Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
To "red oxide" - or not to "red oxide"?
bizzychicken
Joined: September 06, 2008
KitMaker: 967 posts
Armorama: 842 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 08:16 AM UTC
Karl, looking at the photo with THE RED FENDER. the Stug looks like most of the Dunkelgelb as been coverd over with the Brown, most of the mantlet and top half looks very dark. Was most of the base colour, painted over? how much of the Stug remained Dunkelgelb? Thanks for the great photos Geraint
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 08:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
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"
While I would agree that TICI is a great ref for info on what units had what Tigers and where they served, in this instance Schneider is wrong. There is a color photo of that Tiger II out there, and the base coat is green, with dark yellow bands and green circles on the yellow. So for this particular discussion it's not really relevant.
Cheers,
Mike
thedoog
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 263 posts
Armorama: 260 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 08:49 AM UTC
Quoted Text
If I remember correctly, it was pretty hard to tell exactly what was what on the top half--the paint was quite degraded.Karl, looking at the photo with THE RED FENDER. the Stug looks like most of the Dunkelgleb as been coverd over with the Brown, most of the mantlet and top half looks very dark. Was most of the base colour, painted over? how much of the Stug remained Dunkelgleb? Thanks for the great photos Geraint
However--look at this side photo--you can see the standard tricolor bands! And look--are the wheels in "primer red" as well? It would seem so?!
Unfortunately, the photo reflects the limitations of my camera at the time, but the camo is still nonetheless visible!
Additionally--check this out, I just noticed it! In this other photo of the front fender, there IS INDEED Dunklegelb on it! So that precludes the possibility of it just being a "primed" replacement fender! Oh the possibilities! What does THIS mean?!?
Here are the bulk of the other shots--glean from them what you may? You can see that here was also a fair amount of dust covering much of the top, especially in the rear, Also, the front seems to have suffered much beneath foot traffic--a lot of the paint seemed to be scraped off down to the bare metal.Unfortunately, with the limitations of a "20-picture roll" back then, I did not get a chance to take as many as I would have today!
Mike Land, also thank you for that information!
bizzychicken
Joined: September 06, 2008
KitMaker: 967 posts
Armorama: 842 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 09:08 AM UTC
Thanks Karl. Looking at the other great photos closely you can see that the fender was painted in the three camo colours. What I have noticed that alot of red shows up in high ware areas. Telling me that the oxide undercote was alot Redder than Rotbraun. In an Osprey tital it states that "in 1944-45 a new camouflage pattern consisting of Rot RAL 8012 as a base colour was over-painted with patches of Dunkelgelb with stripes of Weiss RAL 9002" Wasn't Hetzers painted like this late in the war? And if so couldn't Panther got the same paint job?
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 09:24 AM UTC
You know, I really hadn't considered foot traffic and wear-and-tear to the paint finish on the exterior...and agree that the fender now looks as if it had camo at one time but sections of it have worn off. This one in particular would seem to support that...you can see camo pattern down on the edge but the horizontal surfaces where people would naturally walk around show primer.
As to the wheels in the first shot, my guess is that they are the same red-brown as we see on the superstructure side. They don't show nearly the same level of contrast as we see on the fender with the paint worn away. It's really hard to say though because the entire lower hull from below the fenders all the way down seems to be the same color...so it could be primer that' had the paint degraded. The paint here seems a closer match to the "darker" RAL 8012 vs. what's showing through on the fenders...so the mystery deepens!
The clincher for me though is the final shot. Look closely at the color on the rod for holding the spare wheel vs. the base and the plate it's welded too. The rod has rex odixe primer exposed while the rest of the base and the plate is finished in RAL 8017 with some olivegrun thrown in too.
This leads me to believe that the paint scheme for this Stug didn't include primer, at least when it was captured. It's a field modification added by the crew vs. a factory mod yet it's incorporated into the overall vehicle scheme. That means that either a) the camo scheme we see is field-applied and not factory (would seem to be supported by the soft edges we see on the superstructure side) and was applied over dunkelgelb as per the pre-Aug 1944 orders or b) the crew changed the camo in the field vs. what they received from factory (seems dubious to me).
As to the wheels in the first shot, my guess is that they are the same red-brown as we see on the superstructure side. They don't show nearly the same level of contrast as we see on the fender with the paint worn away. It's really hard to say though because the entire lower hull from below the fenders all the way down seems to be the same color...so it could be primer that' had the paint degraded. The paint here seems a closer match to the "darker" RAL 8012 vs. what's showing through on the fenders...so the mystery deepens!
