Hi, I am currently building the DML Sd Kfz 251/22 and have a question about late war colours, Would they have been subject to the same colour changes as other vehicles such as the Panther in that they may have been painted in a green base coat, with red-brown and dunkelgelb over-sprayed. Could a half-track have a green interior? Does anyone have any information regarding this. I have a reasonably extensive library of books, but can't find any reference or photographs to support this. Any feed-back is appreciated.
Thanks
Hosted by Darren Baker
Late War Camouflage of German APC's
Anthony58
Joined: August 02, 2012
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Friday, January 10, 2014 - 08:18 PM UTC
jrutman
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 02:52 AM UTC
I also have looked into this a lot. There are theories but no hard evidence(except post war rebuild pics)of SPWs painted in elfbein for the drivers' area and other colors in the crew compartment but the safe thing to do is paint the interior dark yellow.
The base coat of green is still under heavy debate and nothing is positively proven yet.
J
The base coat of green is still under heavy debate and nothing is positively proven yet.
J
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 03:37 AM UTC
The only pics I've seen of late soft-skins and half-tracks were in overall Dunkelgelb. Maybe the green didn't apply to them, or the assembly plants never got around to it. Some were never even camo painted and were used in their factory Dunkelgelb. It's safe to go with 3-color, or just overall Dunkelgelb. 
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 03:40 AM UTC
Oh! Green interiors! Sorry. Didn't read the entire text. No Idea! 
I would go along with Jerry.
I would go along with Jerry.jrutman
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 04:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The only pics I've seen of late soft-skins and half-tracks were in overall Dunkelgelb. Maybe the green didn't apply to them, or the assembly plants never got around to it. Some were never even camo painted and were used in their factory Dunkelgelb. It's safe to go with 3-color, or just overall Dunkelgelb.
There were certain factories that painted a standard cammo 3 color pattern on the late war vehicles. They used templetes and the patterns were fairly uniform. Good examples are the second volumn of the Duel in the Mist book.
It is becoming the consensus amoung the late war German armor fanatics that there was very little if any painting of afv's in the field.
But I digress as the question was about interiors.
J
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 05:09 AM UTC
The orders for FACTORY painting of AFV's became effective in September of '44.
This was the instruction to paint the camouflage colors directly onto the vehicles on the assembly lines in order to save time and logistical resources. The pre-camouflaged vehicles could then be delivered faster to the combat units in the field without their own (hard pressed to the limits) maintenance support having to apply camouflage.
Part of this instruction specified that the three-color camouflage was to be applied in roughly 1/3-1/3-1/3 proportions. It also specified that instead of painting the entire vehicle dark yellow and then applying the green and brown, that each color was simply applied in thirds over the existing primer, saving both time (not painting the entire vehicle dark yellow and then painting it again in green and brown) and materials (used 2/3 less dark yellow paint).
Because of the way this instruction was worded (leave the primer red exposed when painting the dark yellow), it has been misinterpreted, IMO, to mean that primer red was intended (or allowed) to be used as one of the camouflage colors.
Under painted camouflaged areas and incidentally exposed primer red is a reasonable expectation of the application of this order, but not, IMO, the deliberate use of primer as a final camouflage color.
At some point in time in '45, it seems there may have been a change in the painting rules for the factories so that they could (or should) use green as a 2/3 color with another disruptive color (usually interpreted as brown) for the other 1/3.
We know from photos of the factories taken AFTER the end of the war that some of them were still painting their vehicles in dark yellow. I don't know of any definitive example of a photo of a factory painted AFV still on the assembly line in green as would be expected if this was an official change in the factory instructions.
The sum total of the evidence of this practice (green base) would appear to be a few photos of Panther tanks (all black and white - and single captured example later photographed in color in the US years after the war) taken at the very end of the war, and so it might have been unique to only one or two factories producing those. It's entirely possible that it was the result of some sort of material shortage (no dark yellow paint) or latitude given to the factories that we have no written record of.
I do think that if the practice was wide spread and based on official instructions for a uniform change in policy to green-based camouflage, then we would have seen evidence of that by now with other "all green" Gotterdamerung AFV's. No such evidence exists, AFAIK.
We do have a lot of factory painted AFV's from the winter of '44-'45 that do have white incorporated into their camouflage schemes (JagdPz 38's, etc), so perhaps there was some instruction to alter the factory painting to account for seasonal variations. Perhaps the early spring '45 Panthers were examples of that.
Another factor to consider is that the "late" war period we're talking about is really only a matter of a few weeks - March, April and the beginning of May, '45.
It's all very interesting, but highly speculative. There's wide latitude for the modeler, IMO, to push the envelope if he's building a vehicle representative of the very end of the war (the final weeks). As always, the best reference is a good photo of an example vehicle. Barring that, it just depends on how far someone wants to take their speculation.
