Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Lang]

Gina

That tells me you are in search of the truth on what actual regulations were and what actual colour/pattern specifications were. In other words a serious academic treatise.

Unfortunately the overwhelming evidence that those regulations and specifications were ignored, altered, delayed wholesale throughout the forces at the whim of just about anyone having control over a vehicle means it can never be a record of what actually happened.

Evidence of such wayward behaviour is not only in the form of anecdotal stories but in thousands of photographs of the period and as you have mentioned in official correspondence.

I fear if you are trying arrive at some semblance of order by trying to lock the plan with the action it can never happen.

Lang

[Mrs Vampire]

Lanf

I am not as pessimistic as you in that regard.
If the evidence is overwhelming I must be looking in the wrong places because in documents and photographs I have never found it.

I would be eternally grateful if you could direct me to it .

[Chris Collins]

Gina,

let the naysayers say what they will, what happens in the field in a in unit depots is one thing but armies even one as allegedly unregulated by doctrine as the Australian army. Vehicles started with specified colour schemes at points of their lives, who knows? but we rarely display vehicles as an "in the field" example most look factory fresh.

Colour pigments used in the British army were tightly regulated due to the use of Infrared non-reflective paint, which is precisely why Mid war the brits whent from KG3 to scc2 brown, as most readily available green pigments are highly reflective, and easily observed using IR cameras in PR aircraft. Despite anectdotal evidence and "i spoke to a bloke" stuff, id say very difficult to prove with any authority.

Colours and variability in batches, colour can be very difficult to pin down, pigment particle size, resin matrix, background colour, age, lighting conditions all affect paint. but if you at least start with a reasonable facimilie and natural variation does it s thing, then you're interpretation is as valid if not more valid than the usual 'I reckon its..."

Were all vehicles the specified colour scheme for ever? Unlikely. were all vehicles a hotchpotch of locally sourced colours? also unlikely. Were most probably the specified colours, at least once at some point of their lifetimes? I'd say almost definitely. Are either incorrect?

I think personally Gina has done some amazing research using extant examples that corroborate much of the official literature, and I'd think twice before scoffing at work like that.

Is research a waste of time? I defer to the Duke of wellington. "Time in reconnaissance is seldom wasted"


Kind Regards

Chris Collins

[Mike K]

I think the official colour sample swatches should be looked upon as being what they were intended to be , that is " in the ball park " and nothing more than that. Unfortunately some of us being academic , we try to get down to the tiniest details .

The following are my own observations and I am hoping I am not offending anybody.

Reading through Mike Starmers research, for one particular colour , the early G3 or whatever it was , he matched a paint sample that was found inside the headlight shell of a motorcycle found in Belgium , the m/c was supposedly left behind by the BEF . He based his published results on that single example of paint found inside the headlight body . Going on from this, we are expected to believe, all of the BEF British vehicles finished in G3, were painted with the same brand of paint , and all of them had the same amount of matting agent as found in that headlight shell. It's total rubbish. It is ridiculous . It's a wild assumption and we should not be fooled. Mike Starmer should have added proviso's and made it clear to his readers that much of this colour research is, in the real world, an educated guess. The booklets I purchased from him have no proviso's anywhere , instead, you get the impression , this IS the correct colour and that's it , no arguments .

The matting agents added into the mix will have a big effect on the final colour to begin with. The paint factories weighed the colour pigments, OK that's fine, but did each brand of paint manufacturer buy their colour pigments from the same source.

The paint shops these days use computer scans to work out whats going on, even this technology doesn't rule out all possible variables . And why were the scanners installed in paint shops ?

The official vehicle colour guides are really just a " in the ball park " guide and we should be aware of this.

[Chris Collins]

well actually lets directly quote what Mr Starmer says about KG3, and i think he is the first to admit that its a difficult colour to pin down,

Starmer, M "british army colours & disruptive Camouflage in the United Kingdom, France and NW Europe 1936-45"

"... no colour chart with a named sample has so far been found although research continues the mixed colour sample hereis an average of three artifacts of known provenance. First was a replicated paint sample from canada matched to compnents of a 1941 ford built universal carrier undergoing restoration. second item was a date stamped steel helmet of original interior colourm the owner and light free storage of which was well known to the author. the third sample came from preserved components of a late 1939 norton h16 motorcycle under restoration in belgium whicj when found still carried original full BEF colours and the narkings of 2nd infantry division. sinse this machine was diuscovered another motorcycle fuel tank in the same colour has been found."