The clincher for me though is the final shot. Look closely at the color on the rod for holding the spare wheel vs. the base and the plate it's welded too. The rod has rex odixe primer exposed while the rest of the base and the plate is finished in RAL 8017 with some olivegrun thrown in too.
This leads me to believe that the paint scheme for this Stug didn't include primer, at least when it was captured. It's a field modification added by the crew vs. a factory mod yet it's incorporated into the overall vehicle scheme. That means that either a) the camo scheme we see is field-applied and not factory (would seem to be supported by the soft edges we see on the superstructure side) and was applied over dunkelgelb as per the pre-Aug 1944 orders or b) the crew changed the camo in the field vs. what they received from factory (seems dubious to me).
thedoog
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 263 posts
Armorama: 260 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 09:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You know, I really hadn't considered foot traffic and wear-and-tear to the paint finish on the exterior...and agree that the fender now looks as if it had camo at one time but sections of it have worn off. This one in particular would seem to support that...you can see camo pattern down on the edge but the horizontal surfaces where people would naturally walk around show primer.
Hmmm, I dont get that from it, Bill--the primer is far too uniform in appearance to have been worn off there-and it wouldn't have been worn on the sloping surface there on the front of the fender. What I was referring to was the actual top parts of the hull where it looks a metallic-gray or brown.
---------- As far as the wheels go, Bill--don't forget we're talking about an old camera, and the hue of the wheels is more due to the lack of light getting to them from the flash. It is entirely probable that had I photographed them as close as I had the fender, that they might have been the very same color?
[/quote]
bizzychicken
Joined: September 06, 2008
KitMaker: 967 posts
Armorama: 842 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 09:45 AM UTC
[/quote]If I remember correctly, it was pretty hard to tell exactly what was what on the top half--the paint was quite degraded.
However--look at this side photo--you can see the standard tricolor bands! And look--are the wheels in "primer red" as well? It would seem so?!
What I find intresting about this photo is you can see the camo bands next to the national cross. The cross as not deteriorated and it looks like it has been painted on the Red oxide. If the cross had been painted on one of the camo colours and they hand worn off, surely the cross would have come off too. To me this shows that patches of red oxide were left, and the cross has been painted on one of these spots. What do you lot think about that. Geraint
However--look at this side photo--you can see the standard tricolor bands! And look--are the wheels in "primer red" as well? It would seem so?!
What I find intresting about this photo is you can see the camo bands next to the national cross. The cross as not deteriorated and it looks like it has been painted on the Red oxide. If the cross had been painted on one of the camo colours and they hand worn off, surely the cross would have come off too. To me this shows that patches of red oxide were left, and the cross has been painted on one of these spots. What do you lot think about that. Geraint
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 09:57 AM UTC
I'm going through a lot of pictures of the Boxer MRAV at the moment, and these new vehicles are painted in NATO tri-colour camo. In some pictures the difference between NATO brown and NATO green is very clear, in other pictures it is virtually impossible to make out. This can even be the case when viewing the same spot, but from a different angle. The light circumstances play a big role to. To use any photograph to determine the 'exact' shade of a colour is quite frankly impossible. To many factors influence what the colour looks like on the viewing media (photo, screen, book page). When this is a problem for new, modern vehicles, where we can be certain of the colours used, than it is impossible to do this with 60-70 year old B&W photos.
There are a few facts that we can be certain of:
*German documentation gives the intended use of colours...
it is more likely that these instructions would have been followed, rather than that the factories made up their own 'pretty' camo schemes.
*German documentation gives the dates when these colours were to be used...
*Paint would have been effected by the environment right from the moment they left the factory. Dust, mud, rain, and general wear and tear change the appearance markedly. Dust especially will make a vehicle look very different.
There are more 'facts' that are perceived to be gospel, but are they?
*Germans being Germans, these instructions would have been followed...
A fair assumption, but it does not factor in the use of forced foreign labour, Friday afternoon shifts, unavailability of a batch of paint, a rushed job due to a deadline, etc... later in the war the availability of raw materials (like pigments) was becoming increasingly haphazard. If you use less pigment in a batch, to save you supply, your paint will be lighter.
