This quite a strong debate on colours, after reading a few book ive come accross little imformation, IMO the only ones who would know are the veterans which some referances brush aside as unconvincing reminiscences of old men...
a third tone of Rotbraun is pluasible to a degree, the octopus camo couldve been added over the orgional three tone. but is unlikely. the Germans were masters of camoflage and as such a certain mystery of late war camo has sparked out. as nearly all the vehicles were scrapped by 1957. maybe hunting a scrap dealers family could help, as the last to see it they wouldve stripped the paint off then sold what was left to the highest bidder.
but i can see just 'dunkelgelb' and 'dunkelgrun' schemes for the open fields of poland and prussia but not a octopus, most intersting is the colur scheme on a BT 5 at moscow a image can be found in " WWII tank encyclopedia in colour" on the bottom of page 160. its trying to replicate fresh tank tracks in snow but what is octopus trying to replicate? to me i would stand out like a sore thumb in the open, or anywhere in gerneral.
Excuse the long post but the question stands for me whats octopus for?
cheers
Mat
Hosted by Darren Baker
KingTiger (Octopus scheme) colors?
Kastanova
Joined: May 10, 2008
KitMaker: 150 posts
Armorama: 135 posts
Posted: Friday, May 22, 2009 - 02:50 PM UTC
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 08:00 AM UTC
There is NO Rotbraun on the Octopus Tiger-B, simply because it IS NOT THERE! Proof exists in the color pic, which is in hands of the crew of PanzerWrecks.
Further, wether or not pigment was the reason for low levels of RotBraun I don't know for sure, but when coined in this thread it sounded extremely likely. Further, it seems different plants had different paint-problems. Demag is said to still be basecoating their vehicles in Dunkel Gelb, while paint schemes also exist of Oliv Grun and Rot Braun, so it seems that this differed per plant. Likewise where for instance MAN mounted a steel wheel, MNH never mounted chinned mantlets and Tiger-B's never were tested with Porsche suspension.
A couple of questions over the Octopus keep revolving around:
- Were there more?
- Where does the Swasitka come from?
- Is it the same Tiger-B?
The first, were there more? The answer given this one is from the last batch of 8 does tend to favor a maybe, without any certainty to yes or no. Although I would lean to a yes more than a no. Why? It would be silly for Henschel to decide to just do ONE of their contracted vehicles at the end in a new camouflage scheme. This particular camo scheme was not some idea Henschel dreamt up, but was an official new scheme ordered for July '45 with the admittance that any plant willing and able to implement it sooner, was free to do so.
So were all the other 7 than in Octo? Likely, my guess would be. Related question: were are those? Scrapped, perhaps they didn't make it as far as this particular one, or they were better demolished at the end by their crews. This one also has the gun in full recoil, thusly drained recuperators and one last shot. The others might all have been blown up.
Further, none of the pics are immediate post war, but are from a re-visit of the site by the crew. The other 7 might just have been in de vicinity still, but since those were not their Tiger-B they didn't photograph them. After that, in time all 8 were removed and scrapped.
Remember, you can still find wrecks in the Falaise pocket these days.
The Swastika on the glacis, it might have been added by GI's, as Panzerwrecks also has several wrecks which show Swastika's added AFTER the vehicle was lost. That said, at least ONE Panther-G, from Kampfgruppe Kaeter, had a large blue Swastika on the turret when it was in service. Some last ditch inspiration for the troops?
Another idea could be graffiti, after 9 years of standig there, some one might just have felt the urge to paste a big Swastika on it, who knows.
As to is this all one and the same vehicle, the definite answer is yes. Research using the pics plus the info given by the crew, thusly the history of the pics, all state this is their vehicle, and only their vehicle.
And I'm still puzlled by those flipped colors under the Schurzen, that's one thing I can't figure out.
I know the reason for the odd one out Schurze on one of the Steel Wheel Panther pics at the proving grounds, but there is not a single reason I can think of for how exact the colors are flipped on the Tiger-B.
Further, wether or not pigment was the reason for low levels of RotBraun I don't know for sure, but when coined in this thread it sounded extremely likely. Further, it seems different plants had different paint-problems. Demag is said to still be basecoating their vehicles in Dunkel Gelb, while paint schemes also exist of Oliv Grun and Rot Braun, so it seems that this differed per plant. Likewise where for instance MAN mounted a steel wheel, MNH never mounted chinned mantlets and Tiger-B's never were tested with Porsche suspension.
