The elusive 'Coronado Tan' (plus; was Khaki Green No.3 used on Grants?; Khaki Green and US OD compared, Pullman Green?, etc)

[Mike Starmer]

The Modelers Journal has FS.595A colour cards.  These do not match the Corps of Engineers colour cards in Supplement to U.S. Army Specifications No. 3-1, Revised April 1943.  At the time of publication, the journal colours were the nearest and best available.    I have long doubted that Grants were ever painted in any colour than US Olive Drab.  As pointed out, anything painted differently in America would have been photographed.  I cannot access my paper files for UK at present and I have several CDs which have never been viewed.  Maybe something might be revealed in those.    Whilst I would agree that WW2 colour photography cannot be  entirely trusted, The images in 'Recce..' also show vehicles in the recognisable Caunter colours in background to other vehicles.   In addition the colours on the Luftwaffe aircraft are clearly identifiable too.   

[JackG]

Not sure if it is fair to think automotive paint was simply spray and bake and that ended the process to achieve a glossy showroom finish?   If an automotive tan paint was chosen for the military, could not some additive been mixed in before spraying to give it a flat sheen?   Of course lack of evidence either way . . .

 

According to the AK publication those desert colours from the US Army Corps of Engineers were only made available later in 1943 after experiences in Tunisia?

https://www.ak-masters.com/app/tut/US-WWII.pdf

 

Somewhere someone must have been using Colorado Tan otherwise why was this memo passed - or was the name used just to describe the paint colour and not the actual paint? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kingsman]

Thanks @Mike Starmer.  That at least sorts out the provenance of that document, which is not stated on it.  As I said, treat the colours there as indicative only of the WW2 versions knowing the OD controversy.

 

I'm with you that there is no evidence to date of Grants being factory finished in any colour other than OD, counter-intuitive though that may seem knowing their intended destinations.  The period between the 2 communications is almost too short for it to have taken effect anyway.  Hunnicutt didn't mention it either, and Doyle's book is far more in-depth with more recent research.

 

Which circles us back to MCP trucks from Ford Canada.  Here is a factory photo of a 1941 Canadian Ford 01T 30cwt MCP.  Guess the colour........

 

Here is another one in the desert.  Guess the colour.......

 

We need to be cautious of mis-identifying Australian MCP trucks as Canadian as they were certainly different colours.

 

And of mis-identifying German Fords.... (restoration here).  The 1941 pattern cab with "jail bar" grille was common to Canada, Australia and Germany

 

3 GM Otters in Light Stone among a host of darker CMP trucks and a couple of Foxes at Oshawa, so must be late 42 at least.

 

Another Oshawa photo, but as there are Foxes here it must be well into 1942 again and therefore Light Stone.

 

General Alexander's 1941 Canadian Ford C11.  Allegedly original.  Guess the colour.......

 

Different light.  Guess again..... 

 

Different light again.  Have a 3rd guess.  Isn't this fun?  Top 2 pics say "could be a Tan" whereas this one says "defo Light Stone".

Edited November 2, 2024 by Kingsman
addition

[thebig-bear]

1 hour ago, Mike Starmer said:

Whilst I would agree that WW2 colour photography cannot be  entirely trusted, The images in 'Recce..' also show vehicles in the recognisable Caunter colours in background to other vehicles.   In addition the colours on the Luftwaffe aircraft are clearly identifiable too.   

My thoughts exactly. While I believe we are all quite aware of potential limitations, I think to dismiss all period colour film and photos to be equally dangerous, and is sometimes used as an excuse, quite frankly, to disprove evidence that does not fit neatly with the "facts". Surely, the best policy is to assess the merit of each photo or sequence individually, corroborate if/where possible, then make a judgement on it, allowing for any failings, as we would with any other evidence.

Edited November 2, 2024 by thebig-bear

[thebig-bear]

1 hour ago, JackG said:

Somewhere someone must have been using Colorado Tan otherwise why was this memo passed - or was the name used just to describe the paint colour and not the actual paint?

Thank you, @JackG for providing those photos of the documents in question - I still have some trouble with uploading things sometimes!