Original paint examples that have survived show the true colour...
Not unless the vehicle, or equipment, was immediately stored in a temperature and humidity controlled pitch black room. Light, and the environment, will change paint. Even those that have been stuck in a peat bog for 65 years. Any vehicle that has spend any time in a museum must be observed with suspicion. Only recently have museums understood, and acted on, the importance to try and preserve the original finish (no matter how badly survived), rather than re-painting in a 'authentic' finish. Again, using photographs of preserved vehicles is far from accurate.
As for the above examples of the StuG, the wear and tear looks considerable to me, so it will be difficult to determine what is original, and in which order any paint was applied. Was it a time served vehicle? It may well have had replacement parts added in the field. Other repairs may have been made, and over painted. This paint may well have been painted OVER an original Dunkelgelb coat, giving the impression that it was mean to be a camouflage. Again, to try and determine these facts from photos of photos, which are not of a great quality to begin with (understandable, considering the circumstances ), is next to impossible.
Despite this, it is highly enjoyable to pour over these photographs, and to discuss what might have been. But they won't give you a definitive answer.
Very interesting discussion. Perhaps we could do a similar thread on the use, or not, of the two tone Panzergrau/ Dunkelbraun (ratio 2:1 ) during the early campaigns of 1940... Fall Gelb, Fall Rot...
Henk
There are a few facts that we can be certain of:
*German documentation gives the intended use of colours...
it is more likely that these instructions would have been followed, rather than that the factories made up their own 'pretty' camo schemes.
*German documentation gives the dates when these colours were to be used...
*Paint would have been effected by the environment right from the moment they left the factory. Dust, mud, rain, and general wear and tear change the appearance markedly. Dust especially will make a vehicle look very different.
There are more 'facts' that are perceived to be gospel, but are they?
*Germans being Germans, these instructions would have been followed...
A fair assumption, but it does not factor in the use of forced foreign labour, Friday afternoon shifts, unavailability of a batch of paint, a rushed job due to a deadline, etc... later in the war the availability of raw materials (like pigments) was becoming increasingly haphazard. If you use less pigment in a batch, to save you supply, your paint will be lighter.
Original paint examples that have survived show the true colour...
Not unless the vehicle, or equipment, was immediately stored in a temperature and humidity controlled pitch black room. Light, and the environment, will change paint. Even those that have been stuck in a peat bog for 65 years. Any vehicle that has spend any time in a museum must be observed with suspicion. Only recently have museums understood, and acted on, the importance to try and preserve the original finish (no matter how badly survived), rather than re-painting in a 'authentic' finish. Again, using photographs of preserved vehicles is far from accurate.
As for the above examples of the StuG, the wear and tear looks considerable to me, so it will be difficult to determine what is original, and in which order any paint was applied. Was it a time served vehicle? It may well have had replacement parts added in the field. Other repairs may have been made, and over painted. This paint may well have been painted OVER an original Dunkelgelb coat, giving the impression that it was mean to be a camouflage. Again, to try and determine these facts from photos of photos, which are not of a great quality to begin with (understandable, considering the circumstances
), is next to impossible.Despite this, it is highly enjoyable to pour over these photographs, and to discuss what might have been. But they won't give you a definitive answer.
Very interesting discussion. Perhaps we could do a similar thread on the use, or not, of the two tone Panzergrau/ Dunkelbraun (ratio 2:1 ) during the early campaigns of 1940... Fall Gelb, Fall Rot...
Henk
Henk
Joined: August 07, 2004
KitMaker: 6,391 posts
Armorama: 4,258 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 10:02 AM UTC
Hmm, just thought of a title for that...:
To two tone, or not to two tone...
To two tone, or not to two tone...
JPTRR
Managing Editor
#051
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 10:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
At the danger of getting shot at by those whose library and knowledge is (much) greater than my own...
Great thread and yes, my personal 'Jury' is still very much out....
Well said, Jim. Great thread.
Concerning the difficulty in divining actual colors from B/W photos, it has been well documented by the Smithsonian's Dana Bell, et al., that some B/W film would make yellow look darker than and actual darker color. Then there is this excellent research article: Bellman, The Story of a Stuart
The model railroad community has a cry, "That ain't prototypical! ," meaning something modeled was not done in real life. Well, one model railroad magazine had (has(?)) a monthly feature That Ain't Prototypic!, in which they document a real life example of something supposedly never done.
