10FM68

2 hours ago, Adrian Barrell said:

If modern paint manufactures cant always perfectly match each others colours, I'm not sure why some are so sure of the accuracy of colour 80 years ago. I'm also not convinced that when BS381 was expanded post war, they decided to very slightly change some of the colours whilst retaining the same names!

Thanks Adrian for your comment and I am very much aware that your experience in these matters is considerably greater than mine and that I am probably being a bit pedantic.  I can't disagree with your comment: "If modern paint manufactures can't always perfectly match each others colours, I'm not sure why some are so sure of the accuracy of colour 80 years ago", not least because many paints still required mixing in those days.  So, no, one cannot be sure of the accuracy of tone of these paints, but nor is it correct simply to accept that SCC15 was BS381c298 and look no further, because that isn't so, even though it might be a reasonable match for all but the purist.  

As for your second point, SCC15 came, not from BS381c, but from a different BS range - BS987c, so-called 'War Emergency Camouflage Colours' so there need be no direct correlation between the olive drab which was SCC15 and any subsequent BS381c paint of the same name - particularly as, by that time, olive drab as a term was in common usage and described US military paints as well (which also vary markedly in shade over time). 

But, even with the BS381c palette, there are differences over the years, even with the same number - deep bronze green, for example, has changed from the very dark tone of the pre-war DBG with various balances of blue and yellow creating some quite varied shades, even before application and weathering is taken into account. 

Things are improving, there is an increasing interest in accuracy, but late in the day, and two post-war generations have grown up with little idea what colour British military vehicles were painted in WW2.  Nor, I think, is it appreciated just how short a lifespan these colours had: G3 and SCC2 perhaps two years each and SCC15 four, notwithstanding, of course, that old schemes remained on vehicles long after they were officially declared obsolete.   

You mention Service Brown as being SCC2, but I have always understood Service Brown to be the shade in which ammo boxes are painted a rich, dark, true brown. SCC2 didn't receive a formal name (other than some vague reference to tea!) and is closer to a 'dark earth' without the richness of a real brown. And, as I say above, it lasted for little more than a couple of years, whereas Service Brown precedes WW2 and remains in use today.

But even exhibits at Bovington, where you might have thought they'd get it right, in my childhood were very poorly and inaccurately finished, which was a shame, as the continuity from their wartime colours was lost often under garish nonsense.  Elsewhere other museums have struggled.  Look at the extraordinary way Montomery's two Humbers have been turned out over the years, both in overall finish and in the markings they have received.  One might have thought such iconic vehicles might have warranted some degree of care, but, no, apparently not, 'Old Faithful' spent many years in a coat of sand-sprinkled muddy green! 

RAF vehicles are another area where things get a bit ropey - there is a profusion of RAF blue/grey on the circuit when the evidence would point to one or more of the SCC colours having actually been applied.  And, sadly, markings all too often seem equally random - but all must have a poppy and a large Union Jack!

I shouldn't be surprised to hear something from Clive on this subject - I know he has some clear ideas about how his garish (but accurate) green RUC Shorland was viewed by many not in the know!

7 hours ago, rupert condick said:

Hi

I know what you mean, some errors are just.....

How painful is this

A mere amateur - this is how it's done!

9 hours ago, RayT said:

Why do I know it to be inaccurate?

I don't know why, perhaps you don't.  Sorry, I don't mean to be flippant, but I don't understand the question.  But, BS381c 298 dates from the 1960s.  A Fordson N would be extremely unlikely to have been painted in a 1960s olive drab.  If it had been olive drab at all which I doubt, then it would have been SCC15 which was quite a different shade, hence my advice to get the paint made up.  As Rupert points out above, the best sources of paint guidance have been gathered together by Mike Starmer who has written a short booklet on the subject including his primary sources.  There is a range of modellers' paints based on his research and analysis which are available: https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/collections/colourcoats and can make all the difference.  Buy a 14ml tinlet, paint up a bit of tin which has been primed with a light grey, take it along to a paint supplier and Bob's your uncle.  You also have to be very careful selecting the correct colour scheme for the correct period bcause, during the war, the regulations were changing sometimes at 6-monthly intervals.  There was also, of course, a considerable 'flash-to-bang' between the regulation being issued, trickling down to units and then being applied, bearing in mind the usual instruction, 'to use up existing stocks first'.  SCC15, olive drab, appeared in 1944 to replace SCC2 which is a sort of dark earth.  But, photos exist of a TA unit's Daimler armoured cars still wearing SCC2 in the 1950s.  