Just my opinion which is worth every every cent you paid for it!
This was the instruction to paint the camouflage colors directly onto the vehicles on the assembly lines in order to save time and logistical resources. The pre-camouflaged vehicles could then be delivered faster to the combat units in the field without their own (hard pressed to the limits) maintenance support having to apply camouflage.
Part of this instruction specified that the three-color camouflage was to be applied in roughly 1/3-1/3-1/3 proportions. It also specified that instead of painting the entire vehicle dark yellow and then applying the green and brown, that each color was simply applied in thirds over the existing primer, saving both time (not painting the entire vehicle dark yellow and then painting it again in green and brown) and materials (used 2/3 less dark yellow paint).
Because of the way this instruction was worded (leave the primer red exposed when painting the dark yellow), it has been misinterpreted, IMO, to mean that primer red was intended (or allowed) to be used as one of the camouflage colors.
Under painted camouflaged areas and incidentally exposed primer red is a reasonable expectation of the application of this order, but not, IMO, the deliberate use of primer as a final camouflage color.
At some point in time in '45, it seems there may have been a change in the painting rules for the factories so that they could (or should) use green as a 2/3 color with another disruptive color (usually interpreted as brown) for the other 1/3.
We know from photos of the factories taken AFTER the end of the war that some of them were still painting their vehicles in dark yellow. I don't know of any definitive example of a photo of a factory painted AFV still on the assembly line in green as would be expected if this was an official change in the factory instructions.
The sum total of the evidence of this practice (green base) would appear to be a few photos of Panther tanks (all black and white - and single captured example later photographed in color in the US years after the war) taken at the very end of the war, and so it might have been unique to only one or two factories producing those. It's entirely possible that it was the result of some sort of material shortage (no dark yellow paint) or latitude given to the factories that we have no written record of.
I do think that if the practice was wide spread and based on official instructions for a uniform change in policy to green-based camouflage, then we would have seen evidence of that by now with other "all green" Gotterdamerung AFV's. No such evidence exists, AFAIK.
We do have a lot of factory painted AFV's from the winter of '44-'45 that do have white incorporated into their camouflage schemes (JagdPz 38's, etc), so perhaps there was some instruction to alter the factory painting to account for seasonal variations. Perhaps the early spring '45 Panthers were examples of that.
Another factor to consider is that the "late" war period we're talking about is really only a matter of a few weeks - March, April and the beginning of May, '45.
It's all very interesting, but highly speculative. There's wide latitude for the modeler, IMO, to push the envelope if he's building a vehicle representative of the very end of the war (the final weeks). As always, the best reference is a good photo of an example vehicle. Barring that, it just depends on how far someone wants to take their speculation.
Just my opinion which is worth every every cent you paid for it!
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 06:24 AM UTC
I totally agree with tanks and TD's being 'pre-painted' re; captured Hetzers on assembly lines already, or partially, camo-painted. But the original question was for half-tracks. Did the same painting orders also apply to them?
Anthony58
Joined: August 02, 2012
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 04:55 PM UTC
Hi guys, thanks for your comments and insight, they all confirm my own thoughts. I think I'll go with a Dunkelgelb interior and a late war ambush scheme on a green base as a "maybe, could have happened" scheme. Should be interesting.
Thanks for your help
Cheers
Thanks for your help
Cheers
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 05:01 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I totally agree with tanks and TD's being 'pre-painted' re; captured Hetzers on assembly lines already, or partially, camo-painted. But the original question was for half-tracks. Did the same painting orders also apply to them?
As far as I know, the Sep-Oct '44 orders instructing factories to camouflage pattern paint AFVs applied to all armored vehicles and not just tanks and self-propelled guns.
The only known diagram for a factory applied camouflage scheme is this 2 January, 1945 pattern for the Sd.Kfz.304 m.Ladungstrager Sprenger.
Unfortunately, my copy of the photo of the diagram is pretty bad (and the diagram itself is pretty deteriorated), but a close examination of the diagram SHOWS AND SPECIFIES THREE COLORS -
Dunklegelb, RAL 7028
Rotbraun, RAL 8012
Olivgrun, RAL 6003
(There is a note next to the Olivgrun line that could be an alternate color option, but the note is illegible. Someone with a better copy of the diagram might be able to shed some light on this.)
Anyways, like I said, as far as I know, this is the single existent German factory camouflage pattern diagram to survive the war. The date of 2 Jan 45 suggests that if there was an official change to the three-color painting instructions, it must have come after this date.
The fact that this diagram is for a relatively minor AFV type suggests (at least to me) that the factory painting instructions were intended to be applied uniformly across the German AFV controlled industry.
