>The one thing which distingiuishes a mail list from other venues is that
when
>you post something, ten people will join the debate, trade information,
and
>bring in new experiences. A few will jump to an argument. Please don't be
>strung so tightly that every hint of disagreement brings up your ire. In
group
>discussions, very often someone will request clarification, propose a
>different idea, or shudder to think, even flat out disagree with you. IT
all
>goes into a good group discussion. It's not intended to draw anger and hurt
>feelings. Chill out!
>I was NOT arguing, and I am not a purist. My interest and curiosity are
quite
>oppositely directed. I observed a restored WC a few issues back on the
cover
>of Army Motors, and noticed how nice and "correct" the paint job looked,
>without color smudging, spots, or variations in gloss. It certainly was an
>attractive truck. Unfortunately, no such truck ever existed in an Army
motor
>pool lineup.
>
>My own interest in restoring my own trucks is to make them look like they
are
>intended. Dave brought up a good question when he asked what "proper" is
when
>the Army wasn't too picky about color. I don't know how to answer that, but
>SOMETHING has to be correct, no? As a Regular Army retiree, and long time
MV
>owner, I've walked enough motor pool lineups to know that the WC I
mentioned
>would have jumped out like a sore thumb among the other vehicles. Even the
>Colonel's truck didn't look that good!
>Assignments in the service were seldom long enough to follow individual
trucks
>and see how they aged. I'm always amazed when I acquire a new one, and see
how
>the years have treated it. Like I said before, you see every color of OD
>imagineable, and it always made me curious about how the different paints
>weathered differently. I don't believe that the military views paint in the
>same ways a civilian truck maker does.
>
>Paint to the military is a preservative, low reflecting, background
blending
>coating. LIke a lot of other things military, these coatings are made to a
>spec, and it's possible that there is enough variation in the spec that all
>these paints can be this different and still meet the written spec. As
John
>mentioned, very little documentation is available on a lot of these items,
>because no one thought to keep records. I fear that once those of us who
>actually drove these things in service pass on, assuming the military does
>stop surplussing new ones, who will be left that knows what is correct or
>acceptable anymore? I mentioned long ago on this list that field practices
>produced trucks appearance that few of us would care to take to a judged
>contest, but isnt it true that they are probably more correct than that WC?
I
>can recall looking down rows of new trucks of every kind, and no two were
>exactly the same color. I recall being able, after working with them, to
>identify a particular truck by it's odd coloration and markings. I can
still
>remember the troops out in the motor pool spot painting trucks with plain
>white spray cans of issue paint, (Bob's Paint?) every can a slightly
different
>color. I remember men sitting there cutting bumper stencils from cardboard
>cartons, newspaper, and brown bags, freehanding stars, and rubbing their
>M151's down with jet fuel to make them shine. Correct? Who can say! If it
>happened, perhaps it IS correct!
>Jack, raising the white flag...
>
>===
>To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
>UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.
>
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.