Landships II

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

Japanese Whippet A390

tanks3 · Major

Chris

Not sure that the second photo is of A390 as there were at least 6 whippets sold to Japan at the end of the war.

Tanks3

LincolnTanker · Commander in Chief

Your right Alwyn, I saw the first image of A390 and then added the other photo, but the first one is A390.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Six!? I only know of four!

Gwyn

Paul Bonnett · Hero

There are several reference sources that all state 6 Whippets being purchased. The following link is just one !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_Japanese_Army#Post_World_War_I

-- Edited by Paul Bonnett on Saturday 28th of April 2012 12:44:00 AM

CharlieC · Legend

�

Looks like the Japanese replaced the Hotchkiss with Type 3 Heavy Machine Guns -�http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/mg.htm#3H. The Type 3 used the same strip system as the Hotchkiss for ammo feed.

Regards,

Charlie

Ironsides · Legend

Paul Bonnett wrote:
There are several reference sources that all state 6 Whippets being purchased. The following link is just one !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_Japanese_Army#Post_World_War_I

-- Edited by Paul Bonnett on Saturday 28th of April 2012 12:44:00 AM

�Taki's Japanese Army site has a less certain�6?...

Cheers smile

Gwyn Evans · Legend

There's a file on the Medium A tanks exported to Japan at The National Archives, Kew, and that says four. In any contest between Wikipedia and The National Archives I know which I'd put my money on...

Gwyn

Rectalgia · Legend

Here's a Japanese card depicting A386:

And are those the stowage boxes, mentioned in another post?

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Friday 31st of August 2012 10:39:32 AM

velotrain · Lieutenant

The Dieselpunks site, referenced at the top of this thread, mentions:

"Major Philip Johnson, the unofficial head of Central Tank Corps Workshops in France, as soon as he received them began fitting one of the Whippets with leaf springs. Later, in 1918, he fitted this vehicle with sprung track rollers, Wilson's epicyclical transmission from the Mark V and a 360 hp V12 Rolls-Royce Eagle aero-engine. A top speed of about 30 mph (48 km/h) was reached. This project made Johnson the best qualified man to develop the later fast Medium Mark D, which looks like a reversed Medium A. Other experiments included the fitting of a large trailing wheel taken from an old Mark I tank and attaching a climbing tail, in both cases attempts to increase trench-crossing ability."

I'm guessing there are no known photos of the Whippet with the climbing tail?

Also - I've always been curious about the A390 Whippet apparently being loaded on some sort of river-crossing transport.� The angle of the pole the one fellow is holding suggests more of a "shove off" position than a "hold in place" orientation.� Is there any other info on just what it's being loaded onto?

Ironsides · Legend

The info is taken from the original article on "Landships" and some of it can also be found on "Landships 2" but� the tail addition seems to have been edited out...

Cheers wink

CharlieC · Legend

�

I just checked on the copy of the Landships website - the information on the Whippet tail wasn't present when I got the snapshot of the site in 2010.

I can easily add it into the Whippet article on Landships II.

Regards,

Charlie

�

Ironsides · Legend

Hi Charlie My mistake none of the original Landships Articles on the Whippet seem to�contain that piece of information, the source looks like Wikipedia so all is good no editing necesary wink �mind you I could have sworn that I read it there earlier but maybe�I was reading the blog in error....

After all that�a little bit of searching found this thread on the forum which deals with� Whippet variants and it appears that there is a photo of a Whippet with a wheeled tail, the tail skid Variant is also mentioned�by TimR... but no photo

http://landships.activeboard.com/t5614090/whippet-variants/

Cheers smile

velotrain · Lieutenant

Thanks for the info.� I've usually seen the trailing�wheels referenced as�"steering" (at least when used on other models), and pictured the "climbing tail" as something akin to the tadpole extension.

Charles

CharlieC · Legend

�

The 2006 thread on the Whippet seems definitive on the Whippet prototypes and helps sort out the images at the start of the Landships II article.

I think a rewrite of the article is worth doing.

I've never understood why the Austin turret was abandoned in the Whippet in favour of the overcrowded citadel.

Thinking about the image of the Japanese Whippet being loaded onto a pontoon/barge - I think the guy is stopping the barge swinging into the bank.

