Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Tony Wheeler]

You know you've got camo on the brain when you start seeing...

TONY1903 - Copy (Large).jpg

[Keith Webb]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

You know you've got camo on the brain when you start seeing...

Attachment 95249

LOL! Hope that's an approved pattern!

[John Ward]

Sorry if I chime in like this but does anyone know about the order, or just the exact wording, that introduced Vehicle Buff?

One of the documents that Tony Wheeler posted a while ago (see here) makes reference to RAL/DS Circular Mech Veh Camflg., 20 Jan 1942 but I'm unsure if this was definitely the one that issued Vehicle Buff.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by John Ward

does anyone know about the order, or just the exact wording, that introduced Vehicle Buff?

Hi John,

I’m afraid I have no specific information on the colour “Vehicle Buff” or its use in vehicle camouflage, just a few passing references.

We know this colour was developed in response to Light Stone being found too light for Australian conditions, as noted by Dakin himself as early as 18 Dec 1941 in correspondence with RAAF: “Light Stone happened to be the only standard colour to approximate to my desire in the new Camouflage paints….the paint people could easily make up a light stone with just a little brown in it as indicated.”

Two months later on 20 Feb 42 he specifies for RAAF a Light Tone formulation of 50% Light Brown + 50% Light Stone, stating: “This colour can now be obtained already mixed under the name “Buff”.

It’s possible this DHS colour came to be known as “Vehicle Buff” within Army and instructions for its use in the field may have appeared in the document mentioned, ie. RAL/DS Circular Mech Veh Camflg., 20 Jan 1942.

In vehicle production however, particularly armoured workshops, the problem would be to replace the current Light Tone (typically B.S.C. 64 Portland Stone or perhaps B.S.C. 61 Light Stone) with something a shade darker in a readily available standard. One possibility would be B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff, which seems to have been a War Office standard for general service paint. This paint remains on the Australian schedule in mid-43 and is named simply “Buff”, so perhaps it was produced to MGO 101A spec for vehicles in early 42 and named “Vehicle Buff”.

As you can see it’s all highly speculative until further documentation can be shown and the colour confirmed on surviving artifacts.

Cheers,
Tony

RAL-DS Vehice Buff.jpg

bsc318c1931.jpg

MSL Classification of Paints 1943 p.15s.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

...speaking of colours named Buff, good excuse to post this fabulous B.A.L.M. paint chart circa 1936:


BALM colour chart c.1936.jpg

BALM Light Buff c.1936.jpg

[Lang]

For all the instructions, dates, paint names and order numbers I still have not changed my opinion the whole thing was a dog and pony show and nothing more than a complete embuggerance to the people who owned vehicles.

The instruction on buff says to mix green with it (a teaspoon per tin, 50/50, 75/25??) then camouflage the camouflage! Not only that, but this work is only "in the mean time" until the clowns come up with a new scheme to camouflage the camouflage that is camouflaging the camouflage. I am sure the boys had better things to do with their time such as the 1942 equivalent of watching "Days of Our Lives" - listening to "Blue Hills" on the radio.

Lang

[John Ward]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Hi John,

I’m afraid I have no specific information on the colour “Vehicle Buff” or its use in vehicle camouflage, just a few passing references.

We know this colour was developed in response to Light Stone being found too light for Australian conditions, as noted by Dakin himself as early as 18 Dec 1941 in correspondence with RAAF: “Light Stone happened to be the only standard colour to approximate to my desire in the new Camouflage paints….the paint people could easily make up a light stone with just a little brown in it as indicated.”

Two months later on 20 Feb 42 he specifies for RAAF a Light Tone formulation of 50% Light Brown + 50% Light Stone, stating: “This colour can now be obtained already mixed under the name “Buff”.

It’s possible this DHS colour came to be known as “Vehicle Buff” within Army and instructions for its use in the field may have appeared in the document mentioned, ie. RAL/DS Circular Mech Veh Camflg., 20 Jan 1942.

In vehicle production however, particularly armoured workshops, the problem would be to replace the current Light Tone (typically B.S.C. 64 Portland Stone or perhaps B.S.C. 61 Light Stone) with something a shade darker in a readily available standard. One possibility would be B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff, which seems to have been a War Office standard for general service paint. This paint remains on the Australian schedule in mid-43 and is named simply “Buff”, so perhaps it was produced to MGO 101A spec for vehicles in early 42 and named “Vehicle Buff”.

As you can see it’s all highly speculative until further documentation can be shown and the colour confirmed on surviving artifacts.

Cheers,
Tony

Thanks Tony, very interesting!

Regarding your other post (#473), I've noticed how it says that
"Paint Khaki Green (non gas-resisting) in lieu of Paint Khaki Green Standard Colour (gas resisting) J"
was issued.

Does that mean there was a shortage of gas-resisting KGJ paint in ~Jan 1943?
Because if I remember correctly, gas-resisting KGJ was already issued in MC319 Jul 1942 (before that it was still non gas-resisting, i.e. MC301 Jan 1942).

