Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Lang]

Here is the British version.

Truck with gas indicator plate on the way to Normandy and motorcycle tank with original markings with gas indicator paint.

Clear photo of the gas plate on a British truck and a restored CMP with the gas indicator patch.

[Mike Cecil]

Note the way the camouflage paints on the Matador at MEE Monegeeta vary with the light intensity - the disruptive colour across the front is much 'whiter' than the sides, yet it is the same colour (whatever that may be). Same with the wheels - front to back are both the same colour, but look different in this image.

This simply reinforces what has been said previously in this thread: that trying to interpret camouflage colours from a monochrome image is just about impossible. There are too many variables in terms of light/shade and how the image was processed.

And if we could see the last figure of the Embarkation/Unit serial number on the windscreen of the truck on its way to Normandy, we would know exactly which unit it belonged to ...'2239X' - there are nine choices (22391 to 22399 - 22390 was not issued)

Mike

[simon king]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

And if we could see the last figure of the Embarkation/Unit serial number on the windscreen of the truck on its way to Normandy, we would know exactly which unit it belonged to ...'2239X' - there are nine choices (22391 to 22399 - 22390 was not issued)

Shame it isn’t a colour photo as the colour of the three bars painted below the POM number are determined by the last two digits of the unit number.

[Mike Cecil]

Yes, Simon, I agree: a colour image would answer the question. The way to determine the last digit is the colour of the middle bar. In this case, the top and bottom bars are white, representing '9'. But I'm not going to hazard a guess as to the middle bar colour from a monochrome image, except to say it is not white, so the USN is therefore not '22399' (321st Troop Carrying Company). Now we have eight choices. The bottom edge of the last digit seems to be wider than a single vertical/near vertical stroke, so that probably eliminates '1', '4' and '7', leaving 2,3,5,6 or 8 as the possibilities - five choices.

What does 'POM' stand for, please? I've only ever known the number as the USN - Unit Serial Number or 'Serial Number'.

Most Allied countries (including the US in the European and Med. areas of operation) used essentially the same USN system - only the Canadians went their own way.

Lang: is this part of a larger image with the last number visible, please?

Mike

[simon king]

Preparation for Overseas Movement -effectively the same as the individual unit code number. US and Commonwealth Unit COs received the same order to mark vehicles in the run up to D-Day.

What I’m not sure though is whether the orders included the same number/colour combinations for US and Commonwealth units. The US colours seem to differ from the acknowledged Commonwealth combinations used from BEF days onwards, yet I think the order was addressed to all Allied Commanding Officers from SHAEF, suggesting that there was a commonality in the combinations.

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Simon,

Thank you: had not heard the term before. The US system had colour differences (see bolding below), and there was some minor overlap with the 5-digit number codes (mostly with Brit units assigned to other theatres of operation, so there was no possibility of number conflict anyway).

The number/colours were:
Number....... US....... Brit/Commonwealth
1...... Buff...... Red
2...... OD ......... Blue
3...... Yellow.......... Yellow
4...... Light Green......... Light Green
5 ...... Grey......... Grey
6...... Blue......... Buff
7...... Maroon.......... Red Oxide of Iron
8...... Red........ Service Colour (ie KG3)
9 ....... White........ White
0....... Dark Brown....... Dark Brown

I seem to remember the US Army had been using the system since at least Op Torch, and most probably soon after US units started arriving in England, but I'd have to locate the article in Army Motors to confirm that.

Aust and NZ were issued the USNs in blocks by the War Office from the beginning of the war. The Canadians had their own system of USNs not related to the War Office numbering system. Australia was still using the same system well into the 1960s.

Maybe we should begin a new thread on this, rather than hijacking Jane/Tony's/Lang's colourful cammo discussion?

Mike

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Yes, Simon, I agree: a colour image would answer the question. The way to determine the last digit is the colour of the middle bar. In this case, the top and bottom bars are white, representing '9'. But I'm not going to hazard a guess as to the middle bar colour from a monochrome image, except to say it is not white, so the USN is therefore not '22399' (321st Troop Carrying Company). Now we have eight choices. The bottom edge of the last digit seems to be wider than a single vertical/near vertical stroke, so that probably eliminates '1', '4' and '7', leaving 2,3,5,6 or 8 as the possibilities - five choices.

