Panzergrau: Tamiya got the blues?

It is a mistake, IMHO, to view this as an argument solely between Jentz/Doyle and Culver as to the schemes used and their timing/implementation. When you take a wider view and examine multiple other sources (and photos for example) that have come to light since 2001-2 when Jentz/Doyle first published their findings, the evidence in favor of the 2-tone scheme and the appearance of monotone Panzer Gray post-June 1940 is stronger than just the text/documents referenced in the back-and-forth between Panzer Colors and Panzer Tracts at the time of the PT publication.

As just one example, the Panzerwaffe series put out by Ian Allan Publishing starting in 2007 has some excellent photos and documentation that includes shots of a 10cm K18 battery photographed at Posen in May 1940 (just before outbreak of the French campaign) still in the pre-war 3-tone camo...which begs the question of just how far behind certain units or groups were in re-painting gear and/or complying with orders around paint schemes in relation to the timing argument mentioned between Culver and Jentz/Doyle. Here you have equipment still in the three-tone scheme over 18 months after the field units had been instructed to transition to the 2-tone scheme and just 1 month before the official order date for the monotone Panzer Gray. Is that a strong enough piece of evidence to draw wide conclusions from? Only in the context that there often were long periods of delay, based on expediency and other factors, between orders being issued and being fully implemented.

From a historical research standpoint, Jentz/Doyle have grounded their arguments in the actual orders issued with firm dates around the order generation and when they should have been implemented. They draw a hard line by stating that the official order date for panzer gray as an authorized scheme is June 1940 and have that backed up by actual primary source documentation. They make no further claim beyond that and they have a well-earned reputation for being meticulous when it comes to primary source documents referenced, so in a dispute between their research and Culver's, my money is on Jentz/Doyle in terms of grounded accuracy. 

In the world of WW2 German anything, one thing that you always have to keep in mind when researching the specifics of German equipment orders and how they were carried out throughout every stage of the war is that absolutes are few and far between. You will commonly find that there was often a delay between the order being issued and actually carried out/implemented vs. the other way around repeatedly. It was very common for factories and depots to use up whatever existing stocks they had on hand (be it paint, parts, or other items) first before they would then begin complying with the new set of orders. As a result, some factories or assembly centers would begin producing things with different features faster (or later) than others. This has historically driven modelers nuts as an official written order will say "X modification was to be introduced beginning October '41" but the factory may not have actually started producing vehicles with that specific modification until the end of October or even into November and beyond depending on the nature of the modification and what their stock on hand was to be used up before the new parts or modifications were to be introduced.

In short, the likelihood that Panzer Gray was unofficially adopted prior to an official order going out with an effective date of June 1940 is highly unlikely and certainly not likely on a wide-spread basis IMHO. Proof exists that universal adoption of the preceeding authorized 2-tone scheme still hadn't been completed across the board by the outbreak of war with Poland, still hadn't been completed at the time of the French campaign in fact despite the available "down time" between campaigns and all the preparation for the battles to come in the West. To my mind, this argues heavily against the presence of monotone Panzer Gray as an authorized scheme prior to June '40...however it is possible in the abstract (you never say "never" or "always" when it comes to German stuff for the period!) that there could be some floating around in time for the Battle of France. They would, IMHO, have been in the distinct minority though and not the other way around as had been previously accepted as a modeler's convention. This is reinforced by the fact that photos exist (both color and b/w) of brand-new production types introduced in 1940 (such as the Pzjgr I-B, Bison I, Pz III F, Pz IV D etc.) that were factory products and/or modifications of existing vehicles sporting the 2-tone scheme and not a monotone gray scheme.

It is always a fascinating topic to discuss and new photos are constantly coming to light and being published which keeps the debate flowing. It's a good thing and healthy for the hobby in general.  

Bill,

Answer this please. This quote is from Lentz/Doyle:

"After 1935, the Armed Forces introduced a new and considerably darker shade of grey-brown for use on their equipment. . . .This paint was in general use in the Fall of 1939, but the first alteration came in 1939 (sic - 1940 in the original document)."

This sentence says two things. One, after 1935 the Wehrmacht adopted the two color gray/brown scheme. Two, the "first alteration" came in 1939 - if the brown/grey was already in use, what kind of alteration were they talking about? The answer is simple - all grey as suggested by Culver. And to say that there are a handful, out of thousands, of photos of German equipment that show two or even three colors is consistent with Culver's interpretation. (Culver notes specifically that rear echelon vehicles and later captured vehicles might have a great variety of colors. Posen is about five hundred miles from France I think.) The mass of photos that show a mono-color is not consistent with Lentz/Doyle who argue that all AFVs were (at least) two colored. That's a very strained argument and historians don't like strained arguments. And you don't think it even a bit unlikely that the entire Panzerwaffe was repainted after the French campaign? (And repainted pretty promptly. I've never heard of any two colored vehicles sent to Africa in late 1940, and the later DAK got the oldest stuff available.) Why bother if the scheme used was obviously pretty effective. I know German tank losses were serious, but not once have I heard the problem as interpreted as due to bad camo. "Get rid of that dam brown and the French gunners won't see us!" What you would need to really make the case, especially as it does seem that someone wanted some kind of change to camo in late 1939, was to show a proper paper trail. Something that says "brown/grey doesn't work very well, repaint the whole Panzerwaffe grey." Conveniently for people now working on the Wehrmacht lots of documents were "destroyed" after the war, especially those that would prove with their hypothesis. I'd also like you to consider that if Culver is right, you'd still be thinking of potentially several hundred going into France painted grey/brown. That would give you plenty of examples of an army that had some grey/brown AFVs. Well, you know what a blizzard of mono-colored German AFVs photos from France suggest. Lastly you should consider a factor that I've found universally true. The busier an army is, the worse the records. In my second Vietnam book I could find very few division wide records for the 25th Division during the Tet Offensive (II Field Force had some luckily). The reason is that the men responsible for keeping higher ups informed were fighting the Tet Offensive. The same situation existed in the Wehrmacht from September 1 until the end of the French Campaign. Activity of all kinds was furious. Except for a lower casualty rate (hundreds died in the realistic training introduced) the Army was essentially at war before May. There was talk until mid-November of an actual attack that year. In the meantime all units were expanding at break-neck speed, reequipping everything in sight (much of the Polish campaign equipment was slated for retirement before Poland - some of it ended up in Russia) and training new and experienced personnel as intensely as possible. That's exactly the environment where good record keeping is at its most vulnerable. And, although it doesn't fit the image, the German Army was famous for making decisions at relatively low levels and telling the "big wigs" later. The kind of "by the book" military that Lentz/Doyle presuppose fit the US much better than the Wehrmacht. And no matter how you cut it, you just have too many photos where that brown is invisible to not conclude that it simply wasn't there at all. If you couldn't tell the difference between the two, why not get rid of it? In 1939 when something - I'm not sure what - took place.

