Tamiya M10 'Achilles' Tracks Question

[Graham Boak]

Because it is the British way.  Everyone has to conform to regulations.  After all, the Shermans were regularly repainted.  It was only when OD vehicles appeared in overwhelming numbers that it became acceptable.   In the case of the Achilles, some conversion was involved if rather less than the case of the Fireflies.  There is also the matter of regimental pride, as in the reported case of one unit which repainted their entire stock in SCC15 before D-Day despite it being specifically not permitted.

 

There's also evidence of US-built aircraft being repainted after arrival for the RAF despite having been accepted in equivalent paints.  This is as early as Tomahawks and Mustang Mk.1s.

[dogload]

15 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

A bit early for SCC15, especially in Italy. A bit late for Light Mud. As it is an Achilles, it probably isn't still in OD (though it might).  So the likeliest appears to be SCC2.

 

40 minutes ago, Bullbasket said:

Sorry to be at odds with everyone else, but why would we repaint those M10's and Wolverines when we took delivery of them, when they were already in an acceptable colour? It doesn't make sense. It's like the controversy over whether Centaurs were repainted SCC15 before D Day, when it was expected that they would only be used for the first few days. Fireflys were only repainted SCC15 after being converted. 

B&W photos of the time are very misleading, and can give the impression of a much lighter colour. IMO, what appears to be SCC2 in B&W photos, is actually OD which may be faded. After all, OD is a shade of brown, not green. 

I'm happy to be proved wrong if someone can provide evidence that M10's were repainted in SCC2.

 

John.

Thanks Graham and John, but there seems to have been a little confusion about what is actually which colour

 

I was actually asking about the colour of the ammo boxes welded onto the M10. I was aware (as much as it is possible to know this stuff!) that US stuff was usually left OD and SCC15 applied to modified stuff (nutshell version! lol). I believe there is confusion about SCC2 M10s due to book illustrations though. 🙄 As the photo was taken in October 44 I think it can be assumed that most of the vehicle would be SCC15.

 

11 hours ago, IanC said:

 

I believe those are C.224 ammo boxes on the mudguards. Used for various munitions, and very common. SCC.2 would be a safe choice of colour. 

 

Possibly C.238 boxes on the glacis.

 

Aha, thank you so much!  

1 hour ago, zigster said:

+1 for SCC2, and that would make an interesting change to those "greens" around them 🙂

z

 

Thank you. Indeed, a splash of colour!

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by dogload

[dogload]

10 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Because it is the British way.  Everyone has to conform to regulations.  After all, the Shermans were regularly repainted.  It was only when OD vehicles appeared in overwhelming numbers that it became acceptable.   In the case of the Achilles, some conversion was involved if rather less than the case of the Fireflies.  There is also the matter of regimental pride, as in the reported case of one unit which repainted their entire stock in SCC15 before D-Day despite it being specifically not permitted.

 

There's also evidence of US-built aircraft being repainted after arrival for the RAF despite having been accepted in equivalent paints.  This is as early as Tomahawks and Mustang Mk.1s.

It does seem a little 'un-British' to have mis-matched colours in the ranks, but on the other hand we did get through a lot of tanks!

[Bullbasket]

Sorry mate, I should have read your question and not the reply. From what I've read, yes I would agree that the ammo boxes at that time would have been SCC2.

 

John.

[dogload]

3 hours ago, Bullbasket said:

Sorry mate, I should have read your question and not the reply. From what I've read, yes I would agree that the ammo boxes at that time would have been SCC2.

 

John.

 

No bother  All input appreciated!

