Operation Market Garden (The lorry thread)

Would they have used higher octane fuel available for the planes particularly when the planes were found to get better performance and octane was increased?

Hi Chrissie - that's a shortcut to a lorry engine-shaped grenade if used in relatively low-compression engines. IIRC it leads very quickly to overheating issues. It could just about be used in hi-compression engines - some motorcars with hi-comp engines, some motorcycles etc...but during the war the vast majority of those in use were actually de-tuned with compression plates under the cylinder to reduce the compression ratio to be able to use Pool.

In the case of the aero engines - they were actually designed with high compression ratios for power, and when it wasn't available - such as in the RAF in late 1939/early 1940 - boost had to be reduced to match the lower octane rated aviation spirit.

 

That wouldn't do. I've been following the rings, pistons, valves, and first hand accounts discussions and I'm still with you.
I have the 2nd TAF 2 Group Unit 314 diary from April '44 to May '45 and there are no entries regarding lorry problems if this is of any interest.

Chrissie

 

Hi Chrissie, the truck that caused the main problem - the Austin K5 was never a standard RAF type . Any chance you can add info of 314 S & T to your thread please

TED

 

Hi all, a copy of my post on AHF:

Been back to Kew and, amongst other things, I found another Austin 3-ton 4x4 using RASC Company.
This time, 524 Inf Bde Coy RASC which I think was under command of 50 Div but didn't land in the beach-head until mid-July 44 which I thought strange. It appears it was equipped with 77 x 3-ton Austin 4x4 (which I guess were K5's).
Oh, and another unit equipped with Austin K5 was 237 Petrol Depot, but as that only had one as far as I can see, I guess even if it did break down it wouldn't have brought the whole 21 Army Group logistics plan crashing to collapse.
In meantime, I've obviously looked at loads of units which didn't use Austins - lots of 3-ton Bedfords, both 4x2 and 4x4, and a new beast to me, the Mausdley Militant 6-tonner - which sounds awesome!
BTW thinking about the whole Austin 4x4 thing on the way home on the M25 , I began to wonder why I have been looking for a 4x4 vehicle in 21 Army Group L of C logistic units at all. Surely they would have kept the 4x4s for units which needed some cross-country performance? Perhaps that is why I keep coming across 3-ton 4x2's in most of the GT companies I have looked at. If this is true then perhaps the Austin problem was more about distribution forward from Corps FMC to Div dumps rather than the longer haul over the extended L of C's.
Regards
Tom

 

Another post copied from AHF that hopefully will be of interest:

I've come across some more information that calls into question the affect that the loss of these Austin K5 4x4s had on 21 Army Group logistics. According to the landing tables [kindly provided to me by Mike Simpson] it appears that the vast majority of 2nd Army units landing during the first couple of days of the Normandy invasion were issued with pre-waterproofed Austin K5 4x4's especially for the invasion. So, for example, on Sword Beach we have units like:


6 Beach Group
1 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin from Headquarters 1 Buckinghamshire Regiment.
5 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin from 91 Field Company RE.
2 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin, from 1028 Port Operating Company RE.
2 3ton GS 4 X 4, Austin, from 299 General Transport Company RASC.
1 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin from 138 Detail Issue Depot RASC.
1 3ton 4 X 4 GS Austin from 238 Petrol Depot RASC.
4 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin from 9 Field Dressing Station RAMC.
4 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin from 12 Field Dressing Station RAMC.
1 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin from 22 Field Transfusion Unit RAMC.
1 3ton 4 X 4 GS, Austin, with 2 crew from 21 Beach Recovery Section


In the first couple of days 3rd Infantry Div and 27 Armoured Brigade units also appear to have landed with Austin's - not many to be fair, but I'm not sure when the changeover to other vehicles began or what vehicles in later landings were. The largest groups appear to have been allocated to the GT coy landed as part of the Beach Sub Area and the RASC companies attached to 3 British Div and to 27 Armoured Brigade. One other major user was 53 Medium Regiment RA with a total of 19 in the landing tables I have seen.

