MT (motor transport) serial numbers

[hbpencil]

Hi all,

My question here is a two parter: a) did RNZAF MT serial numbers follow the function of those used for aircraft in that the vehicle's model/type could be identified by the serial (e.g. would a block be assigned just for Jeeps)?; and b) if so, is there an online source where one can look up such details?

Cheers,

HB

[30sqnatc]

A good question. I started a list on MT numbers some years ago based on numbers seen in photos/files but I lost it in a computer crash. From my observations there was no pattern of issue. I'm not aware of any historical list being available. This includes checking the files at the National Archive Wellington.

I have a lengthy list of NZ Army vehicle numbers a friend put together years ago as he saw a vehicle number in a file or photo. Like RNZAF there is no comprehensive historic list of NZ Army numbers. Prior to the use of computers it was maintained in a hard copy exercise book with a single person responsible for allocating numbers. Unfortunately only the in use book was retained. Now at least there is a single XLS spreadsheet starting around Landrover/Unimog purchase dates. Numbers can be booked for a batch purchase but it is simply a reservation of the required quantity of numbers in a continuous run. There is only one rule - never reuse a number.

Unfortunately the RNZAF seems to have followed the same pattern for vehicles. I hope someone can prove me wrong.

[hbpencil]

That's a pity but thanks anyway for the reply.

HB

[davidd]

Incidentally, the abbreviation "MT" was, I presume, invented by the British military at the time of the Great War (WW1) or perhaps a few years before that. The full interpretation of these two letters was Mechanical Transport (as opposed to all previous units of land transport), which also included some inland or coastal water craft, but mainly horses, camels, oxen (when the going got heavy), and especially and mules, the last being the most capable and toughest of them all, although (it is said) were a bit on the stubborn side! Elephants have also been used by some Armies in the field, but they are rather fragile creatures and require great care and skill to be of any use!

The "Mechanical" interpretation remained in use for many decades afterwards, despite the popular but mistaken belief that the "M" indicated "Motor", although steam engines, in the form of steam tractors and later the vehicle known as the "steam engines" (and never motors!) were also used widely for hauling heavy loads, including artillery. Armies also used plenty of conscripted as well as purpose built trucks, tractors and buses for moving troops and lighter freight, and also existing civilian, or even purpose-built railways in various campaigns in suitable terrain. The "motor" belief is all but universal these days, although some official (RNZAF and RAF, and probably Army) publications still contained the correct "Mechanical" interpretation well into the 1960s and 1970s, and possibly even later.

Can anybody point to any official change of interpretation of this nomenclature, as I have not a clue, but "Motor" seems to have pretty well displaced the original term in the World we live in now.

At one time, it was pointed out that the term "motor" could only be used in connection with an electric motor, for some technical reason which some member might wish to explain, while in complete disregard of this interpretation, in the maritime world, "motor" signified (at least in larger commercial vessels) a diesel power plant, with such ships designated as MV's (Motor Vessels, the new boys on the block), while the more traditional steam ships remained as S, or TSS, etc. These of course were powered by reciprocating steam engines, whilst steam powered vessels propelled by the new-fangled steam turbines were TS's, and those with steam-powered generators feeding electric motors were TEV's. Nuclear-powered ships (including submarines) are of course powered by steam turbines too, but no coal or oil involved, and many people have only hazy ideas of steam somehow being involved in such powerplants.

I am of the same opinion as 30sqnatc, that the numbering of RNZAF MT was generally a fairly rambling sort of affair, much like their marine craft, generally sort-of roughly in order of acquisition, and there were almost certainly some "blocks" of like-vehicles to be found in the sequences. This could also have been complicated by the RNZAF being in the situation of not actually "owning" the vehicles they operated in distant lands, as in South Pacific in WW2, or for RNZAF units in Cyprus, Malaya/Singapore, or with the United Nations in many far flung locations in the southern and northern hemispheres, when it was easier to be loaned (under various arrangements) various suitable vehicles, including standardised military models from the RAF, or RAAF, or the American services we were associated with at the time. In most of these cases the RNZAF was held responsible for the general care and light maintenance of such vehicles (and using standard paperwork as used by the actual owners), but heavy maintenance and consideration of write offs and replacements for worn-out vehicles would be the prerogative of the actual owners of these vehicles. It is probable that the RNZAF in Wellington was well aware of these arrangements, but took no great interest in the vehicles as no actual costs would be involved (at least that is my understanding), and we would not expect to be "gifted them" later.

Most of the marine craft and military vehicles used by RNZAF units in the South Pacific and SWPA in WW2 were "locally loaned" from American small boat or vehicle pools, including bulldozers, and even saw milling equipment, although a small number of RNZAF vehicles did come from NZ, including some crash and fire tenders, and jeeps, etc., as did some of the saw milling equipment. The three American "crash boats" that the RNZAF took over in the forward area in about April/June 1945 were "handed over" to the RNZAF to operate because the previous American operating unit was being withdrawn from the area (probably for disbanding, or being transferred to the Philippines) and did not want to take their early-pattern boats (with their problematic Vee-drives) with them; they might have been looking forward to getting brand-new boats with conventional drives.

[tbf2504]

David during my early service career in the mid 1960s "MT" was always know as the Mechanical Transport Flight so don't know when the "Motor" version became the norm

[davidd]

Thanks for the moral support Paul. I remember quizzing an RNZAF female squadron leader (youngish) in the early 2000s, and was impressed when I quizzed her on this very specific question, and had an inkling that she may have started off her career in the supply trades! Mind you, I would have been impressed if a male officer of that rank knew that too.