Not so horrible after all...
Hi Mike,
Since it is a copy of the pattern used on 132141, the No.9 FGT shown in images taken at Wesley College during the war, then blame the Army or the contractor for not following their own instructions - maybe. The pattern is actually very, very similar in shape and area covered to that published in MC319 for the Truck 15cwt with canvas canopy erected.
The AWM, in the absence of a published pattern specific to the No.8 & 9 artillery tractors (until Oct 43), and given the pattern shown in the images was very similar to the 15cwt pattern in MC319, followed the pattern as shown in the period images.
Looking at those images in high res, the edge is finished with a low-pressure spray gun and has not been brushed to a sharp line, and while this is clearly not in strict conformance with para 8 of MC319, it is in conformance with the period images. As has been mentioned before in this thread, AHQ instructions are one thing: what actually happened can often be another.
Another point worth noting is that there is no statement anywhere in official instruction MC319 that the pattern had to be '50/50' for a two-colour pattern - only to follow the pattern as published (para 7, note 1), which this clearly does by following the 15cwt pattern.
Mike aka Santa Claus
|