Hi Mike,
I don't know if the photo of the QL has been cropped but from what I can see, I deduce the QL's census number is L557330, from Contact no. V4675 and is a QLT Troop Carrying Vehicle (TCV), this aligns with your theory of it belonging to a Troop Carrying Coy. It is a very early QL as the windscreen hinges are hidden, a central vertical bar on the grille and large headlight (8" ?).

regards, Richard

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Richard,

I haven't concluded it is a Troop Carrying Company: simply saying it is not the 321st Troop Carrying Company. It could be any of the following:

22392: 104 Div Transport Coy
22393: 317 Artillery Workshop Platoon
22395: 318 Troop Carrying Coy
22396: 215 Troop Carrying Coy
22398: 13 Troop Carrying Coy

However, now that we can add your intimate Bedford knowledge to the mix which confirms it's a troop-carrying Bedford QL TCV, then the likelihood is that it is from a troop carrying company, and therefore the last number is probably a 5 or 6 or 8.

What we can achieve when we put our heads together! Thanks Richard. (Now I'd better get back to the next article for KVE!!)

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Note the way the camouflage paints on the Matador at MEE Monegeeta vary with the light intensity - the disruptive colour across the front is much 'whiter' than the sides, yet it is the same colour (whatever that may be).

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here Mike. I mean, it seems like a statement of the obvious to me. Objects vary in appearance according to the light intensity falling upon them. Like, the dark side of the moon, and the light side of the moon. You wouldn’t compare objects in bright daylight to objects in the shade. You can only compare objects in the same light. Which is to say, the same plane of light. I mean, that’s obvious, isn’t it? In practice that means flat panels with disruptive pattern across them, so the adjacent colours can be compared under the same lighting conditions. Hence in the Matador example you’d probably choose the driver’s door, because the frontal area is way overexposed. That is, the film has been pushed beyond its ability to register tones, it’s just plain white.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

This simply reinforces what has been said previously in this thread: that trying to interpret camouflage colours from a monochrome image is just about impossible. There are too many variables in terms of light/shade and how the image was processed.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. We’re not trying to identify colours in isolation, based on visual appearance only, we’re trying to identify the camo scheme, from a limited number of possibilities, which then tells us the camo colours. We have a lot of information about camo schemes, including date of approval, prescribed patterns, which we bring to bear on the problem. This gets much simpler after 42, because there are so few colours to choose from. Eventually in 44 the problem solves itself, because there are only 3 vehicle paints scheduled, and a 3-tone camo scheme.

Armed with this kind of information we can start to make fine distinctions, like the two semi-trailers pictured. Notice how the scheme as originally intended displays even separation of Light Tone / Medium Tone / Dark Tone, but with KG3 substituted it becomes virtually 2-tone scheme, because KG3 and Vehicle Dark Green are much closer in tone. Indeed, dare I say it, “These colours are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance.”


LHQ 222895.jpg

SM4809 3-tone scheme pre & post LHQ 222895.jpg

7-ton semi trailer detail pre & post LHQ 222895.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

KG3 and Vehicle Dark Green are much closer in tone.

This is something we can view in real life. Pics below show 1949 KG3 paint chip confirmed against 42 KG3 paintwork, which as you can see varies so much in daylight as to generate 3-tone scheme from the one colour! Notice how the 49 paint chip follows it faithfully, which may not be possible with modern pigments.

NOS 1949 KG3 ex-Keith (purchased Hughes Trading mid-70's).jpg

KG3 daylight variation.jpg

Following pics show KG3 reference chip against Vehicle Dark Green, firstly on the ambo where it appears over KG3, and secondly on the gun tractor over red oxide primer (not seen in this photo) which came as a surprise because I had always assumed it was KG3.

No.2 Ambulance body.JPG

CGT9 body.JPG

I’ve come to believe there was a lot more Vehicle Dark Green used in late production than I realized, and I’ve found quite a few examples already. I’m even learning to recognize the faded colour, which is slightly different from faded KG3. You’d be surprised how quickly your eye becomes trained if you do enough of this work on colours. Plus it adds another level of interest when clambering over blitz wrecks, armed with 400 wet & dry, large bottle of water, KG3 paint chip and camera!

[Tony Wheeler]

Just quickly on ambos, they’re typically very dark in photos, which would lead one to believe they standardized on Vehicle Dark Green after 42, as part of a tradition perhaps. Does anyone have any info on this?


029831 ADELAIDE, SA 1943-03-26. MOTOR AMBULANCES CARRYING WOUNDED MEMBERS OF THE 9TH AUSTRALIAN.jpg

IMGP1957 (Medium).JPG

[Tony Wheeler]

Now that we’re acquainted with Vehicle Dark Green we can take another look at Staff Cars and Vans, where 2-tone scheme features widely in 43-44 (examples seen below in NG, QLD, NSW, VIC, WA).

