Jump to content

New method to identify BSC No. 61 Light Stone on B/W photos?


Microbacchus

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone,

 

We all know that the use of BSC No. 61 Light Stone overlapped with BSC No. 64 Portland Stone usage in late 1941/early 1942 and with Desert Pink ZI in late 1942. Therefore, it is almost impossible to judge a specific vehicle’s base colour from these periods. I don’t believe at all, that we can rely on value (light/dark) differences on B/W photos to tell these colours apart. IWM E18972 is a good demonstration of how futile (in general) this approach is. One can even barely see the black disruptive colour on the tank in the background due to lighting conditions. Now imagine our chances with 3 light colours…

 

Most of the books sold for model makers are inaccurate, and the better, well documented ones are often out of print and impossible to find. These latter ones rely on well documented research from primary sources but even with the help of these books, it can be difficult to judge the base colour of a specific vehicle from an eye-catching photo.

As a model maker I study lots and lots of archive photos to visualize the desired paint finish of the subject – sheen of the surface, amount of chipping, type of the chips, amount of dust/mud, type of dirt, fuel stains, etc. During this process, I might have found – accidentally – a way to discriminate BSC No. 61 Light Stone. This paint seems to wear off in a very special way, almost like a winter whitewash, but it’s better if I demonstrate it with the photos themselves.

 

First, I discovered it on some 1942 November Stuarts (E19893; E19936), then on earlier ones (E15489; E14119; from 1:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJNFueHIXbg&t=182s&ab_channel=PANZERInsight). But found the same wear pattern on M3 Grants (E8580; E9892; E12637; E12860; E13773; 13380; E16711; E18393; E18405; E19350), El Alamein era Sherman IIs (E17966; E18376; E18377; E18707; E18993; E21499) and on various other types of vehicles. These vehicles are almost surely base coated in BSC No. 61 Light Stone.

 

Let’s compare these to BSC No. 64 Portland Stone Stuarts that took part in Op. Crusader. These tanks arrived in US Olive Drab (E3443E; E3450E; etc. mid-August), and they were repainted in Caunter Scheme by late August (E3467; E3469E; E3476; E5086). The paint is in relatively good condition even on the destroyed ones (E7044; Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-783-0107-14A / Dorsen / CC-BY-SA 3.0; etc.) in December 1941.

In contrast, E7008 (1941.12.10.) is in a single colour scheme and the wear of the paint is extreme, almost like a winter whitewash, so I assume it must be Light Stone – the wear pattern is like on the Stuarts/Grants/Shermans I mentioned above. Note that this vehicle must be newer than the Caunter Scheme ones and all photos were taken in December 1941. Also, all these tanks were originally US OD.

 

I couldn’t find a big enough pool of vehicles in Desert Pink ZI over US OD, but the paint on the few I could study was in good condition (7th Sherman III in that 1943 Parade for example; original colour video).

I don’t know if this observation can be generalized or even if it is a valid distinction between Light Stone and Portland Stone (no idea about Desert Pink yet), but it might be a useful tool to identify Light Stone base coat if proven to be correct.

 

Thanks for Your help!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big welcome to you, @Microbacchus.

 

I'm not sure what you need help with, or even whether I could. Judging by your first contribution, you need no help at all from me when it comes to researching British AFVs and colours...

45 minutes ago, Microbacchus said:

As a model maker I study lots and lots of archive photos to visualize the desired paint finish of the subject – sheen of the surface, amount of chipping, type of the chips, amount of dust/mud, type of dirt, fuel stains, etc.

 

Amen to that!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the kind words! 

 

I posted these observations to ask others if they agree on these or not. I'm still unsure if these are real differences among the 3 paint finishes. I also failed to link IWM webpage (https://www.iwm.org.uk/search/global?query=e3467), where anyone can check the photos (simply just search for the catalogue codes, like E3467). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see what you mean.

