British Production and Use of US Lustreless Olive Drab No9/No22

[Kingsman]

Some of you may recall that in a past thread on the subject of the full or partial repainting of US vehicles in the UK it was revealed that one of our members was certain he had spotted references to the UK manufacture and purchase of US Lustreless Olive Drab paint while researching RAF paint at the National Archives.  Which was, to say the least, interesting.

 

So on Friday 6th September I visited the National Archives, having identified half a dozen documents that looked likely candidates.  3 of them were big heavy 3 inch thick ledgers of paint purchases from the Ministry of Supply.  If anyone is interested, their reference are SUPP 4/333, SUPP 4/334 and SUPP 4/335.  I only had time to look at SUPP 4/333, the first volume offered by the attendants, which very usefully turned out to cover the part of the name alphabet including Green and Olive.  The file AVIA 22/2706 also contained much useful information.

 

Long story short, yes I found entries for contracts to 11 British companies in October 1943 for a total of 255,000 gallons of US Lustreless Olive Drab spraying paint, RAOC catalogue reference HA0026.  So not SCC15, which we know to have RAOC catalogue numbers HA0242-0244.  At 8 shillings a gallon that was £102,000, or about £3.25M in today's money.  Not only that but I also found orders for a further 260,000 gallons in December 1943 to 2 of the same companies plus 4 additional ones.  That's a total of 515,000 gallons at £206,000 or about £6.6M at today's prices.  The initial contracts came from a tender exercise which had originally been for Khaki Green 3 and which had been altered to US OD, again as previously noted.  There was clear correspondence to this effect in the AVIA file.   There was nothing that I could find to indicate that the orders for US OD were ever later amended to SCC15.  SCC15 orders appeared after this.  I also found entries for much smaller quantities of US OD paint of other types for different purposes: bituminous emulsion (for canvas), stoving, jerrycan, heat resisting, petrol resisting and telecommunications equipment.

 

The paint specification had also changed, as it had for other colours, to a new "anti-gas" formulation CS1898.  A paint formulation resistant to chemical warfare agents and more readily able to be decontaminated. 

 

Most interestingly in the never-ending debate about what colour/shade US OD was, there was a letter from ICI noting that US OD was “rather similar in shade to Khaki Green 3” - so a brownish green - and that the paint would meet the new UK specification “in all respects other than shade”.   Which fits with Zaloga's history of OD in which he says that it was not any shade of dark green and supports what I've been saying for a while that it is a brownish shade.

  

 

By date this letter must relate to the SCC15 change, which we of course know all about.  It is interesting that this and other documents continued to mention Khaki Green 3 long after it had been superseded as the new service colour.  This documents is clear that SCC15 is the replacement for both SCC2 and KG3.

 

The quarterly price list for Dec 43 - March 44.  Lustreless OD is right at the bottom.  This is the only quarterly price list in which it appears.  Note that KG3 is still on the list in addition to SCC2.

 

So we have confirmation that it was done.  15 British companies manufactured and supplied over half a million gallons of US OD spraying paint in late 1943 into early 1944.  I have the list of names if anyone is interested, but I did not note their individual quantities, which were unequal: some supplied more than others.

 

None of this helps us know what it was for: we are still in the dark there.  Figures from restorers seem to indicate broadly 5 gallons to paint a Sherman.  So that's enough paint for 103,000 Shermans.  We only had about 15,000 - less when you exclude those supplied directly to N Africa, Italy and the Far East.  Firefly and Achilles conversions totalled 3,300 - 3,500 vehicles.  

 

I can see 4 reasonable possibilities for the purchase of such a large quantity of paint in such a short period as we came within 6 months of D Day.

 

1. An anticipated need to patch or partly repaint large numbers of US supplied vehicles after undergoing work in the UK.
2. Supply to US forces in the UK for the same reason (seems unlikely).
3. Painting the extensive number of rubber deception dummy tanks and trucks placed to simulate FUSAG in Kent and East Anglia.  It was believed that the Luftwaffe were using Agfa false-colour IR film for photo recce, so they would need to look right on those images.
4. All of the above

 

Discuss.......

[Phantome]

Given that SCC15 wasn't introduced until after Feb 1944, it sort of makes sense that US OD would have been required to paint Lend-Lease vehicles before that. The quantities in question do seem to be overkill though... but maybe it was in anticipation of this being the color that would be used for much longer? i.e. someone ordering these paints in October 1943 would have not known that in 1944 SCC 15 would be introduced and by then there were expectations of thousands of Lend-Lease vehicles to be sent.

 

Fascinating discoveries though!

Edited September 17 by Phantome

[Circloy]

1 hour ago, Kingsman said:

Supply to US forces in the UK for the same reason (seems unlikely).

Perhaps not as unlikely as you think.

 

Why risk shipping paint from the US if it could be produced in the UK and more valuable/critical items shipped accross the Atlantic instead. Factor in not only the demand for the US army & UK conversion of equipment but also that of the USAAF, who were in combat and patch painting repairs to battle damaged aircraft and there's probably a sizeable demand.

 

There is clearly a need to understand the usage of UK produced olive drab & I doubt after 80 years It's going to be easy.

Edited September 17 by Circloy
spelling

[Kingsman]

USAAC is an entirely other can or worms we can't go into here.  They had 2 ODs, one nominally the same as the Army and one darker, and differing IRR requirements  An attempt to standardise a new OD between AAC and AGF (Army Ground Forces) as AN-319 didn't work because of the IRR.  Anything more is for one of the wingy things forums.

 

As for supplying paint to US AGF, I can see the logic.  But I might have expected to find something about it in one of the paper files.  In US AGF paint was usually only supplied to workshops.  They would have deployed to the UK with literally boatloads of equipment, tools, spares etc.  They also set up equipment processing depots for newly-supplied kit from the US.  So I imagine they were well provided-for with paints.  Our paint specification was also different even if the colour was the same.  And their need to repaint would be less as they weren't converting or modifying things.  Adding applique patches to older Shermans.  These weren't even available until the end of 1943.  But that's only half a gallon a tank max.