[Kingsman]

When we argue over repainted US tanks in Commonwealth service we tend to forget their age - or lack of it.  No US vehicle supplied under Lend-Lease was ever more than about 2½ years in service.  And this would assume that, for example, Shermans supplied prior to Alamein were still serving in Italy at VE Day.  Most were considerably younger and regularly took 6 months to even reach user units from factories.  Remanufactured 75mm Shermans were still arriving in the UK as late as Sept 44.  Sherman Vs and I Hybrids in NWE had seen no active service prior to D Day, along with many Is, IIs and IIIs delivered directly to the UK.  RASC/REME equipment husbandry practice suggested 5-yearly repaints unless the paint had deteriorated to the point of needing to be repainted sooner - and that was probably still lead-based paint.  Whereas US vehicles were by and large painted with nitrocellulose enamels, oven-baked after application to harden it and which bonded with the primer coat.  The US was way ahead of the UK in coatings technology.  So by what mechanisms do we imagine that their paint finish became so badly worn that they needed to be taken out of the line and repainted?  Changes in colour policy and theatre changes notwithstanding.  We were on the Belgian/Dutch border 6 weeks after D Day.  Field or even depot repainting was never as good a finish as factory: look at how quickly Grants, Shermans etc repainted in desert colours wore away to reveal the factory OD.

 

To repeat myself about OD in British service, this was a perfectly acceptable colour and it seems that we accepted it as a Khaki Green 3 substitute before Lend-Lease on cash purchase vehicles.  SCC2 was not a colour we desired but one circumstances forced us to use.  OD was a better colour for NWE and much of Italy so we would not willfully paint it over, at least not completely.

 

There were no M10s in N Africa with Commonwealth units needing repainting in Italy.  In fact there were few tracked vehicles in SCC2 in Italy or in NWE after D Day.  Sextons in NWE and Churchills in Italy being known examples.  So no misguided sense of unit uniformity.

[zigster]

Mr Peter, you are fighting an uphill battle 🤪.

Pea green is an accepted colour for some well made Shermans, and we were all told - just shut up, and enjoy the pics.

(Guess, you may know, what I'm talking about)

Some people wants to learn, some are just happy with their builds. And that's OK!

Just don't try to intimidate forum, which is an open discussion about building models if it does not fall into your criteria.

End of rant!

Zig

 

 

[zigster]

Deleted.

Edited February 8, 2023 by zigster
Wrong answer

[thebig-bear]

Making a long-time later contribution to this topic.

 

I've just read a caption in a book that states that in two photos from the IWM featuring Achilles (of 11th Armoured Division in October 1944), both vehicles retain the US shipping details on the hull, and in one case the original US Army serial number as well. I've just been and checked this, and to my eye it appears to be absolutely correct. (although I am happy to bow to someone who knows far more about such details.)

 

Surely, this would mean that (at least in the case of this particular pair of examples) Achilles were only patch-painted, and did not receive a full repaint after modification.

 

The photos are IWM B 10489 and IWM B 10490, should anyone care to look. One of them is actually featured on page 1 of this thread by @magman2

[Kingsman]

And in another thread on colours on here somewhere an order for paint from British suppliers was discovered at Kew which had originally been for Khaki Green 3, by then no longer available, and had been amended to US Olive Drab.  Tens of thousands of gallons IIRC.  Unfortunately no copy was taken as the researcher was primarily looking for aircraft paint information.  Which raises the possibility that modifications to US-origin vehicles were in fact patch-painted in OD.  Which would be entitely logical and would explain why we don't see patchwork US-origin vehicles in service in NW Europe.  SCC15 and OD would be noticeably different even in b/w.

[thebig-bear]

4 hours ago, Kingsman said:

And in another thread on colours on here somewhere an order for paint from British suppliers was discovered at Kew which had originally been for Khaki Green 3, by then no longer available, and had been amended to US Olive Drab.  Tens of thousands of gallons IIRC.  Unfortunately no copy was taken as the researcher was primarily looking for aircraft paint information.  Which raises the possibility that modifications to US-origin vehicles were in fact patch-painted in OD.  Which would be entitely logical and would explain why we don't see patchwork US-origin vehicles in service in NW Europe.  SCC15 and OD would be noticeably different even in b/w.