Eric

Eric, please.... It's "J" as in Jentz...

Eric,

Like many things in the hobby, the debate is an ongoing one and not one that can be settled by relying on only one source. You seem sold on the fact that Culver is right in his interpretation (and he very well could be to a certain degree on some things, I don't know, I haven't checked Culver's bibliography and work citations to see) while others accept the Jentz/Doyle position. As time has gone by, more have sided with Jentz/Doyle than with Culver based on the evidence available...especially as more and more personal photo collections have come to light that clearly show the 2-tone scheme as prominent and wide-spread. It wasn't that long ago that NO ONE believed that the 2-tone scheme was ever used because no one had concrete photo evidence to support it, only written orders/documentation that were open to interpretation. It's a dynamic thing and Culver's research has been proven to be dated/flawed to a certain degree.

In reference to the key question you raise:

EBergerud

Answer this please. This quote is from Lentz/Doyle:

"After 1935, the Armed Forces introduced a new and considerably darker shade of grey-brown for use on their equipment. . . .This paint was in general use in the Fall of 1939, but the first alteration came in 1939 (sic - 1940 in the original document)."

 You are mis-reading the quote. When it says "new and considerably darker shade of grey-brown for use on their equipment" it is referring to 2 colors, not one color (this is the limit of the English language relative to German). There is no "grey-brown" single color in any of the orders mentioned. What the statement is referring to is the fact that the 2 colors were in general use by 1939. This is accurate (although vague in the wording you are looking at) and is presented more precisely in Panzer Tracts 1-2. The exact date for the order requiring units to implement the new 2-tone scheme is Nov 7, 1938. Prior to that, an order had been in place dated July 19, 1937 that introduced the new scheme of dunkelgrau and dunkelbraun but only had units applying it only when the original paint needed to be touched up or repainted entirely. Both the Dunkelgrau No. 46 (later designated RAL 7021 in orders dated Feb 10, 1941) and Dunkelbraun No. 45 were in use by 1939 as distinct colors and shown on the RAL Farbtonkarte 840 B2 which Jentz/Doyle accurately recreate in Panzer Tracts 1-2 as color chips. That same order specified that vehicles were to be painted 2/3 Dunkelgrau and 1/3 Dunkelbraun. Jentz/Doyle also state that the new order dated July 31, 1940 stating that "to save on paint" equipment was to be painted in a single color, Dunkelgrau No. 46. This order remained in effect until Feb '43 when dunkelgelb replaced dunkelgrau. Of interest, PT 1-2 also states that "on June 12, 1940 field units were ordered to immediately stop buying camouflage paint directly from suppliers and obtain paint by using normal supply channel requisitions. Only small amounts such as that needed for stenciling numbers could still be purchased directly. Only dunkelgrau paint would be issued for painting Panzers."

This lays out a very precise, specific, set of dates for when orders were issued around the different paint schemes that were authorized. The prior 3-tone scheme was in place since orders dated June 1932, so you have June 1932 to July 1937 for the three tone hard-edge, July 1937 to Nov 1938 for the two tone to gradually replace the three-tone, and Nov 1938 to June 1940 for the two-tone as the standard to replace the three-tone, and June 1940 to Feb 1943 for the monotone panzer gray scheme. Nowhere in between there do you have a documented, hard, referencable order date for a monotone scheme prior to the June 12, 1940 date. Those are the facts based on the available documentation. To my mind, the "strained argument" here is that an "unauthorized" monotone Panzer Gray scheme existed and was in wide-spread use prior to June 1940. There's a tiny door/window open in the reference to units buying paint directly from suppliers to suggest that lower units might have been "doing their own thing" but again that would point to a minority position and not a majority one IMHO.

The mass of photos that seem to show monotone Panzer Gray was widely accepted that only Panzer Gray was in use 1939-1943 before hard evidence existed to prove that a) the two-tone scheme was real and photos found to substantiate it and b) the original orders were substantiated on the timeline listed above. The limitations of b/w photography, how easily the dark brown "disappears" under a layer of dust, etc. have been demonstrated quite effectively in previous posts in this thread. The same is true for the 2-tone schemes for the DAK "Tropen" paint which, like the panzer gray argument, has also undergone a revolution as modelers accepted for decades that only "desert yellow" was used throughout the entire campaign there. Why? Because the "mass of photos" combined with not-to-accurate memories of veterans reinforced this. We now know that there were clear orders issued with distinct timelines for their implementations...whether those were actually met in the field is up for interpretation but the orders themselves are no longer in dispute.

Finally, your conclusion that the mass of photos doesn't support the visibility of the Dunkelbraun and therefore it must not have been there at all is a conjectural leap. It's proving a negative and there's no way we can produce photographing documentation of every vehicle, under every circumstance, to disprove that position. Do many photos exist that, on the surface, appear to show a monotone panzer gray scheme attributed to the pre-June 1940 period. Absolutely...that's why it became such an entrenched position in the modeling community and why it continues to persist today. Is it supported by the actual physical ordered timelines for various schemes? The answer is No...which leaves us with two choices. Believe the orders or believe the photos...neither of which are perfect and leave room for interpretation...and so you have "camps" of followers that will subscribe to one school of thought or the other.  

I'm not trying to convince you that Culver is wrong or that Jentz/Doyle are infallible. I'm only laying out that the Jentz/Doyle timeline is much more precise than the quotes you've been relying on hitherto in relation to your arguments. The Jentz/Doyle timeline is increasingly backed up by new and authenticated evidence that comes to light daily. Entrenched ideas die hard and there are always the hard liners when it comes to things like this.

