RAFMT

Ted - the Museum's balloon winch carries the roundel on the wing (not introduced until 41) and has painted, not aluminium, RAF letters. So it's more like a slightly incorrect post-war scheme. Although at the end of the day it's splitting hairs really.

As for the Khaki, G3 is not Khaki it's Khaki-Green. Lord knows why they decided to complicate matters with a name like that (I assume they used that name, it's how I've always heard it referred to). Khaki is and always was Khaki as in Khaki Dress uniforms- a sort of Light Stone colour. The RAF seemed averse to using British Standard 318 colours at this time (which is different from BS318 including colours already used by the RAF) so the stores vocabs wont get us any closer to an exact shade. Certainly the photographs show a light colour, definitely not dark enough to be KG3. 

Besides, the RAF liked to keep it's members busy, including hand mixing each batch of of paint; and Mr Angus knows about hand mixing paint for use in the Middle East!

I've been laid up ill for the past few days so can't access anything i don't have at home, and oddly very few pictures i have here are Fordson types. I can't see any other types with black front wings in my pictures, but you're right it seems to be a Fordson thing, maybe because it was how they painted their civvy output? Maybe they are being knocked up on the same production line and the front wings came ready painted before attaching? I honestly have no clue, not having noticed this Fordson quirk before.

Also if i recall correctly, the blue-grey paint at the time should be matt and the black on those looks like gloss

Larry - The ballon winch at the Museum is in post-war colours

And i assume you are referring to the Fordson crash tender you posted on the first page? If so i have some doubts about that picture, it feels like it is too much of a prepared publicity shot; in much the same way as in certain famous press shots of pilots they got hold of the best conditioned flying gear and each pilot took turns wearing the same kit for their photographs. 

They came later, in '46. No mention of them being a different colour in 37

Check armouredfarmers response on this thread, it highlights the litte green "dot" (or star if you've arleady responsed to the topic before) which takes you to the first unread post. 

It was actually agreed at the highest level from the outset - the Yanks would focus on bringing their operational equipment over to start with whilst we supplied the supporting elements as part of the lend-lease agreements. This has reminded me I really should note down where this stuff is when I find it - it'll take me ages to find the documents again!  

Larry you are correct, the RAF did not use (at least any appreciable numbers) Austin Tillies.

They also did not use Austin K2 Ambulances at home until 1945 (the first Databook entry I can find for them)

Baz - yes, indeed, the good old Albion and the WOT1. Other chassis that were used for different ambulances at home and abroad during the war were things like Ford F60L, C298QF and WOT2; Humber FWD; Morris Y; Standard 14hp...possibly more. The only pre 1945 photographs i have seen of K2 Ambulances on RAF home stations actually show Red Cross/St Johns/Other aid agencies, waiting to collect casualties being flown in.

Simon - couldn't you tell it was supposed to be overseas by the tropical North London surroundings? 

It was actually largely the Hillman tillies that were used by the RAF.

Tony, Allan Taylor did the actual conversion work according to the RAF, so i would presume Wandsworth.

I agree with Simon, the "lime green" does appear like it should be Light Green No.5. the downside of using in-situ  paint examples is the colour change over time- unless a preservative layer was put over it before the next layer of paint then it does unfortunately change eventually.

The conversion would have been performed by either Allan Taylor, who converted both the WOT3 and Thames 7V, or Reynolds who only worked on the WOT3. There were differences, but i don't have the relevant databook to hand at this moment. 

Now you've gone and done it, everyone knows you keep thinking about my bits! 

Oh for the free time to actually do stuff in, i would offer a hand otherwise. Have you moved your base of operations? 

Having exhausted A series (although i accept that i am only human and the possibility exists that I could have missed something)

There were pre-war orders in the SD series (secret document because the Air Ministry is so good at labels) that detail what to do on the outbreak of war but it's mostly organisational and higher level stuff. (also some interesting things like what to do in the event of unrest in Republic of Ireland amongst others). I can take a look through all of those as well when i get time.

