Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Mrs Vampire]

Mike

I have no document or order specifying KG3 DBG24 or The desert yellow prior to the colour plates in the way I have definite orders etc for the introduction of KG3 in 1943.

The references that are trickling in seem to indicate to me that KG3 was used between DBG24 and the colour plates...But I dont have an order that introduces it .

Ie all vehicles shall be repainted with KG3 henceforth. or even DBG wil be discontinued . I would expect that such an order would need to have been given in 1939..1940 at the latest... So far what I have is a general trickle of mentions .
The formula was in a file that was for Helmet paint ...

So I am assuming it was the interim colour .... Sorry if I seem contradictory its a moving feast for me . I also don't have paint specifications to manufacturers of vehicles for any colour...so far I am inferring from photos

What I have got is the definite introduction of the colour plated and a definite introduction of KG3 1943...1939 to 1942 is less definite

[Mrs Vampire]

tony I have still not seen any document that specifies light earth as a replacement for light stone in 1942

It would be a help if one came to light . KGJ and Light Earth were in the original schemes .

and where does this come from ??? " As we know KG3 was British Army standard colour and Light Earth was RAF standard colour. Having been adopted by Australian Army they were duplicated by DHS in flat oil paint for use in the field. Hence Army instructions specify DHS colours Khaki Green J and Light Earth W. This creates the illusion that THESE are Army standard colours, leading to the assumption they’re used in production. I suspect this may be where Gina is struggling, but it’s all so convoluted I’ve been unable to construct a coherent explanation!""

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

tony I have still not seen any document that specifies light earth as a replacement for light stone in 1942

Gina, if you haven’t seen the relevant instruction, it’s because you don’t want to see it! For starters it’s there in Steve Taubert’s paper, right up front in the Camouflage section, of which you were so critical just a few days ago:

“I am also disappointed with Stephens treaties in that he has attempted to recreate the documents from archival sources rather than simply post images of the originals. It leaves one pondering just what has been included and what has been omitted for convenience sake or because of its relevance in the judgement of the author. The lack of attribution of sources in the Biblio or foot notes means it is impossible to go to source documents to verify the information.”

In this case the relevant document is Mech Circ 319 of 28/7/42. I’ve posted an original copy along with Steve’s “attempted” recreation. You be the judge.

By way of further explanation I quote from Steve’s preface:

“As mentioned I have collated the various documents in my possession into a single book, in doing so I have attempted to reproduce the original documents as accurately as possible. By which I mean, errors in layout, punctuation and spelling have not been corrected. These documents, especially those relating to vehicle numbering in Part 2, are as close to the original as could be achieved using a modern computer word processor. It was sometimes extremely difficult to exactly duplicate documents, that was produced in a manual typewriter, where the typist could remove the page and reinsert it to achieve typing at various angles. My reasons for reproducing so many documents are as follows:
a) Every instruction represents a change, no matter how minor; they also show increases and decreases in the military Order of Battle,
b) After having so much difficulty, in obtaining the documents that are still in existence, I wanted to assure myself that they at least would not be lost, and that for the first time they could be viewed in a single book,
c) The Australian public have for years, relied on this type of information being supplied by historians from overseas, which have not always been as accurate as one would hope, and
d) After so many years of misinformation, being the only information, it is the simplest way of dispelling doubts in people’s minds by reproducing the original documents as it appeared at the time.

[Mrs Vampire]

But that is just reiterating a scheme from 301 as put in Jan 1942....

I don't understand how that is a new scheme ??? It also fits in with Dakins objection to three tone schemes .

Tony I am not trying to be a smart arse or cause trouble I am just seeking out definite stuff that would be a referenced basis for a publication.

There are many documents whose names are out there that I don't have for instance

Military Board instruction 194 and most of the Mechanization circulars. I also don't have the standards for the colours Vehicle grey ect that you quoted on facebook and I don't have any references to them .

I pay for the publication online of all the files I find in the archives and have spent well over a thousand dollars doing that. I have also spent a couple of thousand chasing down colours in the archive and having them spectrographed....
I don't understand your hostility I am doing my best to come up with things that can be referenced...I am sorry if you think I should go on your say so...that's just not how I do things...

