WWII German armour camo - again!

Gern

'Stashitis' victim
SMF Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
9,622
Points
113
Location
Stourbridge
First Name
Dave
I've been looking at some of the recent Panther builds on here. Some great work but I had a thought.

I understand that at some time, all German armour was painted yellow at the factory and sent out with quantities of brown and green paint to be applied in the field. If that's correct, would the soldiers in the field bother to remove tyres and tools etc before painting the camo colours? Tools maybe, but I can't see them going to all the trouble of removing tyres! So shouldn't there be paint on the tyres - either from brush painting or spray painting - as I can't see any need to be particularly careful when applying the paint.

Apologies for opening this can of worms but I'm curious. :smiling4:
 

Jon Heptonstall

SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
1,193
Points
113
First Name
Jon
I'd go along with that Dave.
Like to see photos of it though.If you look at modern British army vehicles you can clearly see where a repaint job has gone over the inner tyres.I've got a photo of a Warrior MCV painted OD over either desert or UN finish which is none too neat.
Jon.
 

Jim F

SMF Supporter
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
335
Points
63
First Name
Jim
Hi Dave,
I would believe that Unit pride would be a factor in a disciplined Army so my belief would be that the camo would be painted as neatly as time permitted, Tanks weren't cheap and Units were expected to look after them as best they could and there are records of severe punishments being meted out when they weren't looked after appropriately.
Jim
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
695
Points
93
Location
Belgium
First Name
Wouter
Hi Dave

Well, it depends, each Werkstatte had it's own way of applying the camouflage I reckon, but there were certainly maintenance crew who didn't bother removing tools and wheels to do that. There are famous photos of a Tiger II being camouflaged with an airbrush somewhere in France 1944. I think on this particular one the tools were removed prior to painting because they don't seem to have the camouflage on them. On the other hand it doesn't really makes sense since you are doing so much effort in camouflaging your vehicle and then letting things like the tools stand out.
Frankreich-Soldat-beim-Besprühen-eines-Panzer-VI-Tiger-II-Königstiger-mit-Farbe-im-Hintergru...jpg

This brings us to a second item btw: all too often I see people who have a problem with overspray when they freehand apply camouflage to their model. Or they get critique for the overspray. But I wouldn't bother with that too much, this actually happened in reality as well.

Cheers
 
B

Brad9826

Guest
HI , here's one image I have (for discussion ) and the tools seem not to have been painted, therefore I think it's as Wouter said , time and place etc.1451615_417111585085306_153778402_n.png
 

Gern

'Stashitis' victim
SMF Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
9,622
Points
113
Location
Stourbridge
First Name
Dave
Hi Dave,
I would believe that Unit pride would be a factor in a disciplined Army so my belief would be that the camo would be painted as neatly as time permitted, Tanks weren't cheap and Units were expected to look after them as best they could and there are records of severe punishments being meted out when they weren't looked after appropriately.
Jim

Good point Jim. Some care taken then, but minor overspray or brush marks should be OK.

Thanks guys.
 

Jakko

Way past the mad part
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
10,590
Points
113
First Name
Jakko
It would make a big difference whether the vehicle was sprayed before the Allied invasion or after it. Before, units would have all the time they needed to do things neatly and by the book; after, the emphasis would have been on getting the tank into the field, so my guess is that anything that didn’t affect fighting ability wasn’t overly important. That is, they wouldn’t have wanted paint on the periscopes, but on tools — who cares?

As for critique on overspray on a model, I’d say it depends on the degree. If your overspray is two centimetres wide on a 1/35 scale model, you can’t really claim it to be in scale, nor probably that it’s simply a result of your airbrush not being able to spray finer lines (unless you used a spray gun or spraying can, anyway). You could even make a case for brush-painting certain camouflage that was (or is) sprayed in the real world, as the overspray on the real thing is small enough that it approximates a solid line in 1/35, let alone smaller scales. NATO three-colour camouflage comes to mind, where the allowed overspray, off the top of my head, is about a centimetre, or some 0.3 mm in 1/35.
 

Gern

'Stashitis' victim
SMF Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
9,622
Points
113
Location
Stourbridge
First Name
Dave
NATO three-colour camouflage comes to mind, where the allowed overspray, off the top of my head, is about a centimetre, or some 0.3 mm in 1/35.

I've never used a spray gun so I don't know anything about spray patterns. Can they really spray that accurately? That doesn't give you a lot of leeway when painting a kit and practically makes masking mandatory - especially if your hand shakes like mine.
 

Jakko

Way past the mad part
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
10,590
Points
113
First Name
Jakko
IIRC, most of it’s sprayed using templates, so the overspray comes from the edges of those lifting up a little. As for the actual overspray allowed:
US Army TB 43-0209 COLOR MARKING AND CAMOUFLAGE PAINTING OF MILITARY VEHICLES CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS HANDLING EQUIPMENT (31 October 1990) said:
28. OUTLINING THE CAMOUFLAGE PATTERN ON THE VEHICLE
(…)
h. Inspections will only be measured at reference points and will evaluate the overall effect at 50 feet. In addition, overspray which can be discerned at 50 feet will be considered sloppy painting and will be corrected.
This is the guideline for soldiers painting the vehicle at a military installation; like I said, AFAIK manufacturers usually use templates placed over the vehicle to mask the areas that shouldn’t be painted.
 

