Info needed: ARN stencils- Size and style

[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.

ARN 55166 camo pattern.jpg

ARN 55166 paint history.jpg

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!

ARN 134579 paint history.jpeg

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