 

I think you are right with what you say above. To my mind, there has to have been some particular reason to mention that specific name - it just seems too far fetched to have been mentioned without cause. It has to refer to something.

 

The question, as we have all said, is what?

 

1 hour ago, JackG said:

Not sure if it is fair to think automotive paint was simply spray and bake and that ended the process to achieve a glossy showroom finish?   If an automotive tan paint was chosen for the military, could not some additive been mixed in before spraying to give it a flat sheen?   Of course lack of evidence either way . .

While admitting to being no paint or car expert, I think this theory very possible on the face of it. In fact, I even suspect that could be what the CMP reference I found on the Chevrolet paint chart might refer to, where I think it says "lighter" - as far as I am aware, the same paint with a matting agent added would indeed appear lighter than a gloss version, and could even be said to perhaps provide a more suitable desert scheme?

 

Also, just because the colour was potentially out of date/use, doesn't mean it might not have been selected. After all, something like the 8 years from 1933-1941 isn't all that long, and if they had the ingredients, not really an issue to even restart production if necessary.

 

The complete lack (as yet) of any period photos showings such vehicles in a suitable shade (including in b&w) does remain a problem, however.

Edited November 2, 2024 by thebig-bear

[thebig-bear]

54 minutes ago, Kingsman said:

Which circles us back to MCP trucks from Ford Canada.  Here is a factory photo of a 1941 Canadian Ford 01T 30cwt MCP.  Guess the colour........

 

Here is another one in the desert.  Guess the colour.......

 

We need to be cautious of mis-identifying Australian MCP trucks as Canadian as they were certainly different colours.

 

And of mis-identifying German Fords.... (restoration here).  The 1941 pattern cab with "jail bar" grille was common to Canada, Australia and Germany

 

3 GM Otters in Light Stone among a host of darker CMP trucks and a couple of Foxes at Oshawa, so must be late 42 at least.

 

Another Oshawa photo, but as there are Foxes here it must be well into 1942 again and therefore Light Stone.

 

General Alexander's 1941 Canadian Ford C11.  Allegedly original.  Guess the colour.......

 

Different light.  Guess again..... 

 

Different light again.  Have a 3rd guess.  Isn't this fun?  Top 2 pics say "could be a Tan" whereas this one says "defo Light Stone".

More great photos, @Kingsman, and illustrate our problem well.

 

56 minutes ago, Kingsman said:

I'm with you that there is no evidence to date of Grants being factory finished in any colour other than OD, counter-intuitive though that may seem knowing their intended destinations.  The period between the 2 communications is almost too short for it to have taken effect anyway.  Hunnicutt didn't mention it either, and Doyle's book is far more in-depth with more recent research.

 

As you have said, and as is so often the case, we can neither prove nor disprove it. It is very frustrating!

[Kingsman]

Nice to see the actual documents.  Where did those pics come from?  But we're only seeing part of the conversation.  We need to see the 2 communications of 16 October and 13th December.  Speaking as a former Civil Servant that is sloppy filing...........

 

The word "misunderstanding" is important.  The clear implication is that the change to Tan - by whatever name/spelling we call it - was a mistake.  And we circle back to that being in effect for only 5 weeks and factory photos from the 2 plants most likely to have implemented it showing no change.  Could they have organised supply of sufficient paint for hundreds of tanks in a probable new formulation in 5 weeks when production of many things was ramping up everywhere?  I'm thinking not.  Especially when you look at the deficiencies in tools and stowage on Grants and M3s because of supply shortages.  And especially if Ford were indeed hoovering up the supply for their commitments.  They had far more clout with suppliers than relatively small newcomers to the game like PSC and PSCC.  And then the order was cancelled, I suspect before it could be implemented.

 

The colour came from the pigmentation.  It could certainly have been mixed into a matt base formulation.  But this would clearly have been special production of a new formulation of a colour apparently not then in use anywhere.

