Ya, but they had to paint them anyway so they didn't rust.

But why go to all the drama and just squirt green paint over all of them like most other people?

Lang

Exactly Mike, and when we examine these local schemes we find they have two things in common:

1. Dark Tone: DARK GREEN (Dark Green M, sometimes darkened further with black)

2. Light Tone: GREY (various shades and formulations)

So, experience in the field calls for DARK GREEN / GREY scheme, and when we examine the correspondence we find the colours in development at Georges Heights Research Station are DARK GREENS and GREYS, which are eventually standardized in late 1943, along with KG3, under Interim Standard SAA/Int.23 as:

Paint, Special, Camouflage, Finishing, Vehicle Dark Green
Paint, Special, Camouflage, Finishing, Vehicle Grey
Paint, Special, Camouflage, Finishing, Khaki Green No.3

I should mention here (in case Gina reads this!) that KG3 was merely being re-standardized, having been adopted in May 1940 under War Office spec C.S. 1269 and standardized as: Department of Army Standard of Mattness, Colour & Finish No.1. – Khaki Green No.3. (now THAT would be a paint chip worth finding!)

These three colours are now the only vehicle colours authorized, which means the argument for DARK GREEN / GREY scheme over KHAKI GREEN / LIGHT EARTH scheme has been won.

The challenge for us is to identify the transition period and which particular DARK GREENS and GREYS featured along the way, and to what extent. In past years this has not been possible, but in recent times the wealth of photographic evidence available online enables us to form some conclusions.

So that’s what I’m trying to do Mike – revisit the documents in the light of new photographic evidence. Putting the two together indicates Young’s scheme first appeared in late 42 and featured on tactical vehicles, so we can now start looking for surviving paintwork to match, as I suggested: “good place to start looking might be No.6 panels.”

A leap toooo far
 

Except the 'Dark Green/Grey scheme' two tone scheme existed only at a local level, and even then, I'm not sure just how widespread the application of it actually was. LHQ's SM4809 has no provision for a two colour scheme, using a pattern that matched those issued in MC319. So, again, I think you are making too great a leap from local variations to the use of a two tone scheme of Dark Green/Grey applied in production: the LHQ sanctioned scheme as of March 43 which superseded the two tone KG3/Light Earth of July 42 scheme was three tone (Dark Green/Medium Green/Grey) - there is no mention of a two tone variation in SM4809. (Not Light Grey, or Grey G, or Vehicle Grey - just 'grey' - but which grey?)

In addition, the 'Vehicle Grey' you refer to as standardised in late 1943: is this the Standards Association's 'Grey G', which is a dark grey/ green colour which has very little contrast to Dark Green M, and nothing like a light grey, or is it another shade/mix of Grey? That just throws yet another variation into the mix (no pun intended).

But if you are convinced, Tony, that the 'Dark Green/Grey' scheme is a done deal, then by all means, you (and Mike Kelly) are free to write to the Director, AWM, expressing your views about colours and the disruptive pattern. I'll be interested to see his reply.

Mike

This is where photographic analysis becomes essential to researching this topic. I’ve found when you start actually looking for Dark Green / Grey schemes you find they’re quite common after 1942, but if you’re looking through the prism of DHS colours you’ll continue to see them as Light Stone or Light Earth. That’s just confirmation bias, and we’re all prone to it. If only there were more colour photos our task would be so much easier!

Perfect example of confirmation bias is Gina’s Stuart, which all the evidence indicates received Young’s “Vehicle Light Grey” treatment in the field, slapped on with 4” brush over existing “Stuart Green” using Young’s pattern charts: “a set of new designs were prepared, complying with disruptive and countershading principles of camouflage”. Gina has painstakingly reconstructed Young’s pattern chart for Tanks M3A1 Light, which I’m sure would have delighted Young himself, but he would have been aghast at the colours specified: Khaki Green / Light Stone. Unsurprisingly Gina has been unable to match the actual paintwork on the tank to any known colour.

Attachment 94929

Attachment 94930


Nevertheless Mike we have photographic evidence of scores of No.6 gun tractors on parade in QLD November 43 sporting high contrast 2-tone scheme in uniform MC319 pattern with diffuse colour boundaries, plus one in NG September 43, all of which indicates (confirms!) these vehicles received Young’s scheme in production. And why not? They were already receiving the pattern in Khaki Green / Light Earth, so all it required was to change the paint in the spray gun.