Now, I am not the type that likes to use a fluke or blip to justify widespread adaption of of a rare practice, but what this example has painfully taught me (like when a new book's photos shot down my long held belief that no Jagdtigers ever wore zimmerit) is that eventually, today's experts could be found to be mistaken. With hat in mind, I try to model as accurately and authentically as able with the best information possible...and not get torqued outta shape when someone shows me there is another way.Oh, most important---have fun!!!
JPTRR
Managing Editor#051
Joined: December 21, 2002
KitMaker: 7,772 posts
Armorama: 2,447 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 10:46 AM UTC
Oh yes, some excellent pics of preserved Finnish panzers. Note the heavily weathered rotoxide, vs the indoor examples
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 10:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Despite this, it is highly enjoyable to pour over these photographs, and to discuss what might have been. But they won't give you a definitive answer.
Very interesting discussion. Perhaps we could do a similar thread on the use, or not, of the two tone Panzergrau/ Dunkelbraun (ratio 2:1 ) during the early campaigns of 1940... Fall Gelb, Fall Rot...
I agree Henk, part of the enjoyment of these types of discussions (providing they remain civil as this one has for the most part
) is not that a dogma is being preached to the unwilling but that possibility is indeed being discussed...and that's healthy as more information inevitably comes forth and the thought of what's "accepted" can change. I wish we saw more of these types of discussions go on, I for one have been learning and re-examining some of my held assumptions based on this thread and the information presented.
As far as the two-tone early war scheme, a separate thread for that would indeed be interesting...although I think there's more photographic evidence available now to support that it indeed was in use vs. otherwise (see Panzerwaffe Vol 1 and 2).
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 01:46 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Oh yes, some excellent pics of preserved Finnish panzers. Note the heavily weathered rotoxide, vs the indoor examples
Those examples would seem to put to rest any doubt about the brighter shade of red oxide, thanks for the link Fred! Makes me wonder why the Akfrikakorps site has the RAL chip showing it as substantially darker, it seems like that interpretation is an outlier vs. the real deal.
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 07, 2008 - 11:43 PM UTC
I think concering the outside Finnish Stug, the fact it was dug in also plays a key part in how the paint deteriorates. Same about vehicles pulled out of marshes and swamps, not every swamp preserves the same, sometimes the content of the mudd and such even attacks paints much more aggressive than another.
Still, being both the same primer, the differences are very clear, but it also must be said, that the interior Stug shows the primer as bright red, and I personally think, any crew getting their Tiger-B showing 1/3 of it covered in bright red, would at least raise their eyebrows.
[edit]
Something I just remembered going over the pics again and looking at the markings.
It is a fact that units had to get exemption in order to use red in their unit-logos which they put on their vehicles. Unit logos colors standard allowed were white, black and yellow. Red was not an authorized color.
Now, if that is a fact, that even such a small area of a unit-emblem must be requested at high command to be used, how is it possible that an order can be given, to use bright red Rot Oxid primer as one of 3 camouflage colors?
Still, being both the same primer, the differences are very clear, but it also must be said, that the interior Stug shows the primer as bright red, and I personally think, any crew getting their Tiger-B showing 1/3 of it covered in bright red, would at least raise their eyebrows.
[edit]
Something I just remembered going over the pics again and looking at the markings.
It is a fact that units had to get exemption in order to use red in their unit-logos which they put on their vehicles. Unit logos colors standard allowed were white, black and yellow. Red was not an authorized color.
Now, if that is a fact, that even such a small area of a unit-emblem must be requested at high command to be used, how is it possible that an order can be given, to use bright red Rot Oxid primer as one of 3 camouflage colors?
thedoog
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 263 posts
Armorama: 260 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 01:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
...how is it possible that an order can be given, to use bright red Rot Oxid primer as one of 3 camouflage colors?
I agree that that is indeed a conundrum, Herbert, but...painting names was also forbidden, and yet we have numerous examples of that.
If this indeed was a Volksturm unit (the unit has never been conclusively identified) then it could have been a unit to which the "rules" were simply disregarded out of contempt, ignorance, or sheer convenience?
My guess is that the red of the actual markings is simply the same paint that certain vehicles used for their numbers proper--but still, the paint visible on the fenders of the Fort Knox is curious, don't you think? That red is just as bright in the photo as the interior red, don't you think?
