Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted

I am not convinced that Coronado Tan is a red herring .  Why would it be in formal documents and why would an ordinary gunner remark that their new quads were in Canadian Sand  and noticeably  different to the usual colour of vehicles?   

  • Like 2
Posted

It is a red herring in the context of Grants as there is no evidence it was ever used in the few weeks before the mistaken instruction was rescinded.  It is in a formal document as far as I can determine only because someone from US Ordnance put it there in a referenced document the files do not contain.  Where they got the name from and what colour they actually meant will remain a mystery, bearing in mind that we established many pages ago that no-one in the US automotive industry was using a commercial colour of that name in the timeframe, and had not done so for several years.  In addition the telegrams are littered with other confused and erroneous names, data, figures etc.  Boys anti tank rifles called Boxers springs to mind.  Not to mention the Packard 4M2500 marine engine described as a 25,000 cubic inch engine........  And areas of text saying "corrupt group".  These telegrams would have been hand-written or dictated, encoded, typed in to the telex machine and decoded at the far end.  Plenty of room for transcription errors.

 

And for my money, I think it very likely that US Ordnance probably meant Light Stone but didn't know the proper name for it and in the transatlantic confusion of tan, sand and brown Coronado Tan was the result.  And we have been confused ever since.  Like assuming that OD was acceptable for Grants when it very clearly was not.

 

As far as CMP FATs are concerned, the instructions to Canada are equally clear in the files on Canadian truck procurement (WO 185/73 and 74).  The first specification on 3 Oct 40 required Khaki Green 3, fully camouflaged, with paint specification MC205 anti-gas.  The outline specifications for the CMP FAT and 3-ton GS were issued on the same day.  That painting instruction was repeated on 14 Dec 1940, noting that as the camouflage specifications were not available that January production would be plain Khaki Green.  The camouflage paint specs (MC205?) were sent on 17 Dec.  Probably on the same day (date obscured) it was noted that the camouflage instructions were still not finalised and that production would continue in plain Khaki Green and Light Stone.  This is the first mention of Light Stone.  The next day, 18 Dec, "full camouflage" is introduced for both UK and Middle East.  Paint is to be matt and sand or grit may be added.  However, this instruction is rescinded on 10 Jan 41 with a return to plain Khaki Green or Light Stone.  Re-iterated on 14 Jan.

 

So, and with respect to whoever said it, "Canadian Sand" on CMP FATs was clearly and definitely supposed to be BS Light Stone.  How closely Canadian-produced Light Stone matched British-produced Light Stone is a question.  But "by the book" it was the same colour.  And then of course there would have been Australian and South African produced Light Stone on their B vehicles in Egypt......... If I had to take a swag, I would suggest that whoever said "Canadian Sand" was perhaps comparing Light Stone with Portland Stone.  And perhaps they were the first vehicles he had seen or his unit had received finished in Light Stone.  Remember the "Caunter Blue" comparison misconception for decades from a misinterpreted period recollection.......  So I would have to class myself as a complete sceptic for CMP FATs being anything other than Light Stone - caveated as Canadian version of.

 

The first 500 FATs sent to Egypt were all Chevrolets FYI.  The first 500 Fords came to the UK.  How many of those were CMP 11 grilles and now many were CMP 12 I do not know. 

  • Like 2
Posted
On 03/01/2025 at 17:29, Kingsman said:

Only because we set out to answer a question, and IMO it has been answered apart from some definition of the green that is potentially an attempt at Khaki Green.  That is despite the title being changed and the subject expanded twice.  As threads get long it becomes hard for readers to keep going back and forth across multiple pages to recall what has been said, and for anyone coming to it new it becomes a big read.  Which is why I suggested spinning the nature of OD into a new thread because it is not now relevant to the subject here - as we seem to have concluded.  But that is just an opinion: others are available.  You own the thread so it is yours to do with as you wish.

 

Fair enough. But, as the subject evolved, I really can't see how else to have done it, as dividing it up into segments with separate threads for each would have been far too disjointed, at least in my opinion, with no connection between them. Strictly speaking, neither situation is truly ideal, I suppose, but there it is.

 

I'm sorry if I caused offence, as that was not my intention, but instead to be critical while remaining respectful.

 

On 03/01/2025 at 17:29, Kingsman said:

If you are going on the OD journey again in a new thread - long and strewn with potholes - then I have some images of interior parts of the Bovington Chaffee (visible through the front and rear perspex, before you ask).  I believe those are untouched and I'm fairly certain that the outside, although clearly repainted, is that same original colour.  It doesn't match anything British.  Could this be a use of the mythical British-made OD??  But I suspect it is the 1944 version of OD as it is satin and noticeably greener.  Points for a new thread?

In which case, that is a thread worth considering for the future, then. Thank you for the offer of material. 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 07/01/2025 at 12:49, Mike Starmer said:

I am not convinced that Coronado Tan is a red herring .  Why would it be in formal documents and why would an ordinary gunner remark that their new quads were in Canadian Sand  and noticeably  different to the usual colour of vehicles?   

Personally, I believe the answer may be both yes and no at the same time. With regard to it's possible use on Grants, I think it was probably never implemented (if there was ever any intent to do so in the first place), as the time frame seems too short, and it is not clear to what the documents are referring in any case. On the other hand, the very mention of that specific name must have meant something to someone, even were it used in error, and in my opinion shows clearly that some colour that was distinct from the normal "standard" of the day may have been in use on some Canadian manufactured vehicles at the very least. That, combined with the anecdotal evidence you have, suggests that there is something to this, somewhere, at some level. Just as Khaki Green No.3 was specified very particularly by name (and has since been discovered to have been exactly what they meant), then perhaps this is the same? It's simply a matter of to what do they actually refer! As Kingsman says above, it could very well be a case of "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance", especially as there are three different nations involved, all with their own words and ideas of what that name might mean.

