Home > Discussion Groups > Allied

Message posting guidelines:
1.

Full real names must be used at all times.

2.
A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not optional)
3.
Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.
4.

From 20 April, registration is compulsory if you wish to post messages on the Discussion Groups. For further information, please see the following message: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47208&messageid=1113823018

Please read our Community guidelines before posting.
By contributing to this discussion group, you indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination of the violator's account.

Advertisement

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

British Tanks with french Tricolore?

September 30 2008 at 3:57 PM
  (Login Hon.JohnByng)
Missing-Lynx members
from IP address 78.146.232.202

According to The New Breed Part 1 many British vehicles carried a French Tricolore as they entered Tunis.

Was this (guessing) because the city had been a French possession and they wanted to avoid being shot at by Vichy forces?

Thanks,
Roger

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(Login Mikestarmer)
Missing-Lynx members
87.112.232.182

Vichy unlikely

September 30 2008, 4:20 PM 

The existance of active Vichy forces was highly unlikely by May 1943 since and armistice with them was signed in late November 1942 and French Forces were part of the allied forces by then. You are not confusing the 1st Army RAC I.D. flash with a tricolore are you? Some French manned vehicles carried a tricolore by then.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Erik_Ahlstroem)
Missing-Lynx members
84.217.181.124

Where?

September 30 2008, 4:30 PM 

Where in "The new breed" can this info be read, I cant seem to find it...

Erik
Sweden

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Hon.JohnByng)
Missing-Lynx members
78.146.232.202

Erik

October 1 2008, 8:54 AM 

Sorry Erik I posted at the same time as you!

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Hon.JohnByng)
Missing-Lynx members
78.146.232.202

It's a colour plate

September 30 2008, 4:30 PM 

Mike it's plate F number 2A.
Caption says it's a Sherman III of 4th CLY in May 1943.

Regards,
Roger

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login march5)
Missing-Lynx members
80.5.135.31

4th CLY tanks...............

September 30 2008, 7:13 PM 

were repainted when they were moved to the 1st Army Front at the end of April.
They were also issued with canvas squares painted with RAF Roundels to aid air recognition It didn't work as 'C' Squadron (Crusaders)were attacked by US and RAF aircraft. This is documented in ' Carpiquet Bound', a CLY History and the information came from the diary of Charles Pearce, 4 Troop,'C' Squadron.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login redironbark)
Missing-Lynx members
123.200.232.58

Re: 4th CLY tanks...............

October 1 2008, 7:39 AM 

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the reference. I was unaware of another book on CLY. Is there any mention of the earlier so called "dazzle scheme" of the Western Desert?

Cheers,
Mark

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login roy_chow)
Missing-Lynx members
71.238.27.128

"rainbow" Shermans?

September 30 2008, 11:03 PM 

There's a fellow out there who claims early US Shermans were gaudily colored (Red, white, blue) on a site based on his interpretation of some b/w pics: www.afrikakorps.org.

Your Grant Command pic above is from that same site.

I just mention this -- I personally am unconvinced by the photos.

Roy Chow
AMPS 1st Vice President
http://www.amps-armor.org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login DavidMaynard)
Missing-Lynx members
194.72.123.7

Not just rainbow Shermans

October 1 2008, 8:33 AM 

The same person has some very individual views on the markings applied to the Bishop 25pdr SP.

David

 
 Respond to this message   
B. G. Eady
(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Rediculous comments...

October 3 2008, 11:01 AM 

Rediculous and out of context comments... the use of the Tri-Color is not the same as a French Tri-Coloure... please get your facts and research correct Mr. Chow... or should I say Mr. VP of AMPS?

Readers should simply ask themselves why would an American vehicle display a Tri-Color and solve the problem for themselves by back-tracking the materials available in the archives. No these are not French or British halftracks but American service duty in Tunisia vehicles on their way back to Scotland after the ceasefire in Tunisia!!!