 

I have not given much thought to whether any of the official BS colours wore away heavily, partly because they should have had pretty decent production quality and application. Can you see whether there's a difference in wear between British- and American-built vehicles? Or are they the same? I'm just wondering whether there was variance in adhesion over different base coats.

 

In-theatre colours are, potentially, another matter: for example, light mud seems to have worn quite poorly on M4s in Italy. I need some more photos of it on British-built vehicles, though.

 

When I have time, I'll search for your IWM reference numbers because there may well be some which I've not seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not more likely to be a sign of poor application?  If the vehicle has not been properly prepared, then any paint will not take to the previous surface.  Given the examples quoted, where Light Stone and Light Mud have been applied on top of an established paint surface, possibly already well used, probably at short notice and even done in the field, problems with adhesion is likely to be pretty well certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That may play a role. Granted, Light Mud was often, though not always, applied to used vehicles which would have worn BS colours in the MTO. New Zealand's M4s, for instance. Perhaps that was done inadequately -- who knows? However, No 61 was extensively applied to new arrivals, which had to undergo some preparatory work in Alexandria, and to used vehicles in maintenance. So in most of those cases, it should have been applied to a certain standard over an adequately clean and good quality factory finish in workshops. I've never heard of the BS basic colours being applied in the field; though it may have been done. I'd like to compare the wear of No 61 and other basic colours with the disruptives, many of which were applied in field. If poor application is the only or primary explanation, the disruptives ought to show at least as much or more wear, depending on the relative times of application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that different units are seen with different camouflage patterns, or at least different interpretations of the single pattern, it seems pretty obvious that some local repainting was going on, at least in the early years.  Whether an MU had sufficient time to take all due care in the repainting of large numbers of newly-arrived vehicles, desperately needed at the front-line for the next offensive, appears doubtful.  Whether a new colour painted over an established colour will last as well as the original factory coat applied over primer, again appears doubtful, but maybe.

 

The alternative, that some colours adhere less well than others, when the paint comes from the same source, appears rather less likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Starmer might like to chime in on this, which is certainly interesting.

 

We know that Desert Pink and Dark Green were "theatre colours" outside the BS palette.  Does this imply that they were sourced locally somewhere under Alllied control in MTO?  There are paint manufacturers in Egypt today.  Did they exist in WW2?  I find it hard to believe that the stretched supply system was able to synchronise the supply of paint from the UK with the supply of tanks from the US, ultimately many hundreds.  So is it the case that even the BS colours - at least some - were sourced locally too?  Would these locally-manufactured paints have been of lesser quality?  Might they even have been paints formulated for building decoration rather than application to metal in high-abrasion environments?

 

There is also the question of paint type.  Are we talking "paint, ready to use" as the Army called it - canned paint as we know it today - or the older locally-mixed type made up from linseed oil, white lead and dry pigments?  This was still commonplace in the early WW2 era.  The quality of the former would have been more controllable and the quality of the latter would inevitably have been more variable.

 

BTW I believe that Grant Is supplied pre-Lend Lease M3 manufacture integration were finished in a US equivalent of Khaki Green 3, not US OD.  There are UK Purchasing commission documents supporting this specification but I'm not certain that the 3 Grant producers followed it.  The few Grants that arrived in the UK were KG3 IIRC.  Grant IIs were almost certainly OD as they were all built after that.  The idea that some may have been factory finished in a commercial Coronado Tan like the Diamond T tractors has been debunked.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

Thanks for the many answers! I’m mostly into British used US made vehicles, but I tried to find some other examples. So it seems that it is not specific to application over US OD.

 

IWM E17100; E17110 Crusader tanks (1942 September 20) with the same, winter whitewash-like wear pattern.

E11092 April 1942; heavy chipping combined with some abrasion, that washed down looking erosion is also started to appear at some points, though quiet minimally.

E19924 Humber armoured car (1942 November, so might be Desert Pink), the wear pattern is the same as on Stuarts/Grants/Shermans.