Terribly sorry I misspelled Mr. Jentz's name: got sloppy having a copy editor for twenty years.  Usually considered bad form to bring up a misspelled name in a review, but as I was writing about the guy's work, so I'll take this with humility.

But, back to the colors. First, I wasn't reading anything in German. (I'm pretty good at it if need be: almost went into German military history years back.) I was using the term grey/brown to refer to the two color scheme to distinguish it from the three color and mono-color schemes that came up in the Jentz article. Grey fascinates me and I think if you mixed it with brown, you'd get brown, or some ugly failure a color mixer would call "mud."  Second, thanks for clarifying the various directives. The one you left out, however, is the one that's important. Let's quote you:

"This lays out a very precise, specific, set of dates for when orders were issued around the different paint schemes that were authorized. The prior 3-tone scheme was in place since orders dated June 1932, so you have June 1932 to July 1937 for the three tone hard-edge, July 1937 to Nov 1938 for the two tone to gradually replace the three-tone, and Nov 1938 to June 1940 for the two-tone as the standard to replace the three-tone, and June 1940 to Feb 1943 for the monotone panzer gray scheme. Nowhere in between there do you have a documented, hard, referencable order date for a monotone scheme prior to the June 12, 1940 date. Those are the facts based on the available documentation."

You are right if you are talking about directives in hand. However, as mentioned in both Jentz/Doyle and Culver something happened in late 1939:

"After 1935, the Armed Forces introduced a new and considerably darker shade of grey-brown for use on their equipment. . . .This paint was in general use in the Fall of 1939, but the first alteration came in 1939 (sic - 1940 in the original document)."

What is meant by "first alteration"? It doesn't meant a move to two colors - that had been done. If doesn't mean the beginning of a shift to one color, then what does it mean? I don't see any reference to this in your time line and it was this point that led Culver/Murphy to argue for a mainline grey Panzerwaffe in France.

It is possible I suppose that 95% of the photos from the French campaign could have hidden reality. (If the two colors were really almost identical as Jentz/Doyle also claim, one wonders how any photos show two colors. This is an important point.) I'd say, "gee, cameras can trick the eye" if there was a paper trail on this issue which is simply absent. As there isn't and you have one reference to an "alteration" to color schemes made in late 1939, then the photo record becomes a serious issue. For what it's worth, I have some really neat films put together from German propaganda on Wehrmacht weapons. I watched the one on "light tanks" (includes Pz38) last night because I figured this one would deal with the period in question. The early films show the three color scheme very clearly. Around the introduction of the PZIB and PZII you can easily see two colored tanks. In the French campaign you only see one color.

If you can explain how the "alteration" of late 1939, which appears in a Jentz/Doyle article fits into their claim that "all" Wehrmacht AFVs in France were grey & brown, then I can buy the "camera missed it all" argument. Without clarification on that factoid, the possibility that Jentz/Doyle misread a document must be considered very seriously. So what "alteration" was made in late 1939?

Eric

Wow this is getting better. I was at the bench the other evening and low and behold I thought of this thread, I have a set of life colours paints German set no. 2 and it includes panzer grey RAL 7021 which is actually very close to a black with absolutely no hint of blue, now I think this would be very hard to work with from a weathering point of view highlighting etc. there is also an anthracite grey RAL 7016which seems to be a close match for field grey.( I know, wrong era) I do not even know how accurate they are.

Well I do not have enough knowledge to give any input close to compare with Bills input, excellent by the way.

Terry.

EBergerud

"After 1935, the Armed Forces introduced a new and considerably darker shade of grey-brown for use on their equipment. . . .This paint was in general use in the Fall of 1939, but the first alteration came in 1939 (sic - 1940 in the original document)."

What is meant by "first alteration"? It doesn't meant a move to two colors - that had been done. If doesn't mean the beginning of a shift to one color, then what does it mean? I don't see any reference to this in your time line and it was this point that led Culver/Murphy to argue for a mainline grey Panzerwaffe in France.

I can only speak to the published references I have to hand. The item you point to is not included in Panzer Tracts 1-2 and, as mentioned by the sic notation, the original documents refer to 1940 and Jentz/Doyle are solid on this point. My inference is that they were referring to what they percieved as an error in Culver's interpretation, nothing more than that.

EBergerud

It is possible I suppose that 95% of the photos from the French campaign could have hidden reality. (If the two colors were really almost identical as Jentz/Doyle also claim, one wonders how any photos show two colors. This is an important point.) I'd say, "gee, cameras can trick the eye" if there was a paper trail on this issue which is simply absent. As there isn't and you have one reference to an "alteration" to color schemes made in late 1939, then the photo record becomes a serious issue. For what it's worth, I have some really neat films put together from German propaganda on Wehrmacht weapons. I watched the one on "light tanks" (includes Pz38) last night because I figured this one would deal with the period in question. The early films show the three color scheme very clearly. Around the introduction of the PZIB and PZII you can easily see two colored tanks. In the French campaign you only see one color.

As mentioned previously, it is only Culver's position that there is documentation to suggest the possibility of a monotone scheme in 1939. The PT 1-2 timeline is clear, the shift to monotone was not officially ordered until June 1940. It is also incorrect to say that by the French campaign you would only see one color. That may be the case in your particular film selections (those can be suspect depending on their timeframe attribution as much of the film available was shot after Panzer Gray was the authorized scheme) but it doesn't provide blanket proof one way or the other.

EBergerud

If you can explain how the "alteration" of late 1939, which appears in a Jentz/Doyle article fits into their claim that "all" Wehrmacht AFVs in France were grey & brown, then I can buy the "camera missed it all" argument. Without clarification on that factoid, the possibility that Jentz/Doyle misread a document must be considered very seriously. So what "alteration" was made in late 1939?

I personally don't feel that such a need to explain is required as I don't think it's accurate to say that an alteration did in fact occur. The possibility that it did is not conclusively demonstrated when compared to the official timeline laid out in the documented chain of orders by Jentz/Doyle in PT 1-2. If in fact an alteration was made, no documentation exists that I know of to support it or outline what that alteration actually was beyond Culver's interpretation. Couple that with the fact that vehicles were still being produced at the factories and photographed at the depots pre-June 1940 with the two-tone scheme and not the monotone scheme and you have an evidentiary disconnect. I have many photos to hand that support this as I mentioned in my earlier post for many different vehicle types, all of which were not being produced yet in 1939 when the "alteration" could have occurred but were being produced in 1940 post-alteration as you presume yet they still have the 2-tone scheme. In my mind that supports the position that there wasn't an authorized Panzer Gray scheme being universally employed if it was in fact being employed at all.

