"Why so little Allied camo?" Topic

One of the things that always makes German tanks look so cool is all the fun camo they used. But the Allies seem to have used very little. Soviets are mostly a sea of green, the Allies drab.

They certainly had the time and money to add a camo scheme, why didn't they?

Is it that being on the attack it wouldn't help?

I would think if it made a 1% difference, paint is cheape r than tanks, never mind crews?

Because they were not as advanced as the Germans.

I always thought it was because they had air superiority and therefore need camouflage less.

Could it be that the Allies tanks were meant to be advancing(like the grey German tanks early in the war), so a camouflage paint scheme was not an advantage…

The early war tanks were grey so that they could park in the shade of buildings or trees and be less visible to hovering enemy aircraft.

In that sense I suppose you could call it a form of camouflage.

Just because the Germans overcomplicated everything doesn't mean *everyone* had to…

I think Broglie is on the right track, and I'd also add artillery superiority, numerical superiority, and possibly ammo supply superiority to the list of mitigating reasons. There were certainly some interesting Allied cammo schemes in the early war theaters with more force parity:

WWII ships and planes seem to follow the same pattern – in the phase of a contest where every unit is precious, they tend to be painted in cammo schemes, but the side that gets force superiority eventually settles on a color scheme that favors ease of maintenance (except in the North Sea and North Atlantic, where uniform gray really is the best cammo).

- Ix

Interesting since the US camoed their ships. As I understand they repainted to grey one side of the Missouri for the surrender ceremony.

link

it was just to try to avoid friendly fire … an olive drab tank with giant white star ? it's a friend !

A FM that touches on the subject:

PDF link

It is largely due to offense vs defense.

Before Sept. '39, the Germans experimented with brown over gray. They abandoned that through the blitzkrieg. Local foliage was used on an ad hoc basis. But, as they were on the move forward, the areas they were fighting in would change from urban to rural and back pretty quickly. The Gray was supposed to be a color that worked in both. The Russians used tan over green in some areas, but they also had the problem of prioritizing fighting over painting.

In Tunisia and North Africa, both sides went to a sand-colored scheme, with the British using a two-tone sand and gray scheme.

In 1943, the Wehrmacht was no longer advancing for the most part and they changed to panzergelb. In 1944, they were in retreat and the later "ambush scheme" was reflective of this and the tactics used.

One of the things that always makes German tanks look so cool is all the fun camo they used.

Nope. solid Panzer Grey is the coolest color scheme evah.

If the allies and the German's used camo no one would paint/play WWII miniature games. They had the foresight to know we'd be gaming this later.

The Soviets learned to move their armour at night and hide it during daylight. There aren't many good photos of that

Phil

On the naval side the US and Brits were heavy and creative camouflage users while the German and Italian navies did use schemes, they were on the whole less common and not initiated until later in the war. The IJN was very late to the table on their use of camouflage and other than aircraft carriers and smaller vessels, never really adopted camouflage even at the end.

I would say I stand recognition would play into it as well. The US gave some of their infantry camouflage uniforms, but found friendly fire was causing problems. Other units thought they were Germans, so these uniforms were withdrawn. I could see a rationale that a draub green tank is one of ours.

I suppose olive drab is camo-ish in some climates.

Especially when splashed with mud and coated in dust.

- Ix

Wyatt the Odd said:

It is largely due to offense vs defense.

Bingo. Well said.

79thPA said:

A FM that touches on the subject:

Thanks for that link. That's a good one I hadn't seen yet. So little time, so many manuals…

- Ix

Ship camo, particularly dazzle schemes, is intended to make it much harder for submarines to aim torpedoes. In order to aim a torpedo, you need to estimate target speed and heading, and the dazzle camo is designed to make estimating either one of those very difficult.

I'd bet that if we got into a naval shooting war today with a big submarine threat, we'd see a return of dazzle camo, just like how ships between WW1 and WW2 were overall gray, but as soon as the shooting started, they got repainted in dazzle camo.

One thing all the sides discovered is that a moving tank or truck is better hidden by a single solid color (hence the overall desert sand colors used today, when it's obvious that there are camo patterns developed for all the vehicles).

I'm actually going to paint all my T34s in a camo pattern, just so I don't have a horde of green tanks on the table. Also, my dismounted Cavalry Recon troops are all in the camouflage uniform (it's the same pattern as the USMC).

As noted the value of camo depended on whether you were moving briskly forward or standing and waiting

I did always wonder about that early war British Western Desert camo with the blue stripes in it – - – pretty, but really?

Paint is expensive and heavy, and slows aircraft down.

Plus, some probably realized the vehicles would just get covered with dust quickly anyway, so why waste more money?

Those big white stars do seem rather stupid in hindsight, but many were quickly covered up in the field to prevent the German tank and anti-tank gunners from using them as bullseyes to shoot at.

If Allen were still with us he would shoot down that blue camo in the Caunter scheme.

it was just to try to avoid friendly fire …

I think this is a far larger issue than many here give credit.

Offense vs. defense? Yeah, that contributes too. But the heart of the matter is that whichever side tended towards dominant firepower at the pointy end of the stick, tended also towards making their vehicles more clearly visible.