Nowhere does he claim its "the colour" but its case is compelling, he also suggests that KG 3 is a range of very close colours not one Identical shade. But regardless the chemical industry was very sophisticated in the 1940s, they worked to specifications as exacting as todays techniques using methods that while not as fast as digital colour matching, they were probably a more direct method of analysis.

Besides, what do you suggest as an alternative? At least these peices of research have given us insights of what these vehicles "may" have looked liked to the best of recorded knowledge.

Ultimately its your toy you paint it whatever colour you like, but I'd rather base my choices on informed research based on physical evidence and reasoning.

[Lang]

Gina

I think I will just let you get on with the good work and try to figure out in my mind how this argument rages all over the world 80 years later about colours and schemes in the face of thousands of plain written standards, regulations and policies.

The rules are there for all to see, millions of production vehicles were painted "to the rules", hundreds of thousands are still with us and nobody can gather enough supporters to gain a worldwide consensus on what actually existed.

It just seems to me the standards were far wider than we would admit existed, the variations getting wider and wider as vehicles reached service and the adherence to every change by operators far less rigorous than we care to admit.

I don't think there will ever be a clear single answer on actually applied colours.

I think you should keep searching and getting everyone's ideas but should always be open to even anecdotal comment. Hundreds of missing body murderers are in jail convicted - quite rightly - on circumstantial evidence. As they say "Science without discussion is merely propaganda"

Lang

[Mike Cecil]

Some several entries back, Gina stated that 'I am equally certain they did not purchase paint locally... there is an absolute lack of evidence to support the contention and an ocean of evidence that the Army supply chain worked', a premise more or less agreed with by Lang in the next post.

To what extent camouflage paint was purchased locally is, I think, one of those great 'unknowns'. It was certainly officially sanctioned during the 'dark days' of early 1942, viz, Mechanization Circular 301 of 2 January 1942, para 3:

'Gas resisting paints should be used, if available, but disruptive painting is not to be postponed on this account. Camouflage paint, Type "B" Australian Standard Specification Emergency Standard No. (E) K.507 is to be used for colours other than gas resisting. Paints are to be purchased locally. Australian Paint manufacturers are at present supplying gas resisting paints in Khaki Green No.3 and Light Stone BSC No.61 (British Standard Colour No.61).'

The circular also states clearly that the basic colour was KG3 - in this case, I doubt the authorities got their KG3 and KG(J) mixed up, so I believe we have to take it as read that KG3 was in production and on issue at that point. (KG(J) was the non-gas resisting equivalent to KG3 and available as one of the camouflage paints of the Emergency Standard (E) K.507, which was first issued by Standards Australia in December 1941. So KG(J) was the alternative to KG3 when KG3 gas resisting was not available through the normal army supply chain.

MC301 is one of the many camouflage documents not reproduced in Taubert's book. It was held at NAA Canberra in file A705/1 Item 211/9/430 when I copied it in the early 1980s, but I can't seem to find it under that ref in Recordsearch.

My two bob's worth..... back to my mid-morning brew!

Mike

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Chris Collins

Colour pigments used in the British army were tightly regulated due to the use of Infrared non-reflective paint, which is precisely why Mid war the brits whent from KG3 to scc2 brown, as most readily available green pigments are highly reflective, and easily observed using IR cameras in PR aircraft. Despite anectdotal evidence and "i spoke to a bloke" stuff, id say very difficult to prove with any authority.

