From: John Seidts (jseidts@astory.com)
Date: Sun Mar 07 2004 - 21:51:27 PST
Comments,
While I see good evidence in Jim's argument that the government went to
great lengths to ensure quality control on the painting of its vehicles, I
DON'T see any evidence presented by him to say that it was followed in
practice by the manufacturers. While Ford may have preserved its records
stating that it met quality control standards for painting, that doesn't
prove that every single piece of equipment rolled out of the plant with a
paint job that could be matched to a colorimetric scale with great
precision. Your point about parking vehicles on the lot while waiting for
speedometers is an illustration- if there was a subtle variation in paint
batches, would they stop all production while waiting for new paint for a
pile of fenders, or even axles (which were not made by Ford, and were
presumably painted by somebody else with different quality control people
checking paint)? Would they reject AC Spark Plug Division speedometer
bezels because their paint was not a match of Ford's own standard? I doubt
it...
Too many parts had paint applied at different locations for all of them to
match that paper work that Ford generated and Jim has researched thoroughly.
Also, the economy of labor doesn't match this argument. They were building
jeeps on a cost plus basis. The government knew this- would they really
want to mess with a manufacturer if paint shades didn't match on parts, slow
down production to match shades? What a waste of time! They had bigger,
more critical production dragons to slay.
And the argument OD is OD works here too. I can see new inspectors looking
at vehicles and saying, "looks green to me," and passing them on. And this
would have happened all throughout the production.
Hey, I know all my arguments are anecdotal and circumstantial, but they make
sense to me... And I believe further research is needed, including chemical
analysis of original paints.
To further qualify the research needed on this topic, I think a few things
need to be considered.
1. Parts were not produced in the same quality control environment as other
parts- question is, WHO controlled paint quality control in WWII (Who was
the Arthur Anderson of WWII Paint)? How were they trained, how were they
paid, and how strict were they?
2. Paints do have variances, no matter what the standards say- how do we
pick representative NOS originals to test this assertion and support it or
refute it?
3. Where is the money? Was it actually cost effective (all factors
considered) for a WWII era company to keep tight quality control on painting
practices? What did it cost? Was adequate labor available for this task?
4. Can WWII painting practices be duplicated today to test theories
developed based on the above questions?
Still interesting to me, and hate to be hard on Jim because he's a sharp guy
and much better read on this stuff than me. But I'm just not willing to
accept what he says without better verification.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Cole" <DavidCole@tk7.net>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 11:43 PM
Subject: Re: [MV] WW II Lusterless paints...........
> Jim,
>
> I think you missed my point. I don't think that you know what happened
> during the assembly process on a day to day basis unless you were there.
>
> I'm not saying that trucks were delivered without paint. I meant they
> might have been assembled without paint if need be. Obviously an extreme
> situation. However I would not be surprised if it did occur.
>
> I just visited with my wife's Aunt today. She worked at the Ypsilanti B24
> Bomber plant during the war. (She is 86) She can tell you some stories
> about what they did to get those bombers out the door.
>
> I can guarantee that what was suppose to occur did not always happen.
>
> This is a link to a description of the plant and the neighboring plant
> where I worked as an engineer during the late 70's. We still had the WWII
> blue prints for the buildings in the plant at that time.
>
> http://www.ypsiautoheritage.org/
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 23:07:12 -0500, Jim Gilmore <jgilmore@ptd.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Well.........this kind of discussion always happens when I discuss WW II
> > paints...........
> >
> > I would have replied sooner but I've been busy this week painting
several
> > WW II vehicles in the shop........
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave wrote,
> >
> > ".........That GM plant was very typical of Auto plants of that day. I
> > can only imagine the stuff they pulled during wartime vehicle assembly.
I
> > bet some trucks left he plant without paint, only to be painted later,
> > etc. I can't believe that exact color control was a very high priority
> > during wartime............."
> >
> >
> > Dave.........no offense meant but.........you have no idea of how things
> > were done in production of Military Vehicles in WW II .
> >
> >
> > Trucks leaving plants without paint?? Absurd............you, as most MV
> > people do, are not aware of the actual facts of QMC and ORD procurement
> > and just guess that things were done in such a haphazard manner.
> >
> > NO QMC or ORD inspector would accept a vehicle without
> > paint..........just as you would not accept a new car or truck that was
> > not painted........If a vehicle did not have all the items and
conditions
> > that the contract specified then it was NOT accepted.......period!
> >
> > ONLY IF.......a ECO or directive allowed it, would a vehicle be accepted
> > with out items that were called for in the contract. Spare tires were
> > deleted for a while in the jeep contracts as were tops and side curtains
> > later on. BUT.......these were only done when the ORD directed the Mfg.
> > to do so.
> >
> > If a Mfg. ran out of speedometers for example...the vehicles would not
be
> > accepted by the Govt inspector and they would be parked in the Mfg's lot
> > until the missing parts were installed. This is fact...........