The factories and depots producing the brand-new vehicle designs are the logical first place to look for that as the photo evidence demonstrates that the field units were seriously behind in complying with the change-over to the two-tone scheme, nevermind complying with a possible un-documented and un-authorized monotone scheme, even as late as May 1940, just one month away from the monotone scheme being authorized. So why, if the position was that after some time in 1939 that a monotone scheme was the order of the day would the depots continue to paint and finish brand-new vehicles and issue them to the field in the two-tone scheme well into March-April 1940 prior to the French campaign but after June 1940 they were complying with the Panzer Gray order without issue? We can't assume that the were finished in a monotone scheme and then painted by the crews in the field to be two-tone as that would also be counter-intuitive. As mentioned previously, factories/depots often lagged behind official order timelines and I can understand that they might still have paint stocks available that they needed to use up so that would happen for a month or maybe two if a change had been ordered, but 6 months or more is a real stretch depending on when "some time in 1939" was when a change was supposed to have happened.

For what it's worth, the three-tone scheme is also hard to see in b/w photographs and film where you can see all three colors clearly and distinctly. Depending on the photo, the three-tone can also appear to be two-tone just like the two-tone can appear to be monotone. I'm not trying to create a circular argument here, only pointing out that relying on photo evidence alone can be shaky ground and you have to look at a lot of photos, some of them using "Photoshop" tricks in terms of enlargement and pixel/coloration analysis to see it if there are any extraneous factors involved such as dust, lighting, etc. to pick out the two separate colors in the DB/DG scheme. Go back and look at the "factory clean" brand-spanking new 1940-produced Pz38(t) photo I posted earlier in the thread and you'll see what I mean.  

The ultimate reason the two-tone scheme was dropped was due to it not being of value as a disruptive pattern vs. plain panzer gray once a vehicle had any kind of dust or weathering in the field...something that the photo evidence does clearly support. The depots/factories however would have had no authorization to change away from the two-tone scheme until they received the official order to do so in June/July 1940.   

I finally found some time to work with the scanner and upload some files. These are from Panzer Tracts 1-2 and are posted here for discussion purposes only.

First, the color chips for the 3-tone scheme authorized from 1932-1938.

Now the 2-tone color chips authorized from Nov 1938 until June 1940:

My first reaction way back when I first got this reference and could see the chips for myself was just how close, really, the two shades are for the Dunkelgrau and Dunkelbraun.

Using a little Photoshop editing, look at the two shades side-by-side.

Now look at those same two shades, side-by-side, as a grayscale (closest thing to b/w)...and tell me if you can see any differences between them. This is, of course, before we add any distortion effects for dust/dirt/lighting etc.

Behold the "vanished" two tone scheme as evidenced by the "mass" of photos...and it's no wonder people for decades thought that Panzer Gray only was the rule from 1939-1943. It is incredibly difficult to pick out the two colors on a "clean" factory-fresh vehicle...add a few miles on a dusty road and voila! monotone scheme in every single in-the-field photo you can imagine.

If I may throw in yet another variable, as far as photographic evidence is concerned, this cannot always be depended on because we don't know what type of film emulsion was used.

It must be considered that at that time, orthochromatic film was still widely used. Orthochromatic film was sensitive in the blue-green ranges but insensitive to red. This means that red appears black and red/brown tones may be rendered darker than they actually are, while blues/greens are rendered normally. This is a contributing factor to some photos of three tone patterns appearing two tone and for two-tone patterns appearing monotone. Lighting conditions also play a factor and I'm sure these guys weren't able to take their photos under ideal lighting conditions.

Unless one has access to the negative from which a photo was printed (and therefore, access to the emulsion code), one needs a point of reference (eg. a known red item) in the photo as a basis of comparison. Failing that, one needs to interpret what one sees in the photo.

Normal 0

I’m sorry I misspelled Mr. Jentz’s name. Got spoiled having a copy editor for twenty years

As for no blue in Panzergrau, my Tamiya German Grey most certainly has a bit. Other brands may vary. The easiest way to tell would be to see if you can make a simple grey that looks exactly like your version of Panzergrau. Take some white and start adding a bit of black. (Never the other way around unless you want an experiment on a wasteful scale.) If you get the right grey, problem solved. If we knew the pigments employed by the Germans we’d know what a real Panzergrau looked like in real life. If simple grey doesn’t look right you have to add one or more of the primes. Blue would be a good guess.

Bill, do hope you're taking this in the spirit of fun. This is the kind of history I like a lot because it doesn't deal with things that are genuinely important. (I was right in the middle of the Enola Gay - Atomic Bomb argument in 1945 and can testify that it was pistols at dawn for a while.) This is especially true that everybody I think agrees that there were at least a few hundred German AFVs running around France painted grey and brown - so modelers can avoid monotone colors which, let's face it, can get a little redundant.

Let me give a longer quote on the 1939 issue. It is perfectly obvious in the article that Jentz and Doyle wrote they are quoting from the work that is a backbone of their own research. The earlier quotes are from Culver but not the one about “alteration.” This one is from the work by Fritz Wiener who provided Jentz and Doyle their initial load of ammunition. It should be very sobering to anyone that it is clear from Jentz/Doyle that Culver/Murphy had been there first and had read the same document differently - especially as Jentz/Doyle had just selectively misquoted Culver. (Might add that Culver/Murphy have ten other sources – two from Germany and three from Aberdeen, although the Wiener paper is at the top.)

Here’s the quote from Jentz/Doyle http://www.panzertracts.com/PZfacts.htm

”David Fletcher at The Tank Museum provided a copy of the document that the authors of Panzer Colors stated that they had used. The report "Der Anstrich des Heeresgeraets 1939-1945 1945" was written by Fritz Wiener (a close associate of Walter Spielberger). This report had been translated into English in November 1967 as "Painting of Army Equipment 1939 - 45" and contains the following relevant statements: "With the change from multi-coloured combat uniforms to plain colours, striking colours were avoided on equipment. As far back as 1914 all armies went on active service with their equipment painted grey-green, grey-brown or in a similar unobtrusive colour. During the first World War they attempted to make large equipments (guns, vehicles, etc.) less visible to the enemy by painting them with large irregular patches in shades of grey, green, and brown. This so called "Mimicry" type of painting was then adopted by the Armed Forces (Reichswehr). . . After 1935, the Armed Forces introduced a new and considerably darker shade of grey-brown for use on their equipment. . . .This paint was in general use in the Fall of 1939, but the first alteration came in 1939 (sic - 1940 in the original document).”

