There's a 1974 report titled "Camouflage pattern painting report of USAMERDC's Camouflage Support Team to MASSTER" that may be worth a look (or not )

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/778726.pdf

H.P.

Hello Tom,

I certainly appreciate the effort that you and your source have put into this research. Almost all of this is news to me as I had no idea of any of the documentation you have referenced from the 1960's.

The question that you have concerning the sand color, which extends to the red brown for me, is the one that has piqued my curiosity since about 1975...Europe is so verdant that those major colors just seem counter intuitive to me. However, what I view from ground level may not be the same as what a pilot sees.

Your own experience upon viewing the pattern in the field is, perhaps the most interesting to me...essentially, it worked.

Now, You have me wondering a bit. Considering the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, do you think that the choice of the major colors in the MASSTER pattern had anything to do with the potential deployment of forces to that area back then? It seems that a relatively simple and quick overpaint of the tertiary colors could result in a hasty desert scheme. It took a considerable amount of time to paint 3AD when it shipped from Europe to Kuwait.

Respectfully,
Allen

Hello Tom,

Your knowledge and recollections, not to mention your time, are most appreciated. I respect those who use their talents to record history and write books. Coupling what they write with what veteran's share provides a wealth of information.

I had always thought how much better a specialized scout vehicle like the -114 had to be for the mission over the -113. Being much smaller and better armed just struck me as an improvement. But, that opinion was based on technical specs and outward appearances.

I recall very heated arguments when the CFV was being considered as a replacement for the tracks in scout platoons concerning it's comparative size. Since the Bradley has proven it's worth for so many years, I doubt that there are too many soldiers who would rather trade back for the M-113A2 at this point. Although, I think we missed the mark by not adopting the AIFV version of the -113.

I never would have thought that the M-139 would have been such a problem being of Swiss origin. Was there ever a proper repair or fix made for the malfunctions?

I finally was able to see a very well maintained M-114 that was open. It was in the gray desert MERDC pattern and it looked like it would'nt take a whole lot to completely restore it. Unfortunately, it was in storage for use as a hard target. When I spoke to the local military museum director about rescuing it and a T-62 at the same location she was not interested.

Tom, thank you again.

Respectfully,

Allen

Following this thread largely because I'm leaning towards doing my M60A1 in MASSTER now that there's a M60A3 from AFV on the way which I'll likely do up in MERDC.

Re: M114

It had a smaller size, but paradoxically, it was a lot less mobile and had a lot of issues with getting high centered and mobility killed. The better gun was...basically everything I've heard about that particular 20 MM gun has been pretty negative.

Ultimately what was more useful to the scouts was a highly mobile, reliable vehicle to get them into position to scout vs a vehicle from which to scout.

Vehicle size is also less relevant than you'd think. The acoustic profile of most AFVs, and the visual profile of one moving is large enough even with smaller vehicles (like a HMMWV) to make it less optimal.

Basically you have to ways of finding the enemy, either a slow, deliberate approach, usually dismounted, avoiding any contact with the enemy.

Or you have the armored Cavalry way, which is throwing tanks and IFV like platforms at the enemy, with basically enough firepower to defeat or pin in place for follow on forces any enemy encountered.

This is why the Bradley was so attractive as a scout vehicle, while not stealthy, it stands up pretty well to most enemy counter-scout platforms, and has enough firepower to deal with pretty much anything it runs into minus MBTs (which is why it was paired with tanks back in the day though).

Anyway. Long way to answer it, but the M114 just had enough problems to outweigh what it did right from my understanding.

Hello Paul,

This has certainly been a very interesting topic, including the side bar information that tends to flesh out good discussions.

I think that the photo Frenchy posted illustrates the mobility point pretty well. Thank the Lord for kindly German farmers, they helped me out of a jam during an Autumn Forge.

Now, you bring up an interesting thought on vehicle size. Smaller is generally easier to conceal, lighter, maybe faster and I do like a quieter platform. However, there are many factors that go into reconnaissance personnel and equipment and then it must somehow fit into one's doctrine. By the time all of the requisites are met, a scout vehicle may be as big as a house...lol

I like your example of how a US Cavalry regiment might approach the issue. Find 'em, fix 'em and pile on.

