Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Mrs Vampire]

tony I have still not seen any document that specifies light earth as a replacement for light stone in 1942

It would be a help if one came to light . KGJ and Light Earth were in the original schemes .

and where does this come from ??? " 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!""

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

tony I have still not seen any document that specifies light earth as a replacement for light stone in 1942

Gina, if you haven’t seen the relevant instruction, it’s because you don’t want to see it! For starters it’s there in Steve Taubert’s paper, right up front in the Camouflage section, of which you were so critical just a few days ago:

“I am also disappointed with Stephens treaties in that he has attempted to recreate the documents from archival sources rather than simply post images of the originals. It leaves one pondering just what has been included and what has been omitted for convenience sake or because of its relevance in the judgement of the author. The lack of attribution of sources in the Biblio or foot notes means it is impossible to go to source documents to verify the information.”

In this case the relevant document is Mech Circ 319 of 28/7/42. I’ve posted an original copy along with Steve’s “attempted” recreation. You be the judge.

By way of further explanation I quote from Steve’s preface:

“As mentioned I have collated the various documents in my possession into a single book, in doing so I have attempted to reproduce the original documents as accurately as possible. By which I mean, errors in layout, punctuation and spelling have not been corrected. These documents, especially those relating to vehicle numbering in Part 2, are as close to the original as could be achieved using a modern computer word processor. It was sometimes extremely difficult to exactly duplicate documents, that was produced in a manual typewriter, where the typist could remove the page and reinsert it to achieve typing at various angles. My reasons for reproducing so many documents are as follows:
a) Every instruction represents a change, no matter how minor; they also show increases and decreases in the military Order of Battle,
b) After having so much difficulty, in obtaining the documents that are still in existence, I wanted to assure myself that they at least would not be lost, and that for the first time they could be viewed in a single book,
c) The Australian public have for years, relied on this type of information being supplied by historians from overseas, which have not always been as accurate as one would hope, and
d) After so many years of misinformation, being the only information, it is the simplest way of dispelling doubts in people’s minds by reproducing the original documents as it appeared at the time.

Mech Circ 319 (Medium).jpg

Mech Circ 319 Steve Taubert - Copy.jpg

[Mrs Vampire]

But that is just reiterating a scheme from 301 as put in Jan 1942....

I don't understand how that is a new scheme ??? It also fits in with Dakins objection to three tone schemes .

Tony I am not trying to be a smart arse or cause trouble I am just seeking out definite stuff that would be a referenced basis for a publication.

There are many documents whose names are out there that I don't have for instance

Military Board instruction 194 and most of the Mechanization circulars. I also don't have the standards for the colours Vehicle grey ect that you quoted on facebook and I don't have any references to them .

I pay for the publication online of all the files I find in the archives and have spent well over a thousand dollars doing that. I have also spent a couple of thousand chasing down colours in the archive and having them spectrographed....
I don't understand your hostility I am doing my best to come up with things that can be referenced...I am sorry if you think I should go on your say so...that's just not how I do things...

I stand by my criticism of Tauberts book, I think it is fair...putting up un traceable recreations of documents is not reliable in my opinion. There are details even in the lay out that are informative. The camouflage schemes he has recreated are from a 1949 pamphlet with colour codes that have no traceable history of implementation as the file from Jan 1943 makes clear .

Putting the Australian coat of arms ect ect on the documents is just fanciful in my opinion. They never looked like that and I think it is misleading to portray them as such .

But for me I am still learning and as I have said previously if anyone has documents that can help I would be glad of them .

I am keen to get all of the relevant mechanical circulars and especially keen to get specifications for the painting of vehicles by manufacturers. I am keen to get the MBI that mandated KG3 I would be grateful for documents that specify The Australian Desert tone for ME export vehicles.

Another document mentioned SM4809 has been impossible for me to find .

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

But that is just reiterating a scheme from 301 as put in Jan 1942....I don't understand how that is a new scheme ???

Gina the operative words are: "This circular supersedes and cancels Mechanization Circulars No.301, 309 as applicable and 311."

The context of MC 319 is Army taking back control of camo policy from DHS (ie. Dakin). The original DHS schemes under MC 301 had proven impractical - too many colours, too many schemes, lousy paint quality in the field, general difficulties with painting in the field, supply of materials etc, and most importantly, Light Stone disruptive found too conspicuous in Australian landscapes. The challenge for Army was to develop a SINGLE, STANDARDIZED scheme, suitable for the widest possible range of landscapes, which could be applied IN PRODUCTION. They decided on Light Earth disruptive, and at the same time they darkened KG3.