A couple of questions over the Octopus keep revolving around:
- Were there more?
- Where does the Swasitka come from?
- Is it the same Tiger-B?
The first, were there more? The answer given this one is from the last batch of 8 does tend to favor a maybe, without any certainty to yes or no. Although I would lean to a yes more than a no. Why? It would be silly for Henschel to decide to just do ONE of their contracted vehicles at the end in a new camouflage scheme. This particular camo scheme was not some idea Henschel dreamt up, but was an official new scheme ordered for July '45 with the admittance that any plant willing and able to implement it sooner, was free to do so.
So were all the other 7 than in Octo? Likely, my guess would be. Related question: were are those? Scrapped, perhaps they didn't make it as far as this particular one, or they were better demolished at the end by their crews. This one also has the gun in full recoil, thusly drained recuperators and one last shot. The others might all have been blown up.
Further, none of the pics are immediate post war, but are from a re-visit of the site by the crew. The other 7 might just have been in de vicinity still, but since those were not their Tiger-B they didn't photograph them. After that, in time all 8 were removed and scrapped.
Remember, you can still find wrecks in the Falaise pocket these days.
The Swastika on the glacis, it might have been added by GI's, as Panzerwrecks also has several wrecks which show Swastika's added AFTER the vehicle was lost. That said, at least ONE Panther-G, from Kampfgruppe Kaeter, had a large blue Swastika on the turret when it was in service. Some last ditch inspiration for the troops?
Another idea could be graffiti, after 9 years of standig there, some one might just have felt the urge to paste a big Swastika on it, who knows.
As to is this all one and the same vehicle, the definite answer is yes. Research using the pics plus the info given by the crew, thusly the history of the pics, all state this is their vehicle, and only their vehicle.
And I'm still puzlled by those flipped colors under the Schurzen, that's one thing I can't figure out.
I know the reason for the odd one out Schurze on one of the Steel Wheel Panther pics at the proving grounds, but there is not a single reason I can think of for how exact the colors are flipped on the Tiger-B.
vanhall
Joined: January 23, 2007
KitMaker: 406 posts
Armorama: 391 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 08:20 AM UTC
"This particular camo scheme was not some idea Henschel dreamt up, but was an official new scheme ordered for July '45 with the admittance that any plant willing and able to implement it sooner, was free to do so".
Hi Herbert,
This is interesting, is this scheme change documented anywhere?
Hi Herbert,
This is interesting, is this scheme change documented anywhere?
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 08:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
"This particular camo scheme was not some idea Henschel dreamt up, but was an official new scheme ordered for July '45 with the admittance that any plant willing and able to implement it sooner, was free to do so".
Hi Herbert,
This is interesting, is this scheme change documented anywhere?
VK-4502 to Tiger-II by Jentz has this in the section on camouflage painting.
vanhall
Joined: January 23, 2007
KitMaker: 406 posts
Armorama: 391 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 09:03 AM UTC
Ok thanks Herbert, I'll have to re-read that page again....and again and again... 
spitfire303
Joined: December 22, 2006
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,406 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 09:38 AM UTC
I don't like to disagree with Herbert as his knowledge is tremendous but... I don't go for the "more than one" Tiger B octopus Idea. Of course it could be true. We'll never know it. Personally I thin it's just one case.
Here's a picture of one of the last 13 Tigers B given to s.H.Pz.Abt.510 and 511 the 31/03/1945. You can clearly see a standard factory applied 3 tone ambush scheme
spit
Here's a picture of one of the last 13 Tigers B given to s.H.Pz.Abt.510 and 511 the 31/03/1945. You can clearly see a standard factory applied 3 tone ambush scheme
spit
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 10:59 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't like to disagree with Herbert as his knowledge is tremendous but... I don't go for the "more than one" Tiger B octopus Idea. Of course it could be true. We'll never know it. Personally I thin it's just one case.
Here's a picture of one of the last 13 Tigers B given to s.H.Pz.Abt.510 and 511 the 31/03/1945. You can clearly see a standard factory applied 3 tone ambush scheme
spit
I see what you're getting at, however, this particular one is NOT part of the last batch of 8, sent out to defend the Autobahn near Kassel.
And may I direct you to a pic of the Henschel plant, showing 2 Dunkel Gelb Panther-As and 1 SchwarzGrau Tiger-E being driven out to be inspected.
