Hello Bruce,

You and Georg have impressed the heck out of me with your builds and depiction of the MASSTER pattern.

If I knew how to post photographs, I would enjoy sharing what I have just so you guys could see how much better mine are...LOL!

I completed an Tamiya M60A2 in this camouflage since it just seemed like it fit the time frame. However, I was incorrect on that one.

When I first saw this pattern and the colors used, I thought it was just ugly but it became one of my favorites, as well.

I wondered how in the world it would work in such a green place as Germany. I looked at the Brits and their use of black and green made a lot more sense to me.
On the other hand, the MASSTER patterns reminded of the German ambush schemes of WWII without the dots and I wondered if this influenced the decision to use it.

It might have presented quite a challenge for an enemy gunship or fast mover to spot from altitude.

It is certainly disruptive in its application, so, even without nets and foliage, it may have been quite effective in its intent.

This has been a very interesting topic and I enjoy all the participation from so many talented people.

Respectfully,

Allen

Hello Tom,

It sounds like you may not have liked the M114 too much. I am interested to know more about this vehicle. I have been around several over the years, but, they were either on display at museums or hard targets. What were the pros and cons from your point of view? Was that 20mm Oerlikon a good performer?

How did your unit go about painting the vehicles? It looks like most of what I have seen has been applied by paint brush. Did you have drawings to work off of like we (sometimes) had with the MERDC patterns?

Respectfully,
Allen

Maybe that 20mm by Hispano-Suiza?

Hi folks,

3-64 Armor had M60 in MASSTER camo in 1975 still.

3-64 Armor was our U.S. sister battalion and we trained quite often with them. In summer 1975, we spent, some 50 guys of PzBtl 354, with 3-64 Armor a 4 week rotation at Graf. And I have a pictures of me standing in front of B-25, that was the M60 in MASSTER, prior to the TCQC run.

As sson as I get it digitalized I'll post it here on Armorama.

Greetz

Hank

Hi Allen,

the M114A2 was armed with the U.S. version of the HS 820, 20 MIKE MIKE. The U.S. Army called this gun, M139. The same machine cannon was used with the infamous HS 30 SPz!

Greetz

Hank

Looking forward to that !
Thankx for your input !

Cheers
Christopher

Hello Hauke,

I was thinking that this was the case with the 20mm. Thanks for this information.

I have always like the HS30 and the SPZ family of AFV's. I found a bone yard at Graf one year that had a large number of HS30's and M47's. After enjoying ROCO mini tanks, it was pretty special to see them in person.

Hauke, what was your opinion on the effectiveness of the MASSTER camouflage in the field?

Did you find any significant differences between German and American tankers?

I was at Ayers Kaserne in Kirch-Gons in 1981-82 and we had a "brother" (no sisters for the Infantry..lol!) from a panzer battalion. I enjoyed the comaraderie we had with
the panzer grenadiers. They were ugly as hell, but, good lads..lol. I think that
everyone was impressed with the Marder.

Respectfully,
Allen
Fort Worth, Texas
USA

For those interested in MASSTER camo, there are some color period pics from Germany on Flickr :

https://www.flickr.com/photos/avatar1/albums/72157614918007465/page1

H.P.

Hello Henri,

Those are some of the best armor pictures that I have ever seen! The photographer is to be congratulated.

I think some of his photos would have complimented those in the Tankograd publication quite well. I never would have guessed that the pattern had been carried over to the inside of the trim vane on the M113.

Thank you for making us aware of this man's treasure.

Respectfully,
Allen

You're most welcome Allen

H.P.

Hi Allen,

To answer your questions (sorry it took so long!) you're right, I absolutely hated the M114!

Without getting too long winded (I hope) here are some of my main gripes:

Automotive: It was powered by basically a V-8 283 Chevy engine, and was just a bit underpowered....on roads it was fine, and could really move when everything was working. Cross country was another story, a real dog, very sluggish. The engine itself was overtaxed, and suffered from constantly fouling spark plugs and was almost always jumping out of timing. This was a stock engine being used without fuel injection or supercharging.

Suspension: The front of the hull was longer than the track run, and really hurt the vehicle when trying to go over a berm, or ditch (it would dig itself in nose first). The drive sprockets were weak, and the sprocket teeth were bolted to the hub, using small bolts which tended to sheer off at the bolt head.
The tracks were "rubber band", assembled in sections that were connected by internal steel cables (like the WW2 halftracks). The tracks themselves were constantly dry rotting at the section connection points, and we suffered many broken tracks, along with more than a few accidents because of this. The hull could develop stress cracks on the underside at the torsion bar mounting points, and so we never, ever tried swimming the vehicles. For that matter, when I was at Ft. Knox for AIT, the same thing applied, no swimming instruction or training due to safety concerns.

