From: Stephen & Jeanne Keith (cckw@comcast.net)
Date: Thu Feb 26 2004 - 09:01:14 PST
My WW2 GM research tends to bear out (possibly) the following
> 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.
I have found that the WW2 Chevrolet trucks from later/last in the war
rust/rot
out much sooner than an earler truck in general
Steve AKA Dr Deuce
----- Original Message -----
From: <jseidts@astory.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] WW II OD (was) Original paint color for M135?
>
>
>
> 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>
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.astory.com
>
> ===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