The comments I am reading in various authoratative threads have become humorous at best... The Red/White/Blue flash is from a US Army HQ field series of directives/orders for application on all vehicles in theater of operations for Tunisa and Algeria. The US vehicles markings were to show support for the 'DeGaullist' forces and as a sign of friendly intentions towards the populous to display the French Tri-Color marking but the photographic record shows many of the Commonwealth vehicles employed the markings in an inverted or 180 degree rotated fashion similar to their RAF counterparts. The English and their old anti-French sentiments seem to never die! The Stars and Bars were also proudly displayed as were rediculously gaudy and highly visible colors and stripes.

These Americna ordered Tri-Color bar markings are quite dissimilar to the applied French Tri-Coloure of the same period as these forces nearly immediately changed to the various white square with diamond and red / blue corner form markings. The exception in similar appearance being made to the very first French armored cars and softskin vehicles with their similar equilinear Tri-Coloure markings used for operations in the Fezzan.

The Shermans and US armored cars or softskins lend-leased, then delivered to the French, had a very different, in appearence, Blue/White/Red flash applied in conjunctive operations in Tunisia beginning in December 1942 in Tunisia as these are a much narrower form vertical bar in comparison to the US and Commonwealth applied Tri-Color flash. The US and Commonwealth marking Red/White/Blue or Blue/White/Red flash Tri-Colors were applied in a number of forms from taped on printed or painted paper versions, to prepainted cloth versions to actually the even form vertically dimensioned painted forms as applied to RAF aircraft of the period. The tape or stencil outline for filling in with paint commonly have this often note 'fuzzy' or sloppy edge appearence.

The Tri-Color placards and painted forms were a somewhat unsuccessful attempt to secondarily reduce the Allied aircraft close support operations from friendly fire casualties. Thier initial applicational use was dictated by Eisenhower's staff for designation to the populous as those friendly to DeGaulle (at least initially for the vehicles in Morocco and Algeria). The Red/White/Blue flash used by US Forces and some Commonwealth AFV's is distinguished commonly by either a narrow black painted border outline stripe/ stencil or in the varied taped on paper placard/cloth forms. The humor is that the somewhat myopic British or Commonwealth "Markings Experts" keep thinking that the British were in charge... they were not... the markings orders for this period of the war came by agreement from Eisenhower's staff. The use of the five pointed star as an overall Allied identification marking became effective much later and by field order in the Italian Campaign some nine months later.

The documentation is there for the finding in the research materials, if you simply look, but the color photographs have confused some by not looking closer into the other marking set in use termed 'Rainbow Colors' by the Americans. This is also well documented in various color photographic series of the period and even by example from those in the Getty Collection (viewable online in a reduced resolution form). Additionally, private color photos will prove both markings sets usage in the early Tunisian Campaign and the preparation/invasion landing photos from Sicily and even later into Italy.

These are two distinctly different markings sets employed, I have termed the Tri-Color and the "Rainbow Colors"... and this research is definately not based on some hypothetical or conjectural whim from interpretation of black & white photograhs proposed as stated by the unknowledgable but purported paint and markings experts! This research work will debunk much nonsense that has previously been published and a large number of incorrectly illustrated images of the vehicles from this MTO Operational theater.

Sorry to those that might not like my tone but I am pretty fed up with the true lack of research by those publishing their hand mixed Humbrol tins (where the paint colors are dissimilar for the supposed same paint in two different publications) and being called the know-alls about the markings or paint colors employed during this timeframe in north Africa and then into Sicily. The various relationship for vehicle paint to orders so often quoted is even not the complete order set and does not take into account what was dictated at the HQ level. Everyone that studies this period in the war knows that not all field paint application orders were adhered to (if not only for the simple lack of paint stocks) but the down right statements that only their veiwpoint is correct is pure bollocks! First and foremost the BSC published colors very often do not match what is seen for application on their studied British and Commonwealth vehicles... much less those supplied to them from the Americans. I keep reading nonsense about British paint colors applied to good old American OD that are quite obviously not correct and do not match the color photographic record either. This is another story but goes to show how much material has not been properly written about to uncover the truth in what actually was done up until now.

Secondarily, the use of the "Rainbow Colors" should be quite evident from a close examination of the Getty colection photograph seen on the cover of this new issue...



