Landships II

compound eye · Colonel

The thorny subject of paint shades for tanks.

thorst · Colonel

I have seen a model painted with the mig-colors, and it indeed looks greenish, and in my eyes unusable.

I have not seen the ak colors painted on a model.

Thorsten

MK1 Nut · Hero

I'm afraid I am probably in the unpopular camp who believe the Tanks to be painted in a 'Brown with a Green Tint' type Khaki colour.

In some light it will look brown, on other days brown/green. If you then add a layer of dust, which normally gives a light brown filter over the paint, then mud, one colour I expect it won't look is green... but it will still start off as Brown/Green.

At Bovington there is a very rare Tank Periscope, now I know it is a fitting and could be a different colour to the Tank itself, but it is off the colour variable Brown/Green family I feel is a good candidate as any. They actually look more green than I remember, which is another reason why memory is not always useful as a source when it comes to colour. :) The Top of the Periscope did look more brown, this I expect is due to being exposed to more sunlight the the lower section, as the difference is only slight.

It may be that the colour of British Tanks changed as the War went on and New Marks rolled off the production line. Factory Records is possibly where the answer will be found.

The Tank that was Dug out of the ground, was any attempt made to look for unaffected areas of paint?

Helen x

-- Edited by MK1 Nut on Monday 26th of January 2015 06:43:11 PM

thorst · Colonel

Helen,

I really like your comments on the periscope! But how do you deal then with Lodestar III in Brussels? As far as I know, it still has the original paint, which doesn't look green at all at most photos...

Thorsten

Pierantonio · Lieutenant-Colonel

I bought the MIG set as it come on the market and I was very disapponted because I think they don't match any color I belive right for a WWI, even German one.

After reading this thread I made a quick set of chips with its colors and some Tamiya paints for a quick reference.

Note this is NOT a review but only a personal opinion.

On the background I put a balanced Kodak 18% grey card for color check.

http://www.ferreamole.it/images/modelli/colori01.jpg

I will paint my MKIV models with the Starmer's Service Brown as suggested on Armorama forum.

Regards,

Pierantonio

-- Edited by Pierantonio on Monday 26th of January 2015 08:02:36 PM

Lothianman · Colonel

I had a look at the issue of WW1 paints (for tanks and for ships, etc.) a year or two back and was unable to see any evidence of rigorously standardised colours at all, as opposed to generic khaki or service brown, even after reading Dick Taylor's book on British AFV colours. (NB: a lot of folk capitalise colour names such as Olive Drab, but that is in my view misleading unless they were formal official names, let alone standardised colours.)

The impression was that during WW1 they went by general recipes based typically on cheap pigments like yellow ochre, carbon black and red ochre. A session with Humbrol paints (at the suggestion of my partner's mum, who is a keen artist) was most instructive when I mixed x drops of one, y of another and z of the third in different permutations. The extreme hues are of course olive green, orangey ochre and dull red brown but with an area in the olive drab zone with the green/brown transition very sensitive to the amount of red. From memory the earliest official standardisation seemed to be in RFC/RAF dopes and even there the RFC 'khaki' is just such a greeny brown colour.

That I assume is why khaki is so ambiguous a colour especially in translation from another language (and in terms of colour printing as well, never mind colorisation of b&w photos).

The preserved colour on the tank in Brussels is consistent with the British Army habit of painting everything a service brown colour (still in use for ammo boxes when I was a lad) and reasonably close to the postwar British Standard colour (Humbrol 11 seems to be based on the latter though seems too dark and not quite red enough for tanks). It makes sense on the muddy Western Front more so than green ... One thing about service brown is that it is well removed from the green/brown intersection of olive drab.

The tanks would be painted by factory painters who mixed up pigments, oils and dryers on the premises, so I understand. The periscope would have come from a different supplier from the tanks and be painted with whatever paint they sourced or commissioned, probably on a very small scale, which would be unlikely to precisely match the tanks. But a greeny khaki hue would at least be in the same family of mixes.

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Considering Lodestar III and a colour photo (original or not, I know not) someone - possibly Helen - posted on another thread, I think hints of green unlikely. French soil seems capable of displaying a wide range of hues within the space of a single field, with dark browns, reddish browns and light sandy colours all possible - which means that no single shade of brown could provide complete camouflage.