A lot of authors have mentioned that overall green (or green and another disruptor color) was specified "late" in the war, but I have never actually read a quoted citation of an original German document to back this statement up.
(Not saying that such an original document doesn't exist, but I've never read a specific citation to one.)
The existent photographic evidence that's usually cited as "proof" are the handful of BW Panther photos that show tanks in what could be interpreted as a two color schemes (logically green and either brown or dark yellow). However, there are several explanations that could account for these tanks, not the least of which is a simple lack of paint at one or more factories when these tanks rolled off the assembly line.
There could have been an order to use a green base, but I would expect to see more than these few example vehicles if this had happened. I think the simplest explanation is that the required paint just didn't make it to the factory (train got bombed into a colorful cloud?) and someone made a decision to use what was on hand rather than not deliver the Panther tanks waiting to be painted.
But that's just me...
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 09:35 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI totally agree with tanks and TD's being 'pre-painted' re; captured Hetzers on assembly lines already, or partially, camo-painted. But the original question was for half-tracks. Did the same painting orders also apply to them?
As far as I know, the Sep-Oct '44 orders instructing factories to camouflage pattern paint AFVs applied to all armored vehicles and not just tanks and self-propelled guns.
The only known diagram for a factory applied camouflage scheme is this 2 January, 1945 pattern for the Sd.Kfz.304 m.Ladungstrager Sprenger.
Unfortunately, my copy of the photo of the diagram is pretty bad (and the diagram itself is pretty deteriorated), but a close examination of the diagram SHOWS AND SPECIFIES THREE COLORS -
Dunklegelb, RAL 7028
Rotbraun, RAL 8012
Olivgrun, RAL 6003
(There is a note next to the Olivgrun line that could be an alternate color option, but the note is illegible. Someone with a better copy of the diagram might be able to shed some light on this.)
Anyways, like I said, as far as I know, this is the single existent German factory camouflage pattern diagram to survive the war. The date of 2 Jan 45 suggests that if there was an official change to the three-color painting instructions, it must have come after this date.
The fact that this diagram is for a relatively minor AFV type suggests (at least to me) that the factory painting instructions were intended to be applied uniformly across the German AFV controlled industry.
A lot of authors have mentioned that overall green (or green and another disruptor color) was specified "late" in the war, but I have never actually read a quoted citation of an original German document to back this statement up.
(Not saying that such an original document doesn't exist, but I've never read a specific citation to one.)
The existent photographic evidence that's usually cited as "proof" are the handful of BW Panther photos that show tanks in what could be interpreted as a two color schemes (logically green and either brown or dark yellow). However, there are several explanations that could account for these tanks, not the least of which is a simple lack of paint at one or more factories when these tanks rolled off the assembly line.
There could have been an order to use a green base, but I would expect to see more than these few example vehicles if this had happened. I think the simplest explanation is that the required paint just didn't make it to the factory (train got bombed into a colorful cloud?) and someone made a decision to use what was on hand rather than not deliver the Panther tanks waiting to be painted.
But that's just me...
Mike's points regarding the painting of AFVs are logical and are also covered in H.V. 1945, Nr.52. Here is a link to the original German language document:
H.V. 1945, Nr. 52
The following is an English translation of that document which was done by Liejon Schoot:
#1. All newly build Army equipment (Heeresgerat), must as far as painting is still required be painted Dunkelgrun instead of Dunkelgelb.
#2. Wich equipment diverges from instructions in illustrations and delivery conditions, still need
to be painted, is made clear in the painting instructons received by all H Abn Dienstellen in Okt. 44.
#3. Newly build equipment listed for camouflage painting in the above painting instructions, must be
painted Dunlegrun untill the required camouflage instructions are available.
#4. Colours for Tarnanstrich.
Grün RAL 6003
Braun RAL 8017 } RAL-Farbtonregister 840 R
Gelb RAL 7028 Ausgabe 1944
Each of the colours needed in approx. the same amounts.
#5. Available supplies of Dunkelgelb are to be used for:
a) Small equipment (not personal equipment)
b) Equipment for use in the Heimatskriegsgebiet (Germany)
c) For the yellow part of the camouflage pattern. (The yellow part only)
When uncertain of points a) and b) information can be asked at the Heeres Abnahme Dienststellen.
#6. For large equipment (Großgeräte) that must be transported on open rail cars, the use of
yellow paint is immidiatly forbidden.
When the instructed green paint is not available in time for delivery, the Heereswaffenambt must be reported immidiatly.
Delivery must not be delayed due to the lack of green paint.