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 03:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text...how is it possible that an order can be given, to use bright red Rot Oxid primer as one of 3 camouflage colors?
I agree that that is indeed a conundrum, Herbert, but...painting names was also forbidden, and yet we have numerous examples of that.
If this indeed was a Volksturm unit (the unit has never been conclusively identified) then it could have been a unit to which the "rules" were simply disregarded out of contempt, ignorance, or sheer convenience?
My guess is that the red of the actual markings is simply the same paint that certain vehicles used for their numbers proper--but still, the paint visible on the fenders of the Fort Knox is curious, don't you think? That red is just as bright in the photo as the interior red, don't you think?
I would tend to agree that the red in the insignia is a different/separate color from the red oxide and was likely applied by hand and stencil. The outine remnant on the front hull in particular is very curious...it looks to have only been partially applied and there's definitely dunkelgelb and even a small amount of olive green inside the remnant of the outline...makes me wonder that perhaps this insignia may not actually be a real one? Why would it have a complete insignia on the rear but only the outline on the front? Another mystery...
As far as the red on the fender, I'm still not convinced the exposed primer that we are seeing is deliberately part of the scheme. Except for the red X over the original German railroad stencil mark, there aren't any large patches of red primer in the scheme like you see with the superstructure side. That side clearly shows the standard three tone scheme being used with wide patches of the standard three colors...so if red oxide were included in the scheme this would make it a four tone scheme...and so far as I'm aware, that type of scheme wasn't used on StuGs? All the photos I've ever seen show three tones only that could be made out.
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 06:09 AM UTC
Are we missing my point?
If it is not permitted to use red in a divisional emblem, unless your unit gets exemption, does that not immediately make clear that the use of the color RED on military vehicles was deemed "A VERY BAD THING" by those who made the rules concerning the german mechanized forces, because it would be extremely well noticable on the battlefield?
And these same people would give an order to have all their armoured forces be sent out to fight in a camo scheme incorporating 1/3 a finish in bright red Rot Oxid primer?
We can SEE the Rot Oxid primer back then was a very BRIGHT RED color, and we KNOW from orders and directives that the use of red even in tiny areas as emblems was a big deal to get an okay for, this should be a no brainer to say, that Rot Oxid was out of the question as a camo color.
If it is not permitted to use red in a divisional emblem, unless your unit gets exemption, does that not immediately make clear that the use of the color RED on military vehicles was deemed "A VERY BAD THING" by those who made the rules concerning the german mechanized forces, because it would be extremely well noticable on the battlefield?
And these same people would give an order to have all their armoured forces be sent out to fight in a camo scheme incorporating 1/3 a finish in bright red Rot Oxid primer?
We can SEE the Rot Oxid primer back then was a very BRIGHT RED color, and we KNOW from orders and directives that the use of red even in tiny areas as emblems was a big deal to get an okay for, this should be a no brainer to say, that Rot Oxid was out of the question as a camo color.
thedoog
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 263 posts
Armorama: 260 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 06:23 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Are we missing my point?
this should be a no brainer to say, that Rot Oxid was out of the question as a camo color.
Well, If you think so, Herbert, but with all due respect, I trust my eyes on this one. There's red on that thar Stug, and it is either the "numbers" red, or it's "primer" red.
Whether or not it was "out-of-the-question" matters little, IMHO. Did you miss my point about the naming of tanks as well? Many examples exist of "named" tanks as well. With all due sincere respect, you do indeed make a compelling argument against the utilization of such a scheme, but that is only an opinion, in the end, and I would argue that the paint on this StuG "paints a different picture", if you'll pardon the pun?
The Volksgrenadier units were filled with all sorts of rabble, and young kids, old men, prisoners, etc, who I could very well imagine didn't give a damn about what the strutting peacocks said about their durned rules!
In all seriousness, I don't think anyone can be too dogmatic on this--I'm reading the newest volume of "Panzerwrecks" right now, and there is photograph is evidence of all sorts of things that many modelers would say were "out of the question".
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 07:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAre we missing my point?
this should be a no brainer to say, that Rot Oxid was out of the question as a camo color.
Well, If you think so, Herbert, but with all due respect, I trust my eyes on this one. There's red on that thar Stug, and it is either the "numbers" red, or it's "primer" red.