I stand by my criticism of Tauberts book, I think it is fair...putting up un traceable recreations of documents is not reliable in my opinion. There are details even in the lay out that are informative. The camouflage schemes he has recreated are from a 1949 pamphlet with colour codes that have no traceable history of implementation as the file from Jan 1943 makes clear .

Putting the Australian coat of arms ect ect on the documents is just fanciful in my opinion. They never looked like that and I think it is misleading to portray them as such .

But for me I am still learning and as I have said previously if anyone has documents that can help I would be glad of them .

I am keen to get all of the relevant mechanical circulars and especially keen to get specifications for the painting of vehicles by manufacturers. I am keen to get the MBI that mandated KG3 I would be grateful for documents that specify The Australian Desert tone for ME export vehicles.

Another document mentioned SM4809 has been impossible for me to find .

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

But that is just reiterating a scheme from 301 as put in Jan 1942....I don't understand how that is a new scheme ???

Gina the operative words are: "This circular supersedes and cancels Mechanization Circulars No.301, 309 as applicable and 311."

The context of MC 319 is Army taking back control of camo policy from DHS (ie. Dakin). The original DHS schemes under MC 301 had proven impractical - too many colours, too many schemes, lousy paint quality in the field, general difficulties with painting in the field, supply of materials etc, and most importantly, Light Stone disruptive found too conspicuous in Australian landscapes. The challenge for Army was to develop a SINGLE, STANDARDIZED scheme, suitable for the widest possible range of landscapes, which could be applied IN PRODUCTION. They decided on Light Earth disruptive, and at the same time they darkened KG3.

Sorry if I came across hostile, not my intention all. You're doing excellent work, just need to get all our ducks in a row. It will take a while, this is a horrendously complex subject. That's why no one has managed to write a book yet!

re Steve Taubert's work - like you I'd prefer to see the original docs for verification, but they're not appropriate for publication (old, tattered, torn, overwritten, faded, illegible, etc). Same considerations will apply to any book on camo, eg. pattern charts cleaned up for presentation, and possibly even coloured. Mike will be able to advise on publishing aspects.

I shall keep feeding you the relevant docs, which thanks to you I've been able to access and organize in the comfort of my living room, while you do all the legwork!

[Mike Kelly]

I have a suggestion: this thread header should be

ITS ACADEMIC

[Mike Kelly]

A still from a colour film, Bougainville ( no, not the Northern Melbourne suburb where Chopper Read came from , that is Thomastown ) .

I can see a dark green and a lightish brown colour , the two colour camo ?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I can see a dark green and a lightish brown colour , the two colour camo ?

I don’t think so Mike, just single colour Dark Green. You can see it better in my screenshot. I discovered how to do screenshots a while back, they're so much easier than photos and much better result. You should try it, just google "screenshot" for instructions.

Second pic shows the difference between Dark Green and KG3. You can see why NG Force (and NT Force) preferred Dark Green, it matches the jungle foliage so much better than KG3. US Olive Drab was much greener than KG3 too.

Last two pics show 2/11 Fd. Regt. equipment which does appear to be NG Force scheme. Rather scruffy by that stage but blends in well I reckon.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

They decided on Light Earth disruptive, and at the same time they darkened KG3.

This was decided at Wesley meeting 13 June 42 after vehicle inspection. Unfortunately the report states Light Stone in error, but thankfully they got the alpha code correct. Which begs the question of Steve Taubert's policy of NOT correcting errors. It's a key doc which must be included.

[Mike Kelly]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

I don’t think so Mike, just single colour Dark Green. You can see it better in my screenshot.
]

Yes , the darker shade is where the water has splashed up , I should have spotted that . There may be some dusty dirt on the dryer area , the matt paint really comes to life and reveals its true colour when it is wet . Did you see the dark green YMCA Ford Vans ? The Jeep in the opening minutes is also a very dark green .

The screen shot , good tip there.

Colour 1942 WANGARATTA https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C190905

[Tony Wheeler]

Gina you’ll find some useful background material in the work of art historian Ann Elias:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/journal/j38/camouflage

para 3:
By 1942 there were so many protests − particularly from the Army − about Dakin’s interference in military matters that a new arrangement had to be made. Finally, each of the services took control of its own camouflage operation, leaving the Defence Central Camouflage Committee to act as their advisory body only. The camouflage research station at George’s Heights, set up by the Department of Home Security for experimentation, was handed over to the Army.

para 21:
Early in 1942 the Army separated from the camouflage organisation set up by the Department of Home Security. This was certainly no loss to the Army since it had always trained its own camouflage officers, either at the Camouflage Wing at George’s Heights organised by the Army School of Military Engineering, or through camouflage training units run by the Royal Australian Engineers.

