tm9-801.com

Even Army motors told you that the blue is out.. white is in!



And don't try to say this was for field units only.... come one... don't make me post the ACTUAL AR.

milspec wrote:Pfarber wrote: “ You need to prove this. AR850 clearly states that the MANUFACTURER WILL APPLY ORIGINAL MARKINGS. Overcome that hurdle and then we can talk.”
Am I incorrect or weren’t the registration numbers applied after the vehicle was accepted by the government? And if so wouldn’t this have been after the road test? If this is true then judging vehicles “as off the factory floor” would mean no registration numbers.

Also, it appears like Jim Gilmores post was edited by inserting comments, questions and answers. This discredits the entire forum. The moderator is abusing his authority and leads one to question any post except one’s own. How can we trust that the moderator is not changing numbers and dates to win an argument?
Not cool!

NO OTHER USERS POST WAS EDITED. EVER. I don't mind being corrected, or being blatantly wrong... its called learning.

Gilmore does what I really don't like, he quotes your post in adds in his response. I hate it because posts can get very, very long and unless you pick another color or bold YOUR answer it all runs together. Look at this post viewtopic.php?f=16&t=406#p1472 its a mess.

I have had to do the same thing to address his posts.. BUT I ALWAYS TRY TO BOLDFACE MY RESPONSE. Now, if you accidentally move/delete a

Code: Select all

[b]

or

Code: Select all

[/b]

command and cause the formatting to go to hell.

In the passage you provided, the Gilmores statement is in normal text, in the entire post mine are BOLD. Please re-read post viewtopic.php?f=16&t=406#p1478 I guess there could be some confusion because the first couple of sentences are mine, not in bold.

But if you are keeping score at home it seems like its obvious what parts are gilmores and what are mine.

Back on topic. While I loath the contribution Mr. Doyle had made to the CCKW community (he's a good guy, met him at the Red Ball meet.. his CCKW book sucks dead horse ass is what I'm saying.. but in a nice way)

"Standard catalog of U.S. military vehicles By David Doyle"

page 492:



I don't buy the 'until exhausted' part as the AR850 does not make that exception.

So that's three cites for me.

And here we go.. 15FEB45 AR 850-5 excerpt FTW!!!

http://www.cckw.org/pdf/ar850-5_2_15_05_2.pdf

Before I reply to what you have stated as fact could you post what you first said was the source of the white numbers?

You wrote "...A post feb 45 truck would be white (as per the AR850-15) but before that they are blue..." and in another post about the same thing "...I added the bold to the first post because it was unclear as to when FACTORY trucks were white. The AR850-15 states that date..."

I am aware of the AR 850-15 dated August 1, 1945 but I can't seem to find the one you are referring to that would be around the date you say the change at the factory occurred.

Could you post the relevant pages from the AR 850-15 you quoted from?

Jim Gilmore

I may have been fast and loose with my -5, -10, -15. That's my fault for being sloppy.

The above three posts I made are more than enough for you to figure out the right pub.

Are you saying that there IS NO 15Feb45 AR850?

I'm going to lock and restart this thread as 'BLUE vs WHITE REGISTRATION NUMBERS' in the " Paint, Unit Markings, Decals and Labels" forum since it is going to evolve into a CCKW discussion.

Nothing nefarious is being done, I just want the relevant information into a properly classified forum.