Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Mrs Vampire]

Good Questions Darryl

For me no simple answer. Depending where the vehicles were made, when they went into service and where they served it seems.

The Stuarts were painted by the Australian Army when they went through the modification program in Melbourne. Physical evidence and the photos say they were painted disruptive in the field. My Stuart by brush . Not all Stuarts were were issued some remained in their export colours and went directly into storage.

I feel quite confident the Stuarts...all of them except maybe the first shipment were, on arrival in Australia, painted British green in accordance with the lend lease contract . ( Ill modify that to say all of the M3s ex us army that arrived prior to around feb 1942 appear to have arrived US Lusterless olive drab and had W numbers as well as T numbers)

I exclude the first shipments because they were used Stuarts.. each had miles on the clock and different equipment on board. I am unsure but think one of two possibilities....they were an emergency cargo of tanks taken from American units and shipped to us...or they were used tanks surplussed as obsolete by the US and shipped to the Dutch and landed in Australia as a refugee cargo .... those I suppose were painted Lusterless Olive Drab on arrival and then 1942 green when they were modified which the archives show they certainly were.

I have photos of Gun Tractors made in Australia that are painted disruptive at the factory and likewise with Carriers. It would seem logical the Dept of Supply would have far greater control of the colours and schemes on vehicles manufactured in Australia and that they were appropriately camouflaged before issuing to units. Thats not to say the units didn't dabble or that orders did not subsequently direct changes.

Working out colours from B&W photos is fraught. The only real factual evidence has to come from the artifact at hand. (why Tonys door is such a treasure....ever think of clear coating it and displaying your vehicle that way Tony ???)

Patient research using the tips and tricks here ...and whatever else the brains trust gives us will make the case for individual vehicles.

From my point of view the more I look into it the more uncertain and diverse the answer. The Stuarts from Buna to The battle of bald Hill to Murgon to Maroochydore to disposal show a wide range of patterns and unknown colours on the Stuarts. The Grants are worse The deployments to WA and use into the fifties reveal and even greater diversity of patterns and colours.

One semi constant though is the paint colours. I agree with Tony's contention that they were standard. I hear Mikes knowledge that Local procurement was allowed but I cant find evidence of that being a wide scale thing.

I am aware that Camouflage of civilian installations, vehicles, and so on was handled very differently to the Military. The Military refused to be directed by the Camouflage Committee where Civilians were required to follow their directions.

The Military had their own people and their own ideas. Units were instructed to adapt the camouflage to suit the local environment and the Army had specialised units to help with this.

Localised purchase by the military for the application of disruptive colours doesn't make sense because of their remote locations at the time of application. For instance where would the 1st Armoured Div find enough paint to splash on their approximately 600 armoured vehicles ( 2/5.6/7/8/9/&10 ) plus the 2/11 armoured cars then the 17 motor regiment , the anti tank regiment and the field artillery regiment, when they undertook the exercises around the Battle of Bald Hill way out at Wee Waa ??? ( and the photos of that exercise show quite unusual schemes) ( as an aside I think this might be the largest exercise of armoured vehicles in Australian history...still looking at the records)

It only makes sense that the Army supply chain could manage this and I think from the artifacts I have seen the evidence supports that.

What records I have read indicate paint chips were regularly looked at and approved. Standards Australia and the likes of BALM paints involved along with other large manufacturers.

I think the units would use what they were sent and what they were sent was a standardised product from the paint factories. How they decided to splash it onto the vehicles, I suspect, depended on who was the boss and who was doing the splashing.
For a restorer of an artifact with remnant paint diligent pre-restoration inquiry may reveal the pattern of camouflage and give indications of colour. For a restored who has none of that then an accurate colour palate and selection from photographic record of a representative vehicle is the other option.

The Color palate used at the time is key and , I think, is a matter of finding an accurate mix that replicates extant paint chip-sets and is confirmed by comparison to artifacts.

Tony's quest to establish a reliable repeatable mix would resolve the mater of colour for us all. Your efforts to establish colour and pattern from remnants on your vehicle is an important part of that process.

Mike setting a chip in resin is a great idea ( I have the resin and the microscope) ...getting a chip big enough from the Stuart is the problem for me...any clues???

[Keith Webb]

Once the paint colours have been established and are repeatable the next question is what type of paint are people considering using?

A common cheap paint seems to be a spraying enamel. When a flattening agent is added to this it very quickly goes chalky and looks terrible.

WW2 paints were of different types, a common one being lead based enamel which I think discolours more slowly than modern spraying enamel.