“Once the army had decided to go its own way, the Department of Home Security soon found that its camouflage activities were mainly confined to the R.A.A.F., for after October 1942, when the threat of Japanese invasion had disappeared, all civil camouflage was discontinued.” (Camouflage Australia, Ann Elias 2011)

Her book Camouflage Australia contains some excellent photos with file refs that may yield info on the development of DHS camo colours and patterns.

[Mike Kelly]

Appears to be a British colour scheme 1941 ? Malaya . The car looks like a Chev so its Australian paint ?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

the matt paint really comes to life and reveals its true colour when it is wet .

Indeed it does Mike, I'm always on the lookout for colour film of wet vehicles, eg. parades in the rain. I hadn't considered vehicles in rivers!

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

Did you see the dark green YMCA Ford Vans ?

I certainly did Mike, and it looks like factory paint to me. What do you think? We know from correspondence that Dark Green was the preferred base colour for vehicle camo by late '42, eg. Dark Green M specified for NT Force and NG Force schemes, and NSW LOC Area scheme using "Dark Green 3" which was KG3 with 1/8 Night Black U added, then special colours developed like "Black Green" and finally the adoption of "Vehicle Dark Green". It's possible this colour entered production alongside KG3 for vehicles bound for NG, and decisions re disruptive colour left to GOC in the field. On the other hand it generally wasn't known at production stage where vehicles were destined to go, so perhaps they were refinished at BOD where high standard paintwork was the norm. Whatever the case there do seem to be plenty of Dark Green vehicles seen in operational areas by 1945.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

Appears to be a British colour scheme 1941 ? Malaya . The car looks like a Chev so its Australian paint ?

Yes Mike it's KG3 with Dark Tarmac disruptive (standard British disruptive colour at the time). Looks like the KG3 was repainted at the same time, presumably British stocks were used. I have another image which shows 8th Div formation sign, plus B&W image showing this scheme.

[Tony Wheeler]

Singapore April 1941 we see Dark Tarmac disruptive again but this time over S.C.C. 2 which has already replaced KG3 in production. Note rear vehicle still KG3 which dates the changeover to early '41. Meanwhile Australian Army retained KG3 until 1948!

[Mike Kelly]

I believe some of the refugee vehicles arrived here still finished in the earlier two green disruptive British scheme .

I have one original Morris CS8 GS body side, the two greens are there to be seen , faded of course. The darker green was originally very dark , this was hand painted over the khaki 3 . The PU I have here has the two greens as well , under the desert yellow, which is under the cheap grey Lanes Motors applied in 1945. The old chap up at Whittlesea told me: Lanes Motors slapped a cheap coat of grey paint over the military paint before they sold the vehicles.

BTW the Ambulance in the Wangaratta film is a very odd strange green, the canvas and uniforms appear to be a reasonable colour . This to me indicates the dyes in the film stock appear to be in OK ?

This is a drawing I did years ago, an attempt at re-creating what I found on the Morris body. I should not have indicated G3 for the darker colour .edit: it should be G4 . The two Humbers on the punt, maybe they are the two greens ?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I believe some of the refugee vehicles arrived here still finished in the earlier two green disruptive British scheme....The darker green was originally very dark, this was hand painted over the khaki 3....The two Humbers on the punt, maybe they are the two greens ?

Good point Mike, I hadn't considered that possibility. I presume this refugee Bedford is the two green scheme...? They're quite close in tone, very little disruptive effect. Humber scheme looks to have more contrast, so my first thought was Dark Tarmac, but on reflection I suspect you're right. It's quite dark overall, more like the Bedford than the ambo seen below. However I don't know enough about British colours and chronology to be confident. It takes a practised eye to distinguish camo schemes in B&W photos, and I lack familiarity with British schemes.

