Jump to content

RAFMT

Members
  • Content Count

    391
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

RAFMT last won the day on November 26 2017

RAFMT had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13 Good

About RAFMT

  • Rank
    Warrant Officer 1st Class

Personal Information

  • Location
    London
  • Occupation
    Historian

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. RAFMT

    RAF signal lamp bulb

    I've checked AP1086 up until 1971, there is no 5A/6230 that I can find - the highest number I've found for the 5A section is 5163 and that's as late as 1972. Are there any other identifying numbers on there?
  2. RAFMT

    RAF Airfield Follow Me Vehicles in WW2 ?

    We also need to remember that the controller was supposed to have a vehicle to hand so that he could run around the airfield to examine the landing area, investigate things and generally make himself look more important to the poor erks busy working!
  3. RAFMT

    RAF Airfield Follow Me Vehicles in WW2 ?

    Just one last meander before heading back on topic. With regards to the photos of the double discs pre-dating the AMO - It is something I missed off my previous post but meant to write, is that my research seems to indicate that it was fairly common for something to be in practice already (so it might be in an AP, or have been handed down through command or group orders etc.) and the AMO is laid down later to make it formal. We can go back on topic now. Still keeping an eye out.
  4. RAFMT

    RAF Airfield Follow Me Vehicles in WW2 ?

    Bowser, I'm not saying these people are wrong, but my experience has taught me to take these things with a pinch of salt until verified by a period source, or multiple independent memories. I mean, we're still waiting to see this squadron of Spitfires buried in Burma I apologise if my previous post offended, but to be fair I specifically did not dismiss the idea it could be used for escorting visiting American bombers; the RAF had a standard procedure for what to do on landing so it would seem odd that this one station needed to do things differently. Unless it was used to escort those aircraft being sent to the southern hard-standings that would have to cross the Cheapside road? If I were to concede to the statements you have presented we would still need to acknowledge that this is an oddity and that it was not universal or even widely adopted. As for colours, first off as Ted said earlier, whilst the orders stated orange the colour more usually seen is actually yellow (the later colour used on vehicle tops being Golden Yellow on the BS381 chart) probably because at the same time aircraft were receiving a yellow outer ring to the roundel - two birds one stone sort of situation. An example would be the Morris light recce in the Night Bombers video posted earlier on in this thread (unless I'm getting my threads crossed again). As for photos - how many photos have you seen of vehicles that would be covered by the 1940 AMO? Me, I can honestly say not very many. It would largely be Directorate of Works and civilian contractors, that sort of work - not the usual refuellers or bomb trolley tractors which should be going around the outside of the field (and later around the peri track).I have to dig out the photo of a Fordson N clearly showing the double disc (colour open to interpretation) I do however have a few albums in the RAF Museum collection lined up to view that look like they might cover these sorts of subjects, so I'll be sure to report back on here. You are right that much has been written online about RAF colour schemes, unfortunately a lot of it is written from hearsay, and we are lucky to have people on here who have spent much time on researching the subject and putting the record straight; paving the way for the rest of us to have discussions like these. I consider myself very fortunate to be in the position where I am actually being paid to undertake this research. Who knows what we might find as we go forward, I mean we are a far cry from the "All RAF vehicles were Blue-Grey" days now
  5. RAFMT

    RAF Airfield Follow Me Vehicles in WW2 ?

    Sorry, been on holiday. AMO A731 of 3rd October 1940 states "tractors and machinery likely to be used on landing grounds" to be painted all over "Bright Orange". Vehicles temporarily used on landing grounds but not painted are to have a white sheet fixed over the bonnet. AMO A486 of 25th May 1944 cancels A731/40 and instead confines the the bright colour (now clarified as Orange 33A/125) to the top surfaces of vehicles. Both AMOs also state that such vehicles should carry the double disc in orange on a mast so they can be easily seen from a cockpit and any part of the airfield, something the "yellow peril" doesn't have. Not wanting to sound antagonistic, but unless that account was written down at the time, I'd take it with a pinch of salt as I've encountered far too many instances of the memory being at fault. I'm not saying the vehicle wasn't used at a pinch to help visiting (American) aircraft not used to RAF procedures, but I have found a slightly more rational reason for it's existence. I quote from Action Stations Revisited, Vol 6 by Tim Mclelland: "From early 1942, Gee, Walker &Slater Ltd had been involved in extedning runways 18-36 to 2,000 yards and 12-30 to 1,400 yards across the A16." (my emphasis). I find it more likely that this vehicle (like the fire one earlier in the post) was used to stop the traffic on the A16 while take off and landing operations were being undertaken.
  6. RAFMT