The problem was that they received this image printing on the cover in a scan of only 300 dpi from what looks to be the Time-Life side copy and I have received it in 2400 dpi from the original negative.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org>

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Kurt_Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
71.126.38.36

Prove them wrong

October 3 2008, 12:32 PM 

Mr. Eady - I think the only way to silence the nay-sayers would be to post scans of the various complete order sets and directives that you have found that support your conclusions.

KL

 
 Respond to this message   
B. G. Eady
(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Will do...

October 3 2008, 3:24 PM 

Will do in my book, then they can possibly make a public apology! I am somewhat indignant over the years of research into the subject and the apparent but absolute arrogance of those that are much less informed but claim to be the end all of knowledge on the subject of armored vehicle paint. Why give another author the opportunity to steal years of work? The reference at another location here cites a single British field report of the usage of the Red/White/Blue Tri-Color and the RAF Roundel which was used to do an illustration in a recent publication. No one had even questioned this marking usage until I posted some uncovered information more than a year and a half ago at the DAK Forum. It had never been reviewed previously but these folks appear to have reviewed materials I had posted.

This forum is definately not the place. Too much has been stolen already and credit not delivered to those that did not do the ground work and research. The supposed experts I have read here and have even purchased their books seem to get the same things wrong. They even seem to change the original color tables to what appears to be their own liking and not what was published as a reference guide... referring to the British colors specifically. I have questioned this previously but it goes on deaf ears.

As soon as material is posted on the internet it is stolen and printed in a Russian publication without reference to the originating source. I do not hesitate in my comments as I have had complete sections from our website copied and translated then posted there. Ask Jean Restayn why his graphic images or drawings on the Tiger I are used in four publications without even giving him credit for doing the work.

Let me just be suffice to say that the proof is in hand for the paint application and markings employed that I have previewed. Those that do not believe what I have stated can continue living in a vacuum of incorrect information. The sources are not one but four separate confirming archival resources.

Eisenhower Library
West Point Library
Patton Museum Library
Carlisle Barracks

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Kurt_Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
71.126.38.36

Can't steal our own property

October 3 2008, 5:00 PM 

While I can see your hesitancy to post your conclusions, official documents such as orders and technical documents are not copyrighted. Surely there would be no harm in posting images of a few of them that support what you've already shown on your website, or at the least, citing full and proper bibliographic references in the articles on your site?

KL

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Re: Can't steal our own property

October 3 2008, 5:04 PM 

Kurt,

Will not do so until my book is on the shelves... do not need to prove anything until then. I gave you the sources for location of what I have found in direct and irrefutable proofs.

Your logic simply makes no sense either as work has already been stolen!

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Kurt_Laughlin)
Missing-Lynx members
71.126.38.36

Fair enough

October 3 2008, 8:47 PM 

However, until and unless your book is published you will naturally be considered as someone who has made claims that diverge wildly from or directly contradict previous research, yet who refuses to provide one iota of substantiating evidence.

As I said, fair enough.

KL

 
 Respond to this message   
B. G. Eady
(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Evidence

October 3 2008, 11:36 PM 

Kurt,

The hostile and closed environment here is, to say the least, one of abject ignorance of the first rule of objective analysis. Find a solution to an historical anomoly. Your viewpoint actually makes me no nevermind as I feel only hostility in your terse verbiage and the counterproductive sense of you actually wanting to find the truths that were as easy to locate as simply looking. This is simply a word war of post and repost with you trying to make me look foolish by even answering such retorts.

The book is shorly to be printed and the facts will tell these truths for themselves and then others can look the fool which you are actually trying to burdon me with today. I have no compunction to give you what you feel is yours. First these truths are not yours because you have not worked to find them. Second, your direct comment was, "While I can see your hesitancy to post your conclusions, official documents such as orders and technical documents are not copyrighted." but my answer would be that the derivative intellectual property of conclusions are actually able to be copyrighted.