 

AK Interactive are not fully reliable regarding colour, the main purpose of their books being to sell their paints.  The first colour standard for the US armed forces was Specification No. 3-1, introduced in November 1919 with a palette of 24 colours - although only OD No9 would actually be in use during the 1930s.  This palette was still in force at the start of World War II although the need to homologise additional colours being adopted by the different branches of the US armed forces resulted in an update with 72 colours as Specification No. 3-1F in April 1943.  This would be the colour standard used by the US Army and US Marine Corps for their ground vehicles during the remainder of the war.

 

The original 24 colours were in theory still available although not in use - and probably therefore not in stock or in production.  But their specifications would have been known and available.  Their use for disruptive painting was not first formalised until FM 5-21 in October 1942, although standardized rules for disruptive camouflage would not finally appear until FM 5-20B Camouflage of Vehicles published in April 1944.  FM 5-21 was not widely followed, but the first operational need to do anything like it was indeed Operation Torch.  Tanks at the Desert Training Centre seem to have remained in OD, although a 4-colour scheme was trialled experimentally on an M3: I can't find an online copy of a photo of it I know exists.  But I still think that if another "desert-ish" colour was needed in the USA it would have been more logical to approach US Ordnance rather than find something from Ford in Canada.  Or maybe approaching Canada subverted US Ordnance as the go-between with industry as decreed under Lend-Lease.

[JackG]

Those typewritten memos and more were from the missinglynx link posted earlier but here it is again . . .

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/missinglynx/response-to-mark-and-paul-below-colours-of-us-m3-l-t97131.html

 

On that forum if you click the images and open them as separate files it rids the big photobucket stamp for unimpeded viewing.

 

 

 

 

[thebig-bear]

20 minutes ago, Kingsman said:

Nice to see the actual documents.  Where did those pics come from?  But we're only seeing part of the conversation.  We need to see the 2 communications of 16 October and 13th December.  Speaking as a former Civil Servant that is sloppy filing...........

 

 

Mike sent me the pics for documents dated 13/11/41, 1/12/41, 4/12/41, 6/12/41, 13/12/41 and 23/12/41. These were the source of the transcripts I wrote out in the first post. I'll seek his permission to include them here - assuming that I can then upload them successfully, of course!

 

Edit: @JackG, I see that post covers all but the 13th December entry, which I'll try to include later if I can.

 

Edited November 2, 2024 by thebig-bear

[Kingsman]

I'm planning to go to Kew again soon to have another look at the paint ledgers.  Now I have a reference to look for.  I searched by names for my last visit but couldn't find anything.

 

It would be very useful to know the "British Standard colour of which you have particulars [and which] will be suitable for ME, India and Australia" mentioned in the 1 Dec telegram.  This is very important missing information, presumably in an earlier communication we don't have here.  Does it mean Khaki Green 3 or something else?  ME and Australia needed a pale colour but India needed/used a dark one.  Were they perhaps thinking of a middle ground colour which a tan or light-mid brown might have met?

 

More questions.  Still no conclusive answers.

[thebig-bear]

3 hours ago, Kingsman said:

I'm planning to go to Kew again soon to have another look at the paint ledgers.  Now I have a reference to look for.  I searched by names for my last visit but couldn't find anything.

 

It would be very useful to know the "British Standard colour of which you have particulars [and which] will be suitable for ME, India and Australia" mentioned in the 1 Dec telegram.  This is very important missing information, presumably in an earlier communication we don't have here.  Does it mean Khaki Green 3 or something else?  ME and Australia needed a pale colour but India needed/used a dark one.  Were they perhaps thinking of a middle ground colour which a tan or light-mid brown might have met?

 

More questions.  Still no conclusive answers.

While there is no specific clarification that British Standard Colour = Khaki Green No. 3, the 23rd December message, "Misunderstanding corrected. Gen. Grant contractors will return to original specification Khaki Green No.3 after present Suply coronado tan runs out." would seem to me to indicate that it was indeed Khaki Green No.3 to which they were referring. The well known pics of Singapore Quads are believed to exhibit KG no.3, and would support it's use for the Far East theatre at this point in the war, and I'm pretty sure that I have read elsewhere it was one colour generally still used up until SCC13 began to be adopted in 1943. Plus, these documents state clearly that theatre-specific camouflage is to be carried out in-theatre.

