Landships II

hi tony

this argument has been kicked around so much in all the forums. its covered particularly well in the missing lynx forum in a post from a year or so ago.

essentially no meaningful paint code number exists from the time for various reasons. a sort of general agreement (at the moment) is that Humbrol 29 is close, but you may want to darken or lighten it according to choice (and, by the way, Humbrol have just gone bust so don't hang around getting the paint you want!)

My own two cents: you take a colour that really can be described as Dark Khaki Brown, and that will be fine by me. There is NO WAY of knowing the actual hue of that colour now. And I doubt if there ever *was* an actual, standard exact shade in the first place. 

A good memento is the German "Feldgrau" debate. After examining left-over paint on actual WW1 pieces of equipment, the German who did the investigation, found out that there was no one feld-grau colour, but that it ranged from grey to green and even beyond.

I agree with Centurion: Let's not follow the WW1 Aero fraternity up this blind alley.

The real thing to concentrate upon is instead

A. Markings. Of course.

B. Different colour schemes. The Mk IV was for the most time given an overall Dark Khaki Brown colouring, and you can't go wrong using that one; but you can actually find variants, with squiggles in a different colours and even two-tone schemes. I hope to one day do a small article on multi-coloured Mk IV's. Because such animals existed, albeit rare.

this from missing lynx forum

http://www.network54.com/Forum/282066/message/1150308948/

and if you change your mind about brown, how about naval grey with red piping used for parades. Firespite 2 (mk4 female) is shown in these colours. of course, you then have to decipher the arguments about naval grey!

Although any definitive representation of the paint finish of WW1 AFVs may not be possible, I would still like to know something about the pigments and medium used. Other than the rare survivors with what must be assumed to be weathered and oxidised paint, there is the tantalisingly contemporary model of the Gun Carrier, which at least has not spent its existence exposed to the elements.

For a contemporary interpretation of the Solomon scheme, an illustration by Fortunino Matania has some interest, as this artist often researched meticulously, and some of his work is of a very good quality.

Some initial thoughts

The Ministry of Munitions issued recipies for two pigment mixes that could be added to a transparent base to produce either a greenish khaki or a darker brown khaki. When mixed with aircraft varnish these produced PC10 and PC12 and were used on most RFC, RNAS, AFC and American operational aircraft. I suspect that the same pigments were used with a different base to produce vehicle (and tank) paint. The main ingredients were lamp black, iron oxide and yellow ochre, unfortunately I don't have the proportions to hand but these are probably buried in the archived bits of my library (I'll try and dig them out but they are not too easily accessible as I have not yet got round to fully indexing the material). In any case the evidence is that diffrent factories applied different versions of the mix so that PC10 could vary from very greenish to almost chocolate (and insistiguishable from PC12). PC 12 was intended for use in the Middle East and Africa (being considered better able to withstand strong sunlight) but recently discoverd colour photos of the AFC in Palestine suggest that PC10 was also used in the Middle East. The chocolate brown of the Whippet in the Brussels museum could easily be a terrestial form of PC12 but equally could be a dark mix of a PC10 equivalent. If the latter then it could be that the colour of individual tanks could be somewhere in a wide range of shades. To add to the confusion the transparant base used could affect the colour fastness so that some mixes darkened with age whilst others lightened.

The enclosed photos of two WW1 aircraft also show that using shades on photos to determine the lightness or otherwise is a false hope. The two planes (Sopwith Snipe prototypes) were painted in PC10 almost certainly from the same batch and photographed when new. However because differnt types of film were used the tones are reproduced differntly. (Also note how the  Red white and blue of the national markings on the tail vary considerably with the blue being almost white in one instance) The front section of each aircraft was painted in Admiralty Grey which is the same colour as used on RNAS armoured cars and probably on tanks. See how this also appears in very diferent tones. I'm afraid that the same effect is certain when looking at photos of tanks - the film stock can mislead.

Michael Taylor wrote:

---

The pigments mentioned by Centurion, Lamp Black, Iron Oxide, and Yellow Ochre were probably selected not only for their ready availability in quantity but also for their lightfast properties, as all three are very stable. One consideration in their use as aircraft finishes was the reduction of the effects of U/V light on the linen fabric covering, and the cellulose medium into which they were added acted as a shrinking dope, but the effect in all photographs I have seen is most definitely not matt.

My hypothesis was that the same set of pigments might be used on both land and aircraft but with a different base medium. This would be much easier on the supply side. Its worth noting that the grey used on metal and wood on aircraft was the same as used on RNAS armoured cars. Whilst the immediate effect on aircraft of PB10 and 12 was glossy it very quickly became semi matt or eggshell and finally went matt over time. It was discovered that whilst the pigmented varnishes were slightly better than clear ones at preserving fabric a light grey mixed with alumonium oxide (giving a silver effect) was far superior. This had already been introduced by the Pfalz factory in Barvaria and by Nieuport in France but only a few RAF aircraft appear to have been so treated by wars end so attached were the Ministry of Munitions to PB10 and 12. (the camoflage effect of these colours was actually incidental). Grey (with sometimes a blueish tinge) had long been the standard colour for British army wagons, carriages and gun carriages (being refered to in RA circles and instructions as "the colour". Browns and Khakis are much of a WW1 period introduction which would increase the possibility of the Ministry of M  creating an overall standard.

BTW the varnish on aircraft hould not be considered as a tightening agent (like dope on a model aircraft) but rather as a stiffener and preservative to retain the tautness of the linen fabric.

Yvan/Ivan

I think you've oversimplified a bit - for example there was also PC 12 

However talking about tanks see the attached colour photo taken about 1939. The tank is very weathered and faded on the sides which look light or medium redish brown but in the sheltered area between the horns the predominant colour is a greenish khaki!

I suspect that the colour of tanks varied considerable depending both on the factory that built them (and possibly even the paint batch) and on how long they had been in the field. When modelling I think one should not agonise on the precise colour (unless one has reliable info about the specific tank being modelled) and accept that it could be somewhere within a range from a greenish kahki and a dark brown kahki.

I can remember a cartoon in an early MM magazine which showed a competition judge examining a model of a Greek hoplite with a magnifying glass and commenting "the dirt under his toenails is the wrong colour for Thermopolae" There is a danger in attemping to define the undefinable.