[Paul Lucas]

I think that it is entirely possible that some of the Olive Drab paint would have been supplied to the US Army under reverse Lend-Lease. It would have saved on shipping and helped offset the vast British liability that was being run up under the Lend-Lease scheme.

 

That there was no mention of this in the limited number of documents examined doesn't surprise me at all. I have looked for documents relating to the aircraft side of Lend-Lease and given the scale of the undertaking, there seems to be remarkably little to be found. Or I'm not looking in the correct places. . .

 

As usual, in answering one question, another raises its head. My late father served with 9 DLI during the first three months of 1945. He never talked about it to any great degree, but I did once ask him what colour his Kangaroo was. He said that it was grey.

 

Both then and now, this doesn't fit with what we think we know. (Does it?) So I was interested to see the presence of BS 381 No.32 Dark Battleship Grey in the price list to the same Specification as the Olive Drab and the stone and sand colours that are presumably required for the external painting of vehicles. So perhaps his Kangaroo was grey.

 

Can the other colours mentioned in the list all be accounted for in the currently accepted view? 

[evilbobthebob]

Surprised to see Portland Stone still priced up in '43. Perhaps for  previously Caunter-painted vehicles moved to the Italian theatre? Especially back line vehicles that were low on the repaint priority list.

[Kingsman]

Yes there are a number of interesting anomalies.  I noted that Deep Bronze Green 24 was still being bought through WW2 despite notionally being replaced in 1938. 15,000 gallons in 1943, 36,000 in 1944 and 50,000 in 1945.  These orders had been amended from SCC2.  SCC1A was being ordered as late as April 1944.  What we don't know is what incidental uses these colours may have had other than for vehicle painting.

 

The fact that these paints are on the list says that they were available and contracted but does not mean they were being ordered and supplied.  That evidence would be in the other ledgers I did not look at.  And I didn't set out to examine the totality of paint supply in WW2, just to look for the evidence for OD.  But it is noteworthy that Light, Middle and Portland Stones and Light Sand (that's a thowback to before Portland Stone!) were all now in the new anti-gas formulation CS1898.  Implying a continuing need and purpose.  Or perhaps just an abundance of caution against further campaigns in desert areas.

 

As for the idea of grey Ram Kangaroos I think that is - with respect - a mis-remembrance.  There is no photographic evidence for grey, which would look different to both SCC2 and SCC15 in monochrome.  Kangaroos only existed in 2 units, 1 CACR and 49 RTR/APCR.  There are many photos of both and a grey vehicle would stand out.  And why would there be an odd grey vehicle?  It was not a suitable colour for NW Europe in 1944 into 1945.  And they were certainly not all grey.  Rams in the UK would almost all have been SCC2, with our without SCC14 disruptive painting.  Some early ones might still have been Khaki Green 3.  Removing the turret would not in itself require repainting of the hull.  Those few converted with covered turret rings as gun towers and ammunition carriers would have needed some repainting.  But SCC15 was the preferred, possibly mandated, colour for close combat AFVs and images suggest a reasonably dark colour.  So I Imagine that they were repainted in SCC15.  Bovington's Kangaroo, now sporting a brown finish, was finished in grey when originally restored by Army workshops.  No idea why, but someone must have thought it appropriate.

[thebig-bear]

14 hours ago, Kingsman said:

As for the idea of grey Ram Kangaroos I think that is - with respect - a mis-remembrance.  There is no photographic evidence for grey, which would look different to both SCC2 and SCC15 in monochrome.  Kangaroos only existed in 2 units, 1 CACR and 49 RTR/APCR.  There are many photos of both and a grey vehicle would stand out.  And why would there be an odd grey vehicle?  It was not a suitable colour for NW Europe in 1944 into 1945.  And they were certainly not all grey.  Rams in the UK would almost all have been SCC2, with our without SCC14 disruptive painting.  Some early ones might still have been Khaki Green 3.  Removing the turret would not in itself require repainting of the hull.  Those few converted with covered turret rings as gun towers and ammunition carriers would have needed some repainting.  But SCC15 was the preferred, possibly mandated, colour for close combat AFVs and images suggest a reasonably dark colour.  So I Imagine that they were repainted in SCC15.  Bovington's Kangaroo, now sporting a brown finish, was finished in grey when originally restored by Army workshops.  No idea why, but someone must have thought it appropriate.

Just to add my ten-penneth. When I asked Mike about likely colours for Ram Kangaroos, he informed me that for the duration of 1944, all Kangaroos were likely to have remained either KG3 or SCC2, but that time was later taken during the "off-season" (my words) in the winter of 1944-45 to repaint them in SCC15. So early 1945 they should have been SCC15. However, we do know that some vehicles in NWE were repainted in whatever they could get their hands on, including German and/or civilian paint, and certainly not always regulation. Is a repaint in grey possible? Time-wise, at least, it is.

 

 

 

 

 

[thebig-bear]

On 17/09/2024 at 20:46, Circloy said:

Perhaps not as unlikely as you think.

 

Why risk shipping paint from the US if it could be produced in the UK and more valuable/critical items shipped accross the Atlantic instead.

@Circloy @Paul Lucas, I think that is quite possible. IIRC, large amounts of US webbing and uniform items used on D-Day and in Normandy were UK produced, including the vast majority of the infamous camouflaged HBT uniforms, as used by elements of US 2nd Armoured Division and others during Operation Cobra.

 

As you suggest, limited cargo space on-board ships that might otherwise have been filled with paint, could instead be used for other (arguably more important) supplies. Plus, the loss of such cargo during the voyage would have been disproportionately high - if a ship goes down with 2 dozen Shermans, that's a drop in the ocean (no pun intended), but if the same room, carrying hundreds of thousands of gallons of paint goes to the bottom, that's a huge chunk of your supply gone in one hit. If the UK could produce it here, ready for US forces, why wouldn't they have taken us up on that? It would certainly explain the numbers ordered.

