Info needed: ARN stencils- Size and style

[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!

East India Trading Company flag 1668-1801 cf. Grand Union Flag 1776.png

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


US Paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne preparing for a jump, North Africa (2).jpg

[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