Sorry if I came across hostile, not my intention all. You're doing excellent work, just need to get all our ducks in a row. It will take a while, this is a horrendously complex subject. That's why no one has managed to write a book yet!

re Steve Taubert's work - like you I'd prefer to see the original docs for verification, but they're not appropriate for publication (old, tattered, torn, overwritten, faded, illegible, etc). Same considerations will apply to any book on camo, eg. pattern charts cleaned up for presentation, and possibly even coloured. Mike will be able to advise on publishing aspects.

I shall keep feeding you the relevant docs, which thanks to you I've been able to access and organize in the comfort of my living room, while you do all the legwork!

[Mike K]

I have a suggestion: this thread header should be

ITS ACADEMIC

[Mike K]

A still from a colour film, Bougainville ( no, not the Northern Melbourne suburb where Chopper Read came from , that is Thomastown ) .

I can see a dark green and a lightish brown colour , the two colour camo ?

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I can see a dark green and a lightish brown colour , the two colour camo ?

I don’t think so Mike, just single colour Dark Green. You can see it better in my screenshot. I discovered how to do screenshots a while back, they're so much easier than photos and much better result. You should try it, just google "screenshot" for instructions.

Second pic shows the difference between Dark Green and KG3. You can see why NG Force (and NT Force) preferred Dark Green, it matches the jungle foliage so much better than KG3. US Olive Drab was much greener than KG3 too.

Last two pics show 2/11 Fd. Regt. equipment which does appear to be NG Force scheme. Rather scruffy by that stage but blends in well I reckon.


F03437-1 NG Force C15A Dark Green wet.jpg

F03437 NG Force 60S tipper KG3 wet with 60L GS Dark Green.jpg

144 - Copy (Medium).jpg

F03437 2-11 Fd Regt NG Force camo scheme (2).jpg

F03437 2-11 Fd Regt NG Force camo scheme.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

They decided on Light Earth disruptive, and at the same time they darkened KG3.

This was decided at Wesley meeting 13 June 42 after vehicle inspection. Unfortunately the report states Light Stone in error, but thankfully they got the alpha code correct. Which begs the question of Steve Taubert's policy of NOT correcting errors. It's a key doc which must be included.


covernote Wesley College inspection 13 June 42 Light Earth adopted KG3 darkened.jpg

corrected Wesley College inspection 13 June 42 Light Earth adopted KG3 darkened.jpg

Wesley College inspection 13 June 42 Light Earth adopted KG3 darkened.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

Gina you’ll find some useful background material in the work of art historian Ann Elias:

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/journal/j38/camouflage

para 3:
By 1942 there were so many protests − particularly from the Army − about Dakin’s interference in military matters that a new arrangement had to be made. Finally, each of the services took control of its own camouflage operation, leaving the Defence Central Camouflage Committee to act as their advisory body only. The camouflage research station at George’s Heights, set up by the Department of Home Security for experimentation, was handed over to the Army.

para 21:
Early in 1942 the Army separated from the camouflage organisation set up by the Department of Home Security. This was certainly no loss to the Army since it had always trained its own camouflage officers, either at the Camouflage Wing at George’s Heights organised by the Army School of Military Engineering, or through camouflage training units run by the Royal Australian Engineers.

“Once the army had decided to go its own way, the Department of Home Security soon found that its camouflage activities were mainly confined to the R.A.A.F., for after October 1942, when the threat of Japanese invasion had disappeared, all civil camouflage was discontinued.” (Camouflage Australia, Ann Elias 2011)

Her book Camouflage Australia contains some excellent photos with file refs that may yield info on the development of DHS camo colours and patterns.


0.jpg

Elias REL 16500.jpg

1.jpg

4.jpg

5.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

Another document mentioned SM4809 has been impossible for me to find .

Ask and ye shall receive!

Below find draft copy Jan ’43 and final copy March ’43. As you can see the paint vocab was still evolving. Also find amendment Dec ’43 replacing Medium Green with KG3.

Not surprisingly we find very little evidence of this 3-tone scheme in use. Same goes for the early 3-tone DHS schemes.

SM 4809 Jan 43 draft dated (Medium).jpg

SM 4809 issued 4 March 43 (Medium).jpg

SM 4809 amended 21 Dec 43 KG3 in lieu Vehicle Medium Green.jpg

SM 4809 pattern chart D. Trailers (Medium).jpg

067932 3-tone camo MOOREBANK, NSW. 1944-07-31. Gen Sets at No. 3 Sub Depot, 5 BOD..JPG

[Tony Wheeler]

Evidently someone liked this scheme for semi-trailers. No pattern chart prepared initially so they used modified Lorry chart instead.

