Exactly my belief.

Ok interesting train of thought and not without merit - so why is the curator of the Patton Museum (and I'm assuming here that being the CURATOR, he must have some knowledge of what, we here are speaking about) - contributing to the ongoing conspiracy?


Greg

Fellow Modelers,

This discussion is very interesting. It is nearing 1500 hits already! I would like to share a little something here with you too. Below you will find a link to the RAL Colors. It is the best site on these colors that I have found to date. It may be worth your time to check out the amount of research that has been put fouth on these colors. I reasonably think that it would be a good idea for all interested here to define the color as applied during WWII for the German red oxide primer color before assuming what may or may not be the red oxide primer color in a black and white photograh.

Incidently, Red Oxide Primer is noted as RAL 8012 Rot (Rotbraun). This is a very dark color and very close in shade to the RAL 8017 (Rotbraun) according to the color charts presented on the website listed below. I for one do believe that this is the case and NOT the flamming fire bullseye target red that I have seen on some modeled armoured vehicles or the almost pretty pink shade. Just be aware that what shade of color you see on your computer monitor may not be exactly what someone else sees.

http://www.afrikakorps.org/ralcolors.htm

-Eddy

Eddy,

That's a very interesting look at the similarity of the colors between RAL 8012 and RAL 8017...going back to the color photo from the Patton museum, it would be hard to say which it is based solely on those two color swatches. Those are not colors that we typically think are representative of "red oxide"...for example, see this restored Hummel sporting a supposed red-oxide based scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDWQc7yufJs&feature=related

The issue though as I see it is that recovered vehicles such as the StuG at Ft. Knox clearly show exposed red oxide primer underneath zimmerit and basecoat and it's a brighter red vs. what the RAL swatch that is shown on the DAK site.

The photo below was taken by Karl Logan in the 1980's before the Ft. Knox StuG was refurbished and was posted on another forum for a similar discussion...but the interior photo clearly shows red oxide primer...and there's no reason IMHO to believe that a different shade of primer would be used on the internal components vs. the exterior? So clearly there's a discrepancy between this actual, non-restored color and the color swatch presented on the DAK set claiming to represent the same primer color.

Bill,

Thanks for the reply. This is what is needed here . . . actual photograhic evidence to help anyone concerned with getting as accurate a representation of red oxide primer color pointed in the right direction?

In his book Tony Greenland, mentions that a colleage of his by the name of Heiner Duske had written to the RAL Deutsches Institut fur Gutesicherung und Kennzeichnung e.V. (German Institute of Quality Control & Identification). This institution being funded by the chemical industry since 1925, a direct equivilant to the British Standards or the US Federal Color Standards. The input recieved by this organiztion should in effect take precedence over all other sources concerning the RAL colors. Most hobby paint manufactures have produced a range of purported wartime German ground forces colors to date and yet most of these are inaccurate. According to Tony Greenland, his colleage Heiner Duske was able to obtaine comprehensive information on the chronological introduction and deletion of the WWII colors and also received authentic paint chips from which Hannants of England and Gunze Sangyo of Japan produced the RAL color equvilants. Hannants produced all 10 shades while Gunze produced a somewhat limited range of the wartime RAL German ground forces colors.

Unfortunately, Dunkelgelb has no RAL number (one of the most important colors). The color chip supplied to Heiner Duske is said to look either "too dark" or "too olive" and of course the German translation / discription for Dunkelgelb is "Dark Yellow". And without a definitive specification for the Dunkelgelb it is possible to have different WWII wartime manufactures producing different shades of THE most important color for us German WWII modelers. Which brings me back to the question concerning the red oxide primer color. Lifecolor has produced an RAL 8012 Rotbruan (Red Oxide Primer) and I believe they are the first but I have not personally seen it used on any model vehicles yet so I cannot comment on the hue here. Anyone willing to share there input on Lifecolor's RAL 8012?

The color photograhs kindly shared by Bill via Karl Logan are interesting in that it clearly shows a much brighter oxide red. I have seen color photograhs in the recently release book on the Tiger II, Volume 8 by MODELArt showing the engine compartment before restoration of the 2nd prototype (V2) with the primer being more of a rusty red orange color with a hint of some bright red and pinkish red too. But what I found most interesting is that the color changed when the flash from the camera did not actually bounce directly off the surface of the engine compartment in some of the pictures and the color looked more of a dark red /maroon than when the flash is directly acting on the surface as in the photographs both in the book and those that you are sharing with us here. I only bring this up as the colors do change with flash, temperature, angle and lighting (natural or man made). However, the possiblity still exists for the brighter red oxide color in spite of the mentioned occurances with photograhs and video.

Viewing the video to the link that you supplied of the restored Hummel sporting a supposed red oxide primer I noticed that the color also changed as the vehicle moved through the street. However, the supposed red oxide color is a very close match to the engine compartment color in the V2 engine compartment photos that I mentioned above in those pics without the direct flash.

