Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

Gina

Just had a read of your link put up yesterday giving the RAAF side of camouflage. Talk about herding cats!

The instructions in the beginning of the file coming out in 1941 clearly laid out what is required for the army (until they modified them time and again).

The RAAF, who had thousands of vehicles, decided to do their own thing, coming up with their own colours and patterns and being continuously - or attempted to - brought back into line by Dakin and Co. They still modified his instructions.

Lang I’ve not yet seen the file (download problems) but I suspect RAAF sought to standardize their vehicle and aircraft paints. It was around this time they repainted their yellow trainers in (presumably) RAF spec camo paint, so it would make perfect sense to adapt this paint to vehicles, rather than adopt Dakin’s dodgy house paint with all its attendant supply problems. It would also make sense to develop their own camo scheme specific to each base, because that’s where the vehicles would be stationed, and that’s where air attack was expected. Plus of course they had the means to conduct air observations of camo schemes in development, way beyond Dakin's limited access to aircraft.

You’ll find some discussion of this question at post #148 in connection with RAAF Parkes. OMG Mike Kelly that was 3 years ago!

[Lang]

Tony

That shot of the vehicles lined up must be new ones as they look like they have been painted with a template absolutely identical.

In Gina's file there is a letter from Dakin berating the RAAF for not following the plan. He actually says "Your vehicles are very, very (twice)bad" and "they are not just wiggly lines but well thought out designs to disguise corners and shapes"

There are quite a few similar letters (much correspondence would never have made it on to that consolidated central file) and he must have got so frustrated with them that the North East Commander made him go away by declaring the RAAF would not use any camouflage other than plain green.

Lang

[Mrs Vampire]

Well Thanks for that Mike Cecil

Here am I thinking I am doing this for the good of all but it turns out I am just doing it to save myself a trip To Canberra . And as for having documents cleared I have done a bit of that too

Well with that that's me out if it I've had enough

[Lang]

Tony

A lot of the trainers were all, or mostly fabric. Even the most advanced aircraft at that time had fabric control surfaces which require dope not paint. The engine cowls on Tiger Moths, Ansons, Wirraways etc used paint but often the whole lot was just hit with dope which is not a perfect coating for those surfaces.

I think you might be right about using the standard paint on metal surfaces. It certainly was not long lasting as you can see from colour aircraft photos. Aircraft always got scruffy quickly until the advent of two pack paints in 70/80 period.

Lang

[Bob Carriere]

Sides have been taken and there are no winner but a few ruffled feathers.

I have followed this thread since the beginning and appreciate all the efforts you (collectively) have made to sort out the issue. It has unearthed a whole bunch of historical information precious to our hobby.

But alas history repeats itself. For 4 years military and elected officials have argued about the shades, tone, durability of paint and who would make the most money from the contracts.

.....and now since March 2013, for 4 years, we have done almost the same thing. There are no winners but our hobby now has a whole different appreciation of the issue of "PAINT" ........... then and now!!!!!

I am always amazed about the historical accuracy of our many restorations.
I have sand blasted to bare metal, washed with phosphoric acid, used POR 15 coating, a urethane binder coat and 2 or 3 OD green coats of paint on a vehicle that lasted, in my case 77 years, without more than a very very light OD coat of paint with no evidence of primers or glossy undercoat. I have concluded that my truck could now last another 177 years ...... whatever shade of green it is.

Thank you all for the interesting read and I hope no one feels ruffled by all the different facts, opinions and/or preferences.

Cheers

PS.....not sure how many of you remember the B.T.B. title that was conferred to me by fellow Aussies....... I use it with pride.

[Richard Farrant]

A bit off topic as this is regarding British paint in early 1950's but is about poor quality paint being supplied to army, if it happened then it could easily have happened in wartime.
The attached is an excellent research document from Clive Elliott which he posted on HMVF forum:

http://hmvf.co.uk/pdf/British%20Army...n%20Paints.pdf

The early part of the article refers to the quality issue.

regards, Richard

[Mike Kelly]

When you think about it, it took the automotive industry many decades before the owned up the fact that paint in its many forms , was not a good long term rust preventative.

