Restoration of Aussie jeep trailer

John Mackie · #1 27-06-12, 08:14

i bought this trailer in 1978and has waited arround 'till now for reastoration.THE YEAR OF THE TRAILED VEHICLE COROWA 2013.The floor which has been replaced was rusted through and has now been removed. Thhe drawbar has been severly worked on with an electric welder has been removed and steel bought to make a new one.
As the mudgaurds are square and only come up to the start of the flare i presume it to be a #3.
There are no sign of army numbers, howevere there is the number 1334 stamped on the center of the square axle. i asume this to be the serial # of the axle and/or the trailer.
The towing eye is bolted to the underside of the towbar with 4 1/2 " bolts.There ere signs of welding on the apex of the towbar.and about half way along there ia a U shaped bracket and on the other side a piece of flat about 3 X 1 1/2" is welded to the other drawbar.

I will add photos as soon as i can get up to the thread.

Ganmain Tony · #2 01-07-12, 09:56

For John under his strict supervision

Photo's of progress on the Jeep trailer...with some questions

It appears that this trailer never had lights only reflectors (originally). You can see a light has been fitted post war.

Can anyone comment or confirm jeep trailers existed in wartime service with out any lights?

Ganmain Tony · #3 01-07-12, 10:05

When Draw bar was removed a lot of rust was found around where it joined to the body.

The towing eye was bolted to the underside of the draw bar by four half inch bolts.

John has done a very good repair to this section.

Is it possible that the Draw bar was reinforced with wood?

Whats the small rectangular piece welded to the bar?

Ganmain Tony · #4 01-07-12, 10:41

A few more...

The trailer has been mounted on a improved version of the rotisserie.

A bit of rust has been cut out of the side as well.

Ganmain Tony · #5 01-07-12, 10:45

Some more of rusty metal removal..

Also serial number on the square axle

Ganmain Tony · #6 01-07-12, 10:51

What has been welded to the apex of the Draw bar?

The bracket with the two holes in it is in line with the above, surely it was not for a hand brake??

Ian Fawbert · #7 01-07-12, 12:10

Hi John and Tony,

Good to see an Aussie trailer getting restored! Thanks for taking and posting the pictures for all to see these wonderful trailers!

I would agree John, it is a #3. I cant remember if 3 or 3a had the square axle- i`ll check if no one gets back before me. The backing plate for the reflectors being round indicates it is a ford trailer (GMH trailers had the reflectors on a flat strap)- the tie down hook style support the ford manufacture. The aussie jeep trailers didnt have lights from the factory, only reflectors. Lights on aussie trailers were added after the factory- whether in service (various concoctions of lights were added in some interesting forms- alot of #4 trailers have lights added!), or civilian hands.

I havent seen a number on the chassis before- i`ll check it out (check my trailer).

The small rectangle in the first of the 2nd set of pictures is/was a retaining tab for the 2 cast halves used to reduce the lunette eye size so it doesnt slop around in a smaller pintle hook (eg a jeep one).

The 2 angled off rectangular tabs on the drawbar in the last picture (welded to the pipe) are part of the set up to retain the landing leg- which is a 2 piece pole type leg. If needed, i can take some measurements off mine and send them along- i'll need an email address again though (best to PM me). I dont have the bottom half of the leg, but have some good pictures of one.

I am not sure what was welded to the top (actually the bottom) of the drawbar. Will check. The drawbars have ben turne upside down to help level the trailer- if you look at the #4 trailer, it has the lunette mounted in the drawbar after testing done to #3/3a's to relocate the lunette. I guess your trailer was swapped to achieve the same purpose (as otherwise, the trailer sits down at the front on the lunette more).

John- havent forgotten about the numbers either mate, i just have not had a chance to get back to it sorry. Its not off the card, i will get to it (sooner rather than later!). A lot going on at home at the moment.

Hope this helps and please keep the pictures coming!!!
Cheers,
Ian.

Mike Cecil · #8 02-07-12, 17:52

Gents,

The Aust No.3 and 3A by Ford was only produced in a much smaller quantity than '1334' - less than 500 were built, all with production numbers in the form 'JT-1 to JT-XXX'.

Unless you have the original nomenclature plate which has the 'JT-XXX' number stamped onto it, or the remains of the original registration number painted on in white, usually across the lower rear, and/or on the lower side towards the front, then there is no way I know of to identify the actual trailer. As far as I'm aware, the production number was not stamped onto the body/frame anywhere - only on the plate.

Regards

Mike C

Little Jo · #9 03-07-12, 01:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Gents,

The Aust No.3 and 3A by Ford was only produced in a much smaller quantity than '1334' - less than 500 were built, all with production numbers in the form 'JT-1 to JT-XXX'.

Unless you have the original nomenclature plate which has the 'JT-XXX' number stamped onto it, or the remains of the original registration number painted on in white, usually across the lower rear, and/or on the lower side towards the front, then there is no way I know of to identify the actual trailer. As far as I'm aware, the production number was not stamped onto the body/frame anywhere - only on the plate.

