Info needed: correct colours for WWII Aust vehicles

[Tony Wheeler]

This photo shows First Army scheme in May 44 which means the paintwork is about 18 months old. I don’t have the pattern chart for Vans but it’s easily recognizable from the Truck chart. Rather attractive scheme I reckon and probably quite effective in the terrain seen here, although I suspect Light Grey would serve well too, judging by the grey gums visible in the background. Notice again the closeness in tone between KG3 and Light Earth, almost indistinguishable in B&W photos, nothing at all like ARN 132141 scheme.

[Lang]

Interestingly Tony that is starting o get close to the current colours.

Lang

[Tony Wheeler]

Colours are very close indeed Lang, here are the modern colours on Euan's gun tractor. This could pass as 1942 First Army scheme.

[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.

[Howard]

Wow. I just read up on what I've been missing in this thread, having not previously seen the last six or seven pages.
Conclusion: I'll paint my truck Blue.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Howard

Wow. I just read up on what I've been missing in this thread, having not previously seen the last six or seven pages.
Conclusion: I'll paint my truck Blue.

Air Force Blue, or Navy Blue?

[Mike Cecil]

Yet another 'GREY' area .... certainly not Black or white! And you can argue that one until you are Blue in the face ....

A week in Tucson, AZ, and now back to an early few inches of snow and temps o/night around 15F. Thanks heavens the workshop is heated.

Mike

[Lang]

Tony

Just looking at the photos of the sale Landrovers.

The three vehicles are photographed on the same spot beside the building. All three are entirely different colours owing to the camera settings. This is with modern digital technology.

Shows how impossible it is to match colours from WW2 colour photography not only because of lesser technology but age and copying losses or changes. Best you can do is an indication of pattern and hope that what you see is close enough to a known colour to bet on its name.

Lang

[Tony Smith]

Exactly, Lang. I had chosen those 3 pics just for that reason. Not only camera settings and photo reproduction (in those days, or computer monitors these days), but ambient lighting. Indoor/outdoor, bright sun or overcast.

Makes it very difficult, if not impossible to definitively define a colour by photo.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Richard Seymour]

Originally Posted by Howard

Wow. I just read up on what I've been missing in this thread, having not previously seen the last six or seven pages.
Conclusion: I'll paint my truck Blue.

Ahhh Navy... you're gay?

[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

[simon king]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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)

Shame it isn’t a colour photo as the colour of the three bars painted below the POM number are determined by the last two digits of the unit number.

[Mike Cecil]

Yes, Simon, I agree: a colour image would answer the question. The way to determine the last digit is the colour of the middle bar. In this case, the top and bottom bars are white, representing '9'. But I'm not going to hazard a guess as to the middle bar colour from a monochrome image, except to say it is not white, so the USN is therefore not '22399' (321st Troop Carrying Company). Now we have eight choices. The bottom edge of the last digit seems to be wider than a single vertical/near vertical stroke, so that probably eliminates '1', '4' and '7', leaving 2,3,5,6 or 8 as the possibilities - five choices.

What does 'POM' stand for, please? I've only ever known the number as the USN - Unit Serial Number or 'Serial Number'.

Most Allied countries (including the US in the European and Med. areas of operation) used essentially the same USN system - only the Canadians went their own way.

Lang: is this part of a larger image with the last number visible, please?

Mike

[simon king]

Preparation for Overseas Movement -effectively the same as the individual unit code number. US and Commonwealth Unit COs received the same order to mark vehicles in the run up to D-Day.

What I’m not sure though is whether the orders included the same number/colour combinations for US and Commonwealth units. The US colours seem to differ from the acknowledged Commonwealth combinations used from BEF days onwards, yet I think the order was addressed to all Allied Commanding Officers from SHAEF, suggesting that there was a commonality in the combinations.

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Simon,

Thank you: had not heard the term before. The US system had colour differences (see bolding below), and there was some minor overlap with the 5-digit number codes (mostly with Brit units assigned to other theatres of operation, so there was no possibility of number conflict anyway).