I’m assuming this was done in much the same way that Light Earth itself was introduced into production, ie. without consultation! Recall Young was beaten to the punch with his MC301 Amendment, when MC319 blindsided everyone, and Dakin complained to the Minister, and was still whining to Young two months later:

“I think you should point out to the General that this circular was issued from Melbourne, without either the Technical Director of Camouflage being consulted, or even Army Camouflage Officers….It is practically ridiculous in its set out and instructions, and I feel this will be the opinion of all Army Camouflage Officers….It is obviously too late to alter anything now.”

Young was a good operator who would have learned from the experience, and lobbied the right people to get his MC319 Variation into production. Plus it was widely supported anyway, including by Dakin who developed Vehicle Light Grey.

Meanwhile of course LHQ were busy developing an entirely new scheme, instigated this time by Captain Tadgell, former Secretary of the Sydney Camouflage Group, who took it upon himself in December to propose a rather novel 4-tone scheme, using 2 Greens and 2 Greys developed in camo school with Dakin, who managed to persuade his overeager pupil down to 3 tones, which finally appeared as Vehicle Dark Green, Vehicle Medium Green, Vehicle Grey in March 43 under SM4809.

Not surprisingly this highly impractical 3-tone scheme requiring all new patterns and colours was effectively stillborn. Young’s simple Variation to MC319 was all that was required, and apart from some tweaking of Light Tone it appears to have served until camo abandoned in mid 44.

Fortunately SM4809 did not sink entirely without trace, and this highly evolved 3-tone scheme can be seen freshly painted in 1944 (refer my posts #359 and #360 of 21/9/17) with the very attractive Dodge semi-trailer representing the culmination of Australian Army’s excursion into vehicle disruptive camouflage during WWII. However, when you read how this scheme was cooked up initially, you’ll marvel that it ever got off the ground!

Attachment 94931

Attachment 94932

This says a lot about the Holy Grail search by Dakin, Young, Tadgel and crew. They should have stuck to fixed installations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5fDi8p-C6E

Yes Mike - Grey G is the DHS equivalent to Army Standard colour Vehicle Grey, which started life as Vehicle Dark Grey! There were initially FOUR colours under consideration in December ’42:

Vehicle Light Grey
Vehicle Dark Grey
Vehicle Green
Vehicle Black Green

Dakin recommended 3-tone scheme and Vehicle Light Grey was dropped accordingly, so with no further need to differentiate between Greys the word ‘Dark’ could be dropped. At the same time they changed ‘Vehicle Black Green’ to ‘Vehicle Dark Green’ and ‘Vehicle Green’ to ‘Vehicle Medium Green’.

Clear as mud!

As I said Tony, if you are convinced, fine.

I'm not.

Mike

Gotta love duelling paint brushes!!

Jack, that's the nature of a good discussion: you don't always have to agree at the end, simply respect the other opinion, then have a couple of beers! :cheers:

Mike

So Mike, how would you explain these carriers freshly painted in 2-tone scheme November 43 in NSW...?

Attachment 94949

Tony

Not that I know anything about the paint details but the photo says "in for rectification". This to my mind means they are not new and could well be unissued stocks, built long ago, back to the factory for latest modifications before being issued for the first time.

I have absolutely no evidence but from the photo description, old stock is of equal weight to newly painted. Easy to read into anything what suits your argument while the bloke in disagreement reads the opposite from the same evidence.

Keep it going!

Lang

Good point Lang, I think you're probably right. So the question is, what colours are we seeing here?

Mike I'll take you up on those beers if I ever get to Washington, I hear they've got some great brewpubs over there! :cheers:

I’ve done some digging in my photo files and the plot thickens with these Chullora carriers! Following series of photos posted by Cam Finlay on Facebook last year show brand new carriers in field parade in single colour KG3 circa early-mid 42 (judging by vehicle types present) followed by what appear to be camo field trials in mid-42 (wet, boggy, men in greatcoats) followed by carriers in 2-tone camo seen at Workshops in late ’42 (bright, sunny, men in shirts) followed by Sydney street parade showing carriers in identical 2-tone pattern to those pictured in Chullora Workshops photo dated 23 November 1943. I’ve also dug up AWM photos of these carriers in Sydney parade which date the event to 12 December 42.

