1944 Universal Carrier CTL14500 - Ford Canada

[Sentryduty]

In preparation for the now passed 100th Anniversary of the PPCLI, interest was expressed in restoring and displaying 2 of the Regiment's Universal Carriers. One was located at The Military Museum (TMM) in Calgary, Alberta and the other resided in Hamilton Gault Park, just in front of the G.G. Brown Building, CFB Edmonton.

The Calgary carrier was externally restored with all major driveline components gutted for static display inside the Museum. There are certain weight restrictions in the TMM and a complete carrier would collapse a "bridge" entry into the gallery. Working closely with the Museum Manager (Capt. Younghusband, now retired) we researched and selected the colour schemes and markings for the restoration. That UC can be viewed in the PPCLI gallery of the TMM.

I was also asked to assess the condition of the Edmonton based carrier, it had allegedly been driven onto the display pad some years ago and there was speculation about restoring it to parade duty.

This UC had been outdoors for as long as I had been with the Battalion and everything was rusted in place. I started by treating all of the bolts, linkages and exposed moving parts with CLP (Break-free) and each morning I would manually wiggle and re-coat components.

After a patient week of this process I was able to loosen and remove the engine covers, so I could assess the powertrain. All of the major parts were intact, the Ford Flathead V8, induction system and belt drive. Although the engine was still full of oil, and appeared un-seized, there were a number of things standing in the way of adding some fuel and a battery for a quick tear down Korea Road.

At some time, this vehicle had been harvested for minor parts, the fan and shroud were missing, the radiator was bone dry and showed signs of tank leakage. The generator was un-unmounted, and a new production 12V voltage regulator was in pieces along with it. The fuel tank had rusted through but the system had been rigged to run with a modern Jerry can. The Zenith carburetor was complete but would almost certainly require a rebuild. The exhaust system was also broken at the manifold.

None of this was a huge obstacle, but after my report of "needs some parts" was made interest died almost instantly. I was permitted to work on it if I chose but was made to understand I was working with a budget of $0. Personally I was fast approaching the end of my time with the Army and didn't want to make things worse for the next restorer, so I buttoned everything up as I had found it.

Last I had seen this UC had been towed into the vehicle maintenance shop and was sitting on the bogey wheels with the tracks stripped. That would have been August 2013, so perhaps this UC has been restored, but I haven't personally followed up.

Attached are a number of photos that might either be of interest or of use to someone starting a restoration of their own. If anyone want full-size original digital copies (3872x2592 px @ 300 dpi) of these photos let me know and I will figure out a method to get them to you.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[browningautorifle]

If you look back through the "Patrician" you'll see where we used this one for Regimental inspection by such as GG Brown and CB Ware... So, it DID work...

[Sentryduty]

I will certainly give that a look and snip some photos for the thread when I encounter them. I can't verify it for certain but I was told the LdSH borrowed the carrier some years before (or it parts) and it has not run since. It's always a fair game to scapegoat the tankers anyway, it is just the way of things.

[Sentryduty]

This is the photo from the 1977 edition of The Patrician, the marking are in a little different locations, but UC 14500 could have been redone over the years also the Bridge class on the top one is 6 versus the lower rating of 5 in the modern photos. It is hard to say if this is the exact same machine or not, I know we did have a lot of issues researching the correct painting and marking scheme for the TMM static, archive photos have markings all over the place on these things depending on year, location, role, and alleged ownership.

[browningautorifle]

That's probably the time frame I'm thinking. They had a few I think at the time. We still had guys qualified on their 416s.

[Sentryduty]

Judging by period photos of them being tested outside the Ford Plant during the war, I imagine these things were absolute fun to drive in non-combat conditions. I viewed photos somewhere that had no part of the track touching the ground. In combat however I would personally feel quite exposed, even hunched down behind the wheel and viewport, it seemed like it wouldn't provide much protection beyond light small arms fire.

The TMM does have a couple photos of these being employed in Korea as flamethrower units, another nervous job I would think.

[Peter Laidler]

I wonder if such a versatile little beast would fit in the Battalion orbat today? Cheap, nimble and....... I wonder!

[browningautorifle]

Well, we have "Gators" and such in stock now. Overseas at least. They aren't quite bullet retardant though.

[Sentryduty]

The Gators were utilized outside the wire during Afghanistan tours after mine, doing Food, Water, and Ammo runs from the FOB's to OP's, one struck an IED and killed the driver, whose name I will withhold for now. My understanding is that after that incident they were not permitted to be used in dangerous situations any longer. During my tour the sniper section did use tan civvie pattern quad's, but to what degree I am personally uncertain, I didn't have a lot of operational contact with the Dets.

Afghanistan specific, force protection became a huge mandate, at first our "B" vehicles such as MLVW's and LSVW's with up armor kits were found periodically outside the wire, but not very often. Last trip I seen was a MLVW loaded with Potato chips and glowsticks run through ambush alley to a FOB in Panjwai, a friend of mine at the wheel. After some very bad IED incident's I understand the LUVW (G-Wagons) were also withdrawn from combat duty.