#7. Any equipment (in stock or allready delivered) allready painted Dunkelgelb must not be overpainted (due to shortages) Camouflage will be applied using Grun and Braun, according to instructions. Delivery must not be delayed because of lack of colour paints.
#8. Tarps and webbing.
a) For impregnated tarpaulins made from textiles, painting is still examinated.
Tarpaulins made from paper must be Grun. Tarpaulins in stock (Yellow coloured) may be used.
Applying camo patterns with paint with paint HE according TL 6360 B, or with paste
according TL 6352.
b) Dust covers must be Grun, respectively green and white (RAL9002). Available stocks of yellow covers may
may be used.
c) For all other textiles instructions in the current TL is to be followed.
d) Webbing is coloured according use, respectively natural colour or painted.
Leather.
Leather to be used in it's natural colours.
Read and pay attention to the wording in #7.
Anthony58
Joined: August 02, 2012
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 10:10 PM UTC
Hi Joseph, thanks for your post. This is very interesting material and opens up a whole new aspect to painting and finishing German AFV's. I am very excited and inspired by this, I am now thinking about of many German AFV's that I could apply this to.
Excellent material,
Tony
Excellent material,
Tony
Anthony58
Joined: August 02, 2012
KitMaker: 17 posts
Armorama: 12 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 11, 2014 - 11:32 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I also have looked into this a lot. There are theories but no hard evidence(except post war rebuild pics)of SPWs painted in elfbein for the drivers' area and other colors in the crew compartment but the safe thing to do is paint the interior dark yellow.
The base coat of green is still under heavy debate and nothing is positively proven yet.
J
Hi Jerry, I am also aware of this and plan to do this in a future build of a Sd Kfz 251. I reckon it would pretty easy to do - a little masking involved - but it would be a neat addition to my collection - 12 so far, not counting the couple in my stash.
Thanks,
Tony
Biggles2
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 02:45 AM UTC
Plus the life expectancy of new AFV's by this stage of the war could be measured in days, and probably most tanks didn't survive intact long enough to be photographed. Somewhere in US, British, or Soviet archives must be still tons of hitherto unpublished photos of over-run factories and assembly plants with AFV's in green base coats.
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 04:29 AM UTC
The Liejon Schoot translation is certainly provocative. This is a topic that I do enjoy discussing.
However, it is not dated (when was it issued in 1945?), and more problematic, the original source of the document is not cited. This same order, H.V. 1945 Nr.52, was also referenced by Jairo Erdmann-Nasarre in his (now defunct) website, Panther el Mito (sadly also without the bibliographical source data).
There are some clues as to when this order was intended to become effective, though.
Some of the most definitive German camouflage references have been published by Jentz and Doyle. The most detailed late war (Aug 44 and later) instructions are in in their book, "Germany's Tiger Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: design, Production & Modifications," page 138 (but also in less detail in some of their Panzer Tracts books and in their hardback Panther book).
Jentz cites the following official German directives:
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 19 Aug 44 - The instruction for "all armored vehicles" to be factory painted.
Heeres-Abnahmestelle II (K) Hannover, 31 Oct 44 - The instruction to apply the factory three-color camouflage directly over the red primer (eliminating the step of first painting dark yellow, RAL 7028, all over and then applying the green and brown).
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 29 Nov 44 - A warning to all manufacturers that the camouflage scheme is to be changed. Manufacturers of armor components will start delivering their parts in dark green, RAL 6003, and the assembly firms will then apply brown, RAL 8017, and dark yellow, RAL 7028, in patterns with a "sharp contrast" (quote is Jentz's term). This change is to become effective by 01 Mar 45.
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 20 Dec 44 - Orders actually issued to all armor component subcontractors to begin painting their components in dark green, RAL 6003.
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 23 Jan 45 - Jentz quotes: "2. So long as available paint stocks are adequate without thinning until conversion to the new camouflage paint directive occurs starting 1 March 1945, the old stocks can continue to be used up until 30 May 1945. ... 4. [A]s far as possible, companies should already convert to the new camouflage paint scheme prior to 1 June 1945."
Jentz and Doyle do have the same problem as Erdmann-Nasarre and Schoot in that they do not provide the bibliographic data for the sources they cite. However, the reputation of Jentz and Doyle is well established and accepted.
What I think a lot of modelers fail to take in account is the time-lag between when instructions are issued to manufacturers and when those instructions can be implemented. Note that the Germans warn industry in Nov '44 that a change is coming, they issue an actual implementation instruction in Dec '44, and the actual change in camouflage is intended to take effect on 1 Mar '45. That's five months, with two more months (April and May) allowed for total implementation by 1 Jun '45.
