Hear, hear.

Consider the environment. Dust is a real problem in the desert, and while there will be rust on some things, the sand will polish other parts to bare metal.

If one looks at the book like Schneider's Tigers in Combat, a significant number of tanks simply were lost almost immediately, whether to mechanical breakdown or combat.

Tony, I like your Panzerjaeger so much I have put the kit on my wish list.

Hi Samuel,

Sorry about that (too lazy to type it out in full), RSM stands for Regimental Sergeant Major - a man you didn't want to get on the wrong side of.

All the best,

Paul

Hello there,
Just thought that you might wish to know that all of the colours you have mentioned, could be used to finish the vehicle. At the start of the campaign, vehicles were sent into combat service still in panzer grey. Rudimentry camo was achieved by mud mixes over the grey.
eventually, vehicles were sprayed with appropriate sand colours, the scource of this was an abundance if Italian air force paint and of course, a supply coming direct from germany. eventually, supply was direct and also new and replacement vehicles were delivered in dark sand. The tone variations arise from the different scources and suppliers in germany.

happy modeling

Hi all,

I have searched in my Sahara pictures about details for weathering and found this picture from which I remembered that it must exist.
Maybe interesting for someone to see detail weathering under real conditions.
As I mentioned above, normally oil leaks or open grease is immediatley cvovered by dust:



It shows the front axle of my truck, and I would recommend to give your attention to the double joint of the left driving shaft, after hundreads of Kilometers of desert driving: Sand/dust over grease
Even the area of the lower knuckle is covered with sand, this is from grease, in this case coming out by routine greasing of the lower knuckel bearings.
The rest of the front axle is in a "cleaned, like new" condition, the small white/silver points on the axles tube and shock absorber are some stone scratches, created from vehicles driving in front and shooting some stones to my front axle. (Note: If we are 4-5 vehicles, we nomally drive in a line)

For rivet counters: The rear axle house on all of my different trucks, was after the "standard 1 month" desert trip sand-blasted. The driven front tires on a 4x4 vehicle (and fewer on 4x2) skid sand to the rear axle and sand blasting them down to the "silvergrey" steel base. And as the tires are moving while steering, this stones/sand reaches and covers the complete length of the rear axle front side. Strangely, this effect is not so significant inside of mudguards, but was always very noticable on the rear axle front side.
And even strangely: One Austrian winter destroys the paint on the front side and bonnet of my cars more due small stones against ice/snow, than the same has been done in all my Sahara travells.

Speaking of just the Tigers of Panzer Armee Afirica, as we know the first group of Tigers to arrive in Tunisia as part of Panzer Armee Afrika were those of s.Pz.Abt. 501 in late 1942 followed by S.Pz Abt. 504 (Bovington Tiger) in early 1943. The life photos below are of the last moments of tigers of s.Pz Abt. 501. These tanks to me look to be painted in RAL 8000 Grunbraun (more sandy green) but in some spots have a more dark olive green appearance which could be RAL7008 (Khakibraun) which had a more olive greenish tone. The US Army demolitions engineer in the second photo gives a good colour comparison with his US army Olive Drab Helmut and Khaki brown/green clothing. Either I way I believe that s.Pz Abt. 501 tigers arrived in Tunisa painted in either of these colours or perhaps both in a 2/3 Ral 8000 1/3 RAL 7008 camo scheme, with the RAL 7008 done in a light overspray. This perhaps could explain the notion that the first tigers encountered in Tunisia were "Green". My perceptions are based on the Model Master versions of RAL 8000, 7008, 8020 etc which look I believe are fairly accurate.








Model master link:

http://www.testors.com/category/136417/WWII_German_Panzer_Colors

Wow, Dave
beside all the technical expertises about how colour pic. looks like or have to look like and to be readed (or not), I am heavily impressed about the photo (material) quality of the US-Life photos of the early 40 thies.

Looking on the green grass and flower colours here in the background:



everything looks quite similar like on this photo, made by myself:



Similar area (in fact approx. 50 Km away), similar grass and flowers (colour tone), same season (March/April), truck in RAL8000, but 46 years later....

Very impressive.

