Info needed: ARN stencils- Size and style

[Jacques Reed]

Good Day,

My apologies if this topic has been covered before but I could not find any info regarding the size and style of stencilling used to mark the ARN on Australian CMP trucks.

I found an old photo I scanned years ago showing some numbers- 53166. Wish I had traced them then before stripping the cowl a few years later.
We are all wise in hindsight!

Using proportions from an enlarged print of it I worked out they would be 3-1/2" high. The parts truck cowl numbers 45988 are only 2" high.
Were these numbers applied based on the local command supply of stencils or were they specified as to height by a central authority? If so, did the size change at some point in time?

By amazing coincidence the numbers I need are almost the same as the old photo ones. Just change the 3 to a 5 and bingo!

It has been a bit smoky to be outside due to the bushfires, and now drizzly, so I spent a few hours yesterday with Paint.net replicating the numbers I need from the scanned photo. They may not be 100% correct but better than nothing unless further info comes to hand.

Thanks in advance for any info regarding this.

Cheers,

[Tony Smith]

Most of the markings on the vehicles, such as ARN, were hand painted, professionally by a Signwriter, or Ticketwriter. Some markings are seen in photos or existing vehicles as having used a stencil, and these are kept as a basic stencil and not blocked in to form complete figures, but these are likely field or unit applied. Most Base or Factory vehicles show brushmarks from handpainting.

Seems a difficult skill to attain these days, but before the widespread availability of mechanical letterforming and printing, most commercial signage was done by hand by tradesmen (or women) variously called Ticketwriters or Signwriters. What we call "Fonts" in computerspeak today were well-practiced hand-sketched shapes that developed into an individual Ticketwriter's "signature".

Ring around some signwriting business and ask if they still have an older employee still capable of doing Ticketwriting. They appreciate the ability to "flex their muscles" again, and might be willing to take a small traditional job just for the pleasure of doing it.

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your valuable info. I won't agonize over finding the correct style of numbers. As you said, it is as individual as the sign writer's "signature" if sign written.

On that basis, the numbers I developed are as good as anything to use. Who is to say what they looked like on the original vehicle anyway. At least I know one vehicle had that size and style of numbers. Looking at ARN 45988 it definitely appears to be stencilled but cannot say for certain for ARN 55166.

I am presently awaiting a new flatbed scanner. I found the original 35mm negative of the scanned photo so will scan the negative. Originally scanned the photo at 1200 dpi and the new one scans at 4800 dpi. Perhaps more detail will become available such as segments of a stencil if originally done by that method. If no segments, then it points to a sign writer's hand and I will follow your lead.

Cheers,

[Tony Smith]

Got some spare time? (and who doesn't?)

https://learnbrushlettering.com/about

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for the link. Think I better live until 110 to do all the things I would like to do!

Cheers,

[Mike Cecil]

Jacques,

I don't think the '45988' is the ARN, but the Unit Serial Number for the 106th Anti-tank Regiment, which later changed to the 106th Tank Attack Regiment (AIF). If you had rubbed beneath that number lower down the panel, you would probably have uncovered three parallel bars of colour, which made up the other part of the Unit Embarkation Sign. All covered in detail in my book 'Aust Army Units and Unit Serials of the Second World War', now out of print.

I think ARN 45988 was a Cab 12 3-ton CMP, not a Cab 13.

ARN specs typically specified numerals 3 inch to 3 1/2 inch high, with no part of the figures less than 1/2 inch wide, in white paint.

Your image of the '53166' truck also shows the remains of the Bridge Sign - an irregular patch of yellow paint approximating 8 inches in diameter. Hope you kept the image of that to replicate for your truck.

Regards

Mike

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for that info. I gave that cowl to a mate so I will ask him if he could kindly rub it back below the 45988 to verify. It was beyond hope of restoration and I was running out of space here in the burbs anyway.

