Tim’s Airfix 1/35 Austin K2/Y Ambulance .

[Steve-the-Duck]

Ah, so THAT'S what the divisional sign on the muguard looks like, not covered by dirt and the rolls for unditching in 'lce Cold'

 

[Tim Marlow]

Ah, so THAT'S what the divisional sign on the muguard looks like, not covered by dirt and the rolls for unditching in 'lce Cold'

Yep, fairly decent shot of it here…no idea what the unit is though. Answers on a postcard…..

I’ve got to make the unditching rolls and tow rope once I’ve finished the kit.

 

[JR]

Progressing well Tim.

 

[adt70hk]

Tim,

That's coming on beautifully. As you say those decals do bring it to life.

Like you I find new Airfix decals to be superb. Tamiya could take a lesson or three on that front!

 

[adt70hk]

Yep, fairly decent shot of it here…no idea what the unit is though. Answers on a postcard…..
View attachment 474596
I’ve got to make the unditching rolls and tow rope once I’ve finished the kit.

Had a quick look Tim..... Couldn't find anything online either and even the usually reliable Scalemates doea not have any info....

Austin K2/Y Ambulance, Airfix A1375 (2022)

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

I found one post on a forum showing the insignia and, with the usual internet rectitude, that it's the badge of the 9th Australian division, at Tobruk

Except it's NOT because , believe it or not, the 9th symbol is a platypus over a boomerang
Yes, really

I'm beginning to think it's a badge made up for the film.
BTW APPARENTLY also 'real' Katys had a 4 ton bridge disc, but Katy herself is 5 ton because of the 4X4 chassis
Not sure I believe that though. I mean, why have a weight 'correct' badge for a film? It's like you can't believe stuff you see online...

 

[Tim Marlow]

Progressing well Tim.

Cheers John.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Tim,

That's coming on beautifully. As you say those decals do bring it to life.

Like you I find new Airfix decals to be superb. Tamiya could take a lesson or three on that front!

Many thanks Andrew. Glad you like it.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Had a quick look Tim..... Couldn't find anything online either and even the usually reliable Scalemates doea not have any info....

Austin K2/Y Ambulance, Airfix A1375 (2022)

Cheers Andrew. I don’t think they’ll be too hard to scratch up. Just wire and tape for the mats I think.

 

[Tim Marlow]

I found one post on a forum showing the insignia and, with the usual internet rectitude, that it's the badge of the 9th Australian division, at Tobruk

Except it's NOT because , believe it or not, the 9th symbol is a platypus over a boomerang
Yes, really

I'm beginning to think it's a badge made up for the film.
BTW APPARENTLY also 'real' Katys had a 4 ton bridge disc, but Katy herself is 5 ton because of the 4X4 chassis
Not sure I believe that though. I mean, why have a weight 'correct' badge for a film? It's like you can't believe stuff you see online...

The Airfix decal schemes are set up as 5 ton for the desert, but 4 ton for Europe? They don’t have the film vehicle as an option. Restored vehicles show this as well, but they may be copying the film.

 

[adt70hk]

I'm beginning to think it's a badge made up for the film.

That's what I was beginning to think....

 

[Jim R]

The decals have brought this to life. Always a relief when decals behave well. I've built a few of the newer Airfix 1/72 aeroplanes and the decals have been excellent.

 

[Geoffers]

Looking fantastic Tim, as said the decal’s really bring it to life

Geoff.

 

[Tim Marlow]

The decals have brought this to life. Always a relief when decals behave well. I've built a few of the newer Airfix 1/72 aeroplanes and the decals have been excellent.

Cheers Jim. Agree ref Airfix decals, possibly the best on the market at the moment. They are as good or better than Italeri, who’s are made by Cartograph I think.

 

[Tim Marlow]

Looking fantastic Tim, as said the decal’s really bring it to life

Geoff.

Cheers Geoff, they certainly do….

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

The Airfix decal schemes are set up as 5 ton for the desert, but 4 ton for Europe? They don’t have the film vehicle as an option. Restored vehicles show this as well, but they may be copying the film.

Okay, now that is even more interesting. Most of the K2s I've seen pictures of in the desert show them from the side or the wrong angle to see the bridging disc. Maybe an extra ton is added for soft sand?

 

[Tim Marlow]

Okay, now that is even more interesting. Most of the K2s I've seen pictures of in the desert show them from the side or the wrong angle to see the bridging disc. Maybe an extra ton is added for soft sand?

Agreed, most of the images I have are from the side or the back…..apart from Katy of course.

 

[Jakko]

The bridging class is not actual vehicle weight in tons, though.

The elegant and simple solution they came up with was to invent a scale, or classification, related to weight but crucially, not only weight.

Each bridge type was allocated load class number and each vehicle was also given a load class number.

Instead of looking up and cross referencing a vehicle against a bridge classification a simple comparison of load class was performed, if the numbers matched or the vehicle was less than the bridge classification then it could pass.

A spacing of 80ft was assumed at the bridge classification took into account bending moment and other factors, it was not simply a weight (this is a key distinction)

Instead of weights of vehicles, each vehicle had a class, these starting at 3 and moving up to 24 in regular intervals.

If a vehicle’s load class was smaller than the bridges load class then it could cross and to assist with the rapid cross checking a standardised series of markings was designed, both bridge and vehicle had the marking in the same colours so a driver could simply compare the bridge sign with that painted on his vehicle and make the decision whether to cross without reference to bridge commanders or complex tables.

I wish I could find the source again where I, long ago, came across a list of official bridge classifications for British vehicles, though.

 

[Tim Marlow]

The bridging class is not actual vehicle weight in tons, though.

I wish I could find the source again where I, long ago, came across a list of official bridge classifications for British vehicles, though.

So the classification could actually change according to terrain then?

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Yeah, I knew that the number on the vehicle isn't the vehicle weight but the bridge load capacity, so it does make sense for softer terrain to be classed as a higher loading.
Or should it be the other way round..?

Ooh, Warpaint Vol.4 by Dick Taylor has a whole section on bridge classification 'The simplicity of the concept guaranteed its longevity; exactly the same system is in use with the British - and NATO - forces to this day.'
Ooh,
'Because the lowest military Bridge Class was 5 tons, some vehicles lighter than this either seem to have used the 5 marking irrespective of their true class, or did not mark the disc at all.'
Weight classes -
4 Daimler Dingo, Humber Scout Car, Universal Carriers
5 Most 15cwt trucks, Daimler Dingo (later mks maybe?), White Scout, Austin K2 (there she is!), Universal Carriers

So , crossover between 4 an 5 tons. And , apparently also, some vehicles wer uprated to compensate for all the extra gear being carried
Now it makes sense. Thanks Jakko. Knew I had it in a book somewhere!