British Vehicle Markings - a rough guide

Yes, both the official titles and the popular names varied quite a lot over time. However, by D Day the official titles were "1st Lothians and Border Yeomanry" (Flail regiment, North West Europe) and "2nd Lothians and Border Horse" (Sherman tanks, North Africa and Italy), while the Regiment made up of those two units was "Lothians and Border Horse Yeomanry".
This somehow rationalised and reconciled the various naming customs then in use.

Michel

 

Higher Formations Insignia page updated:



Formation Insignia - Higher Formations

 

SquireBev,

The 4 SS Bde Commando markings in the chart you posted in your blog are still incorrect. Seniority, among RM commandos or others, is not a simple matter of listing the commandos by their commando number sequence, but taking into account the respective seniority of the regiments (battalions) from which they were formed.

Additionally, it is not "Royal Marines" but "Royal Marine", both for the RMASG and for RM Commandos.

My previous post on 4 SS Bde Commandos was not quite clear: 46 RM Commando was already part of 4 SS Bde on D Day, but rejoined (i.e., was back under command of) 4 SS Bde on 17 June. Therefore, on D Day the markings were already as follows:

100 – HQ 4 Special Service Brigade
91 – 10 (IA) Commando
92 – 48 RM Commando (formed from 7 RM Bn)
93 – 41 RM Commando (formed from 8 RM Bn)
95 – 46 RM Commando (formed from 9 RM Bn)
96 – 47 RM Commando (formed from 10 RM Bn)

Although 10 (IA) Commando did not take part as such in the landings, some of its elements did.

The reason for the missing Serial 94 is probably that 4 SS Bde, like the other three SS Bdes, was initially planned to consist of just three Commandos, which would have had the following Serials:
100 – HQ 4 SS Bde
94 – 45 RM Commando (formed from 5 RM Bn)
95 – 46 RM Commando (formed from 9 RM Bn)
96 – 47 RM Commando (formed from 10 RM Bn)

but 45 Commando was instead posted to 1 SS Bde. Then three more Commandos were added, all with higher seniority than the remaining two, and were therefore allocated lower Serials. For some reason (maybe to avoid confusion with HQ 3 SS Bde) Serial 94 was not reallocated to one of these new units.

There is photographic evidence from November 1944 of the Serials 91, 93 and 96 for 10, 41 and 47 Commandos respectively, and of both Serial 95 (4 Commando) and Serial 56 (46 Commando) after they switched brigades.

Michel

 

Thanks Michel, I'll update accordingly. I should have known better than to trust Bouchery!

 

I am finding all this very interesting - could all the charts be relisted when updating is complete?
For what it is worth my interest is in Auxiliary Units - Churchill's secret British resistance Army:
Home Forces 1940 - Jan 1945
Vehicle Insignia - Home Forces version 1 & version 2
Tactical no. 490.

 

Two points about the difference between the world of SD (Staff Duties = tidy stuff about orders of battle,names of units and formation numbers) and reality.

John Durnford Slater who commanded No 3 Commando and a commando brigade in Italy refused to use "Special Services" for that reason and replied to any correspondence with the word Commando instead. He may not have been alone. The SD world eventually caught up in Dec 1944.

Many special forces were informal organisations starting as private armies by people with more interest in action than paperwork, (Such as Gus March Phillipps who set up the SSRF) or with a highly classified existence. Surely knowledge that AOS number 490 referred to the special stay behind guerrilla force was on a list marked "eat before reading" or "We could tell you but we'd have to kill you."

 

Another thought. Were decoy formations given AOS numbers? No problem with fake divisions, they have badges, but were there decoy AGRAs?

 

Probably best to just follow the link to the website. The latest version will always be on there.

 

I've never heard of a decoy AGRA. As amorphous as the AGRA's were, creating a decoy that stood still long enough to be recognised would probably have been harder than creating a real one!

Further back (somewhere!) there was a discussion about the 7th Division in Cyprus, created around all British troops under command. There was an elaborate radio net created and - probably - vehicles with a different AoS to the garrison. Maybe!

57th Division was created around 42 Inf Bde, so it's vehicles had an authorised AoS series. Maybe they created a full set of "divisional" vehicles as well. The obvious candidate for a full deception, including vehicles with the appropriate signs was 40th Division, formed around 43 Inf Bde. They actually moved their deception from North Africa to Sicily and maintained it there (where there were undoubtedly unfriendly eyes to report on their existence). But I've never seen any bit of paper that told me that! They certainly had a 40 Div shoulder patch created (a brown acorn on a white field) but we need a photo of a vehicle!

 

Answering my own question with the thought, perhaps there were limits to what is worth bothering with in the deception plan. Did the Germans understand the British AOS system? Did they know about AGRAs?

 

The Germans had a staff equivalent of an AGRA, the z.b V. staff groups (for a Special Purpose). They controlled set-piece operations and weren't confined to the artillery. There were Artillerie zb.V's that existed for considerable periods of time , as around Leningrad during the siege. As far as I know this org was not used in the same manner as AGRA and was far less flexible.

I'm sure the Germans had a fair idea of the AoS system and details of Divisional and other unit signs, even the difference between arm patches and vehicle signs. British (and US) signs were comprehensive - the unit, its type (artillery, infantry, signals etc) and its place in the higher formation it belonged to, etc though not completely rational.

German signage told you what it was - artillery, haubitz, 10.5cm, (mot), explicit and rational - but not who they were.

Maybe that's actually a very real distinction between the British and German armies!

 

Bit of a tangent, but this has come up on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/madpadre1/status/1304385469388656640?s=19



The owner is trying to identify the unit.

I've scoured my books and only found one reference to a 171 serial, in Taylor's Warpaint:



Is anyone able to shed any more light?

It's clearly a Canadian unit and almost certainly a tank brigade, but note also the faint outline of a "50" AoS serial behind the maple leaf.

 

This should be HQ 3rd Canadian Army Tank Brigade. See:
www.canadiansoldiers.com

Michel

 

I would have thought 1st Canadian Tank Brigade - the only Canadian Tk Bde?

 

Continuation of previous post - i pressed the wrong button again.

The other side is really strange - black/white/black seems to represent 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade but it should be a horizontal diamond. Maybe? The 50 was used by the HQ of a host of armoured formations.

So I think it's someone who was posted to 1st Canadian Tank Brigade, and was with the Brigade HQ when it converted to an Armoured Brigade. 171 was used by the Heavy Support Company and they had Churchill 3" Gun Carriers (so he could have had a very interesting and varied career!

But that's guesswork!!

 

The underlying colours on both sides provides the answer.

- The '171' and Blue/Brown bands mean HQ Army Tank Brigade around 1942, not just in the Middle East, but also in the UK (see a Covenanter of HQ 1st Canadian Army Tank Brigade here: The British Cruiser Tank, Mark V, Covenanter (A13 Mark III), in service with the Canadian Army Overseas).

It has been painted over a Maple Leaf over Green flash, indicating 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division:


- The side with the Formation sign has been painted over a white 50 over Red flash, i.e. HQ of (Senior) Armoured Brigade:


which must mean that the owner of the suitcase belonged to HQ 3rd Canadian Armoured Brigade (the Senior Brigade in 4th Canadian Armoured Division when it comprised two armoured brigades), and changed its markings when HQ 3rd Canadian Armoured Brigade became HQ 3rd Canadian Army Tank Brigade in January 1943.

The colour of the middle horizontal band should be interpreted as a (somewhat faded) light grey (or "French Grey") rather than White.

Michel

 

Thanks Michel. I hadn't noticed the other maple leaf at all.

 

For an extensive explanation of the convoluted changes involved, see:
The Evolution of the Reconstituted 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade (Independent), 1943

I suspect the owner of the suitcase became fed up with all the resulting red tape and took his suitcase and leaved for another, less byzantine outfit, hence the lack of yet another layer of armoured unit markings on the suitcase...

Michel

 

I'll agree with you - very nice bit of detective work!

But I would have liked a link to some one who played with the Churchill Gun Carriers!
chris

 

Are AoS (Arm of Service?) signs what I might call Tactical Unit numbers e.g 490 = Auxiliary Units or 96 = 47 RM Commando ?

Has any of you got a photograph of the cloth Home Forces formation badge on a uniform?