It came off an F15-A truck with ARN 55166 based on the transmission s/n. I thought the cowl may have been swapped from another truck thinking the unit number was the ARN, but perhaps the ARN 55166 is under the red paint higher up? More sanding please mate!

I rescanned the cowl 53166 photo negative with my new scanner at a higher resolution. Not much extra detail however came to hand. At least playing with various photo enhancement settings helped to make the details on the image more visible. Most of the numbers and bridge disk were almost invisible on the printed photo.

Any chance you will do a reprint of the book?

Cheers,

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Jacques,

The ARN may be above or below, ie along the top edge or the bottom edge of the panel, with the Unit Embarkation Sign bars of colour most likely below the USN. The bars may be either vertical or horizontal - most likely horizontal, with the top and bottom bars being the same colour representing the second last digit of the USN.

Be interested to see what your mate turns up when he rubs the panel back.

The book: hardly a best seller, so I doubt it would ever go to a reprint. With so few about, it's now a 'rare book'!!

Best regards

Mike

[Ganmain Tony]

From my F15 Jacques, for your reference.

It appears to be done in free hand. Looks good in my opinion

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Tony,

Thanks for posting that photo. It shows what Tony Smith said about sign writers doing the job of painting the numbers on the vehicles. Each has their individual style.

The "5" on your cowl has a definite flourish, I think that is the word for it, on the top bar compared to the straight edge on ARN 53166. Different writers, different styles within the specs that Mike mentioned.

And for Mike- I should have bought the book when it came out!

Cheers,

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Be interested to see what your mate turns up when he rubs the panel back.

Hi Mike,

The abovementioned mate is me. It's been a while since we conversed, I trust you're well these days. Jacques mentioned this thread to me and I was interested to read your information concerning the 45988 marking, which previously had me puzzled, as I was unfamiliar with the USN marking system. Further rubbing back revealed the coloured bars on the opposite side, which measure approx 8" x 1 1/2" with approx 3/4" separation. They've been obliterated prior to repaint but the edges are still quite discernible. Also visible on that side is some remnant numbering, presumably shipping information. The USN itself has been applied on a patch of Dark Blue applied over Light Tone disruptive colour to provide sufficient background contrast. Strangely there's no sign of the ARN having been applied. Remnant black paint may indicate TAC sign but there's no evidence of formation sign having been applied.

Regarding the colour code, it's my understanding the digit 8 is indicated by Service Colour in the British system, which I imagine could be either KG3 or SCC2 Brown depending on the period. Australian Army Service Colour was KG3 but in late '43 the colour Medium Green was officially approved as an alternative basic colour: "Khaki Green No 3 or Vehicle Medium Green is now the basic colour for all vehicles." This would lead me to conclude the coloured bars seen here are Medium Green denoting 88. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts.

Cheers, Tony

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Tony,

Well, the front shell ended up in good hands then.

The figure '8' was indeed represented by the colour 'Service Colour, GS', whatever that was at the time of application. Odd that the bars were applied away from the number: the two were usually mated together for quick visual recognition (the colour bars) then confirmation of the USN. Having them separated would slow down the process.

In practice, the colour for 8 was simply green - whatever medium/khaki green the applicator could lay his hands on. The system applied to all a units' kit, so multiple persons and not always the same can of green paint resulted in some wide variations of 'service colour, GS'. I had a collection of various personal kit that had the bar system applied, plus other examples, so have had a chance to see the variations.

Regards

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

In practice, the colour for 8 was simply green - whatever medium/khaki green the applicator could lay his hands on.

Thanks Mike, that explains it for me: any old green will do, as long as it's recognizably darker than the lighter green used to indicate the figure '4'.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Odd that the bars were applied away from the number: the two were usually mated together for quick visual recognition (the colour bars) then confirmation of the USN. Having them separated would slow down the process.

Yes, and even more odd when you consider the Dark Blue background - why not simply put the USN on the LHS where there's no Light Tone disruptive colour to be overpainted.