But why use a colour which you know to be inaccurate when you have gone to such trouble to rebuild an historical vehicle?  It's the same with markings - a wonderfully finished WWII MV and carrying markings it never could have done - more common than it should be - particularly, I fear, with British MVs where there are all sorts of oddities.

What period are you going for?  That will determine the colour more accurately.  I would be inclined to get a swatch and have the paint mixed up specially if it is WW2 British olive drab you want (SCC15) as the current British Standard olive drab isn't the same shade (it's close, but not close enough for the purist).  If you are intending something late 1942 to middle 1944 then you need SCC2 which is close to a dark earth.  Earlier than that then khaki green No 3 which, funnily enough, is also quite close to the current British NATO green.  Having a local paint shop mix the paint worked fine for me and they can adjust the degree of gloss easily.  You can make up a swatch using modelling paints on a light grey primer base.

Do you mean ATS?  The WAC was an American organisation.

Could even be three!  2 green ones and a light-coloured one.  The photo with the line-up on the square with the Bedford OYDs is interesting: down the far end a couple of Dodge WC series - both w/winches, I think, a CMP No13 cab, a Tilly, some Ford WOT2s (1 tonners by this stage, I presume), a Pioneer and, is that the Snipe in the far distance?

I do like these photos - as most of you know, it is the era I find most interesting and under-represented on the MV scene - which is a shame as the vehicles then were probably in their prime as far as being looked after was concerned, even if most of them were pretty knackered by then.  Certainly, though, the liveries were interesting and smart. 

http://www.35-ofp-kluang.co.uk/rg/index.asp

The above link is to a site where a former soldier records some of his experiences from being a member of 35 Ordnance Field \park in Singapore in the middle 50s.  There are some very interesting photographs of British Army vehicles in good definition. One thing which is apparent: they were kept in immaculate condition and another thing of interest is the front diff being painted white with the unit number stencilled on!  All sorts there: Fordsons, Explorer, Diamond T, a nice Humber Snipe...

Well worth a browse!

2 hours ago, 10FM68 said:

This may be a bit early, but during WW2 British Forces employed the Autocar U-8144T Tractor 5/6\Ton 4x4  for towing a mobile Oxygen trailer.  Post war, Bart Vanderveen shows Lorry, 10Ton, 6x4 Oxygen Plant, AEC Marshal).

I have no more details than that, but photos appear of both in Bart Vanderveen's books.

But, yes, and looking at the pictures Wally supplied below, I think the Thornycroft Big Ben is a very likely tractor for them.

Thank you to Richard, Wally and Pete for your contributions.  I can't imagine how I have missed these posts over the last week - where have I been?  Nowhere, is the answer as I can't drive, nor can I walk far until I have another op on my leg in March - all being well!  But, it was rude of me not to have replied more promptly - I shall keep a closer eye on these pages in future!

Thank you for the Loadstar Fmn sign ID - it certainly could be and that would then make the AOS sign red/yellow - which is 50% likely anyhow I suppose!

I think the K5 has to have been photographed earlier than 1961.  I certainly agree, Richard, that specialist bodied vehicles hung around much later than one might have thought in those days - the big clear-out didn't really start until the 80s, I suppose.  So, going with the photoas being in the 50s, then, yes, Glosters back-badge, certainly a possibility and the co-driver does, indeed have a large badge on his beret.

The badge is certainly close to that of the 92nd Highlanders, which, by then would have been 2nd Bn The Gordon Highlanders.  The trouble with that theory, though, is that the sphinx in the laurel wreath wasn't the primary sub-badge (if you know what I mean - the bits carried forward on amalgamations) of the Gordons and, of course, the co-driver ought to be wearing a glengarry or TOS!  And the 1st Battalion, the only one left by then, never served in the Middle East!

So, on balance, I am persuaded that the strongest case is that for the Glosters in 1954-56.

Thank you all.

This may be a bit early, but during WW2 British Forces employed the Autocar U-8144T Tractor 5/6\Ton 4x4  for towing a mobile Oxygen trailer.  Post war, Bart Vanderveen shows Lorry, 10Ton, 6x4 Oxygen Plant, AEC Marshal).

I have no more details than that, but photos appear of both in Bart Vanderveen's books.

This was the beauty which was being sold in Holland last year - for around £40,000 as I recall.

And this appeared on this forum a few years ago - the owner popped up with it but no more developed on that thread.  Also a beauty and original.  There's something about these large Humbers!