The number/colours were:
Number....... US....... Brit/Commonwealth
1...... Buff...... Red
2...... OD ......... Blue
3...... Yellow.......... Yellow
4...... Light Green......... Light Green
5 ...... Grey......... Grey
6...... Blue......... Buff
7...... Maroon.......... Red Oxide of Iron
8...... Red........ Service Colour (ie KG3)
9 ....... White........ White
0....... Dark Brown....... Dark Brown

I seem to remember the US Army had been using the system since at least Op Torch, and most probably soon after US units started arriving in England, but I'd have to locate the article in Army Motors to confirm that.

Aust and NZ were issued the USNs in blocks by the War Office from the beginning of the war. The Canadians had their own system of USNs not related to the War Office numbering system. Australia was still using the same system well into the 1960s.

Maybe we should begin a new thread on this, rather than hijacking Jane/Tony's/Lang's colourful cammo discussion?

Mike

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Yes, Simon, I agree: a colour image would answer the question. The way to determine the last digit is the colour of the middle bar. In this case, the top and bottom bars are white, representing '9'. But I'm not going to hazard a guess as to the middle bar colour from a monochrome image, except to say it is not white, so the USN is therefore not '22399' (321st Troop Carrying Company). Now we have eight choices. The bottom edge of the last digit seems to be wider than a single vertical/near vertical stroke, so that probably eliminates '1', '4' and '7', leaving 2,3,5,6 or 8 as the possibilities - five choices.

Hi Mike,
I don't know if the photo of the QL has been cropped but from what I can see, I deduce the QL's census number is L557330, from Contact no. V4675 and is a QLT Troop Carrying Vehicle (TCV), this aligns with your theory of it belonging to a Troop Carrying Coy. It is a very early QL as the windscreen hinges are hidden, a central vertical bar on the grille and large headlight (8" ?).

regards, Richard

[Mike Cecil]

Hi Richard,

I haven't concluded it is a Troop Carrying Company: simply saying it is not the 321st Troop Carrying Company. It could be any of the following:

22392: 104 Div Transport Coy
22393: 317 Artillery Workshop Platoon
22395: 318 Troop Carrying Coy
22396: 215 Troop Carrying Coy
22398: 13 Troop Carrying Coy

However, now that we can add your intimate Bedford knowledge to the mix which confirms it's a troop-carrying Bedford QL TCV, then the likelihood is that it is from a troop carrying company, and therefore the last number is probably a 5 or 6 or 8.

What we can achieve when we put our heads together! Thanks Richard. (Now I'd better get back to the next article for KVE!!)

Mike

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by 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).

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here Mike. I mean, it seems like a statement of the obvious to me. Objects vary in appearance according to the light intensity falling upon them. Like, the dark side of the moon, and the light side of the moon. You wouldn’t compare objects in bright daylight to objects in the shade. You can only compare objects in the same light. Which is to say, the same plane of light. I mean, that’s obvious, isn’t it? In practice that means flat panels with disruptive pattern across them, so the adjacent colours can be compared under the same lighting conditions. Hence in the Matador example you’d probably choose the driver’s door, because the frontal area is way overexposed. That is, the film has been pushed beyond its ability to register tones, it’s just plain white.

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

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.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. We’re not trying to identify colours in isolation, based on visual appearance only, we’re trying to identify the camo scheme, from a limited number of possibilities, which then tells us the camo colours. We have a lot of information about camo schemes, including date of approval, prescribed patterns, which we bring to bear on the problem. This gets much simpler after 42, because there are so few colours to choose from. Eventually in 44 the problem solves itself, because there are only 3 vehicle paints scheduled, and a 3-tone camo scheme.