 

I know I have banged on about this before, but I do think it's a good point to raise - why, if we were able to reproduce the US shade of OD for ourselves, did we even bother to develop SCC15? If the colour we really wanted was Khaki Green 3 (as proven by the fact that we chose that colour immediately pre-war, when we could have whatever we wanted), and if US OD was noted as being "rather similar to Khaki Green 3", and if US OD was indeed quite different from the later SCC15, why did we even look any further than to use US OD for all vehicles, including UK produced Churchills and Cromwells, etc? That just does not add up. Clearly, something is missing.

 

I think this is a fascinating topic.

Edited September 21 by thebig-bear
Spelling

[thebig-bear]

Btw, @Kingsman, that's some fantastic investigative stuff, sir. Bravo!

 

"Yes there are a number of interesting anomalies.  I noted that Deep Bronze Green 24 was still being bought through WW2 despite notionally being replaced in 1938. 15,000 gallons in 1943, 36,000 in 1944 and 50,000 in 1945.  These orders had been amended from SCC2.  SCC1A was being ordered as late as April 1944.  What we don't know is what incidental uses these colours may have had other than for vehicle painting."

 

Funnily enough, a photo of 25pdrs from Polish 1st Armoured Division, taken in Scotland in 1943, appears to show all the guns painted in what is probably Deep Bronze Green. The tows, meanwhile, are painted in a mixture of SCC2 or KG3, with either SCC1A or Dark Tarmac disrupter in either MTP 20 or MTP 46. All in all, quite the colourful collection!

Edited September 21 by thebig-bear

[Graham Boak]

I believe that Deep Bronze Green was for colour for British bombs, though this wouldn't explain the connection to SCC15.  Could there have been some other ordnance requirement?

[thebig-bear]

40 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I believe that Deep Bronze Green was for colour for British bombs

That is correct - Mike Starmer confirmed as much to me during a conversation earlier this year. Although I am still unsure exactly why this colour was used - It seems an odd and somewhat wasteful use of what were known to be hard-to-obtain resources.

Edited September 21 by thebig-bear

[thebig-bear]

On 17/09/2024 at 19:11, Kingsman said:

Some of you may recall that in a past thread on the subject of the full or partial repainting of US vehicles in the UK it was revealed that one of our members was certain he had spotted references to the UK manufacture and purchase of US Lustreless Olive Drab paint while researching RAF paint at the National Archives.  Which was, to say the least, interesting.

 

So on Friday 6th September I visited the National Archives, having identified half a dozen documents that looked likely candidates.  3 of them were big heavy 3 inch thick ledgers of paint purchases from the Ministry of Supply.  If anyone is interested, their reference are SUPP 4/333, SUPP 4/334 and SUPP 4/335.  I only had time to look at SUPP 4/333, the first volume offered by the attendants, which very usefully turned out to cover the part of the name alphabet including Green and Olive.  The file AVIA 22/2706 also contained much useful information.

 

Long story short, yes I found entries for contracts to 11 British companies in October 1943 for a total of 255,000 gallons of US Lustreless Olive Drab spraying paint, RAOC catalogue reference HA0026.  So not SCC15, which we know to have RAOC catalogue numbers HA0242-0244.  At 8 shillings a gallon that was £102,000, or about £3.25M in today's money.  Not only that but I also found orders for a further 260,000 gallons in December 1943 to 2 of the same companies plus 4 additional ones.  That's a total of 515,000 gallons at £206,000 or about £6.6M at today's prices.  The initial contracts came from a tender exercise which had originally been for Khaki Green 3 and which had been altered to US OD, again as previously noted.  There was clear correspondence to this effect in the AVIA file.   There was nothing that I could find to indicate that the orders for US OD were ever later amended to SCC15.  SCC15 orders appeared after this.  I also found entries for much smaller quantities of US OD paint of other types for different purposes: bituminous emulsion (for canvas), stoving, jerrycan, heat resisting, petrol resisting and telecommunications equipment.

 

The paint specification had also changed, as it had for other colours, to a new "anti-gas" formulation CS1898.  A paint formulation resistant to chemical warfare agents and more readily able to be decontaminated. 

 

Most interestingly in the never-ending debate about what colour/shade US OD was, there was a letter from ICI noting that US OD was “rather similar in shade to Khaki Green 3” - so a brownish green - and that the paint would meet the new UK specification “in all respects other than shade”.   Which fits with Zaloga's history of OD in which he says that it was not any shade of dark green and supports what I've been saying for a while that it is a brownish shade.

  

 

By date this letter must relate to the SCC15 change, which we of course know all about.  It is interesting that this and other documents continued to mention Khaki Green 3 long after it had been superseded as the new service colour.  This documents is clear that SCC15 is the replacement for both SCC2 and KG3.

 

The quarterly price list for Dec 43 - March 44.  Lustreless OD is right at the bottom.  This is the only quarterly price list in which it appears.  Note that KG3 is still on the list in addition to SCC2.

 

So we have confirmation that it was done.  15 British companies manufactured and supplied over half a million gallons of US OD spraying paint in late 1943 into early 1944.  I have the list of names if anyone is interested, but I did not note their individual quantities, which were unequal: some supplied more than others.

 

None of this helps us know what it was for: we are still in the dark there.  Figures from restorers seem to indicate broadly 5 gallons to paint a Sherman.  So that's enough paint for 103,000 Shermans.  We only had about 15,000 - less when you exclude those supplied directly to N Africa, Italy and the Far East.  Firefly and Achilles conversions totalled 3,300 - 3,500 vehicles.  

 

I can see 4 reasonable possibilities for the purchase of such a large quantity of paint in such a short period as we came within 6 months of D Day.

 

1. An anticipated need to patch or partly repaint large numbers of US supplied vehicles after undergoing work in the UK.
2. Supply to US forces in the UK for the same reason (seems unlikely).
3. Painting the extensive number of rubber deception dummy tanks and trucks placed to simulate FUSAG in Kent and East Anglia.  It was believed that the Luftwaffe were using Agfa false-colour IR film for photo recce, so they would need to look right on those images.
4. All of the above

 

Discuss.......

Just a quick thought.