Why would I want to give away the store to buy a light bulb for others? The entire think or logic simply does not make sense, for your viewpoint, because the lack of knowledge individuals have expounded an actual bashing campaign against me personally with their position of pure ignorance to the facts at hand. My sensabilities are to make you folks look like the fools that you currently are to not understand that it would make no sense for me to take the position I have taken without those specific proofs in hand. The personal rights to publish documents transferred from a personal collection are also able to additionally be copyrighted so the 'our' position would have no reason in fact with an examination of what you appear to be calling your rights to knowledge... your only rights to knowledge are to uncover the truths for yourselves.

You will simply have to wait and buy a book! Or not as it makes me no difference.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Individual views...

October 3 2008, 6:52 PM 

Again the naysayers.

The color photographs for these Bishops both in service in north Africa and in Sicily do not lie.
The markings is exactly as described.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Albowie)
Missing-Lynx members
220.244.26.193

I look forward to seeing the colour shots

October 4 2008, 12:29 AM 

If you have good colour shots of these I look forward to seeing them in your book. Until then the colour shots of Crusaders, Shermans and Churchills in Tunisia (1st Army)(43) , Sicily (Aug 43)and Italy (Jul 44) also do not lie when they show Red White red flashes as a five minute search of the IWm collection using just Tank and searching for Colour Photos.

Regards
Al

 
 Respond to this message   
B. G. Eady
(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Re: I look forward to seeing the colour shots

October 4 2008, 8:29 AM 

Mr. Bowie,

The color photographs from the IWM do not confirm exclusively Red.White.Red flash but a contrary viewpoint. Many show a DarkRed to Wine Red/ White/ Red RAC or RTR flash, some definately show a Medium Blue/White/Red or Red/White/Medium Blue flash dependant on the viewing poistion of the photograph of the vehicle. But there are plenty of color photographs that confirm my opinion and viewpoint to the exclusion of this 60 year dictate of exclusivity for an only Red.White/Red three bar flash being used. This is my bone of contention in the incorrect dogma that has been incorrectly perpetuated by just such an unknowing individual as yourself.

Some photographs show multiple colored flashes... either two color... three color... even four color... as these are related to the vehicles' unit designation.

You yourself are definately confused as to the difference in a Tri-Colored flash and the Rainbow Colors in their two forms I call the Primary Set and the Secondary set which consist of nine separate color bars (that I have elluded to) and therefore appear to be purposefully trying to confuse others. They are not the same marking but had common overlaps when crews repainted or highlighted color bars to emphasize a color segment.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org>

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Albowie)
Missing-Lynx members
203.213.44.129

Antenna Pennant

October 1 2008, 2:57 AM 

The French Flag flying from the pennat was probably there to sho solidarity with the French. I doubt it was to prevent them being fired on. As for the comments regarding Triclours on Brit and US tanks along with rainbow markings I'll leave that until some ACTUAL proof other than interpretation of B&W is shown. The claims on "that" website aren't really backed up by the "evidence' provided. The british markings claims are in opposition to documented evidence of the period.
Cheers
Al

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login march5)
Missing-Lynx members
80.5.135.31

No mention of 'dazzle'.........

October 1 2008, 3:34 PM 

Mark,
I checked the book and another by Harry Ramsbottom ['Memory Diary. A Record Of The Desert Campaign From Egypt To Tunis with 4th CLY']and only found another reference to the repainting in Tunisia.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login redironbark)
Missing-Lynx members
121.91.18.109

Re: No mention of 'dazzle'.........

October 3 2008, 8:38 PM 

Michael,

Thanks for looking. I have only got the early book "Sharpshooters at War" by Andrew Graham where this is mention of a "Dazzle-Scheme" in white, black and brown, in use from the early summer of 1942. I will keep a lookout for the later Sharpshooter's publications. There are none at my usual source, bookfinder.com, at the moment!

Cheers,
Mark

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Re: Antenna Pennant

October 3 2008, 5:17 PM 

Have to disagree... sorry but the documented evidence that you and many others always appear to be claiming is in reference specifically to the removal order for the Red/White/Red flash on Canadian service vehicles in Italy from a specific period forward. The purported British order for use of a Red/White/Red RAC flash is the one to produce for the period from September 1940 - June 1943. Please show what you claim to have seen.