DML's recipe for the red oxide primer color has you mixing both red and miliary brown (50% each) to obtain the red oxide color on their recently released Panther F kit. Gunze produces a Rost Braun H33, that when applied over a light gray primer looks close to the same color of the camera flashed red oxide color in the color photograhs you are sharing and on some publications depicting WWII German tank interiors / engine compartments. Jaroslaw's (Gulumik) moroonish red oxide primered rendition on the Cyberhobby Ferdinand in the features section is outstanding and looks closer to some of the non flashed photograhs of the red oxide primer that I have seen. And recently Rob Ferreira posted a Sturmtiger in the constructive feedback forum that features what I consider an outstanding rendition of the red oxide primer color with his simple recipe of red, o.d. green and panzer gray mix, that by the way looks a close match to the Hummel video color underneath the slightly realistic heavy weathering. So, what's right! Dark maroon red oxide, fire flamming bright hot target rich red oxide, dark brownish red oxide or pinch me pinkish red oxide? Incidentally, Floquils Red Oxide also looks quite the part in light of the already huge tonel array for the red oxide primer color used on German WWII models.

Personally, I will no doubt go with Rob's rendition of red oxide primer red until there is some set standard from a reliable hobby manufacture of the RAL 8012 red oxide primer. Now try to identify red oxide primer in a black and white photograph without a set standard such as the RAL chips that most modelers can at least come to an agreement on for the correct color to point you in the right direction? Like Dunkelgelb the red oxide color is just as significant to those interested in rendering an acurrate early or late war German WWII vehicle but with all the variations in the idea for the red oxide primer color it can be very difficult to say what is correct or at best what is close to the idea of this hue?

So, should I "red oxide" - or not "red oxide"? Yes, I think I would like to do just that. But will it be correct?

-Eddy

Eddy,

Personally, I think that if one were going to interpret that red-oxide primer were indeed an element in the paint scheme, the darker swatch of RAL 8012 that's on the afrikakorps site is much more believable as a possible color than the "bright red" color we've come to identify as red oxide...and that, perhaps, is the fundamental flaw in the whole exercise? The fundamental element of just what is red oxide is certainly something that should be nailed down properly in a "first things first" approach.

Not quite sure I understand the inference in the last half of this thread so far - Is the suggestion that IF the primer colour is as "red" as some are suggesting, that it is therefore not suitable as a camouflage colour?

Let's not forget that by the last third of the war, a great deal of aircraft camouflage had been done away with and natural metal finishes predominated, not terribly stealthy.
SS autumn camouflage smocks had orange and pink tones in them - not very stealthy either, (when viewed on their own or individually - but as part of an overall pattern they were very effective).

I suspect that after exposure most primer being used (just like it is does on motor cars today) will "dull" a little anyway - and given that it probably only constitutes about 1/3rd of the OVERALL pattern on the vehicle anyway (probably much less actually, by the time that ambush dappling, is factored in) I personally don't find it that hard to believe that it was adopted as part of the pattern - at least for a while between late '44 and early '45

Most of the fighting would not have been against a "woodland" background anyway - a fair bit of it would have been against destroyed structures, buildings, and rubble - the amdush patterns would have been designed (like most camouflage) to break up the hard edged outlines of the vehicles when parked under trees - but this doesn't mean that they ONLY fought in the open

Greg

When something isn't definitive, then other elements often intrude as we try to make sense of those things...one of them is inherent logic. It may not be correct, but it's an attempt to fill in the gap...and the bright red version of red oxide certainly seems counter-intuitive as a color on an AFV...especially when it covered roughly 1/3 of the surface. The bare-metal approach to aircraft should be noted that it was adopted only by the side that had already firmly established aerial superiority and therefore had no need to continue with that type of scheme...so I would agree that there's a rough correlation in that the terrain and fighting conditions might have altered enough to call for a change in the paint scheme...but the timeframe of Sept 1944 wouldn't necessarily jive with that...recall what's happening in the overall timeframe at that point in the war, the fighting is still relatively far away from the German borders and hasn't devolved into the heavy rubble/urban-style combat (somewhat of a myth in and of itself, armor doesn't do well in cities in the first place, never mind one that's been bombed or shelled into oblivion...but I digress...).

My father when serving in the early '80s was stationed at Ft. Polk and used to tell stories about them testing out various camo patterns and that the most effective was a checker-board style pattern...definitely not something you would ordinarily associate with effective camo, but add in optics and the varying effects colors can produce when combined against different settings and you can get some interesting results. I think it's a stretch though to suggest that the incorporation of primer was meant to be the German equivalent to the Berlin Brigade urban-style camo pattern seen on some UK vehicles.




Consider the overall timeframe we are talking about here...Sept 1944 to March 1945...a grand total of 6 months...that's not much time for paint to wear even if a vehicle survived the whole 6 months from start to finish intact. Dulling a little due to dirt, exposure, etc. is a possibility...but wouldn't that actually lighten vs. darken the paint? That's the CW anyway in terms of dealing with paint exposure and weathering on model finishes.




The only real constant in German camo patterns is that they were designed to be disruptive and break-up the contours of the vehicle thus making it harder to spot...but then that's true of all camo patterns for the most part. Considering that armor isn't very effective in city fighting and the time period in question as I mentioned above, I'm not really buying that as an effective argument for this type of pattern to have been adopted. Especially not when you consider that it was rescinded in March at precisely the time when there was a lot of fighting in the built-up urban areas as part of the final collapse.

