From: jseidts@astory.com
Date: Thu Feb 26 2004 - 16:56:15 PST
Jim's Statement:
> Yes, however........... they are both incorrect.
I believe that he is correct from the standpoint that there was no designated
color change during WWII, but I disagree from the practical standpoint for the
following reasons
1. My experience- I have been collecting for over 25 years, and in that time
have owned numerous original un-opened parts and pieces of military vehicles
and accessories, as well as other things which were painted with the same #319
OD as prescribed. I can say that there is definitely a difference/variations
between parts. I can also say that there is a tendency for vehicle parts and
pieces from very early in the war to have a darker tone, and sometimes a different
shade than the middle of the war items I have owned. Another item to address
is the pre-war items. What color were they? I believe that the shade was darker,
even if by formulation in stead of actual color designation, which leads me
into my next argument:
2. War Economy. All through WWII, there was a continual economizing of war
materials. The recurrent efforts to manufacture using lower labor cost and
less essential materials certainly could have influenced how paints were formulated,
manufactured, and applied. This has not been addressed to my satisfaction by
any research.
3. Color mechanics- Unfortunately, since most of us are men, we have a serious
disadvantage in participating in this argument. Nearly 65% of men have some
degree of color blindness as clinically defined. I mention this because two
very good friends of mine have shown me IN THEIR HANDS items which were two
different shades of OD and sworn up and down that what they were showing me
was the same color.
4. Fading- While not really supporting my argument, it still bears mentioning.
I don't think that items built later in WWII were painted with as many coats,
or at least with as thick of coats, as earlier items were. I would guess that
in sunlight, the thinner paint job would fade faster than the thicker job.
Also, hats off to Jim for doing all of this research. I think it is very credible
and is a signifigant component of this debate. But I also think that this debate
is not over nor conclusively proved by his methods and sources of research-
only chemical and spectrum analysis of well preserved non contaminated samples
would be definitive. But this would be very difficult.
Also, even though 34087 is wrong, it is still the closest thing out there that
is cost effective to paint with. If somebody comes up with something that is
better, I'll buy it. But for now, I'll keep using my two gallons that are left
from a few years ago!
>There was ONLY one WW II Lusterless Olive Drab color used in production for
jeeps and tactical vehicles .
>
>There was NO "light" or "dark" nor "early" or "late" Olive Drab color in WW
II vehicle production.
>
>OD # 33070 is a post war color and is not the same as WW II Lusterless Olive
Drab.
>
>#319 in WW II was the same color as WW II Lusterless Olive Drab........HOWEVER...............
>
>The # 319 that is for sale now is NOT the correct color for the actual WW II
Lusterless Olive Drab # 319 green synthetic enamel paint.
>
> The color is too light and not as dark green as the original Lusterless
Olive Drab color.
>
>I have actual cans of original WW II dated Lusterless Olive Drab # 319 green
paint as do several other members of the "Lusterless Olive Drab Research Committee".
> None of the paint offered by any of the current paint vendors is a correct
match for this paint. This is why, when you find NOS parts that are in their
original WW II OD paint they do not match the paint that you are using on your
jeep.
>
> This is also why when color WW II photos and film show vehicles they are
all much darker and "greener" than the paint that is now available.
>
>
>
>>Steve wrote,
>>"...........So after all the replies I've recieved, (THANK YOU!) my question
would be? Is my 52' GMC M135 suppose to be #23070 or #24087? Because they overlap
and I've heard both answers..More lean to #24087 but why not #23070?
>>
>>#23070 Late WW11 to mid-50's
>>#24087 Mid 50's to Post vietnam..............."
>
>
>
>
>#23070 is a post war number for a semi-gloss OD.
>
>Actually...........semi-gloss Olive Drab paint was a "end of war" or post war
paint. The correct designation for this paint is Enamel, Olive Drab, Rust-inhibiting
, Specification 3-181, amendment 3 , type V.
>
>Semi-gloss OD was not authorized until August 1945 and did not actually get
into supply channels until October or November 1945......some time after the
war was over.
>
>No WW II tactical vehicles were delivered painted in this paint.
>
>#24087 was a post war semi-gloss Olive Drab paint.
>
>The # 24087 paint offered in the Gillespie line was a close match to the original
paint on my M-211 GMC and I would say this is a good paint to use.
>
> This is also the most used paint color by restorers for early M-series vehicles.
>
>
>Jim Gilmore
>
>Member-- "Lusterless Olive Drab Research Committee"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
>To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
>To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:28:37 PDT