Erich, your picture of tthe same area more or less taken many years later really confirms the colour accuracy of the Life photos. While in some cases colour shots of world war 2 are no better than black and white ones this is clearly not the case here. Their quality is exceptional. In addition to the comparison of your modern day photo one just has to compare the colour of the soldier's uniform and helmut with preserved uniforms of the day to see that while not 100% similar the colours are very very similar even when factoring in digial re-production, computer monitor replication etc.

David.

Erich- I'm glad you added your information and your photos. Not many of us will get the opportunity to bounce around over such historic terrain.

I do have one question- and I remember getting a partial answer from a paint expert person- forgot the exact title- who worked for Dupont, but did the chemical makeup of the original paint used back during the war affect the paint as it aged differently than more modern paints age? Was the older paint more subject to fading than new paint? And what about durability and resistance to chipping and abrasion?

I know even in the early 70s I bought a new Ford truck which was red. many years later there was a noticable difference in the upper surfaces and the sides. The only time the truck looked all the same shade of red was in the rain when it was wet. I have a 13 year old Ford truck now which is also red. It looks as good today as when it was new and I only wash it a few times a year. The paint is much better now than it was with the other truck.

I once bought a 1964 Malibu SS which was red. It was faded to almost a pink on the hood, roof, and trunk. And that was in Kansas! I cold only imagine what the desert sun would have done to it.

Living in the high desert of southern Nevada, I can safely say your red '64 Malibu would have been a pale, pale pink after a few years.

G

Without getting into a treaise on photography, color theory and lenses, it's difficult to know if the LIFE photographers were using filters or not. I doubt they were, other than perhaps the one filter most used by photographers shooting color film: a polarizer, which reduces glare and often results in cold-blue skies. If you compare the LIFE photo and the modern one, you can see a stark difference in the blue. But it's impossible to know if the older photo used a polarizer or not.

Filters were common for black & white photography, but they were for the most part difficult to use, as they were made from gelatin, easily-scratched and had to be put into an adaptor on the lens. So I doubt anyone in the field of battle would be lugging around a case with gelatin filters. Plus the fact that most of those filters would do nothing to help color photos. Their purpose was to increase contrast in clouds, or bring out the "pop" in landscapes.

What might account for the better color photos taken by American photographers is the presence of coated optics. While Leica cameras and Zeiss lenses are prized around the world for their faithful color rendering today, the Germans did not, for the most part, have coated optics on their camera lenses until well after the war, 1947 if I remember correctly. The US, however, had moved ahead, both with color films and coated optics. Did these LIFE guys have coated lenses? I don't know. The Army did introduce color film in its film crews in the latter years of the war, which is why we have some outstanding color scenes from the US perspective.

But the only way one can accurately capture colors on film is by using a test card or other color swatch. In the good old days of film, one always kept a Kodak color reference book around and took a picture with it. That would allow the separators to know what the colors were and match them during printing. Again, I can't imagine a busy war correspondent pulling out his or her (there were some fine women war correspondents, gents) and doing a color test shot, LOL.

Getting back to the original intent of Samuel's post.

See below a link to a previous discussion on this site about DAK Colours.
I posted some pictures of my s.Pz.Abt. 501 Tiger. Tiger 112 but there are some interesting points made about RAL 8000, RAL 7008 (the colour I painted my model) RAL 8000, and RAL 8020

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/130475&page=1&ord=1

S!

I never thought that this topic will go for so long.
Sure I'm learning a lot in the thread.

Hi

Following this discussions and even my infos given in Bill Hazards build blog about that the TIGER´s of the sPzAbt. 501 dedicated to Tunisia has been painted in RAL8000, which in my opinion can even be “read-out” by the b/w pictures of loading in Italy and offloading in Tunisia , I got some PM`s, in which I was informed that this is a very sensitive item to discuss and could become a “never ending story”.
I was even told it could create some (discussion) stress from those who has their own knowledge, sources, interpretations or whatever.
But I was even told that a lot of modellers could be interested to share some different inputs.

My feeling is, that some of you ask themselves, what is this “Newby” tellings us, about a theme, which is in discussion in this forum over years.

So shortly about my background:
I stopped Modelling 28years ago, compared to today, on a poor level.
I have started 23 years ago to travel trough the African Sahara countries as my new hobby, 1st with a U404, painted by myself in RAL8000 dull matt.
Later on, this hobby became my job and most of my customers use the vehicles I sell, to travel worldwide. For those interested on that, or to check what I say, look here: http://www.allrad-christ.com/ac_achsestart.htm and click on the country or continent name.
So my experience about chipping and paint abrasion and dust on 4x4 vehicles, used under extreme conditions etc., is based on what I see on trucks, used by my own, and on customer vehicles, coming back for service, even after 1-2 years travelling, some of them nearly around the world.