Hi Chris,

I know this thread is strictly about WW2 Australian paint colours, but as you brought up the subject of WW2 British paints and colours, I have to comment on your paragraph above.
It is infrared reflective paint that fools the IR camera, not non-reflective.
The Khaki Green No.3 paint was not formulated as an infrared reflective paint, it was the fact the one of the colour pigments in this green paint was chromium oxide (which has an IRR quality to it) and there was a shortage of it and desperately needed for important uses such as plating, so SCC No.2 Brown was used in its place for a few years. The British camouflage colour range is very complex and different colours and patterns ran alongside each other at the time as there were overlaps and painting for the sake of it was to be avoided.
It was not until the 1970's that the British Army developed IRR (Infra Red Reflective) paint and in service from the 1980's. When I worked in army workshops from early 1970's, new vehicles inc. armour were still coming into service in gloss Deep Bronze Green

[Chris Collins]

Thank you Richards, you are quite correct, my confusion on what would've beneficial reflective and non reflective.

My point in bringing that up is there were reasons to adhear to guidelines on paint that are just as important as its appearance, that may not be immediately obvious.

cheers

Chris

[Mike K]

another diatribe ha ha

In wartime UK, with so many vehicle factories spread around, from AEC London to Albion Scotland and many other places in between , and the many thousands of vehicles produced in a given week . I feel that in time of a emergency as in WW2 , there was very little chance that each and every vehicle rolled out of those factories finished in the same colour, shade, hue or however you wish to describe it.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

hi Chris,
I know this thread is strictly about WW2 Australian paint colours, but as you brought up the subject of WW2 British paints and colours, I have to comment on your paragraph above.
It is infrared reflective paint that fools the IR camera, not non-reflective.
The Khaki Green No.3 paint was not formulated as an infrared reflective paint, it was the fact the one of the colour pigments in this green paint was chromium oxide (which has an IRR quality to it) and there was a shortage of it and desperately needed for important uses such as plating, so SCC No.2 Brown was used in its place for a few years. The British camouflage colour range is very complex and different colours and patterns ran alongside each other at the time as there were overlaps and painting for the sake of it was to be avoided.
It was not until the 1970's that the British Army developed IRR (Infra Red Reflective) paint and in service from the 1980's. When I worked in army workshops from early 1970's, new vehicles inc. armour were still coming into service in gloss Deep Bronze Green

It's interesting that the decision to go from khaki to brown in 1943 might not have been based on some field guys evaluating the effectiveness of one colour over the other based in observations at Salisbury Plain. This is the first time I've heard it might be based on war time chemical shortages or technological advances.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Bruce Parker

It's interesting that the decision to go from khaki to brown in 1943 might not have been based on some field guys evaluating the effectiveness of one colour over the other based in observations at Salisbury Plain. This is the first time I've heard it might be based on war time chemical shortages or technological advances.

Hi Bruce
Not sure where you got 1943 from. It was late 1941 that the regulations were issued to use SCC No2 Brown as a the base colour for vehicles. This reverted to olive drab in early 1944.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

Hi Bruce
Not sure where you got 1943 from. It was late 1941 that the regulations were issued to use SCC No2 Brown as a the base colour for vehicles. This reverted to olive drab in early 1944.

You're probably right, however on Canadian production CMPs almost all 1942 vehicles (based on scraping down to original paint) were khaki and 1943 were brown, then OD early 1944 as you say. This might be the manufacturers not catching up with (or caring about) the regs?

One running board on my February 1944 HUW is OD, the other OD over brown which you can only see when it's taken apart. The parts supply ran on a different schedule than the regs too it appears.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Bruce Parker

You're probably right, however on Canadian production CMPs almost all 1942 vehicles (based on scraping down to original paint) were khaki and 1943 were brown, then OD early 1944 as you say. This might be the manufacturers not catching up with (or caring about) the regs?

One running board on my February 1944 HUW is OD, the other OD over brown which you can only see when it's taken apart. The parts supply ran on a different schedule than the regs too it appears.

Bruce,
The British army's Army Council Instructions 1160 30/5/42 declared the SCC No.2 Brown be used on A, B and RASC vehicles or KG3 until present stocks are exhausted. Further on it states 'in future SCC No.2 will be considered the general purpose Basic Paint. Existing stocks of Khaki Green No.3 will be exhausted.'
The Canadian army backed this instruction up with one of their own Divisional Orders, dated 6/7/42

[Lynn Eades]

Richard, A full description of ACI 1160 might add clarity. (this post is not it either)
It states that SCC refers to the colour, and not the type of paint used.

