Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

earlier instructions (late 41/early 42) than the period you are talking about do provide latitude to source outside the Army supply chain due to Army's inability to provide paint to units in a timely manner.

Very interesting Mike, I wasn't aware paint outsourcing was ever permitted. However it can only have been in anticipation of potential shortage of the new colours introduced in the instruction, not Khaki Green / Light Stone, both of which had long since entered large volume supply in Australia. The instruction itself is predicated on ample supply of this colour combination, featuring in 5 of the 7 schemes specified, and ordered into new vehicle production. In other words no shortage of Light Stone disruptive was anticipated, and as we saw during the next seven months it was running in rivers through every production plant in Australia, being liberally splashed on every vehicle type imaginable! As you say, a little over the top in hindsight!

Three-Tone
1. Light Stone N. Light Brown P. Khaki Green J.
2. Light Green H. Khaki Green J. Black U.
3. Light Stone N. Light Green H. Khaki Green J.
4. Light Stone N. Khaki Green J. Dark Green M.
5. Light Stone N. Light Brown P. Basalt Red S.*
Two-Tone
6. Light Stone N. Khaki Green J.*
7. Light Brown P. Khaki Green J.*

The colour combination selected should approximate to the colours of the country in which it is expected the vehicle will operate.

-For Australian Coastal areas use Sets No. 2, 3, 4, or 6
-For Australian Central and Northern Areas use Set No.5 or 7
-Set No.1 will merge under almost any circumstances.

[Mrs Vampire]

I take your point Tony ...and yet the vehicles of the 1st and 3rd armoured division were painted disruptive in the field.

Could this mean armor at least was issued in basic green and disruptive applied , as you say, to suit the locality ?

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Tony,

Cannot agree with your assumptions re availability of LS & KG3, and I think the correspondence of the period supports that view.

Instructions are one thing: putting them into practice is a whole other cricket match.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Very true Mike, I'd need to see the correspondence before staking my life on KG/LS availability at unit level. However if it was available in production, which appears to have been the case, then it "should" be available everywhere soon thereafter, notwithstanding Army red tape. Certainly I don't see how any commercial substitute could be had in sufficient quantity any sooner, particularly in remote areas. For example Darwin was already being evacuated of civilians when this instruction was issued, and fully evacuated after Feb '42 bombing.

Anecdotal evidence also indicates LS availability in the field, will dig up some pics shortly.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

I take your point Tony ...and yet the vehicles of the 1st and 3rd armoured division were painted disruptive in the field.

Light Stone was discontinued in July '42 and should not appear on your tank Gina. Disruptive colour after that was Light Earth, but only until November '42 when Vehicle Dark Green / Vehicle Light Grey was introduced. This scheme is seen in the field as early as December '42 including vehicles on exercise in coastal NSW. In other words it "should" have been available when your tank received disruptive paintwork. However as Mike says, it's one thing to issue instructions, quite another thing to implement them.

[Mrs Vampire]

It looks just like the Light Stone on your door Tony . Same Same with Pictures of the Grants from the 2/4th Dec 1942 on their way to Murgon. .

The photos I posted here are what is on it .

[Mrs Vampire]

The Stuart...Khaki Green and Light Stone ...the FGT dark Green ... Amazingly the AWM has two sets...

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/REL...#display-image

Description

Set of seventeen (17) rectangular metal camouflage paint sample plates, each 156 mm x 84 mm. Each plate has a hole punched into the top centre and an aluminium filing pin passes through these to hold the set together. Colours are marked in black stencilling on the reverse as follows : P - light brown, J - khaki green, A - white, D - dark grey, S - basalt red, Q - Darwin stone, F - grey green, L - scrub green, C - salt grey, S - basalt red (gritty), N - light stone, K - foliage green, B - light slate grey, M - dark green, T - dark earth, H - light green, U - night black.

Summary

Range of camouflage colours tested and developed by the Camouflage Wing, Royal Australian Engineers and associated with the camouflage work undertaken by Australian official war artist Frank Hinder. The colours were developed by close observation of the environment in southern and northern Australia and New Guinea. Although adopted as the standard colours for Australian military camouflage, the developers discovered that the majority of colours ended up being almost identical to the range developed by the British. A note attached to a different set of the same colours states: "First issued December 1941; Amended February 1942 ; Revised January 1943".

[Mrs Vampire]

A bit different to British Standard 987C

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

It looks just like the Light Stone on your door Tony . Same Same with Pictures of the Grants from the 2/4th Dec 1942 on their way to Murgon.

Certainly I would agree concerning the Stuart paint Gina. Based on your photos I'm 99.9% certain it's identical to my FGT8 door. The door was factory painted during early-mid '42 whereas it appears your Light Stone was applied in the field circa February '43, but they're exactly the same paint IMO. Light Stone was superceded in July '42 so I'm not sure why it appears on your Stuart, but there are several possible explanations. The point is it's THERE and I agree it should be replicated. The pattern looks fine and will make for a fabulous looking Stuart, almost certainly as it appeared during Qld exercises.

However, when it comes to paintwork it's not possible to draw conclusions from vehicles in other units. For example, 2/4th Stuarts seen at Bribie Island several weeks earlier, which may or may not have received disruptive paint subsequently. Also I believe their Grants seen en route are Khaki Green / Light Earth, freshly painted in late '42 using post September '42 Khaki Green, which was considerably darker than previously, providing additional contrast. Bright sunshine makes Light Earth mimic Light Stone in B&W photos, esp. if freshly painted. I'll dig up some photos in due course to show the difference. Meanwhile here's the Pucka Vickers looking rather different in wartime.

P01022.014 BRIBIE ISLAND, QLD, 1942. 2-4TH ARMOURED REGIMENT IN COMBINED OPERATIONS TRAINING WI.jpg

P01022.039 AUSTRALIA. VICKERS TANK.jpg

1280px-Puckapunyal-Vickers-Light-MkVIA-2.jpg

[Mrs Vampire]

Thanks Tony I look forward to those Photos. I have that picture of the Stuarts on exercise and had a look at a copy down in canberra and couldn't say for certain if they had disruptive or not.

They look all green to me and other photos from the same time seem to confirm that. ...But why the Stuarts would miss out when the Grants did not is a mystery and why in all the photos of the grants heading north to Murgon there are no Stuarts is likewise a mystery.

This AWM shot of the 2/4 tanks entrained at Murgon on the way to the exercise doesn't help.

So where are we at?? The colours are standard but the painting is not??? That seems to be the case so far. Does this fit in with the order that gives latitude for colour selection according to location??

[Mrs Vampire]

Both 2/4 and 13th went to Bribie island.

The train had a derailment on the way this shot shows both the trucks and a Stuart on its side painted disruptive.

Its an AWM shot and says 2/4 but maybe its the 13th. The AWM caption says on the way from Murgon but the 13th war diary says the tanks were driven to Gympie because the rail line was considered to light for Tanks...

Maybe the 2/4 did entrain from Murgon and this it how the 13th new the line was too light . But if this photo is the 2/4 then it is evident at least some of the stuarts? were painted disruptive. The pattern on this one ( on the original photo enlarged) seems remarkably similar to mine.

Clearer than mud...but not much.