I'd guess there was another guy on the diagonally opposite corner of the barge stopping the barge swinging out. Suggests the direction of water

flow was right to left in the image.

Regards,

Charlie

�

-- Edited by CharlieC on Saturday 10th of August 2013 12:27:27 AM

velotrain · Lieutenant

> I've never understood why the Austin turret was abandoned in the Whippet in favour of the overcrowded citadel.

There's no recorded�info from the time the decision was made?� You'd think someone would officially document why the turret didn't work out.� I'm not seeing how it would create more room - unless it was on a separate level, with another space below it which had�it's own headroom.

�

> Thinking about the image of the Japanese Whippet being loaded onto a pontoon/barge - I think the guy is stopping the barge swinging into the bank.

> I'd guess there was another guy on the diagonally opposite corner of the barge stopping the barge swinging out. Suggests the direction of water

> flow was right to left in the image.

�

That makes sense,�but I'm not sure about�the guy diagonally opposite.� I can imagine the flow potentially pushing the downstream end�toward the shore, but I don't know if the current would have the opposite effect at the other end - unless they were centered in an eddy, which seems most unlikely.� That being said, I just noticed that it looks like there might be another pole angled the opposite way just to the left of this figure, at the very edge of the image�- I believe held by someone that we can't see.� Given the sketchiness of the "loading ramp", they're no doubt concerned about staying flush up against it, so it might be more a question of "steadying"; the guy we can see doesn't appear to be working all that hard, and there's only gentle rippling in the water.

What it's being loaded on appears to have a dock-like construction, and if it wasn't for the guy with the pole I might not think it a vessel of any sort.� One strange thing is that I don't see any accounting for varying river levels - unless perhaps that's what all those stacked 2x6's (?) are used for when needed.

�

Another puzzle for me are the round "wires" at either end of the muffler in the photo of the three-tank column - all of which have the driver's front plate open.� I can only think they were meant to remind folks that the surface was hot, despite the normal rope wrapping and what looks like an additional fabric layer.

Are there any known photos of the "tread wipers" being used?� I've only seen them in a model photo.� Were they factory installed, or just provision for mounting them?� I saw a reference to the effect that they didn't last long, but do we know they were actually installed in the first place?

�

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Wasn't the turret abandoned for production reasons - simplicity? I believe someone said something to that effect in one of the old threads about prototype Whippets.

The hoops around the exhaust silencer ends look like guards to me; I think there may be a longitudinal rod joining the pair together.

As for the chap with the long pole, I don't think he is pushing against anything; I think he is leaning on the pole (not to a great extent, not with all his weight) in rest, whilst watching the tank drive off.

�

PS - interesting that whoever added colour to that postcard of a Whippet chose Khaki, not green. I know vehicle colour is a thorny issue, but I've had my doubts about Whippets being green. Maybe it would make sense if the decision was made after the German offensives broke the trench stalemate, leading to semi-open fighting with more grass around, but Whippets first appeared before that, so you would have expected them to be khaki like the heavies. Would be of interest to know whether anyone knows of any written evidence from the time stating that Whippets were painted green, or whether it was an unofficial field-mod after the fighting moved to grassier terrain, or whether it is an urban myth from preceding decades (like the still-common view that rhomboids were green) that has yet to be debunked?�

I suppose this is one I'm likely to puzzle over until I get the chance to visit the Belgian Army Museum to see their Whippet for myself, but certainly the verdict quoted somewhere on Landships by a couple of people (some years ago) that the Brussels tank is probably green, is one I am uncertain of. Photographs have to be considered very carefully, because there is so much variation in the appearance of colours under different lighting conditions, etc, but a detail photo of part of a track frame (and in my view, detail pics are the only ones worth looking at, as you can look for small flecks of clean paint in more favourable lighting; photos showing the whole vehicle, or a large part of it, just show how the light reflects off the film of grime covering most of the tank) showed a nut that wasn't covered in dust and dirt, and seemed to be naturally lit; that nut was painted grey.

-- Edited by TinCanTadpole on Sunday 11th of August 2013 12:55:19 AM

velotrain · Lieutenant

TinCanTadpole wrote:
�The hoops around the exhaust silencer ends look like guards to me; I think there may be a longitudinal rod joining the pair together.