Thusly, switches in camo-finishes DID happen almost instanteneous.
Plus, given these Tiger-Bs were needed NOW, I just can't imagine anyone going all frolicky and saying, let's just do this one in that new scheme, we've got nothing else to do anymore.
Which kinda leads me to just wishing to see further Henschel plant pics of ANY Tiger-B left on the final assembly line, or better yet, painting stage. That would be very conclusive evidence one way or the other
vanhall
Joined: January 23, 2007
KitMaker: 406 posts
Armorama: 391 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 12:40 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't like to disagree with Herbert as his knowledge is tremendous but... I don't go for the "more than one" Tiger B octopus Idea. Of course it could be true. We'll never know it. Personally I thin it's just one case.
Here's a picture of one of the last 13 Tigers B given to s.H.Pz.Abt.510 and 511 the 31/03/1945. You can clearly see a standard factory applied 3 tone ambush scheme
spit
I don't know one way or other about more 'Octopus' schemes, but I do feel there was a two colour scheme being used 'at the end'.
The two very clear photos of sPzAbt 507 Tiger II's (at Osterode & Harste) do appear to be just finished olivgrün and dunkelgelb.
These Tigers were amongst 17 delivered between 22 and 31 March '45.
Plus, to be honest I can't make out 3 different tones in the above photo...
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 12:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted Text"This particular camo scheme was not some idea Henschel dreamt up, but was an official new scheme ordered for July '45 with the admittance that any plant willing and able to implement it sooner, was free to do so".
Hi Herbert,
This is interesting, is this scheme change documented anywhere?
VK-4502 to Tiger-II by Jentz has this in the section on camouflage painting.
And now I will reiterate again
, I think the section Herbert refers to is blurry at best concerning the "octopus" camo as the "official new scheme". For those of you who have the book, the section referred to can be found on page 138, section 6.3.4.5 Basecoat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003). Also of interest, just four pages further, on 142, there is a very clear photo of the Octo Tiger II. No where in the caption for this tank does Jentz mention that this is an example of the "new" camo scheme. If this was the case, I would think he would have said so in the caption.I also agree with Spit, about there only being one Octo Tiger II. We have at least 9 photos of this one Tiger (and yes they are all of the same tank). It was apparently a popular photo spot. One reason may have been because it wasn't too far off the road and so was easy to get to. Another, IMHO, was because of it's unique camo scheme. You would think if there were more then they too would have been photoed, but at least to date no other pics have surfaced. So again, for me, there can be only one.......Highlander (apologies to JB
). My own hypothesis, (and I will point out that is all it is
) the crews for these last Tigers picked up the tanks directly from the factory. I would imagine the factory workers were in quite a rush to try and get them finished before the crews arrived. Perhaps they didn't get to the camo scheme on this one, and instead of sending out an all dunkelgruen tank, they and/or the crew grabbed the paint that was closest to hand and painted the scheme on just to help break up the shape of the tank then drove off. Hey I did say it was only a hypothesis . Whatever the case guys, I encourage you to read the material yourselves and make up you own minds. Personally I would still like to talk to Mr. Jentz about this, or better yet, see the original documents (right, like that will ever happen!!
).Best,
Mike
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 01:17 PM UTC
Well Herbert and Grant were busy typing and posting while I was just typing .
Herbert, the Pics of the Panther A and Tiger I were from earlier in the war, things weren't even near to being as hectic as they were at the end. I'm sorry but from my point of view that has little to no bearing on this discussion.
I would say since these Tiger II's were needed NOW, (the factory workers very likely would have been able to hear artillery fire in the distance?) that what I described earlier may have been almost exactly what happened. Not that they said "Oh let's do this, it will be fun" but as I said in the previous post, they did it because they didn't have time to apply the standard scheme.
If only!!!
Later guys,
Mike
.Quoted Text
And may I direct you to a pic of the Henschel plant, showing 2 Dunkel Gelb Panther-As and 1 SchwarzGrau Tiger-E being driven out to be inspected.
Thusly, switches in camo-finishes DID happen almost instanteneous.
Herbert, the Pics of the Panther A and Tiger I were from earlier in the war, things weren't even near to being as hectic as they were at the end. I'm sorry but from my point of view that has little to no bearing on this discussion.
