[Mike Cecil]

As I think Tony has alluded to, the fact that the key to individual unit identification is the combination of signs, ie both the formation sign and the unit sign.

53 with a red background during 1942 indicated an infantry unit, for example, 23 Aust Inf Bn of 3rd Aust Inf Div, so conceivably the same Unit sign seen on Gina's tank could also be found on an MG carrier.

In 1943, the sign could be found on AFVs, such as Gina's 2/4 or 13 Armd Regt of 3 Arm Div. But the sign was also found on units of other divisions, eg 2/7 Armd Regt of 1st Armd Div. Hence my earlier comment, and Taubert doesn't help solve that little problem even if the formation is identified.

Taubert's book (either version) is the best available and does give the unit sign arm of service colours used at various times. But it is difficult to use because, as Darrin said, it reproduces the documents, rather than re-ordering and presenting the contents in any usable/logical order. It takes a lot to find what you are looking for, and then a lot of additional ferreting beyond using Taubert to nail down the combination of unit/formation to identifying an exact unit for a particular time period. This is the other problem in unit identification (as also indicated by Tony): units were shifted between formations, so what might apply in, say January may be different to what applied several months later.

Yep, clear as mud!

Mike