Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Mike Cecil]

so who is 'he'?

Mike

[Mrs Vampire]

I have had a chance to do some close inspection on Stuart M3 Hybrid .

I had thought the Vehicle was , on first brush< from the NT force but on closer inspection I see it is third Armoured.

It is clearly painted Khaki Green J and Light Brown P.

Given that the colours on my tank could be interpreted either way but seem more brownish than yellow I not think my earlier certainty on Light Stone was mistaken.

The colours on this Hybrids rear doors are very very well preserved.

I Know the vehicle was made in Feb of 1942 and think it was delivered in time for the exercises out near Narabri or very shortly after.

I have been able to see the remnants of the formation sign but have not yet found evidence of the unit number but suppose it would be the 13th .

I will do some test panels and compare the contrast . I am now firmly on the side of KGJ and LBP for third armoured.

The evidence is also that the lower parts of the vehicle were either not repainted from the imported colour od Bronze green or the paint that was on them has washed off...again the paint is very clear and in good condition

[John Ward]

Do we know what ASC Grey G or Vehicle Grey looked like?
Mike Kelly already posted this above but there's an order in "12 Aust Div GS Branch NT Force" (p.99, Oct 1942) with three different mixtures for Grey (although it doesn't explicitly state that the colour is Grey G) and another one "14 Adelaide River Line of Communication Sub Area" (p.14, Dec 1943, following SM 4803 from Mar 1943) calling for Grey (Vehicle Grey in the charts attached).

So are they (Veh Grey & Grey G) even the same and if not, does that mean there was five greys?

[Mrs Vampire]

The Grey for the NT force was meant to be the standard colour chart grey however a recommendation that it might be mixed from a combination of standard colours was made in NT force orders.

The standard colours and various mixes will be included in the book

[Mrs Vampire]

Just opening the discussion again in respect of discussions I have had with Tony and after having read Stephen Tabouts attempt on Vehicle markings.

I remain unconvinced that a scheme that incorporated vehicle Greens or Vehicle Grey was ever used.

I have reread the files concerning this especially 32172419 which discusses it at length and even appears to promulgate orders that specify such a scheme.

There are several difficulties here. The special order for a scheme for NSW , the debate that was ongoing and inconclusive among the various commands through out 1943, especially the objections of Qld questioning its usefulness the expenditure of labor, and other resources and the general push for each different command to have their own scheme.

There are also issues with that file flying in the face of very very definite instructions and orders in relation to the application of camouflage. Two that stand out is the requirement to adhere tightly to the laid down pattern. Camouflage instructions of the time make it clear that having uniform camouflage patterns in fact makes vehicles easier to spot not harder. The eye will train itself to see repetitive patterns in a landscape so the more chaotic the pattern the more difficult it is to see. The second issue is the idea of diffuse edges. All camouflage instructions insist on definite edges even outlining them with a brush so there is a sharp definition between tones. This is a primary rule of camouflage and can be seen in most armies of the world at the time . ( save those who had opted for single tone camo .)

The earlier referred to file AWM52 1/8/46/13 has a scheme for The Adelaide river area and specifies a scheme of Vehicle dark green vehicle medium green and vehicle grey.

There are a couple of difficulties with taking this as an absolute proof that such a scheme was ever used.

The first is that it was promulgated on the 8th December , within weeks of the Master General of Ordnance declaring that all disruptive schemes will be discontinued forthwith and KG3 will be applied to all vehicles irrespective.

Daikin confirms this in his history of Camouflage noting that after observing exercises of the US Army, who used only olive drab , that it was as effective as disruptive especially after the vehicles had been "muddied" up.

The Second it the selection of colours . The question here is why would three new colours be needed , a dark green a lighter green and a grey given all of those colours could be found on the existing colour chart.



I am also disappointed with Stephens treaties in that he has attempted to recreate the documents from archival sources rather than simply post images of the originals. It leaves one pondering just what has been included and what has been omitted for convenience sake or because of its relevance in the judgement of the author. The lack of attribution of sources in the Biblio or foot notes means it is impossible to go to source documents to verify the information.
I have managed to find a few and the difference between Stephens recreation and the original is enough to make more detailed observations from the originals

The schemes for vehicles seem fanciful, though I am told they were taken from an archival source I have been unable to locate it . It appears they are recreations of a Pamphlet issued in 1946 "painting of Army Vehicles" I havnt see the pamphlet so what relevance it might have to 1942/43 is unknown.

I remain unconvinced that the three toned scheme Green D Green L and V grey was ever used. If it was I would also need to be convinced that standard colour chart tones were not used. It makes no sense to me that new colours would need to be invented given the range of colours available and that those in the files proposing the changes had the resources to properly formulate colours and provide the requisite samples to the Standards association...

