. There are images available of factory built 3” mortar carriers on MK-I* chassis in use before and after June 6th, 1944.

Some main differences of note from standard MK-I* or updated MK-I* to MK-II:
no firing rests, no smoke discharger, no 2” mortar, no AA pole socket mounts, no BREN, PIAT or Boys brackets or mounts of any description.

Relocation of rations stowage box. No armoured wireless battery box. No wireless radio mounts, antenna bases or installed accessories. No small arms ammunition containers or ‘break-out’ pouch brackets and straps.

The Canadian factory 3” mortar carriers were enhanced/customized in the field with welded equipment storage frames in addition to the mounting bases for attaching deep fording plates when so equipped. Dare I apply the term: “operational” ?

I would feel pretty safe using the CT series of WD numbers for 3” mortar carriers, some examples are shown in the following images and single shipping document. Some known range of Canadian made 3” mortar carrier numbers: CT-113991-114026 (36); CT-162911-163910 (1,000); CT-201801-202100 (300)

[Jack Geratic]

Michael, now that is a gold mine of info you have provided, really appreciate that.

On seeing the photo of the two carriers, the first one has a tactical marking within which is M5. The numbering does seem to indicate M represents the 3rd platoon, while 5 represents the fifth vehicle as set out in this document:

http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oo...88/536?r=0&s=5
oocihm.lac_reel_t12688_data_sip_data_files_0536.jpg.jpg

So far so good, as the CanadianSoldiers site also illustrate the 3" carrier mortar being the no.3 platoon:
https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/tac...ybattalion.htm

What's throwing me is the tactical marking in the photo is in the shape of a HQ unit. So essentially the support company is an HQ unit (with it's own HQ) found within the Company HQ of the battalion.

regards,
Jack

[Ed Storey]

What you have to remember is that the markings evolved over time so what was written in earlier documents may not apply latter on.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Michael R.

Some main differences of note from standard MK-I* or updated MK-I* to MK-II:

Michael, do you have any evidence Mk.I carriers were ever updated to Mk.II? For sure Mk.I hulls were adapted as factory supplied Mk.II carriers (all the Mk.I bits were never installed and the holes riveted shut) but I've never heard of a finished Mk.I being so updated.

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Bruce Parker

Michael, do you have any evidence Mk.I carriers were ever updated to Mk.II? For sure Mk.I hulls were adapted as factory supplied Mk.II carriers (all the Mk.I bits were never installed and the holes riveted shut) but I've never heard of a finished Mk.I being so updated.

Yes, I do.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Ok so next question, within all those Mk.I conversions to Mk.II, do you think a bunch of them are to Mk.II 'Welsh Guard" stowage and not necessarily a Mk.II mortar carrier?

[Michael R.]

Originally Posted by Bruce Parker

Ok so next question, within all those Mk.I conversions to Mk.II, do you think a bunch of them are to Mk.II 'Welsh Guard" stowage and not necessarily a Mk.II mortar carrier?

I suggest most of the MK-I* conversions performed in the U.K. were to MK-II UCW specification.

There are British documents that show MK-I carriers being converted to mortar carriers ... but the details appear to show they are British production carriers being converted to 3” Mortar carrier.

Am I chasing my tail and somehow investing hours of work to support a point I have overlooked?