Firstly as Mike Kelly observed in post #453 concerning example 1: “The darker disruptive colour has a noticeable shine to it . Hmm”

Paint quality suffered during 1943 owing to shortage of phthalic anhydride, which led to suspension of gas resistance spec for a period, as well as various other concessions being made for suppliers. For example, B.A.L.M. tender for Vehicle Dark Green supplied ex-Melbourne against Contract Board Schedule T.71308 of March 43: “It is recommended that the tender of B.A.L.M. Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, be accepted for immediate requirements under concession of non-compliance with para. 69 – Mattness, of the specification.”

So, Mike, not only can we identify the colour, but even the likely brand of paint!

But what of the other colour(s) seen on these vehicles? We already know Vehicle Medium Green was discontinued in late 43 which leaves only one possibility in 44, namely Vehicle Grey. This may explain examples 9 & 10 which appear to display more tonal separation (higher contrast) than earlier examples painted when Vehicle Medium Green was still available. The two possible colour combinations can be compared side by side on the 7-ton semi-trailer body. Further guide to colour can be had by comparison with uniforms in some photos.

Note that KG3 can be ruled out due to closeness in tone with Vehicle Dark Green as shown in posts #505 and #506. Any vehicle painted in these two colours would appear extremely dark indeed.


Staff Cars & Vans 2-tone scheme 1943-44.jpg

Staff Cars & Vans 2-tone scheme 1943-44 (2).jpg

Staff Cars & Vans 2-tone scheme 1943-44 (3).jpg

7-ton semi-trailer, Tocumwal, NSW 11-2-44. SM4809 3-tone scheme..jpg

MSL report - Vehicle Dark Green (Large) sharpen.jpg

[Lang]

Tony

Just a WAG but perhaps they painted the ambulances in a single colour for the following reasons:

They did not want them mistaken for a tactical vehicle with camouflage. They wanted to appear less war-like.

They actually wanted them to be easily identified from other surrounding vehicles. Wishful thinking in an attack on a convoy situation but if operating individually may give some measure of protection.

The big crosses cause a problem as they negate any stealth ambitions. If a unit was actually trying to hide, the first vehicles to be covered with nets or branches would be the ambulances.

I suspect some people in the Medical Corps may even believe that the Ambulances should be all-over white as the Geneva Convention says you should not shoot at them. I think ambulances only get protection if it is convenient in the overall battlefield situation and the presence of an ambulance offers no safety to a unit under attack.

Lang

[Andrew Foulkes]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

This is something we can view in real life. Pics below show 1949 KG3 paint chip confirmed against 42 KG3 paintwork, which as you can see varies so much in daylight as to generate 3-tone scheme from the one colour! Notice how the 49 paint chip follows it faithfully, which may not be possible with modern pigments.

Tony

Thank you for the detailed information that you and all the others have posted on this thread which I have followed very closely. In parallel I have been looking at the colours and markings of the BEF in 1939/40. Although your focus has been on Australia, you have revealed further background on the earlier British Army paint and the access to Australian archive material that you have facilitated has been tremendous.

In particular, as you know, there is an original postage stamp-sized paint chip for Khaki Green No 3 dated 5 May 1940 in a file at the National Archives of Australia (barcode 440398). While I understand all the caveats about such samples, it looks likely to be a useful official example of the early war British colour. In fact it seems to be the only official one anywhere! Unfortunately, being in the UK, I can't access it in person and the current scan in the archives is not really much use. Indeed no scan of such a chip could really provide much information about colour.

I would be very interested to know from those who have seen the 5 May 1940 chip at the National Archives whether it is a close match to other samples.

One possible good match seems to be the paint that Bob Moseley had made up by Protec. I noted that Gina Vampire said at one point that the 5 May 1940 chip colour was close to that paint.

Another possible match would be the example of Khaki Green - J at the Australian War Memorial (AWM REL 16/500), although that seems unlikely. Presumably this is a post-September 1942 darkened version of that colour.

Another possible match is your chip of 1949 'Khaki Green Matt Synthetic Resin Based Enamel K4/10394'. I see you have compared it with '1942 Khaki Green' on a vehicle and that it is a good match. The pictures in different lighting conditions give a very vivid representation of the chameleon-like qualities of this paint. How would your 1949 chip compare with the 5 May 1940 chip in the archives?

Andrew

[Tony Smith]

Will this settle the question once and for all? Just needs a bit of thinners and a good shake.

https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/st-l...int/1206315362

[Mike K]

Hmmm is there a date on the label somewhere ? Contains lead by the look of it. Could be post war or even a RAAF colour ?