 

Having read through these documents again, I think I must be missing something. You refer specifically to US Olive Drab, yet nowhere within the photographed pages of these documents does it actually say "US", merely Olive Drab. In later documents and ACIs, such as that in April 1944, "Olive Drab" has always been presumed to refer to the new SCC15, just without using that designation. Surely, couldn't these documents, therefore, actually be the original orders for SCC15? The huge quantities would certainly make sense (especially as, knowing as we do now, it remained in use officially until 1948, and unofficially even into the '50s, and remember they didn't know how long the war would last), and the timing is spot on for getting production under way so as to have enough stocks in place and ready by approximately February 1944, the suspected month of SCC15 first being used, and which also ties in perfectly with the letter to H.J. Pearman, shown above.

 

I know, however, that doesn't take into account things such as whether SCC15 and Khaki Green 3 can be considered being very much alike (although, is that statement, when used above, comparing them to SCC2 brown?) and other possible objections, but I thought I'd raise it.

 

Therefore, please could you clarify where you say there was the mention of "US Lustreless Olive Drab spraying paint, RAOC catalogue reference HA0026." - and do we know whether that code does actually refer directly to US Lustreless Drab, specifically?

 

Sorry to be "that guy" again! I'm sure it's probably me that's missed it.

Edited September 21 by thebig-bear

[Kingsman]

Interesting debating points all.  But there is a flaw in the US-supply idea.  Why would new US vehicles in the UK need to be repainted?  US forces arriving in the UK in 1943 did some training but their vehicles were not hard-used.  It was known, or at least suspected, that OD had a likely life of 2 years before repainting was necessary.  It had been in use since 1941.  The war was thought possible to be over by then, and combat vehicles were not expected to last that long.  And US combat units were, according to Zaloga, not issued with paint.  That was a workshop task.  Sure, many (most? all?) Shermans needed applique armour kits fitted.  But that would have been done by workshops too, and only needed a few pints of paint.  Wading kits is an interesting question.  Were they UK-produced?  US ones were different designs to UK ones, so it seems likely they were of US origin.

 

At 5 gallons a tank - which seems to be a likely figure from restorers - 255,000 gallons is 51,000 tanks.  More than the total Sherman production.  515,000 gallons is 103,000 tanks: Shermans and T-34s combined.

 

If the decoy tanks were being painted, and I assume they had to be as self-coloured synthetic rubber was not then possible, that would add a lot more "vehicles".  And as I mentioned, concerns over German use of false-colour IR film from aircraft meant they had to look right on that film.  Another colour would look different, but then our specification for the anti-gas formulation would almost certainly have different IRR properties.  While Luftwaffe high-altitude slow photo-recce aircraft like Ju-86 were almost all shot down or turned back, low-altitude fast aircraft like the Bf109 F-6 did get through and the Germans had a surprisingly good picture of the D Day preparations.  But just couldn't put it all together.

 

Almost every US vehicle supplied to the UK had something done to it, even if just fitting British fire extinguishers.  Shermans were converted, M10s were converted, half tracks were converted.  Several thousand in all.  Fully repainting them in SCC15 would have been time-consuming and wasteful.  Patch-painting with OD was a far more economical solution.  And while it is hard to refute and dispute period recollections, I do doubt the quoted recollection from someone working at a receiving and preparation depot that every tank arriving in the UK "went for a full repaint" after preparation work.  That would be unnecessary, time-consuming and wasteful.  Patch painting with OD seems more likely.

 

But without any direct clear evidence of use we are all speculating.

 

Another file I requested, T 246/124, concerned scarce paint ingredients.  I thought that might give some insight into pigments, but it was all about paint chemicals, white spirit and so on.

 

Mike Starmer has explained previously why SCC2 was chosen to replace Khaki Green 3.  Chromium pigments were in short supply here, and apparently also in the US, and what we could get was prioritised for strong greens for the RAF.  Every RAF aircraft of Fighter, Bomber, Transport and Coastal Commands in NW Europe and the Far East used dark green in some form.  So there was not enough for the Army, at least not by mid 1942.  And IRR was seen as a critical issue, so SCC2 was formulated to have the same IRR as KG3, which was presumably different from OD.  It seems that might have changed by late 1943 as OD apparently also relied on chromium pigments.  However, according to this extract (below) from an October 1945 Paint Manual from the US paint company Walker and Hickson found in US archives on the subject, the use of a small amount of chromium is merely suggested and "a variety of pigments can be chosen".  Now we know that ICI saw OD as being similar to KG3, which might lead to a conclusion of the availability of sufficient chromium again.  But this extract suggests this may not be so.  The predominant pigmentation here is yellowy.  Yellow Iron Oxide is a brownish yellow you might call ochre or mustard.  Medium Chrome Yellow is a somewhat more vivid yellow.  Zinc Oxide is while, and Lamp Black is of course black.  So this 1945 formula is broadly similar to the pre-1920 shade of OD made with ochre and black.  It is very different from the January 1941 formula T-1213 for OD No9/22 quoted in another thread in this forum on OD by Mike S which was:- 71% Chromium Oxide, 20% Yellow Iron Oxide and 9% Red Iron Oxide.  Chromium Oxide is strong green.  A very different mix yet apparently the same visible outcome.  More importantly, the Walker and Hickson mix uses pigments we almost certainly had access to in the UK.  British iron ores are described as "indifferent" in quality - low yields - and we have always relied on imported ores.  Limonite iron ore is probably the most common source of yellow iron pigments and that was mined in the UK from Cumbria to Cornwall via Wiltshire and South Wales - but mostly in Cumbria.

 

 

[Circloy]

2 hours ago, Kingsman said:

Interesting debating points all.  But there is a flaw in the US-supply idea.  Why would new US vehicles in the UK need to be repainted?  US forces arriving in the UK in 1943 did some training but their vehicles were not hard-used.  It was known, or at least suspected, that OD had a likely life of 2 years before repainting was necessary.  It had been in use since 1941.  The war was thought possible to be over by then, and combat vehicles were not expected to last that long.  And US combat units were, according to Zaloga, not issued with paint.  That was a workshop task.  Sure, many (most? all?) Shermans needed applique armour kits fitted.  But that would have been done by workshops too, and only needed a few pints of paint.  Wading kits is an interesting question.  Were they UK-produced?  US ones were different designs to UK ones, so it seems likely they were of US origin.