Gina, I have the ACIs for 1940, 41, and 42.

The appendix talks about: (under the title of)
Basic paint:
For Bodies. Wood and metal
Cat No. HA 5715 paint p.f.u. Brown S.C.C.No.2 special spraying C.S.1733)
Or.
Cat No.HA 5638 (or HA 5147) paint p.f.u. Spray Khaki Green No.3 (C.S. 1429) until present stocks exhausted.
Then,
For canvas covers and hoods
Cat. No.HA 6194 Paint Bituminous Emulsion S.C.C. No.2 (T.S.143)
And then,
Cat. No.HA 6145 Paint Bituminous Emulsion Khaki Green No.3 (C.S. 1442)
until present stocks are exhausted.
The first half of the above relates to "A" "B" and RASC Vehicles, the second half to artillery and search light equipment.
Then for steel Helmets:
Cat. No. HA 5861 Paint dark brown textured matt finish (C.S. 1736)
Then for tentage:
Paint Bituminous Emulsion Cat. No. HA 6193 S.C.C. No.1,
Or:
HA 6179-S.C.C. No7
And lastly for Bridging equipment is states:
Special waterproof and anti gas paints will be used as directed in the hand book on maintenance of these equipments in S.C.C. No. 2.

Then there is a column Of "Dark Patterning" for the "A", "B", RASC, Arty, and searchlight equip, with three options.

Then Under the notes column, (for the above vehs. and equip) it states:
Cat. No.HA 6184 Paint Bituminous Emulsion S.C.C. No. 14 (T.S.143) may be used if the preferred options are unobtainable.
There is lots here that means little to me. Given time I can photograph and post if required.
There is a general note that in future S.C.C. No. 2 will be considered the general purpose paint. Existing stocks of K.G. No. 3 will be exhausted.
S.C.C. No. 1A will be the paint of dark patterning and existing stocks of Dark Tarmac No. 4 will be exhausted..

Does anyone one have an index for the Army Council Instructions (A.C.Is)?

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Richard, A full description of ACI 1160 might add clarity. (this post is not it either)
It states that SCC refers to the colour, and not the type of paint used.

Lynn,
There was no point in me posting anymore than I did, for one thing it would be hijacking the thread and going off the subject of Australian spec paint colours. The point of my post was to correct Chris on his comments regarding British KG3 and why the SCC No.2 Brown was introduced. The chromium oxide related to producing the green in the KG3 paint and as it was desperately needed elsewhere, the Brown was used to replace it, KG3 was still used until the stocks were exhausted, so despite Army Council Instructions on camouflage colours changing, there was still vehicles and equipment in service in several different schemes.
Nothing else to say, case closed.
Back to the Australian paint colours

cheers Richard

[Lynn Eades]

Richard, That's fine. I posted because :
1. The ACIs are probably not that common.
2. Gina may not have had access to them.
3. Because the British paint standards would have had an influence on
Australian Paint considerations.
4. Because much of it is gibberish to me and although I have little
understanding, it seemed the you had over simplified the information in
ACI 1160.
5. How these Army Council Instructions affected the Australian Military I
don't know, but these instructions were certainly not anecdotal. They were
the the law as far as the British Army went. Orders are orders, and
contrary to what some might suggest, Commanders did not ignore orders
by a whim.
6. Knowing the basics of how the British paint system worked would help the
overall understanding, for not just me but many others that say nothing.
here.
E.g what does a Cat. No. xxxx mean? What is a C.S.?

I was of the mis guided impression That S.C.C referred to an actual paint, not just a colour. This then means (to me) that the paint would have varied much more with time, weather, u.v. etc because the components required to arrive at a colour can be many.

I have followed this thread with interest, but much of it is like reading radio posts when you have no idea about them.