Also, there was some deliberate allowance for a transistion to the new camouflage to take place gradually as:
a. Sub-contractors could start painting armor components after Dec '44 as paint became available and in accordance with their manufacturing schedules, and...
b. Assembly firms could switch to partial implementation before 01 Mar '45 as their stocks of paint on-hand became depleted. But until those stocks were used up, they were instructed to continue to follow the current system until 01 Mar '45 and if they had problems, they could delay full implementation until 01 Jun '45.
German forces began surrendering and ending the war in Europe starting 25 April (Italy), and total surrender occurred by 08 May '45. So the very time when the official change to the "new camouflage" scheme was to take place, the war was ending.
However, it is not dated (when was it issued in 1945?), and more problematic, the original source of the document is not cited. This same order, H.V. 1945 Nr.52, was also referenced by Jairo Erdmann-Nasarre in his (now defunct) website, Panther el Mito (sadly also without the bibliographical source data).
There are some clues as to when this order was intended to become effective, though.
Some of the most definitive German camouflage references have been published by Jentz and Doyle. The most detailed late war (Aug 44 and later) instructions are in in their book, "Germany's Tiger Tanks, VK45.02 to Tiger II: design, Production & Modifications," page 138 (but also in less detail in some of their Panzer Tracts books and in their hardback Panther book).
Jentz cites the following official German directives:
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 19 Aug 44 - The instruction for "all armored vehicles" to be factory painted.
Heeres-Abnahmestelle II (K) Hannover, 31 Oct 44 - The instruction to apply the factory three-color camouflage directly over the red primer (eliminating the step of first painting dark yellow, RAL 7028, all over and then applying the green and brown).
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 29 Nov 44 - A warning to all manufacturers that the camouflage scheme is to be changed. Manufacturers of armor components will start delivering their parts in dark green, RAL 6003, and the assembly firms will then apply brown, RAL 8017, and dark yellow, RAL 7028, in patterns with a "sharp contrast" (quote is Jentz's term). This change is to become effective by 01 Mar 45.
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 20 Dec 44 - Orders actually issued to all armor component subcontractors to begin painting their components in dark green, RAL 6003.
OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 23 Jan 45 - Jentz quotes: "2. So long as available paint stocks are adequate without thinning until conversion to the new camouflage paint directive occurs starting 1 March 1945, the old stocks can continue to be used up until 30 May 1945. ... 4. [A]s far as possible, companies should already convert to the new camouflage paint scheme prior to 1 June 1945."
Jentz and Doyle do have the same problem as Erdmann-Nasarre and Schoot in that they do not provide the bibliographic data for the sources they cite. However, the reputation of Jentz and Doyle is well established and accepted.
What I think a lot of modelers fail to take in account is the time-lag between when instructions are issued to manufacturers and when those instructions can be implemented. Note that the Germans warn industry in Nov '44 that a change is coming, they issue an actual implementation instruction in Dec '44, and the actual change in camouflage is intended to take effect on 1 Mar '45. That's five months, with two more months (April and May) allowed for total implementation by 1 Jun '45.
Also, there was some deliberate allowance for a transistion to the new camouflage to take place gradually as:
a. Sub-contractors could start painting armor components after Dec '44 as paint became available and in accordance with their manufacturing schedules, and...
b. Assembly firms could switch to partial implementation before 01 Mar '45 as their stocks of paint on-hand became depleted. But until those stocks were used up, they were instructed to continue to follow the current system until 01 Mar '45 and if they had problems, they could delay full implementation until 01 Jun '45.
German forces began surrendering and ending the war in Europe starting 25 April (Italy), and total surrender occurred by 08 May '45. So the very time when the official change to the "new camouflage" scheme was to take place, the war was ending.
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 05:08 AM UTC
From the wording of the document, it's likely that it was issued no later than January 1945. In addition to J&D's reference to the document, H.V. 1945, 52 was also cited by Johannes Deneke in Tarnanstriche des deutschen Heeres vom 1914 bis heute and reproduced in the original German by Tomas Chory in Camouflage Colors, Wehrmacht Heer, 1939-1945. Additionally, Chory states in his note to the second edition (2005) that the appendices are supplemented with original OKH regulations.
The source for these documents was most likely the Bundesarchiv/NARA or another document depository. Three authors citing the same documents is proof that this isn't a spurious forgery or something fabricated to fit the narrative. I also don't think that anyone would accuse Tom Jentz of including any uncorroborated or suspicious material in his works.
The source for these documents was most likely the Bundesarchiv/NARA or another document depository. Three authors citing the same documents is proof that this isn't a spurious forgery or something fabricated to fit the narrative. I also don't think that anyone would accuse Tom Jentz of including any uncorroborated or suspicious material in his works.
