RAFMT

AMO 731/40 states Bright Orange and the 486/44 is the one that brings in 33A/125 Bright Orange. Can't find my copies of the later orders though.

As for the Post 54 bits i've had some mixed success, i'll send you an email about it tomorrow.

I'm sure we had a set of SCC colour cards in a cabinet at work- the sort issued to manufacturers during the war to ensure they had the right colour. They had been kept in boxes for as long as anyone knows.

I'll have to take a look for them now.

Great interview, you came across really well and survived the editing process much better than my one and only TV appearance!

Lets hope you inspire more new blood into the hobby.

If I am allowed to express my opinion: It does not seem to me as if the RR got stuck in a soft patch of sand but actually smashed into an excavation on the roadside.

Yes, it was just a bit of flippancy on my part in setting up for the picture.

Robert- as far as I remember it's a Rolls chassis from the rough dating of the photos in the album. A general rule of thumb with the RAF ones was that by the time the bodies were transferred to Fordson chassis the turrets were sporting Boys rifles alongside the Vickers guns and Scarff rings to mount the Lewis guns. Although I'm willing to be corrected on that.

We’ve all been there, you’re pottering along the desert tracks minding your own business, when you find you’ve hit a soft patch and lost control.

Now your Rolls Royce Armoured Car is stuck fast, so who do you call when the AA is unavailable?

I found this image quite interesting and thought some on here might enjoy it.

I assume he served either in WW2 or post war doing national service?

The MoD still holds the service records for post 1920(ish) servicemen and women:

http://https://www.gov.uk/requests-for-personal-data-and-service-records

Can take a while to get them though, and they're not always too helpful.

Good luck with the search

Hi Stu,

More than happy to help, the colours depend on the time period.

As for the yellow:

from 1944 vehicles regularly used in the movement area of an airfield had their upper surfaces in BSC 591 Deep Orange : http://www.e-paint.co.uk/Lab_values.asp?cRange=BS%20Other&cRef=BS%20591 (before ’44 the actual shade/hue wasn’t specified, just “bright orange”)

From 1957 (or at least that’s the earliest mention I’ve found so far) The colour changed to BSC 356 Golden Yellow: http://www.e-paint.co.uk/Lab_values.asp?cRange=BS%20381C&cRef=BS381%20356

Regards

Bryan

Hi Wally,

Sorry for the delayed reply, I’ve been away from my PC for a few days.

I don’t have the period documents myself, however I have corresponded with Trux in the past over similar matters. He uses period documentation for all his charts etc. so he will be able to tell what he used to get the information he gives here: http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/23674-army-and-corps-headquarters/

but the relevant part is

All corps units had a white bar at the top of the Arm of Service sign. This might carry an abbreviation of the units name.

Corps Headquarters carried the number 17 in white on a black square.

There is also the famous photo of Monty visiting 2 Canadian Corps, and their mess sign also uses the number 17 on a black square with white bar as the arm of service marking:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126493

And here is a 5 Corps staff car again using the 17 in a black square with white bar:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205204675

I am planning to obtain some items from TNA next week so if you like I can see they have any further documents in addition to what you have?

Regards,

Bryan

Good luck with the restoration, I think there aren’t enough RAF marked vehicles out there. But then again I might be slightly biased!

If you need any help with info on the markings etc. then drop me a line and I’ll send you the relevant orders.

Bryan

The same number can be used for different units, it's the colour of the background that matters. Iirc the number 40 was used for no less than five different units in an infantry division, but each one had a different background.

The talk will apparently be going on the wargaming.net youtube channel sometime very soon.

Surely they would be subject to the same colour regulations as other vehicles?

As colour schemes changed, the paints used for the older schemes were declared obsolete and removed from the vocabs. Therefore it wouldn't make sense to issue brand new bikes in a colour the army depots no longer have in stock.

And yes the forces had to move from green based colours to brown ones due to shortages of the minerals needed for the green pigments iirc. It should be in Mike Starmers book on NW Europe colours.

Dornier 17Z-3 U5+LK was tested by the RAE before being put into storage for a potential post war "victory" exhibition. It was in the Air Historical Branch store by about 1950 but was at some point scrapped.

