AEC Matador Bowser Camouflage

[danbuoy]

Hi, fairly new to the forum, and I'm looking to do the Airfix AEC refueller as my next kit. As my main interest is the Eighth Air Force, I'm looking to make it as close as possible to this one, seen refuelling a B-17E at Grafton Underwood in August 1942;

 

 

 

 

From what I've read in this thread, I'm guessing this finish is G3 with bands of G4 over the top. Is this correct? If so, what model paints most closely match these two colours?

 

Thanks

 

 

[Graham Boak]

the correct British Army colours are available from Sovereign Hobbies in their Colourcoats range.  Why use anything but the best?

[Troy Smith]

1 hour ago, danbuoy said:

From what I've read in this thread, I'm guessing this finish is G3 with bands of G4 over the top. Is this correct? If so, what model paints most closely match these two colours?

 

If you like enamels,   as Graham says...

31 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

the correct British Army colours are available from Sovereign Hobbies in their Colourcoats range.  Why use anything but the best?

if you don't like enamel, than AFAIK for accuracy it's paint mixing world.

https://alliedarmour1940.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/vallejo-paint-mixes/

Quote

Khaki Green G3

2 pts 70921 English Uniform [141] + 1 pt 70888 Khaki [115] + 1 pt 70822 German Camo Black Brown [150]  (Mike Starmer, 2016)

Dark green G4

70986 German Dark Green [99] (Mike Starmer, 2016)

 

Tamiya 

https://alliedarmour1940.wordpress.com/2016/11/30/tamiya-paint-mixes/

 

Quote

Other Colours

Khaki Green G3

3 pts XF62 + 2 pts XF59

Dark green G4

3 x XF61 + 2 pts XF58

 

HTH

[danbuoy]

Thanks for the replies. I've only ever used enamels before (Humbrol), so will check out Sovereign Hobbies. Chassis assembled tonight. Bit fiddly, and the old instructions aren't great, but otherwise pleased with progress!

[Graham Boak]

For a background into the colours used on wartime British military vehicles, go to the MAFVA site and look in the Research section for Mike Starmer's description of the colours and how they changed with time.   Presumably because of less wear and lower losses, the RAF vehicles often retained earlier versions of the colours.  Otherwise, from this period it could be SCC2 brown with a dark grey disruptive colour.

 

Looking at the photo, this appears to be one of the rarer petrol-engine variants, so you will need a spacer behind the radiator rather than it fitting flush to the front of the cab.  Fortunately this is a lot easier than converting it to the earlier version often seen in photos of refuelling a Stirling.

[danbuoy]

Yes, I am aware of a few changes that will need to be made including adding the box to the left of the radiator. It will also require a spotlight. Think I am going to go with overall G3 with bands of G4. That seems like it will be close enough. Its a decent quality photo to work from, but at the end of the day, it is still only black and white, and only shows the front and right hand side, so there will have to be a bit of guesswork and artistic licence with the camouflage pattern. Had a look at the Sovereign paint range and think I have found the G3 paint, but not sure on the G4. What exact colour was it described as? 

[Graham Boak]

The AM instruction of August 1941 called for a G3 base with a disruptive patter of Nobels Tarmac Grey No.4 or Light Green no.5.  (My comment:G3 and G4 would give very little contrast.)  The Army called in May 1942 for G3 to be replaced by Brown SCC2, with G3 to be continued until stocks ran out.  This was because of a shortage of chrome pigments for making true greens.  The contrasting dark colour was to be SCC1A once stocks of Nobels had run down.  This is from Mike Starmer's British Army Colours & Disruptive Camouflage in the UK, France and NW Europe 1936-45.  For these colours he recommends ARB07 (G3) ARB20(G5), ARB16 (Nobels Tarmac Grey), ARB06 (SCC2) and ARB15 (SCC1A).  ARB06 is slightly light, but he thought it acceptable.  I'd think it actually desirable for smaller models.