One source many may consider unlikely, but which I find persuasive, is the Whitanco tin plate clockwork toy tank produced for a few years from 1919. Yes, it's just a toy - but although it is richer in colour, it is not too far removed from the colour Lodestar appears to be, and it was manufactured at a time when the original tanks were fresh in the memories of those who served; perhaps even some of the presentation tanks might have seen active service rather than just being ex-training tanks? If so, the khaki colour might have been familiar to civilians too, so you wouldn't want to produce a toy in a wildy different colour.

As a note on khaki - in case the word conjures up notions of green for anyone - I understand the original word refers to the colour of earth. As such, the scope is very wide: in the British army, the term is commonly used for green or greeney-brown shades, but in the days when Kitchener was in Sudan, it would have applied equally well to a desert sand colour.

My view is that it should be a warm-toned light tan, perhaps hinting at dark sand.

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

Lodestar seems to me to provide best evidence as a primary source. There is, perhaps, some contemporary evidence for the colour used on Gun Carriers. The IWM collection has a "large"(unspecified)"scale model", but when I last tried to find out more, it was stored at Duxford. As I have only seen monochrome photographs I am unable to state the colour, but it was described as "brown" by someone who has. I do hope that it emerges at some time.

Lothianman · Colonel

www.flickr.com/photos/hansderegt/12255845544/

Is that it, or something else?

The obvious issues are (a) was it repainted and (b) is it contemporary to begin with?

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

Alas, it appears to be the same.

The records concerning the origin of this object do not appear to be complete. I was told that it was old/possibly contemporary/ possibly 1/16th (and brown). Which only confirms the need for primary sources. cry

thorst · Colonel

Besides Lodestar III, there is also this autochrome photography (not recolored):

www.dw.de/image/0,,17833106_303,00.jpg

It is printed in the book "Der Erste Weltkrieg In Farbe" (Taschen Verlag):

www.taschen.com/pages/de/catalogue/photography/all/05794/facts.der_erste_weltkrieg_in_farbe.htm

The colors are not fully true (as the red stripe at the front suggests), but the impression is that it supports the color on Lodestar III being a good representation.

Lothianman · Colonel

That's an interesting photo - especially as the green of the tree has behaved differently from the colour of the tank.

Is it a wartime photo or a postwar presentation tank? if the latter then the paint may have bleached in the sun. Is that C-like marking on a red square, or on an earlier coat of "tank colour" paint with a lighter (or more easily weathered) new coat put on top? Or has the square around it simply been washed?

Gwyn Evans · Legend

That photo is actually colourised, I'm sure. The reason I'm sure is that the white C-like marking that Lothianman refers to is actually a G marking for 7th Battalion. It was adopted in 1918 and the tank number is contained within the G. The most important thing for this discussion, however, is that it should be black. Compare with the photo on the cover of Richard Pullen's Landships of Lincoln.

Gwyn

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

In monochrome photographs of this tank sitting at Péronne the G is also of a light colour, i.e. white. So, this feature may be moot. - Compared to some clearly colourised photos of derelict tanks in France, this one looks rather authentic in my eyes.

Gwyn Evans · Legend

The trouble is, we may think the picture "authentic" because it's a similar colour to Lodestar III. But did the artist also look at Lodestar III before deciding how to paint it?

A thorny subject indeed!

Gwyn

mad zeppelin · Commander in Chief

I'm looking to the surroundings rather than at the tank. The colouration is very delicate and various. - It may still be a modern 'fake', but it certainly isn't an old one.

thorst · Colonel

Inside the printed book, the colors do look a bit different. The photo is listed to origin from the "American Committee for Devastated France" and has been lent from the collection of Mark Jacobs. The photographer seems to be unknown.

All pictures inside the book look different than color photos as we know them, they tend to look as if they were colorized, which, following the author, they are not.

However, the book can be wrong with this picture, and as there are doubts about the authenticity of the colors, please disregard my posting it. The tank color is a too delicate topic to be supported with questionable sources.

Thorsten

TinCanTadpole · Legend

I've just remembered! The IWM site has numerous period colour drawings of tanks, by Bernard Adeney if I remember correctly. The colour he depicted is not exactly like Lodestar III, it's more like desert sand camouflage, but it does suggest that a lighter sandy brown was used on the tanks he saw.

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

It is tempting to make inferences from these drawings, particularly as they show the Medium B with the early fuel tank and other convincing details. However, it cannot be assumed that they were made with direct access to the machines depicted, and they appear to relate very closely to a series of photographs.

