MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Restoration Forum

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-04-21, 05:14
Tony Smith's Avatar
Tony Smith Tony Smith is offline
No1, Mk 2** (I'm back!)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lithgow, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,042
Default

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.
__________________
You can help Keep Mapleleafup Up! See Here how you can help, and why you should!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-04-21, 07:49
Lang Lang is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 1,681
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-04-21, 18:52
Mike Cecil Mike Cecil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cody, Wyoming, USA
Posts: 2,372
Default 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stencils Mike K The Restoration Forum 12 04-05-16 13:52
Stencils Mike K The Restoration Forum 0 05-08-15 11:33
Stencils Jack Innes Post-war Military Vehicles 3 01-08-15 01:12
For Sale: Box stencils- any interest? Darrin Wright For Sale Or Wanted 1 09-12-14 10:13
Stencils BIG MIKE The Carrier Forum 8 18-04-06 01:20


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016