Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[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

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Lang

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"

Lang I’m sure you’re right about Young operating independently and way above his pay grade. Same goes for Tadgell who initiates the subsequent scheme under SM4809. These guys were “orphans” because camouflage was considered the province of artists, practiced by camoufleurs, not fighting men! As such the Cam Officer would be left to his own devices, but deferred to in matters of camouflage. Ideal job, provided you don’t mind being called fleursie or camopansie! Check out Young’s other duties as Cam Officer:

“Some time later Major Young, G.S.O. III Camouflage Eastern Command, following the lead given by the civil organizations, organized a team of voluntary workers, mostly women, to garnish nets and wire netting for anti-aircraft and coastal defences. Much of this work was carried out on the actual sites and was efficiently and enthusiastically done.”

Oh what a lovely war!

Originally Posted by Lang

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

Yes, the following from E in C probably says it all:

“With regard to colours, it is considered that every effort should be made to retain those at present authorised, and to avoid the introduction of new ones. There have been so many changes in the past, and (prior to SM 4809 of 4 March 43) so many authorised designs, that units in the field have been confused by the frequent countermanding of instructions.”

Originally Posted by Lang

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?

Yes but then we’d have nothing to argue about in this thread!

Originally Posted by Lang

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.

I've not read the file Lang but Army documents report shortage of phthalic anhydride in 43 which is the base for alkyd enamel, so no gas resistant paint available for camouflage. However I believe supply was maintained for KG3 in vehicle production.

[Mike Cecil]

Tony,

I am (and have been for many years) well aware of the machinations about camouflage during the 1942-43 period, and the local variations to MC301 and MC319 from New Guinea to Tasmania. But to make the leap from local variations to production of new vehicles, as you do in your 10th para, is, I think, much, much too great.

But if, as you contend, this became the norm in mid to late 42, a period when a very large number of new vehicles were introduced into service, where are the survivors of this paint scheme? I can't say I've ever seen any evidence of a green/light grey scheme on any of the vehicles I've looked at in the last 40 years. Have you?

As for Young's contention that "These colours (KG3 & Light Earth) are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance." - have a look at the colour images Keith posted: does this scheme really look 'too close in tone' and will 'merge at distance'? Over the horizon, maybe ...

Mike (aka 'Doubting Thomas')

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

But if, as you contend, this became the norm in mid to late 42

No, that’s not what I’ve said Mike. I’ve shown documents indicating late ’42 at the earliest, including G1862 approved 8-11-42, and photos from NG 25-9-43, and QLD 4-7-43 and 5-11-43, and only tactical vehicles. As I said: “appearing on tactical vehicles in QLD and NG”.

The earliest I’ve seen is December ’42 including this Cab 12 portee en route to Darwin 29-12-42. Colour boundaries are sharp, presumably BOD paintwork. Note shadow conveniently bisecting disruptive pattern to show difference in sunlight and shade!


028405 - Copy.JPG

[Mike Cecil]

OK, late 42 then. Makes not much difference to my previous comment that to 'make the leap from local variations to production of new vehicles, as you do in your 10th para, is, I think, much, much too great.'

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

I am (and have been for many years) well aware of the machinations about camouflage during the 1942-43 period, and the local variations to MC301 and MC319 from New Guinea to Tasmania.

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.”

[Mike Cecil]

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

[Lang]

I know this is mainly an historical paperwork exercise on colours, patterns and dates but the real-life application is far beyond any colour scheme.

Any discussion past the paperwork must recognise the object is to disguise the vehicles and that the paint scheme is only a tiny bit of the camouflage puzzle. As I mentioned above most armies did not think it was effective enough to be worth the effort on their main transport fleets.

The academic exercise is a useful and interesting bit of history and I am enjoying the to and fro tremendously. I get the feeling many people do not understand the basics of even considering the effort of applying disruptive patterns and the relatively small part they play in the camouflage story.

Here are the basics of camouflage that make paint schemes merely a minor player:

Camouflage Key Words

S

Stillness – All camouflage is useless once there is movement.

Shade Does the colour stand out from its surroundings? No pattern or other precaution can fully disguise an incongruous colour.

Shape Does the shape stand out from its surroundings. Can it be identified from its shape? Disruptive paint patterns try to hide shape as do nets.

Shadow Shadow is a give-away despite other disguise (particularly in aerial observation)

Spacing Nothing in nature is regular. Orderly spacing is a give-away. In a city situation irregular spacing may be a give-away

Shine Reflections cause attention

Silhouette An object on a skyline or against a solid background stands out. Disruptive paint patterns are useless in a silhouette situation.

Silence In many situations perfect camouflage will be instantly negated by sound eg vehicle or generator noise, a voice or equipment rattle.

Smell Perfectly camouflaged positions can be given away by cooking, exhaust and latrine smells.

Surface A regular surface on a rough background, even of identical colour eg a tent wall against trees or a rough surface on a smooth background eg nets on desert sand will be seen.

Secondary No matter how well an object is camouflaged secondary give-aways will negate it eg smoke from exhaust, guns or fires, dust, ripples on water and lights.

Signs No matter how well camouflaged, give-aways include signs such as tracks into gun positions, earthworks, vehicles or people coming and going, unusual activity etc.

Size In a regular background an object either larger or smaller than surrounding objects attracts attention.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Lang

I know this is mainly an historical paperwork exercise on colours, patterns and dates but the real-life application is far beyond any colour scheme.

Any discussion past the paperwork must recognise the object is to disguise the vehicles and that the paint scheme is only a tiny bit of the camouflage puzzle. As I mentioned above most armies did not think it was effective enough to be worth the effort on their main transport fleets.

The academic exercise is a useful and interesting bit of history and I am enjoying the to and fro tremendously. I get the feeling many people do not understand the basics of even considering the effort of applying disruptive patterns and the relatively small part they play in the camouflage story.

Here are the basics of camouflage that make paint schemes merely a minor player:

Camouflage Key Words

S

Stillness – All camouflage is useless once there is movement.

Shade Does the colour stand out from its surroundings? No pattern or other precaution can fully disguise an incongruous colour.

Shape Does the shape stand out from its surroundings. Can it be identified from its shape? Disruptive paint patterns try to hide shape as do nets.

Shadow Shadow is a give-away despite other disguise (particularly in aerial observation)

Spacing Nothing in nature is regular. Orderly spacing is a give-away. In a city situation irregular spacing may be a give-away

Shine Reflections cause attention

Silhouette An object on a skyline or against a solid background stands out. Disruptive paint patterns are useless in a silhouette situation.

Silence In many situations perfect camouflage will be instantly negated by sound eg vehicle or generator noise, a voice or equipment rattle.

Smell Perfectly camouflaged positions can be given away by cooking, exhaust and latrine smells.

Surface A regular surface on a rough background, even of identical colour eg a tent wall against trees or a rough surface on a smooth background eg nets on desert sand will be seen.

Secondary No matter how well an object is camouflaged secondary give-aways will negate it eg smoke from exhaust, guns or fires, dust, ripples on water and lights.

Signs No matter how well camouflaged, give-aways include signs such as tracks into gun positions, earthworks, vehicles or people coming and going, unusual activity etc.

Size In a regular background an object either larger or smaller than surrounding objects attracts attention.

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