SM 4809 7-ton Semi-Trailer pattern approved (Medium).jpg

SM 4809 pattern chart F. Lorries 3-ton & 30cwt GS.jpg

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

nsw.gov.au 17420_a014_a014001310 Seven ton motor and semi-trailer, Tocumwal, NSW 11-2-44 3-tone.jpg

nsw.gov.au 17420_a014_a014001309 Seven ton motor and semi-trailer, Tocumwal, NSW 11-2-44 3-tone.jpg

[Mrs Vampire]

Now available

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...B=516462&T=PDF

Series A705
Control Symbol 211/9/430
Item Title [Transport - Trailers, Tractors, W4 A-C-G Trolleys] - Camouflage of service M/T [Mechanical Transport] vehicles [2cm]
RAAF

BAR CODE 516462

Interesting discussion on the progress of camouflage painting being slowed due to lack of supplies from stores depots.... and that 1sd had dispatched most of the required paint 16 2 1942 ...putting the issue of local supply, for the RAAF at least, in some doubt and specifies KGJ somewhat confusingly as KGJ.3 perhaps referring to a further iteration of KGJ as not being gas resistant

However further comments make it clear KGJ is the shade being referred to

[Mrs Vampire]

Tony Wheeler

Can you direct me to the reference where KG3 is darkened ...I had not heard of this before. I am aware of a Darkening of KGJ in 1942 but not KG3

[Mrs Vampire]

A confounding thing about the quality of paint contentions....

Several here have put the view that the paint was of poor quality Tony for instance and Mike.

The original specification for the paint was always Alkyd. Dulux did not have any great claim to making Alkyd paint following a patent ruling in 1935 it was available for anyone to manufacture.

Berger , Taubmans , for instance.

As for its durability I point to the photographs of extant artifacts in this thread and wonder if the paint was so bad how come so much of it is still evident even to the extent of determining colour and pattern. some seventy years after application and after continuous exposure to the elements in most cases.

It would appear that the physical evidence would suggest a very high quality product

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Gina Vampire

Tony Wheeler

Can you direct me to the reference where KG3 is darkened ...I had not heard of this before.

Already posted Gina! Refer my post #341 a few days back.

[Grant Bowker]

Interesting to note that both memorandums above either prohibit or restrict local procurement of paint unless approved. Clearly, although local procurement was allowed for it was not expected as a normal process.

I know I have been in situations where the "DS solution" was not practical and "make it work" took over but I also sometimes think that some of the people (no critique of anyone here is intended) who loudly trumpet "field expedient" are using it as an excuse to do whatever they want regardless of whether there is any evidence that there is any precedent for their plan.

[Mike K]

Has Tony been searching the NAA web site ?

I have . This late 1942 document is revealing to say the least .

In effect ,the paint manufacturers are saying to the Govt. Even if we share our paint formulas , there is no guarantee the outcome will be a standard colour

I hope the link works .

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...367640&T=P&S=7

more info

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/Sear...aspx?B=3367640

[Lang]

Here are some photos out of the Holden book taken at GMH factories in Australia. Looks like 3 different colour schemes.

Lang

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

Has Tony been searching the NAA web site ?

Not lately Mike. I downloaded some files after Gina posted the links here, but that was over two years ago. I’ve studied them over time so I’m quite familiar with most of them.

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I have . This late 1942 document is revealing to say the least .

Yes it’s in one of the files I downloaded. It may be one that Gina arranged to have scanned. The minutes of the paint meeting make for interesting reading.

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

In effect ,the paint manufacturers are saying to the Govt. Even if we share our paint formulas , there is no guarantee the outcome will be a standard colour

Well, the colour must be correct when supplied, ie. match the colour chip held by purchasing authorities, otherwise it would be rejected. That’s all we’re interested in here – the INITIAL colour applied to the vehicle. Obviously there were problems with fading, which are well documented, eg. following comments from HQ First Army in late ‘42:

“None of the camflg paints used have been found durable, regardless of the make. All colours fade in 6 months, some fade in 4 weeks. The quality of the paints is in fact so poor that from a concealment point of view it would be better if the vehs were left the original khaki green as they come from the factory.”

That’s why Army sought to have camo applied during production, using their own military spec paint, ie. Dulux 21-line alkyd enamel. DHS spec was worthless, as the meeting clearly shows, and Dakin’s postwar report records:

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

Also:

“An account has already been given of the meetings in Sydney and Melbourne which led to the issue of Colour Standards and Specifications. The colour Standards remained as permanent features of value, but the Specifications turned out to be almost useless. It was found that even keeping within the specifications the quality of the paint made by different firms varied exceedingly.”

In view of our present quest I find Dakin’s words quite prophetic: “The colour Standards remained as permanent features of value.”

Originally Posted by Mike Kelly

I hope the link works .

Yep, worked for me.