 

E16861 It’s a Sherman II but the picture was taken as early as September 15th 1942 (so it must be Light Stone and not Desert Pink), regardless the paint already started to wear off. These tanks surely arrived in factory condition US OD and were repainted in depots and not in the field.

 

Almost all the vehicles in Caunter Scheme I’ve yet seen are in good condition paint-wise (some links: E2872; E380; https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235052137-rolls-royce-armoured-car/ note how minor is the paint damage even on the destroyed one). Mostly just small chips, no abrasion damage or washed down looking areas. But it’s worth mentioning that I’ve studied far less photos from this CS period, so any badly worn-down CS paintwork can prove me wrong, maybe I just failed to find those images yet.

 

Light Mud only started to appear in 1943, so it is not an issue if we are into 1942 vehicles. I found it a very durable finish (at least on Shermans), with minimal paint damage (numerous 1943 era photos of very dirty and packed up Sherman IIIs in Sicily/Italy without any paint issues; IWM NA7861; NA8276, etc.), even on this high-res colour picture (https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/color-photos-from-second-world-war/) and also in the colour parade video from 1943. In early 1944 some Sherman IIIs show extensive abrasion damage, but I think that was intentional – in the lush green vegetation Light Mud was not an ideal colour (NA8276), so I guess some units tried to wear the paint down to the US OD (for example: NA10707 note that the Light Mud paint is intact around the T-number).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

An very interesting topic.  To begin determine which colour is which, then first you need to know what those colours looked like in the 1930 issue of BS.381.  I am fortunate to have seen those and been able to very closely match them using Humbrol model paints in 1980.   Then you need to know at which time periods those colours were used and or discontinued.  This information is in contemporary MEGOs and MTPs, each of which cancels the preceding orders, thus no break of continuity.    Light Stone No.61 is basically dull yellow, about a medium tone, whilst Portland Stone No.64 is a very pale cream, slightly green tinged.  Tonally quite light and noticeable between the two.  I use a general rule.  On monochrome images, Portland Stone looks almost off-white and quite bright and has contrast against Silver Grey on most Caunter images.  Light Stone is duller and most often doesn't show much, if any, contrast against Silver Grey.   The Stuart film clearly shows these features.  It also shows some of the variations of the pattern where the workshops were trying to adhere to the official diagram and obtain a a 1/3rd balance of tones in side views.    Caunter was actually cancelled in October 1941 by proposed change of policy but not published in MEGOs until 5 December 1941 for a single overall colour of  Light Stone.  This is why you will see some Stuarts with overall colour displaying Operation Crusader markings.  These are new repaints sent as replacements whilst the operation was taking place.  At the same time Portland Stone was still being used as an overall colour in accordance with the new order.  I have one image of an after battle group of Stuarts in both Caunter and plain colour with an M3 scout car among them which stands out brightly, this strongly suggest Portland Stone.  Not uncommon since it was usual practice to exhaust obsolete colours to avoid wastage.   

Paint was manufactured locally, as in Palestine and also in South Africa, usually to a high standard and acceptably close in colour to the BS. standard.   On the question of poor adhesion and scruffy appearance, there had been developed in 1941 a range of 10 colours designed for camouflage on all types of structures, ground surfaces and canvas.  These were Camcolours and Camemulsion.  Camcolour was paint made using local pigments and mineral oil with water.  It had been found that this paint could be applied for disruptive patterns on vehicle surfaces over enamel paint.  It didn't wear too well but served to purpose.  Camemulsion was used on absorbent surfaces, hessian, rope, camouflage netting, timber etc. by impregnation.    A booklet of 24 colours, entitled MESC,  the samples being mixes of printer's inks and used as a guide for selection of suitable colours for  specific purposes.   The example I handled is in the archive at Saxonwald Museum, Johannesburg.  It has been possible to co-relate some of these colours to the BS. range, colour No.11 is BS.381 No.61 Light Stone and No.11 is BS.64 Portland Stone.  Some of the others relate to BS.987 1942 colours used in UK and later Italy.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...