I have begun my carrier's transformation

[Jon Bradshaw]

Here are some pics I took yesterday of the progress on the steel. I am trying to match the steel sheets as close as possible. I will make hundreds of holes in it to match the bolt/rivet patterns on the hull. Turret should be done this week. Then all the steel gets taken off, blasted and painted. This should be looking good by spring.... As long as my job doesn't keep me away constantly (which it does).

[Jon Bradshaw]

I am getting ready to paint the outside of the armour and am facing a dilemma in paint choices. Since this would have been made by Vickers in 1936/37 and was for the export market I don't know exactly what to think for color.... The colorized photos are not very reliable for shades. Also most of the pics have it as a camouflaged tri-color so I might do that later, was just thinking green for now.
So- Was it more green or was it more brown?
Any thoughts on this would be welcome.... Would like to paint in the next two weeks.

[Ron Pier]

I think as a general rule, until the outbreak of war, the standard WD colour was a gloss Brunswick Green. The two in the 'Tank Museum' were plain Brunswick for years. But both have been re-painted in recent times. I would say that it wouldn't hurt to go with Brunswick now and add to, or change the scheme at a later date. Personally I can't see the point of camo unless the vehicle is being depicted in a theatre of operation. Ron

[Jon Bradshaw]

Thanks for the answer Ron.
This may have been discussed before but I am not sure. I haven't seen it here yet.
I thought the general consensus was that the "early restorations" (1970's and 1980's) used a glossy finish so it would look good on display? That may have been my misunderstanding? I can't believe that anyone in the army would endorse using a shiny vehicle when going into battle....
Then I have heard guys in the army talk about oiling their trucks so they would look clean for inspections..... Silly.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Jon Bradshaw

I thought the general consensus was that the "early restorations" (1970's and 1980's) used a glossy finish so it would look good on display? That may have been my misunderstanding? I can't believe that anyone in the army would endorse using a shiny vehicle when going into battle....

Jon,

Actually "up till 1939 an overall gloss colour of Deep Bronze Green No.24 was the usual finish for all vehicles" - quote from Mike Starmer's British Vehicle Camouflage, 1939-45.

If you hate "shiny green", you could opt to choose the Vickers camouflage scheme as seen on the Dutchman tank posted by Ron. If I recall correctly it was Vicker's own because as a commercial company, they tried to make their products as attractive as possible to increase the sales of their tanks. There is a story to be told with your replica Vickers....

HTH,
Hanno

[Ron Pier]

Yes my mistake. The colour was gloss deep bronze green as Hanno stated. Not Brunswick. I was thinking of the Engine colour for the pre and early war Morris engines.

And of course the colour was quickly changed at the outbreak of war to Mat Khaki Gas Proof No3 (KG3). But I don't know if the Vickers Light Tanks were ever deployed in WW2?? Ron

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Ron Pier

But I don't know if the Vickers Light Tanks were ever deployed in WW2??

Yes they were by the Netherlands East Indies Army. Other Eastern European countries used them in action too. Even the Germans used captured ones. See other threads on this forum.

The British army used Dutchman tanks for traning only. When the NEI capitulated the remainder of the order which had not yet been shipped were taken over by the British WD. Hence the name Dutchman.