Hey folks,
Just tried my hand at spraying my first camo job on a Panther Ausf. A. I was wondering what your thoughts on it are? I’m not 100% happy with it, had a lot of trouble spraying a nice clean line, but all in all I guess it could be worse! Opinions? Suggestions? Criticisms? This model is far from finnished, so if you see something let me know!
Thanks all!
-RD
Actually, it looks pretty good. Well done!
To me it looks more like a modern NATO scheme minus the NATO Black and with the Dark Yellow. Maybe a finer brown and green line pattern. It seems later German armor had the “tiger stipe” sort of paint schemes
I’m certainly no expert, maybe Bish will comment since he’d know but I’m not sure there was any standard camo scheme for the Wehrmacht during the latter part of the war. I think the individual tank crews just slapped something on there. You might want to look up ‘ambush scheme’ because what you have looks very much like one. Just add little dots around for a dampling effect.
And I wouldn’t get too hung up on it being perfect, someone here said these were done by a guy with a spray-gun so the real thing had flaws.
German armor schemes in WWII were far from standard. Most of it was applied by the crews in the field to match local conditions. Although there was a period towards the end of the war when indeed there were standard factory applied schemes on certain vehicle types. But again that would be limited to that vehicle type at that factory at that time period. E.G. Panther G October 1944 batch at MAN factory. But for field applied schemes, photos show that nearly anything goes with the three colors- stripes, blotches, blobs, spots, squiggles, cross hatch, sprayed, brushed, hard edge, soft edge.
I think you have done a pretty god job on that. I think i would have gone with more green and less brown myself. It is reminiscant opf the hard edged scheme seen in 1944, probably more common on Ausf G’s than late Ausf A’s, but its not to far fetched.
As the guys have said, there was little standardisation in German camo. It would all depend on local conditions, paint supply, means of thinning and application. But you do often see similar shemes being applied, such as the hard edge, in some units, but there was no offical guidance.
Wood, whats the Tiger scheme your reffering to.
Although I’m not totally an armor guy, it looks pretty good from here. I was watching a documentary on Panthers the other day and there was a clip where the crew were painting the squiggly lines on with a brush.
Like Bish said there was little standardization while in the field. Kinda like the additional armor placed on American Sherman’s.
Hey Raindog,
You did a great job as the base camouflage theme. With camo you don’t need fine lines, they’re supposed to be blurred so they can break up the shape of the vehicle. I recommend what Gamera said and put in the ambush scheme dots and that will break up your scheme even more. Also once you put on a wash it will blend all the colors nicely. So far, so good. Keep up the good work.
Thank you very much to everyone whoes commented! I looked into some examples of the Ambush Scheme, and tried it out. Very visually jarring, which is good! It completely changes the feel of the tank. Again, I appreciate your feedback and tips. I found what seems to be a really good source here:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2015/02/24/german-camouflage-and-tactical-markings-part-i-by-agarestretiak/
Anyway, there are some parts where the dots may be too highly concentrated, but I think with some weathering I can pull it all together well.
I did the dot pattern with a fine bristle brush. I hope that is fine:
Also playing with the thought of some camo netting :D, really having fun with this one!
I’m going to seal it now with a matt varnish, and weather her up with some pastels!
-RD
Well, I wish someone would have mentioned earlier that the “ambush” scheme was a late war item – your Panther A is solidly “mid-war”. You can always say it was a veteran vehicle that got a later camo repaint, I suppose. There was lots of decentralization – that’s true. But there are some general rules based upon known photographic evidence too. Keep up the good work
Hmmm, appreciate the feedback T26. Looks like i’m going to have to go pretty heavy on the weathering then. I’m guessing a mid-war vehicle still kicking around towards the end would have seen some heavy use. I’ll see what I can come up with!
Sorry, guess I should have thought before I opened my big mouth. My mistake, just looked like the ambush scheme- I didn’t notice you said A model. [:$]
Your work does look good Raindog, just wish it was on a Panther G…
All good Gamera, maybe this thing has been hanging out in France waiting for Patton to show up in Calais. Either way I’ve had a blast doing it! I need to get my hands on a book dedicated to the history of armor if i’m going to be trying to paint historically accurate models.
