RAFMT

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

On 10/29/2018 at 1:06 PM, LarryH57 said:

 Bryan aka RAFM may have the date of the AMO that ordered the tops of RAF vehicles to be painted yellow if they were driven on airfields, which I guess was mid 1944.

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.

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.  

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.

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. 

The far right is a Crossley IGL.

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. 

2 hours ago, LarryH57 said:

I could only spot two vehicles!

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.  

On 9/28/2018 at 3:05 PM, LarryH57 said:

I believe this photo was taken in early 1940 so the RAF camouflage of vehicles must have started quite early, even on RAF Bomber Stations

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).  

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

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.

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.

No, but if it still hasn't turned up it's clearly operated by British Rail 😂

By 1923 the lathe options were:

Colchester 6" or 7"

Drummond 5" or 6"

Haigh 5"

Holbrook 5" or 6"

Not sure what the options were earlier on.

Also came across another pic, although most of it is obscured. 3 Trade Test Party, Cardiff 1916. And despite the RFC making every effort to become mechanised, it looks like horseshoes were still part of the blacksmith course. 

I only have access to the 1923 inventory at the moment (there is a 1918 one at TNA, Kew but I haven't had a chance to copy it yet) and I can say that the IWM workshop body is pretty representative for the RAF Workshop lorries and trailers. Will try and get it scanned in a put up on here.

Only 4 photographs I can find in the RAF Museum collection, and they're not great unfortunately.

The first one is undated and could be a trailer as opposed to a lorry but it's the same body regardless

The second is wartime.

The Third is 45 Squadron, Iraq 1923

The last is also undated.

If you went there and did it on site then i dare say you could (you can with our system).

But from the point of view of the general public, most will be looking for a specific subject and will look that up, few will want to just browse all the images. And if a person already knows the number of the picture they want then they will ask for that and won't need to use the search engine.

On 8/31/2018 at 12:22 PM, Chris Hall said:

the days of needing Armourers on Spitfires, Hurricanes and the Lanc are long gone.

I don't know, the way our government has been going it will be so long before someone realises it's cheaper short term to rearm the BBMF...😉

On 9/2/2018 at 12:03 PM, matchlesswdg3 said:

If you read personal accounts of RAF bomber crew members in WW2, there appears to have been a very well organised system of allotted parking up places for each plane, use of taxi ways and take-off and landing slots that did not need use of Follow-Me trucks.  Don't forget that most movements for RAF bombers would have been undertaken at dusk or in darkness and with the visibility from the lofty perch of a Lancaster or Halifax being limited for the pilot, you could imagine that ground vehicles running about would pose more risk than help.

Pretty much exactly this.

Before you took off you were made aware of which runway was in use, you would then wait for permission to head to the marshalling point. At the marshalling point would be an airman to ensure you didn't collide in the dark. You would wait at the marshalling point for permission to head on to the runway.

When landing it would be almost the same but in reverse.

No mention in the 1944 manual of using vehicles for marshalling.

Also, it would be good to remember that the RAF didn't operate at the same intensity as the USAAF. So, fewer aircraft per airfield and a penchant for flying as a loose stream and returning individually (as well in the dark) meant less of a need to rush aircraft off the runway.

Fun fact, the first thing you were supposed to do on landing was stop, look around and behind (turning the aircraft if need be) to make sure no-one else was landing or taxying nearby, and then proceed to the marshalling point in a slighty zig-zag fashion so you could keep an eye out behind you.

On 8/31/2018 at 9:59 PM, Richard Farrant said:

In the book, 'Wheels of the RAF', there is a photo of the RAF airfield at Khartoum, which it says was taken in late 40's, it is noted and clearly visible in the photo of a jeep with a large board on the rear stating 'STOP' and 'FOLLOW ME'. It is an Air Ministry photo, no. R1316.

OK, not wartime, but very close.

In the case of that particular photo, I have no reason to question the date, but Khartoum was an airfield which would have seen lots of passing visitors and few permanent residents.

That Jeep would have been sent out to greet strangers and show them the way to their hard standing.

On 9/2/2018 at 1:51 PM, Old Git said:

 

Found it, but now questioning the date. Maybe post-war?

On 9/2/2018 at 10:04 PM, LarryH57 said:

Personally, I think the yellow Morris AC was used as an armoured crash rescue vehicle or perhaps a suitably painted vehicle to tow the wheeled watchhut, and nothing to do with Follow Me!

I reckon that Ferg in his post above is spot on.

Considering the footage is mid-late 1944 (Rose turret shown on the Lancs), long after the RAF Regiment discarded the LRC, I would suggest it was possibly the tug for the caravan. Would make a useless crash cart. 

On 9/2/2018 at 10:24 PM, Old Git said:

 only Follow-me vehicles were Yellow, but then the RAF is not my area. I suppose somewhere in TNA there is a file with all the answers! 

Yellow was to be used on all vehicles operating on any part of the airfield aircraft would also be operating on.  

I'll be honest, i didn't get far with the Gurniad article, but all I can do is speak from experience, and it took myself and two colleagues the better part of two years to go through a backlog of around 100 files. And we didn't need to examine each one page by page in case there was sensitive material in there.

Yes, the gun (still waiting for the RAF Reg to give up the radar), and the centre is at Honington.

15 hours ago, Chris Hall said:

whos trying to rebuild one?

15 hours ago, MatchFuzee said:

The Hawker Typhoon Preservation Group (HTPG) are delighted to announce the securing of a Napier Sabre IIa aero engine:-

https://hawkertyphoon.com/napier-sabre-engine-secured/

Those people 😁

The only photographs i can find of 98 Squadron Mitchell IIIs all show glazed noses.

In fact, I can't recall seeing any photographs of gun nosed Mitchells in RAF service. (But then again I struggle to recall what I did yesterday!)

Last of her kind in a close to original state, it would be too risky to put her in the air. Plus trying to get engines for her.

There's a group attempting to rebuild one, and I heard they were hoping to get it airworthy.

Considering the amount of AM/RAF material that made it's way to the RAFM, I wouldn't be surprised to find that budget cuts have taken their toll 🙄

Does the army have a historical branch in the vein of the Air Historical Branch?

There's an example on loan from the RAF Museum to the RAF Regiment Museum.

Will need to take a look as all the pictures i have found so far show the system all set up and ready to go.