Quoted Text
Plus, given these Tiger-Bs were needed NOW, I just can't imagine anyone going all frolicky and saying, let's just do this one in that new scheme, we've got nothing else to do anymore
I would say since these Tiger II's were needed NOW, (the factory workers very likely would have been able to hear artillery fire in the distance?) that what I described earlier may have been almost exactly what happened. Not that they said "Oh let's do this, it will be fun"
but as I said in the previous post, they did it because they didn't have time to apply the standard scheme.Quoted Text
Which kinda leads me to just wishing to see further Henschel plant pics of ANY Tiger-B left on the final assembly line, or better yet, painting stage. That would be very conclusive evidence one way or the other
If only!!!
Later guys,
Mike
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 01:26 PM UTC
Okay, then explain why IF this scheme was applied hurry-hurry, they also took the time to HANDPAINT the Oliv Grun spots?
If I was not going to really bother too much about how the scheme looked, I would've said after I unclenched the spraygun, looked over the DUNKEL GELB added paintareas, which for some odd reason, now are completely different than ALL those other ones before and don't even resemble the slightest bit, while a tank before, apparently we did do... that I should go out, get Oliv Grun, in a can, get a brush and put on those spots and dots.
Also, if my plant were under fire or I could at least expect to have nasty bits hurled at me in a couple of days/hours, I wouldn't even care AT ALL if the tank was painted with additional camo over the basecoat, no, screw that, just get that 88mm gun out there at start throwing nasty bits back.
See my point? The Octo-scheme isn't something hastily put on, especially the spots are a very large break from any of the prior tanks, since they are not the small specks as seen on previous Hinterhalt (ambush) schemes.
If I was not going to really bother too much about how the scheme looked, I would've said after I unclenched the spraygun, looked over the DUNKEL GELB added paintareas, which for some odd reason, now are completely different than ALL those other ones before and don't even resemble the slightest bit, while a tank before, apparently we did do... that I should go out, get Oliv Grun, in a can, get a brush and put on those spots and dots.
Also, if my plant were under fire or I could at least expect to have nasty bits hurled at me in a couple of days/hours, I wouldn't even care AT ALL if the tank was painted with additional camo over the basecoat, no, screw that, just get that 88mm gun out there at start throwing nasty bits back.
See my point? The Octo-scheme isn't something hastily put on, especially the spots are a very large break from any of the prior tanks, since they are not the small specks as seen on previous Hinterhalt (ambush) schemes.
crnfrd
Joined: May 30, 2008
KitMaker: 22 posts
Armorama: 21 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 01:34 PM UTC
Could you say exactly where in VK 45.02 to Tiger II Jentz says that the "octopussy" camo scheme was pursuant to orders? Section/page number? Thanks.
And for those who keep asking, the modelers' slang name comes from the resemblance of the yellow stripes with small circles to tentacles with suckers, and of course the old Bond movie.
And for those who keep asking, the modelers' slang name comes from the resemblance of the yellow stripes with small circles to tentacles with suckers, and of course the old Bond movie.
spitfire303
Joined: December 22, 2006
KitMaker: 1,437 posts
Armorama: 1,406 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 01:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI don't like to disagree with Herbert as his knowledge is tremendous but... I don't go for the "more than one" Tiger B octopus Idea. Of course it could be true. We'll never know it. Personally I thin it's just one case.
Here's a picture of one of the last 13 Tigers B given to s.H.Pz.Abt.510 and 511 the 31/03/1945. You can clearly see a standard factory applied 3 tone ambush scheme
spit
I don't know one way or other about more 'Octopus' schemes, but I do feel there was a two colour scheme being used 'at the end'.
The two very clear photos of sPzAbt 507 Tiger II's (at Osterode & Harste) do appear to be just finished olivgrün and dunkelgelb.
These Tigers were amongst 17 delivered between 22 and 31 March '45.
Plus, to be honest I can't make out 3 different tones in the above photo...
Could you post the pictures you're talking about please? I would be very interested. IMHO there was no (apart the octopus) 2 tone late King Tiger (with factory applied camo scheme). If you refer to this picture:
It's just Russian imagination
Of course we can't clearly see that on the picture I posted before there is a 3 tone scheme. It's the problem of B&W pictures, dust, dirt etc. But believe this one is 3 tone. It has the standard factory scheme. This is the left side on two different tanks
and this is the right side
you see the same pattern (even if the colours may have been switched between some zones)
spit
alanmac
Joined: February 25, 2007
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,953 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 02:04 PM UTC
Maybe the tank which has been photographed and discussed here and which seems to be the only one in existence, was the prototype example they had painted up to see how the scheme should look and be applied.