 

4 hours ago, Kingsman said:

We need to see the 2 communications of 16 October and 13th December. 

For the time being, while I sort out if/how I can include the pic for the 13th December document, I'll attempt to recreate it. The message reads;

 

 SUPLY12892,

 

                 __ Dewar from Usher

 

                      PLYSU 5929 W.          Regret some misunderstanding SUPLY 9472 does not

                      apply to Tanks.      If inconvenient for Contractors to change we

                      will accept Coronado Tan for M.E.     But prefer British Standard

                      Colour.

 

Distribution       - General.

 

Originator T.S.3.

 

Information T.T.2.

 

 

Hope that helps!

Edited November 2, 2024 by thebig-bear

[thebig-bear]

Another point - just like the very specific mention of Coronado Tan, the inclusion of Khaki Green No. 3 by name is at odds with the idea of US OD no.9 being substituted for it - why, if the latter were already true by this time, mention the British colour by name at all? If true, Dewar is on the spot, talking to the Americans about using their paints in their factories. Why confuse the issue with erroneous information? Clearly, there had already been at least one mix up - why risk more? If the American colour had already been agreed as an acceptable substitute, the message should really be talking about a return to US OD no.9, (or the American Standard Colour, if you will) in some way or other - but it doesn't. In this scenario, that is equally as puzzling to me as the Coronado Tan question.

 

To me, the mention of these particular names should be viewed as relevant.

Edited November 2, 2024 by thebig-bear

[Kingsman]

At the risk of widening the debate and re-opening an old one, I don't think we actually know conclusively that Grant manufacturers were NOT using KG3.

 

Grant contracts were pre Lend-Lease and neither PSC nor PSCC were making anything for the US, so there would have been no compulsion to use OD.  The UK was the contracting authority.  KG3 paint would have been available from Canada.  We are talking here about Canadian tan paint - accepting that it might have been US-made - so why not Canadian KG3 paint? 

 

Baldwin were a different story as they were also making M3s for the US. Likewise AS&F with Stuarts.  So those would undoubtedly have been OD.  When the final 20% of Grant production came under direct US supervision maybe PSC and PSCC were forced to adopt OD if they were previously using KG?  UK production was also capped at 180 Grants a month at that time.  The US was taking over. 

 

But I get the impression that the only thing they were really worried about with Grants was impact on US production.  PSC were building Shermans from March '42 and PSCC from April: 3-4 months' overlap with Grants, hence the production cap.  So OD would probably have been the colour after that.

 

Was our agreement to accept OD post Lend-Lease, and did it extend to existing cash contracts at all?  When did we make that agreement?  Does our correspondence here potentially genuinely relate to KG3?  It doesn't seem to be impossible, or even improbable.  Could there have been a mixture of KG and OD Grants from different suppliers and/or early/late production?  Impossible to tell in monochrome photos and it would have made no practical difference.  Bovington's Grant is the 1st production Grant from PSC.  What is the lowest of many layers of paint?

[thebig-bear]

1 hour ago, Kingsman said:

At the risk of widening the debate and re-opening an old one, I don't think we actually know conclusively that Grant manufacturers were NOT using KG3.

 

Grant contracts were pre Lend-Lease and neither PSC nor PSCC were making anything for the US, so there would have been no compulsion to use OD.  The UK was the contracting authority.  KG3 paint would have been available from Canada.  We are talking here about Canadian tan paint - accepting that it might have been US-made - so why not Canadian KG3 paint? 

 

Baldwin were a different story as they were also making M3s for the US. Likewise AS&F with Stuarts.  So those would undoubtedly have been OD.  When the final 20% of Grant production came under direct US supervision maybe PSC and PSCC were forced to adopt OD if they were previously using KG?  UK production was also capped at 180 Grants a month at that time.  The US was taking over. 

