Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Mrs Vampire]

Hope this is the place....If not Hanno please redirect.

Where can i get paint chips/information on correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles .

is there a book , a chart ...something I can use to accurately repaint my FGT and Stuart.

https://www.armyjeepparts.net/t-GCI_paint.aspx

http://www.tm9ordnance.com/products.asp

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Gina,

This is information I along with many others have sought for a long time too. There would be Australian standards of that era but without the relevant colour chips, that haven't faded it is all a lot of speculation.

Paint colours can always be room for interpretation and contention. Ask any model builder.

I have painted my F15A with current Australian Army Olive Drab which can be obtained from any Wattyl Trade depot but usually has to be ordered in. It is only available in 20 Lt drums but I decanted mine into 5 x 4 lt tins to preserve it and for convenience. It is a single pack alkyd enamel so easy to work with and clean up. It is semi-gloss too which again is not technically correct but I had painted some of my earlier parts with Croda Paints Australian Army lusterless Olive Drab which looked good but you only had to touch it to get a mark on it. In time the SG paint will loose some of its sheen anyway.

I have compared the Wattyl paint to patches of pristine paint on my vehicle where it was out of weather and sunlight and basically I believe the WW2 version was a bit more muddy brown in colour compared to the more greenish current olive drab.

If I was redoing my paint I would take a 4 lt can of the current colour to a paint shop with a sample of the original colour such as under the instrument panel or the voltage regulator panel and see if they could throw a bit of brown tint in it to more closely match the WW2 sample. Once the formula was established I would write it down for future use.

Although I know my truck's colour is not technically correct it looks reasonable and presentable. Even a WW2 veteran who drove CMP trucks in the war and has followed my restoration progress could not really shed any light in whether my trucks paint was "correct". He thought it looked "bloody good" and was glad someone was restoring one. Unfortunately like many he is no longer with us. At least by preserving these vehicles their legacy lives on.

Cheers,

[Mrs Vampire]

Thanks Jacques that is really helpful.

I was thinking of doing the Stuart in straight olive drab and the blitz in camo.

I will need the camo colours for the blitz sometime this year .

[Lauren Child]

There's a good series of books by Mike Starmer that cover wartime British colour schemes - would the same colours have been used by all Commonwealth countries?

The books cover the camo scheme for each theatre/period, and have paint chips in the back to colour match.

[Mike Cecil]

No: the paint colours used by Australia were unique. They are the Australian Standard Colour (ASC) and each was followed by a letter indicator. They are similar to the BSC colours that Mike S has studied and that are included in his books, but not the same.

The colour chart booklets were produced by the Standards Association of Australia. Surviving examples, especially in good condition, are rare to say the least.

Mike C

[Mrs Vampire]

Thanks Mike

[Eric Szalanda]

I have been using Protec Lusterless Green over a brown primer and it looks ok compared to parts that I have found unweathered or NOS. When I bought my can from Protec in Moorabbin, who are no longer there, they said that it was a pretty good match, but might need a touch of khaki. I think that the red brown primer might bring out a brown tinge. ( works for me) The only thing with the Protec paint is that is a bit soft, and marks easily.
If you line up 10 blitz's and 10 carriers, you will have 20 different colours.

[Private_collector]

Sounds like we are using the same Protec paint. I have the 'barrier', code 1166.
Are you using the hardener with that? The hardener makes the finished product considerably more durable.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Private_collector

The hardener makes the finished product considerably more durable.

I've been meaning to ask your advice Tony - what are the relative merits of two-pack vs. enamel with hardener? I'm considering Light Stone matt camo so durability/stain resistance is a major issue. Light Stone is very pale and will no doubt pick up a lot of road grime, so it will need to stand up to regular washing. I never wash my white car but a FGT is a different matter!

[Keith Webb]

Maybe you can build a truck wash into your new shed. It is challenging to wash the roof of a Gun Tractor.
I'm the same regarding cars, although I do wash mine about once a year.

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

I never wash my white car but a FGT is a different matter!

[Wayne Henderson]

The main problem of using matt and lusterless paint is well known, oil stains,
hand prints and fading. Your pride and joy soon looks like its been through a war...

The life of a matt or lusterless paint job can be extended for years by a simple top coat of satin clear.

[Private_collector]

[QUOTE=Tony Wheeler;177951]what are the relative merits of two-pack vs. enamel with hardener? /QUOTE]

Great differences, with the genuine 2 Pack urethanes beating enamels hands down in durability to UV, abrasion, and impact resistance. Never once in my years of painting have I been asked to paint any vehicle with a 'flattened' urethane. It has always been the preference to use an enamel (often referred to as 'Jam'). In light of its properties, that may sound strange. Prior to recent experience, all efforts were made to achieve the highest gloss, not the least. And there lays the debate. Its all to do with the finish.

Remember when I first started painting my wheels? I had initially trialled a true 2 Pack, which needed a flattening base added to achieve the desired level of reduced gloss. I was told a certain percentage of flat base was required, then added that amount, and found it was still too glossy. Next coat, more base added, and less gloss, but still far too much. At a particular point I gave up trying. Those wheels are still almost high gloss..........on the insides only! I wasnt stupid enough to experiment on outside. Now, flattening base; if you have some, pour a dollop of it onto a surface and let it dry. You will notice it had turned to a white powdery stuff. Thats what is being added to your paint. Thats the cause of grease, oil, dirt, etc... soiling. Flattening base causes a trade off of your desired finish gain VS the loss of durability. This issue exists in all paint types. About now you are probably wondering where you answer is, yeah? Well, its more of a question of choices that decides which paint type is best for you.