Anybody here own a Holden in the 50's 60's 70's ? They were absolute rust buckets and what did GMH do about it ..nothing of course . GMH wanted you to buy a new Holden each 4 years or so.

Paint back then was porous and eventually good old H2O got through to the steel .

[Hanno Spoelstra]

For your information:

I was requested to reset the user name to Jane Doe - see the reason below.

Hanno
MLU Administrator

Originally Posted by Jane Doe

Well Thanks for that Mike Cecil

Here am I thinking I am doing this for the good of all but it turns out I am just doing it to save myself a trip To Canberra . And as for having documents cleared I have done a bit of that too

Well with that that's me out if it I've had enough

[Mike Cecil]

To be fair on Gina/Jane, Tony, she went back to post 376 and inserted the barcode when I asked for it. As I said earlier, providing the link on the forum so we would all know it was available on line was generous of her.

For those who may not use or know the NAA system, the barcode is the unique identifier for each file. Going to the Advanced Search display provides a place to put the barcode in if it is known - much quicker and easier than typing in all the series number, etc.

I use them a lot now, keeping a list for each project that I can quickly refer to. The current project has some 300 files listed, mostly in series B2455, so you can see it can be quite a time saver in calling up files once the barcode is known.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

To be fair on Gina/Jane, Tony, she went back to post 376 and inserted the barcode when I asked for it.

Thanks Mike, I wouldn’t have noticed if you hadn’t told me. I’ve deleted my post accordingly.
Cheers,
Tony

[Richard Seymour]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

When you think about it, it took the automotive industry many decades before the owned up the fact that paint in its many forms , was not a good long term rust preventative.

Anybody here own a Holden in the 50's 60's 70's ? They were absolute rust buckets and what did GMH do about it ..nothing of course . GMH wanted you to buy a new Holden each 4 years or so.

Paint back then was porous and eventually good old H2O got through to the steel .

Not just Holden either

[Mike Cecil]

http://milepegsnt.com/site/vehicle-camouflage-markings/

This site may be of some interest. I think a link to the site's home page may have been posted before somewhere on the forum? Nevertheless, still relates to this thread.

Mike

[Mike Kelly]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

http://milepegsnt.com/site/vehicle-camouflage-markings/

This site may be of some interest. I think a link to the site's home page may have been posted before somewhere on the forum? Nevertheless, still relates to this thread.

Mike

Yes that' s a good read, I emailed him some time back .

The "Plymouth pickup" description is a misnomer , it is a Fargo 15 cwt GS Van . In the email I pointed out his American terminology and that we have utes here not pickups

The Dodge convertible is another misnomer, it is a 12 cwt GS van Dodge , don't know how he got a convertible . These Dodge's were actually Canadian sourced Plymouths tarted up with a fake Dodge grill .

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

http://milepegsnt.com/site/vehicle-camouflage-markings/

This site may be of some interest. I think a link to the site's home page may have been posted before somewhere on the forum?

Actually Mike the same link was posted by Mike Kelly in this thread a couple of years ago (#278 19-6-16) and I chased up the NT Force diary references, which are available online:

October 1942 (pp. 99-102):

https://oldsite.awm.gov.au/images/co...024596--9-.pdf

December 1943 (pp. 14-21):

https://oldsite.awm.gov.au/images/co...24421--13-.pdf

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Nevertheless, still relates to this thread.

Indeed it does Mike, and well worth revisiting. Of most interest is NT Force GS Instn No.22 of 30 October 1942, which specifies Dark Green M as preferred Dark Tone, with various formulations of Grey as preferred Light Tone, and specifically rules out Light Stone:

“Vehs already painted in two tones in accordance with previous instns will not be repainted with the exception of those vehs on which cream patches still exist. These patches will be painted out with a suitable light tone from those mentioned above.”