As for the chap with the long pole, I don't think he is pushing against anything; I think he is leaning on the pole (not to a great extent, not with all his weight) in rest, whilst watching the tank drive off.

�

Looking at the photo again, I can see the horizontal rod - extending back from the rear hoop past the end of the exhaust pipe.

Based on the gaze of the four visible figures, I'm quite certain that the tank is backing onto whatever it is.� Also, with the door open, the commander could provide better instruction to the driver.� If the tank was driving off, there would be no reason for the crew to be looking where they are, as almost all of the tread had already passed over that area, and the concern would rightly be with the front end of the tank staying on the "ramp", which�seems to consist of�a pair of foot-square wood beams.

I have to think that the pole guy is pushing to some extent based on the location/angle of his feet, but as I mentioned, I think there are two pole men steadying the "vessel" against the "ramp" during the operation.�

�

I just noticed a new curiousity - the square "plate" ? apparently joining the open door and the body; it looks like there might be a rod on the body end.� This doesn't show in any British photos, so suspect it's something the Japanese added -�but what is it?� Most photos show the door being flush with the body when opened - with the MG removed.� Does the rotating mount also come out easily?� I should think it wouldn't allow the door to be opened as fully as it appears to be in some images.

�

I take back what I said about the mud flaps, seeing that I do have a couple of images with them attached.

�

What's the purpose of the curved bit�at the back of�the rear deck?� Is it to make sitting there more comfortable (after making sure there are no rivets underneath , or to allow a "sliding" exit?� Does one grasp the ends when climbing aboard - I don't see any intentional handholds for that?

�

Not Whippet related, but while going through my images just now came across one of a Japanese Fordson steampunk-looking small tank; I know nothing of the history of it, but can't imagine it being post-WW1.

TinCanTadpole · Legend

I disagree that the tank is backing onto the large raft (or whatever it is); it makes no sense to drive the tank on backwards, as at the other side of the river the tank would again have to be backed off - unless the raft were turned in the middle of the river, which itself is a lot of effort when it would be easier to drive the tank on forwards, move the raft to the opposite bank, then drive off forwards. To me, it makes sense that the tank has just completed a river crossing and is disembarking from the raft.

The men? I think they are looking at the tank partly because it is driving onto a ramp barely wide enough and cannot afford to make any mistake, and partly because it is probably still something of a novelty to look at and work with a tank. Their gaze doesn't seem to be directed behind the tank, but at the track contact patch, which is exactly where you would expect it - this is where any misalignment of track and wooden beams would be seen.

The square thing by the back door might well be a triangular (viewed from above) stowage box. The back door will be open not for the commander to direct the driver, but for ventilation. I don't know how Whippets compared with rhomboids for engine fumes, but when closed up they are said to have been so bad for heat build-up that after a while the steering wheel would become too hot to handle.

Finally, the non-Whippet apparently dated from the '20s or '30s, I think it was based on a tractor as you say, and was radio (or wireless) controlled. If, that is, the little bit of info on the Tanks website (mailer.fsu) is correct.

Rectalgia · Legend

Here's the list of tanks from the Japanese Wikipedia - http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%88%A6%E8%BB%8A%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7 which might be a starting point for any interested in researching the Japanese websites. Translate Mark A Whippet Medium Tank into Japanese with Google translate to get the search term for that specific tank.

-- Edited by Rectalgia on Monday 12th of August 2013 01:04:56 AM

Gwyn Evans · Legend

The Japanese conversion of the Fordson tractor to radio control dates from 1929.

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

I can only say that what I see in the soldier's faces tells me the tank is approaching them, and they are watching intently as the weight of the tank starts to transfer from the ramp.� As I suggested before, I very much doubt that all four of them would be looking where they are if the tank is in fact moving in the other direction.� It seems counterintuitive.

Also - we don't know the configuration of the "raft", so they may need / plan to drive off in the direction they loaded from - in which case they may have preferred to back on and drive off.

�

* IF * they are indeed off-loading, I'd have to think that the crew is�actually looking at the junction of the ramp and the "raft".�� Virtually all of the tank's weight�would already be on the ramp,�so it would be too late to adjust any misalignment.� �Concerns over alignment tend to involve the beginning of the critical area, not the tail end - which only follows where the font leads.� They may be wondering how much the "raft" will bounce up in the water after the last of the tread clears, and when they can remove the poles from the river.