Armed with this kind of information we can start to make fine distinctions, like the two semi-trailers pictured. Notice how the scheme as originally intended displays even separation of Light Tone / Medium Tone / Dark Tone, but with KG3 substituted it becomes virtually 2-tone scheme, because KG3 and Vehicle Dark Green are much closer in tone. Indeed, dare I say it, “These colours are useless for disruption as they are much too close in tone and merge at a very short distance.”

[Tony Wheeler]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

KG3 and Vehicle Dark Green are much closer in tone.

This is something we can view in real life. Pics below show 1949 KG3 paint chip confirmed against 42 KG3 paintwork, which as you can see varies so much in daylight as to generate 3-tone scheme from the one colour! Notice how the 49 paint chip follows it faithfully, which may not be possible with modern pigments.





Following pics show KG3 reference chip against Vehicle Dark Green, firstly on the ambo where it appears over KG3, and secondly on the gun tractor over red oxide primer (not seen in this photo) which came as a surprise because I had always assumed it was KG3.





I’ve come to believe there was a lot more Vehicle Dark Green used in late production than I realized, and I’ve found quite a few examples already. I’m even learning to recognize the faded colour, which is slightly different from faded KG3. You’d be surprised how quickly your eye becomes trained if you do enough of this work on colours. Plus it adds another level of interest when clambering over blitz wrecks, armed with 400 wet & dry, large bottle of water, KG3 paint chip and camera!

[Tony Wheeler]

Just quickly on ambos, they’re typically very dark in photos, which would lead one to believe they standardized on Vehicle Dark Green after 42, as part of a tradition perhaps. Does anyone have any info on this?

[Tony Wheeler]

Now that we’re acquainted with Vehicle Dark Green we can take another look at Staff Cars and Vans, where 2-tone scheme features widely in 43-44 (examples seen below in NG, QLD, NSW, VIC, WA).

Firstly as Mike Kelly observed in post #453 concerning example 1: “The darker disruptive colour has a noticeable shine to it . Hmm”

Paint quality suffered during 1943 owing to shortage of phthalic anhydride, which led to suspension of gas resistance spec for a period, as well as various other concessions being made for suppliers. For example, B.A.L.M. tender for Vehicle Dark Green supplied ex-Melbourne against Contract Board Schedule T.71308 of March 43: “It is recommended that the tender of B.A.L.M. Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, be accepted for immediate requirements under concession of non-compliance with para. 69 – Mattness, of the specification.”

So, Mike, not only can we identify the colour, but even the likely brand of paint!

But what of the other colour(s) seen on these vehicles? We already know Vehicle Medium Green was discontinued in late 43 which leaves only one possibility in 44, namely Vehicle Grey. This may explain examples 9 & 10 which appear to display more tonal separation (higher contrast) than earlier examples painted when Vehicle Medium Green was still available. The two possible colour combinations can be compared side by side on the 7-ton semi-trailer body. Further guide to colour can be had by comparison with uniforms in some photos.

Note that KG3 can be ruled out due to closeness in tone with Vehicle Dark Green as shown in posts #505 and #506. Any vehicle painted in these two colours would appear extremely dark indeed.

[Lang]

Tony

Just a WAG but perhaps they painted the ambulances in a single colour for the following reasons:

They did not want them mistaken for a tactical vehicle with camouflage. They wanted to appear less war-like.

They actually wanted them to be easily identified from other surrounding vehicles. Wishful thinking in an attack on a convoy situation but if operating individually may give some measure of protection.

The big crosses cause a problem as they negate any stealth ambitions. If a unit was actually trying to hide, the first vehicles to be covered with nets or branches would be the ambulances.

I suspect some people in the Medical Corps may even believe that the Ambulances should be all-over white as the Geneva Convention says you should not shoot at them. I think ambulances only get protection if it is convenient in the overall battlefield situation and the presence of an ambulance offers no safety to a unit under attack.

Lang

[M38CDNBill]

Hi,

Nice picture of the GMC tractor but what I find particular about this truck is the cylindrical object where the spare tire is usually located. It makes me think of an air tank and is it possible that the braking system on this GMC model was pneumatic?

Cheers