Jump to content
  • 0

RAF vehicle camouflage


Rlangham

Question

I've seen this asked on another forum so thought I might give it a go here. In WW2, what colour would the emergency vehicle's at RAF bases (especially the fire tenders) be painted in? The Airfix kit of an Austin K6 fire tender says it should be in red, but the Fordson fire tender I saw the other day was a sort of olive drab, and i've seen models in RAF blue, can anyone help out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Judging by the noses of those Wellingtons on the right still in need of a FN turret this is a very early war photo. As you suggest I think a bright orange might well be the colour but I'm wondering if the roller is from a civi contractor to match the driver, in which case they would turn up in whatever they liked. Its interesting to know when bright colours first appeared on such vehicles; we are so used to yellow JCBs it hard to imagine anything in pre-war days being the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Perhaps the most common RAF transport!. Some of these bikes look to have no front mudguards (or much reduced), so are they ones made for the RAF? Anyone got an idea of the make and whether they were RAF Blue Grey or perhaps just black?

I always thought that bicycles used on RAF stations were ones that were purchased or 'borrowed' locally.

PL41047.jpg

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Apart from the stripe over the bonnet and cab roof I see nothing there to suggest the vehicle is anything other than an OY.  No indication of unit marking British or German nor census number. The photo is taken from slightly above the level of ground the OY stands on possibly a bank if the blurred stuff in the foreground is grass, who was using it at the time the photo was taken may just be speculation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
33 minutes ago, john_g_kearney said:

The photograph is one of a series taken by a member of an RAF Mobile Field Photographic Unit - this particular photograph shows some of the unit's vehicles camped overnight near Bir Hacheim.

John.

 

That's interesting and gives the photo provenance missing in the original post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Quote

 

I have cleaned up the scratches on another part of the photograph including the Mobile Field Photographic Unit Bedford OY in the Western Desert, 1942 (though it is still not perfect...). I think this is an AK Series Chevrolet, and I think the camouflage on the body is light / dark divided by a diagonal line from top to bottom.

John.

 

5a5b24eacfb36_RAFChevroletWDesert1942.jpg.261519811cb8efbe6703ee04d7809a8f.jpg

 

Edited by john_g_kearney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The RAF Chevrolet in the photograph has R.A.F. on the cab door. None of the photographs I have just acquired show the doors of the Bedford OY. The Ford Sussex 6x4's of the MFPU in the photographs have R.A.F. on the body side, and the single Ford WOT1 6x4 does not seem to have the lettering anywhere. None of the vehicles (photographed some time in 1942) have the RAF roundel.

John.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 14/01/2018 at 2:02 PM, john_g_kearney said:

The RAF Chevrolet in the photograph has R.A.F. on the cab door. None of the photographs I have just acquired show the doors of the Bedford OY. The Ford Sussex 6x4's of the MFPU in the photographs have R.A.F. on the body side, and the single Ford WOT1 6x4 does not seem to have the lettering anywhere. None of the vehicles (photographed some time in 1942) have the RAF roundel.

John.

 

An interesting set of photographs thank you for sharing them – the OY with the roundel on the bonnet besides not having rear-view mirrors on the door as would be usual for an OY and the odd roof hatch covering it has a curious arm attached above the left hand headlamp at about 45-deg – for a pennant maybe. On the right side (left as you look at it) of the front grill are the numbers 22** with a diagonal stripe possibly a unit marking   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Here is a problem photo. This Ford van relates to a story of a Halifax in 1944, that was in need of some direction finding assistance but sadly crashed. The RAF Type number confirms it was taken after January 1944 when Type Numbers were introduced. It has traces of camo behind the passenger window, as if the roof is black or dark brown over SCC.2 brown - and yet the mudguards are left in gloss!

A a variety of Ford vehicles were delivered to the RAF pre-war, in RAF Blue Grey with Gloss Black mudguards, such as the Fordson Sussex Balloon Winches and vans like this. However vehicles from other manufacturers were delivered in a single Blue-Grey colour scheme which subsequently got over painted with camo. So why was Ford allowed to deviate from the order, and why did Gloss Black mudguards hang around when the rest of the vehicle was camo? Was the Gloss paint hard to paint over?

 

Ravenscar Tracking Station Van.jpg

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Now that is a mystery ?/  The only thing I can add is that it is not a D?F van- if it was it would be in the type range 1-999; type 1500 is a 15cwt van  - no doubt the station van .  No difficulty with the paint, give the gloss surface a good rub with a medium then finer sandpaper  wash down then when nice and dry apply the matt coat- I nearly said wet & dry abrasive paper but not sure of its existence/use during WW2 .   I have reread the AMOs  no exceptions to vans for gloss paint. 

Bryan I was typing as your post arrived- I would add - at the beginning of war the RAF used a different method to achieve a"blackout" head light, the headlight was opened and the reflector painted black  then a white card disc inserted behind the lense, the card had a 3/4 inch high slot cut into it. Often the offside light was disconnected.  examples of this can be seen in the film about a balloon sqn deploying to the Firth of Forth. attached are a couple of stills , its much clearer on the film as some of it is filmed at dusk/dawn . Ted.