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 12:27 PM UTC
Certainly there have been numerous authors' references to these orders and instructions, Joe. Which ones have actually gone to the original sources, though, and which ones are were just taking their information from other second-hand sources?
Which research has been original and which has been circular, dependent on someone else's original or second-hand research? Just because a lot of authors cite the same information is not the same as a lot of different authors doing their own original research with those same sources of information.
We (you and I) might assume that the original source documents are held in such and thus archive, but we don't actually know, do we? And why is this? Why don't we know precisely where this information has come from?
We modelers do ourselves a disservice when we accept less from authors than what our high school English teachers expected from us. In text citations and a bibliography are standards around the world.
Of course, Jentz and Doyle are well respected and deservedly so. (I did say as much, above, BTW.) Do I think that Jentz fabricated his citations? No, I don't. I didn't accuse him of anything except sloppy academic standards.
However, had he (and the other authors mentioned) provided that bibliographical data, the original sources for these order and instructions might be more public. The debate and discussion about what was actually written and when might be advanced beyond simply rehashing what these authors have written. Someone other than these writers might have researched and uncovered some new information about the topic if they knew where to find the original information.
Getting answers to questions like, "When was H.V. 1945 Nr. 52b actually issued?," would be simple with a well done bibliographical entry (which would actually answer that question). No need for either you or I to speculate or guess.
(Do you really think that you can tell the month it was issued by its "wording"?)
As it is, here we are, plowing up all the same old ground about the same old topic with nothing new to say. We have the same old second and third hand quotes of information taken from second and third hand sources. Because we don't know the original sources of that information, we still have the same old questions.
Maybe one day, someone will actually write a reference work about this subject and provide us with the answers...
I just hope he puts a bibliography at the end!
Which research has been original and which has been circular, dependent on someone else's original or second-hand research? Just because a lot of authors cite the same information is not the same as a lot of different authors doing their own original research with those same sources of information.
We (you and I) might assume that the original source documents are held in such and thus archive, but we don't actually know, do we? And why is this? Why don't we know precisely where this information has come from?
We modelers do ourselves a disservice when we accept less from authors than what our high school English teachers expected from us. In text citations and a bibliography are standards around the world.
Of course, Jentz and Doyle are well respected and deservedly so. (I did say as much, above, BTW.) Do I think that Jentz fabricated his citations? No, I don't. I didn't accuse him of anything except sloppy academic standards.
However, had he (and the other authors mentioned) provided that bibliographical data, the original sources for these order and instructions might be more public. The debate and discussion about what was actually written and when might be advanced beyond simply rehashing what these authors have written. Someone other than these writers might have researched and uncovered some new information about the topic if they knew where to find the original information.
Getting answers to questions like, "When was H.V. 1945 Nr. 52b actually issued?," would be simple with a well done bibliographical entry (which would actually answer that question). No need for either you or I to speculate or guess.
(Do you really think that you can tell the month it was issued by its "wording"?)
As it is, here we are, plowing up all the same old ground about the same old topic with nothing new to say. We have the same old second and third hand quotes of information taken from second and third hand sources. Because we don't know the original sources of that information, we still have the same old questions.
Maybe one day, someone will actually write a reference work about this subject and provide us with the answers...
I just hope he puts a bibliography at the end!
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 12, 2014 - 02:30 PM UTC
Mike, I agree with your comments. I wasn't insinuating that you thought there was something fishy with any of Jentz/Doyle's research. My comment was strictly rhetorical. You're also on the money regarding the citing source material. Those would be helpful to anyone wishing to examine copies themselves.
As far as dating H.V.1945, Nr. 52, it dovetails neatly with OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 20 Dec 44 and OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 23 Jan 45. They all deal with the same subject. It would only seem logical that H.V. 1945, Nr. 52 was issued sometime either between the two aforementioned orders, or slightly afterward. Either way, it would place the date in mid-late January.
As far as dating H.V.1945, Nr. 52, it dovetails neatly with OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 20 Dec 44 and OKH WaJ Rue (WuG 6) VIII, 23 Jan 45. They all deal with the same subject. It would only seem logical that H.V. 1945, Nr. 52 was issued sometime either between the two aforementioned orders, or slightly afterward. Either way, it would place the date in mid-late January.
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 04:07 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I also have looked into this a lot. There are theories but no hard evidence(except post war rebuild pics)of SPWs painted in elfbein for the drivers' area and other colors in the crew compartment but the safe thing to do is paint the interior dark yellow.
The base coat of green is still under heavy debate and nothing is positively proven yet.
J
Jerry, there are two photos of a Sd.Kfz. 251 Ausf. A driver's compartment, on pages 18 and 31, in Schutzenpanzer by Bruce Culver & Uwe Feist which show the area painted in what appears to be RAL 1001 Elfenbein. The elfenbein driver's area was limited to early vehicles only. Every other photo (after the war began) of that area that I've viewed shows body color in the driver/crew compartments.