As the following informations touches the job in my “real live”, I have to be a little bit generally, because some things are “sensitive”:
Since 2007 my own company, togehter with the vehicle producer, whose vehicles I sell, have engaged in the military field, (see even here http://www.bremachtrex.com/gallery_more.html, scroll down to “Defence applications”)
Further:
We are even since more than 3 years cooperation partner of a German manufacturer of military vehicles, by the way the same company which has produced 70 years ago the turrets for the TIGER and some other vehicles and components.
I am responsible for all the technical issues (including paint) of this and other military projects, which means:
My knowlegde about how some specific colours used actually by us, looks like, or in this case even has been used 70 years ago, are not based on computer graphics, Model companies art work, museum researches, what the grandfather of a friend has told, or what a 90 years old ex-soldier has tried to remember 70 years later, they are based on what my eyes have seen over severeal years in the Sahara desert, and what our cooperation partners and our suppliers, working in the military field, give us as fact, especially if it belongs to their company history.
If I would not be sure about this, I would not post it here and keep quiet.

Brian,

I think we're talking apples & oranges here.

Lenses for commercial cameras did not have coatings for the most part prior to the end of the war. I'm not disputing who first did it commercially, but am pointing out why snapshots from soldiers & sailors, as well as most propaganda and news shots have poor contrast: their optics are from the pre-coated era. It's why it's so hard to discern camo colors unless they are really stark contrasts like green on yellow, for example.

I don't have the reference here, but the US Army was experimenting with coated optics during the war, and I believe some film cameramen were using them. The Army also encouraged the use of color film, which is something the rest of the military did not do because they had so much B&W film to use up.

Sorry for the 3 deleted posts, but in my text was some signs, not accepted by the software. So now the rest of my text:

For a military project, we was asked 2 years ago for an adequate desert camouflage colour, so I brought in RAL8020, knowing that RAL8000 is to much “dark” and “green” in front of dunes.
We have made a prototype in RAL8020 dull matt (I hope its correct translated), “Stumpfmatt"
We even displayed this vehicle last year at the EUROSATORY in Paris.
Which means, we would not have gone out with this vehicle/colour composition to the world biggest fair for military vehicles for “Nuts” or at least without the best available research.

Last year my wife recommend me to look for a hobby to get some distance from my job, so I returned to modelling, with focuss on the North African campaign. In the meantime I am not sure if my wife would recommend this again, because now I spend more time with my hobby than with her (as she says...)
Now, as a modeller, I have never seen RAL8020 on a vehicle in colour and/or photographed with the technic of the last years, but now it stand in front of my office. So I picked up all my old photos, showing RAL8000 in the desert and tried to analyse some b/w pictures for some modelling projects for myself, comparing this with my actuall colour pictures of this two colours.
So for all which are interested on the shade of the two main DAK basic colours simply photographed, and beside all other technical reasons, which could change the colourtone on computers, some photos of a truck, painted in RAL8000 matt



or same vehicle only from slightly different position (= sun angle), same camera, same time, but creating a slightly different colour tone



Note: Chassis colour and colour of the vehicle cabin structure covering the RAL8000 is in RAL7021 Schwarzgrau semi-bright

In comparation RAL8020 dullmatt, same camera, same season, different background, but 2years old photo:



And if you look very carefully, you will realize a slightly difference in the matt grade between the colour of the bonnet and the colour of the side panels. This is, because I have made a paint damage by myself, and we was forced to repaint the bonnet again, but with the paint from a new batch.
Means: Even in 2010, paint producers are not able to produce in every production batch exactly the same colour (or matt) shade, so its quite sure that this was more common 70 years ago.
On request, I can send this photos in max. resolution to those, interersted in.

Even as I am trying from model to model, to get more accurate with all the details, I am not so focussed on what is the “right” (and only) tone of RAL8000, even from 70 years ago, means darker, browner, greener etc., for me its much more interesting to see how the colour is different from RAL8020 or RAL7021, especially if the only known source is a b/w photo. Finally to say for my own, could it be this or that, to know which colour I have to use.