I do think Eddy's on to something though with the darker-than-expected red oxide color for RAL 8012...if that is indeed to correct color, it's very very close to the RAL 8017 that's mentioned in Jentz specifically. The swatch for RAL 8017 is also much, much darker than is commonly "accepted" as the proper tone for Rotbraun (even with the arguments of thinning due to gas, water, etc. causing variation...that doesn't hold up with a factory applied scheme IMHO vs. field-applied). I think there's actually more than one paint "myth" up for grabs here in this discussion.

Well gee thanks for the history lessons Bill - I don't hear anybody asking the question "wonder why they picked Dunkelgelb, doesn't seem to fit Western European terrains all that well", - or you'd expect ALL armies in Western Europe to be using it as part of thier camo ???? So why the fixation on primer ??

But you can keep the "aw shucks I'd never break camouflage integrity" lesson for someone else, you can bet that things in active service are far more "best fit" than many amateur historians believe - if you want to see it through my eyes do a search on the net for medic equipped M577's or any vietnam track for that matter - you will find plenty that are carrying VERY LARGE US stars or VERY LARGE red crosses on VERY LARGE white painted backgrounds (occupying over a third of the side they were painted on) - Camouflage is a CONCEPT as much as anything - where applicable it is adhered to - when required it is COMPRIMISED (if needs be). I had nothing but respect for any yank that was prepared to hoon around in a track that was painted that way, we didn't do it, wouldn't do it - BUT there were plenty that did.

On active service it is ALL about perceived threats - every crew weighs up the likelihood of contact (every time he goes out) - on either MY grounds or HIS, - that is - who has the momentum - and I'm pretty sure that even with their backs to the wall and outnumbered 10's to one (or more) by the Russians and other Allies - that most experienced panzer crews would still back themselves in a ground fight REGARDLESS of how their vehicles were painted !




Like most returned servicemen, I tried to make sense of my time in Vietnam - I missed TET '68 (and those that I have talked to about TET in Phuoc Tuy tell me that it was intense but not as bad as in other places) - thank god - but one of the most prophetic quotes I've read was from Michael Herr :




A grand total of 6 months you say - that was half a tour for me - a Sh**load can happen in 6 months mate - you can bet my track looked plenty different half way through my tour then when we first took her over.

Anyway - this thread has certainly been interesting if not very conclusive

Greg

The reasons for choosing Dunkelgelb are well established. Panzer Gray doesn't do well on the steppes of Russia and Ukraine...but the conditions on the Eastern Front weren't universal considering it stretched from Leningrad down to the Caucasus...so the three-tone scheme was given wide lattitude for commanders to apply at the unit level. This scheme stayed into effect for quite a while, Feb 1943 through to August 1944, presumably for those reasons until circumstances changed and new schemes were adopted. The Germans adopted it because of their tactical conditions during that time period while the Russians chose to stay with Russian Green for simplicity sake, the same reasons that the US stayed with OD green...even though the US and UK forces would add mud or earth-tone paints in N. Afrika, Italy, and even changed schemes once they were in NWE after Normandy to incorporate the famous "Cobra" type schemes. The Germans also adapted their schemes for N. Afrika with the "tropen" colors...so I would say it's fairly well established that, with the exception of the Russians, armies in WW2 adopted schemes based on local conditions (and that's why we have so much variety, and discussion, about what's appropriate and when! ). Whether or not this lends credence to the Red Oxide Theory or not depends on whether or not you accept that Red Oxide did or did not enhance camo during the time period it is speculated to have been used. I'm not embracing either side of that argument myself because I feel it's a question open to interpretation. Bright Tabasco-red color seems to be counter-intuitive, while the darker color that's a closer analog to RAL 8017
seems much more "acceptable" from a perception standpoint IMHO.




If I somehow gave offense in this discussion, you have my most sincere apologies (more so if I've misinterpreted your tone...easy to do in this medium ). I've nothing but 100% respect for those who've actively served and have the advantage of first-hand experience that results. I will readily concede that individual crews, sometimes even whole units, got "creative' with their vehicles. There's no shortage of evidence to support this from crews adding extra armor in the form of sand bags, welded on track links, etc. to painting over white stars, not painting on vehicle numbers or unit insignia and staying with just very small balkenkreuze, etc. as well. But that's not what we are talking about here...we are talking about orders to factories with the aim of standardization of paint schemes and parts delivery and what that means for things that ended up in the field that could've perhaps been modified or changed later by the crews. The dappling for the ambush scheme may be a candidate for that type of thing for example.




I'm not discounting that and perhaps didn't fully explain my point. What I was trying to convey is that the scheme was in use for only 6 months...and that new vehicles (and previously produced vehicles) were being knocked out, repaired, destroyed during that period on a regular basis. I concur that it doesn't take long for a vehicle to get dirty, dusty, scratched up, etc. once it enters service...but the tonal shift presumably taking place that would go from Karl Logan's photo type of color from a relatively well protected interior to the Patton Museum's type of exposed exterior color (or Eddy's color swatch color) is a pretty dramatic one IMHO. I'm not saying it didn't or couldn't happen, it just seems like something unlikely to happen in a short space of time that the scheme was in use. Even though there's a standard it could be like "standard OD" and there's a range of spectrum possibilities as to what the "true" color of Red Oxide is and, even more so, how it might be interpreted from B/W photos as a result. It raises doubts, again, in my mind that we really do not understand just what Red Oxide is/was based on this discussion.




