From: Jim Gilmore (jgilmore@ptd.net)
Date: Sun Feb 29 2004 - 19:49:41 PST
John wrote:
>Jim,
> Okay, granted due deference to all your points. BUT- there are
>still variations in paints on original parts. I have heard it explained to
>contamination by oil, fading, exposure to other chemical agents.
>
The conditions you refer to are taken into consideration in our research.
> ALSO, in
>my experience looking at parts- there are variations. SO, with all due
>respect to your research and experience as a printer, WHY are the parts
>different colors of OD?
We are talking about production paint on vehicles as they were produced and delivered to the US Military in WW II.
We are not talking about spare parts. While there is a variation in finishes in spare parts (replacement parts to be exact) most variations are not so different as to be called another color.
Are you aware that replacement parts sometimes had different painting specs. depending on their intended use?
> While not experienced in color mechanics or pigments mixing, I am
>experienced in biological research enough to know that the deviations from
>norm that I have seen are MORE than standard deviations. Plus, you seem to
>be saying that there were no standard deviations. Well, there was no Gulf
>War Syndrome at one time, and then it magically was validated.
I do not understand how this applies to the discussion at hand. Biological data vis a vis mental aberrations do not relate to a discussion on paint colors.
> There are
>differences out there and since the question comes up in more than a few
>places, how about getting down from the soapbox of "ALL OD IS OD," and
>looking for the reasons for the variations.
Please...........I have NOT said "all OD is OD"...........I have stated that only one color of paint was used in WW II QMC/ORD tactical vehicle production. I have stated that Lusterless Olive Drab paint and Lusterless Olive Drab # 319 paint were the same color.
There were other Olive Drab paint colors used .........but they were a full gloss and used for non tactical vehicles. This is outside our discussion.
> I suspect that it lies in
>variations in paint composition, solvents, and application techniques..........
I do not believe that you are aware that the QMC had a very specific set of specifications on not just the paint composition, but on the whole painting procedure as well.
ES-474, 474a, 474b and the later ES - 680 were the painting specification and they included the paint, primer, thinner, metal prep and application of the paint on production vehicles and on the use of Lusterless Olive Drab.
>, but
>also suspect that it lies in perhaps a trend during the war (as stated) to
>economize on materials- not as you misquoted me, "They used what they had."
>They used what they had, but they used it for a specific reason, and it was
>usually directed by practices that were documented in some place (perhaps
>not where you have been looking).
I would be happy to research your theory if you would tell me where you suspect this data is. If you have any information, documentation, accession or directive that indicates that the QMC/ORD relaxed or economized the specifications for Lusterless Olive Drab painting in the WW II time frame please pass this on to us and we will seek to find this information.
> Not an OD example, but I just pulled from a warehouse- stored since
>1950's- two original aircraft turret hydraulic power packs. They are
>probably from B24 Liberators, but I am not sure because they don't look like
>the NOS Ford Motor Company one that I have in my collection. Both of these
>are painted in a dark bronze green- similar to USMC green. Granted these
>were pulled from two different aircraft and possibly two different
>manufacturers on two different sides of the country, but the bronze green is
>different between the two. One has possibly been in the sun longer than the
>other, but the colors are DIFFERENT.
>
How does this relate to the correct color of WW II tactical vehicles? You are supporting you theory with two used, undated, undocumented items that you cannot even be sure what aircraft they are from. Neither are Lusterless Olive Drab nor are they a component which would be outside of the vehicle that would have come under ANA specifications for tactical aircraft paint.
Using what you are offering as proof of your theory............I would agree with you that it appears that two used take out parts that could have been made or repainted during or after WW II are a different shade of color. However, this means nothing in our discussion of the actual color of WW II paint on tactical vehicles.
I have two 1941 Ford GP 1/4 ton trucks that are painted the same metallic green/blue color. They came from different parts of the country. Does this mean that all GP's were painted metallic green? Of course not. You cannot say that because two items are the same color or not that it is proof of anything.
> I am thinking now of a piece I gave a
>friend for Christmas. It was a WWII Dietz MP lamp- they are quite uncommon-
>basically a rail road lamp, but with a red lens situated to point at
>traffic. It was dated 2/44, and was painted a shade of OD semi-gloss, and
>close to 34087! It was essentially brand new and never used. I don't know
>the specifics of how it faded, but I do know that it is not the correct
>color of green that I would expect on this type of equipment.
Again, we are not talking about lanterns. We are talking about military vehicles. Paint specs. for items of a non tactical nature are not the same as paint specs. for items that are tactical. The lantern may have been painted with Olive Drab # 108 which is a gloss paint. A lantern is not a vehicle and is not a item that has to be a camouflage color. Ammo cans are another example of this.
> Similarly, a
>1960's Civil Defense lamp that I have in my collection IS painted in the
>correct WWII OD, where I would not expect it to be.
Interesting.........how do you know it is the correct WW II OD? This lamp is Lusterless (flat) OD? If so......are you saying that this lamp is the color that WW II vehicles are painted? Are you coming to the East Coast Rally? If so, bring it along and we will compare it with actual color samples of WW II paint.
> Again, I must say that Jim's research is definitely good and
>appropriate, and certainly thorough. I just don't think that the variations
>have been explained, nor the differences in paint over the duration of the
>war. So the challenge is on to those who are interested in taking it- find
>the reasons/explanations to refute/ support what is being observed by lots
>of people.
We are and have been researching on the correct color of WW II tactical vehicles.........this is our primary concern. The perceived variations in colors of replacement parts we will leave to others to research.
Jim Gilmore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 07 2005 - 20:28:37 PDT