Maintenance access: Few and poorly designed access points to any components. Nothing was really designed for fast replacement or access under field conditions. The engine air cleaner was actually in the driver's compartment and suspended in a canister above his knees...the quick release clips for it were weak, and would work loose due to vibration, and cause the entire thing to fall on the driver's knees, unless you used cargo straps or rope to tie it in place.

Hatches: When open, we would have to actually tie them down using cargo straps for safety - the hatch retainers were weak, and would "slip" releasing the hatch to close by itself as the vehicle was moving otherwise.

20mm Gun: Designated M139, it was an adapted (I think) Swiss design, that required constant maintenance, and a specialized tool kit to disassemble. Good enough when it would fire, and extremely accurate. The major problem was an overly complex cupola, and electrical firing system that rarely worked...it was supposed to have different fire modes (single shot, burst, low rate, high rate) but most of the time we had to use manual mode (this was a fixed high rate of fire), and to do this, the TC would have to stand exposed in the open cupola, and pull back on a lever located on the right side of the gun cradle.

I could go on and on, but I think this is enough to give an overview. Needless to say we were overjoyed when our 114's were finally replaced by reliable 113's.

One last note, I've seen the 20mm armed version of the '114 referred to as an "M114A2", this is correct, but when I operated them, every TM and piece of paperwork associated with them referred to the vehicle as an "M114A1E1". Semantics really.

Painting: When we went to the 7th Army scheme, everything was brush painted, and we did have an official pattern to use provided as a Training Bulletin by 7th Army. Marking off the individual color areas was done using chalk. Every Company was issued paint, and expected to do their own vehicles. I remember we were given one week to complete this, and worked day and night shifts throughout the Battalion to get it done. The first few vehicles would always follow the official patterns quite closely, and as things progressed, more and more variation crept in. Masking of glass like lights and periscopes was achieved by using grease, and the paint was thinned using MOGAS....this led to some big color variations from vehicle to vehicle.

Tom

More M114 recollections here :

http://www.eaglehorse.org/3_home_station/m114/m114.htm



H.P.

And I have searched EVERYWHERE to find a copy of that TB! There may have been both a V Corps and a VII Corps "Supplement" to the 7th Army TB (I think I have found a written reference to it), but I have not been able to find a copy of the original document with all the various patterns for each type of vehicle. Even writing to the 7th Army/USAREUR historical office was unproductive.

So if ANYBODY has a copy of that TB with the MASSTER vehicle patterns, let me know.

Tom Hathaway

Hi Tom,

I'm on the hunt for the patterns also (I have an M113 I'd like to finish in MASSTER), and so far the best I can come up with is that the controlling document was USAREUR Reg 525-5 Annex A, Appendix 1, "Application of camouflage paint on typical military vehicles" dated 1971, revised 1973. I haven't found any copies yet though, just references to it.

I'm unclear as to whether or not the patterns are included in 525-5, or not. I am 99% certain that the drawings we worked from were issued as a TB, but I can't remember if the originator was 7th Army or VII Corps, and so far have turned up nothing.

To muddy the waters, I also recall that our resident Infantry Battalion (in Erlangen) prior to MASSTER, had on their own pattern painted some M113's in dark and light (FS34087?) OD. I remember these were for an "Open House Day". The Battalion in question was 2-46 INF (redesignated 1-46 INF later on).

The other Tom

While looking through an old photo album, I've come across a few pictures of my unit that I took at Grafenwohr in August, 1972.

The first is a railhead lineup of mixed M60's, M60A1's, and M114's from our Scout Platoon all painted in OD (Unit is 3-37 Armor).

The second is an Olive Drab M60 that I captioned as "A-24, 3-37 Armor". It has had it's registration numbers painted in black, and a barely visible turret star.

Anyone wanting to take a look can click on my photo album.

Well you're in luck! I actually DO have the pattern for the M-113. It was published in an article entitled "Color 'N Camouflage" (not sure of the publication or date) from a magazine and written by James Steuard and Dwight McLemore.

PM me and I'll get you a copy.

Like you, I've found reference to the implementing documents (and actually some patterns), but NOT the actual publication which is referenced.

What I can tell from the records is that an initial study was implemented in 1966 and was actually planned for 1967 but it was cancelled at the last minute. And then somehow in the summer of 1973 it was re-initiated, and THOSE are the documents which seem to be missing.