I came across this scan of the US Army POM instruction (Preparation for Overseas Movement) which I've tried to correlate with the original British system from which it derives. I'm assuming they used essentially the same colors and names (except for OD in lieu of Service Colour) and merely shuffled them around a bit. Are you able to confirm please.

Cheers,

Tony

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Tony,

Is it dark blue, or faded black?

Anyway, most Americans don't seem to comprehend that the colour bar/USN system is a British invention, and that it came into use with US Forces in 1942/1943 through use in the ETO. Your document copy reinforces that view: it is marked July 43 and ETO.

I wrote an article about the system and its use by US and Brit Commonwealth forces. It was published in Army Motors in 2014 - cannot remember which issue. I have reproduced the text below. Remember this is a US publication, hence the title has a question mark about its origin:

"ETOUSA Unit Serial Numbers and Color Bar Codes: A British System?


By

Michael K Cecil
Colbert, WA, USA


The 2011 publication by Major and Montbertrand , coupled with earlier articles in Army Motors No.67 Spring 1994, rekindled my research into the use and application of unit serial numbers and their corresponding three stripe, colored ‘bar codes’ used during the Second World War. For many years, I had been aware of the existence of remarkably similar markings on Australian equipment dating from 1940, and was therefore curious to find out about the origins of the systems and their relationship.

Major and Montbertrand state that ‘in order to assist with the logistical nightmare.... each unit which appeared on the Build-Up Priority Tables List was assigned a 5-digit Unit Serial Number ’ and that ‘in order to expedite the identification process, a colored bar-code system was devised’ This gives the reader the distinct impression that this was a US-devised system specifically for D-Day operations. However, looking back at McGeorge’s article in Army Motors No.67, a couple of significant aspects of the system become evident. Firstly, that the unit serial number and bar codification were in use on some US military vehicles from at least 1943, as the article’s images show bar-coded vehicles in Sicily and Algiers. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, McGeorge revealed that he had located a document wherein an explanatory instruction stated that the Unit serial number was to be assigned to a unit after arrival in the UK. He went on to conclude that ‘this indicates that US Units were assigned ‘unit serial numbers’ by HQ European Theatre, US Army (ETOUSA) in the order in which they arrived in England.’

Checking several well-known publications , it became evident that the British were using a similar system as early as 1940 when they deployed to France, and, indeed, throughout the war. In most cases, the markings were listed by authors as ‘embarkation stripes’ or ‘mobilisation flashes such as were normally painted on kit bags’. None of the published sources consulted dealt with the origins of the system. Indeed, Wise ventured to conclude that that the ‘significance of these numbers and flashes was known only to the staff of Movement Control’ and one of Zaloga’s image captions stated that the ‘rectangular marking .... consists of three colored bars on a white background. Its meaning is not entirely certain...’

These sources posed a number of questions. Why was the system used only by US Forces in the ETO, and serial numbers assigned only upon arrival in the UK? How come US units in Algiers, Sicily and Italy displayed the markings? If this was an independent US-system, why do the unit serial numbers seem to commence at around ‘30000’ and not, say, at ‘10000’ or even ‘00001’? And, finally, why is the system so similar to that in use with the British Army?

The simplest answer to all of these questions is that the system in use with US Forces in the ETO is the British system, albeit with a few anomalies that will be discussed below. Moreover, the British War Office system of issuing Unit serial numbers was not confined to just the British Army (or, indeed, the US Army in the UK), but to the units of other nations as well, many of which never came anywhere near setting foot on UK soil. Again, there are some anomalies which will be discussed later.

The British War Office unit serial number system was devised during the inter-war period for unit accounting and administrative purposes. It was certainly in existence by the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. The British Army almost certainly commenced the system at ‘0001’ – surviving documents held by the author actually start at ‘0003’, but it is highly probable that the numbers ‘0001’ and ‘0002’ were assigned to non-field force units and are recorded elsewhere. Unit serial number ‘0003’ was assigned to Detachment, Field Force Institute. From there, the numbers for Field Force units steadily increase, albeit with many gaps or un-assigned numbers, to at least 94174 by the end of the war.

