Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Tony Wheeler]

Mike I’ve not seen the vehicle myself, but if you’re saying it’s intended to be Khaki Green / Light Earth scheme, then I’d suggest it would fail badly on colour matching, even allowing for the vagaries of lighting / photography etc. There’s just way too much tonal contrast evident for that scheme. However the scheme itself would make more sense chronologically, so I’ve removed the FAIL stamp….provisionally! I remain of the belief that we’re seeing the later scheme in the classic FGT9 images and I’d be interested in your thoughts about that possibility.

[Mike Cecil]

There is nothing like seeing something in person. Arrange a visit, Tony, and take your colour swatches with you. I can send you the email address of which section to make that request to if you like, or you can wait for a storage area open day - I think they run open days once or twice a year.

Mike

[Keith Webb]

Looks like Light Earth to me... I had some old bearded guy from the AWM show me!

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Looks like Light Earth to me... I had some old bearded guy from the AWM show me!

That would be Santa Claus

A sickly looking camo job, not enough green and too much light earth , its supposed to be a 50/50 average and its been spray applied by the look of it . Somebody didn't read the official instructions and neglected the detail, the colour borders should be run over with a brush .

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Mike,

Since it is a copy of the pattern used on 132141, the No.9 FGT shown in images taken at Wesley College during the war, then blame the Army or the contractor for not following their own instructions - maybe. The pattern is actually very, very similar in shape and area covered to that published in MC319 for the Truck 15cwt with canvas canopy erected.

The AWM, in the absence of a published pattern specific to the No.8 & 9 artillery tractors (until Oct 43), and given the pattern shown in the images was very similar to the 15cwt pattern in MC319, followed the pattern as shown in the period images.

Looking at those images in high res, the edge is finished with a low-pressure spray gun and has not been brushed to a sharp line, and while this is clearly not in strict conformance with para 8 of MC319, it is in conformance with the period images. As has been mentioned before in this thread, AHQ instructions are one thing: what actually happened can often be another.

Another point worth noting is that there is no statement anywhere in official instruction MC319 that the pattern had to be '50/50' for a two-colour pattern - only to follow the pattern as published (para 7, note 1), which this clearly does by following the 15cwt pattern.


Mike aka Santa Claus

[Keith Webb]

Here's a close up from the high res image of FGT 132141 on which the paint for the AWM's example was based.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

The AWM....followed the pattern as shown in the period images.

Yes, the pattern is spot on, and can be seen on all CMP types with disruptive paintwork applied in production during this period. Presumably vehicle manufacturers had their own Cab 13 pattern charts and this accounts for the high degree of consistency achieved. Meanwhile the only CMP charts issued within Army were crappy Cab 12 versions under MC319, which as Mike suggests are near enough to the factory pattern to be identified as such.

The only Cab 13 charts issued within Army were Arty Tractor and 3-tonner in Oct ’43 and these were 3-tone charts. I’m guessing pattern charts weren’t needed in the field after mid-42 because camo was being applied in production and the pattern could be followed for any repaint required, eg. 2/7 Fd. Regt. gun tractors seen Feb ‘44 in factory Khaki Green / Light Earth and April ’44 after field repaint in (presumably) Vehicle Dark Green / Vehicle Grey, these being the approved colours after March ’43.

064567 KAIRI, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA. 1944-02-26. TROOPS OF THE 2-7TH FIELD REGIMENT.JPG

065722 KAIRI, QLD. 1944-04-11. 2-7 Fd. Regt..JPG

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

the edge is finished with a low-pressure spray gun and has not been brushed to a sharp line, and while this is clearly not in strict conformance with para 8 of MC319, it is in conformance with the period images.

This rule was relaxed under SM4809 of March ‘43: “Where the painting is by hand all edges of patterns will be kept sharp. When application is by spray diffused colour boundaries will be permitted.”

It’s another indication 132141 was painted under the later regime in Vehicle Dark Green / Vehicle Grey.

[Mike Cecil]

Except 'Vehicle Grey', presumably 'Grey, G' in the Standards Assoc book, as the instruction SM4809 simply states 'Grey', and not 'Light Grey', is a very dark green/grey colour and not nearly as great a contrast to Medium Green, KG3 or KG (J) as Light Earth was.

SM4809 also states the disruptive pattern was to be three-colour. There were no patterns or instructions for a two-tone scheme issued under SM4809. The paint colours specified were: Dark Green/Medium Green/Grey. In Dec 43, the instruction was revised under 222895 to replace Medium Green with KG3.

So no, I do not agree that the pattern from MC319 used 'Grey' and 'Dark Green' as the disruptive pattern colours when applied to No.9 FAT 132141.

Mike