#1
|
|||
|
|||
ARN stencils- Size and style
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,
__________________
F15-A 1942 Battery Staff Jacques Reed |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
You can help Keep Mapleleafup Up! See Here how you can help, and why you should! |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ARN markings
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,
__________________
F15-A 1942 Battery Staff Jacques Reed |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Brush lettering
Hi Tony,
Thanks for the link. Think I better live until 110 to do all the things I would like to do! Cheers,
__________________
F15-A 1942 Battery Staff Jacques Reed |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Unit Serial Number, not the ARN
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Unit serial number
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,
__________________
F15-A 1942 Battery Staff Jacques Reed |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Example
From my F15 Jacques, for your reference.
It appears to be done in free hand. Looks good in my opinion
__________________
Pax Vobiscum.......may you eat three meals a day & have regular bowel movements. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ARN size and style
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,
__________________
F15-A 1942 Battery Staff Jacques Reed |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
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
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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: Quote:
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
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. Quote:
Quote:
Cheers, Tony
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 Last edited by Mike Cecil; 11-02-20 at 18:22. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
ARN fonts and placement
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
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters. Last edited by Tony Wheeler; 15-02-20 at 13:32. Reason: error |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Arn
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.
__________________
Film maker 42 FGT No8 (Aust) remains 42 FGT No9 (Aust) 42 F15 Keith Webb Macleod, Victoria Australia Also Canadian Military Pattern Vehicles group on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/canadianmilitarypattern |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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...?
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
ARN's and USN's
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,
__________________
F15-A 1942 Battery Staff Jacques Reed Last edited by Jacques Reed; 20-02-20 at 00:33. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. Quote:
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! Quote:
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.
__________________
One of the original Australian CMP hunters. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
W/T markings
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 |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
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! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stencils | Mike Kelly | The Restoration Forum | 12 | 04-05-16 13:52 |
Stencils | Mike Kelly | 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 |