If this distribution was repeated across all three beaches (ex 3 Canadian Div which I think probably continued to use Canadian 3-tonners) then this accounts for approx 900 vehicles scattered in small numbers across many units. Now some of these units were normally allotted 4x2 3-ton lorries according to their standard W.E.s and so would not have suffered if the only replacement vehicles available were 4x2. [further research required obviously ]

Now this research is clearly a work in progress [for example, only the Sword Beach landing tables regularly refer to the make of the 3 ton vehicles being landed] but I will try to keep you all informed as I go along.

The stuff that I really need to find out is:
1. What % of the total of 21 A Gp 3-ton 4x4's did those Austins make.
2. What was the planned rate of replacement vehicle delivery to Normandy, although I think I am close to finding that out.
3. What % of the replacement 3-tonners were 4x4 Austins.
4. Why did 39 Coy RASC (GT) - allocated Austins according to these landing tables suddenly take on 60 Ford and 34 Chevrolet vehicles on 26 May 44 (realisation of defective Austins??). Their war diary is infuriatingly silent.

More in due course, I know you are all fascinated really!

Regards

Tom

 

Tom, if you see this BEFORE going back to AHF...see my comments on AHF!

 

Another copy of a post on AHF:

As for the distribution of the offending Austin 4 x 4 3-tonners and what that meant for the effect of the defects:

WO171/2482 - 524 Coy RASC (50 Inf Div) war diary:

14 May 1944
0830 Capt. L.G. PERRY with 94 Dvrs to CURBRIDGE to collect prewaterpoofed 4x4 Austin 3 ton vehs. Vehs to return to this location pending distribution instructions.

Later in the month, 524 Coy seems to have collected 77 vehs for itself - which makes me think that all of the 50 Division units were issued with pre-waterproofed Austins, although I will do a little more digging in war diaries to check further.

Interestingly, and somewhat surprisingly, this RASC Coy did not move to France until mid-July - which seems to show that the somewhat constrained nature of the initial beachhead limited the amount of transport the assault units actually needed. I will try to find out whether this delay was part of original plan or they were delayed due to limited expansion of L of C routes in June 44.

Regards

Tom

Not sure that posting on both sites is worth it, but I'm trying to involve as many minds as possible...

 

New Austin defect shock!

I've just come across a reference to the fact that the notorious 1,400 Austin 3 ton 4x4 K5's which are noted as showing signs of excessive oil consumption, etc, in Sep 44 first showed signs of this problem before D-Day. This explains the fact that the 1,400 were "re-worked" by Austin Motor Coy in May (perhaps April as well - but definitely got back into VRD's in May) ready to be issued to the Assault Force. The reference I found then goes on the explain that the poor old REME had had to re-do the waterproofing on these vehicles for a second time. This raises more questions than it answers, or at least in my poor befuddled mind it does.

1. Where there 2 separate issues with 2 separate fixes or was the intial "fix" unsuccessful?
2. How many of these 1400 were actually issued to units.
3. How many were shipped as reserve vehicles into Vehicle Parks in Normandy and then "frozen" once the repeat of the problems was identified?

A bit like the holy grail, every time I feel I'm beginning to get to grips with this issue, it slips out of my grasp. A good excuse to continue researching though

Regards

Tom

 

This sort of research always leads to more questions, Tom. I came back from the NA last time with information on WD motorcycles that I never thought I'd see....and a lot more questions. It's what keeps it interesting.

Have you tried the needle-in-a-haystack WO194 files relating to MEE tests ? As well as new vehicle and continuing assessment, they seem to have spent a lot of time looking at vehicles in service and disagreeing with manufacturers about the causes.

 

New Austin defect shock!