�

I can't imagine that's a stowage box, as it would have an extremely small capacity - say 2 or 3�cubic feet at most.� There must be a similar forum in Japan, and I would suspect that other photos of the Whippets and this particular scene exist there, but they just aren't in reach of an English language based web search.

�

>� I don't know how Whippets compared with rhomboids for engine fumes

I should imagine rather well, as there is a distinct�engine compartment, and I�would hope�a wall separating it from the crew.� You would like to think they learned something from their experience with the "Mark" series in this regard.� Granted it hasn't been moved to it's eventual location at the rear, although the French have already figured this out.

�

velotrain · Lieutenant

TinCanTadpole wrote:
I disagree that the tank is backing onto the large raft (or whatever it is); it makes no sense to drive the tank on backwards, as at the other side of the river the tank would again have to be backed off

�

Three weeks ago there was a discussion on whether this tank was driving off or backing onto the barge in the initial photo of this thread.� It continued to puzzle me that two people could interpret the same image so differently.� I started to think that I was reading what I visually saw in the photo, while the other take was perhaps based on a greater knowledge of tank history, believing that no tanker in his right mind would back up when he could drive forward.

�

While that may well be the traditional logic, I wondered if there might be reasons for this particular tank in this scenario to back onto the barge.� This is clearly soon after the delivery to Japan, as the British number and markings are still in place.�

�

BTW I notice the empty gun positions, and wonder if these tanks might have been sold sans armament? �Also, the hinged drivers plate, seen in the well-known Whippet column photo, is not yet in place.� Even if it were there, I calculate the driver would not be able to see a ground-level object less than some 10 feet in front of him hardly ideal for driving over beams that are each narrower than your tracks.

�

It seems likely in any event (going forward or backing) that the tank would have been aligned with the beams and the steering locked beforehand.� The clutches could be manipulated if necessary, but this was undesirable due to the difficulty of precision steering.

�

If backing, the driver is engaged, but the commander and gunner had a much closer view of the beams, as well as far better communication with the barge crew who were the only ones who could see the initial point of contact and the anticipated future direction.� If the Whippet was indeed exiting the barge, we have no idea if anyone is on the bank guiding it, although communication would be much more difficult - likely consisting of nothing more than pointing.� Its also probable that the photographer would have composed the picture differently.

�

I trust this newly-found image is definitive.

Japanese Whippet barge pushing off.jpg �

It was located by an amazing French researcher/modeler, who could possibly find a photo of the field trials of DaVincis proposed tank.�

Here's where I had found it http://club.chinaiiss.com/html/20137/26/pb4cf.html#p=14 but the full size picture is no more available. �

�

So I've managed to find it somewhere else

�

I find it ironic that manpower is being used to transport their new 20th century weapon!

Theres a small davit on the far side of the barge, and perhaps a small boat beyond it, likely tethered to the barge.

�

This site also has other Japanese Whippet images that I dont believe were known in the West.� Some are interesting in terms of the debate over how many Whippets were sold.� A shot on a parade ground only shows three, across from the more numerous French tanks.� Its possible that the Japanese equipped three for use, and kept one for spares; or, it may have broken down in their initial testing.� There is also an image of the above-referenced column from a higher elevation, but I cant tell if there is a 4^th tank in the rear.� This was apparently a combined-forces exercise, as there is a small plane in the background.

�

Im trying to get the URL for the somewhere else.

velotrain · Lieutenant

Here's the link for the "somewhere else" Russian site with the Whippet photos.� It may be Medium, but sure looks huge compared to the FT's.

http://www.smallscaleafvforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3573

It also has one shot I hadn't seen before of a German Whippet missing stowage boxes, but with both braces and one platform still in place.� It's the same tank seen climbing in front of a high wall - does anyone know what that is hanging from the grouser rail in front of the cross?�

Is it known why the Germans didn't use the captured Whippets?� They certainly seem to have been impressed with them.� Besides the image on the Russian site, there's another on a postcard of the Germans putting the Whippet through its paces.� This is the same tank as in the other images.�

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Thanks for the link - a few photos there that may be new to me (I need to check). I'm not getting involved in the "what's happening here" debate unless there's film available. There shouldn't be a debate about the number of Medium As that Japan were sold. See my post above.