 

But I get the impression that the only thing they were really worried about with Grants was impact on US production.  PSC were building Shermans from March '42 and PSCC from April: 3-4 months' overlap with Grants, hence the production cap.  So OD would probably have been the colour after that.

 

Was our agreement to accept OD post Lend-Lease, and did it extend to existing cash contracts at all?  When did we make that agreement?  Does our correspondence here potentially genuinely relate to KG3?  It doesn't seem to be impossible, or even improbable.  Could there have been a mixture of KG and OD Grants from different suppliers and/or early/late production?  Impossible to tell in monochrome photos and it would have made no practical difference.  Bovington's Grant is the 1st production Grant from PSC.  What is the lowest of many layers of paint?

While we have no way of knowing (for the moment - we can live in hope!), I personally believe this likely to be what happened.

Edited November 3, 2024 by thebig-bear

[Mike Starmer]

Which British Standard is being referred to here?  Is it BSC. 381: 1930 from which ME colours were selected or SCC. range as these were in use in 1941.  Or KG3 which was a the basic UK colour but never in a standard?  I looked at the pictures in the Lee/Grant Squadron Signal book.  In 2012 it was not common knowledge that all AFVs and vehicles arriving in ME went to RAOC depots for  repair and preparation for desert use.  The huge depot at Tel-el-Kebir dealt with American vehicles.  This included a total external repaint in the then current basic colour, i.e. Light Stone 61 or Portland Stone 64.  To my eye the pictures show a top coat of British colour over Olive Drab, they didn't bother with nicety's like opening visors and suchlike.  As described to me by a veteran of desert warfare, these were not coach-built painter's jobs.  I have a camouflage appreciation report written in 1941 or early 42 in which the writer complains about vehicles from Britain being green and black as opposed to vehicles from America being a much easier colour to repaint.  

[thebig-bear]

3 hours ago, Mike Starmer said:

Which British Standard is being referred to here?  Is it BSC. 381: 1930 from which ME colours were selected or SCC. range as these were in use in 1941.  Or KG3 which was a the basic UK colour but never in a standard?  I looked at the pictures in the Lee/Grant Squadron Signal book.  In 2012 it was not common knowledge that all AFVs and vehicles arriving in ME went to RAOC depots for  repair and preparation for desert use.  The huge depot at Tel-el-Kebir dealt with American vehicles.  This included a total external repaint in the then current basic colour, i.e. Light Stone 61 or Portland Stone 64.  To my eye the pictures show a top coat of British colour over Olive Drab, they didn't bother with nicety's like opening visors and suchlike.  As described to me by a veteran of desert warfare, these were not coach-built painter's jobs.  I have a camouflage appreciation report written in 1941 or early 42 in which the writer complains about vehicles from Britain being green and black as opposed to vehicles from America being a much easier colour to repaint.  

Some interesting points, Mike. It certainly might have made more sense if a desert colour had been applied at source, as Kingsman has suggested. If that is the case, and London were indeed referring to something like a "standard" M.E. scheme, then Mr Dewar may have dropped another clanger, by thinking they mean Khaki Green no.3! Personally, however, with the mention of suitability for multiple theatres, I think the balance of probability would suggest they do mean the basic of the time, ie. Khaki Green no. 3. But, who knows?

 

I'm especially intrigued by the last point you make - that the American colour was viewed as being easier to repaint over. I wonder why, exactly?

Edited November 5, 2024 by thebig-bear

[Kingsman]

1 hour ago, thebig-bear said:

I'm especially intrigued by the last point you make - that the American colour was viewed as being easier to repaint over. I wonder why, exactly?

I imagine it was the black which created the perceived difficulty, as we know that Khaki Green and OD were quite similar.  But again, was someone at the depot missing a trick by overpainting the black when black over Light Stone was perfectly acceptable, even preferred?  Just overpaint the Khaki Green, leave the black.  Noting that green and black vehicles would have been arriving before that scheme came into use.