I've just come across a reference to the fact that the notorious 1,400 Austin 3 ton 4x4 K5's which are noted as showing signs of excessive oil consumption, etc, in Sep 44 first showed signs of this problem before D-Day. This explains the fact that the 1,400 were "re-worked" by Austin Motor Coy in May (perhaps April as well - but definitely got back into VRD's in May) ready to be issued to the Assault Force. The reference I found then goes on the explain that the poor old REME had had to re-do the waterproofing on these vehicles for a second time. This raises more questions than it answers, or at least in my poor befuddled mind it does.:biggrin:

1. Where there 2 separate issues with 2 separate fixes or was the intial "fix" unsuccessful?
2. How many of these 1400 were actually issued to units.
3. How many were shipped as reserve vehicles into Vehicle Parks in Normandy and then "frozen" once the repeat of the problems was identified?

A bit like the holy grail, every time I feel I'm beginning to get to grips with this issue, it slips out of my grasp. A good excuse to continue researching though:smile:

Regards

Tom


Tom - no it's not...

That's RINGS!

It's the same problem....just reported EARLIER than we've seen before!

Remember I said quite early on that getting the problem identified...Austin having a third party ring company produce a new specification...having it tested....and the "cure" issued and fitted during rebuilds...all seems to have happened in a very short time???

Well - no; if the problem actually started showing up in MAY...that's five months we can add back into that timescale

It looks like they were just rebuilt with off-the-shelf rings of the OLD spec...possibly while the new spec was worked up and tested.

Then again - apart from anything else - Austin and the WD mightn't have been aware that the problem wasn't solved by that....until the problem recurred! :p

 

This is not directly related to Austin lorries but does indicate Austin's relationship with the War Office, as late as January 1946 (from a Ministry of Supply file) -

Whoever the D.D.W.S. (M.T.) was, he was pretty fed up with the MoS




It is the MoS reply which is most interesting as the terms 'Austin', 'oil' and 'piston rings' appear in the same paragraph. It would appear that Austin claimed reservations with the WO oil.

 

Rich,

Apologies for taking so long to reply, thanks for posting these pages. Could I ask for the reference number at Kew? I've struggled to find any Ministry of Supply files let alone any that refer to vehicles!

The more I study this problem the more I realise that the emphasis on the Austin K5 issue has been blown out of all proportions. There was a problem with the vehicles obviously, but that it caused the sort of logistics problems to 21 AG that Wilmot (and many subsequent historians) asserts is much less apparent.

Thanks again,

Tom

 

Tom, to my great shame, my notes became a little chaotic. This came from the WO 185 series and from the books relating to RASC & 'B' Vehicles, Review of Numbers - WO 185/69 - 70 - 71 (I suspect 70) It seems a bit hit and miss in terms of what correspondence was retained - they are drastically thinned files. I was looking for motorcycle stuff and only copied relevant items. - Austin and piston rings stood out !

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/browse/C2128876?v=h

It might be worth your while skimming through all the WO 185 lists. There are also lots of SUPP files but they are mainly just mixed up lists of contracts based apparently on payment date rather than anything else.

Rich

 

Rich,

I've loked at one of the WO185 files before and then given up in a huff!!

I've gone back to Phylo's suggestion about two years ago of identifying which units had Austin K5's and then getting their war diaries to see if they complain about them. So far, the answer is not really

The only GT Company that definitely had a full outfit of K5's landed on D-Day and used them till mid-September 44 when it converted to other 3-tonners, but it doesn't seem to have been a big deal, and the important thing is that there were enough in Reserve Parks for it to convert quite happily.

Many of the others seem to have been issued to all the units on D-Day (both units, including RASC, from 50, 6 Airborne and 3 Div's but also all the miscellenous units as well - everything from one each for Petrol Depots to entire armoured brigades...). The good thing is that the 1400 K5's all appear to have been asigned to the Assault Force for Neptune, so there are plenty of clues around for which units to look at.

Back to Kew next weekend for another look, I'll post anything new here.

Regards

Tom

 

I've found some figures for 2nd Army 'B' vehicle recoveries and repairs for Sep 44 which looks interesting.