I therefore believe the NSW Railways archive photo has the year wrong (not uncommon I find) and the “rectification” carried out was disruptive painting in Young’s scheme. Except for some reason the AT and Mortar carriers, on which the earlier pattern is seen and the colours are much closer in tone, looking very much like KG3 / Light Earth to me. Perhaps this was a matter of timing - recall Young ordered 8000 gallons of paint on July 8 but his MC319 Variation was approved in October and was adopted by 2 Aust Army around that time (G1862 dated 8 November) meaning these carriers had to wait until November to receive disruptive camo. Perhaps the AT and Mortar carriers were deemed more urgent and received the currently approved colours at the time.

I note that 8000 gallons will cover 8000 x 15cwt vehicles or 4000 x 3-ton vehicles, according to standard instructions, and that’s in the field with 4” brush, not the miserly thin spraycoat applied in production, which might be expected to double that coverage. Whatever the case it seems clear Young was dealing in production quantities, and he was certainly keen to promote his scheme.

Attachment 95007

Attachment 95008

Attachment 95009

Attachment 95010

Attachment 95011

Washington
 

You'll still have a way to go to find Mike if you go to Washington! :drunk:

Or a 'gross overshoot' Keith, depending upon which way around the globe Tony travels!!

Mike

Tony and Mike

The effort you blokes are putting in is great.

In your latest collection of carrier photos I can see 5 different patterns - 6 if you count the two different patterns on the same vehicles, presumably from the same unit, in the last photo - (and the actual colours seem to be in doubt with the experts as well).

The field photos look like an exercise - Puckapunyal? Carriers running through a prelaid corduroy bog hole with a bunch of "observers" looks like a visit from the boss and his staff or a PR shoot. What makes you think it was a camo field trial?

I am really interested in what actually happened and am hard pushed trying to follow the changes in the patterns. The dates, numbers and various orders and instructions went past me long ago and I will leave that to you!

Gina's RAAF file is a great read (there would have been similar Army files). Unfortunately many researchers take correspondence on these files at face value and use them to back an argument but unless you have worked in a Headquarters you can not read between the lines.

Without that background most people do not understand the relationship between various ranks and particularly jobs. You see this a lot on MLU. It is not a straight rank line and much more collegiate than outsiders think. I spent 15 years in the Army and never once had a senior officer say to me like in the movies "And that's an order!"

Armies are made up of people with opinions, prejudices and various abilities. Pieces of paper may be guidelines of intent but nearly all final results are achieved by people talking to each other of which there is little record.

Not all correspondence carries the same weight. A researcher may not realise a letter from a Captain may have far more significance than one signed by a General. There is often a story between the lines. There are contests between personalities, many letters are just going through the motions with little intent to proceed further and whole pictures can be built up from a few words in letters weeks apart.

As mentioned before, it is easy to read into things but once you start saying the date in the photo is wrong - you may well be right - but without real evidence you may as well say any annoying contradiction is wrong and offer the cleansed evidence as perfect proof.

All the research on dates, numbers, colours and instructions in the world is not going to overcome the fact that at no time did the entire Australian forces vehicle fleet actually carry a standardised colour scheme. There were so many changes that the factory colours may likely be tracked but the new schemes may have been retrofinished on very small numbers of issued vehicles or large numbers according to the period but certainly not all.

There appears to be some idea that there were huge groups of vehicles available for repaint jobs. That may be true for transport companies, artillery and armoured units but half the army vehicles were spread throughout hundreds of smaller units ranging from headquarters vehicles to Infantry battalions to many 1-3 vehicle operators.

Getting all those random vehicles into somewhere to repaint them was impossible. Most could not afford to lose their vehicles because they had no back up and the Chaplain did not know which end of a paint brush to hold when they decided not to bring him in but sent him a can of paint and a drawing for his single vehicle.

Trying to track paint dates from photos in the field (not factory lines) is a pretty hard ask as I would hazard a guess that the further away from Victoria Barracks the units were, the less likely they would be to have brought their vehicles in for their weekly repaint.

I think the whole target of this exercise should be to find what were the actual colours - the mystery colour chip. Trying to put written instructions for patterns and colours against field photos, neatly into date boxes is impossible. You could say a scheme could not be before a date but certainly not after.

You have a big job in front of you.

PS I just had someone say they had the full WW2 period paint chip books from both the Ford and GMH factories. Should he just throw them out?

Lang

colours
 

The most accurate colour evidence would be actual surviving cans of Australian WW2 paint.

I had a can , it was a musty yellow with a very slight orange tinge . The tin, holding about 1/2 gallon, was rectangular shaped with a small spout and a cork seal . A few of the same cans were sold at Colin Andersons auction in 2003 .