Now, what does that “sic” mean? I’m not really sure. Later in the article Jentz/Doyle say that it was from this “mistranslation” that Culver made his error. This is plausible. I’ve done used translation and it can cause trouble. But “1939” and “1940” are written the same way in German and English. So what you have here is something very different and more rare – you have an error in reproducing simple data. Typo is possible – every book has them in my experience. But I don’t think so here. A typo would look like 1930 or 1949 – a mistake in one key. Changing 1940 to 1939 looks much more like intent. So why not just make this statement at the top to clear up immediately a major discrepancy. Maybe Jentz & Doyle are researchers and not writers. Maybe there were more “maybes” in the entire document than they liked. If the author Wiener was alive and could read English, the translator would have – almost certainly – sent the translated text to the author. It may well have been the author himself that corrected the text. The reason I bring this possibility up is that later in the Jentz/Doyle article they claim that Wiener specifically said that two tone Panzers fought in Poland. Presumably this means Wiener did not say this about France – a very strange omission. (Or unless he thought the transition to the grey Panzerwaffe was already underway.)

Let’s look carefully at what Jentz /Doyle wrote:

“·  Fact 3: Fritz Wiener distinctly stated that equipment used in the Fall of 1939 (campaign in Poland) was painted in a two-tone camouflage pattern of dark grey/dark brown. The general army order to paint the Panzers (and other equipment) in the single color - dark grey - was not signed until 31 July 1940 - well after the Campaign in France had ended. Therefore, all Panzers used in the Campaign in France and the Low Countries were also painted 1/3 dark brown and 2/3 dark grey.”

Above is a classic non sequitur. Break it down. 1. Equipment in Poland was painted two tone. 2. The general army order to paint grey Panzers was signed 31 July 1940. 3. All vehicles in France were two toned.

Assumption one is true. Assumption two may be right. There was “a” order signed in July. Was this the first? We have a strong suggestion that it was not. So the conclusion follows from the propositions only if there is nothing else that got in the way.

Here is where we have two problems: one worth nothing and the other very serious. First, is the lack of a paper trail. How big of a deal was the decision to change the colors on AFVs? I’d guess it was the kind of operational / technical decision that was made at a fairly high level. At what time did deliberation on the issue start - was the paint shortage discovered after French surrender or was this being studied over time? It comes from RAL but what kind of input? Captains through Colonels from operations mostly in conjunction with personnel from the Economic Affairs wing of OKH in consultation with people from the firms building the vehicles.  Doubt anyone asked Hitler or Eva Braun, but this wasn’t something that would have been done because of bad dream and hang-over. Why was it done? (We have some comparisons here. The USN talked a lot about camo, introduced and evaluated several schemes and hence we know with great accuracy what the schemes were, when introduced and why they were introduced. Not always clear about what individual vessels carried at a given moment.) The only thing I’ve heard from Jentz/Doyle was that the decision was made to save paint. That would not, however, explain why the German army would have saved paint by repainting thousands of vehicles. I can’t prove it, but I would strongly guess that there should be more evidence available on this issue too. Unless, however, what you had was a kind of on-going process that was being kicked around among several offices and more or less understood by the people that needed to know. So why a “general order” in July 1940? The obvious connection is the end of the war in France which saw not only the incorporation of captured weapons but the shifting of large contracts from France to Germany. (Rather like the PZ38T – the orders for Czech vehicles were simply shifted and expanded to Germany. Same workers making the same tanks: different markings.) Or maybe one of the dozens of subcontractors were not doing it right. It’s all very confusing – which does not surprise me at all. What would surprise me would be the kind of mechanistic organization portrayed by Lentz/Doyle – order: action: period. In that kind of world you would have a paper trail and a long one. Maybe all destroyed. Maybe not.

The photographic record. Here we have two issues. First concerns the color swatches. Perhaps this is made more clear in another volume, in the article referenced above they simply appear. What were these swatches on and what were they made of? In point these are very important variables. While armor fans have been struck dumb in admiration over revelations of early war German tanks, Pacific war aviation fans were similarly mesmerized by the great Zero color argument. (More specifically, ‘early war offensive scheme colors.”) This argument existed despite the fact that we had a nice paper trail concerning what colors were put on at the factory and when – pretty nice anyway. The problem arose because of that “grey” thing again. Japanese and allied vets described the color of early war Japanese Navy aircraft as being grey, light grey, greenish grey or some other variation. Because you were talking about the shade of one color black and white photos were not valuable and the few in color supported everyone. On the basis of color swatches developed from downed Japanese aircraft the “greenish grey” forces were winning the battle for several years. However, most paints don’t really dry as much as they oxidize. So what happened to a light grey color swatch allowed to age for twenty years? It turned greenish. So at present, the light grey fans are in the saddle, although everyone agrees that there was some “color” involved – probably a tiny hit of green or something else. Something like this reconstruction would seem to be in order. Jentz/Doyle are arguing that the two tones of paint used – brown and grey – were so close visually as to be barely distinguishable with the best of photo scanners. The obvious question is why have two colors that look the same because time changed one or both. The whole point, as I understand it, of having a multi-colored scheme is to break up the linear appearance of the weapon: how does this function if you can’t see it? It is possible that all AFVs in the Wehrmacht had some brown and Berlin decided to paint every one of them to keep things tidy and hope to save paint in the long run. This is simply a stretch and makes one wish for records.

