Restoration of Aussie jeep trailer

[Lang]

This is the later sign

[Mike Cecil]

Lang,

The Kangaroo shape from the Australian penny was the authorised sign from the outset (1939). How Troops interpreted that in the field was another matter, of course, but also keep in mind that we are dealing with a No.3 or 3A trailer that did not come into existence until 1943.

The original 6 Division sign proposed was a kangaroo surrounded by three Roman 'II' between three boomerangs, each 'II' standing for 2nd AIF, and, when combined, adding to '6' for '6 Div'. The kangaroo in this instance was, as you say: 'sort of a rat with a hump on its neck' and with the legs near-vertical.

But this was immediately rejected and on 7 December 1939, with the simpler kangaroo over a boomerang design suggested and subsequently adopted prior to the departure of the first contingent. The instruction from the MGO was that the 'kangaroo on the Australian Penny should be clearly followed in design and position of jumping with relation to the vertical.' All subsequent authorised 6 Div signs follow this pattern.

Mike C

[Lang]

Mike,

I have trouble reconciling your 1939 date for the penny kangaroo.

I have a copy of all the marking instructions from WW1 to present as you no doubt have.

The only instruction for the whole 1939-45 period for 6 Division showing the Div kangaroo formation design (of course there were many whole of army unit and vehicle marking schemes as they applied to 6 Div which seemed to change daily) is HQ AIF (ME), General Staff Instruction No. 34 12 Jan 42.

This gives all the divisional and minor unit markings for the Australian Army in the Middle East. The template given for 6 Division is the hump-backed rat.

Vehicles certainly carried the penny kangaroo but dare I suggest it is because the official design was lousy and everyone was familiar with the penny design and it became standard by default???

[Mike Cecil]

Lang,

The description in my post (the instruction from the MGO in the last para) is in qoutes: it is a direct quote from the 1939 document, which is accompanied by the authorised sign viz jumping kangaroo as per Aust penny, over a single boomerang.

After that, the majority of authorised formation sign listings (of which there are many) simply state ' Kangaroo over a boomerang', without a diagram.


Mike C

[Lang]

Mike,

I wonder how far the "intention" of senior headquarters in 1939 was passed down to the signwriters in the vehicle workshops? Was there an actual operational instruction created for the units such as the one I quote above from GHQ (ME) and if so did it get ballsed up by some artistic captain producing the instruction and the hump-backed rat appeared.

I have just had a quick look at photos and see the hump-backed rat on vehicles retreating in Greece. I think this is not just an 'interpretation" but following some official instruction.

There is a famous picture of a row of Australian tanks with big kangaroos on the side. These are the penny design but close inspection reveals quite large variations in detail according to the artists' styles.

I still go for the bad design being the official one - as known to the painters, obviously from your information not the original intentions. This was supplanted either by some General saying "What a crappy kangaroo, we didn't want that shape at our meeting in 1939" or the boys just took it upon themselves to produce the accepted Australian national symbol.

[Mike Cecil]

Lang,

I too have been back to basics, and dug out some additional 'stuff'. I don't profess to having all the various markings instructions, but I have quite a few, that's for sure.

On 28 December 1939, an order was raised on Fossey and Poole of 59 Francis St, Melbourne, for 12 stencils 'to be in accordance with attached diagram and made from No.11 zinc as per sample submitted'. I have a copy of the order and diagram that went with it. The stencils were required urgently, and the diagram was a leaping kangaroo, as per the penny, and without the horrible extra lump on the neck as per AIF GS Instruction No.34 of Jan 1942. So at least the first lot of stencils provided to 6 Div pre-deployment were correct as approved.

On 5 February 1940, the the CGS sent a Memo to the Military Liaison Officer in London, headed 'Divisional Sign 6th Division AIF'. The text states 'forwarding herewith one copy of the sign selected for 6th Division....' The sign attached is as per the Aust penny, with no 'hump' on the 'roos neck. To me, those two diagrams, plus the one referred to in my earleir post, make it pretty clear what the approved sign was.

I also looked at the 6 Div ROs for 1944, and in that pam it includes a very stylised rendition of the leaping kangarro (no hump on the neck) as the approved 6 Div sign, and on the next page where it shows the sign combined with the Unit sign, it has a drawing that is the same or similar to that in GS Ins no.34, ie 'roo with lumpy neck!

I think its clear that the approved sign from 1939, as per the quotes above, was the leaping kangaoo over a boomerang, the 'roo being from the penny, but I agree that some lousy interpretations and drawings at various times are what followed. Our difference is, it seems, in which one we each think was the official one.

Mike C

[Lang]

Mike,

I think there is enough navel gazing or people will think we are a bit anal!

Looks like penny roo was the original intention and became the accepted only one in the end. Sometime in the middle someone drew the bad design and put it in an instruction and it was used for some undetermined period but probably not by everyone in the division.

When I was in the Army the Regiment CO decided the Pilatus Porters would have a shark tooth design on the noses. They were just painted in our workshops and the army knew nothing about it. Numerous "who approved that design?" questions came from visiting senior officers including RAAF officers (who have final approval on aircraft markings) but we just soldiered on until the end and nobody did anything about it. I don't know if it was ever officially approved.

I think, no, I know, lots of independent action takes place in the military that is denied by non-military historians who believe a written document or instruction is proof something did or did not happen. You must have come across this a million times in your job.