Gern

'Stashitis' victim
SMF Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
9,622
Points
113
Location
Stourbridge
First Name
Dave
Oh well. Masking it is then!

That only applies to the issue of overspray right? What sort of overlap is acceptable for 'soft edge' camo on armour? It's about time I learned to use my A/B for something other than just covering large areas of plastic so some idea of what I'm aiming for would be useful.
 

Jakko

Way past the mad part
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
10,590
Points
113
First Name
Jakko
Note that the quote I posted above applies to American vehicles in NATO three-colour (green-brown-black) camouflage. On WWII German tanks in the middle of the war, AFAIK camouflage was usually sprayed freehand by the crews themselves, whose skill level could be anything from professional painter to never having held a spray gun before.

In other words: the “allowed” overspray depends on time and place, not to mention your own tastes — given that it’s your model. For WWII German, I’d aim for fairly fine but not necessarily as tight as 1990s American vehicles. Just experiment a little first, for example on an old model, to see how fine you can spray, what you’re comfortable with, and what looks right to you.
 

TIM FORSTER

SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
224
Points
93
Location
London, UK
First Name
Tim
I think it's worth bearing in mind that we are usually looking at black and white photos from the period - or over-exposed colour like the one above.

Whilst the camouflage is usually visible on the large flat surfaces it's not always so apparent on the details.

On the image of the Tiger II above it certainly looks as if the camouflage has been sprayed over the gun cleaning rods whereas on the shovel it doesn't - and yet the spade is definitely still in place...
 

Jakko

Way past the mad part
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
10,590
Points
113
First Name
Jakko
On the image of the Tiger II above it certainly looks as if the camouflage has been sprayed over the gun cleaning rods whereas on the shovel it doesn't - and yet the spade is definitely still in place...
And the tow cable. The shovel looks like it has some dark yellow on it, so it was probably sprayed along as well. Looking closely at the photo, it looks like the only things they did before spraying as remove the periscopes from their mountings and cover the bow machine gun’s barrel (why they didn’t just pull that out of its mounting, we’ll never know, I suppose).

Probably the most extreme example of this style of painting is British vehicles for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The painters tried to avoid the windows, mostly, but pretty much anything else on a vehicle would get a coat of sand-coloured paint.
 

Gern

'Stashitis' victim
SMF Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
9,622
Points
113
Location
Stourbridge
First Name
Dave
I can understand removing or covering periscopes and guns, but I guess I can pretty much choose what to do about the tools. I'll do my best and let you guys judge.
 

Jakko

Way past the mad part
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
10,590
Points
113
First Name
Jakko
The good thing about German tanks like this is that you can’t really get it wrong, if you ask me. Patterns were painted on by the troops, so there’s a huge variation in appearance and application. If you paint a vehicle in NATO three-colour pattern with just some random red-brown and black blotches then it’s pretty much guaranteed to look wrong, but you don’t have that problem with ca. 1943–’44 German equipment as long as you get the colours reasonably correct.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
695
Points
93
Location
Belgium
First Name
Wouter
And the tow cable. The shovel looks like it has some dark yellow on it, so it was probably sprayed along as well.
Always hard to see on the photos but DY on the shovel would be rather odd. That color was factory applied and I don't really think tools were in place when the armor received it's basecoat. Just my two cents ^^

Cheers
 

Gern

'Stashitis' victim
SMF Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2009
Messages
9,622
Points
113
Location
Stourbridge
First Name
Dave
Some useful stuff here guys, thanks. Just a quick check to make sure I got it OK:

1) No overspray.
2) No paint on guns or periscopes.
3) Optional camo paint colours (no basecoat) on tools.
4) Camo pattern in green, brown or both over dark yellow to suit myself.
 

Jakko

Way past the mad part
SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
10,590
Points
113
First Name
Jakko
Always hard to see on the photos but DY on the shovel would be rather odd. That color was factory applied and I don't really think tools were in place when the armor received it's basecoat. Just my two cents ^^
What colour were German pioneer tools anyway? American ones were painted black (metal) and OD (wood), but were German ones left in natural colours? If so then I probably confused the natural wood colour with dark yellow paint.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
695
Points
93
Location
Belgium
First Name
Wouter
Now that's a good question, as far as I'm aware the wooden handles weren't painted, same for the bakelite handles of the cutters. But can't say much of use about the metal parts though.

Cheers
 

langy71

SMF Supporter
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
1,554
Points
113
Location
Nottingham
First Name
Chris
Another thing to help here is that the actual colours the factory supplied would vary from vehicle to vehicle,

The extra colours..(brown/green) would be supplied as a 'paste' to which the crew would add a thinning agent to create the 'liquid paint',
the thinning agent could be anything the crew could get their hands on, water, diesel, petrol, ...etc etc, this would then create some very different finishes / opacity levels to the dried paint,
add this to the fact that the crews generally painted the cam pattern to a 'guide' supplied from the factory/ paint supplier, and you could see some pretty different looking cam patterns between vehicles.
 
Top