I would like to see how your M60A1 turns out. Have you noticed that some of them retained what looks like the dark olive color on the lower hull and suspension, while others were painted in the lighter olive green and still others have the pattern extending onto the hull sides and running gear?

Tom made a good point about it being hard to say that someone's model is wrong when there seemed to be quite a bit of latitude in the interpretation of instructions and application. Not to mention huge amounts of equipment, paint supplies, time, human beings.....etc.

Thanks for this information, Paul.

Respectfully,
Allen

Allen,

About the M114 and the concept of Scouts and the 'right' vehicle:

The 114 concept was the right idea that was just ruined by poor engineering. It was the right size, very maneuverable, and even when armed with the .50 cal could take care of itself when confronted by a BRDM or anything similar. The 20mm gun put too much strain on an already questionably designed powered cupola that was adapted for the M114A1 with the .50 cal. NOTE - they were tested (and rejected) in Vietnam by the ARVN. Somebody should have taken notice right then and there, and scrapped the entire program...just my opinion.

The M139 20mm was a very accurate weapon that unfortunately was extremely maintenance intensive, and affected by the least amount of dirt or dust. Stoppages were common, and it was considered a major victory if we could fire off the contents of one feed tray load at a range without a failure. The gun as I've said, had a specialized tool kit for assembly and disassembly. There was no way to quickly field strip and clean it....it needed to be dismounted from the mount and torn down completely. All or nothing. The gun's feed mechanism was a separate component (it was mounted on top of the gun inside of the mount) that had to be carefully aligned and synched prior to firing, and in some cases needed to have it done again when changing belts of ammo in the feed tray.

There was a lot of turmoil and flux within the Army at the time concerning Scouts and what was the proper vehicle for us...the M114 concept was more or less the 'classic' Light Scout approach, where the vehicle was intended to transport a reporting/artillery observation team around. Our main weapon was really a good radio, and pair of binoculars.

Battalion Scout Platoons with M114's consisted of 10 vehicles (9 M114's, and 1 M113) the 114's were organized into 4 Scout Squads of 2 vehicles each, and the 9th 114 was for the Platoon Leader. The M113 was for the Platoon Sgt, and functioned as an ad hoc logistics and (sometimes) recovery vehicle.

Scout Platoons later went to a 7 vehicle TO&E, with 4 M113s and 3 M150s: 1 M113 was for the Platoon Leader, and the the others were organized into 3x2 vehicle squads of 1 M113 and 1 M150....M901's replaced the M150s as time went by.

The organization above was the first time the Army moved away from the Light or 'Classic' Scout idea, and into a sort of defensive armor attrition concept. The mission statements never changed, but in practice the emphasis started to shift more towards an anti-armor role, while screening the supported unit.

Many of us 'old' Scouts thought the approach above was a mistake, but looking back I think I understand what the Army might have been trying to do (at least in Europe)....whittle down the WP armor any way possible, and as far forward as possible.

I never did operate or crew an M3 Bradley...I saw a few as they were entering service, and my initial impression was that it was too big....I was reminded of the the WW2 M3 Lee/Grant for it's height when I first saw one head on. I'm not qualified to comment any further about the M3. Remember, I was at the time an 'Old Scout', trained in the Classic Mode, and since people sometimes are resistant to change, I guess I was too.

About pattern painted camouflage...my personal opinion was, and still is that it was a waste of time, money, and effort. (Speaking as a user - as a modeler I love it!) In a verdant setting a solid green or brown paint job, in my mind works best. Any vehicle after getting a coating of dust or mud looks like it's surroundings very quickly anyway. The whole story of US Army camouflage is intriguing and needs to be told though.

Tom

Frenchy, it never ceases to amaze my how you always seem to come up with the greatest info (reference or photo) to just about any post!

While not directly related to the 7th Army scheme, this is an additional important piece to the pattern painting story.