 

At 5 gallons a tank - which seems to be a likely figure from restorers - 255,000 gallons is 51,000 tanks.  More than the total Sherman production.  515,000 gallons is 103,000 tanks: Shermans and T-34s combined.

 

If the decoy tanks were being painted, and I assume they had to be as self-coloured synthetic rubber was not then possible, that would add a lot more "vehicles".  And as I mentioned, concerns over German use of false-colour IR film from aircraft meant they had to look right on that film.  Another colour would look different, but then our specification for the anti-gas formulation would almost certainly have different IRR properties.  While Luftwaffe high-altitude slow photo-recce aircraft like Ju-86 were almost all shot down or turned back, low-altitude fast aircraft like the Bf109 F-6 did get through and the Germans had a surprisingly good picture of the D Day preparations.  But just couldn't put it all together.

 

Almost every US vehicle supplied to the UK had something done to it, even if just fitting British fire extinguishers.  Shermans were converted, M10s were converted, half tracks were converted.  Several thousand in all.  Fully repainting them in SCC15 would have been time-consuming and wasteful.  Patch-painting with OD was a far more economical solution.  And while it is hard to refute and dispute period recollections, I do doubt the quoted recollection from someone working at a receiving and preparation depot that every tank arriving in the UK "went for a full repaint" after preparation work.  That would be unnecessary, time-consuming and wasteful.  Patch painting with OD seems more likely.

 

But without any direct clear evidence of use we are all speculating.

 

Another file I requested, T 246/124, concerned scarce paint ingredients.  I thought that might give some insight into pigments, but it was all about paint chemicals, white spirit and so on.

 

Mike Starmer has explained previously why SCC2 was chosen to replace Khaki Green 3.  Chromium pigments were in short supply here, and apparently also in the US, and what we could get was prioritised for strong greens for the RAF.  Every RAF aircraft of Fighter, Bomber, Transport and Coastal Commands in NW Europe and the Far East used dark green in some form.  So there was not enough for the Army, at least not by mid 1942.  And IRR was seen as a critical issue, so SCC2 was formulated to have the same IRR as KG3, which was presumably different from OD.  It seems that might have changed by late 1943 as OD apparently also relied on chromium pigments.  However, according to this extract (below) from an October 1945 Paint Manual from the US paint company Walker and Hickson found in US archives on the subject, the use of a small amount of chromium is merely suggested and "a variety of pigments can be chosen".  Now we know that ICI saw OD as being similar to KG3, which might lead to a conclusion of the availability of sufficient chromium again.  But this extract suggests this may not be so.  The predominant pigmentation here is yellowy.  Yellow Iron Oxide is a brownish yellow you might call ochre or mustard.  Medium Chrome Yellow is a somewhat more vivid yellow.  Zinc Oxide is while, and Lamp Black is of course black.  So this 1945 formula is broadly similar to the pre-1920 shade of OD made with ochre and black.  It is very different from the January 1941 formula T-1213 for OD No9/22 quoted in another thread in this forum on OD by Mike S which was:- 71% Chromium Oxide, 20% Yellow Iron Oxide and 9% Red Iron Oxide.  Chromium Oxide is strong green.  A very different mix yet apparently the same visible outcome.  More importantly, the Walker and Hickson mix uses pigments we almost certainly had access to in the UK.  British iron ores are described as "indifferent" in quality - low yields - and we have always relied on imported ores.  Limonite iron ore is probably the most common source of yellow iron pigments and that was mined in the UK from Cumbria to Cornwall via Wiltshire and South Wales - but mostly in Cumbria.

@Kingsman your discussion point appears to be rooted around the Sherman alone. There was more to the US army than the sherman, think of the numbers of Jeeps, Jimmy's, DUKW's, Self propelled guns, armoured cars, utilitary vehicles, locomotives, freight cars etc that were shipped to the UK.

 

Whilst supplied new all had to endure the trans-Atlantic crossing in a corrosive salty environment before arrival and examination at the receiving Depot in the UK.  It's unlikely all needed a full repaint but some would need rectification before allocation to unit or being placed in storage for the upcoming invasion of Europe.

 

Add in the USAAF requirements needed for repairing battle damage to fighters, bombers, recon aircraft and overall there would be a sizable demand, perhaps not all the 515,000 gals ordered but how much was actually supplied.

 

There are a lot of unknowns and as you say without facts it all speculation.

[Paul Lucas]

I have been going back through some of my old notebooks and found the following handwritten transcript from the days when digital photography did not exist, and photocopying at the National Archives was ruinously expensive. I reproduce it here as I have it written down.

 

January 1945.

War Office Camouflage Notes Vol.1 Part 3 Section 4.

 

"ACI 533/44 changes the basic colour for the painting of British Army equipment (except Bailey Bridges) from SCC 2 to Olive Drab when stocks of the former colour are exhausted.

 

2) The former colour was adopted when, through shortage of raw materials, it became necessary to depart from the original basic colour Khaki Green. SCC No.2 has always been regarded as 'second best' in regard to colour, and as soon as supplies of certain pigments improved a decision was made to revert to a dull green shade. As a matter of convenience the American shade Olive Drab was chosen instead of Khaki Green.

 

3) Ordnance Catalogue Numbers for Olive Drab are as follows.

Paint PFU AG Olive Drab

Spraying HA 0242

Brushing HA 0244

Heat Resisting HA 0243

Bituminous Emulsion Olive Drab HA 6145."

 

(Emphasis added by myself for its relevance here).

 

31 minutes ago, Circloy said:

Add in the USAAF requirements needed for repairing battle damage to fighters, bombers, recon aircraft and overall there would be a sizable demand, perhaps not all the 515,000 gals ordered but how much was actually supplied.

 

The Olive Drab under discussion here has nothing to do with USAAF aircraft of any description. Aircraft finishing materials of whatever colour were manufactured to entirely different technical specifications.

 

Edited September 21 by Paul Lucas

[thebig-bear]

19 minutes ago, Circloy said:

@Kingsman your discussion point appears to be rooted around the Sherman alone. There was more to the US army than the sherman, think of the numbers of Jeeps, Jimmy's, DUKW's, Self propelled guns, armoured cars, utilitary vehicles, locomotives, freight cars etc that were shipped to the UK.