Thank you Clive and thank you Richard.  I have Howard Coles' 'Badges on Battledress' and there is nothing in there, but there is a badge for the RAC Training Centre in BAOR which has crossed lances and a WWI tank on the blue crusader cross on a red ground of BAOR, so that drew me away from an RAC training angle.  Do you think it is the same baadge on the Loadstar?

I'm not sure the badge on the K5 is a formation sign.  I think it is a regimental sign which are always difficult to identify as they don't always use the full capbage, nor the collar dog, but, perhaps, a cipher - the best example being that of RE which uses three badges, seemingly at random: the cap badge, the 'bomb' and the cypher.  I think the badge is something like that - a part of a badge or emblem unique to a particular regiment - in this case a sphinx within a laurel wreath (perhaps).  That points to the SWB, but could be any regiment, probably infantry, though with Egyptian battle honours. the Leicesters & the Glosters being two and there may be more.  For a time these badges replaced formation signs - in the late 40s, I think. I have a photo of a Scots Greys DAC in Palestine, somewhere with such a set-up.  But, the unit needs to have been wherever the K5 is for long enough to have put its signs on the vehicles. 

Incidentally, I was chatting to a young chap in REME the other day.  He tells me that, if an army vehicle now needs repainting, it cannot be done in the unit, but is sent back to 4th line - a civilian contractor, who will use water-based paints etc etc.  That may explain why army vehicles these days look so tatty for so long - what a ridiculous state of affairs!  Health & Safety, I suppose.

Thank you for that, Clive.  It certainly could be an RAC training regiment; I agree that the flame seems to be clasped by a mailed fist - is Allenby Bks at Bovington?  Do you think that that sign is the same on the Loadstar?

The stripe certainly could be an air-recognition sign, but, I thought the one for the Middle East was white and then when on light stone.  Orange on whatever it is, doesn't seem to tick the same box.  Please do have a look at you B&W photos.  And treasure them  I fear a time will come when all the photo on the internet will have been 'colorized' leaving us with an inability to spot a genuine colour photo and with the great unwashed believing in the colours they see - there are some crackers around already showing WWI tommies apparently in field grey with brown boots!

Below are three photos.  Two of them may, just may, have the same or similar formation sign; the Ferret and the Austin Loadstar.  I think it must be some sort of training establishment (the flaming torch being a popular symbol of learning - though I know this isn't uniquely so).  Can anyone identify the sign for me?  Also if anyone can add to the detail about the Loadstar photo I'd be interested - who are they, for a start?  Where is the Ferret, do you think - it looks a bit like Warminster to me, but lots of barracks look a bit the same - the crew are RTR and appear to be flying an RTR pennant?

The third picture, from Pinterest, is an Austin K5, fine, post war, clearly, somewhere warm!  But, where and when?  The caption says Aden 1961, but the badge on the front suggests the South Wales Borderers, who weren't in Aden at that time (they were 6 years later, but would there have been any K5s left by 1967, even in Aden?)  The only other time the SWB were in the Middle East was Asmara, Eritrea in 1951, which would fit the ERM and the dress, and the badge, as that was a period when regimental badges were appearing in place of formation signs on some British vehicles abroad.  But... is that the answer?  Could it be another regiment with a sphinx in its capbadge?  The Lincolns, (Egypt 51-52) perhaps, or the Gloucestershire Regiment (Aden 54-56)?  Neither badge seems to me to match and a Glosters cap badge would, I should think, appear larger on the chap next to the driver.  How about the colour scheme - any ideas?  Is that faded DBG or a dark battleship grey?  The other tones seem right, so DBG doesn't seem likely (a chromatic issue with the printing) and the orange band?

All answers gratefully received.

"...but the photographs are not inspiring, unfortunately."  I think you'll find that they are!  The whole project is inspiring.

It certainly could be, couldn't it?  Perhaps the Australians trialled one or two.  I rather think, though, that this photo isn't about the carrier itself, but about the team.  I see they have everything on display: the Bren, the mortar, the ammunition, of course and, presumably, at the far right, the 6Pdr itself.  I suppose the critical question is when the Australians stopped wearing SD.  Do you think that is an officer on the right?  I would have expected him to be wearing officers' SD were that the case.  Could he merely be the driver with the Corporal the Section Commander on the left of the photo?

Many thanks for that, Rupert, all very interesting.  Lovely trucks - there was a real cracker for sale in Holland not so long ago - about £40 odd thousand as I recall - I'd give my eye teeth for one, though I'm not sure I could even afford the fuel bill!

Thanks for that.  I do think it looks more like an Owen gun than a Sten, certainly, but where they are, I don't know - I think Korea rather than UK, though.