[Richard Farrant]

Hi Tony
I always understood that the Bedford QLB LAA tractors as in your post were actually sent to Australia and not refugees. From what I remember they were assembled at the GM plant at Fishermans Bend. It is highly likely they left the Vauxhall factory in Luton in the same colour as all other Bedfords coming of the line, ie same as the then current army paint regulations in UK.
Regards Richard

[Tony Wheeler]

Hi Richard,

I’m afraid my use of the word “refugee” was an assumption on my part, I really don’t know much about these Bedford tractors, just using this one as an example of paint colour. Thanks very much for the info, which makes perfect sense now that I think about it.

Photos are indeed taken at Fishermans Bend, they appear in a promotional album produced by GMH in 1942.

Cheers, Tony

[Lang]

Tony

I bought 2 Bedford QLB tractors from the old steam driven sawmill at Leyburn about 20 years ago. One was complete with the basic artillery body , the other was cab chassis. Never got around to doing anything with them and Ken Smith in Dalby got them.

The owner said he bought them very early "or maybe while the war was on" as he had priority as a timber producer.

The reason they were in such good condition, unlike most sawmill vehicles, was his opinion they were not anywhere near as good as the Blitz for tough work. As a result they were just reserves for his dozen or so CMP's. I got the impression they just occasionally used the winches for rolling logs in the yard.

Lang

[Tony Wheeler]

Lang, this one appeared on ebay last month, $400 in Lightning Ridge. Last time I looked it had one bid, maybe Ken...?

[Mike Kelly]

I was trolling through the AWM archives online , and I came across some shipping manifests . The documents named the ships and the equipment supplied from the UK, and the ports and dates. Stuff like M20 M/cycles were shipped here and the Matilda II tanks and more. These examples , I believe, were not refugee cargo.

Years ago Tim Vibert ran a wanted to buy advert in the 'Weekly Times' (rural newspaper ) , he was looking for QL Bedfords the ad included a picture of a QL Bedford. I recall Tim had purchased a QLB , this 'find' was reported in W&T magazine.

[Tony Wheeler]

Getting back to paint colours, these Bedfords received at Fishermans Bend in '42 would have been repainted KG3 with Light Earth disruptive, as seen on Chev CMP vehicles pictured at GMH Pagewood NSW in '42. However this scheme was effectively obsolete by late '42, being found too light for SWPA, and lacking sufficient contrast for effective disruption, which at the time was believed essential for concealment.

Preferred scheme by late '42 was Dark Green with Light Grey disruptive, but instructions were that vehicles already camouflaged were not to be repainted, unless moving into operational areas.

Which of these two schemes are we seeing in these pics? The one in the parade looks quite pale and not much contrast. My guess would be still in factory KG3 / Light Earth.

The other one is demobbed about to be civilianized. Very high contrast, with much darker dark tone, even in bright sunlight. Has to be Dark Green / Light Grey. Notice how the light tone / dark tone pattern has been reversed during repaint. I wonder if this was intentional, so the ARN on the doors would be visible. If so they’ve defeated the purpose somewhat by stencilling it higher on the doors!

When you start looking for Dark Green / Light Grey scheme you’ll discover it everywhere from late ’42 onwards. It’s time we recognized this scheme and start using it on restos. Until then we’re failing to do justice to Australian military history in the field of camouflage.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

It’s time we recognized this scheme and start using it on restos. Until then we’re failing to do justice to Australian military history in the field of camouflage.

Same goes for KG3 / Light Earth. This scheme although obsolete by late '42 had already been applied to thousands of vehicles in production, many of them to remain for some time, eg. Battery Staff vehicles pictured below in '44.

[Tony Wheeler]

Another useful reference text is D.P. Mellor THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY. Available for download on AWM site is Chapter 23. CAMOUFLAGE, CIVIL DEFENCE AND MAPPING.

https://oldsite.awm.gov.au/images/co...070370--1-.pdf

Following excerpt gives an excellent account of the breakdown in relations between Army and Dakin.

"About a year before Japan entered the war, the Director-General of Engineer Services asked for advice concerning the camouflage of Larrakeyah Barracks at Darwin, whose shining roofs could be seen from the air at a distance of 50 miles. In the course of discussion it was decided that camouflage of establishments at Darwin would be unusually difficult and probably futile, because Japanese pearl-divers were already well acquainted with the area.