Whether or not it was "out-of-the-question" matters little, IMHO. Did you miss my point about the naming of tanks as well? Many examples exist of "named" tanks as well. With all due sincere respect, you do indeed make a compelling argument against the utilization of such a scheme, but that is only an opinion, in the end, and I would argue that the paint on this StuG "paints a different picture", if you'll pardon the pun?
There's an important distinction to be maintained here in the ongoing discussion...we are not talking about individual deviations such as tank names or unit insignias, we are talking about standardized factory orders with a broad application as it relates to the factories creating a scheme that utilized 1/3 primer. To that extent, Herbert's inference is a logical one to make in terms of broad generalizations of conditions even though there are individual exceptions to that rule as we well know by the example before us with the Stug (if indeed the unit insignia itself is legitimate).
Quoted Text
In all seriousness, I don't think anyone can be too dogmatic on this--I'm reading the newest volume of "Panzerwrecks" right now, and there is photograph is evidence of all sorts of things that many modelers would say were "out of the question".
That's the beauty of the field we model...both Allied and Axis have numerous cases where the "exception proves the rule" and the Panzerwrecks series present a lot of unique and interesting cases to ponder, no doubt there!
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 07:45 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAre we missing my point?
this should be a no brainer to say, that Rot Oxid was out of the question as a camo color.
Well, If you think so, Herbert, but with all due respect, I trust my eyes on this one. There's red on that thar Stug, and it is either the "numbers" red, or it's "primer" red.
Whether or not it was "out-of-the-question" matters little, IMHO. Did you miss my point about the naming of tanks as well? Many examples exist of "named" tanks as well. With all due sincere respect, you do indeed make a compelling argument against the utilization of such a scheme, but that is only an opinion, in the end, and I would argue that the paint on this StuG "paints a different picture", if you'll pardon the pun?
The Volksgrenadier units were filled with all sorts of rabble, and young kids, old men, prisoners, etc, who I could very well imagine didn't give a damn about what the strutting peacocks said about their durned rules!
In all seriousness, I don't think anyone can be too dogmatic on this--I'm reading the newest volume of "Panzerwrecks" right now, and there is photograph is evidence of all sorts of things that many modelers would say were "out of the question".
That may indeed be true, at the end, Volksgrenadier units being fielded with what ever was at hand.
But that is also completely ignoring the time frame of the Rot Oxid order, mid September 1944 to 20 December 1944, so a month of 4-5 before anything haphazard comes into play.
At the end of 1944, Germany was fighting a losing war, no doubt, but far from it being chaotic of haphazard, nor were they throwing anything together.
And yes, the picture shows Rot Oxid on that particular Stug. But what DEFINITVE info do we have of that vehicle.
When was the vehicle assembled, when was the armour forged? What was it's combat history, which unit used it, when was it lost/captured/surrendered?
What we have is, in my humble opinion, just A Stug in a museum, photographed in the 50's/60's? We have little to go by with this one, the fact that there is Dunkel Gelb OBVIOUSLY painted ON the Rot Oxid, and also what looks like Rot Braun, would suggest this Stug was fully covered in 3 tones of Dunkel Gelb, Rot Braun and Dunkel/Oliv Grün when it left the assemby area.
My knowledge of Stug production is nowhere near that what I know of the Panther and Tiger, the Topfblende with coax MG and Rundumfeuer AFAIK are rather late fittings, so could someone pinpoint when exactly this Stug could have been assembled?
bizzychicken
Joined: September 06, 2008
KitMaker: 967 posts
Armorama: 842 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 08:53 AM UTC
[/quote]We can SEE the Rot Oxid primer back then was a very BRIGHT RED color, and we KNOW from orders and directives that the use of red even in tiny areas as emblems was a big deal to get an okay for, this should be a no brainer to say, that Rot Oxid was out of the question as a camo color.[/quote] But do we think that some replacement parts where Red Oxide?
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 08:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
My knowledge of Stug production is nowhere near that what I know of the Panther and Tiger, the Topfblende with coax MG and Rundumfeuer AFAIK are rather late fittings, so could someone pinpoint when exactly this Stug could have been assembled?
Going off the known "Late/Final" features this Stug is sporting, we can deduce the following (short of a Fahrgestell number I can't help further):
1) No zimmerit...automatically places it as post-August 1944 at a minimum.
