Hi Lionel Gee

So far as I can tell the KG3 was a prewar colour . The specification for it in the Archive is a 1940 spec ( from memory I don't have it in front of me) It was specified for all tin hats made in Australia throughout the war.

I understand it was from a British specification but I have to send some data to Mike Starmers to confirm that. I have a spectrographic sample of the only known chip , and it is a chip indeed measuring around 3/8" square, that i will have made up and sent of to Britain for comparison.

KG #3 was not used on Vehicles by the Australian Army according to the documentary and photographic evidence that exists until December of 1943. Army orders and paint availability indicate Deep bronze green and British desert yellow (light stone) were used until the Australian "Berger" colour set was adopted.

The standard Khaki was KGJ ( colour J in the colour set.)

To Your vehicle: I am still gathering information for 1939 to June/July 1941 to nail down definitely the shades used. If your vehicle was made after June/July I think the KGJ would have been used.

KG1 and 2 were never used by the Australian Army and I have never seen samples of those colours. They may have some relationship to the development of the Breger colours but there is no evidence of this in the documents.

Prior to June July I have little to go on. The photographs suggest , as much as black and white photographs can , that deep bronze green was used. The only artifacts I have direct knowledge of are the two pounder held in the AWM and the Vickers MkVI B I once owned. They were both a very deep green but substantially different to the deep bronze green post war ( as used on ferrets Cents and Saladin etc )

That Australian 1939/1941 green seem somewhat different to Mike S sample chip.

Mike Cecil has informed me that some production pre 1942 was done in "desert yellow" This is still in the research to be done envelope. If that is so then just what shade was used will be interesting as Australia was developing its own "desert yellow" shade that was no where as "yellow" as the British shade'

The yellowish colour your vehicle has faded to is typical of all the "greens" used in Australia.

No lead pigments were use din Australian MV paints during WWII. The source of the earth pigments seems to say the Yellow pigment used is the most persistent in any of the KG colours.

Your best bet is some examination including selected rub backs covered earlier in this thread . I would be happy to look at any photos you would like to put up and venture an opinion.

Areas least subjected to weathering are the best locations to try.chasis rails , behind panels and doors etc etc...

"Mike Cecil has informed me that some production pre 1942 was done in "desert yellow" This is still in the research to be done envelope. If that is so then just what shade was used will be interesting as Australia was developing its own "desert yellow" shade that was no where as "yellow" as the British shade'

It was called Light Stone or Portland Stone. Portland Stone in particular was a very 'washed out' colour, hardly yellow at all.

Vehicles allocated to the AIF in 1940-41 by contract were supposed to be supplied from the contractor's works in this colour, and those destined for the AMF were supposed to be finished in green (ahh, I hear you say .... but which green? The pre-war/peacetime green, or KG3????)

Mike

Hello Gina,

Thank you for your replies and for all the information. Much appreciated. How far away is your book from be released?

Kind Regards
Lionel

Hello Mike,

Not green Mike - Khaki and from Dulux (DLX ?) as well!

As per the plate on the firewall Colour DLX KHAKI
Batch No: -
Date: KO

Who needs a batch number anyway!

Not sure what the "KO" represents as a date?

"Khaki" what else would you need to know? :doh:

Kind Regards
Lionel

Nt
 

This is new to me

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

so who is 'he'?

Mike

Rethink on 3rd Armoured colours
 

I have had a chance to do some close inspection on Stuart M3 Hybrid .

I had thought the Vehicle was , on first brush< from the NT force but on closer inspection I see it is third Armoured.

It is clearly painted Khaki Green J and Light Brown P.

Given that the colours on my tank could be interpreted either way but seem more brownish than yellow I not think my earlier certainty on Light Stone was mistaken.

The colours on this Hybrids rear doors are very very well preserved.

I Know the vehicle was made in Feb of 1942 and think it was delivered in time for the exercises out near Narabri or very shortly after.

I have been able to see the remnants of the formation sign but have not yet found evidence of the unit number but suppose it would be the 13th .

I will do some test panels and compare the contrast . I am now firmly on the side of KGJ and LBP for third armoured.

The evidence is also that the lower parts of the vehicle were either not repainted from the imported colour od Bronze green or the paint that was on them has washed off...again the paint is very clear and in good condition

Do we know what ASC Grey G or Vehicle Grey looked like?
Mike Kelly already posted this above but there's an order in "12 Aust Div GS Branch NT Force" (p.99, Oct 1942) with three different mixtures for Grey (although it doesn't explicitly state that the colour is Grey G) and another one "14 Adelaide River Line of Communication Sub Area" (p.14, Dec 1943, following SM 4803 from Mar 1943) calling for Grey (Vehicle Grey in the charts attached).