Similar colours had already been specified for NG Force ( Dark Green M / Light Slate Grey B ) and NSW LOC Area ( Dark Green M with 1/8 Night Black U / Vehicle Light Grey ), with specific instructions to overpaint existing patches of Light Stone and Vehicle Buff (B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff or DHS equivalent). By early September agreement had been reached between NSW LOC Area, 2 Aust Corps, and 1 Aust Army to adopt a unified scheme ( Dark Green 3 / Vehicle Grey ) which even met with Dakin’s approval: “Your scheme for Vehicle Disruptive Painting is very satisfactory indeed”.

Thus by mid-late 1942 we find Army formations along the entire east coast of Australia plus NT and New Guinea in furious agreement about the unsuitability of Light Stone, with an overwhelming preference for Dark Green / Light Grey schemes. All that remained was to introduce such a scheme into vehicle production, and thereby end all reliance on Dakin’s dodgy house paint applied in extremis by Army itself in the field. That being the case, the earliest evidence we’d expect to see of Dark Green / Light Grey scheme would be on new vehicles. Of course, we must first remove our Light Stone goggles!

[Mike Cecil]

The AWM No.9 FGT disruptive colour is Light Earth, not light stone.

Mike

[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 Kelly]

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.

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

[Tony Wheeler]

Mike, we’re getting a few months ahead of ourselves with SM4809 colours, so I’ll come back to those in a separate post.

On the question of two-tone contrast, it’s clear from the photos that the No.9 scheme provides more effective disruption than factory fresh Khaki Green / Light Earth, and this was the criticism at the time, eg. Major Bill Young GSO III (Cam) NSW LOC Area on 13 Sept 42:

“Mechanization Circular 319 which cancels Circular 301 was issued on 28 July 42 and it provides for two tone painting and the colours selected are KHAKI GREEN and LIGHT EARTH. These colours are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance.”



By way of background, Young as a Lieutenant appears to have been an early member of the Sydney Camouflage Group and remains on good terms with the Group’s former President, Prof. Dakin, and Secretary, Vince Tadgell, who by now is seconded to the position of S.O.R.E (Cam) LHQ with the rank of Captain. Tadgell is instrumental in SM4809 developments which come later.

Early in ’42 while Dakin was still in charge of Research Station at Georges Heights, he developed at Army request a grey disruptive colour for use on vehicles, which Young sought to introduce circa June/July by means of Amendment to Mech Circ 301, stipulating: “The colours for use in Australia are Vehicle Light Grey and Dark Green 3.” On July 8 we find Young ordering paint named “Vehicle Light Grey” and “Dark Green”, the latter seemingly Dark Green M with 1/8 Night Black U added.



I believe we’re seeing here the emergence of paint vocab in which colours developed by Army specifically for use on vehicles are prefixed “Vehicle” and this later came to imply gas resistant alkyd enamel. In other words, proper vehicle paint, not general purpose Flat Oil paint as per DHS spec. Earliest example is “Vehicle Buff” which I believe was B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff introduced 20 Jan 42, possibly for armoured workshops, with the DHS equivalent being 50:50 mix Light Stone N with Light Brown P, as specified by Dakin to RAAF on 20 Feb 42: “This colour can now be obtained already mixed under the name “Buff”.

With events having overtaken Young when MC319 cancelled MC301, and thereby his planned Amendment to MC301, he proceeds to identify the usual loophole through which he can enforce his own preferred scheme: “As this Circular 319, Clause 11 states that “SPECIAL VARIATIONS TO SUIT LOCAL CONDITIONS MAY ONLY BE MADE UPON THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF THE G.O.C.”, a set of new designs were prepared, complying with disruptive and countershading principles of camouflage and circular amended by nominating ‘VEHICLE LIGHT GREY’ and DARK GREEN 3 as the colours to be used.”

He adds: “G.S.O. III (Cam) 2 Aust Army has made a request for copies so that this Circular may be adopted by that Formation.”



