[Mrs Vampire]

Good Questions Darryl

For me no simple answer. Depending where the vehicles were made, when they went into service and where they served it seems.

The Stuarts were painted by the Australian Army when they went through the modification program in Melbourne. Physical evidence and the photos say they were painted disruptive in the field. My Stuart by brush . Not all Stuarts were were issued some remained in their export colours and went directly into storage.

I feel quite confident the Stuarts...all of them except maybe the first shipment were, on arrival in Australia, painted British green in accordance with the lend lease contract . ( Ill modify that to say all of the M3s ex us army that arrived prior to around feb 1942 appear to have arrived US Lusterless olive drab and had W numbers as well as T numbers)

I exclude the first shipments because they were used Stuarts.. each had miles on the clock and different equipment on board. I am unsure but think one of two possibilities....they were an emergency cargo of tanks taken from American units and shipped to us...or they were used tanks surplussed as obsolete by the US and shipped to the Dutch and landed in Australia as a refugee cargo .... those I suppose were painted Lusterless Olive Drab on arrival and then 1942 green when they were modified which the archives show they certainly were.

I have photos of Gun Tractors made in Australia that are painted disruptive at the factory and likewise with Carriers. It would seem logical the Dept of Supply would have far greater control of the colours and schemes on vehicles manufactured in Australia and that they were appropriately camouflaged before issuing to units. Thats not to say the units didn't dabble or that orders did not subsequently direct changes.

Working out colours from B&W photos is fraught. The only real factual evidence has to come from the artifact at hand. (why Tonys door is such a treasure....ever think of clear coating it and displaying your vehicle that way Tony ???)

Patient research using the tips and tricks here ...and whatever else the brains trust gives us will make the case for individual vehicles.

From my point of view the more I look into it the more uncertain and diverse the answer. The Stuarts from Buna to The battle of bald Hill to Murgon to Maroochydore to disposal show a wide range of patterns and unknown colours on the Stuarts. The Grants are worse The deployments to WA and use into the fifties reveal and even greater diversity of patterns and colours.

One semi constant though is the paint colours. I agree with Tony's contention that they were standard. I hear Mikes knowledge that Local procurement was allowed but I cant find evidence of that being a wide scale thing.

I am aware that Camouflage of civilian installations, vehicles, and so on was handled very differently to the Military. The Military refused to be directed by the Camouflage Committee where Civilians were required to follow their directions.

The Military had their own people and their own ideas. Units were instructed to adapt the camouflage to suit the local environment and the Army had specialised units to help with this.

Localised purchase by the military for the application of disruptive colours doesn't make sense because of their remote locations at the time of application. For instance where would the 1st Armoured Div find enough paint to splash on their approximately 600 armoured vehicles ( 2/5.6/7/8/9/&10 ) plus the 2/11 armoured cars then the 17 motor regiment , the anti tank regiment and the field artillery regiment, when they undertook the exercises around the Battle of Bald Hill way out at Wee Waa ??? ( and the photos of that exercise show quite unusual schemes) ( as an aside I think this might be the largest exercise of armoured vehicles in Australian history...still looking at the records)

It only makes sense that the Army supply chain could manage this and I think from the artifacts I have seen the evidence supports that.

What records I have read indicate paint chips were regularly looked at and approved. Standards Australia and the likes of BALM paints involved along with other large manufacturers.

I think the units would use what they were sent and what they were sent was a standardised product from the paint factories. How they decided to splash it onto the vehicles, I suspect, depended on who was the boss and who was doing the splashing.
For a restorer of an artifact with remnant paint diligent pre-restoration inquiry may reveal the pattern of camouflage and give indications of colour. For a restored who has none of that then an accurate colour palate and selection from photographic record of a representative vehicle is the other option.

The Color palate used at the time is key and , I think, is a matter of finding an accurate mix that replicates extant paint chip-sets and is confirmed by comparison to artifacts.

Tony's quest to establish a reliable repeatable mix would resolve the mater of colour for us all. Your efforts to establish colour and pattern from remnants on your vehicle is an important part of that process.

Mike setting a chip in resin is a great idea ( I have the resin and the microscope) ...getting a chip big enough from the Stuart is the problem for me...any clues???