 

As for the 1 Dec telegram language, he could be be meaning British Standard as in BS987C.  Or he could be meaning standard British as in the approved colour of the day.  It is written as "British standard", noting the lower-case "s" in "standard".  By which I believe he means standard British rather than BS.   The 23 Dec telegram says "return to original specification Khaki Green No3", which I believe loops us back to Khaki Green being the orginal specification referred-to in the 1 Dec telegram rather than a BS colour.  Which seems logical but has a degree of assumption.

 

Which does not answer the question of whether any or all of the 3 Grant manufacturers were actually using Khaki Green, potentially sourced from Canada?  Or whether even the 2 that were building tanks solely for the UK under UK cash contracts and beyond US Ordnance direct control for 80% of production were following a US Ordnance direction to use OD, and we simply accepted that.  Which on the face of it seems a bit far-fetched: improbable but not impossible.  US Ordnance had a lot more to worry about than mandating colours for export orders made directly with suppliers in which they were not involved for kit they were not using.  Perhaps OD was accepted in order to have uniformity with tanks coming from plants which were mandated to use OD?  But if OD had already been accepted why didn't they just say so in the telegrams?  Which leads me to think that we really are talking about Grants in Khaki Green.

 

And we are no closer to the original question about Coronado or Coranado Tan.  For which no firm evidence has been unearthed so far either side of the 49th Parallel.  I am still of the belief that the instruction was countermanded before it could actually be implemented on Grants.

[Mike Starmer]

I should of course specified BS.987, sorry.  Olive Drab No.9 and Khaki Green 3 are similar in hue but in terms of deep hue then Khaki Green 3 is by far the darker colour and 'black' was  Dark Tarmac No.4.   I have a photograph of Khaki Green and Olive Drab alongside each other, taken in daylight which, if possible, I intend to pass to one of our contributors.

 

 'imagine it was the black which created the perceived difficulty, as we know that Khaki Green and OD were quite similar.  But again, was someone at the depot missing a trick by overpainting the black when black over Light Stone was perfectly acceptable, even preferred?  Just overpaint the Khaki Green, leave the black.  Noting that green and black vehicles would have been arriving before that scheme came into use.'

 

This was not a depot decision but policy by GHQME in Cairo and strictly against MEGO.1272, 5 December 1941, which formalised the camouflage policy change of October 1941 from Caunter scheme to a single basic colour of Light Stone No.61 or Portland Stone No.64 dependant on supplies.  The policy was dictated  by the shortage of paint and the requirement to dispatch vehicles to regions (Cmds) other than Egypt.   Those Commands were allowed to add one disruptive colour according to the local environment. 

 

However I would agree that Light Stone and Khaki Green 3 , not black, may have been better for vehicles in Egypt and the Western desert.  I say this since Khaki Green No.3 was acceptable as an alternative for Slate 34 on the Caunter scheme.  

 

 

[John Tapsell]

On 11/2/2024 at 9:50 PM, thebig-bear said:

For the time being, while I sort out if/how I can include the pic for the 13th December document, I'll attempt to recreate it. The message reads;

 

 SUPLY12892,

 

                 __ Dewar from Usher

 

                      PLYSU 5929 W.          Regret some misunderstanding SUPLY 9472 does not

                      apply to Tanks.      If inconvenient for Contractors to change we

                      will accept Coronado Tan for M.E.     But prefer British Standard

                      Colour.

 

Distribution       - General.

 

Originator T.S.3.

 

Information T.T.2.

 

 

Hope that helps!

I'm having the same problem as big-bear. I have a photo image of the same telegram, but without hosting the image on an external website, I'm unable to insert it into a BM post.

My ref is WO185-58 Dewar Mission. The Dewar Papers are a serious treasure-trove of data relating to purchasing activities in the earlier part of WWII.

[John Tapsell]

On 11/2/2024 at 5:22 PM, Kingsman said:

Nice to see the actual documents.  Where did those pics come from?  But we're only seeing part of the conversation.  We need to see the 2 communications of 16 October and 13th December.  Speaking as a former Civil Servant that is sloppy filing...........