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 04:40 AM UTC
Sorry, Joe.
I guess I read too much into what you said. My mistake was reading what you said right after I read some other comments made on another forum by someone else (that was in reference to this thread).
When I read your post, I made mental connections that I shouldn't have and found something that wasn't really there.
Moving along, though...
That's a reasonable placement on the timeline for HV 1945 Nr.52, but without a date, we can never be sure, and that's too bad.
Jentz does deserve credit, though, for recognizing the significance and importance of the dates of the sources he was referencing. He does state the dates of these in his references and quotes (just not complete bibliographical data).
Also, least someone misinterpret what I was saying about Jentz, he never, AFAIK, mentions HV 1945 Nr.52 (at least not in any of his books that I have), so the lack of bibliographic data for that source is certainly not his fault. My criticism of his work is a very minor one in the context of all that he wrote.
Failing to pin down or provide an issue date for HV 1945 Nr.52 lies with the others who have published and cited it. Without some context and facts about its wartime origins, we cannot know how it fits into whatever "new camouflage scheme" implementation actually took place.
Hopefully one day we'll have the complete (as much as is knowable) picture.
I guess I read too much into what you said. My mistake was reading what you said right after I read some other comments made on another forum by someone else (that was in reference to this thread).
When I read your post, I made mental connections that I shouldn't have and found something that wasn't really there.
Moving along, though...
That's a reasonable placement on the timeline for HV 1945 Nr.52, but without a date, we can never be sure, and that's too bad.
Jentz does deserve credit, though, for recognizing the significance and importance of the dates of the sources he was referencing. He does state the dates of these in his references and quotes (just not complete bibliographical data).
Also, least someone misinterpret what I was saying about Jentz, he never, AFAIK, mentions HV 1945 Nr.52 (at least not in any of his books that I have), so the lack of bibliographic data for that source is certainly not his fault. My criticism of his work is a very minor one in the context of all that he wrote.
Failing to pin down or provide an issue date for HV 1945 Nr.52 lies with the others who have published and cited it. Without some context and facts about its wartime origins, we cannot know how it fits into whatever "new camouflage scheme" implementation actually took place.
Hopefully one day we'll have the complete (as much as is knowable) picture.
jrutman
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 05:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI also have looked into this a lot. There are theories but no hard evidence(except post war rebuild pics)of SPWs painted in elfbein for the drivers' area and other colors in the crew compartment but the safe thing to do is paint the interior dark yellow.
The base coat of green is still under heavy debate and nothing is positively proven yet.
J
Jerry, there are two photos of a Sd.Kfz. 251 Ausf. A driver's compartment, on pages 18 and 31, in Schutzenpanzer by Bruce Culver & Uwe Feist which show the area painted in what appears to be RAL 1001 Elfenbein. The elfenbein driver's area was limited to early vehicles only. Every other photo (after the war began) of that area that I've viewed shows body color in the driver/crew compartments.
Thanks Joe,
That is what I assumed. Too much trouble to paint two colors in the interior and for little purpose to boot!!
J
Hohenstaufen
Joined: December 13, 2004
KitMaker: 2,192 posts
Armorama: 1,615 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 06:39 AM UTC
Just my two penn'orth. In Headhunter 506s post where he quotes at length the regulation, H.V. 1945, Nr.52 it would appear to address a shortage of Dunkelgelb paint. If we accept this, the logical conclusion to reach would be that the interior would be left in red primer - the remainder of the painting regulation refers to camo painting in 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, but specifies that lack of paint should not prevent delivery. If there is not enough Dunkelgelb to go round, which would make sense as it was previously the most used colour, being used on interiors of open vehicles, as well as for the base coat, as well as being issued to the troops for overpainting, then logically the external surfaces would be green/brown. Or am I missing something....?
Headhunter506
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 07:11 AM UTC
Germans finally got wise to the fact that dunkrlgelb colored vehicles stand out like a sore thumb and make great targets. hence, the change to Olivegrun.
crucial_H
Joined: January 15, 2008
KitMaker: 150 posts
Armorama: 147 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 08:38 AM UTC
I have been thinking about this, and it's nice to see it being talked about again.
Would it be safe to say that the "octopus" Tiger II had a green base color?
And also, is this an example of the Panthers talked about earlier?
In my opinion these are an example of the few evidences of dark green as base color.
Would it be safe to say that the "octopus" Tiger II had a green base color?
And also, is this an example of the Panthers talked about earlier?