For paint application the gun tractor pics you're referring to Gina were sprayed with the disruptive pattern while in-field efforts were often with a brush and rough as guts as you've seen on your Stuart.

[Mrs Vampire]

I agree keith all of the vehicles I have seen ex factory are sprayed as were those ex the large Army overhaul units.

So far as type of paint I am unhappy with two pack because it is difficult to touch up and because it traps moisture in lap joints etc... Never liked it for restoration.

Acrylic ( Nitrocellulose replacement ) is too easily damaged, I like it for aeroplanes ( along with Butyl Nitrate) but not Military vehicles.

I recently used some Coulthard's Aklyd and it was the best enamel I have used. A little hardener I hope will resolve the chalky scraping problem...but I want a bit of that anyway. I want my vehicles to look used. .

If the paint is easy to apply a touch up every ten years or so shouldn't be a problem for me. ( I will be long gone by touch up number two, )

[Big D]

Gina – it certainly has got me thinking.

I’ve been playing around with this some more with 600 grit wet and dry. I didn’t have anything finer here so thought I would try that.

These photos were taken of the surface I’ve been working on, with the surface wet. I’ve taken some close-up photos as well and apologies; some aren’t that great. The armour feels reasonably smooth but the paint itself (all coats) strikes me as really thin.

The two areas I am examining are on the panel between the rear wheel and the commander’s door. According to every period scout car photo I’ve seen the two areas should show the contrast in the disruptive pattern. That is, one spot should be the khaki green, the other the light earth/light stone.

To add to my confusion however, I am seeing this reddish brown paint in both areas. I would describe as almost being clay-like in colour.

It doesn’t look like a primer to my untrained eye but I could be wrong. There are some spots where you can clearly see the darker green (post war?) so I am wondering if a lot of that was stripped back at some stage judging by the pieces that are left. That might explain why the paint appears very thin.

You can also see some darker areas again which are the rust spots.

I will persevere with this and I probably need to continue over a wider area to see if I can identify the places in the disruptive pattern (if there is one there) where the different colours meet.

At this stage I have a few theories:

* The reddish brown paint I am seeing is the original primer (bugger!)
* The reddish brown paint I am seeing is the light earth (Could it be? It doesn’t look like the light stone to me) and the vehicle was painted with that colour first and then the khaki green went over the top
* I have completely got the pattern wrong from photos and will need to sample another area

[Big D]

More photos:

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Big D

There are some spots where you can clearly see the darker green (post war?) so I am wondering if a lot of that was stripped back at some stage judging by the pieces that are left.

That's my conclusion too Darryl. The impression I get from your photos is a panel which has been stripped back to bare metal using paint stripper, with stubborn areas attacked with a paint scraper leaving the odd fragment here and there. I suspect these fragments are the only original paint we're seeing, and if you work very carefully on them you may find other paint layers underneath, including primer.

Having been stripped back to bare metal it appears to have been repainted without primer, causing extensive rust formation due to extremely thin coat of porous matt paint. I agree the reddish colour does not look like primer, and it's also contiguous with the darker rust patches. Rust forms a variety of compounds in a range of colours depending on oxygen concentration and the presence of other elements, including chemicals in paint stripper if not washed off immediately and thoroughly. I think rust is a more likely interpretation of this colour than red primer, and the proof will be change in colour now that it's fully exposed to air and moisture.

At some later stage the vehicle appears to have undergone a second repaint consisting of grey primer followed by olive drab of some kind.

If the vehicle has indeed been stripped back to bare metal as I suspect, then the key to identifying original paintwork lies entirely in the tiny surviving fragments. That's where I'd start looking myself, and provided there are enough of them sufficiently dispersed it should be possible to confirm camo if present. I'd also give serious thought to Mike's suggested technique in this case, as it requires only the tiniest fragment to provide full paint history. The difficulty of course will be chipping it off the granular armour plate surface, which I expect would provide far greater adhesion than sheet metal. It may be worth trying to soften with paint stripper first, allowing it plenty time to penetrate. Whatever technique is employed it's clear that a forensic approach is required here.

IMG_8981 - Copy.jpg

P1050665 - Copy.jpg

P1050668 - Copy.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Once the paint colours have been established and are repeatable the next question is what type of paint are people considering using?

A common cheap paint seems to be a spraying enamel. When a flattening agent is added to this it very quickly goes chalky and looks terrible.

I suspect that's probably the first question Keith, as we need to specify the paint type at the time of colour matching.