Pzkpfw-e · Commander in Chief

Bearing in mind, that the exact shade(s) of WW2 German Dark Yellow is still hugely debated & the chances of an artifact, of any size, having its original paint and that hue being unmodified by the thick end of 100 years exposure to air/water/whatever, the chances of answering this are remote.
I'd expect some degree of variation from paint batch to batch, even within the same factory, as doubtless the recipe would be along the lines of "Mix 30 & 5/16ths lbs of x with 2 & 3/8ths lbs of y"!

m83 · Sergeant

This is one image that I think does reflect how light the paintwork was on at least some of the tanks.......... it looks as though the rain has helped to clean the tank somewhat, the surrounding mud and that remaining on the tracks and sponson may also be used as a reference.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/fulwidth_fullheight/public/fww/body-small/Q_006327.jpg?itok=7yWR9HjD

....is it also possible that the tone of colour changed as the war progressed?

Kev

TinCanTadpole · Legend

That photo does show a much lighter shade than some, and I expect it is fairly true to the lightness of the paint itself, because photos of the Mk Vs sent to occupy the Rhineland after the war - tanks that were nice and clean - tend to show a similarly light shade. I'm not sure of the idea of shade intentionally changing later in the war though: the tank in the pic Kev linked to is a Mk IV and lacks the identity stripes applied during 1918 - I have an idea it was lost sometime at Passchendaele (3rd Ypres) in 1917.

The difference in shade is probably down to a combination of different paint batches (as said by numerous others) and possibly differing filters/film bias in the cameras - UNLESS there was an unofficial tendency for units to interpret paint recipes to match better with the prevailing soil colour; in such case, the lighter-coloured tanks might be expected to have served in sectors with more chalky soil, and to be clumped together geographically. The only way to know that would be to look at photos, research where on the Western Front each tank was used, and draw a map to see if there's a pattern.

compound eye · Colonel

I have a feeling that B&W photos are just as deceptive as early colour processes or tinted/inked prints.

As a photographer myself, I now begin to wonder whether the 'Brown' of British tanks of WWI might, in some cases, have a similar exposure value to that of 18% grey - a shade which has been used as a calibration device for both film sensitivity [asa/iso/din] almost from the start, and for camera metering systems [late 1950s onwards]. That being the case, or on the case of a huge EV-range in a scene [where dull dark colours - mud etc made photographers err on the side of over exposure], tanks might appear to exhibit a rather unrealistic insipid tone.

A question that comes to my mind, and I honestly don't know [I'm ignorant perhaps], is whether the 'Brown' was factory applied, or whether tanks were shipped in grey [?] primer and received their colours at the Tankodrome [for example]... IF 'Brown' was field applied, how was it thinned, if at all? Was it thinned with water, spirit, fuel? I know that WWII German Dunkelgelb could be thinned with practically any medium to hand, and that caused a huge variance in colour, even discounting [for a moment] paint to thinner ratios.

What I was hoping to get from my original question though, was an idea of peoples' feelings about the colours on the market right now. Clearly the Ammo set is a 'trap' for the unwary... It seems to me that the AK 3 tone set might provide more acceptable, if not entirely correct, options.

compound eye · Colonel

Also, imagine being in the field, with the constant threat of the grim reaper - even after the battle - with an early, cheap, mechanical, unmetered vest camera... either working off simple printed exposure suggestions [bright f11, sunny f8, dull, f5.6 etc...] or just using a 'finger in the air' approach to exposure... I'd wager very few negatives were that well exposed, and most images had to be beaten into something passable in the darkroom - whether in the field, or back home. Most prints of 100yrs ago seem very 'thin' and over-exposed, so I don't imagine early mechanical shutters [except Barnack/Leica] gave a true shutter speed and either lagged badly - resulting in over exposed 'thin' images, or snapped shut too quickly causing contrasty details and blown out tones due to necessary over exposure during printing.

Pierantonio · Lieutenant-Colonel

It's impossible to obtain a "real" color shade from a BN pictures.
First of all, was the film a Panchromatic or an Orthochromatic. Orthochromatic film doesn't reproduce red tone so a dark brown became like a very dark grey (red became black) when it may be a light grey on pan film.
Second: did the photographer overexpose the picture, underexpose or make a correct exposure? In that time no lightmeter was on the market so eyeballs and experience were the only instrument in his hand.
Third: what happened in the darkroom? How was the frame devoleped and how was it preseverd for 100 years?
Fourth: how was the picture scanned (scanner, software, level control, etc.)
Fifth: what happend in the typography?
We can only say tank color was lighter then ground. So if we can look at ground color in that region of France we can only speculate about the shade the calor was (very dark brown, light brown or even a light green) but we will not have any real useful information.
regards.
Pierantonio

TinCanTadpole · Legend

There are many WW1 photos of good quality, so I suspect things are not so way off as your valid points might suggest.