That might also explain the change in paint pattern application people have mentioned. Maybe they started to apply it one way and decided that the reverse was better/right
Possibly as it sat waiting for confirmation and approval the call went out for any available tanks to be made ready and this along with others finished in the normal way were the last to roll out the door before the Allies swept through.
Alan
That might also explain the change in paint pattern application people have mentioned. Maybe they started to apply it one way and decided that the reverse was better/right
Possibly as it sat waiting for confirmation and approval the call went out for any available tanks to be made ready and this along with others finished in the normal way were the last to roll out the door before the Allies swept through.
Alan
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 04:18 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Okay, then explain why IF this scheme was applied hurry-hurry, they also took the time to HANDPAINT the Oliv Grun spots?
If I was not going to really bother too much about how the scheme looked, I would've said after I unclenched the spraygun, looked over the DUNKEL GELB added paintareas, which for some odd reason, now are completely different than ALL those other ones before and don't even resemble the slightest bit, while a tank before, apparently we did do... that I should go out, get Oliv Grun, in a can, get a brush and put on those spots and dots.
Also, if my plant were under fire or I could at least expect to have nasty bits hurled at me in a couple of days/hours, I wouldn't even care AT ALL if the tank was painted with additional camo over the basecoat, no, screw that, just get that 88mm gun out there at start throwing nasty bits back.
See my point? The Octo-scheme isn't something hastily put on, especially the spots are a very large break from any of the prior tanks, since they are not the small specks as seen on previous Hinterhalt (ambush) schemes.
Sorry Herbert but no, I don't see your point, I think just the opposite. To me looking at the various pics of the "octo" Tiger II it looks like the paint has been applied very quickly, and sloppily. Especially when it is compared to the standard three tone scheme seen on Tiger II's from the fall of '44 up until the very end.
Why, if this was to be the new standard camo scheme, are there no documented examples of it to be found anywhere else? You would think if the factories had been directed to start using it, then surely more than one tank would have made it out and been seen and/or photoed. Do you see my point?
The two tone I can buy, as it was seen on at least a few other tanks (Panthers most notably, though as Spit points out, only the one Tiger II), but I'm still not ready to accept that the "octopus" scheme was to be next in line. Yeah I know, I'm stubborn, my wife tells me quite often
Quoted Text
Could you say exactly where in VK 45.02 to Tiger II Jentz says that the "octopussy" camo scheme was pursuant to orders? Section/page number? Thanks.
Cran, the passage Herbert sites that leads him to his conclusion is found on page 138, section 6.3.4.5 Basecoat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003).
Mike
crnfrd
Joined: May 30, 2008
KitMaker: 22 posts
Armorama: 21 posts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009 - 08:07 AM UTC
Thanks, Mike. The 11/44 duenkelgruen-basecoat order is general, of course, and doesn't specify any pattern. Jentz cites what must be the color photo of "Octopussy" as an example of green basecoat with dark yellow features. Nowhere does he suggest that the features unique to this T II's camo were part of the 11/44 orders or any other general directive. If all anyone's claiming is that "O" is an example of a T II with dark green basecoat, and that it's the best example because of the color postwar photo, well, Jentz agrees. If anyone's trying to say that there's some documentary evidence that the octopus pattern was done pursuant to written orders specifying the pattern, and that the 11/44 orders as cited at the Jentz passage somehow include a directive to paint features such as the tentacles/suckers and the left-side checkerboard, I'm sorry, that's just not supported.
As we know, most T IIs from fall '44 on had closely similar camo patterns that were painted using at least drawings and perhaps stencils. I've always thought of O as an extreme late-war case of an expedient departure from pattern use. I've always thought that the "suckers" were an expedient and quick departure from "ambush" camo dots, which of course were standard on the original T II factory camo. I'm far from sure all the components are green, e.g., the roadwheels.
I think it might be really interesting to examine the color photo, or even the b/w copies if that's what they are, in light of recent discussions of the color footage of Jagdpanther 823/PR 130 (the best one's over at the Schwerpunkt dg) and the color postwar photos of assembly plants that show everything but green basecoat.