So are they (Veh Grey & Grey G) even the same and if not, does that mean there was five greys?

The Grey for the NT force was meant to be the standard colour chart grey however a recommendation that it might be mixed from a combination of standard colours was made in NT force orders.

The standard colours and various mixes will be included in the book

Just opening the discussion again in respect of discussions I have had with Tony and after having read Stephen Tabouts attempt on Vehicle markings.

I remain unconvinced that a scheme that incorporated vehicle Greens or Vehicle Grey was ever used.

I have reread the files concerning this especially 32172419 which discusses it at length and even appears to promulgate orders that specify such a scheme.

There are several difficulties here. The special order for a scheme for NSW , the debate that was ongoing and inconclusive among the various commands through out 1943, especially the objections of Qld questioning its usefulness the expenditure of labor, and other resources and the general push for each different command to have their own scheme.

There are also issues with that file flying in the face of very very definite instructions and orders in relation to the application of camouflage. Two that stand out is the requirement to adhere tightly to the laid down pattern. Camouflage instructions of the time make it clear that having uniform camouflage patterns in fact makes vehicles easier to spot not harder. The eye will train itself to see repetitive patterns in a landscape so the more chaotic the pattern the more difficult it is to see. The second issue is the idea of diffuse edges. All camouflage instructions insist on definite edges even outlining them with a brush so there is a sharp definition between tones. This is a primary rule of camouflage and can be seen in most armies of the world at the time . ( save those who had opted for single tone camo .)

The earlier referred to file AWM52 1/8/46/13 has a scheme for The Adelaide river area and specifies a scheme of Vehicle dark green vehicle medium green and vehicle grey.

There are a couple of difficulties with taking this as an absolute proof that such a scheme was ever used.

The first is that it was promulgated on the 8th December , within weeks of the Master General of Ordnance declaring that all disruptive schemes will be discontinued forthwith and KG3 will be applied to all vehicles irrespective.

Daikin confirms this in his history of Camouflage noting that after observing exercises of the US Army, who used only olive drab , that it was as effective as disruptive especially after the vehicles had been "muddied" up.

The Second it the selection of colours . The question here is why would three new colours be needed , a dark green a lighter green and a grey given all of those colours could be found on the existing colour chart.



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.
I have managed to find a few and the difference between Stephens recreation and the original is enough to make more detailed observations from the originals

The schemes for vehicles seem fanciful, though I am told they were taken from an archival source I have been unable to locate it . It appears they are recreations of a Pamphlet issued in 1946 "painting of Army Vehicles" I havnt see the pamphlet so what relevance it might have to 1942/43 is unknown.

I remain unconvinced that the three toned scheme Green D Green L and V grey was ever used. If it was I would also need to be convinced that standard colour chart tones were not used. It makes no sense to me that new colours would need to be invented given the range of colours available and that those in the files proposing the changes had the resources to properly formulate colours and provide the requisite samples to the Standards association...

Finally the issuance of the schemes and the paint colours needed the final approval of the Master General of Ordnance . I cannot find any order to effect such a change from that office. The Camouflage bulletins refer to all the changes so far as I know and there is no reference there.

B&W Photographs available of three toned schemes are not all that helpful as the 1942 order specified five three tone schemes most of which would be indistinguishable from dark green , medium green and grey , Indeed I have had a couple of correspondents who have insisted schemes are three tone from very indifferent photographs whose history and location are unknown and shadowing and mud could constitute the third tone of a two tone scheme .

In the end the artifact is the ultimate arbiter providing care has been taken to maintain remnant camouflage schemes. Failing that a photograph and adherence to schemes that have definite and proven unit provenance.

If anyone has links or can provide references to Vehicle Drawings outside of those I have already posted or references to Standards to paint colours beyond those contained in the Emergency Standard Jan 1943 I would be grateful .

Earlier in this thread there was some discussion on WW1 colours.

The 1906 US War Department Circular 66 specified the use of Olive Drab for army wagons and indicated that this color could be mixed using 6 pounds White Lead in Linseed Oil, 1 pound Raw Umber pigment, 1 pint Turpentine, and ½ pint Japan Drier. Surviving samples show it to be lighter that World War II Olive Drab. This color remained standard through World War I, and was authorized in the annual editions of the “Manual for Quartermaster Corps, United States Army” through 1917.