 

Whilst supplied new all had to endure the trans-Atlantic crossing in a corrosive salty environment before arrival and examination at the receiving Depot in the UK.  It's unlikely all needed a full repaint but some would need rectification before allocation to unit or being placed in storage for the upcoming invasion of Europe.

 

Add in the USAAF requirements needed for repairing battle damage to fighters, bombers, recon aircraft and overall there would be a sizable demand, perhaps not all the 515,000 gals ordered but how much was actually supplied.

 

There are a lot of unknowns and as you say without facts it all speculation.

To be fair, I think Kingsman is simply using the Sherman as a quantifiable example of known paint usage for a given vehicle, based on modern restorations. I agree that it would, however, be interesting to know just how many gallons are necessary to paint a jeep, a truck, a DUKW, etc, but that is probably very difficult to easily quantify. The point is, half-a-million gallons is a lot of paint, and would go a very, very long way. That in itself is, I feel, very telling, because it shows that it is being ordered in such quantity as to undoubtedly be used on a massive scale, and I would suggest it is a scale that is way in excess of just patch-painting.

 

However, I do agree with you in regard to the likely need for touch-ups and perhaps even full repaints. I remember Mike once said to me that at least one shipment of British tanks that had been shipped from the UK to French North Africa (post Operation Torch) was so badly damaged by the salt and spray that all the vehicles required a full repaint on arrival, before they would even be allowed to be assessed for active service. Now, that was from Britain to North Africa - imagine some of the weather conditions that some of the trans-Atlantic convoys had to endure! I can see at least some instances where even the very best attempts at stowage wouldn't be enough to prevent damage, and a lot of painting would be required.

 

 

[Kingsman]

USAAF was using a different paint, Dark Olive Drab 41 and refused to re-adopt the army's lighter OD proposed as the AN-319 common standard - but was also moving away from painted finishes to natural metal.  And the US had become very adept at protecting vehicles for shipping and lessons were learned early about not sending vehicles as deck cargo.  Some aircraft were stowed on deck, largely because they would not fit through the hold hatches even with outer wings removed.  Many soft-skins like Jeeps and trucks were supplied and shipped crated and then assembled in the UK, later in France.  As soon as possible, most US materiel was being shipped directly to France through Cherbourg and later other ports which eliminated transshipment through the UK.

 

So I don't go along with the idea that every US vehicle landing in the UK needed full repainting.  The salty atmosphere you mention would do a lot more damage than just paintwork, something which had been discovered by both the UK and US much earlier in the war with British tanks arriving in Egypt and US tanks arriving in the UK in unusable condition through inadequately protected deck shipping exposure to that atmosphere. Hence why the US became so adept at protecting vehicles for shipping even as hold cargo.

 

I was just using the tank numbers as a simple comparison of how far that paint would go because we have a rough idea of how much paint an M4-sized tank needed.  Although some restorers reckoned they could paint a Sherman with as little as 2 gallons.

[thebig-bear]

5 minutes ago, Paul Lucas said:

I have been going back through some of my old notebooks and found the following handwritten transcript from the days when digital photography did not exist, and photocopying at the National Archives was ruinously expensive. I reproduce it here as I have it written down.

 

January 1945.

War Office Camouflage Notes Vol.1 Part 3 Section 4.

 

"ACI 533/44 changes the basic colour for the painting of British Army equipment (except Bailey Bridges) from SCC 2 to Olive Drab when stocks of the former colour are exhausted.

 

2) The former colour was adopted when, through shortage of raw materials, it became necessary to depart from the original basic colour Khaki Green. SCC No.2 has always been regarded as 'second best' in regard to colour, and as soon as supplies of certain pigments improved a decision was made to revert to a dull green shade. As a matter of convenience the American shade Olive Drab was chosen instead of Khaki Green.

 

3) Ordnance Catalogue Numbers for Olive Drab are as follows.

Paint PFU AG Olive Drab

Spraying HA 0242

Brushing HA 0244

Heat Resisting HA 0243

Bituminous Emulsion Olive Drab HA 6145."

 

(Emphasis added by myself for its relevance here).

 

The Olive Drab under discussion here has nothing to do with USAAF aircraft of any description. Aircraft finishing materials of whatever colour were manufactured to entirely different technical specifications.

 

@Paul Lucas thank you for bringing that here to this thread, so that I didn't have to hunt it down from the old one!

 

The one thing I would say is that it is possible to read the sentence "As a matter of convenience the American shade Olive Drab was chosen instead of Khaki Green." in more ways than one. It could, perhaps, simply be referring to Olive Drab as a type of hue or family of colours, if you will, rather than specifically US OD, in the sense that Olive Drab might have been seen as the colour that Americans used, as opposed to Khaki that was perhaps seen as a distinctly British colour. I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense?

[thebig-bear]

20 minutes ago, Kingsman said:

...the US had become very adept at protecting vehicles for shipping and lessons were learned early about not sending vehicles as deck cargo.  Some aircraft were stowed on deck, largely because they would not fit through the hold hatches even with outer wings removed.  Many soft-skins like Jeeps and trucks were supplied and shipped crated and then assembled in the UK, later in France.  As soon as possible, most US materiel was being shipped directly to France through Cherbourg and later other ports which eliminated transshipment through the UK.

 

So I don't go along with the idea that every US vehicle landing in the UK needed full repainting.  The salty atmosphere you mention would do a lot more damage than just paintwork, something which had been discovered by both the UK and US much earlier in the war with British tanks arriving in Egypt and US tanks arriving in the UK in unusable condition through inadequately protected deck shipping exposure to that atmosphere. Hence why the US became so adept at protecting vehicles for shipping even as hold cargo.

