Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Keith Webb]

Looks like Light Earth to me... I had some old bearded guy from the AWM show me!

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Looks like Light Earth to me... I had some old bearded guy from the AWM show me!

That would be Santa Claus

A sickly looking camo job, not enough green and too much light earth , its supposed to be a 50/50 average and its been spray applied by the look of it . Somebody didn't read the official instructions and neglected the detail, the colour borders should be run over with a brush .

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Mike,

Since it is a copy of the pattern used on 132141, the No.9 FGT shown in images taken at Wesley College during the war, then blame the Army or the contractor for not following their own instructions - maybe. The pattern is actually very, very similar in shape and area covered to that published in MC319 for the Truck 15cwt with canvas canopy erected.

The AWM, in the absence of a published pattern specific to the No.8 & 9 artillery tractors (until Oct 43), and given the pattern shown in the images was very similar to the 15cwt pattern in MC319, followed the pattern as shown in the period images.

Looking at those images in high res, the edge is finished with a low-pressure spray gun and has not been brushed to a sharp line, and while this is clearly not in strict conformance with para 8 of MC319, it is in conformance with the period images. As has been mentioned before in this thread, AHQ instructions are one thing: what actually happened can often be another.

Another point worth noting is that there is no statement anywhere in official instruction MC319 that the pattern had to be '50/50' for a two-colour pattern - only to follow the pattern as published (para 7, note 1), which this clearly does by following the 15cwt pattern.


Mike aka Santa Claus

[Keith Webb]

Here's a close up from the high res image of FGT 132141 on which the paint for the AWM's example was based.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

The AWM....followed the pattern as shown in the period images.

Yes, the pattern is spot on, and can be seen on all CMP types with disruptive paintwork applied in production during this period. Presumably vehicle manufacturers had their own Cab 13 pattern charts and this accounts for the high degree of consistency achieved. Meanwhile the only CMP charts issued within Army were crappy Cab 12 versions under MC319, which as Mike suggests are near enough to the factory pattern to be identified as such.

The only Cab 13 charts issued within Army were Arty Tractor and 3-tonner in Oct ’43 and these were 3-tone charts. I’m guessing pattern charts weren’t needed in the field after mid-42 because camo was being applied in production and the pattern could be followed for any repaint required, eg. 2/7 Fd. Regt. gun tractors seen Feb ‘44 in factory Khaki Green / Light Earth and April ’44 after field repaint in (presumably) Vehicle Dark Green / Vehicle Grey, these being the approved colours after March ’43.

064567 KAIRI, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA. 1944-02-26. TROOPS OF THE 2-7TH FIELD REGIMENT.JPG

065722 KAIRI, QLD. 1944-04-11. 2-7 Fd. Regt..JPG

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

the edge is finished with a low-pressure spray gun and has not been brushed to a sharp line, and while this is clearly not in strict conformance with para 8 of MC319, it is in conformance with the period images.

This rule was relaxed under SM4809 of March ‘43: “Where the painting is by hand all edges of patterns will be kept sharp. When application is by spray diffused colour boundaries will be permitted.”

It’s another indication 132141 was painted under the later regime in Vehicle Dark Green / Vehicle Grey.

[Mike Cecil]

Except 'Vehicle Grey', presumably 'Grey, G' in the Standards Assoc book, as the instruction SM4809 simply states 'Grey', and not 'Light Grey', is a very dark green/grey colour and not nearly as great a contrast to Medium Green, KG3 or KG (J) as Light Earth was.

SM4809 also states the disruptive pattern was to be three-colour. There were no patterns or instructions for a two-tone scheme issued under SM4809. The paint colours specified were: Dark Green/Medium Green/Grey. In Dec 43, the instruction was revised under 222895 to replace Medium Green with KG3.

So no, I do not agree that the pattern from MC319 used 'Grey' and 'Dark Green' as the disruptive pattern colours when applied to No.9 FAT 132141.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Mike, we’re getting a few months ahead of ourselves with SM4809 colours, so I’ll come back to those in a separate post.

On the question of two-tone contrast, it’s clear from the photos that the No.9 scheme provides more effective disruption than factory fresh Khaki Green / Light Earth, and this was the criticism at the time, eg. Major Bill Young GSO III (Cam) NSW LOC Area on 13 Sept 42:

“Mechanization Circular 319 which cancels Circular 301 was issued on 28 July 42 and it provides for two tone painting and the colours selected are KHAKI GREEN and LIGHT EARTH. These colours are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance.”

contrast.jpeg

By way of background, Young as a Lieutenant appears to have been an early member of the Sydney Camouflage Group and remains on good terms with the Group’s former President, Prof. Dakin, and Secretary, Vince Tadgell, who by now is seconded to the position of S.O.R.E (Cam) LHQ with the rank of Captain. Tadgell is instrumental in SM4809 developments which come later.

