MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Carrier Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 18-12-14, 21:38
RichardT10829's Avatar
RichardT10829 RichardT10829 is offline
Richard Harrison
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cullercoats Newcastle Upon Tyne United Kingdom
Posts: 2,975
Default Bridge weight sign & TAC sign

Folks just after the ID and OD Of the yellow ring on the bridge weight sign for my carrier ?

Anyone able to help ?

Also the ID FLASH sign (red white red) which is on the lower front hull plate, was this sign displayed anywhere else on the carrier, or just the front ?


Cheers

Richie
__________________
is mos redintegro

__5th Div___46th Div__
1942 Ford Universal Carrier No.3 MkI*
Lower Hull No. 10131
War Department CT54508 (SOLD)
1944 Ford Universal Carrier MkII* (under restoration).
1944 Morris C8 radio body (under restoration).

Last edited by RichardT10829; 19-12-14 at 11:10.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 19-12-14, 11:06
RichardT10829's Avatar
RichardT10829 RichardT10829 is offline
Richard Harrison
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cullercoats Newcastle Upon Tyne United Kingdom
Posts: 2,975
Default

Anyone At all ?
__________________
is mos redintegro

__5th Div___46th Div__
1942 Ford Universal Carrier No.3 MkI*
Lower Hull No. 10131
War Department CT54508 (SOLD)
1944 Ford Universal Carrier MkII* (under restoration).
1944 Morris C8 radio body (under restoration).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 19-12-14, 13:34
Ron Pier's Avatar
Ron Pier Ron Pier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poole. UK
Posts: 1,036
Default

Here are some excerpts from two of my MV markings books.
1st two are from British Military Markings (Hodges & Taylor)
2nd two are from WW2 MV Markings (Terence Wise)

Ron
Attached Thumbnails
Scan-141219-0002.jpg   Scan-141219-0001.jpg   Scan-141219-0003.jpg   Scan-141219-0004.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 19-12-14, 14:47
RichardT10829's Avatar
RichardT10829 RichardT10829 is offline
Richard Harrison
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cullercoats Newcastle Upon Tyne United Kingdom
Posts: 2,975
Default

Thanks Ron. That's the RAC flash sorted...... What about the diameter of the bridging class ? Any chance someone can measure one ?

Also I have seen carriers displaying 5 for the class, and 4.... Which is right ? My reading has only found that windsors were the only carrier that should have displayed 5..... The rest were 4 however I have seen many a war dated image that would contradict this.
__________________
is mos redintegro

__5th Div___46th Div__
1942 Ford Universal Carrier No.3 MkI*
Lower Hull No. 10131
War Department CT54508 (SOLD)
1944 Ford Universal Carrier MkII* (under restoration).
1944 Morris C8 radio body (under restoration).

Last edited by RichardT10829; 19-12-14 at 17:44.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 20-12-14, 09:17
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 11,151
Default

Richard,

See the section "Bridge Classification Signs" at http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/vehi...lemarkings.htm

This webpage lists a diameter of 6" for the sign itself, an confirms class 4 for Universals and class 5 for Windors. That's what the regulations said anyway, I'm sure in practice things were mixed up every now and then. As the lowest bridge class was 5 tons, it does not matter if a small vehicle displayed a "3" or a "5", they would be allowed to cross a class 5 bridge anyway. I think that's where some of the confusion comes from.

HTH
Hanno

Last edited by Hanno Spoelstra; 20-12-14 at 15:02. Reason: fixed link
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 20-12-14, 10:00
Ron Pier's Avatar
Ron Pier Ron Pier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poole. UK
Posts: 1,036
Default

I don't think there is anything cast in stone here. The bridging classifications will depend on the theatre of operation and how the engineers have defined the bridges.
The standard steel bridge plate is 9". It seems that painted on bridge numbers could vary in size dependant on the surface available.
I studied books and original images and with rough scaling, came up with this 8" circle for my British marked carrier. Ron
Attached Thumbnails
Carrier 020.jpg   carrier 043.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 20-12-14, 11:58
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 11,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Pier View Post
I don't think there is anything cast in stone here. The bridging classifications will depend on the theatre of operation and how the engineers have defined the bridges.
Can't agree on that. It was "cast in stone" as there were plenty of regulations and instructions, see the link to the web page. Yes, there were differences in how these were interpreted and applied, so in practice it could differ from army policy.

H.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 20-12-14, 12:43
Ron Pier's Avatar
Ron Pier Ron Pier is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Poole. UK
Posts: 1,036
Default

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?

Ron
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 20-12-14, 15:23
Hanno Spoelstra's Avatar
Hanno Spoelstra Hanno Spoelstra is offline
MLU Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 11,151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Pier View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 20-12-14, 18:17
RichardT10829's Avatar
RichardT10829 RichardT10829 is offline
Richard Harrison
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cullercoats Newcastle Upon Tyne United Kingdom
Posts: 2,975
Default

Well the RAC signs are painted onto the sides now.. What an aiming point for the Germans ! Hence I positioned them towards the rear of the carrier

Matt humbrol paints used, the red is insignia red.

Other side
Attached Thumbnails
image.jpg   image.jpg  
__________________
is mos redintegro

__5th Div___46th Div__
1942 Ford Universal Carrier No.3 MkI*
Lower Hull No. 10131
War Department CT54508 (SOLD)
1944 Ford Universal Carrier MkII* (under restoration).
1944 Morris C8 radio body (under restoration).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-01-15, 22:23
RichardT10829's Avatar
RichardT10829 RichardT10829 is offline
Richard Harrison
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Cullercoats Newcastle Upon Tyne United Kingdom
Posts: 2,975
Default

Got the front flash and bridging insignia finished tonight.
Attached Thumbnails
image.jpg  
__________________
is mos redintegro

__5th Div___46th Div__
1942 Ford Universal Carrier No.3 MkI*
Lower Hull No. 10131
War Department CT54508 (SOLD)
1944 Ford Universal Carrier MkII* (under restoration).
1944 Morris C8 radio body (under restoration).
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vehicle signs for bridge weight rating Spurrat WW2 Military History & Equipment 5 11-10-11 20:16
Tac Sign chris vickery Post-war Military Vehicles 4 23-01-11 17:59
Where did the sign in bar go? Phil Waterman TAC HQ 1 28-02-07 21:57
Bridge Class Sign Garry Shipton (RIP) The Softskin Forum 27 30-04-06 00:47
div sign Max Hedges The Softskin Forum 16 29-01-05 21:46


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:02.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016