Thank you for that info, @Kingsman. If that's the case, then you are right, it would reduce the need quite significantly. Which is why I still don't understand the need for such enormous quantities being ordered. If we are correct in surmising how many vehicles such an amount would cover for full repaints (never mind if purely for touch-ups and mods), then it seems extraordinarily excessive, in fact I would suggest wasteful. So what was it for? Surely we didn't truly believe we needed that much just to cover painting the odd 17pdr gun here, applique armour patch there, or for adding stowage boxes and fire extinguishers? To me, the amount seems much more what you would require for full, fresh from factory paint jobs, and for replacing your current general purpose "basic" paint, which is another reason why I wonder whether it might be SCC15, just not referred to as such, being as it pre-dates that designation by some months.

Edited September 21 by thebig-bear

[Kingsman]

@Paul Lucas that information has already been identified in Mike Starmer's works.  That is regarded by everyone to mean the implementation of SCC15, which the UK called OD but was not the same as the US OD.  It was greener and darker.  Those are the RAOC codes known to be for SCC15.  And yes that begs the question why if we could and did make the US colour we didn't simply adopt it.  Something presently unable to be answered.  It may be as simple as the UK believing that a darker shade would be more appropriate for NW Europe with a move to monotone colour for close combat vehicles and the cessation of disruptive painting.  We did not return to the 2-tone greens we had clearly felt to be appropriate for the same environment in 1939.  Yes there was unofficial use of black disruptive painting by both Commonwealth and US forces.

 

A repeated image (below) from earlier about the 1944 intoduction of OD.  But it should be remembered that the US OD was being procured 5 months before this announcement.  Laying in stock early in anticipation of the change so that paint was immediately available?  Yes that had crossed my mind and I was prepared to find that to be the case.  But the Lustreless paint is a different paint code not one of those for SCC15.  And the instruction you quote goes on to say (IIRC) that existing stocks (presumably of SCC2) are to be used up before demanding the new colour.  So this indicates a lack of prior preparedness.  But it also goes on to say (again IIRC) that new vehicles in the new colour will "shortly" be arriving with units.  I have always taken that to include the 400 Final Specification Cromwells being built in a rush after the Final Specification was set forth at about the same time as the SCC15 change.  Probably new Churchill VI and VII and 75mm conversions of Mks III and IV too.

 

The paint price list for April - June 1944 (below left) has the 4 paints by description you quote - the ones known to be SCC15 although the RAOC codes are not mentioned.  The OD Lustreless only appears in the previous price list for Dec 43 to March 44 (below right, repeated from earlier).  These were clearly not "running" contracts.  It is tacked on as the last line, presumably because the documents had already been typed up for Khaki Green 3 and that was easier than re-typing them all.  There is reference in other documents for contract documents having already been prepared on the basis of the price of Khaki Green 3.  Noting the ICI letter posted earlier where they say that the price is likely to be about the same for OD and KG3.  This sort of thing still happened when I was in MOD contracts in the late 1980s and documents were still typed in a typing pool, often on another site in another town.  Turnaround time for amendments could be too slow.  While KG3 is on the late '43 price list I do not imagine it was being produced or supplied because of the switch of the tender for it to Lustreless OD.  Yet it is still on the mid-'44 price list along with SCC2 - although specification CS1871 is the special SCC2 paint for Bailey bridges, which remained SCC2 after the SCC15 change.

  

 

I was confronted with inconsistent notation in the paint ledger by the clerks who had filled it in.  I found all of these:

• Paint, Anti Gas, Olive Drab, which I am certain is SCC15.  Only on 1 occasion is SCC15 used.  However on several occasions the HA 024x code was used, identifying SCC15.  There was a change to “anti gas” paint specifications in late 1943, meaning paint more readily able to be safely decontaminated.
• Paint, Olive Drab, Lustreless (yes British spelling), sometimes with the HA 0026 code.  This can safely be assumed to be US OD.
• Paint, Anti Gas, Olive Drab, Lustreless, which I am also certain was the US colour.
• But, confusingly, Paint, Olive Drab, Lustreless was used with the HA 024x code a couple of times, assumed to mean SCC15 in those cases and not included in the US OD figures

Some documents and notations used the Ordnance inventory codes which do discriminate between colours while others used the paint specifications, which do not discriminate colours.  So some interpretation was needed.  Which I think I got right.

 

Companies given contracts for the 255,000 gallons

Gittings & Hills

Glasso

Hadfields

RJ Hamer

ICI

Indestructible

Johnson & Nicholson

Nicholsons

Sherwoods

Thomas House

Thornley Knight

 

Companies given contracts for the further 260,000 gallons

Berger

Gittings & Hills

Indestructible

Pastans Morley

Pinchin Johnson

E&J Richardson

 

Edited September 21 by Kingsman
addition

[Graham Boak]

When it comes to use of this paint (any paint) remember that an armoured division has perhaps ten times as many other vehicles than it would have tanks: also that each armoured division had a long support tail with many many more vehicles;: Infantry divisions have to be added, and we are talking about repainting the entire British (including Canadian and other Allies) Army not just once but probably a number of times.

 

As to why the RAF could continue to use DBG for its bombs, remember that the entire point of the substitution was that the RAF had priority of supply.  Chromium was not completely lacking, but limited.

[Kingsman]

We need to be cautious about falling into the trap that military vehicles got into manky rag order in the blink of an eye.  The hugely over-weathered brigade we so often see.  The idea of multiple repaints of vehicles in NW Europe during the 11 months of that campaign is I believe, and with respect, a complete red herring.  Trucks on the Red Ball Express were the hardest-working vehicles in NW Europe with 900 trucks a day completing round trips of up to 2 days at a time, constantly on the move except for loading and unloading for 3 months.  Trucks covered thousands of miles, being constantly loaded and unloaded.  Yet photos don't show them being particularly scruffy other than dirt and dust.  And they were certainly not stopping for repaints.

 

US paints were generally more durable than those of UK manufacture and most vehicles, certainly tanks, were mostly infra-red baked to harden the paint and bond it to the primer.  But it is known that Lustreless OD did not weather well and probably had a life of about 2 years before repaint.  No vehicle produced after mid-43 should in theory have needed repainting before the war ended.  To use our Sherman example, shipments to the UK in quantity did not begin until about October 42 - earlier shipments being almost all directed to N Africa.  By that token the great majority of Shermans and other AFVs should never have needed repainting for condition.  I don't see soft-skins being much different.