In my opinion these are an example of the few evidences of dark green as base color.
jrutman
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 09:02 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Just my two penn'orth. In Headhunter 506s post where he quotes at length the regulation, H.V. 1945, Nr.52 it would appear to address a shortage of Dunkelgelb paint. If we accept this, the logical conclusion to reach would be that the interior would be left in red primer - the remainder of the painting regulation refers to camo painting in 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, but specifies that lack of paint should not prevent delivery. If there is not enough Dunkelgelb to go round, which would make sense as it was previously the most used colour, being used on interiors of open vehicles, as well as for the base coat, as well as being issued to the troops for overpainting, then logically the external surfaces would be green/brown. Or am I missing something....?
I understand your point but..... the interior of a 251 or any open topped track can be seen from the air and as thus should/would be treated as an exterior surface.
J
SdAufKla
Joined: May 07, 2010
KitMaker: 2,238 posts
Armorama: 2,158 posts
Posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 - 10:40 AM UTC
Here are some of the known two-color, hard-edged Panthers:
The "Munich" Panther which is believed to be the same vehicle later displayed at the Patton Museum in Ft. Knox:
The Patton Museum's two-color Panther which establishes the colors of dark green and brown as it was photographed in color (again, believed to the same as the "Munich" Panther):
The twins, 411 and 421:
And at lest three other examples:
There may be others that I've never seen. This makes for a total of six Panthers photographed in the "new scheme" cammo.
One thing that all of these have in common (besides the "new scheme" camouflage) is that they are all MAN production tanks with foliage loops and (as far as can be determined) last-station steel wheels.
This suggests that it's entirely possible that MAN was the only assembly firm to actually adopt the "new scheme" for any significant part of its final production before the war ended.
There are other examples of factory hard-edged camouflage, but these are (AFAIK) all still three-color schemes:
This last photo, the JagdPz 38, is the one that suggests to me that its at least possible that some attempt was made by some factories to accommodate the seasonal camouflage requirements by introducing white into their schemes during the winter of '44-'45.
(At least, the light color in this photo looks like dirty white to me - same tone as the edges of the BK. I don't know of any other wartime color photos of the JagdPz 38, but there are lots of BW photos with very high contrast light patches in their factory cammo. I'm open to the possibility, at any rate.)
IIRC, there are also few photos of final Tiger II's in hard-edged cammo schemes - like the "octo-tiger" above, but I believe these are all also three-color.
I don't know of any other photos of two-color German late-war AFV's. These MAN Panthers seem to be it. So, the two-color, hard-edged, green based "new scheme" appears to have been put into effect by at least one assembly firm before the war ended.
Finally, least anyone (perhaps on another forum) think that I'm somehow claiming credit for "exposing new facts," all of this is just information that's been previously published and discussed. There's nothing earth-shaking or even remotely controversial here (unless your mind is closed to the possibility that not everything is yet known about the subject...).
The "Munich" Panther which is believed to be the same vehicle later displayed at the Patton Museum in Ft. Knox:
The Patton Museum's two-color Panther which establishes the colors of dark green and brown as it was photographed in color (again, believed to the same as the "Munich" Panther):
The twins, 411 and 421:
And at lest three other examples:
There may be others that I've never seen. This makes for a total of six Panthers photographed in the "new scheme" cammo.
One thing that all of these have in common (besides the "new scheme" camouflage) is that they are all MAN production tanks with foliage loops and (as far as can be determined) last-station steel wheels.
This suggests that it's entirely possible that MAN was the only assembly firm to actually adopt the "new scheme" for any significant part of its final production before the war ended.
There are other examples of factory hard-edged camouflage, but these are (AFAIK) all still three-color schemes:
This last photo, the JagdPz 38, is the one that suggests to me that its at least possible that some attempt was made by some factories to accommodate the seasonal camouflage requirements by introducing white into their schemes during the winter of '44-'45.
(At least, the light color in this photo looks like dirty white to me - same tone as the edges of the BK. I don't know of any other wartime color photos of the JagdPz 38, but there are lots of BW photos with very high contrast light patches in their factory cammo. I'm open to the possibility, at any rate.)
IIRC, there are also few photos of final Tiger II's in hard-edged cammo schemes - like the "octo-tiger" above, but I believe these are all also three-color.
I don't know of any other photos of two-color German late-war AFV's. These MAN Panthers seem to be it. So, the two-color, hard-edged, green based "new scheme" appears to have been put into effect by at least one assembly firm before the war ended.
Finally, least anyone (perhaps on another forum) think that I'm somehow claiming credit for "exposing new facts," all of this is just information that's been previously published and discussed. There's nothing earth-shaking or even remotely controversial here (unless your mind is closed to the possibility that not everything is yet known about the subject...).
 |
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.