Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[John Ward]

Sorry if I chime in like this but does anyone know about the order, or just the exact wording, that introduced Vehicle Buff?

One of the documents that Tony Wheeler posted a while ago (see here) makes reference to RAL/DS Circular Mech Veh Camflg., 20 Jan 1942 but I'm unsure if this was definitely the one that issued Vehicle Buff.

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by John Ward

does anyone know about the order, or just the exact wording, that introduced Vehicle Buff?

Hi John,

I’m afraid I have no specific information on the colour “Vehicle Buff” or its use in vehicle camouflage, just a few passing references.

We know this colour was developed in response to Light Stone being found too light for Australian conditions, as noted by Dakin himself as early as 18 Dec 1941 in correspondence with RAAF: “Light Stone happened to be the only standard colour to approximate to my desire in the new Camouflage paints….the paint people could easily make up a light stone with just a little brown in it as indicated.”

Two months later on 20 Feb 42 he specifies for RAAF a Light Tone formulation of 50% Light Brown + 50% Light Stone, stating: “This colour can now be obtained already mixed under the name “Buff”.

It’s possible this DHS colour came to be known as “Vehicle Buff” within Army and instructions for its use in the field may have appeared in the document mentioned, ie. RAL/DS Circular Mech Veh Camflg., 20 Jan 1942.

In vehicle production however, particularly armoured workshops, the problem would be to replace the current Light Tone (typically B.S.C. 64 Portland Stone or perhaps B.S.C. 61 Light Stone) with something a shade darker in a readily available standard. One possibility would be B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff, which seems to have been a War Office standard for general service paint. This paint remains on the Australian schedule in mid-43 and is named simply “Buff”, so perhaps it was produced to MGO 101A spec for vehicles in early 42 and named “Vehicle Buff”.

As you can see it’s all highly speculative until further documentation can be shown and the colour confirmed on surviving artifacts.

Cheers,
Tony

RAL-DS Vehice Buff.jpg

bsc318c1931.jpg

MSL Classification of Paints 1943 p.15s.jpg

[Tony Wheeler]

...speaking of colours named Buff, good excuse to post this fabulous B.A.L.M. paint chart circa 1936:


BALM colour chart c.1936.jpg

BALM Light Buff c.1936.jpg

[Lang]

For all the instructions, dates, paint names and order numbers I still have not changed my opinion the whole thing was a dog and pony show and nothing more than a complete embuggerance to the people who owned vehicles.

The instruction on buff says to mix green with it (a teaspoon per tin, 50/50, 75/25??) then camouflage the camouflage! Not only that, but this work is only "in the mean time" until the clowns come up with a new scheme to camouflage the camouflage that is camouflaging the camouflage. I am sure the boys had better things to do with their time such as the 1942 equivalent of watching "Days of Our Lives" - listening to "Blue Hills" on the radio.

Lang

[John Ward]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

Hi John,

I’m afraid I have no specific information on the colour “Vehicle Buff” or its use in vehicle camouflage, just a few passing references.

We know this colour was developed in response to Light Stone being found too light for Australian conditions, as noted by Dakin himself as early as 18 Dec 1941 in correspondence with RAAF: “Light Stone happened to be the only standard colour to approximate to my desire in the new Camouflage paints….the paint people could easily make up a light stone with just a little brown in it as indicated.”

Two months later on 20 Feb 42 he specifies for RAAF a Light Tone formulation of 50% Light Brown + 50% Light Stone, stating: “This colour can now be obtained already mixed under the name “Buff”.

It’s possible this DHS colour came to be known as “Vehicle Buff” within Army and instructions for its use in the field may have appeared in the document mentioned, ie. RAL/DS Circular Mech Veh Camflg., 20 Jan 1942.

In vehicle production however, particularly armoured workshops, the problem would be to replace the current Light Tone (typically B.S.C. 64 Portland Stone or perhaps B.S.C. 61 Light Stone) with something a shade darker in a readily available standard. One possibility would be B.S.C. 59 Middle Buff, which seems to have been a War Office standard for general service paint. This paint remains on the Australian schedule in mid-43 and is named simply “Buff”, so perhaps it was produced to MGO 101A spec for vehicles in early 42 and named “Vehicle Buff”.

As you can see it’s all highly speculative until further documentation can be shown and the colour confirmed on surviving artifacts.

Cheers,
Tony

Thanks Tony, very interesting!

Regarding your other post (#473), I've noticed how it says that
"Paint Khaki Green (non gas-resisting) in lieu of Paint Khaki Green Standard Colour (gas resisting) J"
was issued.

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).

In other words, does that mean usage of gas-resisting paint pretty much evolved like this:
KG3 gr. (MBI 94) => KG3 gr. or KGJ ngr. (MC301) => KGJ gr. (MC319) => KGJ ngr. (your #473) => 'Vehicle' colours gr. => KG3 gr. (late 1943)

Well, or maybe I'm just reading too much into this.

[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

[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