It's Complicated ...
Now I'm probably putting sticking my neck out here, but what the heck ... this is the place for discussion, and I'm sure there are exceptions to what I'm about to write.
I believe that both Tony and Lang are correct to a certain extent: yes, there are many variations in the application of the registration numbers, and yes, there is some level of consistency in manufacturer-applied registration numbers. The question is: why?
With regard to the latter, the method of bringing vehicles into service, particularly from around 1942 onwards, was by contract with manufacturers and assemblers. Both fully imported (such as vehicles under Lend-Lease) and partially imported with Australian manufactured bodywork (such as CMPs under the Mutual Aid Agreement) were marked with the registration number as part of the contract. Hence, some consistency in terms of when and where applied, as pointed out by Tony W earlier in this thread, such as the 'Ford ..NSW' type of stencil.
In the earlier part of the war, vehicles were a mixture of locally assembled/manufactured, impressed or purchased from dealers in the mad scramble to equip a rapidly growing defence force. Many images show vehicles in holding yards like Broadmeadows in all over sand colour (under AIF supply contracts), or all over KG3 (for AMF supply contracts). In this earlier phase, number plates were still being issued, and vehicles were delivered from assemblers/manufacturers without painted registration numbers. Once the word from on high came down to paint on the numbers, we see the most variability in style, placement and skill. Stencilling, at least at unit level, was the exception rather than the rule but we do see more stencilling applied at Ordnance Vehicle Park level and above such as BOD and COD level. Even then, it does not appear to be consistent.
Vehicles already on issue had to catch up, so all the way down to unit level, vehicles were having the registration applied by people with a great variety of available materials and skill.
Overlay that with with the requirement to apply disruptive camouflage from late 1941 onwards which in many(?) cases also required the re-application of registration numbers. Same goes for re-painting as required due to wear and tear: re-application of the registration for any reason introduced variability across the entire spectrum of in-service vehicles.
To my mind, probably the starkest illustration of this marking variability is the application of underbonnet nomenclature, which became an Army requirement in the second half of 1942. On jeeps and other vehicles delivered after that date, there is some uniformity in the style and placement within each manufacturing/assembling contract, as this was applied by the contractor, but on vehicles already in service that had the nomenclature applied at Unit level, the style, placement, information content, and size varied to a huge degree.
Mike
|