Edited by thebig-bear
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
On 08/01/2025 at 02:03, Kingsman said:

In addition the telegrams are littered with other confused and erroneous names, data, figures etc.  Boys anti tank rifles called Boxers springs to mind.  Not to mention the Packard 4M2500 marine engine described as a 25,000 cubic inch engine........  And areas of text saying "corrupt group".  These telegrams would have been hand-written or dictated, encoded, typed in to the telex machine and decoded at the far end.  Plenty of room for transcription errors.

The example of "PLYSU 5929 W." springs to mind - surely PLYSU should have been SUPLY (as seen elsewhere in the documents, and is itself misspelt!) 

 

"So, and with respect to whoever said it, "Canadian Sand" on CMP FATs was clearly and definitely supposed to be BS Light Stone.  How closely Canadian-produced Light Stone matched British-produced Light Stone is a question.  But "by the book" it was the same colour.  And then of course there would have been Australian and South African produced Light Stone on their B vehicles in Egypt......... If I had to take a swag, I would suggest that whoever said "Canadian Sand" was perhaps comparing Light Stone with Portland Stone.  And perhaps they were the first vehicles he had seen or his unit had received finished in Light Stone.  Remember the "Caunter Blue" comparison misconception for decades from a misinterpreted period recollection.......  So I would have to class myself as a complete sceptic for CMP FATs being anything other than Light Stone - caveated as Canadian version of."

 

That is a good point - apparently, it is known that Australian production of Khaki Green No.3 was notably different from the British Standard, being somewhat greener. Perhaps Canadian production of Light Stone was noticeably more golden/tan in colour? However, in that case, where did the name come from? At the very least, someone must have considered it to be an equivalent or something. As you say, we will probably never know.

Edited by thebig-bear
  • Like 1
Posted

I checked out the Coronado Tans in US auto-company colour lists for the late 1930s.  There are at least 6 if not more shades of a 'sand colour' in those charts used by Ford, Chevrolet, Buick at least.  Colour of that name existed and one of those may have been chosen for use as an acceptable substitute for Light Stone due to immediate availability.   I am not suggesting that it was used on AFVs, but simply the B vehicles built in Canada may be that colour.   

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mike Starmer said:

Colour of that name existed and one of those may have been chosen for use as an acceptable substitute for Light Stone due to immediate availability.

This is what I also suspect was the most likely scenario, at least as to why we have mention of the name. In that regard, I should still like to find out more about the "CMP Y5333H" note that is hand-written beside the Chevrolet swatch that I featured on page one. If someone (particularly in Canada) could but tell us what that reference means, it might lead to the answer we are looking for.

Edited by thebig-bear
Posted
7 hours ago, thebig-bear said:

The example of "PLYSU 5929 W." springs to mind - surely PLYSU should have been SUPLY (as seen elsewhere in the documents, and is itself misspelt!) 

There are many telegrams with the PLYSU reference.  There is also SUPLY, VATEL, MILMI, PURSA, WOMOS, SOMOW, MILSU, SUMIL, COSLO, MULSU.  These will be part of the mysterious telex origin and recipient addressing system.  In the dark days before the fax machine - and we are only talking late 1980's -  I had to hand-write international telexes on AMRAD signal message pads and I recall a whole book of address codes.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Kingsman said:

There are many telegrams with the PLYSU reference.  There is also SUPLY, VATEL, MILMI, PURSA, WOMOS, SOMOW, MILSU, SUMIL, COSLO, MULSU.  These will be part of the mysterious telex origin and recipient addressing system.  In the dark days before the fax machine - and we are only talking late 1980's -  I had to hand-write international telexes on AMRAD signal message pads and I recall a whole book of address codes.

Oh, really? That's very interesting. Thank you for the explanation.

Edited by thebig-bear
Posted

Not a rabbit hole at all.  It simply confirms what was said at the time, which I quoted a few posts ago and which has been evidenced by period photos.  Light Stone for the Middle East.  What it doesn't do is give any insight into how closely the Canadian colour matched the standard.  The same could just as easily be said for Canadian Khaki Green.  How close was that?  And SCC2.......  The specifications for Khaki Green and Light Stone were noted on 17 Dec '40 as having been supplied.  We know that transatlantic surface mail was taking 3-6 weeks.

 

And yes, we established some time and several pages ago that there were several different "tans" in use in the US auto industry at the time, and colours that might be regarded as "tans" but were not titled as such.  Although none appeared to be easily conflated with Coronado.  So it seems that while the use of a colour that was not BS Light Stone on early Canadian vehicles - if only temporarily - is still a possibility, the name Coronado is itself almost certainly a misnomer.  And it is highly unlikely that we will ever know what was meant.

 

While Light Stone was specified in the context of CMP vehicles, including the FATs mentioned a few posts ago, and the telegrams refer to "all vehicles" it is not clear if that was also applied by extension to Modified Commercial Pattern (MCP) vehicles.  MCPs don't get a single mention in the 2 Truck Mission files despite over 300,000 being produced.  It appears from photos that it was later applied as they seem to tonally match CMPs when seen together.  But was a commercial colour used initially on MCPs?  Unknown.  This theory has been postulated here earlier. 

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...