I agree wholeheartedly here with you...and that's probably why it's so frustrating for many. We seek an absolute where there isn't one, at least not from the evidence to hand. There's evidence that can be evaluated but it only presents possibility, not conclusivity, which is open for interpretation and thus allows individuals to come to their own conclusions and the battle lines get drawn. Even the vaunted 'experts' can be proven wrong over time as new evidence or documentation surfaces through additional research and exploration. I'm a trained (not an amateur ) historian and know all too well that primary sources can only take you so far...after that it becomes a detective game to unravel between secondary sources, historical context, and interpretation. That's why even the so-called historical "record" continues to evolve and things that were accepted as "infallible" at some point in time suddenly becomes doubtful or even outright wrong!

"Sparingly" and "sparsely" are two different terms and people seem to be interchanging them. "Sparingly" means "don't waste paint by applying 5 coats as we quality-obsessed Germans are prone to do". It does not state "leaving 1/3 red oxide" or "apply sparsely". So I see no indication that exposed red oxide is a possibility.
That's my proposal of a theory, at least.

Both Vinnie Branigan and Henk Meerdink reviewed Lifecolor Acrylic Themed German WWII paint sets here on Armorama if anyone is interested. I bring this up because these acrylic paint sets are specifically formulated against the original RAL specifications and color swabs. One of the themed German armoured paint sets contains the RAL 8012 Red Oxide Primer. Our first (that I know of) look at what the, as specified, RAL 8012 Rotbruan (Red Oxide Primer) may have looked like thus helping point us in the right direction and giving a better clue to identifing the color in a black and white photograph? Is this color simular in tonel hue to the RAL 8017 Rotbraun?

Henk's take on the color matching in his example paint set reviewed hits the nail on the head! Also on the AfricaKorps website that I posted earlier you will find as good an explaination (on another of the same websites pages that I have listed below) as I have ever come across reguarding the accuracy of paint matching giving the reader 6 of the most sound reasons for no exact and perfect paint matches and paint color change over a long period of time.

http://www.afrikakorps.org/germanafvcolors.htm

I am just a modeler interested in putting together as accurate as possible (within the limits of my skills) a replica of the real thing to view in my tiny apartment and share this with all of you too.

-Eddy

The reason the US-Airforce went for metal finishes was purely economical, a metalic surface reduced drag better than olive drab painted on, strictly economic reason to get more miles to the gallon aircraftfuel.

German Airfcraft were all being camouflaged up to the end of the war, as were British aircraft, so that argument is completely laughable as any excuse to suggest the bright red nature of Rot Oxid is NOT a valid reason to consider it an improper camouflage color.

The basis for the 3-tone camouflage as adopted by the German mechanized forces stems from the use of their vehicles as envisioned at that moment, fighting in the countryside. Germany was at that moment not being threatend at home, nor did they consider the use of armour in urban areas. Street fighting tank to tank was not common around 1943, so all tank combat happened out in the fields, where the colors were a lot better at hiding a vehicle than the up to that moment used Schwarzgrau.

But turning to the point of Jentz being right or wrong, haha, he isn't even clear himself.

Both the Quest for Combat Supremacy and Panzer Tracts 5-3 state this concerning camouflage:
Before the order of 19-08-1944 all Panthers had been delivered to the troops with a base of DunkelGelb RAL 7028 paint, and each individual unit had applied its own camouflage pattern.
19-08-1944: general order to paint all Panthers with a standardized camouflage pattern prior to being shipped from the assembly plants. Every effort was to be made to deliver part of the August consignment of Panthers with this new "Hinterhalt (Ambush)" camouflage pattern. Patches of Oliv Grün RAL 6003 and RotBraun RAL 8017 paint were spray painted over the Dunkel Gelb RAL 7028 base coat.
Starting in mid September 1944, directly after Zimmerit was dropped, the Panthers left the assembly plants without the basecoat of DunkelGelb RAL 7028 camouflage paint. At the assembly plant, camouflage patterns were sparingly applied in patches, leaving much of the vehicle surface covered only with the red oxide primer.
On 31 October 1944, MNH received supplementary instructions from the local Waffenamt inspector. Effective immediately, Panther were no longer to be painted on the inside. The rest of the hull and components were to remain coated with Rot Oxid primer in the condition in which they were delivered from the armour manufacturers. The outside of the Panthers was to be sparingly painted with patterns directly applied to the Rot Oxid primer utilizing RotBraun RAL 8017, Oliv Grun RAL 6003 and Dunkel Gelb RAL 7028 paste. If DunkelGelb RAL 7028 wasn't available, Dunkelgrau RAL 7021 could be used in an emergency, otherwise, Dunkelgrau was to be conserved.
20 December 1944, MNH reported the list of external Panther components that were to be immediately covered with a basecoat of DunkelGrün RAL 6003 (Why Jentz says Dunkel Grün here instead of Oliv Grün I have no idea, the RAL is the same number) paint. A camouflage pattern with sharp contours was to be applied using RotBraun RAL 8017 and DunkelGelb RAL 7028.