Young’s Circular is promulgated by HQ 1 Aust Div as G1862 of 8 Nov 42, and seems likely to have been adopted by other Formations including NG Force, which had already specified a very similar scheme of Dark Green M / Light Slate Grey B to be applied before vehicles despatched, this being given effect under ADV LHQ GS INSTN No.11 (refer my post #340 of 19-9-17).



So that’s how the 2-tone scheme of Dark Green / Light Grey entered production using MC319 pattern charts, and pretty soon we start seeing this distinctive high contrast scheme with diffuse colour boundaries appearing on tactical vehicles in QLD and NG, as well as new vehicle photos of the period, including, I believe, the fabulous FGT9 images.



Problem is we have no paint chips for these Army colours, and as you correctly observe Mike, Dakin’s Grey G was definitely not matched to Vehicle Light Grey. This means we’ll need to colour match artifacts, and good place to start looking might be No.6 panels.

Cheers,
Tony

[Lang]

Tony

Great research.

It would be interesting to know the make-up of Young's section. A GSO III is normally a Captain who does not go issuing policy instructions under his own signature. It would appear Young was in the fortunate position of being an "orphan", not fitting into the established Army command structure (there are many such specialist jobs) and although under command of somebody in the HQ for administration, basically did his own thing. He appears to be a one man band, liaising with Dakin's mob, and tasked with producing the camouflage instructions. These were accepted automatically by the Army as having come from the expert area of responsibility. Tony, is this your feeling?

The more you read about all this, the more you come to the conclusion that it was so changeable it was impossible for field units to keep up with changes (even if they had the time, manpower or indeed interest). As a result, photos from any stage of the war show vehicles in any paint combination from any period.

It was OK for factories and major workshops to produce the new schemes but when would the thousand vehicles (now scattered to the four winds) they produced last month in the old scheme be repainted?

As you point out the whole thing was totally subjective anyhow with personal preferences, tests that could not possibly produce a pattern for all types of terrain and complaints from the field that patterns were ineffective or even counter productive.



With some camouflage exceptions, the three biggest armies, the USA, Germany and Russia, left their vehicles overwhelmingly in a single colour. Maybe we should have followed suit and not tracked the British path?

PS The introduction of the Gas Resistant paint seems not to have solved the quality problems for if you read through the RAAF file, as late as 1943, they are saying the Army Gas Resistant paint is terrible and suggest they get their own "proper" paint from the manufacturers, using the army colours.

Lang

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

A GSO III is normally a Captain who does not go issuing policy instructions under his own signature. It would appear Young was in the fortunate position of being an "orphan"

Lang I’m sure you’re right about Young operating independently and way above his pay grade. Same goes for Tadgell who initiates the subsequent scheme under SM4809. These guys were “orphans” because camouflage was considered the province of artists, practiced by camoufleurs, not fighting men! As such the Cam Officer would be left to his own devices, but deferred to in matters of camouflage. Ideal job, provided you don’t mind being called fleursie or camopansie! Check out Young’s other duties as Cam Officer:

“Some time later Major Young, G.S.O. III Camouflage Eastern Command, following the lead given by the civil organizations, organized a team of voluntary workers, mostly women, to garnish nets and wire netting for anti-aircraft and coastal defences. Much of this work was carried out on the actual sites and was efficiently and enthusiastically done.”

Oh what a lovely war!

Originally Posted by Lang

The more you read about all this, the more you come to the conclusion that it was so changeable it was impossible for field units to keep up with changes

Yes, the following from E in C probably says it all:

“With regard to colours, it is considered that every effort should be made to retain those at present authorised, and to avoid the introduction of new ones. There have been so many changes in the past, and (prior to SM 4809 of 4 March 43) so many authorised designs, that units in the field have been confused by the frequent countermanding of instructions.”

Originally Posted by Lang

With some camouflage exceptions, the three biggest armies, the USA, Germany and Russia, left their vehicles overwhelmingly in a single colour. Maybe we should have followed suit and not tracked the British path?

Yes but then we’d have nothing to argue about in this thread!