Early in ’42 while Dakin was still in charge of Research Station at Georges Heights, he developed at Army request a grey disruptive colour for use on vehicles, which Young sought to introduce circa June/July by means of Amendment to Mech Circ 301, stipulating: “The colours for use in Australia are Vehicle Light Grey and Dark Green 3.” On July 8 we find Young ordering paint named “Vehicle Light Grey” and “Dark Green”, the latter seemingly Dark Green M with 1/8 Night Black U added.

Major Young MC301 Amendment - Vehicle Light Grey, Dark Green 3 (Large).jpg

I believe we’re seeing here the emergence of paint vocab in which colours developed by Army specifically for use on vehicles are prefixed “Vehicle” and this later came to imply gas resistant alkyd enamel. In other words, proper vehicle paint, not general purpose Flat Oil paint as per DHS spec. Earliest example is “Vehicle Buff” which I believe was B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff introduced 20 Jan 42, possibly for armoured workshops, with the DHS equivalent being 50:50 mix Light Stone N with Light Brown P, as specified by Dakin to RAAF on 20 Feb 42: “This colour can now be obtained already mixed under the name “Buff”.

With events having overtaken Young when MC319 cancelled MC301, and thereby his planned Amendment to MC301, he proceeds to identify the usual loophole through which he can enforce his own preferred scheme: “As this Circular 319, Clause 11 states that “SPECIAL VARIATIONS TO SUIT LOCAL CONDITIONS MAY ONLY BE MADE UPON THE EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF THE G.O.C.”, a set of new designs were prepared, complying with disruptive and countershading principles of camouflage and circular amended by nominating ‘VEHICLE LIGHT GREY’ and DARK GREEN 3 as the colours to be used.”

He adds: “G.S.O. III (Cam) 2 Aust Army has made a request for copies so that this Circular may be adopted by that Formation.”

Major Young NSW LOC Area proposal Special variation MC319 (Large).jpg

Young’s Circular is promulgated by HQ 1 Aust Div as G1862 of 8 Nov 42, and seems likely to have been adopted by other Formations including NG Force, which had already specified a very similar scheme of Dark Green M / Light Slate Grey B to be applied before vehicles despatched, this being given effect under ADV LHQ GS INSTN No.11 (refer my post #340 of 19-9-17).

MC319 Special Variation (Large).jpg

So that’s how the 2-tone scheme of Dark Green / Light Grey entered production using MC319 pattern charts, and pretty soon we start seeing this distinctive high contrast scheme with diffuse colour boundaries appearing on tactical vehicles in QLD and NG, as well as new vehicle photos of the period, including, I believe, the fabulous FGT9 images.

015823 1943-09-25. NEW GUINEA. ADVANCE ON LAE. A NUMBER 6 ARTILLERY TRACTOR TOWING A 40 MM BOFO.JPG

Problem is we have no paint chips for these Army colours, and as you correctly observe Mike, Dakin’s Grey G was definitely not matched to Vehicle Light Grey. This means we’ll need to colour match artifacts, and good place to start looking might be No.6 panels.

Cheers,
Tony

[Lang]

Tony

Great research.

It would be interesting to know the make-up of Young's section. A GSO III is normally a Captain who does not go issuing policy instructions under his own signature. It would appear Young was in the fortunate position of being an "orphan", not fitting into the established Army command structure (there are many such specialist jobs) and although under command of somebody in the HQ for administration, basically did his own thing. He appears to be a one man band, liaising with Dakin's mob, and tasked with producing the camouflage instructions. These were accepted automatically by the Army as having come from the expert area of responsibility. Tony, is this your feeling?

The more you read about all this, the more you come to the conclusion that it was so changeable it was impossible for field units to keep up with changes (even if they had the time, manpower or indeed interest). As a result, photos from any stage of the war show vehicles in any paint combination from any period.

It was OK for factories and major workshops to produce the new schemes but when would the thousand vehicles (now scattered to the four winds) they produced last month in the old scheme be repainted?

As you point out the whole thing was totally subjective anyhow with personal preferences, tests that could not possibly produce a pattern for all types of terrain and complaints from the field that patterns were ineffective or even counter productive.



With some camouflage exceptions, the three biggest armies, the USA, Germany and Russia, left their vehicles overwhelmingly in a single colour. Maybe we should have followed suit and not tracked the British path?

PS The introduction of the Gas Resistant paint seems not to have solved the quality problems for if you read through the RAAF file, as late as 1943, they are saying the Army Gas Resistant paint is terrible and suggest they get their own "proper" paint from the manufacturers, using the army colours.

Lang