In other words, does that mean usage of gas-resisting paint pretty much evolved like this:
KG3 gr. (MBI 94) => KG3 gr. or KGJ ngr. (MC301) => KGJ gr. (MC319) => KGJ ngr. (your #473) => 'Vehicle' colours gr. => KG3 gr. (late 1943)

Well, or maybe I'm just reading too much into this.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by John Ward

Does that mean there was a shortage of gas-resisting KGJ paint in ~Jan 1943?
Because if I remember correctly, gas-resisting KGJ was already issued in MC319 Jul 1942 (before that it was still non gas-resisting, i.e. MC301 Jan 1942).

John, your question suggests you may have misconstrued Army paint vocab which changed in 1942 when DHS paints including KG-J were introduced. Prior to 1942 there was only ONE paint approved for use in Australia, that being Khaki Green No.3 which was gas resistant under military specification M.G.O./AUST. 101A. During 1942 however, the introduction of DHS Camouflage Paints produced under S.A.A. Emergency specifications (E) K 506-508, which made no provision for gas resisting paint, gave rise to the need when ordering paint in the field to specify two things:

1. Paint Colour required (A.S.C. letter code).
2. Paint Type required (gas resisting / non gas resisting).

Obviously the term “Khaki Green No.3” does not enter into this equation. It is denoted by Paint Colour: A.S.C. “J” and Paint Type: “gas resisting”. Hence the language used in MC319:

The basic colour of vehicles for use in Australia is Khaki Green A.S.C. “J”, gas resisting, and the disruptive colour is to be Light Earth A.S.C. “W”.

Subsequently in 1943 when DHS Camouflage Paints were replaced by Army Camouflage Paints (“Vehicle” colours) the paint vocab reverted to pre-42 usage: “Khaki Green No.3”.

75 years later, as restorers and modellers, we need concern ourselves only with “Khaki Green No.3” because THAT was Australian Army Service Colour from 1940 to 1949, and THAT was the high tech gas resisting alkyd enamel paint, and THAT was the paint used in vehicle production. The term “Khaki Green J” refers to DHS Camouflage Paint, which was cheap and nasty Flat Oil Paint produced to lowest cost under Emergency specifications which even Dakin himself declared useless:

Copies of the original Australian paint specifications are appended. They proved almost useless in practice. A revision of the Flat Oil Paint specification made in February 1943 should indicate the difficulties of achieving satisfactory results under the first specifications.

It should always be remembered that DHS Paints were NOT automotive paints and were NEVER intended for use on vehicles. I’ve attached some documents to help illustrate this point. Also a photo of Matt Austin’s K5 Inter showing 75 year old KG3 paint colour revived with nothing but a wet rag, demonstrating the remarkable durability of ARMY SPEC paint in stark contrast to the abject failure of DHS SPEC paint such as KG-J.

It’s a great shame Gina tried to promote “Khaki J” in this thread and spread so much disinformation for 3 years. I’m hoping we can get beyond that and start exploring Army Standard Colours which have been neglected for so long.

Berger Camouflage Paints 1941.jpg

DHS Camouflage Paints..jpg

Dakin report 1945 - Paint Specialist Summary..jpg

Australian Army Standard Camouflage Paints for Vehicles..jpg

K5 Inter Matt Austin (Small).jpg

[Mike K]

Are there any references for this paint ?

It is a dirty muddy brown colour . It is Australian manufacture.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

It’s a great shame Gina tried to promote “Khaki J” in this thread and spread so much disinformation for 3 years. I’m hoping we can get beyond that and start exploring Army Standard Colours which have been neglected for so long

I'm trying to follow this thread, and I think the joint research being conducted and published here on MLU has helped many of us along in our understanding of what paint types and colours were used where and when. It seems to be an extremely difficult subject for modellers and even more so for restorers, including those who work at/for respected museums. People like Mike Starmer have turned camouflage paint research into a life work.

Therefore I think it is improper to state it is a "great shame" that Gina Wilson "spread so much disinformation". I think Gina, like most of us, is in a learning process in which she invested heavily, and was(!) willing to share with all of us. In research there is no right or wrong - only right and something learned.

That said, please proceed with this most interesting subject!

Hanno

[Phil Waterman]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

You know you've got camo on the brain when you start seeing...

Attachment 95249

Hi Tony

Your brain is pretty sharp, I've wondered if it was possible to match colors from nature in those B&W war time photos by matching to trees and other natural objects in the background.

Cheers Phil

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Phil Waterman

I've wondered if it was possible to match colors from nature in those B&W war time photos by matching to trees and other natural objects in the background.

Phil, I put your idea to the test with some photoshop work. Results are pretty conclusive I reckon, Vehicle Light Grey on both these gun tractors. This colour makes sense for South Eastern Australia where grey gums feature prominently in the landscape, particularly along the roadside where vehicles could take advantage of the cover they provide during stops. Presumably that was Young’s thinking when he developed this colour for NSW.