Next time you visit TNA, look for roughly WO185/40 to 185/60 Michael Dewar. There are a whole collection of files that are the daily telegrams between Dewar in Washington and Usher (and others) in the UK, covering just about any possible subject relating to what was being commissioned, ordered, manufactured and shipped to the UK. There are some 30 telegrams dated 13 November 1941 alone (It's a rabbit hole you might never come out of...)

Edited November 6, 2024 by John Tapsell

[thebig-bear]

On 05/11/2024 at 23:00, Kingsman said:

I imagine it was the black which created the perceived difficulty, as we know that Khaki Green and OD were quite similar.

 

Right, yes of course. Silly me!

19 hours ago, Mike Starmer said:

Olive Drab No.9 and Khaki Green 3 are similar in hue but in terms of deep hue then Khaki Green 3 is by far the darker colour and 'black' was  Dark Tarmac No.4. 

Could you clarify a little, please, Mike? I had been under the impression that Khaki Green no.3 was, if anything, a bit lighter than US OD - at least it always seems that way from images of helmets, vehicles, etc, that are online. Are they the other way around when seen in the real world?

 

On 05/11/2024 at 23:00, Kingsman said:

And we are no closer to the original question about Coronado or Coranado Tan.  For which no firm evidence has been unearthed so far either side of the 49th Parallel.  I am still of the belief that the instruction was countermanded before it could actually be implemented on Grants.

Yes, to return to topic (although I'm quite happy to have had an interesting side discussion), I think it is quite possible that it might never have actually been applied to Grants, but even allowing for that, it was clearly (at least thought to be by Dewar, and why would he if it wasn't?) used on other vehicles. However, we shall have to see whether anything turns up. If you are able to have a look through the files when down at Kew, that would be really helpful.

 

On 05/11/2024 at 23:00, Kingsman said:

Which does not answer the question of whether any or all of the 3 Grant manufacturers were actually using Khaki Green, potentially sourced from Canada?  Or whether even the 2 that were building tanks solely for the UK under UK cash contracts and beyond US Ordnance direct control for 80% of production were following a US Ordnance direction to use OD, and we simply accepted that.  Which on the face of it seems a bit far-fetched: improbable but not impossible.  US Ordnance had a lot more to worry about than mandating colours for export orders made directly with suppliers in which they were not involved for kit they were not using.  Perhaps OD was accepted in order to have uniformity with tanks coming from plants which were mandated to use OD?  But if OD had already been accepted why didn't they just say so in the telegrams?  Which leads me to think that we really are talking about Grants in Khaki Green.

My thoughts exactly.

Edited November 7, 2024 by thebig-bear

[thebig-bear]

12 hours ago, John Tapsell said:

I'm having the same problem as big-bear. I have a photo image of the same telegram, but without hosting the image on an external website, I'm unable to insert it into a BM post.

My ref is WO185-58 Dewar Mission. The Dewar Papers are a serious treasure-trove of data relating to purchasing activities in the earlier part of WWII.

Glad it's not just me!! I still can't get it to work.

[JackG]

About posting images - no they cannot be directly linked from your hard drive to Britmodeller.   So yes you need to first upload it to an image hosting site and then link the image from there.  Some forums do have their own hosting built into their servers but that costs $$.      Photo hosting sites are very high traffic and they can pose problems both when uploading images and  also experience delays when being sent out to a linked site.   If you notice the image link that is pasted to the forum has the word blob included, it may mean some kind of hiccup happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[thebig-bear]

10 hours ago, JackG said:

About posting images - no they cannot be directly linked from your hard drive to Britmodeller.   So yes you need to first upload it to an image hosting site and then link the image from there.  Some forums do have their own hosting built into their servers but that costs $$.      Photo hosting sites are very high traffic and they can pose problems both when uploading images and  also experience delays when being sent out to a linked site.   If you notice the image link that is pasted to the forum has the word blob included, it may mean some kind of hiccup happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the explanation, @JackG.

[Kingsman]

M3 Stuart in the USA.  Guess the colour.

 

M3 Stuart, again.  Different lighting.  Guess the colour again.

 

Both are known to be OD and both are factory photos.  But you would be forgiven for thinking they might be another colour.  Like a light tan.