Yet another boring colour Q

[zigster]

British self-propelled anti-tank gun on Valentine, called Archer, with production starting around 1943.

So, everything in Allies being "green/olive drab etc" in modelling world, how is that product fit in official cammo calls.

Zig

[magman2]

Yet another boring colour Q

You want to change the question because the title probably stop a lot of people from looking at your post and the question of colour of US vehicles in British service has been as so many times and in recent post, she may want to look at those first

[John Tapsell]

In1943, everything was being painted SCC2 Brown. From April 1944, the official colour changed to SCC15 "British Olive Drab". All 'A' vehicles in service at the time in the UK were to be repainted as a priority (except stuff supplied direct from the USA and not modified or converted, which stayed in the original US Olive Drab), whilst 'B' vehicles (mainly the softskins) were a lower priority.

 

An Archer manufactured in 1943 but operating in Normandy or NW Europe 'should' therefore have been painted in SCC15 - unless the unit had not got around to overpainting the SCC2.

 

 

[zigster]

Thanks @John Tapsell

Being "winged guy" for such a long time, I'm just treading armour with due respect.

Sure thing, AT guys would be as a "frontline" (sometimes wrongly used as a tanks).

Sextons managed to keep SCC2, (with some black) as they were "second line of offense".

Yet, I'm looking at the pic of Polish Archer in the Monte Casino area.

They've  started their actions much earlier. Poles - on this front 17of Jan 44.

Guess, not everything was employed straight on the first lane, but:

- did they, and would they care about repainting their chariots to SCC15

Just a (my) thought - in Italy War Ministry papers  were treating slightly different from a Sargent Major in ETO.

It;s all just a fun i speculating.

z

 

 

[Kingsman]

A Polish Archer near Cassino would most likely have been camouflaged with Light Mud over the factory finish SCC2 brown.  That was one of the authorised colour combinations for Italy.  Vehicles arriving in theatre finished in Khaki Green 3, SCC2 brown or Olive Drab were permitted to be overpainted with patterns of Light Mud rather than being fully repainted in Light Mud and then camouflaged again. 

 

SCC15 Olive Drab was not authorised in Italy until about September 1944, by which time the fighting was much further North and the terrain had become much darker.  And NW Europe had the early priority for the new colour anyway.

 

There was not as much disobedience of the painting instructions in units under British command as you suggest.  But there was often a question of priorities and lack of the right paint in units so repainting usually took some time to complete.  Sometimes REME teams with spray gear were deployed to undertake the repainting to ease the load on units.  But British and Commonwealth disruptive painting was always hard-edged and not soft-edged.  We understood that soft edges spoilt the disruptive effect.  And spray gear was rarely available.

[zigster]

Thank you @Kingsman!

Your combination of colours sounds great! After all, I was looking for some "other" scheme, than "this or that green"

I'm not ( 🙂 ) trying to suggest disobedience in British Army ranks on any level. Yet tin of "to be applied" paint may take a bit of time, to get to the paint shop in Med.

So, use what you can would be an answer. Hard edge it is, even on Spitfires :-)

zig

[Mike Starmer]