Let's now observe VK45.02 to Tiger-II:

Originally , the Tiger II left Henschel completely covered with a basecoat of DunkelGelb (RAL 7028) paint onto which the troops were to apply camouflage patterns using Deckpasten in Oliv Grun (RAL 6003) and Rotbraun (RA8017) colors.
19-08-1944: Tiger II were spray painted with the three tone camouflage scheme at the Henschel assembly plant prior to being shipped to the ordnance depot for issue to the troops.
09-09-1944: Zimmerit and the basecoat of DunkelGelb RAL 7028 was no longer applied. The camouflage scheme using Dunkel Gelb (RAL 7028) and Oliv Grün (RAL 6003) was sprayed sparingly onto the Rot Oxid primer in which the armor components had been coated by the armour suppliers prior to delivery to Henschel and Wegman.
01-03-1945: The assembly firms were to complete the Buntfarbenanstrich (multicolored) camouflage by spraying RotBraun (RAL 8017) or DunkelGelb (RAL 7028) in sharp contours onto the armor components which the armor suppliers were to deliver already covered with a basecoat of DunkelGrün (RAL 6003) paint.

A couple of interesting deviations from QFCS and PT 5-3:
- No mentioning of Hinterhalt
- Hard edge with either Dunkel Gelb OR Rot Braun, and 01-03-1945 as startdate instead of 20-12-1944.

However, as we read on in VK 45.02 to Tiger-II:
Tarnanstrich (Ambush camouflage)
On 19 August 1944, OKH Wa J Rue (WuG 6) VIII issued orders to all assembly firms: Effective immediately, all armored vehicles are to receive a coat of camouflage paint at the assembly plant. In addition to a basecoat of DunkelGelb (RAL 7028), the colors Oliv Grün (RAL 6003) and Rot Braun (RAL 8017) must be applied in patches. This concern is of decisive significance for the troops. Every effort must be made to complete part of the August production with this new camouflage pattern.
This was the order that initiated what has become known as the "ambush" camouflage pattern. Prior to this, all Tiger II had been delivered to the troops with a base coat DunkelGelb (RAL 7028) paint and each individual unit had applied its own camouflage pattern.

Continued:

Base coat of Rot Oxid primers
As specified by the Heeres-Abnahmestelle II(K), Hannover on 31 October 1944:
Immediately stop painting the inside of all Pz.Kpfw. The hull and components are to remain in the condition in which they were delivered. The assembly firms are no longer to paint the inside of the Panzerkampfwagen. Painting the outside is accomplished by applying patches of Braun, Grün und Gelb Deckpast (RAL 8017, RAL 6003 and RAL 7028) onto hulls delivered in Rot Oxid primer. If Gelb isn't available, in extreme emergencies Graue (RAL 7021) paint can be used; otherwise Graue paint is to be conserved.

This directive, issued to MNH in Hannover, late October, must have been issued previously to Henschel in Kassel close to the same time that Zimmerit was ordered to be dropped on 9 September 1944. Tiger II (Fgst. Nr. 280243), completed on 11 September 1944, left the Henschel plant with only a base coat of Rot Oxid primer (RAL 8012) onto which wide, irregular stripes of Oliv Grün (RAL 6003) and Dunkel Gelb (RAL 7028) were sparingly sprayed.

Continued:

Base coat of DunkelGrün (RAL 6003)
On 29 November 1944, further orders were issued by OKH Wa J Rue (WuG 6) VIII regarding a new camouflage paint scheme. The external surfaces of all armor components were to be delivered to the assembly plants already covered with a base coat of Dunkel Grün (RAL 6003) paint. The assembly firms were then to complete the Buntfarbenanstrich (multicolored) camouflage by spraying on Rotbraun (RAL 8017) or Dunkel Gelb (RAL 7028) in sharp contours. The new camouflage scheme for completed Panzers was to go into effect starting on 1 March 1945. By 20 December 1944, armor suppliers had been issued orders to immediately start coating armor components with Dunkel Grün (RAL 6003) paint prior to delivery.

On 23 January 1945, a further directive on the subject of painting Panzerkampfwagen was issued by OKH Wa J Rue (WuG 6) VIII as follows:

After further extensive investigation, and based on requests from the troops and companies, the following is established to expand on the previous order date 29 november 1944:
1: It is permitted and again ordered that the interior of turrets (or by Sturmgeschütz the surface area above the track covers) be painted with a coat of Elfenbein (RAL 1001) paint.
2: So long as available paint stocks are adequate without thinning until conversion to the new camouflage paint directive occors on 1 March 1945, the old paint stocks can continue to be used up to 30 May 1945.
3: In order to make it possible to achieve standardization in the camouflage paint scheme, the companies are to inform Direktor Fuchs of the Fachabteiling Lackbedarf des Heeres im Produktionsausschuss Lacke beim Reichsmin.f.R.u.K. of the paint supplies they need.
4: Of course, as far as it is possible, companies should already convert to the new camouflage paint scheme prior to 1 June 1945

As is evident in a color photograph, at least one Tiger II completed by Henschel in March 1945 was completely covered with a basecoat of DunkelGrün (RAL 6003) paint upon which thin, wandering stripes and spots of Dunkel Gelb (RAL 7028) paint had been sprayed to create the camouflage pattern.