The assignments were extensive and covered British and Allied units on a world scale. In addition to the majority of the British Commonwealth (Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa are notable inclusions, while Canada retained their own unit serial number system ), there were a number of nations operating under the Allied umbrella that were included. These were national units whose homeland was under occupation by the Axis powers, and included Belgian, Greek, Polish, Czech, Dutch, Norwegian, French, and Yugoslav units. Another odd inclusion was Italian units, presumably assigned after that nation signed an armistice with the Allies in September 1943. Many Italian Units were organised into co-belligerent forces and fought with the Allies for the rest of the war.

Issues of unit serial numbers to Commonwealth countries, allied nations and to British units in colonial ‘outposts’ tended to be in discreet blocks. For example, unit serials 33560 to 33687 are a mixture of small groups of Polish, Czech, Norwegian, Belgian and Netherlands units, while 35579 to 35618 are British units concentrated in the greater Caribbean – Jamaica, Bahamas, British Guiana, Barbados and the Windward Islands. Similarly, units in the East African region – including Kenya, Nyasaland, Tanganyika, and Madagascar – were assigned serials in the 49500 to 49649 block, among others. Commonwealth countries tend to have some small blocks, such as the New Zealand Army with unit serials 29760 to 29767 and 61602 to 61998 (among others). The Australian Army was assigned a number of small blocks, but the majority of units fall within the blocks 45001 to 49499, 61001 to 61559, 92000 to 92999 and from 94000 to 94999.

As an adjunct to the unit serial number, the colored bar-codes were devised purely for transportation and shipping purposes. It is these visible expressions of the Unit serial number that are seen in photographs and on surviving examples of military equipment, and has led to their description as ‘embarkation’ or ‘mobilisation’ codes. Each number was assigned a color (see Table 1), and the bar code consisted of three parallel bars, the first or top representing the 10s, the second or middle bar the single numeral, and the third or lower bar repeating the 10s. The reason the bar codes were structured with the ‘tens’ repeated above and below the single-digit number was that it provided the same visual cue no matter what angle a package was lying in – there was no ‘upside down’ and danger of misinterpretation. Moreover, the visual cue could be understood by even the most illiterate and un-educated labourer - foreign or domestic. He didn’t have to recognise or understand what was written on a package, but could still be directed to unload and sort a shipment on a unit basis by simply grouping all the packages with the same three-colored bar coding.

So why was the system used by US Forces only in the ETO and why assign serial numbers only after a unit’s arrival in the UK? There are some strong pointers to the reasons for this in the US official history. The establishment of a streamlined US movement control system in the UK in mid-1942 was in its infancy and faced with some difficult problems. Inadequate package and baggage labelling on freight arriving in the UK during 1942 had resulted in prolonged separation of troops from their un-accompanied baggage and unit equipment, and much wasted effort in locating, identifying and forwarding items to their correct destination. In addition, all freight handling relied upon the local British infrastructure for movement of incoming and outgoing troops and supplies, manned by some US and British service personnel, but mainly British civilian labourers.

Superimposed on this were the requirements for the Torch landings in North Africa, whereby more than 150,000 US troops, plus all their equipment and supplies in the UK, were eventually drawn-down and sent south. Once Torch was authorised, ‘the SOS (Services of Supply) in the United Kingdom suddenly faced a formidable task, and because of its under-developed facilities could not possibly expect to cope with the increasing tonnages and numbers of men and at the same time handle the marshalling and out-movement of the Torch Forces. It was therefore forced to rely heavily on the assistance of the British not only in mounting the Torch force but in port discharge and storage operations. .... The Americans were particularly handicapped in the field of transportation, and responsibility for movement of all troops and supplies leaving the United Kingdom had to be assumed by the British Ministry of War Transport’. Given the difficulties faced by the Services of Supply, and the close integration required with British movement control systems in order to efficiently move men and supplies into, within and out of the UK, it is reasonable to conclude that ETOUSA would be forced to adopt the established and functional British unit serial number and marking system in the interests of operational uniformity. It also accounts for the assignment of unit serial numbers after a unit’s arrival in the UK, so that movements within and out of the UK would conform to the common system in use with all other forces within the country.