None of this sounds colour perfect match material or long lasting.

Without spectrographs in the production phase the WW2 colour search is also like chasing a shadow and any talk of colour can only be about code numbers. There are still possibly tens of thousands of old military vehicles with unblemished paint samples on them (under seats, beneath brackets, inside gloveboxes, unopened parts boxes etc) and we have endless discussions about what the actual colours were. Colour names 100% identified, colour schemes 100% identified (maybe not looking at Gina's post above), colour codes 100% identified, colour furmulas 100% identified - actual colours ???

They were eye matched in vast quantities by different manufacturers with different sources of supply of the same materials but of slightly different chemical properties. Even in black and white photos you can see vehicles are different shades. Some parts were dipped, some were sprayed (at different pressures and solvent mixes) some were brushed. You can get numerous shades using these different methods from the same can of stable modern paint in your shed let alone manufacturers continents apart in different temperatures using different brands in 1942.

Anything applied in workshops or the field post manufacture, forget it as any sort of bench mark.

The search for truth on this thread is really fascinating from an historical point of view and lots of people have worked very hard to provide answers.

Many people on the forum have said it before but it comes down to "There never was a large military fleet with a colour so uniform it would stand up to modern spectrographic matching and the best you can do is to find the colour that appeals to you in the "correct" range"

Unless we all choose to go with one of the many paint sellers who claim their product is "accurate WW2" (but different from the other "accurate WW2" sellers) we will continue to see vehicles at shows in a wide range of shades - exactly as it would have been in WW2.

Lang

The issue of eye matching and local purchase has been covered previously ..put simply if it happened at all it was exceptional,
Despite notions that things were complete chaos in 1942 the Army had an effective supply chain and ordinary paint was very hard to get on account of strict rationing...the only paint available to units would be to scale and to approved colours....

There are not so many vehicles with recoverable external paint. I have looked at quite a few and finding parts of vehicles and using complicated recognition methods I have yet to find one with paint that is not one of the official colours. I also note paint under a seat or chassis rail is not indicative of the external camouflage finish it shows the factory finish which varied over time for instance the factories were still painting KGJ in 1944 when the colour was KG3 and most of the spared were the earlier colour...overpainting in Army workshops prior to issue was the rule. There were huge ordnance workshops in all states.

Here is an example and one that will never be sandblasted out of existence .

Btw earlier in the thread there is a link to a Passing out Parade at Parkes NSW showing a remarkabl;e uniformity of colour if a somewhat interesting pattern ,,, as it should be

Gina

I did not mention local purchase but was referring to various manufacturers original paints.

Even today, with multi million dollar computers, multi million production runs and highly advanced long lasting and stable synthetic paints a painter would never just blast a repair straight out of the can, supplied by the manufacturer onto a three day old car that had never been in the sun.

He will always run a test spray and more often than not his computer or eye will require a minor alteration.

Lang

colours
 

I recall opening parts wrapped in the waxy preservative material back in the 1970's . At the time, Auto Surplus had many WW2 era US vehicle parts, unopened and sealed .

As far as WW2 US olive drab goes , going by the parts I opened up, there was not a standard OD that each manufacturer adhered to, I found at least 4 very different greens on different parts. The trico vacuum wiper motors ( 10 bucks a pair in the sealed box ) and the arms , some were a glossy dark green, the blades a different green again. The US blackout driving inserts from Camberwell , completely sealed in the wax , 50 cents each, again at least 3 very different greens , some light and olivey, some were a green with a slight blueish hue.

I think Lang's thoughts are pretty much on the mark. Turps as a solvent for starters , a can of worms is opened.

I recall rubbing down the 41 slat grill Jeep, must have been 6 coats of army green , each green a different shade .

My father was a automotive spray painter for over 40 years, I used to get him to match the matt OD Blackout inserts , he said it's a nightmare job to do using the modern formula paints. Its all a compromise and we have to accept that .

I hear what you are saying Lang.

It has been put to me many times , I have never found any evidence to support the theory that manufacture paint varied to any extent in colour.

The method of manufacture ,,,specified weights and measures of pigment such as chromate where those pigments were held to very tight constraints , optical measured comparison with a standard plate and so on left little room for differences.

I also strongly disagree with your contention modern paint manufacturers cant get it right. Spectrography is used to detect copyright infringements routinely these days. Makers of everything from T shirts to I phone cases use very specific colors that are not able to be exactly reproduced without knowing the pigment make up...spectrographs ate sensitive enough to pick iup those differences.