This material is also red penciled in after the fact and does not cross-reference check to the British 1st Army HQ reference records for the same document set at the IWM in London. I know, I actually went and checked on the copies there and then went to correlate the findings at both IWM-Duxford and also the Tank Museum at Bovington. These similarly copied records from the purported original (which it appears not to actually be the original order) do not match the red pencil marked versions.



http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Leaflets...

October 3 2008, 6:50 PM 

Additionally, leaflets were dropped by the Americans to explain to resistant French in north Africa for some specific things to due so as to not be fired upon, the visible mounting of the French flag on their vehicles was just one of these.

I am duly surprised that comments were not made that the pennants were actually red/white/red and an RTR/RAC flash pennant instead of a French flag and placed on them by the British or Commonwealth forces!

Sorry to be so smug but the adamance to a failed notion of some British writers that made incorrect statements more than thirty five years ago has caused for the repitiion of an untruth for way too long. No one sensibly questioned why the two bars on these common markings often do not match or have the same properties in a black and white photograph. If they were Red/White/Red they surely should be simiar but in most instances they simply do not. When you look at the AFV's and their markings in color photographs it makes much more sense.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Albowie)
Missing-Lynx members
220.244.26.193

As I said in earlier posts regarding this subject

October 4 2008, 12:21 AM 

Whilst I have not personally seen the documents you refer to I have seen copies of some of these and had discussion with more subject knowledgeable people than myself who have seen the originals. Why I continue to oppose your views is that you have not produced any evidence to the contrary and I assure you when you provide conclusive evidence to the contrary I will publicly apologise and take my foot out of my mouth. Until then my foot stays planted on the ground for many reasons (mainly balance).
Interpretation of B&W photos is no accurate method to determine colours as has been demonstrated in many books and even on this forum by researchers willing to back their claims.
Supposing you are correct however I ask the following question:

Why is it that a 16/5th Lancers - 26 Armd BDE Crusader III in Tunisia ( A unit which came to Tunisia direct from the UK and by your logic have a tricolour - three coloured flash - call it what you will) has a red white Red flash on its nose in IWM photo TR 939 (Colour photo)?

Why is it that a 3 CLY Sherman III photographed in Milo in the North of Sicily in Aug 43 has a Red White Red Flash?

These are from offical IWM colour photos and one interesting point which highlights a point you made. The red on either side of the white bar appears to be a different shade of red which would when viewed in B&W indicate a different shade thus highlighting how flawed the use of B&W interpretation can be.
Dick Taylor in his excellent book Warpaint Vol 1 illustrates this perfectly using a photo of an Early Churchill from the same series of one you have on your site. Incidently you have a photo from the same series on your site http://www.afrikakorps.org/britishafvcolors.htm where you claim the Following:
"Note Rainbow Color Bars under the SAMSON"
This is the photo from a scan of the IWM photo TR_000212:
[IMG][/IMG]
and a copy a friend sent me:
[IMG][/IMG]

I believe this is the perfect illustration of why people discredit your research; just where are the rainbow markings you refer to? All that is below the name "SAMSON" is the lower edge of the turret box, a bit of the turret in shade shown below and the backgound terrain in the gap between the track run and the bin.
This is but one example of such claims on your website. The Article on the Bishop Rainbow markings is interesting but one photo stuck out which is a side on shot and in B&W it shows the Flash/Tricolour in equal tones either side of the white in direct contradiction of your claims - again highlighting the danger of B&W interpretation. The White Bar under the Aos is also part of that marking denoting Corps or Army level troops and not divisional/BDE. Also the Bishop is NOT an infantry support weapon in close contact with the enemy but a mobile medium artillery piece in support of an armoured formation an unlikely to have ever closed with the enemy except in the possible defence of a breakthrough.

I am an objective man but the claims on your website are not backed by fact and until so I will continue to disagree. If you do prove otherwise in your book I will gladly apologise.

I leave you with a little question though; why did Churchills of the 51 BN RTR in Italy in July 44 still have Red White Red Flashes in the IWM colour photos of them?