Gina, I aplogise for hijacking your thread.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Richard, That's fine. I posted because :
1. The ACIs are probably not that common.
2. Gina may not have had access to them.
3. Because the British paint standards would have had an influence on
Australian Paint considerations.
4. Because much of it is gibberish to me and although I have little
understanding, it seemed the you had over simplified the information in
ACI 1160.
5. How these Army Council Instructions affected the Australian Military I
don't know, but these instructions were certainly not anecdotal. They were
the the law as far as the British Army went. Orders are orders, and
contrary to what some might suggest, Commanders did not ignore orders
by a whim.
6. Knowing the basics of how the British paint system worked would help the
overall understanding, for not just me but many others that say nothing.
here.
E.g what does a Cat. No. xxxx mean? What is a C.S.?

I was of the mis guided impression That S.C.C referred to an actual paint, not just a colour. This then means (to me) that the paint would have varied much more with time, weather, u.v. etc because the components required to arrive at a colour can be many.

I have followed this thread with interest, but much of it is like reading radio posts when you have no idea about them.

Gina, I aplogise for hijacking your thread.

OK, thanks Lynn,
I thought we were going off on a tangent and did not wish to hijack the thread. The way I have understood the UK situation was that although Army Council Instructions were issued, it often states that existing stocks of the old paint are to be exhausted before the new colour is used. There would be factories with a large stock of a particular colour and still turning out vehicles in the earlier colour, until they have run out of it. So if you are going by dates of ACI's with colour changes, they were not embodied straight away, there would have been a huge waste of unused paint if that happened.

To answer your question 6, Cat. No. refers to Vocabulary Catalogue number, or to put it plainly, the stock number to demand by. HA is the prefix for paint.

SCC was a range of camouflage colours introduced, not just for vehicles, but for buildings, etc as well.
If I can find the time I can expand on ACI 1160, but a lot to do this weekend.

cheers Richard

[Mrs Vampire]

There is both a specification and a chip of KG3 in the Australian archives which compares nearly exactly to Bob Moseley colour.

Mike Thanks for the reference But isnt that an RAAF order ??? I will chase it down in any case but it still fits with my contention that KG3 was most likely used as a replacement for BDG24 up until the Introduction of the Australian colours early 1942 and that there would be hang over until the colours were available.

I would be interested to obtain those documents mentioned Lynn

I have forked over the cash to have this put online

tem title: [Transport - Trailers, Tractors, W4 A-C-G Trolleys] - Camouflage of service M/T [Mechanical Transport] vehicles [2cm]
Series number: A705
Control symbol: 211/9/430
Barcode: 516462
Access Status: Open
Price Code: Standard Digital

[Mrs Vampire]

Mike I have another problem with the painting of vehicles with Local purchase and it is this. In Jan 1942 we didn't have all that many vehicles and they wernt all that dispersed.

Pearl Harbor was only the month before we had little deployed for the defense of Australia ...or did we??... I am supposing most vehicles would be near the main city centers and especially near Sydney and Melbourne with the intention of ME shipment

All Army Vehicles would have already been painted DBG 24, KG3 or Desert colour .
Units would have been quite close to the paint manufacturers or the Engineering workshops.

For Armour we had about sixty tanks including the recently arrived Stuarts .... So how many vehicles were out there that needed a total repaint and were so deployed that supplies of the required colours were ungetable ??

I would suppose there were adequate supplies of whatever paints were being used on production vehicles which would satisfy the Instruction cited ??

Also from my reading of the files I had the impression that local supply was a reference to local paint manufacturers not the local paint shop ... There was a list of about fifty manufacturers in the files.

Mike Starmers difficulty with KG3 was resolved with the provision of the formula from the Australian archive and plate matched to the one extant chip also in the Australian archives. He also updated his Light Stone based on material from the Australian archives.

But that aside to you think there is any photographic or artifact evidence that local purchase colours were used ???

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

In Jan 1942 we didn't have all that many vehicles and they wernt all that dispersed.

That's a interesting theory but the photographic evidence doesn't support it . In early 1942, there were army units spread all over the country from Tasmania to the Northern Territory. Each unit had vehicles on issue of course.