 

992 10.jpg

992 18.jpg

Edited by ted angus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks for the comments. How stupid of me to think its a D/F Signals Van when Bryan has already sent me the Type Number list. Type 1500 is the same classification as used for a Bedford MW!

Regarding the vehicle being very late war I still don't understand why Camo and Gloss Black might go together, and it doesn't look to be Gloss Red!

Could it be that with the Gloss Black, someone is taking liberties with a Micky mouse scheme that would have demanded a Black (or Dark Brown) colour for all surfaces seen from above?

And yet to be established is why Ford & Fordson got away with Gloss Black mudguards, in the pre-war period when other producers didn't!

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 9/20/2018 at 8:10 PM, LarryH57 said:

Here is a problem photo. This Ford Signals D/F van relates to a story of a Halifax in 1944, that was in need of some direction finding assistance but sadly crashed. The RAF Type number confirms it was taken after January 1944 when Type Numbers were introduced. It has traces of camo behind the passenger window, as if the roof is black or dark brown over SCC.2 brown - and yet the mudguards are left in gloss!

A a variety of Ford vehicles were delivered to the RAF pre-war, in RAF Blue Grey with Gloss Black mudguards, such as the Fordson Sussex Balloon Winches and vans like this. However vehicles from other manufacturers were delivered in a single Blue-Grey colour scheme which subsequently got over painted with camo. So why was Ford allowed to deviate from the order, and why did Gloss Black mudguards hang around when the rest of the vehicle was camo? Was the Gloss paint hard to paint over?

 

Ravenscar Tracking Station Van.jpg

I'm not sure the vehicle in the photo is camouflaged, yes it has shiny wings and dull bodywork with nothing to suggest the colour definition along the van panelling is anything other than stains. Headlamps suggest wartime as others previously stated TYPE 1500 equates to a 15-cwt class of van used 44 onwards Interesting photo with clear markings plus a happy airman. What the colours of the vehicle are is speculative guesswork at best   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This Ford Van photo i have attached dates from very early in WW2 and appears to be the same Ford model circa 1937 as shown in the example above from 1944. There is no doubt this Van in the photo I have attached is in shiney RAF Blue Grey with Gloss Black mudguards so typical of prewar commercial vehicles, not just from Ford (plus the white edging typical of the period on vehicles of this colour scheme). If this vehicle was left totally unwashed and remained in its original scheme for four years I guess all of it would look completely dull and matt (like the wife's unwashed car). So why in the Ford Van photo above from 1944 are the mudguards still shiney. Would the driver have bulled them only? Possible, but strange.

If the Ford Van in use in 1944 was still in RAF Blue that would be against RAF AMOs. If it was painted in SCC.2 Brown and still with Gloss Black mudguards that would be weard but more in keeping with AMOs that requested camo on all RAF vehicles.

Whether or not the '1944 Van' vehicle is dirty RAF Blue Grey or SCC.2 it is very convenient for the stain on the side panel to so perfectly follow the edging so commonly applied to RAF and British Army vehicles that had matt black or dark brown on the upper surfaces. If the photo was taken after it had just rained I might accept rainwater stains but it looks to be dry.

Ford Van in RAF Blue.jpg

Edited by LarryH57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

This Ford Van photo i have attached dates from very early in WW2 and appears to be the same Ford model circa 1937 as shown in the example above from 1944. There is no doubt this Van in the photo I have attached is in shiney RAF Blue Grey with Gloss Black mudguards so typical of prewar commercial vehicles, not just from Ford (plus the white edging typical of the period on vehicles of this colour scheme). If this vehicle was left totally unwashed and remained in its original scheme for four years I guess all of it would look completely dull and matt (like the wife's unwashed car). So why in the Ford Van above from 1944 are the mudguards still shiney. would the driver have bulled them only? Possible but strange.

If the Ford Van in use in 1944 was still RAF Blue that would be against RAF AMOs. If it was painted in SCC.2 Brown and still with Gloss Black mudguards that would be weard but more in keeping with AMOs that requested camo on all RAF vehicles.

Whether or not the '1944 Van' vehicle is dirty RAF Blue Grey or SCC.2 it is very convenient for the stain on the side panel to so perfectly follow the edging so commonly applied to RAF and British Army vehicles that had matt black or dark brown on the upper surfaces. If the photo was taken after it had just rained I might accept rainwater stains but it looks to be dry.

Ford Van in RAF Blue.jpg

Without wishing to appear awkward or disrespectful of someone's opinion, it is just that an opinion my opinion the vehicle has marks on the flank in the reign one might reasonably expect to find such items as a billboard or pasted on advertisement say in aid of recruitment my speculation. The marks are doubtful of any attempt of camouflage as it would apply to the whole vehicle not just to an indent in the side panel especially as the rest or what can be seen is a very well cared for shiny vehicle bonnet/hood windscreen/windshield surround and roof line. As to why it’s not complying with AMO-whatever again speculation, interesting period photo of a vehicle type that doesn’t show up in a copy of RAF-vehicles I have published in 44, I’m always interested in period photos of Air force vehicles I think they are under represented  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...