It was never part of the RAF Museum.

The LoC website isn't the easiest searchwise.

As for these photos, they weren't accessed via the internet; the RAF Museum has only relatively recently started digitising its collections. Still a small selection of its items are available on the navigator search engine http://navigator.rafmuseum.org/highlights.page.do

Ted- I suppose for clarity i should have said I know them as the armed/unarmed tender, or something similar. I am aware the Library of Congress has a number of RAF Middle East photographs in its collection, but it's one of those things I mean to get around to looking at and never do! I shall head over there promptly.

Found these good pictures of a Fordson "Radio Truck" (photographer's term) among the RAF Museum collection.

Although it only occurred to me yesterday, that to my shame I've only ever known it as a Fordson Tender and don't actually know what model of Fordson it's based on!

Ian,

The diagram on it's own is rather confusing isn't it?

It should be saying that a solo vehicle not usually used to tow a trailer should have only the single figure, but if it is usually used to tow a trailer then it would have the two figure plate.

But really it's up to you, as the wise man said "it's your toy". If you want to "pretend" that your trucks usual duties are to tow a trailer then go for the two figure plate.

Yes BUT the 'Group' must have 3rd party liability insurance. The Spoertsman's Assocation, which campains for shooters and all countryside pursuits rights gives you 3rd party as part of the membership and does specifically cover military or histroic re-eanctment.

Yes, I forgot to point out the PLI- one of those things that seem so obvious to you that you tend to overlook it. A couple of the groups I'm in have their own PLI, but for everything else I have my individual cover.

So in short, as long as you have PLI you should be fine for the purposes of he VCR. For the retailers however it can be a little different.

Richard,

The RAF AMO from '44 lists three QLs, G.S., 950 and 1,000 gallon tankers- all of which are given bridge classification 7. Maybe it changed between 42 and 44?

Bryan

VCR bill applies to anything that can be described as a realistic imitation firearm, whether its a carved wooden film prop, blank firer, deact or children's toy. Trust me I had to do a lot of investigating on this for work.

HOWEVER the loopholes in the act are so numerous it looks like a string vest. You are exempt from the neon glowstick paint if you are member of a reenactment group or an airsoft group or similar. But there is no register or governing body for such groups and i myself have started or helped to start a number of them- including one in which i am the sole member.

If you have public liability insurance and can prove to the police you have a good reason for owning a blank firing weapon it should be enough. I've never had any problems, never been asked to see any form of membership to any groups- the deact certificate or allowing the nice policeman with the real gun to check it's a blank firer has usually been enough.

Ian, as Richard has said, vehicles that are not dedicated tractors would only carry their own classification, only artics, gun tractors etc carried the double weights.

That said the trailer itself would need to have it's classification painted on the front, which in this case would indeed be 2.

RAF’s AMO A143/44 introduced bridge load classifications and was released on the 17^th February 1944.

This was my source for the previous information, and this order also states that the classification is based on the axle weights of a fully loaded vehicle as Wally has said.

Interesting, all the RAF AMO's and AP's i have list the Jeep as being classification 1.

Also they state that on articulated vehicles the upper number should be the number for total train; i.e. tractor plus trailer, the lower figure is for the tractor only. The trailer should carry it's own classification on the front "should it be necessary to manhandle the trailer across a bridge".

The Austin and Jeep, since they are not dedicated tractors, would only need their classification number on them, with the trailer carrying it's own number. It would have been the drivers responsibility to calculate the total load class of the train.

This would be the two burner petrol cooker the size of a suitcase?

I use one regularly, I don't have a manual specifically on the cooker, but there is a chapter on it in the field cookery manual I have. I'm willing to scan it if the other avenue doesn't check out.

Well then, i stand corrected. The lift company obviously decided they could do it in one after the last inspection dive, as i haven't spoken to anyone since just before then. Although the fact they want to do it in one speaks volumes for the integrity of the structure.

However, having seen the hydration tunnels the Dornier will be spending time in, it will have to be separated into two to fit in. Unless they are going to somehow make a frankentunnel large enough to house the complete airframe. Seeing the fuselage and wing frames in different probably indicate they are separate structures for the purposes of transporting the aircraft.