I find it interesting that we all (me included!) refer to the 7th Army Scheme as "MASSTER" when it does NOT seem that the scheme which wound up being painted on vehicles in Europe from 1973 - 1977 was dreamed up by the Modern Army Selected Systems Test, Evaluation and Review at Fort Hood!

Everything which they appear to have done during the period covered in the document you provided, (1972) seems to lead toward the LATER scheme which is known as MERDC, for the Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center at Fort Belvoir. So the mystery remains why 7th Army did what they did in 1973. I would BET that once the USAREUR Reg is found (if it can be), there will be a Reference at the beginning which may shed some light on the subject.

I was disappointed that the document which you found contains only the Table of Contents for the various vehicle patterns, and NOT the patterns themselves. It states that "Only the Tables of Contents for Appendices IA and IB are included here; the two complete volumes of patterns are bound separately to facilitate their use."

Certainly understandable, since the cover a TON of vehicles and equipment and number over 244 pages. I don't suppose you have that one up your sleeve too, do you?

Regardless, your lead to DTIC has prompted me to send them a request to see if THEY can located the missing USAREUR Reg 525-5 or 525-6. We'll see what they say!!

Thanks again!

You're welcome Tom Unfortunately I've searched for the missing Appendices to no avail...

On a side note, the camo scheme pictured on page 33 of the report rather looks close to the "7th Army one" (to me at least )

H.P.

I kind of thought so as well, but the quality makes it hard to see all the colors. The biggest difference between this work, and the work done by USAREUR, is in the percentages covered by each color. USAREUR's directives and what wound up actually being implemented from 1973-1977 or so, consisted of four colors, none of which were varied based on seasonal considerations, and were in the proportions of (approx) 30%, 40%, 20% and 10%, or three "larger" areas with the smaller black patterns. The MERDC schemes on the other hand seemed to favor 2 larger areas (of 45% or so) and 2 smaller areas of about 5% each, and with the intent of changing certain areas based on season or location.

Sorry to hear you weren't able to locate the patterns. I'll keep checking around myself and MAYBE somehow they'll turn up someplace.

(I keep thinking they're in that big warehouse, in a box right next to the Arc of the Covenant )

Re: M60A1

It's going to be a long time, it's pretty far down in the stash/I'm just barely at the "painting with silly putty" masking stage and that's just not good enough to do more complicated patterns justice.

Re: Scouts

I for a time was part of the newer generation of scouts. Won't go too far off topic, but basically once you put a scout in a vehicle, regardless of if it's a moped or tank, his detection profile is pretty well maxed out. When I went through Cav Leader's Course there was a lot of discussion of the various forms of recon units throughout history, but what was generally consistent was on the offensive the most common form of first contact with the enemy was incoming rounds.

So given that, there's some utility in something bigger, but tougher. I did most of my scout time in the now obsolete 3 and 5 platoon, which was 3 M3 Bradleys of whatever vintage was available, and then five gun trucks (usually M1025/1026s with a mix of .50 cals, MK-19s or M240 and LRAS3 sensor combos). It really was hard to find a purpose to the trucks for anything but defensive type OPs as they didn't live long enough (in exercises mind) to do much, and weren't able to engage the enemy very well.

Basically in a nutshell:

In slower formations with dismounted movement, sneaky surveillance type scouting is possible, as the tempo of operation allows for the sort of deliberate infiltration and slow movement.

In mechanized formations, the tempo is just too fast to afford much stealth, and in many ways the rapid tempo of the attack is vital to the security of the mechanized force. In that regard, the scout is less a sensor, and more of the tip of the spear, he destroys the enemy screening forces to deny the enemy his own recon, while identifying the main enemy positions, fixing him where possible to allow friendly forces to complete the enemy's destruction.

Which is where something like the M3 CFV-M1 Abrams combination comes in. Sort of died off there for the whole War on Terror thing, but it's certainly stirring again now by most observations.

DTIC is unlikely to be able help you. They are not a historical research library.

You need to find where the Seventh Army and USAEUR historical records are held and search there. They are probably in the National Archives or the US Army Military History Institute.

KL

That's a good idea. I'll give the Military History Institute a try. Thanks!