My personal remarks:
1: I would really REALLY like to see anything relating to Tiger-B Fgst. Nr 280243. Documents, photographs, crew notations, anything. Jentz stipulates this specific Tiger-B as being the first to recieve the Rot Oxid with Dunkel Gelb and Oliv Grün coating. Of note, in this instance there is no mention of Rot Braun. Quite different when seen what is said in QFCS and PT 5-3.
2: According to VK 45.02 to Tiger II, armor forging plants were already ordered to basecoat components in OlivGrün/DunkelGrün on 20-12-1944. However, the assembly plants were only ordered to implement this scheme by 1-03-1945. I find it unthinkable that it would take more than 2 months for hulls and turrets to get delivered to the assembly plants. Also, taking into account that these plants worked on a last-in first-out basis for their stock, any new hulls and turrets, it seems logical based on this, would be put into the assembly lines before older ones. Unless the major components were delivered "on call" the 2 months delay between hulls and turrets in Oliv Grün basecoat to reach the assembly plants sounds very odd.
3: Apart from the Octopus Tiger-B I know of no factory finished paint scheme of only 2 colors on a Tiger-B on photographic record. Field applied camouflage yes, but factory applied, none.
4: Was Henschel given paint orders earlier than for instance MNH? It does seem so, as stated by Jentz, the order involving Rot Oxid base coat, was handed to Henschel before MNH got it, by almost a full month. Interestingly, Jentz contradicts himself here. In PT 5-3, he both states a starting date of mid September, and 31 October 1944.
5: How long was the time period for the Rot Oxid order to last? This hinges on the order for the armor plants to convert immediately to basecoating Oliv Grün. Taking mid September for the end of basecoating in Dunkel Gelb and delivering in Rot Oxid, to 20-12-1944, the immediate start of the Dunkel Grün basecoat, it is 3 months for Rot Oxid. No matter when the assembly plants would switch, after 20-12-1944, the armour was Dunkel Grün basecoated. So even is it would take 2 months to show up at Henschel, or MNH, or MAN, only 3 months worth of armour was supplied in Rot Oxid.

Lets add some production figures:
Panther-G production for ordnance depots:
September 1944: 350 total, half in Rot Oxid -> 175
October 1944: 350
November 1944: 295
December 1944: 310 total 2/3 Rot Oxid -> 207
Tiger-B armor component production
September 1944: hulls 72, turrets 82 half Rot Oxid-> hulls 36, turrets 41
October 1944: hulls 52, turrets 50
November 1944: hulls 6, turrets0 (!!)
December 1944: hulls 5, turrets 0 (!!)

I haven't been able to find data on Panther armour component production numbers for this time period.

But, if we take the Tiger-B, it shows that Rot Oxid would have featured on 99 hulls and 91 turrets supplied to Henschel and Wegman. Which would imply 1 in 5 Tiger-B would've been finished with Rot Oxid showing. The same ratio, taking the production numbers, would exist for the Panther-G.

That is a significant number, 20% of all Tiger-B and Panther-G should have Rot Oxid as a camouflage color, if Jentz is correct.

Does that sound right? Do we see that in pictures? Almost one hundred Tiger-Bs in Rot Oxid, and we wouldn't be having this debate, I think. The existence of such a camouflage scheme would be quite obvious. It is unthinkable that not a single Tiger-B of these Rot Oxid ones has been photographed.

Herbert,

That's a pretty thorough case for why it's difficult to rely on just one source, even if it's Jentz, for making this kind of determination...

If you only go by what is stated in QFCS or PT 5-3, then Red Oxide seems possible for incorporation into the camo scheme but only from mid-Sept 1944 to the end of Oct. 1944. Hulls and other equipment would've been delivered in red oxide RAL 8012 up until Dec 20, 1944 when the order changed to base coat in olive green RAL 6003. In that reading that's the only time that the standard three tone of RAL 7028, RAL 6003, and RAL 8017 isn't mentioned...and the only one missing is RAL 8017.

If you only go by VK to T2, Sept 9, 1944 to Jan 3, 1945 Red Oxide is again possible as after that it mentions the three tones again, RAL 7028, RAL 6003, RAL 8017 with RAL 6003 as the basecoat...but is conflicted by saying again that the suppliers were supposed to be providing components as of Dec 20, 1944. Definitely some imprecision creeping in there with the dates that Jentz is referencing. I wonder if that's because he's drawing information from different primary sources for his own narrative?

This of course is totally different from the narrative we were talking about earlier that had the potential for RAL 8012 as part of the scheme being from Sept 44 to March 45...so drawing on your questions:




Maybe we do and we don't know it? I'm increasingly becoming convinced that if in fact the RAL 8012 applied/incorporated even for just a three month period was so close in shade to RAL 8017 as the afrikakorps site shows as being the actual RAL colors, then we would be looking at it all this time and not be able to tell the difference...especially in a B/W photo. I had to concentrate and flip back and forth a good bit between the two colors on that site before I could make out a distinguishable difference and it's very very subtle. The trouble is that photos showing red oxide for internal components shows a brighter red (possibly due to flash) vs. what the RAL swatches show...so which is right?