The OTHER Tom

Hi Tom,

PM Sent, and I really appreciate the help!

The most frustrating thing to me is that I worked at the Pentagon as a civilian, and never thought to ask anyone about this type of thing at all. We even had the Army Library in the Building. For that matter, the National Archives were right up the road! Now I'm in PA, so it's sort of out of the question.

I wonder if USAREUR didn't just chuck 525-5 including all of the patterns, and V and VII Corps followed suit when everything was being repainted in MERDC? Knowing the way things used to work back then, I wouldn't be surprised.

Maybe someone out there has everything in their personal archives, and we'll see them someday. I really hope so.

Tom

That article was on Afv-G2 magazine. I also remember seeing the patterns for the M60. These were not the paint by numbers patterns of MERDC so it was more of a guideline rather than set in stone. Did anyone ever try a request to the Patton museum? They had a pretty good library of TM and TB and unit yearbooks.

Guys,
I found a link tha has some of the info you are looking for: https://sites.google.com/site/merdccamo/home/7tharmy
Regards,
Georg

I know there's a listing of many of the MASSTER patterns out there. I thought I book marked it. Can't find it right now.

The book by TankOgrad MASSTER, DUAL TEX and MERDC is great and I know you could find photos of all angles on there.

Here's a useful site though... has some MASSTER and ALL of the MERDC patterns:

https://sites.google.com/site/merdccamo/home




....

Hey.. found MASSTER in M113. You have to keep correcting Google, it thinks you want Master..

http://s125.photobucket.com/user/Genodes/media/Camouflage%20patterns/M113MASSTER.jpg.html

Guys,

Thanks for the leads and links! This looks like what I'm looking for, and the Tankograd book is going to get a buy from me.

If an author could do a book on US armor camouflage and markings from 1945 to the present, I'd be overjoyed. I'd like to see a one source thing that covers the regulations, patterns, and local variations, along with photos, and color artwork.

The period 1970-75 is frequently overlooked, but it was a time of transition and experimentation as the Army began the recovery from the Vietnam experience.

Maybe one day we'll see such a book. Who knows?

Tom

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade here but these line drawings - possibly from the Panzerbaer site - are at some variance with the actual photographs in the Tankograd book. When I began my Cold War collection of US armour I was veering towards the drawings shown but whilst one would certainly get a MASSTER-type result they might not be accurate unless 7th Army went through several iterations (which of course is not unlikely in the military); I would recommend careful study of the Tankograd book for M113 finishes, but of course, there are no pictures of the M60 - which is where this topic began!

I would certainly welcome anything that helps with identifying what the US Army sported from 1945 to 1970, if only to unravel the variations of Olive Drab.

Brian

As said before these patterns were guidelines and often applied by the crews, so there was great variation. Real life rarely matches the manuals. Paint was often bought from commercial sources so varied in tone. There are all kinds of first hand reports in this thread of Gis with paint brushes. There were no iterations as such, just guys with paint brushes.

There was some variation in MERDC when it was hand painted. I saw vehicles with brush marks obvious from across the street. You used what was at hand. And the three color scheme had variations when CARC paint could not be applied for different reasons.

And then there were the sand M1s that had been repainted in three color. After two years most of the NATO scheme had worn off like one of those weathered WWII white wash schemes.

Hi, Steve!

You know, that's what I've been trying to explain the the "Panzer-Heads" in other threads- A lot of them are STILL doing perfectly-applied WWII German "Tri-color" camo-schemes that just weren't "perfect" in real life. Then, to top it all off, they'll paint the wooden handles of the axes, shovels, etc, as if they were lovingly stained and varnished in warm, sexy browns by the cute little elves that work hard overnight to get the tools ready for Onkel Adolf's toy Tiger Is & IIs... SHEESH!!!

"Field-applied" camo ain't perfect, and as far as tools go, "If it don't move, paint it!!!" (ungrammatical, but still true)

What you've told of your own experiences, can be applied IN DROVES to what actually happened during WWII...

The story of the USAREUR/7th Army MASSTER scheme is a bit complicated and there are quite a few twists and turns and some missing pieces. But for those of an historical bent, I have quite a bit of information on how things came about and while I was asked some time ago to not reveal my source, the information he uncovered provides a story that I think ought to become public knowledge. My source did all the digging and research and has provided copies of the source material to me. But there are some important pieces missing, and perhaps this tale will lead to someone discovering the “missing links”.