From my experience, I can say that RAL8000 is extremly acting like a “Chameleon”.
Studing the following pictures, its clear to see that the same colour is changing its appareance depending on the day-light, background (landscape), and so on. Independent beside all technical explanations for possible colour variations through photo paper, computer screens and so on.
If I would have known 20 years ago that I am ending in this discussion, I would have made more and better pictures.....

So the following pictures was made in Tunisia March/April, partially very cloudy weather, sometimes raining (with other words, similar as in the Tunisan campaign 1942/43). Always the same truck in RAL8000 dull matt, same camera (Minolta), same film quality, same unskilled photographer (=myself). All simply scanned in on my scanner some weeks ago. And on my computer, they colour looks as I have them in mind from 20 years ago, or in front of my office right now.







or this, which is interesting, because compared to the red paint of the Honda bike and the skin tone of my friends, the Unimog´s RAL8000 looks very dark, which simply is a result of a cloud, just covering the sun while photographing and creating a schadow on the right part of the photo. Tis as an info how even non technical photo/computer stuff could even be responsible for different colour shades on 70 years b/w photos



This was made in Europe, summer time, before the Tunisian travel, same camera, same film quality, same unskilled photographer, only to show colour impression with different sun light and background:





This one is my 2 nd truck, same colour as the 1st. Photo was made on a cloudless day in December 1993 around early afternoon, means sun in the zenit, because just south of the “tropic of cancer”, in the desert tringle Algeria,Mali, Mauretania, in fact in “no-mans land” and 2000 Kilometers without a gasoline station....



And I agree that all this colours on every single computer screen, or colour photos, printed on different papers what ever more, will probably have a different look.
But again: Their is a clear and remarkable difference between the darker, green-brownish RAL8000 and the brighter, a little bit red-toned RAL8020, which even should be remarkable on clear b/w photos.
Especially if you compare it with uniform colours, as Dave pointed out, even seen on wartime photos (note: Standard issue for DAK troops was olive tone, which faded out after some time, and only the Luftwaffen soldiers received the desert tan as standard) or the black Balkenkreuz.

I highly recommend to everybody the book “Afrikakorps in Farbe” of the Motorbuchverlag http://www.amazon.de/gp/product/images/3613027941/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=299956&s=books
Which even has opened a new, coloured world for me and a new sight about the campaign, especially for uniforms and their colour fading. And even a lot of the pictures, showing dust and chipping on vehicles and their colour tones are similar to my own experiences.
And you will even see that some thought vehicle colour fading or chipping is simply dust and even more dust, over dark grey RAL7021 and/or RAL8000, which you can indentify only if you see it in colour and not as “dark” or “bright” on a b/w photo.

And their is no doubt that colour qualities has (hopefully ?) changed in the last 70 years, to improve non-fading and better chipping resistance of vehicle colours.
So my inputs should be seen as an different approach, in an “neverending story”

Erich

Available in USA from Amazon.com Text in both English and German.

http://www.amazon.com/Afrikakorps-Rommels-Tropical-Original-Color/dp/0764321404/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1299264034&sr=1-2

Erich, I really applaud your work on this topic, and appreciate the "heads up" on the book. But I would still caution folks here to be careful about color decisions based either on something seen over the Internet, or even in print form. As someone who used to earn his bread from taking pictures, there are simply too many variables to be precise without using agreed-on standards.

One significant problem with color photos is they change color over time. The dyes used in the emulsions weren't intended for perpetual preservation. The usual symptom of aging in a color photo is the way reds shift to blueish. The photo on the cover of the book you suggested makes it look like Winter light.

The only solution was the use of dye-transfer prints, which were made from three color steps. Hugely-complicated and expensive, these are mostly archival photos and art prints. Not the kind of thing that LIFE or the propaganda department in a country losing the war would bother with.

I also would dispute the assertion that the shading differences between colors would be apparent even in B&W photos. Many of the photos were accept as gospel today were snapshots taken by soldiers in moments of relaxation or to document a great adventure in their lives (one reason German snapshots seem to be overwhelmingly from the early part of the war and not later on). Their cameras have uncoated lenses, the films they're using are not the best quality in some cases, and the lighting is haphazard at best (shooting into the sun vs. shooting with the sun at your back).

Complicating everything after that is the accumulation of dust on the vehicles right from the get-go.