Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Lang]

Gina

I agree with you about the supply chain being OK and local purchase not common.

This is probably one reason why vehicles remained in all sorts of previous colour schemes. Instructions would come out for a new scheme but the units had to order their requirements - stuff didn't just appear out of the sky.

A transport company might have tins of paint appear because regimental headquarters had ordered it for all their sub-units but if regimental headquarters had other things on their plate and did not want to get tied up painting trucks nobody would make the effort to work out their requirements and place the order with the supply chain.

Units such as transport were often far flung on semi-permanent attachment to other formations and it would be unlikely a transport company commander would like to get involved in repainting away from home base (which they possibly never went to) so HQ would not get an order from him. If regimental HQ was slack and didn't demand requirements from their sub-units all their far-flung transport companies would just carry on in their old clothes.

If I was a transport company commander and had a fleet of well kept nicely originally painted trucks I certainly would resist having camouflage, or whatever, painted on them in the field with a 4 inch paint brush.

Individual non-transport units also had thousands of their own trucks and it would have been like herding cats trying to get orders for paint in from each owner.

Lang

[Mrs Vampire]

I think that's about right Lang

The file on the three tone scheme has the Qld area commander complaining long and loud about the expenditure of man power on a new scheme that was little different from those he already had .

There is also the rider on almost all orders to re camouflage, including the move to KG3 in Dec 1943, that vehicles were only to be repainted from new, when the need arose , if paint had deteriorated or been damaged or if the unit was to move fwd to a combat area.

Mike : I am an engineer by profession so an a bit wedded to the scientific method where " Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[3] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence.[4] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical. Compare with hasty generalization.

The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc."

[Lang]

Gina

That tells me you are in search of the truth on what actual regulations were and what actual colour/pattern specifications were. In other words a serious academic treatise.

Unfortunately the overwhelming evidence that those regulations and specifications were ignored, altered, delayed wholesale throughout the forces at the whim of just about anyone having control over a vehicle means it can never be a record of what actually happened.

Evidence of such wayward behaviour is not only in the form of anecdotal stories but in thousands of photographs of the period and as you have mentioned in official correspondence.

I fear if you are trying arrive at some semblance of order by trying to lock the plan with the action it can never happen.

Lang

[Mrs Vampire]

Lanf

I am not as pessimistic as you in that regard.
If the evidence is overwhelming I must be looking in the wrong places because in documents and photographs I have never found it.

I would be eternally grateful if you could direct me to it .

[Chris Collins]

Gina,

let the naysayers say what they will, what happens in the field in a in unit depots is one thing but armies even one as allegedly unregulated by doctrine as the Australian army. Vehicles started with specified colour schemes at points of their lives, who knows? but we rarely display vehicles as an "in the field" example most look factory fresh.

Colour pigments used in the British army were tightly regulated due to the use of Infrared non-reflective paint, which is precisely why Mid war the brits whent from KG3 to scc2 brown, as most readily available green pigments are highly reflective, and easily observed using IR cameras in PR aircraft. Despite anectdotal evidence and "i spoke to a bloke" stuff, id say very difficult to prove with any authority.

Colours and variability in batches, colour can be very difficult to pin down, pigment particle size, resin matrix, background colour, age, lighting conditions all affect paint. but if you at least start with a reasonable facimilie and natural variation does it s thing, then you're interpretation is as valid if not more valid than the usual 'I reckon its..."

Were all vehicles the specified colour scheme for ever? Unlikely. were all vehicles a hotchpotch of locally sourced colours? also unlikely. Were most probably the specified colours, at least once at some point of their lifetimes? I'd say almost definitely. Are either incorrect?

I think personally Gina has done some amazing research using extant examples that corroborate much of the official literature, and I'd think twice before scoffing at work like that.

Is research a waste of time? I defer to the Duke of wellington. "Time in reconnaissance is seldom wasted"


Kind Regards

Chris Collins

[Mike K]

I think the official colour sample swatches should be looked upon as being what they were intended to be , that is " in the ball park " and nothing more than that. Unfortunately some of us being academic , we try to get down to the tiniest details .

The following are my own observations and I am hoping I am not offending anybody.

Reading through Mike Starmers research, for one particular colour , the early G3 or whatever it was , he matched a paint sample that was found inside the headlight shell of a motorcycle found in Belgium , the m/c was supposedly left behind by the BEF . He based his published results on that single example of paint found inside the headlight body . Going on from this, we are expected to believe, all of the BEF British vehicles finished in G3, were painted with the same brand of paint , and all of them had the same amount of matting agent as found in that headlight shell. It's total rubbish. It is ridiculous . It's a wild assumption and we should not be fooled. Mike Starmer should have added proviso's and made it clear to his readers that much of this colour research is, in the real world, an educated guess. The booklets I purchased from him have no proviso's anywhere , instead, you get the impression , this IS the correct colour and that's it , no arguments .