@Kingsman, yes, it was on the SCC2 Shermans thread. - page 6, post no. 4 by Paul Lucas, should you ever want it for future reference. But briefly, some of the details were as follows: 255,000 gallons of Khaki Green No.3 on 6 October 1943. It was parcelled out amongst a multitude of different paint manufacturers in various size lots of, for example, 10,000 gallons. "Gets ammended to 'Olive Drab Lusterless' Paint Spraying. USA HA/0026." I didn't note the date that this was done. 

 

It's so annoying that this is all that we have about it! There is no context, and nothing to corroborate or explain it, and zero evidence for it ever having happened or amounted to anything! But....and it is a big but, in my view, but anyway,..... IF despite all of the evidence (by the lack of any in favour of it) to the contrary, and if it were somehow what really happened, then it would actually make a lot of sense - i.e., this is for patch painting US stuff, SCC15 is for our new home-produced stuff. However, until someone finds this record again, and take pics, copies, or a fully written out record of it, I just don't see as how we can assume it means that, or indeed very much. As I said elsewhere, if the above really were the case, why is there literally not a single other mention of it anywhere? Surely, with the military's penchant for paperwork there should be something?! 

Edited April 5 by thebig-bear

[Kingsman]

18 hours ago, thebig-bear said:

As I said elsewhere, if the above really were the case, why is there literally not a single other mention of it anywhere? Surely, with the military's penchant for paperwork there should be something?! 

Agreed.  But we know that there are many inaccuracies in wartime paperwork.  And indeed in today's paperwork (I may have made a few of those😁).  They pop up all the time, often stimulating vigourous debate.  But it is entirely logical that we would have acquired OD9 paint for patch-painting the little UK mods and more major changes like Achilles and Firefly.  I had been trying to find out if the US had supplied OD paint or if each vehicle came with a can in the OVM box.  But US depots and workshops would of course have it, so why would the latter be the case.  Even removing the shipping sealant etc was likely to cause the need for patch painting, and then there is over-painting the US serials, shipping data panels etc.   So the UK use of OD paint on reception is entirely logical.

 

Why doesn't it appear in any of the painting instructions?  Because it wasn't something that field units would do or even need to know about.  This was something that would be done by Jack Olding and others doing the inward processing of vehicles received from the US and workshops like Hayes and others doing the Achilles and Firefly conversions.  So they would arrive at depots and units with that work done, essentially invisibly.  They probably had no idea that it had even been done.  Depots and units would then be responsible for the relevant theatre painting standards.  While British tanks were not authorised to be disruptively painted in NW Europe it seems that Achilles, technically SP artillery, often were.

 

Now, whether that OD paint was available in the field through the supply chain for repainting is an entirely separate question.  It is a large quantity.  And it was for spraying, although doubtless it could be brushed.  But then we received tens of thousands of Lend-Lease vehicles so maybe a quarter of a million gallons didn't go that far.

Edited April 6 by Kingsman
Bad spelling!

[dogload]

 

Fortunately, my current 'to build' list consists of no lend-lease stuff. Churchills, K2 ambulance, Universal Carrier and some Cromwells. Just 'straightforward' British colour schemes... 😉

[thebig-bear]

2 hours ago, dogload said:

 

Fortunately, my current 'to build' list consists of no lend-lease stuff. Churchills, K2 ambulance, Universal Carrier and some Cromwells. Just 'straightforward' British colour schemes... 😉

Sorry!

[thebig-bear]

15 hours ago, Kingsman said:

Agreed.  But we know that there are many inaccuracies in wartime paperwork.  And indeed in today's paperwork (I may have made a few of those😁).  They pop up all the time, often stimulating vigourous debate.  But it is entirely logical that we would have acquired OD9 paint for patch-painting the little UK mods and more major changes like Achilles and Firefly.  I had been trying to find out if the US had supplied OD paint or if each vehicle came with a can in the OVM box.  But US depots and workshops would of course have it, so why would the latter be the case.  Even removing the shipping sealant etc was likely to cause the need for patch painting, and then there is over-painting the US serials, shipping data panels etc.   So the UK use of OD paint on reception is entirely logical.