The earliest reference is from 28 April 1966, when HQ USAREUR published USAREUR Reg. 746-5, which directed that vehicles be camouflaged. This initial plan called for a “three or four color combination, consisting of a large dark pattern area (color 30045); a large light pattern area (color no 30219 for fall and winter seasons and color no 34127 for spring and summer seasons; and one or two small disruptive pattern areas (color no 34102 and color no 34052 (optional)).”

How much of this was actually implemented, I have no idea, but suffice to say I for one have never seen any pictures of pattern painted vehicles in Europe from this time frame, so if any were done I suspect it wasn’t wide spread.

One of the reasons that I think that not much was done is that the instructions above were just too vague to be implemented by troops in the field, but that’s just my personal opinion.

At this point I’m going to skip ahead just a bit, to another document which is a Trip Report, issued by a Team Consisting of 4 people from CONUS (Continental United States), consisting of an LTC from the Office of the Chief Engineer, and three civilians, one each from Army Material Command, Combat Development Command, and the Engineering Research and Development Labs from the Engineer School.

How they got to Europe is an interesting story. The trip report states:

“In early summer 1966, General (Creighton) Abrams Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, visited USAREUR. While there he was impressed by the efforts of units to improve camouflage. At the same time he became more fully aware of some of the basic problems with which USAREUR is faced. Upon his return to CONUS he proposed, in correspondence to General O’Meara, CINCUSAREUR, that a team of AMC/CDC camouflage experts visit Europe. General O’Meara accepted this offer and on 8 November 1966, USAREUR furnished DA with an outline of assistance needed.”

(Keep the date of the outline in mind.)

The team’s visit covered the period from 1 February – 5 March 1967. It’s a very well done report and as it relates to the history of the European camouflage story is the following recommendation: “USAREUR simplify the current pattern painting regulations.”

This was evidently accepted, because the NEXT thing I have is a message from V Corps to their subordinate units, dated 22 March 1967 (A copy of the original direction from USAREUR is missing for some reason) referencing the Camouflage program Reg. and stating that the camouflage painting program has been deferred.

Now we go backwards a bit. On 7 November 1966, (the day BEFORE USAREUR actually invited the team over) USAREUR issued a letter referencing the 28 April Reg. 746-5, which provided additional instructions now specifying four colors, and in this case providing the actual mixing instructions for each of the 4 colors, specifying exact ratios of specific various FSN paints rather than specifying the FS for the resulting color.

This letter specified that:

Color 1 (large dark pattern) is a 3:3:2 mix of Earth Brown:Forrest Green:Black and is to cover 34% of the vehicle
Color 2 (large light pattern) is a 3:3:1/2 mix of Light Green:Field Drab:Black and is to cover 37% of the vehicle
Color 3 (small green pattern) is strictly Forest Green, and is to cover 20% of the vehicle, and
Color 4 (small black pattern) is a 3:1 mix of Black:Forrest Green, and is to cover 9% of the vehicle.

It also indicates that for now they were only CONSIDERING substituting a single color (Color 2) for fall and winter and they’d conduct a test of that in January-February 1967 and let everyone know but for now go with this.

And finally this little gem:

In an Inclosure they provided a square with patterns and numbers (Think an abstract paint by number) entitled “Standard Disruptive Camouflage Pattern” and directed the troops to:

a. Prepare a 1 inch to 30 inches scale drawing of the vehicles to be painted.
b. Superimpose the disruptive pattern (the Inclosure) on the scale drawing,
c. Using the scale drawing as a guide, draw chalk outlines free hand on the vehicle surface.

In essence they were directing that troops create their OWN patterns for everything. I’m sure some eager beaver Captain on the engineering staff at USAREUR came up with this ill-considered plan and probably got an EAR full from his boss about it, and it didn’t take long.

On 2 December 1966, a second letter was published and THIS one included a 39 (or 38) page attachment which had patterns for 12 different vehicles, which were as follows: ¼ Ton Truck, ¼ Ton Trailer, Cargo Truck, Cargo Trailer, 5 Ton Wrecker, Truck,Van,Expansible, M-113, M114, Tank & Tank Dozer, M-88, M-109 Howitzer, and M-577.

I’ve looked at the drawings from the AFV-G2 Article, as well as the applicable line drawings at this link:

http://s125.photobucket.com/user/Genodes/media/Camouflage%20patterns/M113MASSTER.jpg.html



and with some minor variations, specifically in the AFV-G2 version the additional text, all these drawings were originally created for the Inclosure 1 to the 2 December 1966 letter.

But as I mentioned earlier, all this took place PRIOR to the team from CONUS arriving and the whole thing was deferred on 22 March.