This, in part at least, also answers the question as to why some US units in Algiers, Sicily and Italy displayed the markings. Simply, the markings were carried by Units that had staged through the UK, and had been assigned unit serial numbers by ETOUSA. It was not until February 1943 that the ETO boundary was changed, and a separate command – North African Theater of Operations or NATO – was set up to cover on-going and future operations in North Africa and the Mediterranean. By this time, a huge number of US troops and their equipment had staged through the UK, with their units assigned unit serial numbers by ETOUSA on the way.

If this was an independent US-system, why did the unit serial numbers seem to commence at around ‘30000’ and not, say, at ‘10000’ or even ‘00001’? Indeed, the Canadians had a Unit serial number system which commenced at ‘1’, but they nevertheless applied the British bar code baggage and equipment marking system for their troop movements into the UK and beyond . But in the case of ETOUSA, the unit serial numbers appear to be a block of numbers from the British system, though with some significant overlap. Many of the unit serial numbers assigned to US units do correspond with gaps in the British unit serial number sequence, for example 30005, 30012, 30119, 30135 and 61248 that were assigned to US units, but are not included in the British unit serials list.

But there are many others that are duplicated in both systems. The reason for this is unclear, but many of the duplicated numbers were fixed units in distant locations. A couple of good examples are unit serials 51694 and 51695, assigned by ETOUSA to the 1175th and 1221st Quartermaster Company Service Groups, while the British assigned the same unit serial numbers to the HQ, Engineer Stores Organisations in Syria and Palestine respectively. As the units concerned were highly unlikely to be carried on the same ship or train, and the administrative reporting systems of the British War Office and ETOUSA were independent, such duplication probably made no difference anyway.

Numbers in the 42000 to 49499 range duplicated numbers issued to the Australian Army. Again, this duplication did not matter: Australian Army units in this serial number block were not involved in fighting within the ETO, and there was no possibility of their paths crossing.

For the same reasons that number duplications did not matter greatly, so too, the difference in the assignment of colors to numbers in the bar code. Table 1 provides several examples of the color assignments. Though the colors used are essentially the same (The British and Australian ‘service color’ is the equivalent to the US ‘Olive Drab’: they are all different shades of green) the color assignments to numbers 1, 2, 6 and 8 are applied differently. The reason for this is unclear. However, as it is the visual cue that the colored bars provide, rather than the actual number, the difference in colors matched to numbers did not matter anyway. What freight handlers were looking for was a like set of color bars on each package, not the actual unit number.

Despite the differences, it is the similarities and the assignment of unit serial number blocks that makes the case for the ETOUSA unit serial numbers, the three color ‘bar code’ and the system of their application being a part of the much broader British War Office unit serial number system.



Acknowledgements

While the conclusions (and any erroneous assumptions!) are entirely mine, many people have contributed to my research into this topic. I am very grateful to them all: Clive Law (Service Publications), Mark Tonner and Ed Storey in Canada, Jeff Plowman in New Zealand, Richard Farrant in the UK and Brad Manera in Australia. The internet and email has certainly made the task of corresponding and swapping knowledge across the world faster and easier!