Keith I’m talking about Washington State in the Pacific Northwest. It’s a renowned hop growing region for the craft brewing industry, areas like Yakima Valley which have spawned a thriving brewpub scene. Seattle quite famous for brewpubs, I figure there’d be something in Colbert too…?

Mike

I suspect a 75 year old can of paint, even if perfectly sealed, may have altered its colour like a bottle of vintage wine. Particularly if it contained any organic matter such as linseed oil. Minute ongoing chemical reaction or interaction with the surface of the can or cork seal may also play their part.

There must be dry parts that have been sealed from light and moisture out there somewhere. Anything tropical wrapped will have been changed from wax or grease contact. Many electrical parts were wrapped in newspaper or plain brown paper before being boxed and sealed. These are unlikely to reflect changes to vehicle colours but might give the prevailing base colour at the time of manufacture.

All the research the boys (and girls) are doing might eventually be able to name every colour on every stripe on every vehicle in every photo but it is of no practical use unless a real colour swatch on either hermeticaly sealed NOS equipment or an official/factory/paint manufacturer colour sample is found.

We have many restored vehicles painted from colours found under seats, in gloveboxes etc and there can be no question they will be close but the whole academic exercise remains somewhat hollow until physical proof from the period equals the rigorous investigation being done on the paperwork.

As you said some time back, Oh for a chip!

Lang

paint life
 

Hi


I'm not a organic chemist by any stretch but I do know that some organic compounds have been found preserved for thousands of years . The Egyptian honey is one I've heard of .

I don't know how a small cork might alter the colour of a can of paint but who knows . Cork is a natural product . The metal container would not allow any light through . I do remember prying the cork out and seeing the musty yellow paint in a treacle like state.

The can , I found it in Plums scrap yard at Wodonga during one the early Corowa events . I was scrounging in a old wooden outbuilding ( I actually climbed in the window ) and stumbled across the can. Funny the things you remember, they had stacks of 40mm Bofors rounds , the projectile , in the yard. A local farmer spotted our vehicles parked out the front of Plums and he rolled up in a Ford Blitz, his farm truck ! Another thing I remember is the huge mass of tangled 19 wireless set cables on the ground. And a 44 gallon drum full of the No. 3 carbon mics for a 11 set . I have drifted away from the topic again :smoker:

Lang the pattern of interest here is the Chullora Workshops pattern which appears again in the parade. The only carriers not to receive this pattern are the AT and Mortars carriers as mentioned.

Attachment 95024


I feel sure the disruptive colour is Young’s Vehicle Light Grey as it appears much lighter than the disruptive colour on the AT and Mortar carriers, which we could reasonably assume is Light Earth. Also of course we know that Vehicle Light Grey was the authorized colour at the time and paint stocks were ordered several months earlier. There’s really no reason to think it’s NOT Vehicle Light Grey. The burden of proof here is upon those would claim it to be Light Earth, in contravention of official instructions.

However I’m not so sure about the basic colour, which doesn’t look dark enough to be Young’s Dark Green 3 (ie. Dark Green M with 1/8 Night Black U). I suspect it may be KG3 as the carriers were already painted in KG3, so they may have just freshened it up before applying disruptive coat. This may have been fairly common with repaints, as opposed to new vehicles where the correct basic colour could be applied in production, ie. Vehicle Dark Green which was authorized soon afterwards. Such practice would lead to 3 different schemes under MC319 and Variations, with Vehicle Dark Green / Vehicle Light Grey becoming the de facto standard in 1943, as a result of 3-tone scheme under SM4809 being so impractical to implement.

Attachment 95025


Many reasons for believing this is NSW including reappearance of AT carrier in Sydney parade, with gun shield displaying identical pattern repainted Light Earth (presumed colour). Also the photos were posted together by Cam Finlay (who may be able to shed light on their origins).


Because we’re seeing unusual camo schemes freshly painted on one or two vehicles only, plus various forms of makeshift camo on display (netting, foliage, canvas sheet) and even a disruptively painted helmet in matching colours! Plus the very fact these professional quality photos were taken in the first place indicates the need for accurate visual record.

I find these images highly reminiscent of photos taken during camo trials at Puckapunyal during October 41 but I’m quite sure they’re NSW trials in mid-42 evaluating new camo schemes after the early schemes proved unsuitable. In fact I wouldn’t mind betting we’re seeing Young himself with the G.O.C. and could that be Dakin lurking in the long grass…? How’s that for an overactive imagination!