 

Under the legal requirements you will need another tin to make up Sovereign's minimum order of 6, but given the range I'm sure you can find something.

 

Mike does quote alternative mixes using Humbrol and Revell paints, but I know that he regularly reassesses these mixes and suspect whatever is quoted on the MAFVA site will be later than my early printing of this guide.

[tank152]

You could try here first,

https://www.hmhobbies.co.uk/afv.html

No ridiculous minimum order or extortionate postage prices either 

That's provided you use an airbrush. I can almost guarantee once you've used this paint you won't be using anything else.

[danbuoy]

That's great, thanks to all for your assistance. 

[tank152]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

 

 

Under the legal requirements you will need another tin to make up Sovereign's minimum order of 6, but given the range I'm sure you can find something.

 

Since when has it been a legal requirement as to how much paint you have to order?

Are people that gullible to believe that?

[tank152]

57 minutes ago, tank152 said:

 

Sorry double post please remove. 

[Graham Boak]

It is not permitted to post paints within or without the UK, because of international regulations agreed by airlines.  Therefore they have to be distributed by other carriers than RM, who require significant packaging protection and which charge high costs.  Jamie has negotiated as low a rate as possible, providing there is a minimum order of six.  Presumably he would be happy to provide a lower quantity but at the same postage rate as for the heavier package.  This has been discussed on these pages, and on the Sovereign Hobbies website (and presumably still is).

 

Anyone sending paint without following similar procedures is breaking the law.

 

I have no knowledge of HM hobbies lists nor procedures, so cannot leap to any immediate or unjustified criticism.

[JackG]

Don't know how accurate the digital colours are on the Sovereign Colourcoats site, but I've used three of them to create a quick colour study with software that emulates b/w film:

 

 

Had to use a blue filter to get that characteristic shift in tones so that the blue of the roundel is lighter than the red center - but on both film types, this results in Khaki Green 3 and SSC14 become identical in tone.   Maybe the vehicle was painted with a lighter blue marking to help it stand out?

 

regards,

Jack

[Selwyn]

Just a note,

this picture would not have been taken at Grafton Underwood as this was a USAAF B 17 operating base and certainly would not have any RAF 8 (pathfinder)Group vehicles on it, the USAAF would have had its own refuelling vehicles.

More likely this is a B17 based at Grafton Underwood that has landed away at a RAF 8 Group airfield ,and is being refuelled.

 

Selwyn

Edited April 29, 2020 by Selwyn

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

4 hours ago, tank152 said:

Since when has it been a legal requirement as to how much paint you have to order?

Are people that gullible to believe that?

 

I'm not sure what your problem is or what exactly it is I've done to offend you, but I've noted your derisory remarks about the way I run my business numerous times and have let them slide until now. For the record I absolutely do not care for your snide implications about my approach or ethics and will be happy to take it up with you face to face next time we're both at Telford. We have never spoken but someone has pointed you out to me previously.

 

Let's assume it's a misunderstanding, so I'll fill you in with a few facts which I hope you will consider for future attempts to damage my reputation.

 

There is no legal minimum. Only you ever seemed to understand that there was. Posting flammable liquids DOES have legal implications though and anyone sending them without this label on the packaging is committing a criminal offence:

 

I support a wife and two children and like many I have a mortgage to pay. I also hold a senior management position within one of the largest engineering companies in the UK. Between these commitments, my appetite for prosecution (and there are precedents including Amazon being prosecuted and found guilty) over sending model paints hidden in the regular post is zero, which means that I am one of the elite few in this country who actually do it legally.

 

Here are the government bodies who want to know who the criminals are:

Enforcing and reporting

You must follow regulations for transporting dangerous goods safely and securely. There are different authorities responsible for inspecting and making sure the rules are followed depending on how the goods are transported.

You should contact the relevant authority if you need to report an incident or someone breaking the regulations.