They may be right, or it may be in Korea - there are so many photos on the internet these days with incorrect captions, it is impossible to be certain of the veracity of any of them.  Either way, it's the windscreen which is of interest to me rather than the location - that it was still in service was the point.

Surely, there must be someone on this Forum who has an idea about the uniforms worn by those below.  I can't think they're British as they're in SD rather than BD, which would be very odd for this period.  So, if they aren't British, then who can they be?  Did other Commonwealth troops get issued with Oxfords in Korea?  They aren't Irish, I'm sure, nor likely to be 'other European'.  They have collar dogs and brass buttons, they're wearing '37 Pattern webbing, but in an unusual shade, the chap with the Sten (or is it a Sten?  Is the magazine coming out of the top rather than the side?) seems to be bereft of anklets or putteesthey are particularly scruffy for a demonstration photo...  So what's the answer?  My hunch is Australian.

On the subject of Humber FWDs, can anyone tell me why there are two different windscreen arrangements?  I read somewhere that there were two versions; one general one and a second for senior officers with some variations, including an opening roof.  I also read that these had strengthened window pillars.  Is that the explanation or is there another one?  The BBC vehicle above has the second type of windscreen but I enclsoe below a photo of one in Korea showing it in-service - so it wasn't a post-war civilian refurb.  The second photo was an original Humber one, the first, a private one, possibly from this Forum.

On 3/19/2021 at 5:56 PM, matchlesswdg3 said:

To clarify, for vehicles we use.....only vehicles first used after 1 April 1986.

 

Class 3,4,5 and 7 vehicles

For class 3,4,5 and 7 vehicles, the defect ‘Light source and lamp not compatible’ only applies to vehicles first used on or after 1 April 1986.

Should a vehicle be presented for an MOT test with conversions before 1 April 1986 they must not be failed with immediate effect.

Vehicles presented with converted halogen headlamp units first used on or after 1 April 1986 will continue to be failed.

Headlamps must comply with all other requirements of the test and headlamp aim.

The cars and passenger vehicles inspection manual will be updated shortly

I never noticed this post at the time, but, this couldn't have been less clear if they had tried.  I don't think whoever drafted it had English as  first language.

This sentence, "Should a vehicle be presented for an MOT test with conversions before 1 April 1986 they must not be failed with immediate effect." as written suggests that the vehicle will not fail as long as it is presented for MoT prior to 1 Apr 86 - clearly an impossibility as this notice was issued in 2021!  Though it also suggests that it is the MoT which has, or had, the conversions - also ludicrous!

While this sentence, "Vehicles presented with converted halogen headlamp units first used on or after 1 April 1986 will continue to be failed." clearly implies that only vehicles (of any age) fitted with converted headlamps which had been in use prior to 1 Apr 86 would pass - again, an impossibility!  I am really surprised to see such appalling wording in a legally-applicable document.

What a shame more care wasn't taken, but I think it would be an impossibility to obtain a conviction in a court of law based on the wording of these notices - their ambiguity is significant.

I'm not sure you're sending out quite the right message attaching them to a water bowser!  They are actually for vehicles which have had their radiators drained.  Before the universal introduction of antifreeze it was commonplace for vehicles to have their radiators drained overnight and when not in use to prevent damage from freezing - you'll notice quite a lot of older military vehicles had drain taps and markings pointing out where they were.  The custom died out.  Later on, in very cold climates, a jar of diluted anifreeze would be positioned on the windowsill of the unit guardroom.  If that started to thicken, then duty drivers would be called out to start engines of vulnerable vehicles.  It didn't happen very often.

I think they have been bought out by one of the major paint companies now - probably Dulux, but Farrow & Ball have been the 'go to' for house paints for Cotswolds dwellers for a generation, now - all the muddy green windows and doors?  Yep, expensive F&B paints!  You need to catch up on your subscription to "Country Living", Clive!  Seriously, though, I expect F&B were one of the many manufacturers of Paint PFU during WWII!  What is of interest, to me, anyway, is the frequency with which ACIs were amended updating regulations on paint.  But, because they were always accompanied by exhortations to carry on using the old paint 'until stocks were exhausted' and repainting only if necessary, it is entirely conceivable that some vehicles made it all through WWII never having been repainted at all and still in either pre-war DBG or early war Khaki Green G3 livery - it would be nice to see what colour those Bedford MWs with aeroscreens photographer post-1950 had been in! Can't tell with B&W photographs, though sadly, as even contrast is of little help as photographers used filters deliberately to emphasise contrast.