But the story takes a few twists. After the conclusion of the visit, there are two letters which my source uncovered that are interesting. The first is from the Action Officer at the USAREUR Engineer’s Office to the Team Member from the Engineering Center’s Engineering Research and Development Lab at Fort Belvoir. This letter is dated 1 June 1967 and states that General Polk (who became CINCUSAREUR on that date), “approved our staff paper which included a plan of action to be taken on the team’s recommendations. First action was the publication of USAREUR Camouflage Policy – new Regulation 525-5" (which he enclosed). It reiterates that there are the same 4 patterns as above with the same coverage percentages.

I have NOT been able to find USAREUR Regulation 525-5 of 1 June 1967, so if anybody knows where to get a copy PLEASE LET ME KNOW!

The response from ERDL is dated 13 June 1967 and states concerning the previously mentioned Regulation 525-5, “This looks like a fine document and follows closely the team ideas and recommendations.” It also goes on to state:

I would agree that the percentages of color areas indicated are approximately accurate. For simplicity, however, and on the basis that it is not critical, the use of the following is suggested:

Large Dark Pattern 30%
Large Light Pattern 40%
Small Green Pattern 20%
Black Shadow Pattern 10%

And then after that NOTHING. At least until June of 1972.

Why? A couple of things MAY offer some reasons. For one thing, the Arab-Israeli War had taken place between 5 June and 10 June of 1967. For another, the U.S. Army became increasingly involved in the Vietnam War. As a brand new 2LT arriving in Europe in October of 1972, I can tell you that the consequences of a “lack of attention” to the Army in Europe were obvious. Either of these or some combination thereof could have resulted in the program being put on the back burner.

Regardless, the next piece of evidence my source found was the minutes of a NATO committee on Camouflage dated 15 June of 1972. This document states:

“US left the use of DP (Disruptive Patterns) on vehicles to an individual command decision with no colour or pattern laid down. A policy change is likely in the near future which would regularize the use of DP on vehicles.”

Which brings us to the summer of 1973 when the MASSTER Program began. Based on the notes added to the Tank Pattern in the AFV-G2 Article, there was a VII Corps regulation 525-6 published 1 June 1973.

Based on that evidence, it is almost certain that V Corps published a similar regulation (I was in V Corps in the 8th ID and I know we had some reference which we used to paint our vehicles) AND that both of these were “triggered” by an overarching USAREUR Regulation, either 525-5 (as hinted at in the 1 June 1967 letter) or perhaps 525-6 based on the VII Corps Regulation.

Regardless, I have been UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OF THESE DIRECTIVES from 1973, so again, if somebody has a lead on them that would fill in a lot of gaps.

But based on the AFV-G2 article two things are apparent:

First of all, the PATTERNS which were created for Inclosure 1 to the December 1966 letter were re-issued as part of those 1973 directions. I conclude this based on the fact that the patterns for the M-113 and the Tank included in the AFV-G2 article are virtually identical to the patterns from the Inclosure to the December 1966 letter.

And the SECOND thing is NOW, color number 2, is called out as being a Sand Brown no. 30277, instead of the Light Green/Field Drab mix which was originally specified. I find it interesting that while the PATTERNS were evidently reused from the 1966 directives, somehow a decision was made to change the color covering the largest individual percentage of the vehicle to Sand Brown. I remember thinking it strange at the time that in Europe, we were painting a “desert” color. But after we got to the field and the vehicles got covered with dust and mud, it actually seemed right!

So somewhere, somebody dusted off the old plans, changed the colors and reissued the instructions and we all went to the motor pool!

Did ALL of the vehicles EXACTLY match the patterns published in the Reg.? Of course not, but the point remains that there WERE patterns for at least 12 vehicles as of December of 1966, and for the most part they were probably followed “reasonably” well. But like everything else the US Army does, the one thing you can be sure of is that SOMEBODY did it differently. And so if you’re going to paint a MASSTER scheme from this time period, as long as the colors and GENERAL pattern scheme are SIMILAR to the intent of the regulation, NOBODY can say, “That’s not correct.”

I apologize for the massive length of this post, but to me, since this is the story behind the MASSIVE painting (for pretty much the first time since WW II) of US Army vehicles in anything but OD, and the fact that the actual source documents DIRECTING this historical action are missing, makes it a story worth telling and a mystery worth solving,

SO it sure would be nice to get my hands on the ACTUAL directives!!! I for one would like to know WHEN the decision was made (and why!) to go with Sand Brown as the dominant color, and if the regulations of 1973 include MORE than the original 12 line drawings issued in 1966. Until somebody gets their hands on the source documents, we’ll never know for sure.