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

Hi Gwyn -

I had seen your earlier post, and although I'm fond of Wiki - I think it's the best * immediate * source of useful (and generally reliable) info on practically anything - I can certainly understand your deference to the National Archives.

Do you have any info regarding whether the Hotchkiss guns were included in the sale? I can easily imagine them removed for ocean transit, but am surprised that they weren't remounted - unless they already planned to switch them out.

I'm curious - do you think there is a 4th tank in that one photo of the "tank column" taken from what seems to be a slightly higher elevation? I believe so, as there is a light-colored patch of the right shape and location to coincide with the upper angled gas-tank plate on the first three, and it looks like there are figures at the expected height.

===>>> I just noticed something very interesting. In the parade shot with soldiers apparently attending to someone who's fallen, you can see that the front of the cab has been modified with a horizontally angled plate. This is not seen in the "combined exercise" column photo showing the hinged driver's plate, so�it was clearly done as a separate and later mod - probably to give the driver a better sightline to the left. Has this�been seen before?� Is it known if other countries made structural changes to their Whippets?

I'm also wondering if they modified the roof, as there's something behind the opened hatch that is definitely taller than the angle iron there. Many of the shots of #33 in Berlin in 1919 are from a similar angle, but don't show anything this high in that location.

I should have thought that the new photo would fully resolve "what's happening here", if my logic failed to do so. They're clearly pushing off from the bank with the tank loaded. I will gladly grant greater knowledge/experience to practically everybody on this forum, but WYSIWYG rules.

Even with minimal/no current, I'm a bit surprised that four guys with poles could effectively steer that load - unless it's the inscrutable orient effect. Or - perhaps that's why there are only three tanks in the parade ground photo? I realize there could still be an unseen powerboat connected to the barge, but if there were I wonder why the polemen need to push so vigorously.

Charles

P.S. - A general question: I had pasted text in from Word and most symbols (dashes, quotes, etc.) were removed. Is there anyway around this, other than doing the typing in the forum? Having lost long messages in the past (not here), I generally create them elsewhere.

�

That may happen again here, as just before sending I noticed it was marked as Anonymous.� Not wishing to lose it while I logged on, I copied it over to Word, although made no changes there, but it is clearly changed when I brought it back.

CharlieC · Legend

Quote:

P.S. - A general question: I had pasted text in from Word and most symbols (dashes, quotes, etc.) were removed. Is there anyway around this, other than doing the typing in the forum? Having lost long messages in the past (not here), I generally create them elsewhere.

Endquote:

The reason is that the forum uses a variant of html for its markup - Word's markup codes are quite different. I'd suggest saving the Word text as html but Microsoft's idea of html is

so verbose and idiosyncratic it would probably break if you tried to post it on the forum. If you want to compose off line why not use a simple text editor like Wordpad in Windows - the

output is ASCII without all the Word stuff - the forum software should be happier with that.

Regards,

Charlie

velotrain · Lieutenant

Thanks, Charlie.� Word meets my usually minimal needs, but I may try Wordpad next time - if I remember.� I just checked and see that Word offers options of saving as Plain Text .TXT or Open Document Text .ODT - would you know if either of those saves�in ASCII format?

CharlieC · Legend

�

Yes - plain text (.txt) is in ASCII format.�

Charlie

�

velotrain · Lieutenant

I used to teach mainframe programming and carried a card with ASCII - Hex - Binary conversion tables.

Now I don't even know - or care (hopefully heading off reminder replies) - what the acronym stands for.

velotrain · Lieutenant

- In the parade shot with soldiers apparently attending to someone who's fallen, you can see that the front of the cab has been modified with a horizontally angled plate. -

�

Mea culpa

�

I wasn't reading the depth correctly, and I think mostly due to the angle of the shot was visually placing that plane further back, not giving enough credence to the oddity of that.� Of course, the second tank supports the same visual illusion.� Part of it may be being used to seeing them both open, as in the Berlin photos.

�

Henri-Pierre�found another photo that is probably the best I have seen of a Whippet in any country.� Not only is it quite sharp, but whoever printed it did a superb job - look at the richness and depth of the various�tones on the tank.