Nonetheless, it's clear that the only solution to the problem is for someone to invent a time machine and take a trip back to 1917/18 - with a comprehensive set of Pantone colour charts to avoid the misrepresentations that still exist in modern cameras!

On a more sensible note, I suggest there are two options:

1) just guess

2) IF anybody knows the historic paint mix proportions, try mixing the colour and see what the result is. Has anyone ever come across the actual paint mix instructions?

Pierantonio · Lieutenant-Colonel

TinCanTadpole wrote:
...
Nonetheless, it's clear that the only solution to the problem is for someone to invent a time machine and take a trip back to 1917/18 - with a comprehensive set of Pantone colour charts to avoid the misrepresentations that still exist in modern cameras!

...

Don't forget to pick up your helmet and gas box.

Lothianman · Colonel

Pierantonio's reference to gas reminds me that the use of war chemicals - or at least chlorine - would have had its effect on the paintwork of anything lying around the battle zone, so that pale wreck is even harder to interpret.

And Compound Eye's point re the brown paint is a good one. I assume that the brown is standard factory finish applied at the works.

One way to approach that is to consider whether the 4-digit serials were applied at the factory - and therefore over the brown finish (on the same logic that, if there is a photo of a WW2 Matilda in Soviet service bearing the British transport stencils and number, then it's obviously still in one of the British colours). However the style, colour and even presence of serials varies quite a bit, and I have no idea whether they relate to specific factories or production batches, so for all I know some could be applied or reapplied in service.

Which reminds me, we need sheets of transfers (aka 'decals') of such numbers in different styles in the original typefaces, and MOST CERTAINLY NOT using the nearest modern computer typefaces. This is too common nowadays but makes sure I will never buy such sheets as it wrecks a model for me. Moan over ...

Gwyn Evans · Legend

m83 wrote:
This is one image that I think does reflect how light the paintwork was on at least some of the tanks.......... it looks as though the rain has helped to clean the tank somewhat, the surrounding mud and that remaining on the tracks and sponson may also be used as a reference.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/fulwidth_fullheight/public/fww/body-small/Q_006327.jpg?itok=7yWR9HjD
....is it also possible that the tone of colour changed as the war progressed?
Kev

For information, the tank shown in this link is Mark IV Female 2582 G46 "Gina", 2/Lt Douglas Browne's tank, hopelessly bogged on 31 July 1917 and subsequently hit by artillery breaking a track.

Now back to the debate...

MK1 Nut · Hero

Has anyone ever tried to look through the Foster & Co's archives for paint colours?

Only it is something that I expect was recorded, as the Admiralty/Army would probably have requested a particular colour for their vehicles.

Even if a particular colour was not requested, the builders would have designated the paint for the Tanks to be finished in. It's a long shot I know, but I believe Lincolnshire Council have the Foster & Co Archives, so the answer to this question could possibly be sitting in a box on a shelf, waiting for someone with the time to work their way through it.

m83 · Sergeant

Gwyn Evans wrote:
m83 wrote:
This is one image that I think does reflect how light the paintwork was on at least some of the tanks.......... it looks as though the rain has helped to clean the tank somewhat, the surrounding mud and that remaining on the tracks and sponson may also be used as a reference.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/sites/default/files/styles/fulwidth_fullheight/public/fww/body-small/Q_006327.jpg?itok=7yWR9HjD
....is it also possible that the tone of colour changed as the war progressed?
Kev
For information, the tank shown in this link is Mark IV Female 2582 G46 "Gina", 2/Lt Douglas Browne's tank, hopelessly bogged on 31 July 1917 and subsequently hit by artillery breaking a track.
Now back to the debate...

Gwyn,

I chose this particular image, first of all to highlight the fact that this particular tank looks very light in relation to its surroundings. The image is also very sharp so I imagine that the photographer carefully took the image and not just a snapshot. Another reason is that this looks to be a 'fresh tank'; ie, one almost straight from the factory, without seeing much action, it also got bogged down, which suggests the area is very wet - so perhaps rain in the area also helped to clean whatever mud was on the paintwork.