Originally Posted by Lang

PS The introduction of the Gas Resistant paint seems not to have solved the quality problems for if you read through the RAAF file, as late as 1943, they are saying the Army Gas Resistant paint is terrible and suggest they get their own "proper" paint from the manufacturers, using the army colours.

I've not read the file Lang but Army documents report shortage of phthalic anhydride in 43 which is the base for alkyd enamel, so no gas resistant paint available for camouflage. However I believe supply was maintained for KG3 in vehicle production.

[Mike Cecil]

Tony,

I am (and have been for many years) well aware of the machinations about camouflage during the 1942-43 period, and the local variations to MC301 and MC319 from New Guinea to Tasmania. But to make the leap from local variations to production of new vehicles, as you do in your 10th para, is, I think, much, much too great.

But if, as you contend, this became the norm in mid to late 42, a period when a very large number of new vehicles were introduced into service, where are the survivors of this paint scheme? I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of a green/light grey scheme on any of the vehicles I've looked at in the last 40 years. Have you?

As for Young's contention that "These colours (KG3 & Light Earth) are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance." - have a look at the colour images Keith posted: does this scheme really look 'too close in tone' and will 'merge at distance'? Over the horizon, maybe ...

Mike (aka 'Doubting Thomas')

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

But if, as you contend, this became the norm in mid to late 42

No, that’s not what I’ve said Mike. I’ve shown documents indicating late ’42 at the earliest, including G1862 approved 8-11-42, and photos from NG 25-9-43, and QLD 4-7-43 and 5-11-43, and only tactical vehicles. As I said: “appearing on tactical vehicles in QLD and NG”.

The earliest I’ve seen is December ’42 including this Cab 12 portee en route to Darwin 29-12-42. Colour boundaries are sharp, presumably BOD paintwork. Note shadow conveniently bisecting disruptive pattern to show difference in sunlight and shade!

[Mike Cecil]

OK, late 42 then. Makes not much difference to my previous comment that to 'make the leap from local variations to production of new vehicles, as you do in your 10th para, is, I think, much, much too great.'

Mike

[Lang]

I know this is mainly an historical paperwork exercise on colours, patterns and dates but the real-life application is far beyond any colour scheme.

Any discussion past the paperwork must recognise the object is to disguise the vehicles and that the paint scheme is only a tiny bit of the camouflage puzzle. As I mentioned above most armies did not think it was effective enough to be worth the effort on their main transport fleets.

The academic exercise is a useful and interesting bit of history and I am enjoying the to and fro tremendously. I get the feeling many people do not understand the basics of even considering the effort of applying disruptive patterns and the relatively small part they play in the camouflage story.

Here are the basics of camouflage that make paint schemes merely a minor player:

Camouflage Key Words

S

Stillness – All camouflage is useless once there is movement.

Shade Does the colour stand out from its surroundings? No pattern or other precaution can fully disguise an incongruous colour.

Shape Does the shape stand out from its surroundings. Can it be identified from its shape? Disruptive paint patterns try to hide shape as do nets.

Shadow Shadow is a give-away despite other disguise (particularly in aerial observation)

Spacing Nothing in nature is regular. Orderly spacing is a give-away. In a city situation irregular spacing may be a give-away

Shine Reflections cause attention

Silhouette An object on a skyline or against a solid background stands out. Disruptive paint patterns are useless in a silhouette situation.

Silence In many situations perfect camouflage will be instantly negated by sound eg vehicle or generator noise, a voice or equipment rattle.

Smell Perfectly camouflaged positions can be given away by cooking, exhaust and latrine smells.

Surface A regular surface on a rough background, even of identical colour eg a tent wall against trees or a rough surface on a smooth background eg nets on desert sand will be seen.

Secondary No matter how well an object is camouflaged secondary give-aways will negate it eg smoke from exhaust, guns or fires, dust, ripples on water and lights.

Signs No matter how well camouflaged, give-aways include signs such as tracks into gun positions, earthworks, vehicles or people coming and going, unusual activity etc.

Size In a regular background an object either larger or smaller than surrounding objects attracts attention.