The matting agents added into the mix will have a big effect on the final colour to begin with. The paint factories weighed the colour pigments, OK that's fine, but did each brand of paint manufacturer buy their colour pigments from the same source.

The paint shops these days use computer scans to work out whats going on, even this technology doesn't rule out all possible variables . And why were the scanners installed in paint shops ?

The official vehicle colour guides are really just a " in the ball park " guide and we should be aware of this.

[Chris Collins]

well actually lets directly quote what Mr Starmer says about KG3, and i think he is the first to admit that its a difficult colour to pin down,

Starmer, M "british army colours & disruptive Camouflage in the United Kingdom, France and NW Europe 1936-45"

"... no colour chart with a named sample has so far been found although research continues the mixed colour sample hereis an average of three artifacts of known provenance. First was a replicated paint sample from canada matched to compnents of a 1941 ford built universal carrier undergoing restoration. second item was a date stamped steel helmet of original interior colourm the owner and light free storage of which was well known to the author. the third sample came from preserved components of a late 1939 norton h16 motorcycle under restoration in belgium whicj when found still carried original full BEF colours and the narkings of 2nd infantry division. sinse this machine was diuscovered another motorcycle fuel tank in the same colour has been found."

Nowhere does he claim its "the colour" but its case is compelling, he also suggests that KG 3 is a range of very close colours not one Identical shade. But regardless the chemical industry was very sophisticated in the 1940s, they worked to specifications as exacting as todays techniques using methods that while not as fast as digital colour matching, they were probably a more direct method of analysis.

Besides, what do you suggest as an alternative? At least these peices of research have given us insights of what these vehicles "may" have looked liked to the best of recorded knowledge.

Ultimately its your toy you paint it whatever colour you like, but I'd rather base my choices on informed research based on physical evidence and reasoning.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Chris Collins

Colour pigments used in the British army were tightly regulated due to the use of Infrared non-reflective paint, which is precisely why Mid war the brits whent from KG3 to scc2 brown, as most readily available green pigments are highly reflective, and easily observed using IR cameras in PR aircraft. Despite anectdotal evidence and "i spoke to a bloke" stuff, id say very difficult to prove with any authority.

Hi Chris,

I know this thread is strictly about WW2 Australian paint colours, but as you brought up the subject of WW2 British paints and colours, I have to comment on your paragraph above.
It is infrared reflective paint that fools the IR camera, not non-reflective.
The Khaki Green No.3 paint was not formulated as an infrared reflective paint, it was the fact the one of the colour pigments in this green paint was chromium oxide (which has an IRR quality to it) and there was a shortage of it and desperately needed for important uses such as plating, so SCC No.2 Brown was used in its place for a few years. The British camouflage colour range is very complex and different colours and patterns ran alongside each other at the time as there were overlaps and painting for the sake of it was to be avoided.
It was not until the 1970's that the British Army developed IRR (Infra Red Reflective) paint and in service from the 1980's. When I worked in army workshops from early 1970's, new vehicles inc. armour were still coming into service in gloss Deep Bronze Green

[Chris Collins]

Thank you Richards, you are quite correct, my confusion on what would've beneficial reflective and non reflective.

My point in bringing that up is there were reasons to adhear to guidelines on paint that are just as important as its appearance, that may not be immediately obvious.

cheers

Chris

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

hi Chris,
I know this thread is strictly about WW2 Australian paint colours, but as you brought up the subject of WW2 British paints and colours, I have to comment on your paragraph above.
It is infrared reflective paint that fools the IR camera, not non-reflective.
The Khaki Green No.3 paint was not formulated as an infrared reflective paint, it was the fact the one of the colour pigments in this green paint was chromium oxide (which has an IRR quality to it) and there was a shortage of it and desperately needed for important uses such as plating, so SCC No.2 Brown was used in its place for a few years. The British camouflage colour range is very complex and different colours and patterns ran alongside each other at the time as there were overlaps and painting for the sake of it was to be avoided.
It was not until the 1970's that the British Army developed IRR (Infra Red Reflective) paint and in service from the 1980's. When I worked in army workshops from early 1970's, new vehicles inc. armour were still coming into service in gloss Deep Bronze Green

It's interesting that the decision to go from khaki to brown in 1943 might not have been based on some field guys evaluating the effectiveness of one colour over the other based in observations at Salisbury Plain. This is the first time I've heard it might be based on war time chemical shortages or technological advances.