Genuine 2 Pack paints.
The 2 Pack paints give a much better durability and long lasting gloss. Gloss obviously NOT desired so a flattening base gets used, thus removing a percentage of the benefit over enamel with hardener. 2 Pack paint is much more difficult to spray, and requires a designated, dust free environment. Though the finish may be almost flat (if you add enough base to the mix) dust nibs and oher contamination will show on the finish. Also the 2 Pack paints are extremely dangerous and the fumes from spraying will damage your lungs, without doubt. Top quality face mask is NOT optional. Much better paint. No question of that, but some of the advantages are lost with trying to achieve low gloss finish, environment it should ideally be applied in, or the ability and experience needed to get a high quality finish.

Enamel paints
Any automotive painter will tell you that enamel paint is inferior to urethanes. In fact, when I say 'urethanes' I refer to several forms of product, each with unique variations that would be difficult to discuss here. Now, the enamels. Much easier to spray, and particularly forgiving when in 'lustreless' or flat form. Still needs a flattening agent or base, regardless of whether its self mix or factory mixed (as mine is). Nowhere near the durability of 2 Pack, but this is much improved with the addition of hardener. An enamel with no hardener is just a sticky mess which takes ages to dry properly, has very bad resiliance to impact or abrasion, can be problematic to recoat in future (especially if using another brand or type of paint), and because it remains tacky for a lot longer.........more contaminants get stuck in th surface. Be warned, you will still need to wear a respirator mask for this paint. It doesnt give off cyanide though, which is airborne with urethanes. In my youthful 'invincible' years I sprayed both types without always botherong to wear a mask, and now suffer accordingly. Let my stupidity then serve as a warning to others. You will not get away unscathed!

My personal choice is the enamel + hardener option. Much easier to use and apply. Its fast drying, and good results can be achieved, even if sprayed outdoors. This has been proven to me on many occasions. I paint everything outside in the open, where the fumes can be dispersed (I still wear a mask though), and parts can be handled gently within a few hours. The 2 Packs really need a heated spray booth for drying correctly. Check through my posts where I have painted something in the morning, then put the parts together later in the day, without damaging the painted surface.

All that is good and well but, as we are painting military vehicles, a finish which is not perfect more accurately reflects how these vehicles would have been done when first built. They would have been full of paint 'runs', surface contaminants, and numerous other flaws. A poor quality paint job would have been the norm. After all, speed of completion was the requirement, not a good finish. The paint they would have used in production would most likely have been a nitrocellulose lacquer or a variation of an enamel produced at the time. The irony is that in production, they would have sprayed a lot of things once the vehicle was almost or fully assembled, resulting in an appaulingly messy finish, with no regard to durability or resistance to damage of any kind. The concerns of succeptability to chemical and physical degradation were not of concern 70 years ago. Having this occur on your vehicle may actually give a more authentic appearance.

One final point. Which ever type of paint you choose, if you use a hardener, there is a fair chance the surface can handle a wipe down with mineral turpentine to get most substances off. You will be wise to test this for yourself, on an unseen area, prior to attempting a full scale clean on outside panels.

My enamel paint (with hardener additive) has served me well, and will actually lose more sheen over time. I also expect it will gain a weathered appearance with use and subsequent cleaning. Thats why I want to spray it as well as I can initially. Time will give me the more authentic aged look.

If you are getting a paint job done professionally, or your vehicle will be getting off-road use (and damage), go for the 2 Pack option. If not, save yourself some trouble and try the enamel. Just dont use enamel without adding the hardener. You'll be sorry in the long run if you do. Well thats my opinion anyway. Others views will vary, no doubt. Paint qualities will vary significantly across brands and types. Protec seems to be universally accepted as one of the more easier/better ones. I can certainly support this from prrsonal experience. I use Barrier type enamel. Its an industrial grade product, more for heavy equipment than, say....a Jaguar.

Hope this helps.

P.S: I cant offer opinion on putting a low sheen clear over solid colors, having never tried it, but I would have thought that a similar surface finish of the clear would sustain staining of contamination also. The clear would definately have to be of same paint brand & type, of course. Just bear in mind that a number of new vehicle manufacturers have moved away from "COB", which stands for Clear over Base, in favor of using the base only without clear top-coat. Base in this case refers to a color, usually metallic, but does not have to be. The down side of this decision is that when machine buffing a metallic finish, the physical abrasion of the cutting compound often leaves swirles visible, and these in turn require further polishing to remove. The same marks are left in a clear coat too, but they are invisible as no pigment is involved in this case. This logic does support the use of clear top-coat to reduce visible marking. I would welcome photos of both methods after a few years, to compare long term results.

[Tony Wheeler]

Thanks very much Tony, that's exactly the kind of info I was seeking and couldn't get from paint companies! Most of them recommended acrylic but I couldn't get a satisfactory explanation as to why.