Regards

Mike C

Hi Mike

You may recall you checked out the detales found during my Aussie Jeep Trailer restoration and the conclusion was. The only details we could go by were the those on the nomenclature plate. The numbers I found on the "A" frame draw bar were not done by the military and were obviously done by previous owners for possibly registration purposes.

I read you are off to Beltring. Boy I would love to do that trip, but my XLotto numbers have not showed up yet. Have a great time in the UK.

Cheers

Tony

Mike Cecil · #10 03-07-12, 02:07

Hi Tony,

Glad my replies to jeep No3 trailer queries have been consistent!!

Yes, making the treck across the Atlantic Pond: much closer (and more economical) flying from the USA.

Mike C

Ganmain Tony · #11 03-07-12, 10:01

So the conclusion from that discussion Tony and Mike is that this serial number may have been stamped into the axle post war for a road rego???

John Mackie · #12 03-07-12, 11:32

Thank you all for the usefull information you have posted.
It appears that the drawbar has been reversed at some time and that explains the "u" shaped bracket and the remains of welding should be on the lower side.
I was away at the weekend and came home with cutting wheels,welding rods, steel plate and a new set of oxy welding hoses.
I will keep taking photos and with the help of Tony to put then up untill I jearn how to do it

John Mackie · #13 05-10-12, 03:34

Hey everybody!

Considerable process has been made with the restoration of this trailer. Here are some photos of the progress made.

John Mackie · #14 05-10-12, 03:50

Here's some more photos thanks to Toby Baillie. I will add details, hopefully tonight.

Mike Cecil · #15 05-10-12, 03:54

Hard to see what the Unit sign was, except the background colour appears to have been light blue, so it was an engineer unit. But as for the two figures....????

Mike C

John Mackie · #16 07-10-12, 13:24

Most of the serious welding was done today by a friend using his MIG.
i did some more rubing arrount the LHR corner . there are the remains of 2 signs. one looks like a round top tree ( not a palm tree) over a boo9merang. the other i can only pick out thr boomerang.
will keep looking.

Mike Cecil · #17 07-10-12, 16:56

John,

If you put up some images, we'll see what we can make of the signs. I'm sure everyone is as interested as I am in that aspect.

The No.3 or 3A trailers are historically much more interesting than the No.4 (and much rarer), as they were produced in time to see considerable overseas service in the SWPA (which possibly accounts for why so few have survived, too), whereas the No.4 came in toward the very end of the war, and saw much less combat service.

Mike C

John Mackie · #18 09-10-12, 10:46

Looking further at the sign i think it may be a kangaroo over a boomerang, Ikeep going back have a rub and another look. i have taken phitis but will have to get an offsider to place on the net.
Is there a full listing of these signs available on the net?

Mike Cecil · #19 09-10-12, 16:43

Kangaroo over boomerang = 6 Australian Infantry Division, 2nd AIF, formation sign.

White kangaroo and white boomerang on a black background.

The 'roo should be the same shape as that on the Australian penny coin (you'd remember them, eh John??)

Mike C

John Mackie · #20 16-10-12, 11:02

G-day Mike. thanks for the quick replies. I found a penny and lookad at the roo. on the penny the roos legs are inclined while on the sign the legs are vertical. i think I can pick out the tip of his tail.the trailer is on the back of my truck and is off to the sandblaster tomorrow. I will be away about a week.
I will bring the photos up to date when i get offsider.

Lang · #21 17-10-12, 04:10

The first kangaroo was not like the penny but a deformed sort of rat with a hump on its neck. That is probably what you have. In late 42 they made the penny kangaroo the shape. Same as all Australian military aircraft now have.

Lang

Lang · #22 17-10-12, 04:15

This is the later sign

Mike Cecil · #23 17-10-12, 04:50

Lang,

The Kangaroo shape from the Australian penny was the authorised sign from the outset (1939). How Troops interpreted that in the field was another matter, of course, but also keep in mind that we are dealing with a No.3 or 3A trailer that did not come into existence until 1943.

The original 6 Division sign proposed was a kangaroo surrounded by three Roman 'II' between three boomerangs, each 'II' standing for 2nd AIF, and, when combined, adding to '6' for '6 Div'. The kangaroo in this instance was, as you say: 'sort of a rat with a hump on its neck' and with the legs near-vertical.

But this was immediately rejected and on 7 December 1939, with the simpler kangaroo over a boomerang design suggested and subsequently adopted prior to the departure of the first contingent. The instruction from the MGO was that the 'kangaroo on the Australian Penny should be clearly followed in design and position of jumping with relation to the vertical.' All subsequent authorised 6 Div signs follow this pattern.

Mike C

Lang · #24 17-10-12, 06:09

Mike,

I have trouble reconciling your 1939 date for the penny kangaroo.

I have a copy of all the marking instructions from WW1 to present as you no doubt have.

The only instruction for the whole 1939-45 period for 6 Division showing the Div kangaroo formation design (of course there were many whole of army unit and vehicle marking schemes as they applied to 6 Div which seemed to change daily) is HQ AIF (ME), General Staff Instruction No. 34 12 Jan 42.

This gives all the divisional and minor unit markings for the Australian Army in the Middle East. The template given for 6 Division is the hump-backed rat.