Finally the issuance of the schemes and the paint colours needed the final approval of the Master General of Ordnance . I cannot find any order to effect such a change from that office. The Camouflage bulletins refer to all the changes so far as I know and there is no reference there.

B&W Photographs available of three toned schemes are not all that helpful as the 1942 order specified five three tone schemes most of which would be indistinguishable from dark green , medium green and grey , Indeed I have had a couple of correspondents who have insisted schemes are three tone from very indifferent photographs whose history and location are unknown and shadowing and mud could constitute the third tone of a two tone scheme .

In the end the artifact is the ultimate arbiter providing care has been taken to maintain remnant camouflage schemes. Failing that a photograph and adherence to schemes that have definite and proven unit provenance.

If anyone has links or can provide references to Vehicle Drawings outside of those I have already posted or references to Standards to paint colours beyond those contained in the Emergency Standard Jan 1943 I would be grateful .

[Lang]

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion on WW1 colours.

The 1906 US War Department Circular 66 specified the use of Olive Drab for army wagons and indicated that this color could be mixed using 6 pounds White Lead in Linseed Oil, 1 pound Raw Umber pigment, 1 pint Turpentine, and ½ pint Japan Drier. Surviving samples show it to be lighter that World War II Olive Drab. This color remained standard through World War I, and was authorized in the annual editions of the “Manual for Quartermaster Corps, United States Army” through 1917.

None of this sounds colour perfect match material or long lasting.

Without spectrographs in the production phase the WW2 colour search is also like chasing a shadow and any talk of colour can only be about code numbers. There are still possibly tens of thousands of old military vehicles with unblemished paint samples on them (under seats, beneath brackets, inside gloveboxes, unopened parts boxes etc) and we have endless discussions about what the actual colours were. Colour names 100% identified, colour schemes 100% identified (maybe not looking at Gina's post above), colour codes 100% identified, colour furmulas 100% identified - actual colours ???

They were eye matched in vast quantities by different manufacturers with different sources of supply of the same materials but of slightly different chemical properties. Even in black and white photos you can see vehicles are different shades. Some parts were dipped, some were sprayed (at different pressures and solvent mixes) some were brushed. You can get numerous shades using these different methods from the same can of stable modern paint in your shed let alone manufacturers continents apart in different temperatures using different brands in 1942.

Anything applied in workshops or the field post manufacture, forget it as any sort of bench mark.

The search for truth on this thread is really fascinating from an historical point of view and lots of people have worked very hard to provide answers.

Many people on the forum have said it before but it comes down to "There never was a large military fleet with a colour so uniform it would stand up to modern spectrographic matching and the best you can do is to find the colour that appeals to you in the "correct" range"

Unless we all choose to go with one of the many paint sellers who claim their product is "accurate WW2" (but different from the other "accurate WW2" sellers) we will continue to see vehicles at shows in a wide range of shades - exactly as it would have been in WW2.

Lang

[Mrs Vampire]

The issue of eye matching and local purchase has been covered previously ..put simply if it happened at all it was exceptional,
Despite notions that things were complete chaos in 1942 the Army had an effective supply chain and ordinary paint was very hard to get on account of strict rationing...the only paint available to units would be to scale and to approved colours....

There are not so many vehicles with recoverable external paint. I have looked at quite a few and finding parts of vehicles and using complicated recognition methods I have yet to find one with paint that is not one of the official colours. I also note paint under a seat or chassis rail is not indicative of the external camouflage finish it shows the factory finish which varied over time for instance the factories were still painting KGJ in 1944 when the colour was KG3 and most of the spared were the earlier colour...overpainting in Army workshops prior to issue was the rule. There were huge ordnance workshops in all states.

Here is an example and one that will never be sandblasted out of existence .

Btw earlier in the thread there is a link to a Passing out Parade at Parkes NSW showing a remarkabl;e uniformity of colour if a somewhat interesting pattern ,,, as it should be

[Mike K]

I recall opening parts wrapped in the waxy preservative material back in the 1970's . At the time, Auto Surplus had many WW2 era US vehicle parts, unopened and sealed .

As far as WW2 US olive drab goes , going by the parts I opened up, there was not a standard OD that each manufacturer adhered to, I found at least 4 very different greens on different parts. The trico vacuum wiper motors ( 10 bucks a pair in the sealed box ) and the arms , some were a glossy dark green, the blades a different green again. The US blackout driving inserts from Camberwell , completely sealed in the wax , 50 cents each, again at least 3 very different greens , some light and olivey, some were a green with a slight blueish hue.

I think Lang's thoughts are pretty much on the mark. Turps as a solvent for starters , a can of worms is opened.

I recall rubbing down the 41 slat grill Jeep, must have been 6 coats of army green , each green a different shade .

My father was a automotive spray painter for over 40 years, I used to get him to match the matt OD Blackout inserts , he said it's a nightmare job to do using the modern formula paints. Its all a compromise and we have to accept that .