As we know, most T IIs from fall '44 on had closely similar camo patterns that were painted using at least drawings and perhaps stencils. I've always thought of O as an extreme late-war case of an expedient departure from pattern use. I've always thought that the "suckers" were an expedient and quick departure from "ambush" camo dots, which of course were standard on the original T II factory camo. I'm far from sure all the components are green, e.g., the roadwheels.
I think it might be really interesting to examine the color photo, or even the b/w copies if that's what they are, in light of recent discussions of the color footage of Jagdpanther 823/PR 130 (the best one's over at the Schwerpunkt dg) and the color postwar photos of assembly plants that show everything but green basecoat.
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009 - 08:57 AM UTC
As is said in VK45.02 to Tiger II in section 6.3.4.5. that a further directive given on 23 January 1945, which expands on the orders given on 29-11-44.
Now which camouflage pattern is he referring to here? Obvious to me, the pattern slated for 1 June 1945.
What color photograph is he refering to? That should be a real complete no-brainer.
Quoted Text
(Point) 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 base coat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003) paint upon which thin, wandering stripes and spots of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) paint had been sprayed to create the camouflage pattern.
Now which camouflage pattern is he referring to here? Obvious to me, the pattern slated for 1 June 1945.
What color photograph is he refering to? That should be a real complete no-brainer.
vanhall
Joined: January 23, 2007
KitMaker: 406 posts
Armorama: 391 posts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009 - 10:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I don't know one way or other about more 'Octopus' schemes, but I do feel there was a two colour scheme being used 'at the end'.
The two very clear photos of sPzAbt 507 Tiger II's (at Osterode & Harste) do appear to be just finished olivgrün and dunkelgelb.
These Tigers were amongst 17 delivered between 22 and 31 March '45.
Plus, to be honest I can't make out 3 different tones in the above photo...
Quoted Text
...Could you post the pictures you're talking about please? I would be very interested. IMHO there was no (apart the octopus) 2 tone late King Tiger (with factory applied camo scheme). If you refer to this picture:
Of course we can't clearly see that on the picture I posted before there is a 3 tone scheme. It's the problem of B&W pictures, dust, dirt etc. But believe this one is 3 tone. It has the standard factory scheme. This is the left side on two different tanks
spit
Hi Spit,
Yes I can see the 3different tones on the photos you posted. The two photos I refer to can be see in many sources. I have the images in 'Germany's Tiger tanks: Combat tactics' both page 123...
& one of the images in 'Germany's Tiger tanks:V45.02 to Tiger II' page 131...
But the best reproduction of the images I seen are in 'Germany's Tiger tanks: Tigers at the front' ; this is a low quality copy of the Osterode 507 Tiger II from page 195:
caption;
"..One of the 21 Tiger II taken into action by sPzAbt507 at the end of March 1945. This Tiger II recieved a base coat of Olivgruen RAL 6003 paint at Henschel, with Dunkelgelb 7028 sparsely applied in dots and swirls to create a camouflage pattern"
..and this image covers two pages, 198 + 199, 507 Tiger II Harste:
The caption is basically the same so I'll shorten it;
"Tiger II..507....completed at Henschel in March 1945...also recieved a base coat of Olivgruen.. with Dunkelgelb sparsely applied in dots and swirls..."
Jentz's refers this two camo scheme several times (I haven't counted) within these 3 books and as we know he doesn't guess or assume anything.
It's my own opinion that the German's were well aware of the ineffectiveness of colour over a certain distance and 'light and shadow' camo's were the way to go.
Again, only my own opinion..
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009 - 11:16 AM UTC
That first Tiger-B features in PanzerWrecks 5 with several different angled pics, and it clearly has a standard Hinterhalt scheme with small spots, and 3-tone, definitly NOT Dunkelgruen with wandering Dunkelgelb.
The second one also has the standard 3-tone Hinterhalt scheme, as clearly seen on the turretside.
The second one also has the standard 3-tone Hinterhalt scheme, as clearly seen on the turretside.
Kelley
Joined: November 21, 2002
KitMaker: 1,966 posts
Armorama: 1,635 posts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009 - 02:10 PM UTC
Quoted Text
As is said in VK45.02 to Tiger II in section 6.3.4.5. that a further directive given on 23 January 1945, which expands on the orders given on 29-11-44.Quoted Text
(Point) 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 base coat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003) paint upon which thin, wandering stripes and spots of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) paint had been sprayed to create the camouflage pattern.