2) Rundumfeurer was added in April 1944...so that doesn't help
3) It has a Navherteidigungswaffe on the roof...these started to be mounted in May 1944...doesn't help any more either...
4) It has the travel lock added to the front which were first fitted in July of 1944...still no help
5) It has a coaxial MG in the Topfblende mantlet...these were first used in Oct. 1944.
6) It has a heavy duty tow bar which began to be fitted in late 1944, but date's aren't exact.
So, based on all these factors, it's most definitely a Late/Final StuG III G produced somehwere between Oct 1944 and the end of the war...providing of course that the Topfblende is the original and the tow bar wasn't added later on as a field mod...how's that for a "certain" answer?
I found some additional photos of the same StuG in Osprey's StuG Walkaround (posted for discussion purposes only)...and the vehicle looks much worse for wear in these photos vs. Karl's.
Aside from the fender and similarly worn areas, I still don't see red oxide incorporated into the scheme on this Stug. The colors on the rear superstructure show a clear three-tone of Dunkelgelb, Rotbraun, and Olivegrun with the Dunkelgelb being the least present of the three colors. Does that mean this StuG proves Red Oxide wasn't used at all in the camo scheme? No...it just proves to me that this particular StuG wasn't. Since we can't nail it down specifically to date of production, it could easily have been produced outside the timeframe of Oct-Dec 1944 due to the features it has when the orders would indicate Red Oxide was possible as part of the scheme.
thedoog
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 263 posts
Armorama: 260 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 09:14 AM UTC
Great new pics, Bill! I'm happy to see that they have not destroyed the origial paint scheme yet!
Herbert, you make a significant point about the existence of "one-off's" vs primer-as-policy. However, if some tanks were indeed painted with these bright red parts/camo, it would seem reasonable to me that other vehicles might exist with even more expansive or significant swatches of reds on them.
I'm not real versed on all the production points, but Bill has made a decent list there of the general layout...
Herbert, you make a significant point about the existence of "one-off's" vs primer-as-policy. However, if some tanks were indeed painted with these bright red parts/camo, it would seem reasonable to me that other vehicles might exist with even more expansive or significant swatches of reds on them.
I'm not real versed on all the production points, but Bill has made a decent list there of the general layout...
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 11:21 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Great new pics, Bill! I'm happy to see that they have not destroyed the origial paint scheme yet!
Herbert, you make a significant point about the existence of "one-off's" vs primer-as-policy. However, if some tanks were indeed painted with these bright red parts/camo, it would seem reasonable to me that other vehicles might exist with even more expansive or significant swatches of reds on them.
I'm not real versed on all the production points, but Bill has made a decent list there of the general layout...
The one thing on this Stug that really puzzles me is that red on the Balkenkreuz, it makes no sense at all. I can't imagine that the white would have deteriorated completely down to the primer, since than it should have also deteriorated the Dunkel Gelb inderneath.
As to one-offs, those do not neccesarily indicate that what makes them stand out, should logically be something to be found on others.
I know of a Panther-G with some Tiger-E steel wheels fitted, but that is only that single one seen so far.
I've seen a Panther-D with a Flak 43 (IIRC) 30mm gun mounted instead of the turret, but only that single one so far.
so that's why I'm interested in the history of this particular Stug III, why does it look the way it looks.
thedoog
Joined: May 14, 2007
KitMaker: 263 posts
Armorama: 260 posts
Posted: Monday, December 08, 2008 - 11:37 AM UTC
Herbert,
I think you're misreading the red of the Balkenkreuz; I would guess that it was deliberately painted in "numbers" paint of red, rather than it being a degradation--Bill's photo shows that it really was slopped on, IMO.
It s entirely possible that the white Balkenkreuz was deliberately painted on by museum staff as some sort of homogenizing aspect of this vehicle with what is the more commonly seen marking? Or maybe the red Bakenkreuz was some sort of "sub-unit marking" late in the war?
Alas, we'll probably never know?
I think you're misreading the red of the Balkenkreuz; I would guess that it was deliberately painted in "numbers" paint of red, rather than it being a degradation--Bill's photo shows that it really was slopped on, IMO.
It s entirely possible that the white Balkenkreuz was deliberately painted on by museum staff as some sort of homogenizing aspect of this vehicle with what is the more commonly seen marking? Or maybe the red Bakenkreuz was some sort of "sub-unit marking" late in the war?
Alas, we'll probably never know?
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.