Table 1: Commonwealth and FUSA Unit Serial Color Bars

No British 1939-40 Australian,
1940 & 1943 British War Office Publication 5697, 1944 FUSA &
1st US Infantry Div. Comment
1 Red Red, Bright, GS Red, Bright, QD Buff ‘GS’ is ‘General Service’;
‘QD’ is ‘Quick Drying’
2 Blue Blue, GS Blue, QD Olive Drab
3 Yellow Yellow (Ammunition) Yellow, Ammunition Yellow (Bright) A bright yellow as used on ammunition markings
4 Light Green Green, Light, GS Green, Light Green (Bright)
5 Grey Grey (Ammunition) Grey, Ammunition Gray A light grey as used for ammunition markings
6 Buff Buff, GS Buff, QD Blue (Dark)
7 Red Oxide Red Oxide of Iron Red, Oxide of Iron Maroon Red Oxide of Iron is a dark red similar to maroon.
8 Service Color
(Deep Bronze Green) Service Color, GS (Khaki Green No3) Deep Bronze Green Red (Bright)
9 White White (lead) White Lead, QD White, Lead
0 Brown Brown, Dark, GS Brown, Dark, QD Brown, dark"

(The table seems to have lost its structure - read from left to right along each line opposite the number to see the colour assigned by the source listed across the first two lines. Also, for some reason, the many footnotes/references list have been dropped off - you'll have to locate the original article to see those.)

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Is it dark blue, or faded black?

Hi Mike,

It's definitely dark blue to the eye but less obvious in photos. I figure the applicators used 2-digit paint for convenience, rather than stock an extra colour Black purely for use as background. Just a guess of course.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Anyway, most Americans don't seem to comprehend that the colour bar/USN system is a British invention

haha...Americans don't like to believe they borrowed from the British. For goodness sake don't mention their flag origins!

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

However, as it is the visual cue that the colored bars provide, rather than the actual number, the difference in colors matched to numbers did not matter anyway. What freight handlers were looking for was a like set of color bars on each package, not the actual unit number.

Excellent point. Thanks for the article, a very interesting and informative read. Just to confuse matters - I found this Life magazine colour photo, one of a series by Robert Capa depicting men of the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion: "most probably taken between December 1942 and June 1943 when the 509th trained in Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco in preparation for the Allied invasion of Sicily in July 1943." As such it predates the POM-ETO instruction of 21 July 1943, and I notice the USN is four digit with alpha suffix. Is this an earlier system of some kind? Or maybe a separate 'A' for Airborne subsystem?

Cheers,

Tony

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Tony,

The number - I think it's 4426 or 4428 - falls within a vacant block in the British system, from 4100 to 4499. There are a number of vacant blocks within the British Field Force unit list, with no indication of where they were allocated to (if at all), so I had no previous indication the block may have been allocated to the US.

I suppose an examination of many images of the Op Torch forces, especially those staging from the UK, might help solve that. The 509 PIR (they were not designated a Battalion until later) flew out from airfields in Cornwall, UK, direct to their drop zone near Oran, so were in the UK prior to the Torch operation, and we know the system was operating prior to that. Hence, the unit was a 1942 arrival into the UK, so may well have been allocated such a low number.

As for the 'A' suffix, who knows? 'Company A'? 'Airborne'? 'Unit Truck A'? Until more research is done, it's an 'unknown'.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Regarding ARN font question raised by Jacques: The ARN font, and the position of the ARN on the front shell panel, varied between production plants according to local practice. The plant can usually be determined from the ARN record, which gives the State or Military District where the vehicle was first issued. Unfortunately it's often given as 'VB' for Victoria Barracks, which is rather confusing because there are Victoria Barracks in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. It's a particular problem in the 52xxx - 555xx range, which is what we're dealing with in this case. Perhaps Mike can shed some light on this question.

Comparing VB ARN 53166 to NSW ARN 55936: the 3, 5, 6 digits look virtually identical to me, possibly reflecting an individual Ticketwriter's 'signature' as described by Tony. The WA ARN 59877 looks like a different 'signature' to me, ie. fatter and flatter, with a pointed upswept tail on the 9 digit. Two of these ARNs are centrally placed, leaving insufficient room for the Formation sign and TAC sign if required.