It looks like you’re building the old Tamiya Panther A. In which case this the perfect kit for experimentation. It has many accuracy issues, but in the end will look like a Panther pretty much once complete. One thing nobody here has yet brought up is Zimmerit-the textured anti magnetic mine coating applied to German tanks from late 43 to late 44. The Panther A should have it. There are numerous techniques for us tread heads to apply the stuff to our builds. You can get another Panther A to use for that and a different camo scheme. Have fun learning and experimenting…
The survivng Panther As soldiered on until the bitter end. The well known tank duel fough in Cologne ( aka Koln ) in front of the cathedral involved a Panther A
Thanks for the image Stickpusher. I’ve seen footage of this duel used to demonstrate the lack of fire power in the M4A3. I hadn’t realized it was an Ausf. A they where fighting against. The footage I have calls it Ausf. G. Obviously not in any camo scheme, but still encouraging to see that a potential Ausf. A’s did fight on and perserver throughout the war. (that is, at least for the justification of my camo job.) Very brutal footage for any viewer, but reccomeneded for any of the history buffs on here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6LqB-RYUvY
Kindof makes me want to build a Pershin next!
Thanks!
Well the Tamiya 1/35 Pershing is a real beauty of a kit… and in a nice simple overal OD scheme. [;)] I built the Dragon Pershing a couple of years back. It looks real nice once built, but the indy track lings are time consuming.
I am pretty sure that the Koln Panther had a camo scheme of some sort before being burnt out. But as to what that was, that would be an educated guess based off other tanks in that unit. And yes, it was most certainly an A. The drivers vision flap and the rear side armor “step” at the fuel tanks are recognition features not seen on the G.
Actually looking at the footage prior to the burn out, it does look like there is some variatation in color. I really wish I had a better understanding of what was manufactured and sent where, under who, and why. It seems that in the mid-late era the german army experinced a very confusing power vaccuume. As i understand it they had started to fill their ranks during the late war with Stug tank destroyers as they where cheaper and easier to build. is this also true of the western front? Was there as much demand for replacment ordinace? I’ve also heard that the Pershing was a british variation of the American Sherman. It seems we all have quite a bit of artistic licene to work with. But then again, isn’t that all the fun?
I’ll send pics soon of the finished work. Thanks for the tips everyone!
-RD
I’m sure that there a few more folks with more knowledge who will add on here. Panther A’s were produced from late 1943 to mid 1944. At that time German tanks came out of the factory with a zimmerit coating and a base scheme of Dark Yellow. Once assigned to a line unit, they would be camouflaged at that level using the dark green and red brown paints using various methods depending upon the situation. A surviving tank would potentially be damaged, recovered, repaired and even repainted as the situation allowed.
Stug’s were produced in the same time period and due to wartime production shortfalls could be used to fill out armored units in addition to their Stug units. Yes they were cheaper and easier to produce due to the fixed superstructure, as opposed to a rotating turret. Think of the Schweinfurt B-17 raids- no they did not have the effect envisioned by the raid planners. Primarily due to the ability to conduct folow up raids to completly destroy ball bearing production output. But they did have some effect on armaments production. Less are required for a Stug than a Panzer.
The Pershing was a wholely American design going down a new path from the Sherman family, aside from sharing the same engine as the M4A3. It was a continuation of the T-23 tank design that provided the turret for the 76mm gunned Shermans, using a similar turret design mounting a 90mm main gun, on a new better armored hull, with a rear mounted transmission allowing for a lower sillouhette, and with a new torsion bar suspension. The T-26/M26 was the start of the modern American MBT that evolved into the M46, M47, M48, and finally the M60. I think that you have the Pershing confused with the Sherman Firefly, which was a British upgunned Sherman that mounted a 17 pounder main gun.
I’m looking forward to those photos of your progress.
It looks pretty good and will look better after some washes and weathering but I agree with Bish about a bit more green. The crews applied the schemes on the field with whatever was available at the time. I’ve read that even mops were used or in most cases a paint gun was rigged to the tank’s system to spray the paint.
Speaking about camos on Panthers, how about the “Reverse Disc” scheme? I think it’s very cool looking. I applied the disc scheme to my 1/25 Academy Ausf. G a while back:
