About how often where vehicles repainted during the war? I figure during major overhaul / rebuild, but other than that. Like a Universal Carrier in the early two tone green scheme, when would it have been repainted to the SCC2 color. Planing on a pair of UCs in the UK around late 42/early 43, a MK I in green and MK II in SCC2.

I'm inclined to agree with you about military vehicles not being repainted very often. However, there are a few wartime photos which have been published in numerous books and other publications showing crew-members over-spraying them with camo paints. There are two of these photos that come to mind- The first is the pic of the German Tiger II being re-sprayed in a slanting-style "Tri-Color" scheme, and the second is of a US M5A1 Crew over-spraying a Black(?) wavy-pattern on their Tank, and not even bothering to remove their Stowage!!!

Your idea of the 2 UCs painted in different color schemes sounds perfectly plausible to me. I say, "DO IT, and be happy!"

Quothe the Motor Pool Sergeant: "If it don't move, PAINT IT!!!"

(Un-grammatical, but STILL TRUE...)

I know anything sent to the MTO was repainted .... and they seem to be pretty keen on changing with new regs.

And then when the orders were canceled, painting everything back in European colors. There is at least one photo of desert painted armor on exercise in Britain?

I thought they painted the stuff in North Africa at the depots in Egypt. Even I'm venturing afield here. Basics of my question was if a Universal Carrier MkI left the factory in G3 green, when ... if ever .... would it have been repainted SCC2? Or would they just painted a pattern in SCC1 over the green?

Idle soldiers + paint stock + sergeant major = repainting.

In the US army for lack of anything else it could be garbage cans.

They could run out of paint before they finished a vehicle in which case it's disruptive camouflage to fool the sergeant major. All kinds of stories circulate about these things.

The desert sand painting is from a memoir of a tank crewman. It was probably a mixture of deception and busy work. There are accounts of soldiers issued tropical or arctic gear to keep them guessing about their ultimate destination. There's as well a series of photos of Valentines and scout cars in sand rolling through the English countryside.

Vehicles built in '41-'43 could be painted at the factory for their intended theatre of service, but anything already existing that was being transferred would need a repaint - either at the shipping or receiving end. And kit in the UK might well wear older schemes until there was a need for a repaint. Bear in mind that repainting before shipping might "tip off" the troops and spies to upcoming movements, so they might not have done it if it wasn't really needed.

Unless the experts say otherwise, I think you are safe with your planned two schemes on UK-based carriers...

According to Mike Starmer's extensive research, UK vehicles were only required to be repainted after major overhaul, conversion or when the protective effect of the paint had been compromised. Repainting in SCC2 was not authorised as a matter of routine, for example. It was changed during production.

However, SCC2 was authorised to be overpainted in SCC15 for all vehicles deployed to NWE on and after D Day. Although it seems that some SCC2 softskin vehicles did make it across the Channel later.

In the Mediterranean/Middle East theatre there were a couple of authorised colour changes, most notably Light Mud from Light Stone. But there was a repainting priority by vehicle type and location, with AFVs in Italy having the highest priority and vehicles in Palestine the lowest. Some vehicles were never repainted.

Many Home Service soft skin vehicles survived the war in plain Khaki Green 3 or even pre-war Deep Bronze Green.

So I believe that, certainly as far as UK vehicles were concerned, repainting to keep soldiers busy at the whim of the RSM (etc) was not commonplace. Commonwealth forces generally followed UK practice.

For authorised "mass" repainting, mobile workshop units were sometimes used with spray equipment. Units also repainted locally. Don't forget that this is the time of transition from mixing paint up from linseed oil and dry pigments to ready-to-use nitrocellulose paint in cans. So painting could be a messy and laborious business if the paint had to be mixed up locally.

As an aside, I was watching a documentary-type programme on UK TV recently showing lots of period video of Western Desert tanks. Almost every Grant and Sherman shown had sections of the sprocket hidden by the sand shields still in OD, with stripes across the road wheels where covered by the bogie arms. Clearly visible as the wheels rotated. Which implies that their repainting was done with speed rather than precision.

I remember reading how the British troops attended training and then went to pick up their new freshly painted M4 Sherman tanks in Libya. The tanks were described as "yellow and black" and the paint was still "sticky".

Here's an M3 as an example. Show this to an IPMS judge.



G

It's been my experience that whenever one goes by what the "regs" say, one WILL FIND EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES...

IPMS "judges"... HAH!!!

Look at the photo again and notice the paint runs. Think back, how many models have you seen with crappy paint jobs and paint runs? Maybe a foot print where someone stepped on a dark wet area and stepped onto a lighter area leaving a footprint? I think we often strive too hard for perfection in a paint job when the real world is not. In Saudi Arabia we repainted the tanks from green to sand. We oversprayed the rubber on the road wheels and sprayed some areas of the track by the road wheels. We did not spray under the finders or under the hull. The area between the tracks upper run and the hull were not sprayed either. Non factory paint jobs tend to have flaws. For a field paint job, paint your tank, assemble the tank, then do the repaint with the track and road wheels installed.

There are several famous photos of M4 Shermans and M5 light tanks being repainted in the ETO during operations (at least on US vehicles). The one I'm thinking of right now is a sandbagged Sherman with an engineer crew overpainting everything-- including the sand bags and the stowage on the rear end of the tank. I'd think it safe to say that if the paint stocks were available, and there was time, stuff would get repainted. Maybe not a perfect or complete repaint-- but some paint would be splashed on at some point.
VR, Russ

If you turned up with a Grant like that at a model show you'd be laughed-at.

And yes, what was authorised and what was done are not always the same thing.

The sticky Grants imply locally-mixed linseed-oil based paint, which could take days or even weeks to fully cure. That was why a drying agent such as shellac was added to speed up the process. In US parlance this was sometimes called Japan Dryer. Not strictly a drying agent as such to cause the oil to evaporate, more of a plasticiser to convert it into a hard film.

EXACTLY. But rather than go to all that trouble, the British Army could have acquired some quicker-drying pyroxylin paint from any Ford supplier for their paint stocks. But, they didn't. So there we are... No doubt the exigencies of WAR dictated the use of anything at hand in order to get their equipment painted...

Re: "Getting laughed at" by the prima donnas at shows, if one showed up with a model that was accurately painted, as in that posted photo of the Grant above. You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! Those guys can only see a "perfectly-painted" Tiger I or Panther in the "Tri-color" camo scheme, rather than an accurate portrayal of the same. I've run into that myself, many years ago. I came prepared with an actual wartime photo of my subject to back up my painstakingly-applied, PURPOSELY "SLOPPY" PAINT JOB, and what I got for my pains was,

"Oh! You've GOT TO BE KIDDING!!! Your model should look like this:"... (which happened to be a picture-perfect, "parade ground"-looking fakery)... That did it for me as far as contests and shows were concerned.

Of course, times have changed, and accuracy and realism are much more prevalent at these shows today, from what I've seen on line. However, the crowd of judges and "experts" haven't changed. I can't be on my feet much any more, so I haven't been to hobby shows in many years. I don't miss 'em. I used to build semi-professionally for special custom orders, but I don't do ANY of that any more, either. I "build what I want for my own pleasure, at my own leisure", now. No deadlines or pressure to get any given project done by a certain time. And best of all, I don't confine myself to a single genre in my builds...

Real photos never lie. Like the Grant. Of course it's hard to know exactly what the colours are. Base is most likely Light Stone: Desert Pink was rare or non-existent on Grants. Disruptor colour could be black, dark green or brown.

Someone above asked about SCC2 cam over G3. That combination was never an authorised scheme. Doesn't mean it didn't happen somewhere. G4 was the disruptor colour over G3, but many home vehicles remained in plain G3 as the pigment for G4 ran out before that for G3, when the change to SCC2 came. Only Russia had access to Chrome Oxide pigment during WW2, so everyone else had to mix from yellows, blues and blacks - meaning no dark strong greens. No disruptor colour was authorised on tanks painted SCC15, but it is seen in non-lying period photos. Black is assumed.

The problem with Ford or other car paint was that it wasn't available in sufficient quantity, in the right colours or in matt finish. Other than that it was perfectly suitable..... Later in the war UK documents talk of "Paint, Ready To Use", implying the increased availability of canned automotive-style paint in military colours.

Rumour has it that one or more of several shades of commercial colours called Coronado Tan were used on US-built vehicles for the UK pre lend-lease. Diamond T tractors, for example. Apparently even the Canadians didn't have access to US military-spec paints - which of course were the wrong colours anyway.

When I enter a contest I include photos of the tank I am modeling. If you replicated the M3 paint job and displayed the photo you might gain points for accuracy.

IMHO contests are fairly random and arbitrary - it doesn't matter how tight the rules are, it's all down to the interpretation of the judges on the day. Generally the good stuff wins over bad stuff, but deciding exact order is less than scientific. And I know - I've judged a few in my time! The main point is to enter to show off your models, and not to win - the fun is in taking part. Personally I like a good photo-realistic rendition rather than a textbook-perfect paintjob...