It wasn't as hit and miss as you contend in WWII and its not now so far as my research has revealed

You are probably right Gina about modern paints. Still can't figure out why I pass almost new cars every day, repaired under insurance by top panel shops with the newly sprayed door jumping out from the rest of the body.

Maybe application has as much to do with differences as what is in the tin?

Lang

Paint manufacturers even today, advise if doing a large job to use paint tins with same batch number to ensure matching.
I agree with Lang, brushing and spraying makes a huge difference in the colour, as does different types of thinners and the amount, also temperature when applied.

cheers Richard

this is not an argument I am ever going to win with those committed to a belief of primitive and rough paint manufacture.
The difference in colours of NOS items I have seen can be attributed to country of manufacture and time of manufacture as colors were changed,,,the most common American Olive drab is OD8 there were seven before that.

That paint fades and discolors when exposed to sunlight , hostile environments and oxygen has also been covered previously and accounts for most if not all the differences observed in photographs. Discoloration is especially evident on dead flat paints as we used until the introduction of egg shell KG3 .

I am open to the idea that manufactures may have got it wrong or schemes I have not accepted were in fact used...But I need concrete evidence in the form of documentation or an artifact who's provenance is in no doubt and has been measured scientifically.

When I began my little project all sorts of things were put ...I have chased every one down . What I have now are verifiable and certain.
That's not to say I have everything or that my current position is final...it never will be ,,,but it will always be advanced only with verifiable documentation or evidence from artifacts.

As I indicated earlier I am keen to be shown to be wrong ( that can only improve our understanding ) and look forward to hearing of any documents I have not considered...

Gina

I don't think anyone has mentioned primitive or rough manufacture it is just the colour matching methods of 80 years ago were no where near what they are today and relied greatly on human perception.

Unless every component of the paint comes from the same quarry, factory or refinery (which they didn't) it is not sensible to believe they will be identical with exactly the same formula and will require some form of corrective intervention. Lacking computers and modern spectrographs, the human eye is all that is left.

Just sticking to Army paint.

Back in the 70's we started to get aircraft coming out of the workshop after full rebuilds with their overall olive drab quite plainly different to the other aircraft.

The workshop CO made some investigations and found the paint was coming from a different manufacturer. Still had the same nomenclature and part numbers.

This caused a wider investigation which resulted in "Colour difference is as a result of different manufacturing methods and the new colour is deemed within acceptable variation limits"

A couple of years later the vehicles being repainted at workshops were obviously different to their new colour. Not red versus blue but perceptible to even untrained eyes. Once again, correct part numbers but different manufacturer.

Lang

Wright
 

Laurie Wrights articles on the Aust. wartime vehicle paint , written by a guy who was there and noted things down, is eye opening . He indicates that the official orders re: painting were ignored to a large degree and it was common to see vehicles in the same unit finished in different theatre colours . If a unit OC was not that fussed about paint then so be it.

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/oth...siecamlw_1.htm

All this pedantic talk of colours means nil in terms of a tropical environment , mainly because the paint supplied to the DD back then was crap and made to a minimal standard.

Mike

A lot of things on the forum point to people who have never been in the military thinking minute rules laid down are strictly adhered to.

Many rules and instructions, being quoted as justification for something happening, were, and still are, completely ignored (if the troops are ever aware of them). The military is a living working being subject to all the forces of the general community and many instructions are treated with "better things to do with our time" response.

A case in point is reenactors dressed to perfection in all the prescribed uniform and kit of the period. If you look carefully any photo of a group of 10 soldiers in the field, not on parade, of any army, it will show 10 different variations in dress and equipment and not one of them down to the last button shown in the equipment manual photos.

The current discussion on paint colour and schemes is an academic exercise as you will be hard pushed to find photos of any working WW2 vehicle in the field correctly marked down to the last red nut on the CMP wheels let alone a whole gaggle of them going somewhere all identical. They may seem identical but start to look at how the tarps are tied down, where names, numbers and plates are, lettering style and size, whether directional tyres are on the right way etc etc.

The longer they are in units, the greater the local changes and differences from any updated regulations which are generally ignored or at least delayed until convenient.

We need the researchers to give us the background but what is written is far from what is done.