 

Who to contact

For goods transported by air:

Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)

For goods transported by rail:

Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)

For goods transported by road:

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (operational strategy and enforcement)

DVSA (enforcement and compliance)

Environment Agency (hazardous waste)

Police

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) (‘special waste’)

For goods transported by sea:

Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA)

The transport of all radioactive materials (class 7) is regulated by the Office for Nuclear Regulation

https://www.gov.uk/shipping-dangerous-goods/enforcing-and-reporting-

 

Doing it legally severely limits the number of companies who will carry flammable liquids. The vast majority will flat refuse. Those who will carry must do so in accordance with ADR regulations ; the company must not only exclusively transport by road but the drivers must be ADR trained, the vehicle must carry a fire extinguisher and a whole bunch of other stuff. The regulations are available online. I urge you to go read them. I am neither thick, unethical nor simply making this up.

 

At the moment, we have a contract with Parcelforce who are happy to carry Limited Quantities flammable liquids, but Parcelforce's pricing structure starts with parcels and not small packets. We have been trying for some time to get an alternative arrangement with another courier, but we have been plagued by one administrative problem after another. We live slightly north of the oil capital of Europe, which for postal purposes may as well be the Moon. We are charged a fuel surcharge due to being in this part of the country. In total, excluding packaging materials, time, or our own fuel driving to the post office, we are invoiced just over £13 GBP per parcel carried by Parcel Force. Their pricing structure is a price for 1 gram to 10kg. Near enough all of our consumer-sized orders fall within this bracket.

 

When I first started this, I made the erroneous assumption that I should slightly under-recover on postage and that customers would have enough intelligence to a) understand the brief explanation of DG postage posted on our website at Checkout and b) self police their order sizes to get value for money. What actually happened was I received a whole bunch of written abuse from keyboard warriors like you who accused me of profiteering. Quickly tiring of those people, we decided to significantly under-recover on postage and pay over half of the true cost by lowering the charge to £6.50 and making a tiny profit on a 6 tin minimum order, but offering a further incentive for buying 12 tins a time by further reducing postage to £4.50, but we actually make a little bit of money from it too.

 

 

Frankly @tank152, people like you really make me wonder why I bother at all. I've never taken a penny in pay out of this little side business, and I could certainly think of better things to do with my evenings and weekends than researching and making model paint - especially when what we're trying to do is constantly branded "ridiculous" and even you having the audacity to suggest that I'm praying on peoples' gullibility.

[danbuoy]

On 4/29/2020 at 8:22 PM, Selwyn said:

Just a note,

this picture would not have been taken at Grafton Underwood as this was a USAAF B 17 operating base and certainly would not have any RAF 8 (pathfinder)Group vehicles on it, the USAAF would have had its own refuelling vehicles.

More likely this is a B17 based at Grafton Underwood that has landed away at a RAF 8 Group airfield ,and is being refuelled.

 

Selwyn

No, it is definitely Grafton Underwood. The photo was taken in August 1942, just as the Eighth Air Force was establishing itself in the UK. Large numbers of ground support equipment were borrowed from the RAF initially, until the Americans had enough of their own equipment. This included AEC and Bedford fuel bowsers, Austin K2 ambulances, and various types of crash tender, amongst other things. As soon as enough numbers of US equipment were in the UK, these borrowed vehicles would have been returned to the RAF (hence why the bowser in the photo is still in RAF markings), though in the case of some of the emergency vehicles, I have seen a number of photos taken much later in the war, which still show Austin K2s (with white stars applied) and Crossley and Fordson crash tenders in use on various Eighth Air Force airfields. I think the fuel bowsers would have been some of the first vehicles returned, as I haven't seen any photos post-42 that show them still in use by the Eighth.

[John Tapsell]

Regarding the posting of paints in the UK, the following information is lifted directly from the Royal Mail website (https://www.postoffice.co.uk/mail/uk-what-can-i-send).