Be very vary of official captions, these were often written months or longer after the images were taken.  I am not sure that the Poles had Archers until late 1944 into 1945, they would  have had towed a/t guns or M10s.  Their Archers came from the UK  and all the images I have of them look like SCC.15 overall albeit with some noticeable  evidence of dark residue from the waterproofing applied prior to dispatch.  I cannot get access to my books to check dates.  Their 4th Regt A/T used M10s in 1945 finished in an adapted Sherman pattern using Light Mud over US O/D No.9.  Paint and the necessary tools to use it were not issued as a matter of course to BOW and Central Ordnance Stores.  Instructions to use particular colours were issued from the war office then via routine letter or Liaison Letters to regional  commands such as 15th Army or 21st army HQs.  Then subordinate  units were advised of changes down the chain of command by issuing precise written instructions together with diagrams as necessary.  These changes were later inserted into ACIs or MEGOs sometimes months later.   For Italy, the first orders  to use Light Mud and Black were issued by 30 Corps on April 23 1943 backed up by a set of disruptive drawings dated 12 April 1943.  These instructions were later clarified and promulgated in MEGO. No. 693. 4th June 1943 by Lt; Gen. R. MacK. Scobie CGS.  This cancelled MEGO. No. 1650 of 1942 and all instructions or directions on the policy of camouflage painting issued by GHQ  MEF or subordinate H.Q.s in connections herewith.  Thus, unless instructed by a senior officer with good reason, no deviation from the instructions was allowed.  Otherwise one would immediately put on a charge.   The BOWs, REME workshops or formation workshops would indent for paint as required but standard practice required that all existing stocks of obsolete colours be exhausted before the application of a new colours.  There was a caveat that on no account, however, will the issue of a vehicle be held up due to a lack of appropriate paint.  The result was that hundreds of vehicles and AFVs remained in their  original schemes alongside new vehicles or repaints until the cessation of hostilities.  As for Spitifires and other RAF aircraft, the edge between disruptive colours were specified to be blended by a 1/2 inch overspray.    Anything greater would be rejected by the AID inspector.

[zigster]

Thank you Mike!

Your knowledge is simply superb! And I thank you for sharing it with us!

z

[Kingsman]

@zigster if you want to know anything about British and Commonwealth WW2 paint schemes, PM Mike about buying a set of his booklets.  They are not expensive and are THE definitive reference on the subject.  And they come with colour chips.

[zigster]

Dear Peter, I don't think my problems is with correct colour.

It is when those colours apply. And letters from War Office will not help.

And not mention Malta cammo on those planes.

Sure, Mike was saying: too much over spray and some sergeant will stop releasing a/c for service??

In a high pressing wartime? You cannot deliver replacement Spit, coz it got a wide overspray??

I rest my case.

z

[Graham Boak]

Yes, Mike is right.  I've never been in the Services, but do understand at least something about Rules and Regulation, with lines of Authority and Responsibility.  These major repaints were not carried out in the front line, with some squaddie told to practice his inner Picasso.  I have however worked in the aircraft industry. and understand something about how things were done in the '40s.  Major assemblies such as the wings and fuselage were made up and assembled in separate buildings, or even companies, and then stored until taken to the assembly factory until they were brought together when required and joined to smaller pieces which would have been pre-primed rather than camouflaged.  They would then be touched-up and wheeled out onto the airfield for final checks before waiting for a test pilot to be free to carry out at least one production test flight, after which it would take its turn for any snags to be sorted and then wait again for a ferry pilot to take it to a Maintenance Unit.

 

There would be no squadron pilot sipping his tea in the canteen, waiting for the painter to drop his brush and call out "Number 6 to go!"  Bad luck if there was: the aircraft was built without armament, gunsight, service radios and other Government Provided Equipment.  These would all be fitted at the MU, where should the aircraft have been painted in  wrong camouflage for its intended theatre, it would be repainted after the fitting of the appropriate modifications.  There may be some room for relaxing the standards there, although I doubt there was much.  It would then sit around at the MU until called out for delivery.

 

The point being that there was always time for redoing a job to "Get It Right" without this affecting the delivery of aircraft to the customer.  There was always some stage in the process that took longer than a mere respray, where lost time could be regained.  Just In Time was a  much later concept, and would have been unacceptable then because of its lack of flexibility.

 

The Army was basically similar, with its system of depots.  This is where the painting was done, in the down time between campaigns and after necessary maintenance, modification and repair.

 

Yes, there were some rare exceptions: I would not expect precise overspray on Spitfire repainted into Mixed Grey on the squadron, but then they'd be hard demarcations because it would have been done with brushes.  As for Malta: although various these schemes were not quite as freehand as myth and fable tell.  Aircraft were often delivered in required colours, prepainted before leaving the UK (or Gibraltar) not on board ship en-route.  I recommend Paul Lucas's series of articles as reprinted in Colour Conundrums 1.

[zigster]

Thanks for your super-knowledge input. For some reason it went from Archer, to RAF accepted standards of painting 😉

Which I always enjoy in a flowing discussions. There's a big time info in those.

Zig