Regards
Al


 
 Respond to this message   

(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Re: As I said in earlier posts regarding this subject

October 4 2008, 8:32 AM 

Easy to explain what the colors are for and what they represent as I realise you cannot explain what the marking actually is can you?

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   
B. G. Eady
(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Rainbow Colors

October 4 2008, 9:05 AM 

Since you see the multiple colored bars (nine in number)under the basket on the side of SAMSON and you know it came from Italian service duty then you can find the relevance of a nine colored bar on the lower side of the turret. It has never before my research began been discussed has it?

This is what I have called the Rainbow Colors! Not a Tri-Color and it appears that you are trying to confuse both the readers of this thread and the writeup I actually made. There are definately British AFV's marked with a Dark Red/ White/Red RAC and there are similarly British AFV's with a Red/White/Blue Tri-Color at different times during the war.

You say that you have conferred with those that know or have seen the relevant leaflets related to the procedures required for those Pro-Degaullist forces in Morocco to surrender. Have you associates share them here. They will confirm my statements about the use of and placement on any French AFV wishing to surrender and you can then place foot squarely in mouth!

Why have thesee supposed expert colleagues never before written about this Rainbow Colored series of markings and their relevance previous to my discovering there usage and there meaning? It is not necessary for me to prove my point now as you have already done so.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   
B. G. Eady
(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Please excuse my typing errors...

October 4 2008, 10:41 AM 

Please excuse my typing errors as I have a pinched nerve in my neck and this has caused a numbnes in two fingers for my left hand. Thus, it causes me as a touch typist to reverse or omit characters. The inability to edit a message has forced me to not correct the errors in my quick responses to the queires...

Sorry if this causes any confusion... at least any more than the confusion arising from being misquoted or misinterpreted.

http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Albowie)
Missing-Lynx members
220.244.89.151

My response

October 4 2008, 7:26 PM 

Since you see the multiple colored bars (nine in number)under the basket on the side of SAMSON and you know it came from Italian service duty then you can find the relevance of a nine colored bar on the lower side of the turret. It has never before my research began been discussed has it?

A; Mr Eady, the nine colour bars you refer to are not visible in this photo but regardless this is a Churchill Mk 2 of 43 RTR photographed in the UK in 1942-3 and has nothing to do with the Italian campaign. More than likely the reason it has not been discussed.

This is what I have called the Rainbow Colors! Not a Tri-Color and it appears that you are trying to confuse both the readers of this thread and the writeup I actually made. There are definately British AFV's marked with a Dark Red/ White/Red RAC and there are similarly British AFV's with a Red/White/Blue Tri-Color at different times during the war.

A: I am not trying to confuse anyone but merely trying to understand what you are claiming. If you would highlight these rainbow markings then maybe we could understand what you are implying/stating. I will not dispute the flashes but I am yet to see a colour picture of a Red/White Blue one

You say that you have conferred with those that know or have seen the relevant leaflets related to the procedures required for those Pro-Degaullist forces in Morocco to surrender. Have you associates share them here. They will confirm my statements about the use of and placement on any French AFV wishing to surrender and you can then place foot squarely in mouth!

A: I claimed I have seen many copies of original documents, Instructions, Unit Diaries etc which cover the subject of British Vehicle Markings and painting – not as you indicate I have claimed. I am not referring to the US forces in Morocco but the British forces.

Why have thesee supposed expert colleagues never before written about this Rainbow Colored series of markings and their relevance previous to my discovering there usage and there meaning? It is not necessary for me to prove my point now as you have already done so.

A: If you feel that putting words in my mouth or claiming that my friends and associates (not colleagues) have written about your rainbow markings have proved your point when they have done nothing of the sort then I feel you have proved nothing other than your claims are highly subjective and as yet without any real substance.

A: I feel that posts like this do you no favours in establishing any credibility and wish you well in your research.

Regards
Al

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login NachtLink)
Missing-Lynx members
74.170.80.217

Rainbow Color Marking Late War

October 4 2008, 10:08 AM 

Since you feel you have colleagues that are "in the know"... I'll throw them a bone. They themselves will then cooberate my reaserch findings and give finally the credit where credit is due in uncovering a series of British, Commonwealth, and even initially the more predominant American markings set that will change how AFV models will be painted for this and earlier period vehicles in the MTO (or those that may have retained the markings set and retured to later service duty).

