That looks like one of my tanks, or a repaint of one of my tanks. I was in B Company (check the bumper number at the rear) in 1982-83. The tanks were originally in a standard MERDEC scheme. Our First Sergeant found out that I built model tanks, with some pretty good camo. patterns airbrushed on them. He asked me, “How would you like to paint some real tanks?” When the 1SG asks you to do something, he means it’s an order. So I spent the next week or two painting tanks, trucks, jeeps, and the M 88.
Y
He gave me some pretty clear instructions: he did not like the standard MERDEC with all the little points and small black and sand sections. He also wanted the rectangular sand sections where the bumper numbers go to be blended into the rest of the camo pattern. By the time I was done, the sand areas had gotten pretty big and blotchy, but the 1SG liked it. One of my tanks even ended up on the cover of the old Military Modeler magazine in 1983.
Ken.

This is exactly what I've been saying through several threads here on Armorama-- there are always exceptions to the rule. For some reason we modelers get fixated on the "regulations and orders" part of the real thing, and feel that "that was the way things were done based on this photo or that regulation"-- and there were never any exceptions to the rule. You've proven that not to be the case-- your tanks were painted a certain way at the whim of your First Sergeant.

That looks like one of my tanks, or a repaint of one of my tanks. I was in B Company (check the bumper number at the rear) in 1982-83. The tanks were originally in a standard MERDEC scheme. Our First Sergeant found out that I built model tanks, with some pretty good camo. patterns airbrushed on them. He asked me, “How would you like to paint some real tanks?” When the 1SG asks you to do something, he means it’s an order. So I spent the next week or two painting tanks, trucks, jeeps, and the M 88.

He gave me some pretty clear instructions: he did not like the standard MERDEC with all the little points and small black and sand sections. He also wanted the rectangular sand sections where the bumper numbers go to be blended into the rest of the camo pattern. By the time I was done, the sand areas had gotten pretty big and blotchy, but the 1SG liked it. One of my tanks even ended up on the cover of the old Military Modeler magazine in 1983.
Ken.

Quoted Text

---

This is exactly what I've been saying through several threads here on Armorama-- there are always exceptions to the rule. For some reason we modelers get fixated on the "regulations and orders" part of the real thing, and feel that "that was the way things were done based on this photo or that regulation"-- and there were never any exceptions to the rule. You've proven that not to be the case-- your tanks were painted a certain way at the whim of your First Sergeant.

---

I don't think anyone has ever denied that there were exceptions and deviations. The point to remember is that these were exceptions. Many, many, people have used these exceptions as justification to make all sorts of fantastical beasts as well as covering up their mistakes and a lack of research. These exceptions are often trotted out as proof to deny that any sort of standard in any aspect even existed.

Almost all of the threads I've seen start off with someone asking about the correct or standard way to do things. Soon after, another guy chimes in with the "Why are you worrying about standards? We never followed them, and you shouldn't either!" line, and then goes on about why this 1/10th of 1% proves the experts are always wrong.

There's a parallel in model railroading when many of the period photographs show wild color schemes and unusual freight cars (taken because they were . . . unusual) while companies produced models of helium cars and pickle vat cars and billboard reefers in much larger numbers than the real things. While these things certainly existed, the vast, dominant, majority of trains were either strings of grimy red brown boxcars or black hoppers behind dull black locomotives.

The challenge in both hobbies is to model the mundane and make it look interesting, not model the exceptions while trying to make them look normal.

KL

I have seen deviations from the CARC by motor sergeants who didn't want to bother with the CARC paint. Fort Dix M981 Fst-v were repainted in commercial spray paint. The NATO red brown became a dull brown and the green distinctly more yellow.

Fort Drums refurbished M1s where the CARC three color over the original sand never adhered right. The colors came off in huge swatches leaving patchwork tanks. Couldn't recoat due to the law so were left as is.

You wouldn't want to hear about the patchwork nightmare they made of MERDC repainting. I'm building one of the M35 trucks with off tone colors handpainted over an ancient coat of olive drab. Where ever the brush doesn't reach it's 1960s od.

In Squadron's old M1 Abrams In Action in the color plates, the 2nd vehicle is supposedly a M1 painted in what looks like a MASSTR scheme.

Quoted Text

---

In Squadron's old M1 Abrams In Action in the color plates, the 2nd vehicle is supposedly a M1 painted in what looks like a MASSTR scheme.

---

Take if from bitter experience , you cannot ALWAYS trust the color in the Squadron books.

There is a color plate in the Squadron M88 book showing one in the 3-Color NATO scheme, and while all the outlines of the patterns are correct, the COLOR painted inside each area is wrong. The areas which are shown as Brown,should actually be Green, the areas which are shown as Green should actually be Black, and the areas shown as Black should actually be Brown.

I had both the TM with the patterns and color notations and the color plate in the Squadron book (which I enlarged slightly so that it was EXACTLY the same size as the model) and I didn't cross check the two references to make sure they were the same. (Check references TWICE, Paint ONCE!!!)

So my built is painted totally wrong. And with the road wheels on, and all the delicate details such as workable hatches, which I added after I masked and painted, it's almost impossible to go back and correct the mistake unless I try to hand paint everything.

I'm not saying that there is no way an M-1 Abrams was ever painted in the MASSTER scheme (the US Army is NOTORIOUS for not going by the "rules"), but if one was, I'm sure it was some sort of one off, because what everyone calls the "MASSTER" scheme (it's technically the USAREUR/7th Army scheme, since there's no written evidence to connect the work done by MASSTER at Fort Hood with what was adopted for use in USAREUR in 1973) had been replace by the MERDC scheme well before M-1s were fielded.

And I AM saying that just because it's in the Squadron book, that don't make it gospel.

OK, here are what photos I have, they are not real great. First is the painting from the Squadron In Action book, blown up and isolated. This is the artist’s interpretation, based on one (or more) photographs. There are a couple of errors, which I will cover later.

Next is the cover of the April 1983 Military Modeler, followed by a blow-up of the photo of the tank. This is certainly an official US Army photo; the military censor has obliterated the bumper numbers, and any name that may have been painted on the gun tube. However, the censor left the triangle symbol on the turret stowage box, and the “B” Company symbol on the forward side of the turret. This marking is an armor insignia, with the letter B over it, in black paint. You will notice that “B” Company retained the original, unmodified rear track skirts, the painting shows it as being cut out to clear the sprocket. We also had canvas covers over the smoke grenade launchers to keep dirt and rain out, the painting shows them uncovered.


This photo also shows the big problem with trying to make out the camo pattern. The tank trails at Ft. Hood were VERY dusty, tanks (and crewmen) got filthy. This makes it very hard to make out any details in the photos. To make matters worse, I did not have a very good camera at the time, so my photos are not as helpful as I would like.
The next photo shows the back of one of our tanks. It is very dirty. You can see that there are two large sand colored patches on the very back of the turret. You can also see a 5 gallon can mounted on the left rear, by the tail light. The bumper number is painted on behind the can. I am not sure if that is a water can or oil can.

The last photo shows the front of a tank. Notice that the sand painted areas for the bumper numbers are huge! One goes nearly half way across the front of the vehicle. The front of the turret has some black and brown areas, but all that dirt makes it hard to discern their exact shape. In the foreground, you will notice the top of the wind sensor on my tank. There is a sharp demarcation line where the sensor top was masked off before painting. We were not allowed to paint the top of the wing sensor. The green and black (in the inlet holes) are the factory colors. In the Squadron painting, it appears that the artist interpreted this as stripes painted on the wind sensor.

I wish that I had better pictures, but this is as good as I got.
Ken.