Attachment 95026


Yes I’m extremely uncomfortable about having to do this, as it really damages one’s credibility. However I did present incontrovertible evidence first, namely OFFICIAL AWM photos of identical carriers in Dec ’42 parade, and my wording in conclusion was carefully chosen:

“I therefore believe the NSW Railways archive photo has the year wrong”

Note that the date was always in question, which is why I posted the photo in the first place, and rudely challenged Mike to explain it! Apologies Mike! :D

Note also that we no longer need the Chullora photo, because we have evidence of carriers in the field in KG3, and subsequently on parade December 42 sporting freshly painted disruptive camo. It’s of no consequence WHERE the work was done, only WHEN it was done.


Yes, that’s precisely what I’m trying to do with Vehicle Light Grey. The first step is to establish its existence, which can only be ascertained from documents. The second step is to establish its usage, which can only be ascertained from photographs. The third step is to match the colour, which can only be done from artifacts. That’s why I suggested No.6 gun tractors as likely candidates for this colour.


Nevertheless that’s essentially what’s been done with MC301 and MC319 already, and we have ample photographic evidence of these schemes confirming the general timeline. The next instruction is SM4809, which cancelled MC319 in March 43, but we find no photographic evidence until mid-44, on a couple of semi-trailers and some genset trailers at 5 BOD. Meanwhile during 43 we continue to see MC319 pattern freshly painted, in colours of much higher contrast than KG3 / Light Earth. PLEASE EXPLAIN!

Tony

Appreciate your well thought out replies to my queries and doubts. You really have put a lot of work into this.

Lang

Likewise Lang, I appreciate you taking the time to critique my thoughts and ideas and the evidence I present. I find that I learn a helluva lot more trying to defend my pet theories than I do in isolation. Sometimes I prove myself right, and sometimes I prove myself wrong, as with the Chullora date, but I find it equally satisfying as long I’m finding answers, and discovering new pieces of the puzzle. For example I wouldn’t have dug up Cam Finlay’s photos if you hadn’t queried the Chullora evidence. And I wouldn’t have presented the Chullora evidence if Mike hadn’t challenged my “leap” from Special Variation to production. Here again I proved myself wrong, because it turned out to be a repaint!

Tony

I assume it is in the same parade. What is it with the two last vehicles in the parade collection? Same unit, different scheme from the other carriers and from each other?

Lang

Lang if you’re referring to the two Mortar carriers and the 2pdr carrier, I believe these are in Khaki Green / Light Earth scheme, which Young criticized on 13 Sept 42: “These colours are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance.” You can see what he means in that photo.

Attachment 95052

Note also the enlarged frontal pattern on the AT carrier and gun shield compared to the trial pattern, which is otherwise identical. Early disruptive patterns under MC301 were way too small, especially 3-tone patterns, and instructions were issued to make them “bolder”. I believe they were designed originally by Victorian DHS committee and not Dakin himself, although he seems to have approved them. I guess we need to bear in mind that disruptive camo was in its infancy.

Attachment 95053

Yes, I can see the panels in direct sunlight do merge their colours.

Lang

Just had a look at Dakin. Interesting bloke. Absolutely no military experience or qualifications on the requirements of battlefield camouflage but knew a lot about fish.

In the end, a camouflage system can only be judged subjectively by human observation and probably anyone with a bit of common sense could have come up with equally efficient, or inefficient, schemes given the facilities and trials he had access to.

Still, nobody in Australia was an expert in 1940, so they must have figured a bloke who knew how fish avoided being eaten must be just the shot for hiding tanks on a battlefield.

Lang

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/dakin-william-john-5863

Yes but you could say the same about CSIRO scientists consulted by Army in modern camo development. That’s all Dakin was for the military – a technical consultant. He only had authority over civil camouflage.


“In point of fact, excellent results can often be obtained by the exercise of common sense, imagination, and attention to detail; it is only in exceptional cases that the services of a specially trained officer should be required.”

EXCEPT…

“Disruptive painting is a positive menace when executed by the inexperienced; it should be left to experts.”

(Training memo 1940)


Exactly Lang, that was the whole problem, all the experience and expertise was within AIF and RAAF who were absent at the time. Plus of course Dakin had the ear of Menzies and promoted himself as Technical Director of Camouflage.


Attachment 95102

Attachment 95103