 

Paints, wood varnishes and enamels

 

Solvent-based paints, wood varnishes and enamels

International - Not allowed in the mail

UK - Not allowed in the mail

 

Water-based paints, wood varnishes and enamels

International & UK - Allowed in the mail, see restrictions and packaging guidelines below:

Volume per item should not exceed 150ml.

There is no restriction on the number of items than can be sent in each package.

The items must be securely closed and placed in a leak-proof liner, such as a sealed polythene bag, so that any inadvertent leakage is contained within the outer packaging. Surround with absorbent material such as newspaper and sufficient cushioning material to protect each item from damage.

The sender's name and return address must be clearly visible on the outer packaging.

 

As Jamie notes, the carriage of solvent-based paints is not permitted by Royal Mail so an alternative courier service is required for these.  Water-based paints are not restricted in the same way.

 

Regards,

John

[Gordon J]

Can I ask whether the above discussion surrounding the colours of the RAF Matadors would be applicable to the Airfix Albion Refueller model I have just started?

[IanC]

4 hours ago, danbuoy said:

No, it is definitely Grafton Underwood. The photo was taken in August 1942, just as the Eighth Air Force was establishing itself in the UK. Large numbers of ground support equipment were borrowed from the RAF initially, until the Americans had enough of their own equipment. This included AEC and Bedford fuel bowsers, Austin K2 ambulances, and various types of crash tender, amongst other things. As soon as enough numbers of US equipment were in the UK, these borrowed vehicles would have been returned to the RAF (hence why the bowser in the photo is still in RAF markings), though in the case of some of the emergency vehicles, I have seen a number of photos taken much later in the war, which still show Austin K2s (with white stars applied) and Crossley and Fordson crash tenders in use on various Eighth Air Force airfields. I think the fuel bowsers would have been some of the first vehicles returned, as I haven't seen any photos post-42 that show them still in use by the Eighth.

 

Bit of extra info - apologies if you're already aware. The B-17 is 41-9023 'Yankee Doodle', serving with the 97th BG, based at Polebrook and Grafton Underwood. The American Air Museum suggests it's after the raid to Rouen, 17 Aug 1942. The tanker has markings for the original No. 8 Group, which only existed for a few months in 1941, rather than No. 8 (PFF) Group which wasn't formed until January 1943.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[danbuoy]

23 minutes ago, IanC said:

 

Bit of extra info - apologies if you're already aware. The B-17 is 41-9023 'Yankee Doodle', serving with the 97th BG, based at Polebrook and Grafton Underwood. The American Air Museum suggests it's after the raid to Rouen, 17 Aug 1942. The tanker has markings for the original No. 8 Group, which only existed for a few months in 1941, rather than No. 8 (PFF) Group which wasn't formed until January 1943.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I have the Corgi 1/72 diecast model of this aircraft, which is what I'm intending to display my completed tanker next to! Thanks for the info regarding the unit the tanker belonged to.

[Mike Starmer]

Regarding the colours on the refueller with the B-17.  Whilst I would agree that the base colour is Khaki Green with disruptive stripes of Dark Green, look at the tones on the front mudguards and adjacent bodywork.  That look to me to be Dark Tarmac No.4 (not Dark Tarmac Grey) which if current ongoing research suggests, is an off-black colour possibly slightly green or brown and not the darkish blue-grey I have been led to believe.  

[Merlin]

Quote

Gordon J......Can I ask whether the above discussion surrounding the colours of the RAF Matadors would be applicable to the Airfix Albion Refueller model I have just started?

Hi,

I also would like to hear back on that. However the Matador is on the scene when AMO's  A618/41 had already existed talking of Khaki Green No.3 and Nobels Dark Tarmac Green No.4 as disruptive pattern over former, whilst the Albion would have seen camouflage applied under the following guidance :-

 

quoting Mike Starmers words from his article in MAFVA, In 1939 A.M. issued instructions that all RAF vehicles were to be disruptively painted but no documents thus far confirm the colours used, but presumably as the army, 28 March 1939 RAF have decided to use the same colours as the army in ME..