Gwyn, do you know the movements of this tank ? and in particular if this tank came straight from the production line to fight in this battle in which it was subsequently lost?

I believe the longer a tank saw service the more likely hood that the paintwork is not showing its true 'factory 'colour

I am not about to conclude anything from one image. I personally believe that the shades differed from mix to mix - no matter how standardized a paint mix, shade difference is going to happen, wether intentional or not. (that is why today we use computer generated machines to mix paint, and these are still subject to error!!)

In conclusion, I fear we will never know the exact answer to the question, however discussions like this and examination of old photographs comparing known colours (webbing/helmets/mud) and comparing these in conjunction to the light (sun/overcast/snow) then we may still be able to come to a reasonable guess to the colour.

regards Kev

Gwyn Evans · Legend

This is part of the entry from my database for this tank:

Received by 21 Coy G Bn mid July 1917 having been sent by train from Erin to Oosthoek Wood as a replacement; G46 "Gina" 10 Section 21 Coy G Bn 2/Lt DG. BROWNE 17.7.17; G46 10 Section 21 Coy G Bn 2/Lt DG. BROWNE 28-29.7.17 clutch slipping badly; G46 10 Section 21 Coy G Bn 2/Lt DG. BROWNE shrapnel cut attachments holding unditching beam in place and beam lost, at Kitchener's Wood, Picklem Ridge tank ditched in water filled crater, guns removed and loaded into 2564; tank abandoned after taking clock, periscopes and lamps 1.8.17; Photographed in situ, with subsequently damaged port track October 1917;

I can't be certain about its date of production. I'd estimate late Spring or early Summer 1917. It was obviously after twin tubular radiators were introduced, though I suspect not long after. It was abandoned on its second day in battle, though this picture was taken months later.

Gwyn

Gwyn Evans · Legend

MK1 Nut wrote:
Has anyone ever tried to look through the Foster & Co's archives for paint colours?
Only it is something that I expect was recorded, as the Admiralty/Army would probably have requested a particular colour for their vehicles.
Even if a particular colour was not requested, the builders would have designated the paint for the Tanks to be finished in. It's a long shot I know, but I believe Lincolnshire Council have the Foster & Co Archives, so the answer to this question could possibly be sitting in a box on a shelf, waiting for someone with the time to work their way through it.

I have been through the papers in Lincolnshire Archives relating to Fosters, except for a roll call of the factory personnel which was too fragile to be produced. There is nothing relating to paint colours.

Gwyn

MRG · Major

Hello all,

as this thread is of great interest to me I tought I join in and share my 5 cents. Having seen Lodestar III with my own eyes , I have to say that it certainly does not sport an uniform brown tone. It looks as if it has been gone over with many variations of the main basic slightly rusty-leather-brown tone of a slight reddish hue, some places being somewhat more like milk chocolate, other places more like khaki, but definitely not of the greenish sort.

It looks as if every bucket of paint they used over time was a bit different to the next. Certainly no standardized colour in use here... To recreate the effect on a model one would have to make a build-up of translucent paint in varied tones and do it all with a paint brush.

It does look though as if the later layers were generally of a lighter tone than the ones underneath and I am not sure this only comes from light bleaching, as some of the chipped-off areas look as if these damages happened a long time ago. The exposure to light would also not explain the many visible tones on the rear armour plate, where obviously the number had been painted over.

See

http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/images/Lodestar_III_23.jpg

and

http://www.landships.info/landships/tank_articles/images/Lodestar_III_25.jpg

I have looked at so many photographs and of special interest I find the ones of C47 Conqueror, where obviously a significantly lighter tone has been painted over a previous darker one, but they left out the parts with the side artwork and the numbers so that the difference can be clearly seen. Comparing with the white of the "Ace of Spades" card, I believe this could have been a similar light tone as on Gina's wreck. I also believe this was a much lighter tone than Lodestar III has on its later layers.

For me, I will go by it's medium leather brown. It seems the most authentic to me, it sort of (gut-) feels right.

I guess we will never know those tones for certain, unless some bigger paint chip from Lodestar, Grit or Deborah would undergo layer-by-layer criminologic investigation. Until then, it seems we can paint our models any brown or green tone we like, as no one can prove it wrong.

Even greens might have been used... I even consider something had to give the according people an idea to paint the Ashford tank, Grit and Flirt the colours they have now, why should they not have been similar, originally?

