Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by John Ward

Does that mean there was a shortage of gas-resisting KGJ paint in ~Jan 1943?
Because if I remember correctly, gas-resisting KGJ was already issued in MC319 Jul 1942 (before that it was still non gas-resisting, i.e. MC301 Jan 1942).

John, your question suggests you may have misconstrued Army paint vocab which changed in 1942 when DHS paints including KG-J were introduced. Prior to 1942 there was only ONE paint approved for use in Australia, that being Khaki Green No.3 which was gas resistant under military specification M.G.O./AUST. 101A. During 1942 however, the introduction of DHS Camouflage Paints produced under S.A.A. Emergency specifications (E) K 506-508, which made no provision for gas resisting paint, gave rise to the need when ordering paint in the field to specify two things:

1. Paint Colour required (A.S.C. letter code).
2. Paint Type required (gas resisting / non gas resisting).

Obviously the term “Khaki Green No.3” does not enter into this equation. It is denoted by Paint Colour: A.S.C. “J” and Paint Type: “gas resisting”. Hence the language used in MC319:

The basic colour of vehicles for use in Australia is Khaki Green A.S.C. “J”, gas resisting, and the disruptive colour is to be Light Earth A.S.C. “W”.

Subsequently in 1943 when DHS Camouflage Paints were replaced by Army Camouflage Paints (“Vehicle” colours) the paint vocab reverted to pre-42 usage: “Khaki Green No.3”.

75 years later, as restorers and modellers, we need concern ourselves only with “Khaki Green No.3” because THAT was Australian Army Service Colour from 1940 to 1949, and THAT was the high tech gas resisting alkyd enamel paint, and THAT was the paint used in vehicle production. The term “Khaki Green J” refers to DHS Camouflage Paint, which was cheap and nasty Flat Oil Paint produced to lowest cost under Emergency specifications which even Dakin himself declared useless:

Copies of the original Australian paint specifications are appended. They proved almost useless in practice. A revision of the Flat Oil Paint specification made in February 1943 should indicate the difficulties of achieving satisfactory results under the first specifications.

It should always be remembered that DHS Paints were NOT automotive paints and were NEVER intended for use on vehicles. I’ve attached some documents to help illustrate this point. Also a photo of Matt Austin’s K5 Inter showing 75 year old KG3 paint colour revived with nothing but a wet rag, demonstrating the remarkable durability of ARMY SPEC paint in stark contrast to the abject failure of DHS SPEC paint such as KG-J.

It’s a great shame Gina tried to promote “Khaki J” in this thread and spread so much disinformation for 3 years. I’m hoping we can get beyond that and start exploring Army Standard Colours which have been neglected for so long.

Berger Camouflage Paints 1941.jpg

DHS Camouflage Paints..jpg

Dakin report 1945 - Paint Specialist Summary..jpg

Australian Army Standard Camouflage Paints for Vehicles..jpg

K5 Inter Matt Austin (Small).jpg

[Mike K]

Are there any references for this paint ?

It is a dirty muddy brown colour . It is Australian manufacture.

[Lang]

Mike

I think that is the paint used on Gas detector panels either a special plate or some obvious place the driver could see that changed colour to indicate a gas attack.

I think the gas resistant paint is quite different and made so the whole vehicle can be washed down after an attack.

Here is the American system, obviously not widely used, on vehicles loaded for D-Day. They had the fill-in between the stars but most other period photos seem to show a small panel or splash of paint 6-9 inches square (if anything at all).

Lang

[Mike Cecil]

Mike,

I agree with Lang. The instructions are quite clear about its use on a section of the body visible to the driver.

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Gina posted some pics of this stuff a while back, apparently it's gritty finish. Evidently it was painted on the bonnet, not visible in photographs when vehicle upright.

Gas Detector paint (Medium).jpg

P04367.001 c. 1943-44 Cab 12 FAT attached to 108th Tank Attack Regiment lies on its side after.JPG

[Lang]

Here is the British version.

Truck with gas indicator plate on the way to Normandy and motorcycle tank with original markings with gas indicator paint.

Clear photo of the gas plate on a British truck and a restored CMP with the gas indicator patch.

[Mike Cecil]

Note the way the camouflage paints on the Matador at MEE Monegeeta vary with the light intensity - the disruptive colour across the front is much 'whiter' than the sides, yet it is the same colour (whatever that may be). Same with the wheels - front to back are both the same colour, but look different in this image.

This simply reinforces what has been said previously in this thread: that trying to interpret camouflage colours from a monochrome image is just about impossible. There are too many variables in terms of light/shade and how the image was processed.

And if we could see the last figure of the Embarkation/Unit serial number on the windscreen of the truck on its way to Normandy, we would know exactly which unit it belonged to ...'2239X' - there are nine choices (22391 to 22399 - 22390 was not issued)

Mike

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

It’s a great shame Gina tried to promote “Khaki J” in this thread and spread so much disinformation for 3 years. I’m hoping we can get beyond that and start exploring Army Standard Colours which have been neglected for so long

I'm trying to follow this thread, and I think the joint research being conducted and published here on MLU has helped many of us along in our understanding of what paint types and colours were used where and when. It seems to be an extremely difficult subject for modellers and even more so for restorers, including those who work at/for respected museums. People like Mike Starmer have turned camouflage paint research into a life work.

Therefore I think it is improper to state it is a "great shame" that Gina Wilson "spread so much disinformation". I think Gina, like most of us, is in a learning process in which she invested heavily, and was(!) willing to share with all of us. In research there is no right or wrong - only right and something learned.

That said, please proceed with this most interesting subject!

Hanno