The photo record itself is the toughest thing for me to accept. Jentz/Doyle argue that it is only possible to see the difference between the two paints unless the photo is a product of “a few high contrast prints of black & white photographs of Panzers taken from 1938 to 1940 using glass plate negatives.” I’ve been looking at a lot of photos. Many are of  a very high quality. Two things strike you immediately. If a photo is a good one from the late 30s it is very easy to see the two tone camo. I rewatched my German propaganda film about the light tanks (Pz I, II and Pz 38T) last night figuring that would show something about the early war. It does. You can see camo in prewar and in the few shots from Poland and none in France. The pictures submitted earlier on this thread show that some brown/grey tank photos exist, and to me the distinction is quite visible. (Not what Jentz/Doyle describe.) If you can see them here, and see them clearly, why are they invisible in the huge number of photos probably any of us have of German AFVs from the early war? I certainly agree that cameras can lie. I certainly agree that a camo system could be hidden by lighting, dust and mud. It is much harder for me to believe that all of them have been hidden by light, dust and mud because there was so little difference between the colors. I’ll also grant that some photos show tonal changes consistent with color changes. But nobody is arguing that there were not some two color German AFVs in France. Jentz and Doyle argue there were none. If they’re are right, every single photo of a German AFV from the French campaign that appears to be one color is due to the limitations of the camera – limitations that did not exist in 1938-39. I don’t get it.

Eric

Phil_H

If I may throw in yet another variable, as far as photographic evidence is concerned, this cannot always be depended on because we don't know what type of film emulsion was used.

It must be considered that at that time, orthochromatic film was still widely used. Orthochromatic film was sensitive in the blue-green ranges but insensitive to red. This means that red appears black and red/brown tones may be rendered darker than they actually are, while blues/greens are rendered normally. This is a contributing factor to some photos of three tone patterns appearing two tone and for two-tone patterns appearing monotone. Lighting conditions also play a factor and I'm sure these guys weren't able to take their photos under ideal lighting conditions.

Unless one has access to the negative from which a photo was printed (and therefore, access to the emulsion code), one needs a point of reference (eg. a known red item) in the photo as a basis of comparison. Failing that, one needs to interpret what one sees in the photo.

When you get down to "scale effect", weathering, photographic variables, printing inconsistencies, computer monitor differences, and just plain evidential discrepancies and throw in crew-painting inconsistencies and even possible manufacturing variables and inconsistencies in the actual paint, and you're really just chasing impossible-to-know, dubious conclusions.

Of course you're right. This is called wasting time on a subject that's fun. Might note that Jentz and Doyle would disagree. If you check out their article (written in 2002 I think) they proudly announce that they've tracked down the prewar colors and the colors used through the French campaign. And they caution modelers, if they care about accuracy, not to build any German tanks that fought after June 1940. Other volumes are out now, so I suppose if you buy them you can paint a Panther. Personally, I wish I could prove that American and British tanks had four color camo. I have eight US AFVs (never built one) and they're all supposed to be olive drab. Sounds like mud and snow time to me.

Eric

Eric,

I will have time later today or perhaps tomorrow to read through your latest post but just wanted to drop a quick note to let you know that by no means am I seeing this discussion as adversarial. I too am a historian by training (it's what BA is in, I served as an undergrad TA and considered a career in academia before my student loan debt convinced me otherwise!) and so am viewing this discussion through that lens.

To Karl's point, there's no way we will be able to establish a 100% certain/concrete position on this issue one way or the other...and I readily concede that there are multiple possibilities out there that may yet be further explained/modified/tossed out as research continues and more evidence comes to light over time.

EBergerud

As for no blue in Panzergrau, my Tamiya German Grey most certainly has a bit. Other brands may vary. The easiest way to tell would be to see if you can make a simple grey that looks exactly like your version of Panzergrau. Take some white and start adding a bit of black. (Never the other way around unless you want an experiment on a wasteful scale.) If you get the right grey, problem solved. If we knew the pigments employed by the Germans we’d know what a real Panzergrau looked like in real life. If simple grey doesn’t look right you have to add one or more of the primes. Blue would be a good guess.

The fine art of paint mixing is a long standing one in the modeling world. I often custom-mix my colors all the time. If you want to engage in that, my suggestion would be to get a color wheel and do some reading-up on color theory. Things that we think should happen from an intuitive standpoint often don't once you start getting into the mix-and-match approach.

EBergerud

This is especially true that everybody I think agrees that there were at least a few hundred German AFVs running around France painted grey and brown - so modelers can avoid monotone colors which, let's face it, can get a little redundant.

It has taken about a decade or so for that to be widely accepted as true that there were 2-tone vehicles in France. Whether or not ALL the vehicles in France were 2-tone is up for debate as there were clearly still 3-tone vehicles/gear running around in various locations as supported by the current photographic record.

EBergerud

Let me give a longer quote on the 1939 issue. It is perfectly obvious in the article that Jentz and Doyle wrote they are quoting from the work that is a backbone of their own research. The earlier quotes are from Culver but not the one about “alteration.” This one is from the work by Fritz Wiener who provided Jentz and Doyle their initial load of ammunition. It should be very sobering to anyone that it is clear from Jentz/Doyle that Culver/Murphy had been there first and had read the same document differently - especially as Jentz/Doyle had just selectively misquoted Culver. (Might add that Culver/Murphy have ten other sources – two from Germany and three from Aberdeen, although the Wiener paper is at the top.)

There's no doubt that Culver/Murphy came before Jetz/Doyle and that both teams used some of the same documents...but Culver/Murphy relied on a translation vs. the original source documentation as asserted by Jentz/Doyle. Jentz/Doyle always assert in each of their PT editions that they work only from primary source documentation and that their conclusions are based solely on that. Does that mean that Jentz/Doyle disregard non-primary sources that others might have used? Sure...so that's a factor we always have to keep in mind. Primary source/original documentations have their limits and this could produce the opportunity for gaps to be filled by conjecture/speculation/interpretation.

EBergerud

Now, what does that “sic” mean? I’m not really sure. Later in the article Jentz/Doyle say that it was from this “mistranslation” that Culver made his error. This is plausible. I’ve done used translation and it can cause trouble. But “1939” and “1940” are written the same way in German and English. So what you have here is something very different and more rare – you have an error in reproducing simple data. Typo is possible – every book has them in my experience. But I don’t think so here. A typo would look like 1930 or 1949 – a mistake in one key. Changing 1940 to 1939 looks much more like intent. So why not just make this statement at the top to clear up immediately a major discrepancy. Maybe Jentz & Doyle are researchers and not writers. Maybe there were more “maybes” in the entire document than they liked. If the author Wiener was alive and could read English, the translator would have – almost certainly – sent the translated text to the author. It may well have been the author himself that corrected the text. The reason I bring this possibility up is that later in the Jentz/Doyle article they claim that Wiener specifically said that two tone Panzers fought in Poland. Presumably this means Wiener did not say this about France – a very strange omission. (Or unless he thought the transition to the grey Panzerwaffe was already underway.)