The debate on Dunkelgelb is bad enough (I have built WWII models) and one would believe there should be more evidence and certainty to gain considering the shorter distance in time and the almost absurd habit of us Germans documenting everything. wink

With best regards

Martin

TinCanTadpole · Legend

Any reasonable shade of brown, yes, but is it not agreed here on the forum that orders stipulated khaki brown, NOT green? The idea of green is surely a mistake that has become ingrained over decades; after all, WW1 is further back in history than WW2, yet many believe erroneously that WW2 American tanks were olive green, and that British tanks were always green too (they weren't - they started green, changed to brown, then finally to olive drab).
One of the most important things that can be said about WW1 tank colours is that they had to be camouflaged to suit the prevailing environment. That means some shade of brown to match the churned up earth, whether it be a light sandy brown, a rich tan mid-tone, or a more chocolatey brown. In a sea of mud, green camo has no place.

I would expect that surviving tanks might be repainted in other colours to better suit new surroundings. British tanks obviously changed colour from wartime brown to bronze green at some point in the 1920s, so if for some reason an old rhomboid was in need of a repaint, such as Excellent for it's Home Guard-type patrols in 1940, it is surely natural that the fresh paint would meet whatever the current paint regulations were.
The Ashford tank might have been repainted green at some point according to what was available at the time, or indeed, according to a mistaken view that British tanks are always green. Green is suitable for peacetime tanks, because it fits with normal grassy fields, but during both world wars, the first in particular, it just wouldn't blend in well enough with the landscape. True, the track design of rhomboids tended to deposit mud quite liberally across the vehicle, but conditions were not always wet and photos suggest that it was not unusual for the paint to be visible - not always obscured by mud.

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

In "Tank Warfare" (Thomas Nelson,1933), Frank Mitchell wrote that "the highly coloured camouflage painting was abandoned, and all tanks were henceforth of a neutral brown colour".

MK1 Nut · Hero

So it looks pretty certain now that from MKIV Tanks onwards, British Tanks were painted a Neutral Brown... but would there be an argument for MKV Tanks being a more standard Army Green? Also any repaints around that time onwards turning green. As in the surviving Whippets like Firefly.

Michael Taylor · Lieutenant-Colonel

I take it that "neutral brown" is a description from personal recollection, rather than an official designation (such as "Neutral Brown").

PDA was kind enough to draw my attention to an earlier discussion relating to "Service Colour", and from there to several editions of the handbook for artificers, which describes a paint medium quite precisely, as well as listing pigments. (These were to be added by weight.) These are for several formulations and a number of purposes. As yet, I do not know of any specific reference to tanks.

The handbooks do make reference to a shade of brown as "chocolate", but as this topic always seems to move into areas of speculation I would not dream of suggesting that that may be relevant! wink

Lothianman · Colonel

Is this the one?

landships.activeboard.com/t11784373/service-colour/

Most interesting - naval practice was pretty similar from what little I have seen, basically DIY paint using the provided recipes. They don't seem to have used premixed standardised paints till well after WW1 if indeed at all.

However -

1. Khaki is itself an ambiguous word - anything from green to browny to light drill sand colour. In fact I'm not sure it wasn't sometimes used to denote any dull Army colour.

2. Tanks were (a) new (b) produced by a different range of firms (c) had a different habitat, compared with guns, etc. And came in halfway through the war. So they may well have had their own colour. Brown earthy colour makes sense, as well as being the one we have most evidence for from contemporary references (such as they are) and actual tanks. What we need are the instructions to the factories ...

Michael makes another very important point - that terms like 'service brown' have to be applied correctly. it's common in colour discussions to capitalise the names like say Black or Dark Brown as if they were standardised colours like, say, the 1930s-40s Ministry of Aircraft Production 'Dark Earth'. However, this is very misleading for obvious reasons, above all for this period where even the notion of a standardised colour is pretty uncertain. Colour names should never be capitalised unless one is referring to a specific official named shade.

Rectalgia · Legend

Lothianman wrote:
... Most interesting - naval practice was pretty similar from what little I have seen, basically DIY paint using the provided recipes. They don't seem to have used premixed standardised paints till well after WW1 if indeed at all. ...

Indeed, the story of the battleship H.M.S. Barfleur (1892), whose skipper wanted the ship to look extra spiffy in the (then) white paint of Mediterranean Fleet pre WW1, is deservedly part of RN lore. At one stroke he invented "arctic white" and earned a new nickname for the vessel, Farbluer.