For example, for the week ending 7 Sep 44:

'B' wheeled vehicles: Recoveries last 7 days: 417; Recoveries since 6 Jun: 6171; Backloading last 7 days: 122; Backloading since 6 Jun: 2390.

Can anyone suggest what these mean? I would guess that it means that 417 'B' vehicles were recovered to 2 Army workshops during week ending 7 Sep, and that 122 were "backloaded" from 2 Army workshops to L of C facilities as they were beyond local repair in the workshops under 2 Army. Any REME experts out there have an opinion?

For completeness, the equivalent weekly Repair figures are:

Last 7 days: 684; Since 6 June: 13,975.

Regards

Tom

 

Tom, I was in France when you posted on 9th June and missed it on my return. It is most interesting and seems to reinforce your earlier impression of this real technical problem not being the root cause of a fundamental logistics problem within 2nd Army / 21st Army Group. I suspect that someone who had been denied resources started table-thumping at a conference and the excuse trotted out for not complying was the Austin engines situation. Somewhere, it was minuted and then passed into folklore.

I agree with your understanding of the term 'backloading'. I don't however have any real concept of how many failures would have been expected or if these figures are high or low. They wouldn't show LofC vehicles which returned under their own steam to base depots and were then prematurely taken out of service.

I suspect though that the figures do impy that there were not thousands of knackered Austins littering the verges as the armies advanced.

 

Hi,

Apologies for double post, but I've found that 505 Field Company RE was issued with 4 3-ton Austins just prior to D-Day and later found this return for 12 July in their war diary, can anyone help with the code letters? I think they must be the vehicles.

ABC RETURN. With unit B11 H4 J1 K1 M5 P1 R3 W4 Z21 AL3 AQ4 BB9 BL60 BD16 BE8 BJ13 BK24 BL350 BM240. Not yet arrived B3 J2 L2 M2 AE2 BC1 BN4. Mercedes benz 3 ton 1. Comer 5 cwt van1. BMW m/c combination 1. A.G. half track 1 (auto union).

Any ideas gratefully received.

Regards

 

Another couple of snippets from the war diary of 30 Corps DDME (WO171/361)for July and August 1944 that suggests that the poor old Austin K5 has been unfairly singled out:

6 July 1944
DDME investigated the failure of the engine fitted to Cromwell tks with CSO 30 Corps, CREME 7 Armd Div, Lt-Col. Lindley, AFV (Tech) and OC 7 Armd Div Sigs.

6 August 1944
Conference. DDME, Mr. Abbott-Anderson, Rolls-Royce representative, Col Gryles AFV (Tech), Lt-Col Lindley AFV (Tech), Major Wilkinson OC 22 Armd Bde Wksp.
Subject – Oiling up Meteor Engines, Cromwell Tanks. It was decided to use standard plugs, fit ‘top hats’, and ask for a tachometer. ARV of 22 Armd Bde Wksp to be subject of a trial during next two days.

Oiling up, standard 'plugs' - that sounds familiar. As for, civilian contractors in the "field" - that has a very modern ring to it!

Regards

Tom

 

Hi Tom...as per our recent conversation on AHF...that's not by any chance the REME workshops concentrating on AFVs through the summer, is it???

Rich...

I've only just seen that, and....not 'arf!!!

Now...."H D 30" what exactly IS that, SAE 30??? ( I used to know all this in my yoof when I rode the occasional British bike...) Was it a proprietary grade....or a WD specification??? Mineral or Vegetable?


It would be VERY interesting if we had a decent technical specification for the K5's engine If IT ran....or was expected to run!...on H D 30, and didn't originally have an oil scraper ring...we've seen signs of them working with a proprietary ring/piston company to rectify the "problem"...there's the smoking gun!

Literally

(But info on the Screamer is SO scarce that I've never seen such a detailed spec online...)

 

By the way, Tom...

http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?39613-Piston-Failure-Austin-K5-1944

You're not going round boring complete strangers, are you???