 

The UK regulations specified 5-yearly repaints unless the paint condition required it sooner, making it clear that good paintwork was essential to preserving serviceable vehicles.  Somewhere - which I now cannot find - I recall having seen reference to the anti-gas paint specification being less durable than an alkyd enamel.  Or maybe I'm just imagining it: there is a lot of stuff going on. 

 

But I just don't see that US or UK/Commonwealth vehicles in training in the UK in the year before D Day would get into such poor condition as to need repainting before D Day.  They would have spent a lot of time in barracks between exercises and almost peacetime levels of maintenance would have been carried out: By The Book.  Wash-down after exercise, bulling with oil or petrol wipes for parades for the brass hats etc.  But they would mostly have been parked in the open in all weathers.  Although the RSM was still about and had not had a sense of humour transplant.......

 

Likewise, the European campaign after D Day lasted only 11 months.  No-one was repainting vehicles during the 7 weeks of meat-grinder fighting in Normandy.  Followed by the breakouts and pursuits by Commonwealth and US forces and The Great Swan across Europe beyond Brussels in another 6 weeks.  No-one was stopping to repaint with the Germans in full retreat and pretty much every combat unit was "in the line".  The first real opportunity for the advance to stop and draw breath was the onset of winter in 1944.  Cold and damp and really not good painting weather.  There were instructions on the climatic conditions for painting IIRC.  Many units were applying white paints of one sort or another at that time.  Now they probably did need repainting after the thaw unless the paint was washable.  But white painting was by no means universal. 

 

Ever wish you hadn't started something?

Edited September 21 by Kingsman
Saved too soon

[thebig-bear]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

As to why the RAF could continue to use DBG for its bombs, remember that the entire point of the substitution was that the RAF had priority of supply.  Chromium was not completely lacking, but limited.

Yes, I see that, but the sense in reserving the use of your scarce, chromium-based paints for aircraft camouflage is one thing. Wasting it on what are literally one-use, disposable items (hopefully, anyway!) always seemed very, very odd to me.

[thebig-bear]

2 hours ago, Kingsman said:

@Paul Lucas that information has already been identified in Mike Starmer's works.  That is regarded by everyone to mean the implementation of SCC15, which the UK called OD but was not the same as the US OD.  It was greener and darker.  Those are the RAOC codes known to be for SCC15.  And yes that begs the question why if we could and did make the US colour we didn't simply adopt it.  Something presently unable to be answered.  It may be as simple as the UK believing that a darker shade would be more appropriate for NW Europe with a move to monotone colour for close combat vehicles and the cessation of disruptive painting.  We did not return to the 2-tone greens we had clearly felt to be appropriate for the same environment in 1939.  Yes there was unofficial use of black disruptive painting by both Commonwealth and US forces.

 

A repeated image (below) from earlier about the 1944 intoduction of OD.  But it should be remembered that the US OD was being procured 5 months before this announcement.  Laying in stock early in anticipation of the change so that paint was immediately available?  Yes that had crossed my mind and I was prepared to find that to be the case.  But the Lustreless paint is a different paint code not one of those for SCC15.  And the instruction you quote goes on to say (IIRC) that existing stocks (presumably of SCC2) are to be used up before demanding the new colour.  So this indicates a lack of prior preparedness.  But it also goes on to say (again IIRC) that new vehicles in the new colour will "shortly" be arriving with units.  I have always taken that to include the 400 Final Specification Cromwells being built in a rush after the Final Specification was set forth at about the same time as the SCC15 change.  Probably new Churchill VI and VII and 75mm conversions of Mks III and IV too.

 

The paint price list for April - June 1944 (below left) has the 4 paints by description you quote - the ones known to be SCC15 although the RAOC codes are not mentioned.  The OD Lustreless only appears in the previous price list for Dec 43 to March 44 (below right, repeated from earlier).  These were clearly not "running" contracts.  It is tacked on as the last line, presumably because the documents had already been typed up for Khaki Green 3 and that was easier than re-typing them all.  There is reference in other documents for contract documents having already been prepared on the basis of the price of Khaki Green 3.  Noting the ICI letter posted earlier where they say that the price is likely to be about the same for OD and KG3.  This sort of thing still happened when I was in MOD contracts in the late 1980s and documents were still typed in a typing pool, often on another site in another town.  Turnaround time for amendments could be too slow.  While KG3 is on the late '43 price list I do not imagine it was being produced or supplied because of the switch of the tender for it to Lustreless OD.  Yet it is still on the mid-'44 price list along with SCC2 - although specification CS1871 is the special SCC2 paint for Bailey bridges, which remained SCC2 after the SCC15 change.

  

 

I was confronted with inconsistent notation in the paint ledger by the clerks who had filled it in.  I found all of these:

• Paint, Anti Gas, Olive Drab, which I am certain is SCC15.  Only on 1 occasion is SCC15 used.  However on several occasions the HA 024x code was used, identifying SCC15.  There was a change to “anti gas” paint specifications in late 1943, meaning paint more readily able to be safely decontaminated.
• Paint, Olive Drab, Lustreless (yes British spelling), sometimes with the HA 0026 code.  This can safely be assumed to be US OD.
• Paint, Anti Gas, Olive Drab, Lustreless, which I am also certain was the US colour.
• But, confusingly, Paint, Olive Drab, Lustreless was used with the HA 024x code a couple of times, assumed to mean SCC15 in those cases and not included in the US OD figures

Some documents and notations used the Ordnance inventory codes which do discriminate between colours while others used the paint specifications, which do not discriminate colours.  So some interpretation was needed.  Which I think I got right.

 

Companies given contracts for the 255,000 gallons

Gittings & Hills

Glasso

Hadfields

RJ Hamer

ICI

Indestructible

Johnson & Nicholson

Nicholsons

Sherwoods

Thomas House

Thornley Knight

 

Companies given contracts for the further 260,000 gallons

Berger

Gittings & Hills

Indestructible

Pastans Morley

Pinchin Johnson

E&J Richardson

 

Wow, @Kingsman, you are really hitting it out of the park with this research! Thank you for having been so dilligent.