TONY1898a (Large) mono.jpg

TONY1755a (Large) mono.jpg

TONY1753 (Medium).JPG

TONY1896 (Medium).JPG

TONY1902c (Medium).jpg

[Lang]

Tony

Your photos show that the Australian bush is basically grey and that was a good choice in the mix for that area.

They got it right with the Vietnam era plain olive drab. This is well over into the grey side from green. Absolutely outstanding camouflage for Australian conditions.

Lang

[Lang]

Even 70 years later they still can't get it right.

Disruptive patches on vehicles but half the total vehicle surface area of canvas has computer generated digital pattern. If CSIRO were so good it must be one or the other (or something else) for the optimal design.

Camouflage can never be anything but totally subjective as a result of human observation so it is always about opinion.

[Tony Wheeler]

Lang, what are your thoughts on the 1980's camo scheme adopted in Australia? Does this scheme have a particular name? Steve Taubert writes: “It was during the 1980’s that the Army again introduced vehicle camouflage, inititally on a trial basis on vehicles in Townsville, North Queensland. After consultation with CSIRO a new camouflage pattern was introduced not only for vehicles but uniforms as well.”

It looks quite effective in terrain where bare earth features prominently. Interestingly this 1980’s scheme trialled in North Queensland is virtually identical to First Aust Army scheme developed in Queensland 1942. This scheme was initiated by Major Cann GSO III (Cam) on 14 July 42 as a variation of Mech Circ 301 Set 2 ( Light Green H / Khaki Green J / Night Black U ): “Propose adopting colour combination 2 substituting Light Earth for Light Green as latter tends to fade.”

The new scheme was adopted 31 August 42 and paint was ordered the following day, but supply was delayed due to unsuitable DHS paint spec, which by now had proven worthless for vehicle application, and was subsequently withheld pending development of Army standard colours and paint specs.

Meanwhile in NSW the highly resourceful Major Young developed his own vehicle paint specs directly with B.A.L.M. Chief Chemist in Sydney, completely bypassing NSW Paints Control committee, which he dismissed with some contempt:

“A Paint Manufacturers Committee operates in Sydney but specifications are prepared by Standards Association. The underlying object of all these Committees appears to be to have adopted the specification or type of material which suits the members best.”

So Young got his vehicle spec paint from long time Army supplier B.A.L.M., and come November his scheme was adopted by 2 Aust Corps and is seen on their carriers in Sydney “Miles of Munitions” parade 12 Dec 42. Queensland however were not convinced, particularly Brig. Mann, Chief Engineer First Aust Army and later NG Force, who took an active interest in vehicle camouflage but unlike Dakin and Young was not sold on disruptive theory:

“It is considered that better concealment will be obtained by painting vehs to match possible backgrounds rather than by painting in a disruptive pattern. Disruption is all right in theory but does not work out in practice.”

Mann rejected the proposed Army standard camo scheme in favour of single colour Khaki Green, but was outvoted 9 to 2 in Jan 43 survey of all Commands, the other dissenter being WA L. of C. Area. This vote paved the way for adoption of SM4809 in March 43 stipulating 3 camouflage colours only, which by Oct 43 was further reduced to 2 colours only, and subsequently abandoned completely. Then 40 years later we see Major Cann's scheme reintroduced!


Landrover camo 1.jpg

Landrover camo 2.jpg

First Army Scheme Pattern Charts (Large).jpg

G(o)376 First Army scheme (Large).jpg

First Aust Army paint order delayed withheld (Large).jpg

[Lang]

Tony

A couple of interesting things in your post.

Way back at the beginning of this thread there was discussion about the camouflage committee. I think I annoyed some people by commenting how it was made up of the manufacturers whose interest was forming a supply cartel, upping prices and controlling the paint game. The government supply people went along with it and the army said they did not care so long as the paint came from "somewhere".!

Young's thoughts are exactly on my wave length.

I also related how I was involved in selecting the new camouflage scheme for the army, flying observer groups around in circles for a couple of weeks near Oakey. We looked at APC's painted in 6 or 7 , possibly more, different colour schemes from all directions and light conditions. As I said, the Vietnam era plain green won hands down in nearly all circumstances but they had an agenda!

At that stage there was a feeling that camouflage of uniforms and vehicles looked more marshal and warlike, even giving the illusion troops dressed like that appeared as "elite" forces. Not entirely, but in part, the whole camouflage business was driven by fashion.

The new colours have a name but I can't recall it - Austcam? As your photos show and I commented, there is still no standard pattern with a mix of computer generated and colour patch designs (although the colours seem to be of a limited variety)

The great god CSIRO is not infallible and particularly on tasks requiring subjective opinion possibly less than perfect. Just like Dakin they are made up from scientists most of whom do not have a practical bone in their body or any experience of actually using their product in the field. They are a great organisation but I think they could have been equaled or bettered by a group actually experienced in the subject. How come of the 190 armies in the world not two of them have the same camouflage schemes!


Lang