 

Why doesn't it appear in any of the painting instructions?  Because it wasn't something that field units would do or even need to know about.  This was something that would be done by Jack Olding and others doing the inward processing of vehicles received from the US and workshops like Hayes and others doing the Achilles and Firefly conversions.  So they would arrive at depots and units with that work done, essentially invisibly.  They probably had no idea that it had even been done.  Depots and units would then be responsible for the relevant theatre painting standards.  While British tanks were not authorised to be disruptively painted in NW Europe it seems that Achilles, technically SP artillery, often were.

 

Now, whether that OD paint was available in the field through the supply chain for repainting is an entirely separate question.  It is a large quantity.  And it was for spraying, although doubtless it could be brushed.  But then we received tens of thousands of Lend-Lease vehicles so maybe a quarter of a million gallons didn't go that far.

Well, just assuming for the moment that your theory is correct, a date of October 1943 would fit conveniently with the idea that full or partial repaints before then had required the use of British paint, which would then have been SCC2, and therefore not very helpful or resourceful. As the supply of US made equipment built up more rapidly after the little problem of the war in the Atlantic was largely overcome by May 1943, this probably became totally unsustainable, and so this solution was then sought. And, if this were the case, it would explain why SCC15, whose development must have been a work in progress by that time if not already in early production, was supposedly distinctly different in tone - although that is up for debate.

 

I present three pieces of evidence; one for, one against, and one that could be said to be either way.

 

Exhibit A; the colour footage of a Crab being loaded onto a landing craft for D-Day. This vehicle, at least to my eye, looks to be spot on for US OD, and is not, again at least in my opinion, the same as the SCC15 AVREs that are seen immediately before it. This would suggest that at least some later Crabs may have been patch-painted to match their original base colour. Or possibly patched using a different colour - unfortunately, it is the colour of the flail and arms that are the least distinct, whereas the hull is the most visible.

 

Exhibit B; the colour footage of Polish 1st Armoured on maneuvers before their move to Normandy. In this sequence, the applique armour on the majority of the Shermans shown looks to be in a very greenish paint, and, allowing for the film, lighting, etc, looks likely to match roughly with the Cromwells seen elsewhere in the sequence, so probably SCC15. In the best example, the whole of the section on the right-hand side between the two panels has also been painted, while the front and rear of the side remain very dirty and brownish, and presumably the main colour. Clearly, patch-painting has occurred, and is not in the main colour. The turret also appears to be less green, so is OD at a guess. Interestingly, a Firefly seen in this sequence is not at all green, but very dirty and what can only be described as brown - so it is either a very early example painted in SCC2, or possibly very dusty OD. I'll leave others to make their own assessment when they have seen it.

 

Exhibit C;  a still photo of tanks from 27th Armoured Brigade, during Exercise Fabius, May 1944. The second tank in the row of parked vehicles is almost definitely a Firefly - I base this on the turret facing to the rear at a slight angle, suggesting the gun is locked ready for travelling, and the box for the radio added to the turret appears to be that and not a stowage box. The interesting point is that the turret, in it's entirety, looks newly painted, and is the only section of the tank (or any of the others around it) that is clean. Does this show that, at least on this Firefly, the turret was given a repaint, but that the hull was not? You tell me - but I think it's about as clear an indication of what might have been the case as we are ever likely to get from a b&w photo. If this were what happened, be it SCC15 or US OD, it would tally with the photos I mentioned featuring the M10s, where their hulls, too, were clearly the original US OD.

 

If only someone would have the time to go to Kew and try and rediscover this record, or see if there are any others.

Edited April 6 by thebig-bear