Very thorough treatise Herb - but doesn't PROVE a damn thing - time I think to put some of you "wannabe" blackboard panzer commanders to bed - have just sourced Tom Jentz's home address, will fire him a letter containing the contents of this thread and see what he has to say - will keep you all informed.

TTFN

Greg

Jeesh, why can't you EVER treat something anyone says any different than feeling personally attacked and having to lash back to those who post?

You insulted me on various occasions and you insulted Bill in this thread.

Didn't your parents teach you any manners or how to conduct yourself in a discussion? Or are you suffering from a superiority complex?

I just don't get your aggressive tone in just about every reply you make.

[/quote]



I just don't get your aggressive tone in just about every reply you make.

[/quote]Greg got to go with Herb on this one. We are chatting not attacking LOL GERAINT

I googled for some pictures showing RAL 8017:







And some showing RAL 8012:







And googling Rot Oxid primer:

With all due respect Greg, I agree with Herbert and Geraint, your posts come across as very agressive and belittling to others at the least, and just plain insulting at the worst.

As far as contacting Mr. Jentz, though I have a lot of respect for both he and Hillary Doyle for what they have done for our hobby, and for the history of these vehicles, it has been proven that he is not infallible. I think this is one for now you/I and others will just have to work out for ourselves, and as I've said to Herbert concerning a similiar subject, agree to disagree . Hopefully this subject will be explored further in Jentz and Doyle's upcoming book on German painting practices.

Regards,
Mike

Hi guys, (if these image posts don't work, don't worry; I'm working on it!)

I have to say that this has been a very interesting discussion, --and about to get a whole lot more interesting! I dug out my old album of photos from my late 80's trip to Fort Knox, and although I do apologize for not having access to a scanner, here's some more photos to mull over.

I was taken through the museum and allowed access to the vehicles, being allowed to crawl all over and into them. I was especially interested in the German vehicles, namely their Panther II, StuG IIIG, and Pzkpfw III. The PzIII had been repainted on the exterior, but was untouched inside. Here are some photos from the interior.

The cap of the inner fuel reservoir, in red oxide (or whatever we're calling it here for sake of discussion! )

Here's the hull MG, and see that red ammo box?...


Next, inside the Panther II, the turret also had some "red" painted items--the elevating cranks, and also what looked like remnants of it on the floors.




With the StuG, things get VERY interesting. For starters, it is a very late StuG III, with the saukopf mantlet, fitting for the Rundum Feuer remote-controlled MG on the roof, and late travel lock. It was allegedly captured from a Volksgrenadier unit, but there has been no confirmation of the symbol on the rear. Nor not only was there an untouched interior, but the exterior as well was said to be in original paint. And if it is true, then there is compelling and provocative evidence of what appears to be a bright red used in the camo colors, which, to my eye, certainly matches the "primer red".
Here's some interior shots first:

Note the handles, and the step, as well as the wall beneath the driver's gauges
.


Close up:


Note the ammo racks, and again, a better shot of the driver's position.


Close up




And here' s the front fender--doesn't that look like primer red?


Here's why I give some creedence to the statement told to me that the paint was original. Not only was it markedly stained, discolored, faded, etc (in marked contrast to the repainted exterior of both the Panther II and the Pz III) but the shipping labels and ordinance codes from the USA were still plainly visible--I can;t see how or why, with the "shortage of personnel" there (which limited my time in the museum grounds), why they would go through the trouble to try to replicate--and further, fade and :weather" convincingly, these markings?






And furthermore--here's an even more problematic image--the allegedly original markings, which show a similar red being used!



And I hope I'm not breaking any rules with this one, but this is a rather compelling shot of a panther recovered in the area of the Cherkassy Pocket, which seems to show a red primer under the zimmerit? I am posting this photo for informational purposes only.


So let the debate ensue--as I have said, the information which I have related came to me directly from the guide which took me through the Fort Knox armor collection, (it may have been Mr Charles R. Lemon, the Registrar of the Museum at the time?), so if anyone has any contrdictory evidence/correction, let it be aired.

That is very neat! Great pictures.

The funny thing is, another Stug of late origin was presented as proof for Rot Oxid as exterior exposed color on a Stug dragged out of a swamp in Poland. this one showed some exposed pinkish areas, and also had the Balkenkreuz showing it in pink. Very interesting that it is in both cases a Stug.

Some further thoughts, althoug the fender looks plain Rot Oxid, there is also proof on especially the superstructure that the Rot Oxid was painted over in Dunkel Gelb.

Any chance of a Fgst. Nr?

Plus, this being a late model, that immediately would put it outside the time bracket for the Rot Oxid order, wouldn't it?

Herbert,

You've run into the same problems using "modern" RAL color specifications for RAL 8012 and RAL 8017 that I encountered doing the same thing...it's my assumption that the RAL specifications (going by their modern assigned names) have changed. See here: http://www.plan-chests.co.uk/ral.htm. The "modern" names are now RAL 8012 Red-Brown and RAL 8017 Chocolate...which is not the same as their names in WW2, so I assume the modern shade contrasts are not the same?.

