British Tanks with french Tricolore?September 30 2008 at 3:57 PM
|Roger Cockburn (Login Hon.JohnByng)|
from IP address 126.96.36.199
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?
|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.
|September 30 2008, 4:30 PM |
Where in "The new breed" can this info be read, I cant seem to find it...
|October 1 2008, 8:54 AM |
Sorry Erik I posted at the same time as you!
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.
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.
Re: 4th CLY tanks...............
|October 1 2008, 7:39 AM |
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?
|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.
AMPS 1st Vice President
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.
|B. G. Eady|
|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.
|This message has been edited by NachtLink from IP address 188.8.131.52 on Oct 3, 2008 5:02 PM|
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.
|B. G. Eady|
|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.
West Point Library
Patton Museum Library
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?
|B. G. Eady|
Re: Can't steal our own property
|October 3 2008, 5:04 PM |
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
|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.
|B. G. Eady|
|October 3 2008, 11:36 PM |
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
|B. G. Eady|
|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
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.
|B. G. Eady|
Re: I look forward to seeing the colour shots
|October 4 2008, 8:29 AM |
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.
|This message has been edited by NachtLink from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Oct 4, 2008 9:19 AM|
|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.