Other States including VIC and QLD used stencils, and placed the ARN along the top of the panel, leaving plenty of room for the Formation sign. However these stencilled digits were quite large and well spaced, which meant 6-digit ARN barely fitted across Cab 13 panel, unless it contained another '1' digit. This seems to have led to diagonal placement occasionally - Keith's gun tractor ARN 134855 may be an example of this practice. Postwar stencils were somewhat narrower, perhaps deliberately so for this reason.




Interestingly, just like Ford practice, Chev ARNs were stencilled in VIC but handwritten in NSW. In both plants however the placement was along the inner side of the panel.




These are just my own observations over time, not based on any proper study of the matter. In the interests of authenticity it would be worth conducting an investigation of ARN fonts and placement on CMPs, perhaps using this thread commenced by Jacques to post examples and discuss.

Cheers,
Tony

[Keith Webb]

The latest painting of an ARN on my No.9 (134855) was done diagonally -I think one of Tony's No.8 FGTs may have been done the same way.
Attached are some which may be of interest - No.9 ARN 132141 when factory fresh with a stencilled ARN then one of it in CMF use after being repainted deep bronze green with a hand painted ARN lower down, finally a ticket writer hard at work on a WO38 C60S from the SLSA.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

a ticket writer hard at work on a WO38 C60S

Hi Keith,

That photo is at GMH Pagewood NSW, where for some reason a ticket writer was employed instead of stencils used at other GMH plants. Note the sideways ARN, also unique to GMH Pagewood. This practice continued through 71xxx range as seen below, and presumably into 6-digit range, although I don't have any 6-digit examples to confirm. Interestingly this C60L has the USN 49463 visible on the bumper, something I hadn't recognized until Mike's info on USNs in this thread.




132141 font is the standard stencil used by Ford VIC throughout the war. It can be seen in both 5-digit and 6-digit ARN ranges. Evidently Ford QLD used the same stencil, as seen on my F60L ARN 134579. This is the font we need for our No.9 FGTs. I have several examples from which I'll make tracings in due course. However I may not have all 10 digits. I wonder if anyone else has reproduced this font previously...?

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Tony,

I am sure I am not the only long time "Blitz" owner who has learnt a bit more about these vehicles thanks to you, Mike, and all the others who have contributed.

Based on your information 55166 would have had an ARN applied at the factory so its absence can only mean it was removed at some time.
At your suggestion I sanded a section of its mudguard and can see at least 3 different colours applied to it so perhaps it was removed and not reapplied at one of these times.
It looks like Canadian KG3 (originally covered over at the wheel arch), then Australian KG3 (darker) then a much darker (Olive Drab?) New Guinea service?

I am 99.9% convinced the cowl is original and not a swap from another vehicle. As 55166 was an ex Bush Fire Brigade truck it would have been better taken care of than a lot of other vehicles that were sold after the war.
Just a pity it sat out in a salt air environment after it was pensioned off from the Bush Fire Brigade.

Assuming it is original, then the USN gives it something at least that is not always known about ones vehicle and that is the unit to which it was assigned.

It would be good to see photos posted here of other CMP's with extant ARN's and USN's and bar codes no matter how faded or damaged the paintwork.

Cheers,

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Jacques Reed

Based on your information 55166 would have had an ARN applied at the factory so its absence can only mean it was removed at some time. At your suggestion I sanded a section of its mudguard and can see at least 3 different colours applied to it so perhaps it was removed and not reapplied at one of these times.

Hi Jacques,

It's very difficult to remove the ARN completely without disturbing underlying paintwork, particularly Light Tone disruptive coat applied in production, which is extremely thin and easily rubbed through. I've found no such evidence of ARN removal on this cowl, which leads me to wonder if it was ever applied in the first place. You'll see what I mean when you inspect for yourself.

