_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Last production King Tiger Paint Scheme
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 - 01:14 AM UTC
The variance in patterns among factories seems more related to ambush pattern and how they did the spots, from what I can tell.
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Thursday, January 25, 2018 - 02:22 AM UTC
This is the page I was referring to:





Neither pattern is the same as the other. Both applied at Kassel
to the tanks at approximately the same date as noted. Both are examples of ambush camo.
jrutman
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 - 12:48 AM UTC
Hey Joe,are we sure the two tanks are from the same or similar production run ? The guys I know that are really on top of this all say the pattern was factory applied and then inspected.
These tanks look like they are on a training caserne in Germany and the one may be older?
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 - 06:42 AM UTC
Jerry, the notes indicate that the tank in the upper photo, 280354, was completed on or about 18 Dec 44. the second, 280356, was completed on or about 20 Dec 44, a difference of two days. Production of KTs in Dec 44 started with Fgst.Nr. 280322 and ended with 280377. Both of these tanks fall within that run and were allocated to Wa Pruf 6 as test vehicles. There's no denying that patterns were factory applied from 19 Aug 44 (and 9 Sept 44 without zimmerit). Since none of the guys who are on top of this were alive, let alone seeing every tank rolling out of Henschel from Aug 44 to March 45, they can't say with 100% certainty that all of the camo patterns were identical. These two photos, however, absolutely show two tanks, completed within two days of each other, with two distinct variations if the hard edge camo pattern. So, are you gonna take the word of armchair "experten" or what you see in contemporary photos which say otherwise?
jrutman
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 - 08:20 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Jerry, the notes indicate that the tank in the upper photo, 280354, was completed on or about 18 Dec 44. the second, 280356, was completed on or about 20 Dec 44, a difference of two days. Production of KTs in Dec 44 started with Fgst.Nr. 280322 and ended with 280377. Both of these tanks fall within that run and were allocated to Wa Pruf 6 as test vehicles. There's no denying that patterns were factory applied from 19 Aug 44 (and 9 Sept 44 without zimmerit). Since none of the guys who are on top of this were alive, let alone seeing every tank rolling out of Henschel from Aug 44 to March 45, they can't say with 100% certainty that all of the camo patterns were identical. These two photos, however, absolutely show two tanks, completed within two days of each other, with two distinct variations if the hard edge camo pattern. So, are you gonna take the word of armchair "experten" or what you see in contemporary photos which say otherwise?



Well that is my point. I WAS shown 3 different tigers in a row and they all had EXTREMELY similar patterns.So is that the standard or is your 2 examples the standard ? Or maybe an anomaly ? I know the guy that I am referencing and a few of his buddies and believe me,they are not ones for conjecture or for following legends and assumptions that have grown up over the years,but rather only take as fact things backed up by hard copies of original paperwork,original pics,etc and even then they are skeptical.
There is a possibility that your theory is correct but because of the extreme dependability of these guys' info I cannot discount them. Just as a point I would add that he has,for instance, several file drawers filled with cassette tapes of German vets speaking about their wartime experiences.
J
J
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 - 09:01 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Both have the hard edge camo; but, both patterns are completely different from each other. That would kick the "standard" pattern line of thought to the curb.



The standard pattern could have been "1/3 yellow, 1/3 brown, 1/3 green, with no area larger than 1 sq meter with demarcations overlapping edges", or something like that, with the tanks inspected for compliance with those instructions. After all, the standard pattern pre-1940 was defined as 2/3 gray, 1/3 brown, with some refining parameters, and plenty of those were accepted under peacetime conditions but they weren't identical.

I think some people believe the fact that there was a standard pattern means they were identical patterns, like modern robot-applied NATO camouflage or some WW II aircraft schemes where large templates/masks were used.

KL
brekinapez
Visit this Community
Georgia, United States
Joined: July 26, 2013
KitMaker: 2,272 posts
Armorama: 1,860 posts
Posted: Friday, January 26, 2018 - 09:54 PM UTC
Actually, Kurt is on the money. Most of the stuff I have seen has been along those lines; what proportions to apply the colors and best practices such as painting small pieces in one color, don't put lines on wheels to avoid a pinwheel effect as they spin, and avoid placing paint in a way that highlights the shape rather than break it up. Making them all a bit different while still following the basic directives would follow the standard they used with the pre-war three-color scheme.
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 04:04 AM UTC
"Pattern", by definition, is a repeated decorative design. The amount of each color of paint applied does not constitute a pattern. If that paint was applied in specific shapes and locations, and also conforming within reasonable variances of an accepted template, that would be a pattern. That would describe Panther Gs produced by MAN, DB and MNH since these factories were also affected by both the 19 Aug and 9 Sept 44 Wa Pruf 6 orders. In the case of MAN, the pattern applied differed significantly between vehicles produced in Sept and Dec 44. I mention that because one of the identifying features of Panthers produced by those manufacturers were the distinctive camouflage patterns used by each. What is seen in the two KT photos are, in fact, two different, dissimilar patterns applied to two vehicles completed just two days apart. That has nothing to do with the amount of each paint color which was stated in the Wa Pruf orders, not the their arrangements, shapes or locations. There are more than enough variation between the two to distinguish them from what is described as the "standard" factory-applied ambush "pattern" as documented in photos taken within the same time period.