> >
> > Exact color control was a very important item.........because people's
> > lives depended on them. These vehicles weren't painted Olive Drab
because
> > the military thought they looked spiffy in this color but because of the
> > camouflage value of this paint.
> >
> >
> > Doc wrote,
> >
> > ".....
> > I eventually tossed all my microfiches of the paint formulas. Hie ye to
> > your local Sherwin Williams authorized dealer or factory store and flash
> > those numbers to them. They ought to be able to fix you up in a
> > jiffy.........."
> >
> > Ah........you fall prey to the thought that it's just that easy to come
> > up with the correct WW II color of Lusterless Olive Drab..........
> >
> > Fix you up in a jiffy???? Sadly.......this is just not so.........try
it
> > and you will see why we had to do so much research.........
> >
> >
> > "........Also the folks from PPG Ditzler have a pretty extensive
> > "antique" vehicle color library. I was envious of their database when I
> > was in the business............"
> >
> > Again.........they simply cannot come up with the correct
> > data.........they will tell you that the paint they make now cannot be
> > mixed to this or that old spec........or they just mix up some # 34027
> > and tell you that that's the right color for WW II.......
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "...........Synthetic enamels are air pressure and reduction sensitive.
> > That changes dry time, which can change color............"
> >
> > Dry time changes color? Please explain this..............you are
telling
> > us that the paint pigments change because of the drying time?
> >
> > So............if it takes a little longer or shorter for the paint to
dry
> > it changes the color pigments? I'll need a bit of hard data to back
this
> > up..........this does not relate to the real world........and Lusterless
> > paint. You are referring to Lusterless (flat) paint right? That's what
> > this discussion is about........
> >
> >
> >
> > "...........My whole thrust of my post was to say that yes, there are
> > standards, but sometimes the standard might not be as standard as you
> > think............."
> >
> > Well.........any data that you have on variations of WW II Lusterless
> > paint standards is something that we would like you to share with us.
> >
> >
> > "..........And sorry, but I have to disagree, the factory standards and
> > procedures do get violated at the factory. That's what made my job so
> > interesting. And since you and I were not in the paint booth, all we can
> > see is the finished product............"
> >
> > No..........actually, I have the standards used by Ford Motor Company to
> > paint vehicles in Lusterless Olive Drab for the US Government. If you
are
> > sure that the standards were violated........please present the data for
> > us to see. Remember, Ford mixed paint in 1,000 lb lots and not in gallon
> > cans. They didn't "run out" of this or that and just use whatever was on
> > hand........EVERYTHING was planned out to the day in production at Ford.
> >
> >
> > "........Primer Surfacers and Primer Sealers. ........... The
> > nitrocellulose primers of WW II vintage were quite porous to water
> > incursion..........."
> >
> > No offense meant Doc, but........you do not know what you are talking
> > about when you state "facts" about WW II paint and paint jobs. The
> > primer for Lusterless Olive Drab paint was a special rust inhibiting
> > primer. This primer, Federal stock No. 52-P-20466, was NOT a
> > Nitrocellulose paint but was a Synthetic Enamel primer. This primer was
> > absolutely required to be used with the Lusterless Olive Drab Synthetic
> > Enamel paint used on WW II vehicles. It was NOT porous but was to seal
> > the surface as the Lusterless Olive Drab paint was porous.
> >
> >
> >
> > "........ If one were to use a urethane primer sealer under the paint of
> > choice, expect to see a surface gloss difference due to the lack of
> > solvent die back into the sealer barrier...........
> >
> > What? We are applying a OPAQUE paint that is DEAD FLAT and you think
> > it will show gloss due to the primer coat? Are you familiar with what
> > Lusterless (flat) paint is? This paint has the flatting agent right in
> > the paint...........you can paint it right over gloss paint and it will
> > come out dead flat. You can spray it over a mirror and it will come out
> > dead flat.........
> >
> > The primer, if properly dried, will have no effect on the surface finish
> > of Lusterless paint.........it will come out flat.
> >
> > I would not dispute you on the subject of gloss auto paints of the last
> > few years but.........you will need to do more homework on the paints
> > used in the WW II period.
> >
> >
> >
> > ".........Now, having noted that, when I finally paint my M37, its going
> > to be a semi gloss AF Blue, and it will have urethane paint and primers.
> > Will it be an exact replication of standards? Hell no, and I know it.
> > Will I have to repaint in two years due to the West Texas
sun?.........."
> >
> >
> > OK.......here's a tip for you ........
> >
> > Air Force Blue, properly called "Strata Blue", is Ford Motor Company #
> > MX-700457 and the Yellow for the lettering is # MX-708493.
> >
> > See if your local Ditzler dealer can find the Offset number sheets for
> > this color. Should be a snap right?........
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Gilmore
> >
> >
> > ===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>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Dave
>
> ===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 - 20:29:10 PDT