    Matador tanker colour

    Hi Peter, I assume you mean the (O)854 6x6? As far as SCC1a went, it was only applied by the RAF for less than a year; it was introduced by AMO A1397/42 of 31st December 1942 (as paint, P.F.U., Dark Brown) and was replaced with "paint, P.F.U., black, quick drying, matt finish" in A891/43 of 9th September 1943. Unless a vehicle underwent a repaint in those 8-and-a-bit months they would have skipped that particular colour combination. Then again it can be particularly hard to discern from black and white photographs.
  7. RAFMT

    CMP c60 tanker use by RAF

    I've not seen C60s being used, and certainly not in the UK. I've seen the 1533(?) being used as a refueler out in the mid-east.
  8. RAFMT

    RAF Airfield Follow Me Vehicles in WW2 ?

    Just to add support to what has already been said, the Defford men are certainly not RAF. As for the Keep a Good Look Out poster, it was issued by the Directorate of Accident Prevention, Air Ministry, in 1946.
  9. RAFMT

    RAF vehicle camouflage

    The far right is a Crossley IGL.
  10. RAFMT

    RAF Airfield Follow Me Vehicles in WW2 ?

    The RAF did eventually standardise on particular chassis for Airfield Control, mostly four wheelers as they were more stable. In this case it's hard to tell if it is a four or eight berth caravan.
  11. RAFMT

    RAF vehicle camouflage

    It's more easy to spot if you look at a high res version. The drivers window can be seen between the two airmen on the far right of the group, with a portion of the rear body between the second and third man. To be fair, that van could be camouflaged, but we just don't see enough of it to make a firm call. As I alluded to before, this is Suffolk so still pretty close to the continent and the Luftie bomber boys. Hence the pretty extensive camouflage on the buildings as well.
  12. RAFMT

    RAF vehicle camouflage

    The photograph was taken in 1939, it's of 149 Squadron, Mildenhall, supposedly just after the Battle of Heligoland Bight. However, this was taken by a press photographer (from the Daily Fail no less) and is most certainly staged. There are three vehicles in that picture, two of which are not camouflaged. There is always the outside possibility that is a press vehicle, but regardless, we are aware of plenty of anecdotal evidence that local scale camouflage (e.g. at group or command level) came in early, it just took a while for it to all be collated and codified in one place (the AMOs).
  13. RAFMT

    RAF vehicle camouflage

    It looks Fordson-like: http://car-from-uk.com/sale.php?id=141583&country=uk
  14. RAFMT

    RAF vehicle camouflage

    I agree with Baz, more or less. There is no other evidence of a two colour camouflage scheme, other than that rear panel which for all we know could be an artefact from the development process? There is no evidence on the door of a camo scheme, and we should see the darker colour creeping down the sides of the bonnet, which we don't (and in fact the bonnet itself appears to have some degree of gloss to it, and the windscreen surround seems a bit semi-gloss?). I think the vehicle is the darker colour, the lighter colour you can see on the panel is the oddity. In fact, if you zoom in you can see the darker colour carries all the way down. We may not actually be looking at a different colour, but a different tone which shows up more in the monochrome photograph than it did when viewed in real life. You can get the same effect by repainting a section of a wall or something, even if you use the same colour it can have a slightly different tone. And as I said before, 1944 is not the guaranteed date, it's the earliest it is likely to be but it could be later. In fact, if I was told that photograph was 1946, the only thing that would strike me a odd is that it still carries the type number.
  15. RAFMT

    RAF vehicle camouflage

    Hi Larry, I think that photograph of the Ford is...interesting - no blackout masks on the headlights, Service Dress uniform and gloss mudguards. The type number certainly means it is post January 1944, but since the AMO ordering their discontinuation also states they should be left until the vehicle is repainted it could be any point onward. Given the inconsistencies I would err on the side of the picture being very late war or early post-war maybe? It almost certainly isn't the vehicle in the story- it isn't a D/F van (type number is wrong, if it's a D/F van the type number should be 3 digits, it would have signals equipment and the rear wouldn't be empty enough so you could see out the back windows.) so we have no real context for the image.
×