Late in my tour, our LAV 3 equipped Platoon was dispatched to Tarin Kwot to provide an armoured punch to 3 PARA in an operation to bust out a be-sieged Platoon House in the city of Musa-Qulay. Upon our arrival at T-K, I noticed a large pool of Light tracked armour, Scimitar's if my AFV and memory serves correctly. One, at the end, was a terrible heap, smashed and gutted black by fire. We learned that vehicle had been struck with an RPG, and immediately caught fire, we were told the entire crew was lost, and the Brit's had discontinued deploying them. Instead relying on the pure speed and mobility of sandbagged Land Rovers and some sort of flat vehicle they called a "Snatch". Our LAV 3's were quite a contrast to the pink Defenders ripping across the desert in Helmand province, like the photos of the SAS jeeps in North Africa from the Second World War.

It was a successful operation, and among other aspects, I was duly impressed, having never witnessed a 6 hour long artillery barrage on a dedicated target before.

In the current state of things I would think a modern UC would not be viewed very positively, however, every war is different, and who knows what the next generation will experience.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The old Universal Carrier had a few foibles.

The complete lack of overhead protection could be a bit of a worry.

As my Dad related, they also had a tendency to "throw" track if maneuvered too "vigorously" on rough surfaces.

The idea of a armour kit on a Land-Rover or the Mrecedes-Benz "sports' equivalent is not a particularly good idea either.

There is a fascinating book called: "Taming the Landmine", by the wonderfully named South African author, Peter Stiff. (Published by Galago Press in South Africa, 1986. ISBN 0 947020 04 7)

It covers the history of measures and countermeasures over the years and goes into considerable detail on WW2 developments.

The bulk of the book is centred on the use of mines and the private and official responses to them, in the "civil" war in the old "Rhodesia".

Landrovers and similar vehicles were fitted with sandbags on the floor, but these offered little real protection.

Eventually, various folk worked out that one of the simplest "fixes" was to fill the tyres with water. It didn't do much in the "sports" performance, but what it did was interesting.

When explosives go off, there is a "blastwave" that is at the front of a mass of super-heated gas.

If a blast occurs under a water-filled tyre, the rubber shell is ripped open, but this releases quite a few litres of water; instant cooling, and thus, reduction of the intensity and velocity of the blast wave.

Then it was discovered that if the blast is "contained" beneath a mudguard or similar structure, it tends to "lift" the floor and firewall; not good for anyone on the inside of the vehicle. Furthermore, a blast under the wheel closest to the steering column has a nasty tendency to drive this steel shaft straight back at the driver; NASTY!

Conveyor belting and sand-bags were of some value in the rear compartment, but pretty much pointless, not to mention an embuggerance for the driver, in the front.

The tricks to alleviate these problems led to a wide and varied family of specialized vehicles and some interesting mechanical solutions.

The CRITICAL one was the development of vehicles with a "V" shaped lower hull that deflected much of the blast SIDEWAYS, away from the passenger compartment.

This was just the beginning.

Special seating was developed to reduce spinal injuries to troops sitting in the vehicle; serious seat-belts were also fitted to prevent passengers being thrown around the interior on such occasions.

Drive-train components were mounted EXTERNALLY. This meant they may (would) be damaged in a mine blast, but it also meant that it was a much simpler task to replace damaged parts in the field, day or night.

One of the "funnies" was a weird-looking beast called the "Pookie". This was a custom-built mine-detection vehicle. I was VERY light and ran on fat tyres like F1 racing cars use. This allowed EXTREMELY low point-loading on any surface, so low that it would not detonate mines meant for cars and trucks. The driver was housed in an open-roofed steel box in the centre of the vehicle, to provide some protection. Some fancy electronics in the form of detector systems were fitted, as was a multi-barreled 12ga. "discourager". These vehicles were themselves targeted by the terrorists once they realized their purpose.

The Rhodesian ideas were taken up with great enthusiasm by the South Africans who were beginning to experience an increasing number of "traffic hazards". This led to a whole new family of mine "resistant" vehicles.

Oddly enough, the rest of the world took a LONG time to acknowledge these developments, at considerable cost in life and limb.

One caveat is that with the development of such vehicles, the amount of explosive required to destroy one rose spectacularly. this meant that any planting of such mines required more time and disturbance to the ground, thus making detection easier.

Thus, a return to an idea first used by the Germans in WW2; the "off-route" mine. In "the beginning' these were improvised by attaching the "crude but effective", hand-held "Panzerschreck" to a tree or other structure ten or so metres off to the side of the road. Target vehicle simply blundered into the fine tripwire stretched across the road and attached to the firing mech. of the launcher. It would ruin the day of any unwary tank or truck driver.

There are much more sophisticated versions of this original "off-route" mine. Even ones with electronic detectors that can be programmed to only launch on the passing of the third, or fifth, or whatever, vehicle.

Hence the sprouting of heavy mesh screens on the sides of vehicles in recent years. these are designed to detonate an RPG-7 or similar at a distance from the hull or turret, This means that the shaped charge cannot detonate at the optimum distance for armour penetration. Funny how history repeats; the Germans hung mild-steel plates off the sides of many AFVs in WW2, for exactly the same reason, and they only had to deal with the old 2.36" "Bazooka".