New Carrier Owner

[Manfred Müllner]

Hi all!

For several years I read this forum.
Now I am also owner of a carrier, since two days it is in my garage.

Special greetings to Marc, he took me in his carrier two years ago in Beltring.
This is the result now.
Then I would like to send greetings to Nigel and thanks for the wonderful books.
Finally, I thank Martyn for the interesting conversation that we had in Beltring concerning carriers.

Maybe some of you know my new vehicle.
It is from the Memorial Military Museum of Campbellford.
The last owner of the Carrier was Harold Carlaw.
After his death his son has now sold the carrier.
I promised to take care of it.

In a first step, I would like to explore the history of the vehicle, all the numbers, the year of manufacture and the specific type.
Although I have read all three books by Nigel several times, but I think I will need help.

After that, I would like to see what parts are missing and where is the line between original and replica.
The armor plates in the front of the carrier were copied and are not original.
For this reason, the most important number is missing.
Unfortunately the data plate in the rear of the driver is also missing.

The carrier has not been driven for several years.
I need to see whether the machine is running, check the brakes and make a new electrical system.
This is a lot of work.
Currently I have -8° C in the storage area of the carrier and I will have to wait for a few weeks.

[RichardT10829]

Welcome to the carrier family Manfred, have you any more pictures of inside the hull ? and particularly the lower part of the rear plate (where the diff comes in)

the front armour appears incorrect (the vision slots...please don't take offence it is just an observation...there is lots of oddities on my carrier too) however she is a lovely specimen and you are lucky to have her.

she appears to have a late Mk1 or Mk2 light setup however the clincher for Mk is as i mentioned above about the lower hull rear pannel, if there are two square holes it is a Mk1 hull, if the plate is solid then it is a later Mk....so Mk2 or Mk3... there are other ways to ID it but that is a start.... if you look onto the gearstick housing there may be a part number and a made by number for example if it is a ford carrier it would have FMco then a number ie FMco 42 indicating that component was made in 1942...... it would give an idea of when the carrier was made however should not be taken as a definite source to age the carrier.


Cheers

Richie

[Lynn Eades]

Hi Manfred, Welcome to the forum, Isabell III looks like a fine carrier. It must be great to have her in the gararge.
Richard, My AOP is a MkIII, It has the two "Square holes" Do you have photos of a different arrangement?
I'd say Isabell has to be a MkII*.

[eddy8men]

hi manfred
welcome to the carrier club, that's a nice machine you've got there. i hope you can come to beltring with her this year as we are planning on it being a carrier fest so one more would always be welcome

all the best

rick

[RichardT10829]

I thought Mk2 from the round bar.... but you never can tell. the AOP carrier Lynn am i right in thinking they never progressed from the Mk1 style lower hull ? photo's of different arrangement ? are you referring to the lights? mine has both lamps fitted to the fenders / track guards rather than one lamp fitted to the gunners armour

[Michael R.]

Welcome Manfred !

Your Carrier is a U.C. No. 2 Mk. II*, built by Ford, in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Without a doubt it was manufactured in contract number CD 2609, March or April, 1944. The upper armour is CB 24552, engine number is TL 27149-F . As Nigel mentions, a former mortar carrier stowage model.

If you remove the post war fuel container bracket from the left rear, you may find the lower hull number on the angle bracket that attaches the rear upper vertical armour plate to the lower hull. See red arrow in attached image.

[Lynn Eades]

What do you mean "they never progressed" Do you mean the Brits?
What you maybe dont follow is that the different types evolved at different times. As with the Brens, there was a MkI and then a MkII. This was before the MkI U.C.
The Armoured O.P. evolved rather quickly. The Mk I, followed by MkII (see Nigel Wards) and by 1942 The AOP MkII was obsolete. A directive was issued to withdraw them from service around april that year)
I suspect the change from MkI to MkII in Mortar carriers was also at a different time to the other U.C's.
My Armoured O.P MkIIIW was built in late 1941 at Dagenham, and so we are talking about Mk III AOP's, almost before any MkII U.C's were built.

Yes the Armoured O.P MkIIIw is a similar layout to a MkI U.C. in that the battery is located in the left side rear and the air exit holes in the rear plate of the lower hull are rectangular.

Do you have pictures of a differnet hole arrangement?

[RichardT10829]

No unfortunately not... i can photo my lower hull with the square vent holes but have not got any images of Mk2's etc etc.

[Manfred Müllner]

Hi all!

Thank you for the warm Welcome.
I think it is time for a few pictures.

Michael, I think you know the carrier actually better than I.
The upper hull number is CB24552, the lower hull number in the rear is 24547.
A lot of parts have the sign FMCo 44.
Until now I had no time to find the engine number, as I said it was -8° C.

In the side of the carrier is CT 14164 located.
Is that right, which range in numbers can apply to the vehicle?
What role may have the carrier had?

The big box on the rear is it installed right?
What are the brackets?
At the feet of the Gunner is a holder made of wood?
Is the back rest by the Gunners seat original, I do not think so?
How would that look like faucets and speedometer?

The carrier has a lever with a linkage for the starter.
A second lever with linkage could be for the fuel valve.
I have to try to get copies of the manuals for the UC2 MkII *.

[Manfred Müllner]

More pictures

[Michael R.]

Your start handle is correct, as is the fuel tank change over lever.

The books are available from Brian Asbury, an MLU member in Canada.

