Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[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

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

second 4 on way to Murgon.jpg

Gina's Stuart disruptive pattern.jpg

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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

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!

EC6467 Tadgell initiative.jpg

122915 ARN 121711 Dodge 7 ton semi trailer 3-tone camo BARMERA, SA 1944-05-16. HEADQUARTERS, LO.JPG

[Lang]

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

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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

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!

[Mike Cecil]

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

I'm not.

Mike

[jack neville]

Gotta love duelling paint brushes!!

[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.

[Lang]

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

Lang