Larry, the RAF Museum has an almost complete collection of AMOs in the A and N range (missing some very early stuff, the odd week in 1918 etc). It might be a case, as Ted says, of starting with a search on the TNA website for certain key words within the AIR series before you make your trip.

Ted, I'm already ahead of you, slowly making my way through the AMOs, both A and N series but so far found nothing useful with regards to colours.

Army Cooperation Command used A, which was also used by Airfield Construction after Army Coop ceased to be.

If I remember correctly (and I may be completely wrong here) the signals groups in Bomber and Fighter command had different roles, so i'm not sure if 60 group would have had a huge number of signals vehicles. Like I say, I'm going from memory and I'd need to double check to be sure.

As for the paints, i believe that there were orders at group level for camouflaging vehicles (building camouflaging was already underway) which is why it seems a mess in photos today, with some vehicles of the period camouflaged and others not. My working hypothesis is that those stations in the south and east were a priority for painting as they were the most vulnerable; however i have not had the chance to spend time at Kew and go through the papers there (oh for a week of leave to spend there!)

I've not been able to keep up with thread until now, although there isn't much to add to what Ted has already contributed.

With regards to the Duresco chart, it appears to be what few colours from their pre-war range they were able to make at that point: http://patrickbaty.co.uk/2011/11/07/duresco-king-of-water-paints/

There were a number of schemes being offered for civilians to have their own buidlings, cars etc. camouflaged (one was a very strange mix of rural on one side of the car and urban on the other).

I know things have changed but historically it was conceived for the use of the medical services of armies as laid down in the Geneva Convention 1864 with no recognition of any Red Cross Societies let alone their entitlement to adopt the symbol.

What became the ICRC formed in 1863 and in the same year held a conference (in Geneva) on the treatment of wounded in wartime. it was this conference that led the Swiss state to hold the 1864 conference to formally adopt some of the proposals from 1863- of which the article you quote was one.

White cross on green background has been in use for far longer than it has been an ISO symbol. Green crosses have been the symbol for pharmacies for as long as i can remember (which is certainly not as long as many others on this forum, but still...) and we certainly had one at the end of our road in the early 90s with a green cross shaped sign.

Taking this to the extreme it would suggest that all vehicles in a museum should be taxed, MOT'd and insured, which can't possibly be sensible.

 

Andy

In my experience, those vehicles that actually operate are, where applicable. However in most national museums the majority are non operational and are moved about by handpower and other vehicles/plant (mostly handpower in my experience!).

Since it post-dates the formation of the Territorial Force, could it be the Essex Territorial Yeomanry maybe?

So is this what you are doing with your time now Colin?

Hope i get to see the finished product.

Bruce Robertson quoted what i guess was the same thing in Wheels of the RAF. So it must have been around somewhere.

EDIT: Scratch that. Actually took a look at TNAs website, and it appears they are different documents. Try an advanced search, looking for "transport" "returns" with ref WO (war office you could also add AIR and ADM for a more complete picture) and it looks like a series of MT returns for different theatres. Obviously you would then need to visit to take a look!

Yes, plenty of 15cwt CMPs used as runabouts in the DAF/MAAF; in most memoirs I have read they are usually referred to as Blitz Buggies.

The modification leaflet was issued in October 1936, ordering Gruss Air Springs to be fitted, some were to be fitted in the "Front" position and some in the "Side" position depending on the chassis number.

One would assume that it was about this time that they were being included on the production line (assuming they were, i'm not conversant with the type outside of its use by the RAF)

They were a later addition, i don't have the mod leaflets to hand but if I dig them out tonight I can tell you when they were ordered to be fitted.

Will you include the Scarff Ring and Carrier optional extras?

All those Stirlings parked up together look like they are up for disposal. Shame that no one thought to keep one!

Nope, they are lined up either side of the runway with the horsa gliders in between ready for take off. the would take turns, from alternating sides, to head down the runway.

The statue seems to be Samuel de Champlain, so i would guess somewhere in eastern Canada?