If your side tends to have dominant firepower, you paint big white crosses, or big white stars, or red rings, or you drape your big boldly colored flags across stuff or do whatever you can to be MORE visible, and MORE easily identified. And that includes painting all your vehicles in consistent ways. So that they will look familiar.

Why would you camo a tank that you put big white stars on? ("Hey sarge, should we shoot at that unidentifiable bit of the woods with the big white star in the middle of it? Naw, I didn't think so either…")

Besides there is very little data to support camo painting making any tank harder to see. This is particularly true when it is moving ("Hey sarge, do you see that big nicely colored piece of the local terrain crossing the field over there? Wonder what that could be…"), but often still applies even when you are stationary.

So long as the base color is fairly dull and not at odds with the general colors of the local environment, camo makes very little measurable difference. When a tank (or truck) moves around much on the battlefield it quickly becomes caked in mud or dust anyways. The pattern presented in the paint is almost irrelevant. And if you are stationary, putting on two or three clippings of local foliage, or an appropriately colored camo net, will do far more to hide the tank than any paint job you can imagine.

Or so I've read.

There is, of course, the alternate theory. That the Americans and the Russians colluded in painting their tanks and trucks mostly in monotone green shades as a method of ensuring the future wargamers would find it easier to field large armies of their equipment…

That second theory has certainly worked for me.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Air superiority is the determining factor. In the early years when Axis had it, the Allies used more camo. Later when the allies had it, less camo. Some camo such as winter white wash was used by the Allies to make the tanks harder targets for AT guns.

The brutal truth is that painted camo makes very little difference to the visibility or otherwise of vehicles, apart from improving crew morale, as long as they painted a dull colour.

Vehicles located due to all the usual things, shape, shine, shadow, movement, not whether they have little yellow dots painted on. Vehicles 'hide' by being stationary and being covered in nets and foliage.

The Blue strip caunter scheme appears to be a post war invention,
1 minute in…
YouTube link

Some camo is not to hide, but to break up the silhouette so it's harder under pressure to identify what you're shooting at, or where the soft spots are.

Some camo is not to hide, but to break up the silhouette so it's harder under pressure to identify what you're shooting at, or where the soft spots are.

.

Especially the first part of the sentence: "break up the silhouette"! Of course, as soon as it moves, it's more easily spotted.

I suspect that at least one reason the Allies didn't use much cammo is because the Germans did -- same reason the infantry stopped wearing cammo uniforms -- to avoid being mistaken for the enemy!

I believe there's a few examples (of one unit of trucks) where blue really was used, but the perceived blue the rest of the time was faded/dusty silver grey.

Camo really has two functions :

1) To break up the silhouette, as noted …

2) To blend in with the environment …

Now those can be done with paint schemes, local terrain, and as noted, camo nets. We used all 3 when I was on active duty. '79-'90.

The brutal truth is that painted camo makes very little difference to the visibility or otherwise of vehicles, apart from improving crew morale, as long as they painted a dull colour.

Now I don't see this as entirely true. You'll do anything to increase your survivability. The saying in the Army back then was, "If you can be seen, you can be hit, if you can be hit you can be killed."

If this was not true than modern armies would not waste time having camo uniforms and camo painted vehicles … yes ? Even if the vehicles are just a desert tan shade. E.g. when I was in the ROK. In winter with the snow fall. We'd white wash the entire vehicle. Or most of it, leaving some parts in black and tan.

So to a point camo painted vehicles are good for morale. As you might just get back alive because of it. And I can truly say, after serving in 4 Infantry Bns, 1 Air Asslt, and 3 Mech. In various environments, camo painting your vehicle, using local terrain, and camo nets … works … The same goes for the basic Grunt. Camo uniform, with use of terrain, i.e. camo, cover and concealment, as printed in the FMs. Is just good field craft and could give you the edge, when it comes down to it. If only for a second or two. And in that short amount of time, you can eliminate the target. And in turn survive.

Now of course if you're a fan of GW 40K, then all bets are off. If you paint your models in orange, fire engine red, lime green, etc., etc., …

Caunter:
Bright blue is almost certainly wrong.

It seems that some veterans described the colour as light blue.
One theory is that the silver-grey paint changed colour somewhat in UV and eventually did look like light-grey with a hint of blue.
Another theory involves dust.

If you look at some of the pictures here:
link

Even some of them look like they have a blue-ish aspect.
EG

I have always tended to think of the air superiority reasoning. Hence the use of air recognition panels and sometimes colored smoke. The point made above about advancing vs waiting in ambush is interesting and hadn't occurred to me.

What was the joke in Normandy? If the aircraft is silver, it's American. If it is green, it's British. If it is invisible, it's German.

Well certainly with the advent of the proliferation of aircraft in WWI. Started the trend to camo things like structures to start. And then later other things like AFVs, etc.

By Normandy in WWII, the Allies had air superiority so in some cases camo was not used/needed. The USN for example, still painted their aircraft to blend in with the ocean in many cases. Most aircraft camo was so they would blend in with ground they were flying over or parking on. You can clearly see the intent with, e.g. German aircraft in North Africa, etc., …

But you also saw, ID'ing aircraft as friendly, by the Allies painting on black & white "invasion strips". After the fiasco during the Sicily invasion.

Also sometimes the UK in North Africa, had to paint red & white strips on portions of their AFVs to discern them from the DAK's, etc. To prevent fratricide, which occurred at times …