Originally Posted by Jacques Reed

It looks like Canadian KG3 (originally covered over at the wheel arch), then Australian KG3 (darker) then a much darker (Olive Drab?) New Guinea service?

Unfortunately the mudguards suffer corrosion due to lack of primer, which attacks the paintwork from underneath and eventually bubbles through. This makes it difficult to ascertain paint history. It's possible to get results but you need the right technique. If you bring the mudguard up I can demonstrate. There should be only two colours under the red paint: KG3 applied in Canadian production, which remained in the 2-tone factory camo scheme, but was overpainted with something darker in service - probably US OD applied in NG Force service, although other possibilites exist, e.g. Vehicle Dark Green or Australian KG3.

Thankfully the cowl received primer in Canadian production, which helps immensely to preserve paint history, by providing a barrier to moisture reaching the metal. You can see the difference here, with a ring of corrosion instead of primer!

Originally Posted by Jacques Reed

Assuming it is original, then the USN gives it something at least that is not always known about ones vehicle and that is the unit to which it was assigned.

Not only that, but the unit actually served in New Guinea. Not many CMP owners can claim that sort of provenance, let alone prove it. I notice this unit has an active Facebook group, apparently based in Melbourne, which gives a brief unit history. Perhaps you could get in touch and ask about photo albums - you never know your luck!

https://www.facebook.com/pages/categ...8462727235571/

The 106th Tank Attack Regiment was formed in early 1942 from units of the 2nd Field Regiment, part of the 3rd Australian Division. From the beginning the 106th was made up of four batteries - 21, 22, 23 and 24. They trained at camp 17, Seymour. The 106th were sent to Queensland for more training in jungle conditions.

In late 1943 the 106th sailed for New Guinea on the ship ‘Hangang’ (built in Hong Kong in 1940) and after a short stay in Milne Bay embarked for Buna where they were welcomed with a message from Tokyo Rose: “Australian soldiers, you listen Australian soldiers-the beaches of Buna they run with Australian blood, Australian soldiers.”
At Buna the 106th were taken off the Hangang at Cape Endaiadere, and later moved to Dobodura. Amid rumours the Japanese may try to retake Buna, they were subjected to a number of air raids.
In late 1943 the Batteries of the 106th were split up, being sent to Lae, Finschhafen, Buna and Madang.
As the Japanese did not use tanks as much as the Germans, the 106th batteries were deployed on beach defence with 25-pounders in case the Japanese tried to re-land in these areas.
In September 1944 the three remaining batteries went back to Australia to be disbanded-many members were placed in other units, some of which went to Borneo and Bougainville until their return home to Australia and their families.

[Alastair Thomas]

My Lynx has a No19 Set but does not have the required W/T markings on the sides.
Would these be the same font and size as the ARN?
Alastair

[Tony Smith]

Did anyone progress to producing the correct font stencil for the ARN?

I like a set of the style used by Ford in NSW and Vic.

[Lang]

Tony

I think you have covered this but, regardless of instructions to the contrary, as far as I can see there is no officially enforced lettering style - at least one that was universally recognized and adopted.

Stencils depended on the make of the stencil machine or if hand cut the skill and method of the maker.

Most appear to have been hand painted either direct from the factory or in service. There are as many different styles as there are vehicles on the register.

Without going in to the many positions (vertical, horizontal, top, front, bumper, body) found on the same type of vehicle I think the best you can hope for with some standardization is they were 4 inches, 6 inches high or whatever, in plain font. Even this falls over as there are many photos of the sign writer using his talent to create all sorts of fancy fonts and scripts.

This is another subject where the pedants believe armies are like lead soldiers coming off the production lines and regulations are set in stone and universally adopted. Unfortunately the endless instructions are being directed at living people who misinterpret, can't be bothered, are too busy or find a better or easier way.

Whatever font, stenciled or painted, you put on your vehicle of the approximate dimensions can clearly be claimed to be "typical" of the period.

[Mike Cecil]

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