Have them explain to you or others here at this forum the meaning of this symbol or multi-colored bar marking on the fender of this Churchill... as it is the late form of the Rainbow Colors Marking in the narrow height 12 color bar form. Just give me the credit for uncovering the marking and squarely place your foot in mouth!





http://www.AFRIKAKORPS.Org

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login mmcalc)
Missing-Lynx members
74.214.43.214

My interpretation

October 4 2008, 12:50 PM 

I see a rather different symbol here. I would tend to believe this is some sort of comic book creature (a la' the 'Stap me' caricature seen on some desert Shermans) depicted or perhaps even an early form of Japanese manga that could have been the crew's mascot. One possibility is depicted in the image below:



Another possibility is that this is simply an earlier unit marking that has been quickly painted over with paint that has started to flake off.

Hope this helps.

Mike Canaday

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login eliljegren)
Missing-Lynx members
90.235.195.131

Shipping label?

October 4 2008, 3:10 PM 

Hi,

This Churchill mkIV(75mm) or mkVI is from 7 Royal Tank Regiment, photographed in Normandy I think.

Mike: Could it be the remains of the dimension and weight label, used for shipping purposes? I've seen this data on a separate oil cloth/paper. The number (1873/??) is in my opinion a shipping number. Does anyone know the shipping number of 7 RTR?
As to the other stripe, it could also be part of a shipping marking. In my opinion, it's too small for a friend-or-foe marking, and above all in the wrong place for that.

Could it be a strip in the colours of 7 RTR, red and green?

It could also be a one-off. I didn't see any other markings like that when I looked through Mr Churchill's tank by David Fletcher or Concord's British tanks of WW2 parts 1 and 2.

Erik L

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Albowie)
Missing-Lynx members
220.244.89.151

Here highlights your problem

October 4 2008, 7:40 PM 

Plucking a Normandy based tank from 31 Tank BDE with one unusual marking on its fender when other photos of Churchills from that BDE do not have it is questionable at best particularly when you are talking about the MTO.
This is a command Churchill from 7 RTR and what you see here is in all likelihood a marking specific to that vehicle.
When you find the SHEAF document detailing this marking system or the british Ordnance/Tech instruction or even a unit diary entry indicating its use and palcement I may have a hard time placing my foot into my mouth. Until then this is your questionable summation.

I always thought the idea of research was to gather facts to arrive at a conclusion. I look forward to your book to try and gain an understanding of what you claim and if your claims are substantiated then by all means you will have my public apology for doubting your research. Until then we beg to differ.
Al

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Albowie)
Missing-Lynx members
220.244.89.151

What?

October 4 2008, 7:13 PM 

I can't even see the marking you allude to, as for the markings visible then I have no problem identifying them as 1 TP A Sqn and the Registration number across the bow. The IWM identifies this picture as 43 Bn RTR in England part of 33 AB at that time. Just what does a UK based vehicle whose unit stayed in the UK before moving to 35 AB in Late 44 have to do with MTO markings by the way.
I, in no way consider myself an expert in British markings but have more than a firm grounding in the subject and having served 21 years in a Commonwealth Army which still uses the same basic markings premise, i feel I do know a little bit more than the average person. I bow to those researchers you so rubbish as what they have presented is backed up by photographic and documentry evidence plus a thorough understanding of the British Regimental systems and roles of the various formations and weapons.
I am open to your suggestion that an entirely different sytem existed in parallel when i see something to back it up.
I deliberately chose the above photo as it does not appear to show what you claim. If you could highlight these markings you allude to it may make it a lot easier to understand your viewpoint on the matter.

Regards
Al

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login eliljegren)
Missing-Lynx members
90.235.195.131

Comments

October 4 2008, 2:34 PM 

Hi,
I'm always interested in new information about the markings of British vehicles, especially information that is new or contradicts previous research. However, I have no easy access to British or US archives, so I'm relying on how others interpret photos and documents and, to a certain extent, my own interpretations based on information I have access to. I think all research into these matters should be encouraged but also subjected to peer review. In all research, peer review is the established way to introduce new knowledge and serves as a form of quality control.