jrutman
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 04:25 AM UTC
Joe,do you know Mirko ? I can't copy and paste the 3 pics I referenced as I don't own them. It would make showing my point much easier.
There were also standard patterns on 251s produced after the factories starting applying cammo at the wars' end. Yes,there may be variations to the pattern but it was used !
J
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 04:51 AM UTC
Mirko's a good friend. If you describe the three pics and where they're from, I'll email him and ask if you can post them.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 04:54 AM UTC

Quoted Text

"Pattern", by definition, is a repeated decorative design. The amount of each color of paint applied does not constitute a pattern. If that paint was applied in specific shapes and locations, and also conforming within reasonable variances of an accepted template, that would be a pattern. That would describe Panther Gs produced by MAN, DB and MNH since these factories were also affected by both the 19 Aug and 9 Sept 44 Wa Pruf 6 orders. In the case of MAN, the pattern applied differed significantly between vehicles produced in Sept and Dec 44. I mention that because one of the identifying features of Panthers produced by those manufacturers were the distinctive camouflage patterns used by each. What is seen in the two KT photos are, in fact, two different, dissimilar patterns applied to two vehicles completed just two days apart. That has nothing to do with the amount of each paint color which was stated in the Wa Pruf orders, not the their arrangements, shapes or locations. There are more than enough variation between the two to distinguish them from what is described as the "standard" factory-applied ambush "pattern" as documented in photos taken within the same time period.



Well, without knowing the exact phrasing of the German text regarding camouflage painting of these vehicles, and the meanings of those words in context, I don't think we gain much by being pedantic about the meaning of the English word, pattern.

KL
Headhunter506
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: December 01, 2007
KitMaker: 1,575 posts
Armorama: 1,509 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 06:10 AM UTC
"Tarnmuster" is the German word for "camouflage pattern". "Tarnfarbe" is the German word for camouflage paint. The specific OKH Wa J Rue (WuG 6) VIII order of 19 Aug 44 can be found online in its original German language form. That will allow one to understand the context in which these terms are used without misconstruing them.
jrutman
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: April 10, 2011
KitMaker: 7,941 posts
Armorama: 7,934 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 07:07 AM UTC
Even if he gives permission I won't know how to get them from the FB page over to here. I am hopeless with the putor.
Maybe you can ask him ? He remains convinced about the standard patterns being adhered to,although not exactly the same.
J
tayc
Visit this Community
Queensland, Australia
Joined: October 22, 2005
KitMaker: 139 posts
Armorama: 33 posts
Posted: Saturday, January 27, 2018 - 07:34 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Greetings all,

I am building Dragon's Late Production KT (6232) and trying to settle on a realistic paint scheme.

I will be building this as a "last" production KT with one piece tracks, rainguard on the sight, extended fuel vents, ribbed fenders, six extra track links on each turret side, camo D-loops etc. Hopefully that gives you a good time period for the vehicle I am going for.

I am NOT interested in building a specific vehicle. I like ambush scheme, however I was hoping to incorprate red oxide primer and grey gun barrel primer into the build. Would a hull finished in ambush camo and a red oxide turret be realistic? Plain dark yellow hull with red oxide turret? Any examples of KT's with barrels in raw grey primer? Is it realistic to have the turret and hull finished in different scheme?

Appreciate all advice and suggestions!



G’day Erich

While this may be a bit late as a reply, I found the thread an interesting read. Like some of the other contributors I have read and can recommend Jentz and Doyle’s work “Germany’s Tiger Tanks VK45.02 to Tiger II: Design, Production & Modifications” to help you out. Reference is specifically made on page 138 to primary source documents regarding camouflage “schemes” and in particular, “. . . effective 1 March 1945, the assembly firms were to complete the Buntfarbenanstrich (multicolored) camouflage scheme by spraying on Rotbraun (RAL 8017) or Dunkelgelb (RAL 7028) in sharp contours onto the armor components which the armor suppliers were to deliver already covered with a base coat of Dunkelgruen (RAL 6003) paint.” Now this quotation appears to be Jentz and Doyle’s interpretation of primary sources. At the end of this same page they include a quotation from a primary source dated 23 January1945 that gives specific directions regarding the “standardisation in the camouflage paint scheme” which also optimistically requests conversion “to the new camouflage paint scheme prior to 1 June 1945”. I guess my point is that these all represent aspirations and intentions. I imagine that things were getting a little untidy towards final production with the war’s end. If you do not intend to model a particular vehicle, cut loose and enjoy, but based on my understanding of the texts and images I have encountered, I suggest staying with a base of dark green and either dark yellow or red-brown in sharp contours.

Cheers
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,742 posts
Armorama: 1,658 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 28, 2018 - 01:31 AM UTC
The germans were an organized group that tended to require everything to be documented. If a specific pattern was to be aheared to, it would have been published. There would also be references to those specific patterns in other orders and documents. If however the pattern was intended to be more general than that, you would have what we have now. If a guy was the pattern marker and he was at work everyday, the patter would be consistant. However when he wasn,t there marking and someone else was then the pattern might well be different.
 _GOTOTOP