Lang

Kg3
 

Hi Gina,

Add this to your 'mix' (no pun intended ... well maybe just a little) of information about the use of KG3 (whatever that shade of 'green' actually was after a week in the sun, rain, mud & dust ... hey, that last word-pairing looks like a good title for a book!!):

3MD VRD Instruction No.12 dated 21 February 1942, part 9 states :

(9) Upon receipt of completed vehicle, Workshop section to repaint in Khaki Green No.3 dull finish, Army number to be painted on centre rear & each side of bonnet in white 3.5 inch block numerals. (my bolding emphasis).


Mike

Paint variation
 

Hi Gina et al,

As a person who is not good at researching, I have followed this thread with great interest and appreciate the hard digging people have done in the archives. I also appreciate the first hand experiences of those who have served and observed.

For my part the various discussions has reassured me that it is not essential if one does not get the colour exactly "right". The variables in paint application, supply, and all the other factors are so numerous that I believe now if the colour is in the ballpark that is good enough.

I still think, however, if one can start with a close as possible match to the original standards that is the best starting place. At least that takes out some of the uncontrollable factors. That was the basis of my decision last year to repaint my truck in Florite KG3 from the current Australian Army Olive Drab colour previously used. The need to have a regular reliable supplier of the paint was also a factor in the repaint.
As shown in the photo the fuel tank is Florite KG3, the toolbox and lower cabin back are Wattyl Semi-gloss OD, and the door and spare tyre carrier frame is Croda flat OD. As can be seen, even the difference between SG and flat of the same Australian Army spec colour is noticeable.

So if my KG3 appears too green, brown, light, dark etc that is fine. I know it is closer to the original WW2 colour (thanks to Gina) than the current Australian Army colour it had been painted so I am happy with it and to use the model making expression. "if the colour looks right, it is right"

Cheers,

mixing
 

After many expensive stuff ups with paint retailers, I decided to do my own tinting . It's a cheaper option in the long run because there is no time limit on your own time. The paint retailers are paying a employee to mix your colour and they just want to get it out the door and get the money off you. If it turns out wrong, tough luck.

For green , start with a yellow base , I buy damaged cans for 1/2 price and you go from there. Takes some experimenting but my theory is : during the war they didn't want complicated tints and mixes, they kept it simple because large orders were from the Govt. , with may thousands of gallons being manufactured. There must have been cases of poor quality paint being supplied to the vehicle manufacturers , its human nature, rip off the govt.

This is all a complicated subject and with so many army units scattered all over the country and world, its nigh on impossible to cover every possible scenario . In some cases I'm sure units purchased paint from a local hardware store .

Hi Mike ... Do you have a bar code for that reference??

After looking at the files concerning three tone I am not convinced a;; of these orders were actually instituted and I am not convinced a reference to KG3 prior to the final decision to adopt it was in fact KG3 and not KGj ...I am not convinced all of the correspondents were familiar with the correct names as written in the standard.

That said Feb 1942 is right in the transition zone from the prewar to the standard colour plates. I put the system into four distinct phases.
1 prewar until the declaration of war in Europe august 1939.
2 from declaration of E war to pearl harbour
3 Pearl Harbor to December 1943
4 from December 1943 until the adoption of DBD24
The second period seems to have had DBG 24 on the way out ..some KG3 and some Portland/Light Stone for ME The introduction of disruptive and the colour plates was in contemplation as early as late 1941ish based on the Nobel's system of colours used by the British and I imagine units were still putting out orders for 1941 schemes into the early parts of 1942 as they were later putting out orders for 1943 schemes in 1944 .
I am still not settled on this but it seems it had taken some months to catch up with the latest orders and for the supply chain to find them

As for the paint being substandard I strongly disagree , There was some from Victoria that failed and had to be reapplied however all others were Alkyd paint made to a stringent specification. That some is still extant on vehicles all be it weathered speaks to its longevity and sturdiness, Photographs from the time do not show flaking patchy or noticeably faded paint.

Flo rite can mix any of the standard colours to a highly precise shade,However if mixing your own suits then well done .

I am familiar with Laurie's article and I mean no offence when I say it is anecdotal.
It is not sufficiently documented to say it is more than recollection .

Mike I am equally certain they did not purchase paint locally... there is an absolute lack of evidence to support the contention and an ocean of evidence that the Army supply chain worked

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

Sydney
 

Laurie took particular note of what he was seeing re: vehicle colours, this was a very unusual thing to do to say the least. Yes, it is limited to the Sydney region only but it is still revealing. I would describe his article as being 'primary evidence' . Because his article doesn't have an official Govt. office stamp on it, doesn't mean we can dismiss it as being anecdotal. If all of written history was based on official reports only, it would be sad thing and give a very distorted view.

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."