I wish you all success with your research but it's a wide ranging and complex subject . Will we ever really know the true facts ?

In such a harsh environment like the N.T. , the paint would have gone powdery and faded quickly , I don't think the army workshops had sophisticated equipment available . The factory paint jobs would have been neat and tidy but once the vehicles were out in the real world it was a different story.

Distributing paint to remote locations was another issue. Paint would be low down on the list of necessities , the priority would have been given to food, munitions etc.

[Mike K]

Discussing paint, this is a interesting pic.

These may be impressed trucks. 1940 GMC's . Notice the chrome grills and bumbers . Has the khaki paint fallen off the grill or has somebody scraped it off ! The wooden tray looks like a farmers setup to me.

[Mike Cecil]

Gina,

I'm a bit puzzled and having some difficulty working out what your perceived time line for KG3 is. Several posts ago you said:

"KG #3 was not used on Vehicles by the Australian Army according to the documentary and photographic evidence that exists until December of 1943. Army orders and paint availability indicate Deep bronze green and British desert yellow (light stone) were used until the Australian "Berger" colour set was adopted. "

and more recently:

"Mike Thanks for the reference But isnt that an RAAF order ??? I will chase it down in any case but it still fits with my contention that KG3 was most likely used as a replacement for BDG24 up until the Introduction of the Australian colours early 1942 and that there would be hang over until the colours were available."

I've bolded the parts of the two statements that appear to me to conflict, ie the use of KG3 not until Dec 43, and the use of KG3 before 1942. Or am I missing something/misreading something?

As for MC301: Army. There are a string of Army Mechanization Circulars. Taubert has published at least one of the later ones that superseded MC301.

Vehicle numbers: I agree with Mike K. Thousands of vehicles in service, and widely spread. Why would that statement about local purchase be placed into MC301 if there was not the strong possibility of gas resisting paint being un-available to all users through the normal Army supply chain within a short time frame?

Mike

[Lynn Eades]

Mike, Is there not the possibility that they were never painted in the first place?

[Mike Cecil]

Lynn,

I think all vehicles supplied under military contract were finished in the paint finish as specified in the contract, whereas impounded or refugee cargo could be any colour. If you look at post 277, the tag, from a 1940 Chevrolet, is finished in 'Khaki', which I would assume means Khaki Green No.3, rather than BDG24, which was Deep Bronze Green, so the word 'Khaki' would be an inappropriate description, whereas 'Khaki' could very well be the factory's way of indicating a KG3 finish.

Another tuppence worth...

Mike

[Lynn Eades]

Sorry Mike C., I was referring to the grills and bumpers of the two GMCs in Mike Ks post.

[Lang]

Looks like the senior officers did not like the army paint scheme. Lots of photos of staff cars (in forward areas, not just Australia) with all their chrome still on.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

If you look at post 277, the tag, from a 1940 Chevrolet, is finished in 'Khaki', which I would assume means Khaki Green No.3

Indeed it does Mike. Army vehicles were finished in Dulux 21-line gas resistant alkyd enamel. Paint code for KG3 was 21-11 but typically not stamped on Chevrolet body plates. Exception seen below.

Other Dulux 21-line finishes include Light Earth 21-24 used for disruptive pattern from mid-1942 including softskin tactical vehicles.

Note B.A.L.M. blurb re sharing of formulae with Nobel in England. This applies also to C.I.L. (Canadian Industries Ltd) who produced the required paint there. Parent company was I.C.I. England.

As we know KG3 was British Army standard colour and Light Earth was RAF standard colour. Having been adopted by Australian Army they were duplicated by DHS in flat oil paint for use in the field. Hence Army instructions specify DHS colours Khaki Green J and Light Earth W. This creates the illusion that THESE are Army standard colours, leading to the assumption they’re used in production. I suspect this may be where Gina is struggling, but it’s all so convoluted I’ve been unable to construct a coherent explanation!

[Mike K]

Awm 008503 and 021674

[Mike K]

This one is your basic respray job . The background appears to be a cab 12 chevy . It would have helped if they cleaned that jeep before painting it !