[Manfred Müllner]

Some more pictures

[Manfred Müllner]

The last part

[RichardT10829]

wow she sure is complete, has lots of the right bits.... the gunners seat i am not sure if that is original or repro... i think the Mk2* had a fixed seat which was in a raised position mounted to the centre bulkhead....as pictured below


the back box on the rear armour i think mounts so the lid faces out and the clasps along the top...again i could be wrong.


please forgive this image it is a model but its the best i could find on my laptop

[Ron Pier]

Manfred your carrier is very close to mine judging by the rear hull number. Mine has Fomoco 44 in several places. I gather mine is a No2 MK2*. As Richard said your rear box is wrong. But your gunners seat looks like mine. But overall yours is far more complete than mine when I got it. Here are a few shots. I've built mine as 'Welsh Guard Stowage' Ron

[Marc van Aalderen]

Originally Posted by Manfred Müllner

Special greetings to Marc, he took me in his carrier two years ago in Beltring.
This is the result now.

Hi Manfred,
Gratuliere! Congratulations. I am glad I got you infected with the Carrier virus!
It is a harmless virus but can be dangerous in a way. Before you know it you want more Carriers. Look at poor Shaun and Kevin for example

Hope you can bring it to Beltring this year as I would love to see it in the flesh.

Good luck with your resto. If you need instruments or other parts get in touch with Dirk Leegwater.

Take care.

Cheers,

[Michael R.]

Manfred, you wrote, in part: In the side of the carrier is CT 14164 located.
Is that right, which range in numbers can apply to the vehicle?


The part number CTL 14164 is elusive if you are searching FUC-03. It is the upper bar over the divisional wall, along the top of the cooling air induction. This one is a Ford Motor Company part date stamped 44.

In the second image the part is turned 180 degree to make it easier to read.

These images are from your Carrier.

[Manfred Müllner]

Hi all!

What may have been the function of the carrier?
Was it in use for a mortar, a Vickers, a PIAT or another weapon?
There are some brackets inside and outside of the hull.
Unfortunately is the front plates not original.

[Ron Pier]

OK Manfred. I can tell you that the metal strip running round the hull at the rear is for hanging leather ammo pouches on. Even if you didn't acknowledge my previous post with pictures. Ron

[stephen crowhurst]

Hello Manfred

The square block with the round recess in the front is for the muzzle of the bren to rest in when stowed in the front and the back of the gun rests in a bracket on the steading handel .
The holes in the sides at the back are for brackets to rest different guns in. Depending on what you carried as to where you put the brackets.
The small bracket at the back is for fitting a sutton harness seat belt onto. As yet I have not come across any one who has ever seen seat belts fitted.

Thanks stephen

[Manfred Müllner]

Hi all!
I am looking for a MK II dash panel.
I have the plate with the switches, unfortunately, the frame and the cover is not original.
The dash panel can be used or repro.
Can anyone help?

[kevin powles]

Hi, I have an original almost complete Mk2 dash, which is rusty but would clean up, I will post some pics up to see what you think.

kevin.

Pictures added. Its a bit rusty at the bottom, but is repairably, i would want to take the dash light bracket off it. Too good to scrap, got to be worth £60, I have located a gear change gate but want to hang on to it until I know what will be going where.

kevin.

[BCA]

Hello Manfred,
Congratulations on getting this nice project. I've sent a PM regarding some parts.
.... Brian

[RichardT10829]

I also have a good condition Mk2 speedo head.

[Manfred Müllner]

Hi all!

Yesterday was another day of working on the carrier.

I exposed the steering cam plate on the right side.
It looks not so bad.
Then the left side was my turn.
I think that the radiator overflow tank has a little problem.

A real problem was the accelerator pedal bracket.
There is a screw really hard to reach.
It is also not shown in the FUC-03 manual.
The nut inside was only a lump of rust.
A proper tool was not to use.
We have removed the nut with the air chisel.

[Manfred Müllner]

More pictures from this day

[Nigel Watson]

Hi Manfred and all. Manfred has been in touch with me re his great carrier so I thought I would put some of my observations on here so that those of you who have MkII and MkII* carriers can help.

I think there is a possibility that Manfreds carrier may have started life as a Mortar Carrier. There are a series of holes on the rear armour which seem to form the pattern for the mortar barrel brackets, its retaining strap and the strap for the cleaning rod. The original position of the starting handle brackets on the axle cover are still evident, especially the ones on the lhs, and the position of the higher stowage for the handle is a Mortar Carrier configuration.

On the front the light on the drivers side is a MkI* style and not usual for the MkII*. If the carrier had been a Mortar Carrier that was upgraded, during the war, to MkII* then there was no reason to change the position of that light. Just a thought.

The front firing slot cover is also MkI* and Mortar Carrier spec.

I know the MkI* didn't have an expansion tank, but what about the MkII*? I think I can make out one in the mortar carrier photos although in a slightly different position.

So what do you all think?

The one thing it definitely is, is another saved carrier, and a great project, so congratulations to you Manfred.

Nigel

[kevin powles]

Hi Manfred, I have taken a pic of the inside of the mk2 dash.

kev.

[Lynn Eades]

Do a search for a thread I started, titled "Instrument panels (dash boards)"

[cletrac (RIP)]

Regarding the discussion about the holes in the rear plate, I have two hulls like this with no holes. I assumed they'd be No2 Mk2* but in Gregg's Military Vehicle Profiles he has a drawing of one with the two rectangular holes labeled No2 Mk2*. If that's the case, what model would mine be?