I've been looking through the photos on Mr Eady's site and I just don't see these rainbows/tricolours, except those that are really clear, ie the ones (until now?) identified as red-white-red RAC flashes. I'll leave their colours aside for the time being, as I think it's more valid to determine the presence of a marking on a vehicle before its colours can be discussed.

On the Churchill named SAMSON, I can't see any rainbow/tricolour markings below the name and have to agree with Al. I'd be very interested in having them pointed out in the photo, maybe marked out in a similar way as Mr Eady has done on his site on the page about Bishops. It is in my opinion pointless to discuss the colours of a marking until its presence on a vehicle has been determined. By pointing out exactly in that photo what you interpret as a rainbow marking, Mr Eady, you subject your claim to a simple form of peer review.
(I'd be very interested in seeing a colour photo of a vehicle with a red-white-blue flash.)

Second, the Bishop tricolours. On the first Bishop discussed on that page, the white stripe under the Royal Artillery Arm of Service sign with unit number 201 is, in my opinion, the white bar meaning Army troops (hence the 1st Army sign on the fuel tank), not part of a tricolour marking. On this vehicle I also can't see any markings on the engine doors, just mud and dust scraped by the crew's boots. According to Hodges&Taylor, 102 (Pembroke Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA had unit number 201. It landed in Algiers in 1943 as part of 1st Army.
(Also, would a Bishop in 1943 be painted in any of the British green colours or SCC2? I think they were SCC2, ie the same colour as SAMSON.)

I don't see the diagonal rainbow marking on the Bishop with the No27 ammo trailer further down the page either. I interpret the F and C as not being on diagonal stripes, but on a standard Royal Artillery battery marking. FC would then relate to gun and battery in a Field Regiment. The same goes for the Bishop on the trailer, FD would again be the gun/battery marking on a standard RA battery marking over a Royal Artillery red over blue Arm-of-service sign with unit number 45 in white. The triangular marking on the fuel tank is in the same place as fuel spills would be. According to Hodges&Taylor, unit number 45 was a spare number assigned to the Royal Artillery.

What's your view on my interpretation, Mr Eady? I'm very interested in anyone's comments.
My references when interpreting the markings in the photos are mainly '21 AG, organisation and markings' by M Bellis and 'British military markings' by Hodges and Taylor (the 1994 edition).

Edit: SAMSON is from 43 RTR. 43 RTR did not leave England but served as a trials/experimental unit.

Erik L

(PS. As an aside, what do you mean by "dobbing"? I can't find that word in any of my dictionaries. Do you mean "daubing"?)

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Mikestarmer)
Missing-Lynx members
87.112.235.169

I misunderstood

October 1 2008, 4:39 PM 

Roger, sorry I misunderstood your term tricolore. I thought that you were refering to a painted marking, not a flag.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Hon.JohnByng)
Missing-Lynx members
78.146.232.202

Sorry Mike...

October 3 2008, 2:03 PM 

I should have been clearer in what I wrote.

Thanks for the help.

Regards,
Roger

 
 Respond to this message   
Steven Piper
(Login seabee1526)
Missing-Lynx members
144.160.5.25

Full Color Drawings?

October 4 2008, 8:59 PM 

I would like to see an artists rendition of these vehicles with thier tricolors and rainbows et al., in full color so we can have an idea of what we all should be seeing, that I for one cannot. thanks
Steve

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login mechinf)
Missing-Lynx members
41.132.119.53

RAC Flash - the Orders

June 27 2010, 2:18 PM 

Guys

Herewith I publish the RAC Flash markings orders dated 07 Nov 41, for your information:

30 Corps Order:
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2475450430039564579JuVNis?vhost=news

Drawing:
http://news.webshots.com/photo/2412105650039564579axHqnf?vhost=news

No copyright, so you may take copies if you like.

Regards

William

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - British Tanks with french Tricolore?
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  


Terms and Conditions of Use
Report abuse