 

looking then at Mikes Army data:-

1939-41 – Bold horizontal/diagonal patterns of two greens following M.T.P.20 diagrams of June 1939.  The usual basic colour was Khaki Green G3 with a disrupter of Dark Green No.4 or rarely Light Green No.5.  Plain G3 is an alternative.

May 1940:  Dark Tarmac No.4 begins to replace both Dark Green No.4 and Light Green No.5.  This seems to be the first measure to conserve chromium oxide stocks.

1941-42 – Standard Camouflage Colours (S.C.C.s) from BS.987c come into use alongside, and then supplanted the greens and Dark Tarmac, but in the same M.T.P.20 patterns.  The base colour was changed to S.C.C.2 brown with S.C.C.1A dark brown over it.  S.C.C.14 black was an alternative.  This change was brought about due to a severe shortage of vital chromium oxide green pigment necessary to produce strong green colours and a degree of infra-red immunity.

 

Coming back then to continue Mikes section n RAF colours :-

Odd disjointed file notes from TNA have the following:-

28 March 1939;  R.A.F. have decided to use the same colours as the army in ME, but RE & Signals Board not yet decided on colour for Iraq, Palestine and ME.

6 February 1941.  Camouflaging of MT in Overseas Commands.  Colours specified in CWD Specifications are Dark Sand and Middle Stone.  The sample of painted lorry cover that we received… ‘was much darker than the earlier colour’.  This follows G.O.370 of 1939.

This situation remained officially till August 1941.   Nevertheless instructions had been issued in Britain during 1939 to disruptively paint transport.  Photographs of some R.A.F. vehicles in France during early 1940 and on some airfields in the South of England from June 1940 onwards show that disruptive painting on ground vehicles deployed on airfields within reach of enemy aircraft or observation.  No accurate colours are known for these vehicles but in France, British army colours may have been used but the possibility of French colours must be taken into account. 

A TNA file has a note dated 19 November 1940; ‘…camouflage paint has not hitherto been included in R.D.M.T. Specifications for M.T. vehicles for the R.A.F. and units have, we understand, obtained their own supplies by local purchase’.  Followed by ‘The canvas tilts of those vehicle leave the manufacturers dyed khaki and unpainted…’.  So there was authority to camouflage vehicles prior to the next known AMO.  In England, army colours is possible by local arrangement or a range of green, brown, black or grey building paints may have been used in random striped type designs similar to army applications. 

 

So from this it is likely the Albion was subject to other choices.

I have seen colour footage of a Brockhouse 450 gallon Zwicky Bowser towed by a tracked Fordson and it is in a lower contrast green and brown than the Khaki Green No.3 and Nobels dark Tarmac Green No.4 would give.

Mike says Khaki Green No.3 and Light Green No.5 for the bowser.

As the Albion would have been camouflaged about the same time as the bowser, both being in use in 1939 and 1940, this might be more likely. Ot has also been said that erks just went to stores and took out aircraft Dark Green and Dark Earth. There is a photo in colour from LIFE magazine showing an Albion front view beyond a Spitfire but it is tricky to see if the Browns and Greens match. It was a sequence filmed but if only the photographer had shot the Albion side on ! Ground Equipment never gets the glory.

 I feel that the contrast of the green on the brown on the towed bowser is a little less than the aircraft green/brown gave. There is a little more green in the brown on the Albion 3 boom refueller studying what little there is to see below windscreen and below radiator and on windscreen frame.

@Mike Starmer Mike Starmer might be able to tell us what he thinks the brown is on the Albion.

 

Merlin

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Merlin

[Troy Smith]

53 minutes ago, Merlin said:

Mike Starmer might be able to tell us what he thinks the brown is on the Albion.

( I cant get the @Mike thing to work)

you need to type as it appears, with a space between Mike and Starmer like this  @Mike Starmer not MikeStarmer.   

[Merlin]

Hi Troy,

ok sorted I assumed it was like email addresses no gaps.

 

Merlin