I agree that the 1939 date reference is the key here...and we know that historians can and do hang their hats all the time on potentially suspect assertions if it serves their ultimate end purposes. When I read this, I see it as an attempt by Jentz/Doyle to show that Culver/Murphy incorrectly (whether deliberate or not is up for debate) claim that an alteration happened in 1939 while Jentz/Doyle do not. Jentz/Doyle only mention it in their defense of why they believe that ALL France 1940 vehicles would have had the 2-tone scheme. For whatever reason, Culver/Murphy used the Wiener data to support their assertion that 1939 onward was montone while Jentz/Doyle say the Wiener data does not indicate this at all and furthermore the actual official order timeline chain doesn't either.

EBergerud

Let’s look carefully at what Jentz /Doyle wrote:

 

“·  Fact 3: Fritz Wiener distinctly stated that equipment used in the Fall of 1939 (campaign in Poland) was painted in a two-tone camouflage pattern of dark grey/dark brown. The general army order to paint the Panzers (and other equipment) in the single color - dark grey - was not signed until 31 July 1940 - well after the Campaign in France had ended. Therefore, all Panzers used in the Campaign in France and the Low Countries were also painted 1/3 dark brown and 2/3 dark grey.”

 

Above is a classic non sequitur. Break it down. 1. Equipment in Poland was painted two tone. 2. The general army order to paint grey Panzers was signed 31 July 1940. 3. All vehicles in France were two toned.

Assumption one is true. Assumption two may be right. There was “a” order signed in July. Was this the first? We have a strong suggestion that it was not. So the conclusion follows from the propositions only if there is nothing else that got in the way.

I don't see the non-sequitur you do here.  Jentz/Doyle are continuing down the path that says we have hard evidence of 2-tone in Poland (something you agree is true) that ties to the Nov 1938 order timeline. Jentz/Doyle, working from the original order documentation, have an official signed order dateed July 31, 1940 as the first official indication that a change from 2-tone to monotone was ordered. They also state in PT 1-2 that in June 1940 an official order was issued about units not buying paint directly and that montone scheme was now the order of the day. The follow-up order of July 1940 reinforces that June order, nothing more. Since the previous order that it replaced was dated Nov 1938, it is an accurate assumption in the absence of an official order stating otherwise that until June 1940, the official authorized scheme for all vehicles serving at the time of the French campaign was the 2-tone scheme. The key here is that there isn't an official order that says a monotone scheme was authorized for France 1940.

EBergerud

Here is where we have two problems: one worth nothing and the other very serious. First, is the lack of a paper trail. How big of a deal was the decision to change the colors on AFVs? I’d guess it was the kind of operational / technical decision that was made at a fairly high level. At what time did deliberation on the issue start - was the paint shortage discovered after French surrender or was this being studied over time? It comes from RAL but what kind of input? Captains through Colonels from operations mostly in conjunction with personnel from the Economic Affairs wing of OKH in consultation with people from the firms building the vehicles. 

I agree that the lack of a paper trail is critical around the monotone scheme and the absence is glaring and very important when viewed in the larger context of how the German Army went about procuring and accepting equipment and how equipment was handled in the field after acceptance. The Waffenamt had multiple different departments in charge of various aspects of the entire procurement and they were mechanistic in how standards were set, who had to evaluate and approve them prior to when they were set, and when they would go into effect and what contingencies were allowed in relation to their implementations. The German Army had to pay for everything they got from the different manufacturers and paint was something they bought and used on an industrial scale. There was not a paint shortage though...the phrase "save on paint" doesn't mean there was a shortage. The panzer gray was applied first to the hull and the 1/3 disruptive pattern was sprayed over it, so by not applying the Dunkelbraun, it would save on paint (and time) at the factories and depots. Solely a procurement decision once they had sufficient info from field experience that the camo pattern was ineffective. Since they had to issue orders to literally dozens of manufacturers and depots for all the various equipment being ordered and produced, it was a very big deal. They wouldn't have done it ad-hoc. 

EBergerud

Why was it done? The only thing I’ve heard from Jentz/Doyle was that the decision was made to save paint. That would not, however, explain why the German army would have saved paint by repainting thousands of vehicles. I can’t prove it, but I would strongly guess that there should be more evidence available on this issue too. Unless, however, what you had was a kind of on-going process that was being kicked around among several offices and more or less understood by the people that needed to know.

See comments above about the saving paint angle. I think we can agree that repainting in the field was always a low priority as evidenced by how slow units were to comply with the already-year-old directive at the time of the outbreak of war in Sept 1939 to convert from 3-tone to 2-tone. The depots/factories on the other hand faced no such limitations and were in compliance with the orders for new equipment being delivered 1939-1940.

EBergerud

So why a “general order” in July 1940? The obvious connection is the end of the war in France which saw not only the incorporation of captured weapons but the shifting of large contracts from France to Germany. (Rather like the PZ38T – the orders for Czech vehicles were simply shifted and expanded to Germany. Same workers making the same tanks: different markings.) Or maybe one of the dozens of subcontractors were not doing it right. It’s all very confusing – which does not surprise me at all. What would surprise me would be the kind of mechanistic organization portrayed by Lentz/Doyle – order: action: period. In that kind of world you would have a paper trail and a long one. Maybe all destroyed. Maybe not.

I agree that the end of the French campaign offered a natural break-point in terms of hindsight around why the new order was issued around vehicle paint schemes. But we have to remember that at the end of the French campaign things didn't just "stop" for a period of time in terms of activity. Prepartions for possible Operation Sealion were underway, efforts were still ongoing in the Norway campaign and there were ominous rumblings coming out of the Italian efforts in N. Africa as well, nevermind the preparations for possible actions in the East against the Russians.

