This message was posted on the HMVF site and an early (and only) response was that these markings had been spotted in period photos. Can anybody shed some more detail on these markings, I have a lot of models on my Overlord train which need changing. Thanks for any help, David Apologies if you already knew this but it is new to me: All softskin vehicles were progressively marked as the three stages of waterproofing were completed on them with 3”X1” strips painted on the offside front mudguard behind the wing lamp – Blue for stage A; Yellow for stage B and Red for stage C. Alternatively a White strip only for vehicles which could not be waterproofed Extract from 56 Inf. Admin Order "Waterproofing – B Vehs Units will carry out stage ‘A’ of waterproofing in unit lines or in Concentration Areas not more than 200 miles from Marshalling areas ……..When the REME offr supervising waterproofing is satisfied that stage ‘A’ is carried out efficiently he will have a blue mark 3” X 1” painted on the offside front mudguard behind the wing lamp" Extract from “Detailed procedure for control of movements - Overlord” "VEHICLES NOT WATERPROOFED Certain vehicles are not capable of being waterproofed, and will be so indicated on the staff tables. They will also be marked with a WHITE strip 3" x 1" painted on the off-side wing behind the wing lamp, in lieu of the BLUE, YELLOW and RED colour bars normally used to denote completion of the three stages of waterproofing"
With the Inf and REME references it seems to me to be a 'local' instruction. None of the RAF vehicles from my unit were marked in this way.
Hi Commander, I posted that information - I have never seen the marks on any photo myself but the information came from the Movement Controll Association webste here:Documents Database Main look particularly at Document 124, I can't remember the doc. ref for the 56 Inf. admin order but it's somewhere in the 700 documents listed. There's also quite a bit of info on wartime trains in there. By the way - you may not need to add these markings - I understand that moves from concentration area towards embarkation were normally by road, moves to concentration area would be before any waterproofing. Noel
I have a book with hand written notes on the waterproofing of "B" vehicles it covers areas such as: 1/ Objects of waterproofing 2/ Systesms of waterproofing 3/ Waterproofing materials 4/ The effect of sea water on metals and lubricants 5/ The preperation of vehicles for waterproofing 6/ Waterproofing 7/ Driving These notes were written in April 1944 by Lt J D Wallace of 109 LAA Regiment Royal Artillery a real interesting read, but unfortunately no mention of markings to vehicles.
Thank you for your responses and information. DoctorD - it does seem that it was a Army requirement and the markings were applied inconsistently. From my knowledge of the services I would say that the availibility of officers to supervise the markings and the time to carry out the inspection probably did not allow consistent standardisation. Also it was in the best interests of the vehicle crew to ensure that the waterproofing was carried out correctly, so self certification was probably most effective. Kieron - thanks for that, apparently the task of waterproofing was not liked, and it was a messy job, Noel - the MCA website is most interesting and very relevant to my hobby, thanks for that. I agree that the waterproof markings were only applied immediately before loading of vehicles due to mileage limitations, but with modelers licence and the desire to record interesting facts gives me room to include the markings on some vehicles for the interest factor. I wonder if the armour had similar markings, I couldnt see that distinction in the document 124 09. But thanks for the information which is a great help.
Kieron - thanks for that, apparently the task of waterproofing was not liked, and it was a messy job, This is what he wrote about the job of waterproofing: It is a boring and labourious tast that must be done thoroughly and painstakingly without overlooking the smallest detail. Great care must be taken to insulate every part of the ignition system. No very great skill is required Seeing these notes were written 2 months before D-Day I get the feeling he still didn't know what he'd be doing in a couple of months times. Below is a scan copy of of some of the notes, make a nice read
moves to concentration area would be before any waterproofing. Noel Noel Our Corporal M/T Fitter erected and connected the "snorkel" tubes for air inlet and exhaust at base, before we set out for the Concentration Area. He also applied part of the cylinder block wrap, using canvas and Bostik, at this stage; in readiness for its final sealing to wrap the distributor, plugs and electrics that was done in the CA. But the removal of the fan belt on some vehicles was the last stage and made the engine sweat a bit after 2 miles - giving an excuse for a brew! (on this side of the channel!) Les
Hi all, I am intrigued with you interest in the waterproofing of vehicles for D-Day "operation Neptune" , I have a fairly comprehensive range of information concerning this as my Father-in -Law L/Sgt W.E. Price Class B II Driver/Mechanic, Instructor was part of a team of 60 men who were based at M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth from 1942-1946. These guys devised, and experimented with waterproofing and wading for the first stage of the D-Day landings “operation Neptune” this was the requirement to land 8,000 plus vehicles on the Normandy Beaches. After that as you all know the Mulberry harbours were utilised to land all troops, cargo and vehicles. Exclusively the British “Port Winston” Mulberry Harbour as the American one had been damaged beyond repair in a severe storm on approx. D-Day+12. I have produced a 30 page PDF doc detailing what they did and how they did this but I am having difficulties uploading to this forum.
From my direct experience in the MOD as a REME Tech and an M.T. (Category A1) Tech instructor in the Royal air Force I would initially agree with your point regarding self-certification for one’s own vehicle or responsibility regrading waterproofing, safety, and self-preservation etc. However, I can inform you without any doubt and after over 15 years of research that this was most definitely not the case for waterproofing the of vehicles for the first phase of D-Day landings June 1944 “Operation Neptune”. As you know “Operation Neptune” had a clear and decisive function like all of them, it’s function was to land an initial force of 8,000 vehicles in the first phase of D-Day, the amphibious phase to secure the beaches. The success due to the rigorous and precise attention to detail for waterproofing provided the following results. A mere 0.15% were lost due to waterproofing that failed from poor workmanship and poor driving techniques. The losses were split as follows, 1.5% launched into water deeper than specified, 1.3% bogged down or were lost to enemy action. These procedures were supervised by REME officers and lower REME ranks at various Vehicle Reception Depts (VRD’s) located around South of England during the build up to D-Day. Others this being driver’s, techs, mechs, of all ranks from many different regiments, corps, both British and allied troops all had to attend a week’s training course at M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth. By Sept 1943 M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth had been established by the War Office as the only source for experimental and wading of vehicles for the D-Day landings. The only group of 60+ men all REME, to create/draught instructions, delivery these instructions to all that required them. Previously the vehicle manufactures had waterproofed their vehicles, but all these failed under experimental trials. Chiefly because they had been waterproofed to wade in 3ft when the new requirement was 4ft+ with choppy waves. The waterproofing material they used (WDPP) War Department Pressure Plastic which was red in colour and very similar to glazing putty in texture had cracked and let sea water in during trials. This was due to the fact that it had been in storage for too long, so they all had be re-waterproofed to the new method. From the 1,000’s of vehicles that M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth, experimented with many failed as you can image, many were successful. After rigorous enquiries as to why they failed 9 times out of ten it was always down to poor application of the procedures. Therefore, the instructions, procedures and recommendations created by this team of 60+ REME staff were the only procedures that were used and deployed on the 8,000+ vehicles that landed in that first phase of the D-Day landings. As the notes explain in the post from Kieron on this website, yes it was laborious, yes it was not liked, but it was critical to survival of life but more importantly totally critical to the success of the very first phase of the D-Day landings.
From my direct experience in the MOD as a REME Tech and an M.T. (Category A1) Tech instructor in the Royal air Force I would initially agree with your point regarding self-certification for one’s own vehicle or responsibility regrading waterproofing, safety, and self-preservation etc. However, I can inform you without any doubt and after over 15 years of research that this was most definitely not the case for waterproofing the of vehicles for the first phase of D-Day landings June 1944 “Operation Neptune”. As you know “Operation Neptune” had a clear and decisive function like all of them, it’s function was to land an initial force of 8,000 vehicles in the first phase of D-Day, the amphibious phase to secure the beaches. The success due to the rigorous and precise attention to detail for waterproofing provided the following results. A mere 0.15% were lost due to waterproofing that failed from poor workmanship and poor driving techniques. The losses were split as follows, 1.5% launched into water deeper than specified, 1.3% bogged down or were lost to enemy action. These procedures were supervised by REME officers and lower REME ranks at various Vehicle Reception Depts (VRD’s) located around South of England during the build up to D-Day. Others this being driver’s, techs, mechs, of all ranks from many different regiments, corps, both British and allied troops all had to attend a week’s training course at M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth. By Sept 1943 M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth had been established by the War Office as the only source for experimental and wading of vehicles for the D-Day landings. The only group of 60+ men all REME, to create/draught instructions, delivery these instructions to all that required them. Previously the vehicle manufactures had waterproofed their vehicles, but all these failed under experimental trials. Chiefly because they had been waterproofed to wade in 3ft when the new requirement was 4ft+ with choppy waves. The waterproofing material they used (WDPP) War Department Pressure Plastic which was red in colour and very similar to glazing putty in texture had cracked and let sea water in during trials. This was due to the fact that it had been in storage for too long, so they all had be re-waterproofed to the new method. From the 1,000’s of vehicles that M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshops REME (Wading) Weymouth, experimented with many failed as you can image, many were successful. After rigorous enquiries as to why they failed 9 times out of ten it was always down to poor application of the procedures. Therefore, the instructions, procedures and recommendations created by this team of 60+ REME staff were the only procedures that were used and deployed on the 8,000+ vehicles that landed in that first phase of the D-Day landings. As the notes explain in the post from Kieron on this website, yes it was laborious, yes it was not liked, but it was critical to survival of life but more importantly totally critical to the success of the very first phase of the D-Day landings.
Hi all, There is clearly is an interest in the work of M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshop (Wading), Weymouth 1943-45. Therefore, please find attached 30-page PDF doc detailing its purpose and function during WW2 for the preparation of Waterproofed vehicles for the first phase of D-Day “Operation Neptune” the amphibious phase. I acknowledge that whilst I have strived for over 15 years to obtain as much accuracy as possible that there will be errors. Therefore, if anyone can provide evidence of potential errors I will be happy to correct. I apologise in advance if I have miss-represented a person, an event or a group of people, I can assure you all it was not intentional. Like our forefathers before us a mistake on my behalf, but, like them we can learn and in wartime they learnt very fast from their mistakes. It would be fantastic if there is someone out there in today’s cyber world who also had a relative who was part of M.E. 13 No. 1 Experimental Workshop (Wading), Weymouth. I can assure you that it would have provided immense joy to my now deceased father-in-law if there was. Mike
Thank you for exploring this obscure subject of waterproofing the vehicles. As an aside, one of the photographs on page 24 of your document shows wrecked trucks that belonged to the Royal Air Force radar unit that landed at Omaha Beach. The RAF at Omaha Beach – The Story of RAF 21 Base Defence Sector (BDS), 85 Group, 2nd Tactical Air Force
From my history of 92nd LAA – F Troop landing on Sword Beach on D-Day … ‘As the ramp of LCT 408 went down and the guns splashed into 4ft of water, the crews had a more immediate worry. Would they come to a dangerous, perhaps fatal, halt in the shallows, or would the engine waterproofing work? ‘Seconds later, they had their answer as engines revved healthily and the three SP Bofors powered up out of the surf. Aboard F3, a spontaneous cheer went up for driver Ike Parry – who was responsible for the waterproofing – and Leo McCarthy reached forward to pat him gratefully on the back. The first test had been passed.’ Regimental History — True Loyals
Hi EKB, Thanks for your very accurate and prompt reply, this is the kind of confirmation I was looking for I will amend my document immediately with the correct caption. People only think of the RAF's involvement in the air, many fail to realise the amount of RAF personnel involved on the beaches of D-Day. As a retired Civilian RAF (Category A1) MT instructor I appreciate fully where you are coming from. Thanks again Mike
Hey TMAC, Thanks very much for your prompt response, quotes like the one you provided are fantastic and appreciated and go to show the success of the waterproofing, I cannot begin to image the burst of relief and joy from the troops as the engine burst in life.