Japanese Whippet - super sharp.jpg

�

There is clearly some camo paint in a vine-like pattern, and I can now spot it on the lead tank in the column during the combined exercise.� Whatever the colors are, it doesnt stand out very well in B&W but perhaps thats the point of camo.� They've also added some light bracing for a short section of fender on the side, which seems placed to keep junk out of the engine compartment when running with the lid up which we now know they do

�

It must have really caused a stir when it rolled into town.

�

suitably humbled, but unscarred, Charles

Gwyn Evans · Legend

The records at the National Archives are mute on the question of armament. None is mentioned, and reference to spares is confusing. In one place it says they're not needed but this is contradicted elsewhere.

Absolutely terrific photo, by the way.

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

Would anyone have guesses on tank or camo color?

�

Frenchy also found a similar shot of two FT's -�of the same quality, if anyone is interested. I see they're referenced on Landships 2, so perhaps I could send it to whoever maintains that.�

Gwyn Evans · Legend

I'd assume the camouflage is the same as that on other Japanese armour of this period.

Gwyn

velotrain · Lieutenant

That's nice to know, but not helpful in this case.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

Despite the last post I'll try to be more helpful. Steve Zaloga published an article on Japanese camouflage and markings in an ancient Airfix magazine a couple of decades ago. I will have a copy but don't have the time or inclination to dig it out. Otherwise there are current books published on Japanese armour you could try but it's not my area of expertise.

Gwyn

Lothianman · Colonel

The problem is that "khaki" is often cited, but the word can mean anything from dull green to light sand (think French kaki to khaki drill), for all one knows. Plus there are the translation issues ...

From what Steve Zaloga says more recently, in his "Japanese Tanks 1939-45" (Osprey New Vanguard 2008), the base colour for Japanese armour in the 1930s was a dull brown colour, over which the disruptive camouflage was painted. As this disruptive camouflage included a mahogany brown, the base coat was, obviously, not so dark.
Portrayals in Japanese references etc. suggest that this was something in the range of Humbrol Enamel 26 Khaki to 29 Dark Earth. This sounds like the original British Great War colour, so it is tempting to speculate whether this was a carry over from the original British tank imports.

Having said that, a colour perhaps even slightly paler and sandier than 26 is conventionally used for models of softskins in WW2 and was also recommended for the recent Pit-Road Vickers-Crossley kit which I thought looked very nice in it, not that that is any guide. Whether those are all the same original colour I have no idea.

Unless you contact a Japanese specialist or can find out better, I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret all this with the use of a dull medium brown as a base colour. I had missed the colorised postcard till after I wrote this, but such things are not reliable. On the other hand, it's consistent!

On the camouflage colours, I have no idea. Zaloga implies they were not standardised anyway, at this early stage, though I may be misreading him. Plus the camera filter and film can potentially completely change the contrast between the colours depending on what was used. IF they were like WW2 then it might be dull green and dark mahogany brown with black separator stripes between the colours, at a guess, but that is up to your interpretation. It's like painting life paintings of dinosaurs - we'll never know for sure ... and weathering and mud will tone it down ... or you could find a monochrome Whippet and just paint it brown!

velotrain · Lieutenant

Thanks, Gwyn.� I just didn't know why you sent the first post - it felt like baiting.

I was mostly curious after having realized that the camo was there.� My greater interest is in the as-shipped tanks, and possibly trying to build a dio of that barge scene.� Even if there's never a plastic Whippet, I have an AA one in reserve.

velotrain · Lieutenant

How are things in Edinburgh?� (presumptive if likely)

Thanks for taking the time to provide so much info.

Regarding the postcard, since it's still in British colors, it does seem to be consistent - with landship brown.

I think it is the black separation lines that I had described as vine-like.� Looking at the sharp Whippet photo I can now see that the tones vary, although perhaps not at every division line.� As there is sun reflection to the lens in all the images showing camo, it is quite difficult to read it�across a wide area.

�

Lothianman · Colonel

I'm inclined to agree about the separation lines being the vine-like ones.

It may simply be that the tones on each side of a division line are different but look the same in that combination of camera filter, film, fading and weathering ... the multicolour camouflage in WW2 is not at all always obvious.