It was impossible to say just what effect this lack of preparation had on the severity of the Japanese attacks on Darwin, but it was realised that even adequate camouflage would have been only a small part of its defence. This conclusion was reinforced a few weeks later when large numbers of seasoned and experienced troops returned from the Middle East. Officers of the returning army were impressed with some of the elaborate efforts at camouflage they saw in South Australia, but with vivid memories of much-bombed cities in the Middle East where the presence or absence of camouflage seemed to have made little difference to the degree of devastation, they thought such efforts were out of proportion to the needs of the situation.

Dakin, resenting the opposition of the newly returned army leaders to many of the camouflage schemes, became critical of their judgment in these matters, and pointed out that the lessons of concealment learned in the Middle East were not always relevant to Australian conditions. The inevitable clash between army and civilian authorities came not over the question of who had the more experience but over the question of who should control camouflage activities. The army's real concern was with what it believed in the circumstances to be a serious waste of manpower on unnecessary camouflage schemes. This concern is reflected in the following instructions issued by the Deputy Chief of the General Staff to all commands:

ENGINEER POLICY—FIRST THINGS FIRST

It should be recognised that the Japanese expect AUSTRALIA to fall into their hands as readily as previous countries, and that therefore, until our resistance warrants it, they will not attack anything that may be of use to themselves, but will concentrate on the destruction of our Field Armies and anything that these Armies are immediately dependent upon.

In an effort to settle what was clearly a fundamental difference in policy the Department of Home Security on 7th July 1942 arranged a conference between the Secretary of the department, the Engineer-in-Chief (Maj-Gen C.S. Steele), the Technical Director of Camouflage (Prof. W. J. Dakin), and the Secretary, Department of the Army. The conference decided that the powers granted by clause 5c of the National Security (Camouflage) Regulations, whereby the Camouflage Committee was "to prepare or approve plans for camouflage schemes and to coordinate and control all such schemes", were too extensive to be acceptable to an army in the field. Two amendments were therefore proposed, and were approved by the War Cabinet in October 1942, which would restrain the committee from interfering with Service action on camouflage. The effect of these instructions was to make the Camouflage Section of the Department of Home Security a purely advisory body to the Services and to leave with it the responsibility for civil defence and for conducting investigations on the development of materials and schemes for camouflage. Each Service now assumed control over its policy on camouflage."

Note: Six days later Army approves new vehicle camo scheme (Light Earth disruptive, KG3 darkened) which supercedes and cancels all previous DHS schemes. New scheme enters vehicle production and Mech Circ 319 issued 28 July. Dakin gets wind of it and spits dummy – seeks immediate meeting with Army but gets the brush-off. Registers objections direct with Secretary Dept of Army. This chain of messages recorded below:

[Tony Wheeler]

Some more Carl Mydans vehicle pics Singapore 1941, quite an assortment of paint colours:

http://www.vintag.es/2013/10/colour-...litary-in.html

Oops! How did that aeroplane get in there...

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

Another document mentioned SM4809 has been impossible for me to find .

Ask and ye shall receive!

Below find draft copy Jan ’43 and final copy March ’43. As you can see the paint vocab was still evolving. Also find amendment Dec ’43 replacing Medium Green with KG3.

Not surprisingly we find very little evidence of this 3-tone scheme in use. Same goes for the early 3-tone DHS schemes.

[Tony Wheeler]

Evidently someone liked this scheme for semi-trailers. No pattern chart prepared initially so they used modified Lorry chart instead.

[Grant Bowker]

Interesting to note that both memorandums above either prohibit or restrict local procurement of paint unless approved. Clearly, although local procurement was allowed for it was not expected as a normal process.

I know I have been in situations where the "DS solution" was not practical and "make it work" took over but I also sometimes think that some of the people (no critique of anyone here is intended) who loudly trumpet "field expedient" are using it as an excuse to do whatever they want regardless of whether there is any evidence that there is any precedent for their plan.

[Mike Kelly]

Has Tony been searching the NAA web site ?

I have . This late 1942 document is revealing to say the least .

In effect ,the paint manufacturers are saying to the Govt. Even if we share our paint formulas , there is no guarantee the outcome will be a standard colour

I hope the link works .

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...367640&T=P&S=7

more info

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...aspx?B=3367640