Now which camouflage pattern is he referring to here? Obvious to me, the pattern slated for 1 June 1945.
What color photograph is he refering to? That should be a real complete no-brainer.
Ok Herbert, something here doesn't jive. NOWHERE in my copy of "VK45.02 to Tiger II" can I find this quote: " As is evident in a color photograph, at least one Tiger II completed by Henschel in March 1945 was completely covered with a base coat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003) paint upon which thin, wandering stripes and spots of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) paint had been sprayed to create the camouflage pattern." The first part yes but not the passage I highlighted in bold print. Now before you or anyone else gets all worked up, I'm not accusing you of putting words where they are not, but if your copy says that and my copy (and others apparently from Cran's post) does not, then somewhere along the line Mr. Jentz may have changed something?? Again, I would like to speak with him about this passage, but in my experience he doesn't answer e-mails from just anyone, so it may come down to trying to speak with him at a future AMPS National (where he has done seminars in the past) and who knows when that will happen again. Oh well, it does make for some interesting discussion, at least for me
.Mike
crnfrd
Joined: May 30, 2008
KitMaker: 22 posts
Armorama: 21 posts
Posted: Monday, May 25, 2009 - 02:15 PM UTC
"No-brainer," huh? There's no, repeat, no evidence in the 1/45 order cited of any "new camouflage scheme" beyond the use of green basecoat with dark yellow and red-brown camo. It's not there. There is no, repeat, no evidence that the "octopus" pattern was pursuant to any written orders. If there was a specific pattern mandated (a position not supported by the text cited), comparable to the earlier T II pattern, there is no, repeat, no evidence that it was the octopus pattern. Manners forbid my characterizing the quality of your analysis. Have a nice day.
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 02:11 AM UTC
I re-quote:
This EXPLICITLY states that a new painting order was given in January to change the camo-scheme from June 1st onwards, and that it was welcome for companies to implement this prior to this date,
Subsequently, the quote
Directly relates to that new camouflage scheme.
Kelley, these are the details of my copy of VK 45.02 to Tiger II:
Library of congress catalog number: 97-67431
ISBN: 0-7643-0224-8
The quote about the color photograph is on page 139 in my book, above the picture of Fgstn2. 280006.
Quoted Text
(Point) 4: Of course, as far as it is possible, companies should already convert to the new camouflage paint scheme prior to 1 June 1945.
This EXPLICITLY states that a new painting order was given in January to change the camo-scheme from June 1st onwards, and that it was welcome for companies to implement this prior to this date,
Subsequently, the quote
Quoted Text
As is evident in a color photograph, at least one Tiger II completed by Henschel in March 1945 was completely covered with a base coat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003) paint upon which thin, wandering stripes and spots of Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) paint had been sprayed to create the camouflage pattern.
Directly relates to that new camouflage scheme.
Kelley, these are the details of my copy of VK 45.02 to Tiger II:
Library of congress catalog number: 97-67431
ISBN: 0-7643-0224-8
The quote about the color photograph is on page 139 in my book, above the picture of Fgstn2. 280006.
wbill76
Joined: May 02, 2006
KitMaker: 5,425 posts
Armorama: 4,659 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 03:44 AM UTC
Herbert,
Would you be able to scan or report the info on the inside cover of your copy? Since your edition has different/additional wording vs. the copies that Mike and Cran have, I'm wondering if this might be an edition/revision issue? Would you also be able to scan in (for Discussion Purposes only of course) of the page and photo in question? I don't doubt what you are quoting, I'm just curious to see if your page layout is different from the other copies out there.
Would you be able to scan or report the info on the inside cover of your copy? Since your edition has different/additional wording vs. the copies that Mike and Cran have, I'm wondering if this might be an edition/revision issue? Would you also be able to scan in (for Discussion Purposes only of course) of the page and photo in question? I don't doubt what you are quoting, I'm just curious to see if your page layout is different from the other copies out there.
H_Ackermans
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 04:11 AM UTC
This is the page:
And I added the ISBN and Catalog number in a prior reply.
And I added the ISBN and Catalog number in a prior reply.
BigfootV
Joined: December 24, 2005
KitMaker: 1,624 posts
Armorama: 994 posts
Posted: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 - 07:57 AM UTC
Hmmmm, Is it me or are there "spots", dimples?? Opps, on the scan?? 
 |
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.