Vehicles certainly carried the penny kangaroo but dare I suggest it is because the official design was lousy and everyone was familiar with the penny design and it became standard by default???

Mike Cecil · #25 17-10-12, 06:46

Lang,

The description in my post (the instruction from the MGO in the last para) is in qoutes: it is a direct quote from the 1939 document, which is accompanied by the authorised sign viz jumping kangaroo as per Aust penny, over a single boomerang.

After that, the majority of authorised formation sign listings (of which there are many) simply state ' Kangaroo over a boomerang', without a diagram.

Mike C

Lang · #26 17-10-12, 07:21

Mike,

I wonder how far the "intention" of senior headquarters in 1939 was passed down to the signwriters in the vehicle workshops? Was there an actual operational instruction created for the units such as the one I quote above from GHQ (ME) and if so did it get ballsed up by some artistic captain producing the instruction and the hump-backed rat appeared.

I have just had a quick look at photos and see the hump-backed rat on vehicles retreating in Greece. I think this is not just an 'interpretation" but following some official instruction.

There is a famous picture of a row of Australian tanks with big kangaroos on the side. These are the penny design but close inspection reveals quite large variations in detail according to the artists' styles.

I still go for the bad design being the official one - as known to the painters, obviously from your information not the original intentions. This was supplanted either by some General saying "What a crappy kangaroo, we didn't want that shape at our meeting in 1939" or the boys just took it upon themselves to produce the accepted Australian national symbol.

Mike Cecil · #27 17-10-12, 07:47

Lang,

I too have been back to basics, and dug out some additional 'stuff'. I don't profess to having all the various markings instructions, but I have quite a few, that's for sure.

On 28 December 1939, an order was raised on Fossey and Poole of 59 Francis St, Melbourne, for 12 stencils 'to be in accordance with attached diagram and made from No.11 zinc as per sample submitted'. I have a copy of the order and diagram that went with it. The stencils were required urgently, and the diagram was a leaping kangaroo, as per the penny, and without the horrible extra lump on the neck as per AIF GS Instruction No.34 of Jan 1942. So at least the first lot of stencils provided to 6 Div pre-deployment were correct as approved.

On 5 February 1940, the the CGS sent a Memo to the Military Liaison Officer in London, headed 'Divisional Sign 6th Division AIF'. The text states 'forwarding herewith one copy of the sign selected for 6th Division....' The sign attached is as per the Aust penny, with no 'hump' on the 'roos neck. To me, those two diagrams, plus the one referred to in my earleir post, make it pretty clear what the approved sign was.

I also looked at the 6 Div ROs for 1944, and in that pam it includes a very stylised rendition of the leaping kangarro (no hump on the neck) as the approved 6 Div sign, and on the next page where it shows the sign combined with the Unit sign, it has a drawing that is the same or similar to that in GS Ins no.34, ie 'roo with lumpy neck!

I think its clear that the approved sign from 1939, as per the quotes above, was the leaping kangaoo over a boomerang, the 'roo being from the penny, but I agree that some lousy interpretations and drawings at various times are what followed. Our difference is, it seems, in which one we each think was the official one.

Mike C

Lang · #28 17-10-12, 08:23

Mike,

I think there is enough navel gazing or people will think we are a bit anal!

Looks like penny roo was the original intention and became the accepted only one in the end. Sometime in the middle someone drew the bad design and put it in an instruction and it was used for some undetermined period but probably not by everyone in the division.

When I was in the Army the Regiment CO decided the Pilatus Porters would have a shark tooth design on the noses. They were just painted in our workshops and the army knew nothing about it. Numerous "who approved that design?" questions came from visiting senior officers including RAAF officers (who have final approval on aircraft markings) but we just soldiered on until the end and nobody did anything about it. I don't know if it was ever officially approved.

I think, no, I know, lots of independent action takes place in the military that is denied by non-military historians who believe a written document or instruction is proof something did or did not happen. You must have come across this a million times in your job.

Mike Cecil · #29 17-10-12, 19:19

Sure, I agree: there are lots of abberations/departures from the approved or interesting interpretations that vary greatly especially the more distant from the origin. The point of the discussion was what was the approved sign, rather than how it was interpreted, and I think we have established that.

The Me Bf 109 spinner at the AWM is a good illustration: aircraft nuts used to keep on telling the staff that it was wrong, that no spinner was ever painted as roughly and unevenly as that .... except the spinner is original, done by some Luftwaffe ground erg with a six inch brush and minimal ability. Docs and orders are one thing: interpretation and ability to apply are another. We can certainly agree on that!

They already know what we are, Lang, so a discussion as interesting and fruitful as this one is just 'proof positive' to our MLU friends!

Best regards

Mike C

John Mackie · #30 28-10-12, 10:55

G-day all. I am back from a week at Cowra. The trailer tub has been sand blasted and a protective coat applied.
I have read about the sign and I am still confused as to what it is , The " legs" certinly looked to be vertical which sugested to me a tree! seems to eliminate the kangaroo. as soon as i can get the photos up i will doo so,

does anyone have a photo or details of the canvas cover and the tie down ropes as i plan to have one made.