As far as the production dates of this "late" Stug, the presence of the Topfblende (can't tell if it's got the coax MG) , rundumfeurer, front hull travel lock, no zimmerit all place this one as possible for production in the Oct 1944 and beyond timeframe as all those features were common through 1945. It's certainly within the realm of discussion based on the Jentz timeframes of when primer might have been incorporated into the schemes.

Karl,

Glad to see you jump in with more photos...hope you don't mind me using one of your originals before. The photos lend some interesting added elements...esepcially how the color is shifting from one set of photos to the next in terms of flash distance, close-up, lighting, etc. I know these were taken in the 80's and aren't digital...so we have to factor that in to a certain degree.

This photo doesn't seem too legitimate to me (pure speculation and not casting aspersions on your account or that of the Ft. Knox people!) because the red ammo box doesn't seem to match the condition of its immediate surroundings. It looks pristine by comparison, and its shade seems more consistent with the modern color vs. those around it?


Looking further into your photos...this one in particular draws my interest:


The driver's station is showing color shifts in the tone from left to right...I presume because of angle of lighting and flash. I know from first-hand experience as do you (remember the test of a light blue vs. a white background? ) just how much of an impact lighting can have on color caption with both digital and analog photography. The colors on the left hand side of the driver's station are much more in tune with the colors from the Afrikakorps site:



The strange thing about this fender is that it doesn't seem to have any kind of scheme at all...suggesting that the entire fender is in red oxide primer? I wonder if it might have been a spare added after the vehicle was in service and not bothered to have been painted? There's definitely a different shade of brown in the scheme along the front (and rear in your pic with the shipping stencil) hull...so it's interesting to see BOTH red oxide RAL 8012 and Red-Brown RAL 8012 in the same scheme...as opposed to one being used in place of the other.


The red in the markings seems a closer match to RAL 3000 from the Afrikakorps site...vs. being RAL 8012. Since it's incorporated into the unit badge insignia and we know that the balkenkreuze were applied by stencil after the paint finish, I'm doubtful that this alone demonstrates the "true" red-oxide color...especially when you consider that there's solid areas of Dunkelgelb all around both of those markings. It also looks like it's Dunkelgelb (or perhaps white?) that's showing through the "red" border of the balkenkreuze. There's also the hint of a red outlined insignia in the pic above on the front hull next to the solid red fender.



I keep looking at the deeper color on the front hull in contrast to the dunkelgelb...is it RAL 8012 or RAL 8017 using the Afrikakorps swatches? It's a deeper brown so may be closer to RAL 8017...and that color extends up into the travel lock, the driver/transmision access hatches, and the rear hull underneath the white shipping stencils. In the pic below, the colors are now shifting from left (lighter) to right (darker) due to the flash, but could they in fact be the same color in the scheme?



This may be a case where we are moving away from apples-to-apples comparisons...we are using language from Jentz regarding schemes on Panthers and Tigers but we know that other vehicles often had different patterns applied. Hetzers for example have well-documented four-color hard-edged schemes and other vehicles like Sdkfz 251s continued to be finished in Dunkelgelb for the duration...but in terms of evaluating the actual color of Red Oxide, I think we're still on the right track.

For me that red fender does look like it was not finnished in th same colours as the rest of the Stug. It just might be a replacement, adding to the debate. That some Red Oxide parts did make it out of the factories unpainted Great photo, cheers

Hey Bill!
No problem about using the photo!
I do agree with you somewhat about that ammo box, but if you notice, there IS some degradation on the left side of it; also, I think that while the foreground objects are presented in harsh relief from the flash, that red ammo box just caught the more-diffused light, and therefore seems more pristine.

A great call on the Rotbraun 8012 in the driver's compartment there--that does match up pretty close!

An interesting thought about the fender as well! I agree that it might indeed be a replacement fender. What we think of as regular "red brown" does indeed seem to be a component of the camo, from what I can see in some of my other photos..I also recall at the time saying to myself "Holy cow, that fender sure is bright red!"--in contrast to the other camo pattern. The green I remember as very dark--almost a black-green but I'm sure this was a result of degradation.

It is also prudent to add that on page 454 of "Tigers in Combat vol 1" --the definitive reference on the Tiger, if you ask me--it shows a Tiger II of the Schw.Pz.Abt. 510 abandoned near Kassel, in the so-called "Octopus scheme", and is captioned in part as:

"The ambush scheme camouflage appears to be painted directly onto the red primer"

Also, in "The Eastern Front: Armor Camouflage and Markings, 1941 to 1945" by Steven Zaloga and James Grandsen, on page 10, it states that "...a color photograph survives of a Mobelwagen finished in Panzer Grey overall with bands of red-brown paint"

Could this have been primer?

Or, is this in fact the original camo scheme of that Panther II at Fort Knox as in the original photo? And if at least two vehicles were so finished, what does this say about the alleged "accuracy" or consistency of late-war camo schemes as would be proposed by some of the more dogmatic voices being heard?