We do have a paper trail for the German procurement contracts (in each of the PT editions you see the evidence for that for each vehicle type, same thing in Spielberger's work on production schedules, etc.) and the general orders issued not just to specific manufacturers but also to units in the field around everything under the sun from maintenance schedules, to parts ordering, to paint, to training, etc. The Bundesarchiv has enormous amounts of paper to support virtually every aspect of the German war machine activity, especially the early war periods when everything was being handled down to the "t" from a bureaucracy standpoint.

EBergerud

The photographic record. Here we have two issues. First concerns the color swatches. Perhaps this is made more clear in another volume, in the article referenced above they simply appear. What were these swatches on and what were they made of? In point these are very important variables. . Jentz/Doyle are arguing that the two tones of paint used – brown and grey – were so close visually as to be barely distinguishable with the best of photo scanners. The obvious question is why have two colors that look the same because time changed one or both. The whole point, as I understand it, of having a multi-colored scheme is to break up the linear appearance of the weapon: how does this function if you can’t see it? It is possible that all AFVs in the Wehrmacht had some brown and Berlin decided to paint every one of them to keep things tidy and hope to save paint in the long run. This is simply a stretch and makes one wish for records.

See my post above with the color chips as referenced on the official RAL Farbtonkarte Nr. 840 B2 that was updated in 1938. They are color chips, not swatches, but don't know anything more beyond that. Could those have changed over time? Possibly, but not dramatically...they weren't exposed to the elements, weren't on a recovered vehicle, etc. Jentz/Doyle state that they have accurately replicated them in the print (color pages are not the norm in the PT series of publications). As you can see when viewed in color, the tonality between the two is very very close and how much they would change once exposed to the elements is up for speculation.

You are correct that a disruptive pattern is designed to break up the outline of the vehicle. In a "clean" environment, the 2-tone does that but on a muted basis vs. the previous 3-tone scheme...however in-the-field experience eventually showed it lost its value once the vehicle had any kind of dust or dirt accumulation. It is not the first time that the Germans changed the paint scheme after field experience demonstrated that the authorized schemes weren't effective. Witness the later change from monotone Panzer Gray to monotone Dunkelgelb in Feb '43 after experience in Russia (and the loss of air superiority) over an extended period (with field discretion for applying Olivgrun and Rotbraun for the full 3-tone) and the Tropen schemes introduced in Feb '41 for N. Africa and modified again in Feb '42.

EBergerud

The photo record itself is the toughest thing for me to accept. Jentz/Doyle argue that it is only possible to see the difference between the two paints unless the photo is a product of “a few high contrast prints of black & white photographs of Panzers taken from 1938 to 1940 using glass plate negatives.” I’ve been looking at a lot of photos. Many are of  a very high quality. Two things strike you immediately. If a photo is a good one from the late 30s it is very easy to see the two tone camo.

This assertion is backed up...there are many photos of "clean" vehicles where unless the lighting is absolutely perfect, it's difficult to pick out the two tone. Doesn't mean it isn't there. Film quality of the era has already been mentioned and when the photos were being taken, it was often by amateurs whose intent was not preserving pristine replications for future generations of model builders.

EBergerud

I rewatched my German propaganda film about the light tanks (Pz I, II and Pz 38T) last night figuring that would show something about the early war. It does. You can see camo in prewar and in the few shots from Poland and none in France. The pictures submitted earlier on this thread show that some brown/grey tank photos exist, and to me the distinction is quite visible. (Not what Jentz/Doyle describe.) If you can see them here, and see them clearly, why are they invisible in the huge number of photos probably any of us have of German AFVs from the early war?

It's all about sample size. The handful of photos that count as "high quality" where you can see the two-tone is limited to be sure but as time goes on, more are being found in personal albums and collections as that generation dies off and their estates are sold. This is leading to a dramatic increase of available photos in terms of volume vs. only the official Bundesarchiv and similar sources content, much of which was recycled repeatedly over and over in different print publications. For example, I have color photos of a Pz IV-D in France in a nice field where you can only see the 2nd tone on a small portion of the lower rear hull because of the lighting/angle and dust...but it's there. See also the Pz I color photo I posted earlier...it's there but hard to see without looking closely and that's of a vehicle also in the field. You simply cannot discount the huge distortion effect of a dust coat combined with lighting, camera, film, etc. variables in order to establish an absolute based solely on the photo evidence.

EBergerud

I certainly agree that cameras can lie. I certainly agree that a camo system could be hidden by lighting, dust and mud. It is much harder for me to believe that all of them have been hidden by light, dust and mud because there was so little difference between the colors. I’ll also grant that some photos show tonal changes consistent with color changes. But nobody is arguing that there were not some two color German AFVs in France. Jentz and Doyle argue there were none. If they’re are right, every single photo of a German AFV from the French campaign that appears to be one color is due to the limitations of the camera – limitations that did not exist in 1938-39. I don’t get it.

Not all of them have been hidden. Where it's not hidden, we have evidence of the 2-tone scheme being present. No one is arguing today that there weren't 2-tone scheme vehicles in France in 1940...but at the time Jentz/Doyle first published their findings in 2002, that was exactly what was being argued...that 2-tone was only applicable to Poland and not France. See my comment above again about sample size...and why this particular topic is so vigorously discussed in many circles. Because it is human nature to want absolute certainty, when we don't have it then it comes down to what are the variables, what are the interpretations, and when do certain circumstances apply or not apply.

The photographic evidence, because of all the variables that it contains, can only offer supplemental evidence vs. concrete proof of something having taken place. In absence of the concrete photographic evidence showing that ONLY the 2-tone scheme was used, we have to fall back on what IS available as concrete evidence. That is the official order timeline and when those orders were dated. We can speculate all day long about what happened prior to the official orders being issued...but the fact remains that the official order date is a concrete anchor point around which the supporting data can be assembled. And that's exactly what happens...people assemble the supporting data that supports their position around that anchor point and then the camps form until such time as other supporting data for/against the different positions comes to light and then the camps will shift.

For me, personally, I prefer to apply the 2-tone scheme for Poland or France 1940. It is the majority position based on the documented and photographic evidence to hand, i.e. the 2-tone scheme was ordered since Nov 1938 and was not countermanded until June 1940 and the photographic record exists to show how close the 2-tone scheme colors were to each other. Then, as a builder, I work off the other evidence I know is also supported by the photographic record around dust, weathering, etc. to create the effect I'm after, like this:

or this: