Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Mrs Vampire]

Hi Darryl

Interesting stuff.

I found that I could not get the smooth finish Tony achieved with mine . I think on two counts , the armour is not such a smooth surface as Tony's door and my Stuart has been more exposed to the weather over the years so not as much is left. (though the runs in the light stone are good and thick) . I also found the 1942 Khaki layer applied at the time of modifications in Melbourne very thin and fragile.

I also found 600 too coarse and use 1000 and spend lots of time. Like you I have not been able to get a direct light shot just yet. But its still an indication.

[Tony Wheeler]

The same thought occurred to me concerning armour plate Gina. I've never inspected it closely but I wouldn't expect it to be smooth like sheetmetal, and that will make it impossible to isolate the factory paint layers cleanly, because they're only a few microns thick. It may help to rub back very small areas and take extreme close ups for analysis on screen. This can be a useful method for revealing very thin paint layers, as seen below. Weathering is a problem too of course. The FGT door has several layers of protective paint, including full gloss DBG, and it was removed from the vehicle and stored in a container for decades. It's not often we get such a good sample of wartime colours to work with, esp. Light Stone.

TONY5162 - Copy - Copy - Copy.jpg


Darryl, your technique is fine, although 400 is a bit coarse as you say. I use 800 grade myself, with very gentle pressure, more like polishing than rubbing. Always wet of course, and pausing frequently to wipe off and inspect. However I suspect you've done as well as possible with armour surface. I'm puzzled by the photo, as I don't see any primer coat. Looks like green directly onto metal, with rust discoloration as a result. I don't recognize the brownish colour - is it wartime paint, and is the vehicle single colour or camouflaged? More pics needed, preferably in natural light if possible, and photographed wet for colour rendition. Also do you have any history on the vehicle?

[Mike Cecil]

Gina,

The conservators often take a different approach: with a scalpel, chip off a small piece of undisturbed paint to the metal, so you have a chip with all paint layers in-tact.

Mount this vertically in resin, then sand across it to expose the edge. Look at this under a microscope and the sequence of layers will be revealed in one go.

This is usually done in multiple places to ensure that the whole 'picture' can be worked out.

Just a thought....

Mike

[Big D]

Tony - I know a little about this vehicle’s history but not much. I know it has some original panels but also some reproduction ones. There are still some US markings on the vehicle (numbering etc).

A question for all, and apologies if it has been answered before, but would these vehicles have been completely painted in the khaki green of the time and then the disruptive light earth/light stone applied over the top, or was it the other way around?

Alternatively, were the patterns just painted individually?

[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???

[Keith Webb]

Once the paint colours have been established and are repeatable the next question is what type of paint are people considering using?

A common cheap paint seems to be a spraying enamel. When a flattening agent is added to this it very quickly goes chalky and looks terrible.

WW2 paints were of different types, a common one being lead based enamel which I think discolours more slowly than modern spraying enamel.

For paint application the gun tractor pics you're referring to Gina were sprayed with the disruptive pattern while in-field efforts were often with a brush and rough as guts as you've seen on your Stuart.

[Mrs Vampire]

I agree keith all of the vehicles I have seen ex factory are sprayed as were those ex the large Army overhaul units.

So far as type of paint I am unhappy with two pack because it is difficult to touch up and because it traps moisture in lap joints etc... Never liked it for restoration.

Acrylic ( Nitrocellulose replacement ) is too easily damaged, I like it for aeroplanes ( along with Butyl Nitrate) but not Military vehicles.

I recently used some Coulthard's Aklyd and it was the best enamel I have used. A little hardener I hope will resolve the chalky scraping problem...but I want a bit of that anyway. I want my vehicles to look used. .

If the paint is easy to apply a touch up every ten years or so shouldn't be a problem for me. ( I will be long gone by touch up number two, )

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Keith Webb

Once the paint colours have been established and are repeatable the next question is what type of paint are people considering using?

A common cheap paint seems to be a spraying enamel. When a flattening agent is added to this it very quickly goes chalky and looks terrible.

I suspect that's probably the first question Keith, as we need to specify the paint type at the time of colour matching.

Tony Baker provides much valuable information and advice concerning paint types on page 1 of this thread. I've since dealt with a few paint suppliers and each one has strongly recommended acrylic paint for matt applications. The reason they give is the far lower percentage of flattener required to achieve full matt finish. Flattener is bad stuff in any paint and the less used the better, as it results in loss of durability. Tony explains this well on page 1. In Tony's case he opted for low sheen or lustreless finish, whereas for camo vehicles I believe full matt finish is essential, which would require even more flattener, causing further loss of durability. This can be offset to some extent by the use of hardener, which Tony strongly recommends for all enamel applications, but given the inordinate amount of flattener required to produce full matt finish with enamel paint I'm worried about opacity problems, ie. the chalky appearance you mention Keith. Therefore I suspect acrylic is probably the way to go for our purposes. Enamel is cheaper but it's false economy if it requires regular repainting.

Any thoughts on the subject would be most welcome. I used some full matt acrylic myself last year and I'm 100% happy with the result. Plenty of colour depth and a year out in the weather hasn't changed that in the slightest. It's also extremely hard, unlike the chalky enamel repaint on the vehicle! Another consideration may be user friendliness, and everyone tells me acrylic wins hands down in this respect, including Tony on page 1. It so happens I've never used anything BUT acrylic on vehicles, which is probably just as well for an amateur like me! I used two-pack on a plywood boat once and it's certainly marvellous stuff, but definitely not suited to MV resto work IMO. Anyway it's probably impossible to flatten, judging by Tony's experiments with two-pack initially.