Tony Baker provides much valuable information and advice concerning paint types on page 1 of this thread. I've since dealt with a few paint suppliers and each one has strongly recommended acrylic paint for matt applications. The reason they give is the far lower percentage of flattener required to achieve full matt finish. Flattener is bad stuff in any paint and the less used the better, as it results in loss of durability. Tony explains this well on page 1. In Tony's case he opted for low sheen or lustreless finish, whereas for camo vehicles I believe full matt finish is essential, which would require even more flattener, causing further loss of durability. This can be offset to some extent by the use of hardener, which Tony strongly recommends for all enamel applications, but given the inordinate amount of flattener required to produce full matt finish with enamel paint I'm worried about opacity problems, ie. the chalky appearance you mention Keith. Therefore I suspect acrylic is probably the way to go for our purposes. Enamel is cheaper but it's false economy if it requires regular repainting.

Any thoughts on the subject would be most welcome. I used some full matt acrylic myself last year and I'm 100% happy with the result. Plenty of colour depth and a year out in the weather hasn't changed that in the slightest. It's also extremely hard, unlike the chalky enamel repaint on the vehicle! Another consideration may be user friendliness, and everyone tells me acrylic wins hands down in this respect, including Tony on page 1. It so happens I've never used anything BUT acrylic on vehicles, which is probably just as well for an amateur like me! I used two-pack on a plywood boat once and it's certainly marvellous stuff, but definitely not suited to MV resto work IMO. Anyway it's probably impossible to flatten, judging by Tony's experiments with two-pack initially.

[Mrs Vampire]

And then the question will be who is going to get the colours right?

A first go by me . Getting paint matched to artifacts or chips its all the same .

Three hero sized chips from paint supplied to match samples provided.

The first is industrial enamel matched by the supplier of paints to the smash repair folks around Bankstown. The eye matcher has a reputation for being one of the best. MY score...within a bulls roar...if you can hear the bull from the next village. The paint is industrial enamel 10% gloss (dead flat) covers grey primer in two coats by brush ..application ...moderate.

The second is White Knight matched using their computer gadget at Bunnings... The match can't be detected when dry paint as a small swipe applied to the artifact.(that is its just about perfect) It is semigloss so 60% gloss but I can get flattening agent to dull that down. The White Knight paint is horrible...takes three coats to cover grey primer lots of brush strokes stay evident and difficult to apply .Bunnings give you the formula it is repeatable.

The final one is the Coultards Alkyd paint from the seventies...just to try it out. Application is easy covers in one coat and leaves little by way of brush strokes.

The colour is going to differ depending on the kind of paint used , acrylic, two pack ,enamel oil based, enamel Alkyd...amount of flatting. They were painted with an early version of Alkyd enamel during the war and look to be dead flat. (10% or so) as noted earlier the pigments are different so they will look different in different lights. I found the less ambient light the more they looked the same until in the absence of any light they looked identical.!!! true.

I may be in the process of abandoning my quest for perfection....

I to match original Australian oil filter bracket off CMP late 1942/43 green . 2 of NOS CMP door hinge early 1942 green.

3 is Coultards 1970s Khaki as applied to Ackos.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Very interesting thread indeed!

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

I suspect that's probably the first question Keith, as we need to specify the paint type at the time of colour matching.

[snip]

Any thoughts on the subject would be most welcome.

I have been trying to get useful information from other restorers, but most of the replies I got imply that most don't know what type of paint they use. Many of them just buy the colour they need - most often OD - off the shelf from many of the dealers stocking just as many brands and types of paint.

The problem today seems that car paint suppliers these days focus on high-gloss paint, which needs to be applied in professional spray booths and need to dry quickly.

A better source seems to be the industrial equipment industry, although they seem to use 2-pack paint predominantly, which is very hard wearing but less easy to apply by the hobbyist.

For now I have decided to go for an alkyd-based paint, as this seems to give the best result between durability and easy of application by brush & roller.

Anyone care to comment on this?

Hanno

[Mrs Vampire]

Hanno

I am looking at Alkyd too. It is a current Australian Army preference and truck I have seen with original coats from the seventies seem to endure very well.

Likewise found it easy to use apply and so on.

[Lynn Eades]

Gina, does it work if i want to apply touch up coats, or paint bolt heads after assembly, or to add another colour on top in the case of a camo scheme?

[Mrs Vampire]

Lynn ...yes it is easily touch up able and can be painted over. painting over old coats only needs prep wash to arrive at good adhesion.

Brushing on a bit here and there over sprayed coats are nearly undetectable.

The military enamels used in Australia have to be able to be used in the field with primitive equipment by untrained troops. That is about the same as the requirement during WWII.