camoflauge skills of combatants

[coe]

On visual examination of camouflage it seems that in the later war years the Germans paid alot more attention to it than the Allies (paint schemes, brushes on everything etc. etc.). Did this mean the Germans were better at it, if so are there inherent bonus qualities the Germans get for concealment or is it only through the platoon, co, battalion leaders (and also what about the vehicles?)

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by coe:

On visual examination of camouflage it seems that in the later war years the Germans paid alot more attention to it than the Allies (paint schemes, brushes on everything etc. etc.). Did this mean the Germans were better at it, if so are there inherent bonus qualities the Germans get for concealment or is it only through the platoon, co, battalion leaders (and also what about the vehicles?)

Your visual examination is faulty. Check out the book ALLIED TANKS - ITALY by Men and Armour Press. Some really good photos of Allied armour camouflaged in that theatre.

The Germans were on the defensive for most of the latter part of the war. This is why they needed camouflage. Allied soldiers and tanks were generally attacking - movement draws the eye, so there was less of a need for hiding tanks with foliage, for example. When necessary, Allied troops knew the principles of camouflage and concealment as well as the Germans.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The Germans were on the defensive for most of the latter part of the war. This is why they needed camouflage. Allied soldiers and tanks were generally attacking - movement draws the eye, so there was less of a need for hiding tanks with foliage, for example.

To complicate things, as I understand it the Americans in the PTO made much more use of camouflage, at least with their helmet covers, than the Japanese. The Waffen SS also used camouflage smocks in the early war years.

[coe]

hmmm what about the paint schemes of uniforms and vehicles, does that give an inherent advantage?

[Michael Emrys]

I think the Germans must have learned a lot about camouflage from the Soviets, whom they acknowledged were masters of it. Michael is right I think about camouflage only being an advantage prior to moving or opening fire. Once either of those is done, spotting is fairly quick in any case. One place where superior camouflage might be useful is where one has moved and/or fired but then gone to ground or broken off contact. In CM terms, the spotting status would change to ? status a bit faster and re-acquiring an ID on it would be a bit slower.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think the Germans must have learned a lot about camouflage from the Soviets, whom they acknowledged were masters of it. Michael is right I think about camouflage is only an advantage prior to moving or opening fire. Once either of those is done, spotting is fairly quick in any case. One place where superior camouflage might be useful is where one has moved and/or fired but then gone to ground or broken off contact. In CM terms, the spotting status would change to ? status a bit faster.

Michael

Uniforms and painting vehicles have little to do with camo, to answer Coe. Michael you are right the Soviets were adept at it. What special clothing did they use? None (scouts and snipers did have smocks). What paint scheme was predominant? Plain olive.

They made use of natural foliage and were adept at digging in. Ask any soldier - I've seen this for myself, and I've gotten it from German Army veterans - you go to the field for more than a half a day and you start to blend in naturally; you get filthy. You could wear pink pajamas in the field and after a day or so you would blend in nicely. The German camo uniforms and paint schemes were faddish. So are modern camo uniforms; I don't buy that BS about digital patterns for a second. It's for morale, and it's about looking good away from the field.

US tests in Normandy discovered that camo uniforms actually attracted the eye more than OD uniforms when the wearer was on the move. Ie they did more harm than good.

If you're not on the move, you're dug in behind natural foliage. Don't matter how pretty your uniform is then, no one can see it anyway.

No, giving the Germans a stealth bonus in CM because of uniforms or paint jobs would not be realistic.

[Los]

"Your visual examination is faulty."

No, actually his visual examination is spot on. The Germans made greater use of camouflage than did the Allies. No secret there. He didn't say that there no instances of allied camouflage, just that the Germans paid more attention to it. The reasons that Michael give for that greater use of camouflage are correct, and ceratinly straighten out the guy's interpretation of what he's seen, but there's nothing wrong with his visual examination.

And anyways, to answer the man's question, spotting and concealment are a function of a unit's experience as well as things like terrain, vehicle size, etc. There are no inherent bonuses for conealment built into German forces in Combat Mission. Cheers...

Los

[Charlie Rock]

The Germans were far better at camouflage then the Western allies. For that matter everyone the Allies have faced in the last 60 years, in general, have been better at camouflage then them. I dont think it has that much to do with the Soviets. Air power and a responsive, flexible indirect fire system meant if you could be seen you could be shot at.

There was a story about this somewhere ( I forget, sorry) about some of the Western front generals having to explain to veterans from the East that open tank attacks against jabos would not work. I am thinking either of 2SS near Falaise or 12th SS early in June. Point being that the foliage covered panzer was an airpower created product. Some great pictures of this in Paul Carell's "They're coming."

At the individual fighting position level--perhaps learned from the Russians.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Michael you are right the Soviets were adept at it. What special clothing did they use? None (scouts and snipers did have smocks). What paint scheme was predominant? Plain olive.

They made use of natural foliage and were adept at digging in.

That's eminently true and I should have made the point myself. Thanks for enlarging on my statement.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

The Germans were far better at camouflage then the Western allies.

What criteria are you basing this assessment on?

And what difference did it make in the end?

As pointed out, the use of camouflage clothing was really irrelevant to begin with. For what it's worth, the Allies used camouflage clothing about as much as the Germans, elite units notwithstanding. Scout and sniper sections in the Russian, British and Canadian armies all had custom camo clothing (Denison smocks, amoeba smocks, the camo face veil which every soldier in the British and Canadian armies received as standard issue). Many German divisions probably never saw camouflage garments at all. Outside of the "elite" units they were rarely seen, and even in the elite units they were not universal, except perhaps late war SS units.

Why? Because camouflage cloth offers no huge benefits over field grey, khaki or olive drab.

If anyone has any information to present other than uber-Nazi-worship, please do so. Just because the Germans wasted their time with fancy "ambush" paint schemes is not evidence that they were any more skilled in the art of camouflage than the allies. I have one or two manuals on my shelf from the 1939-45 period that discuss in depth Allied methods of camouflage. They were not amateurs at it; quite the contrary, as pointed out at least twice now, they had less use for it.

On the other hand, read any eastern front memoir and you will read about how expert the Russians were at concealment - most German veterans concede that the Russians excelled at this (usually calling them cowardly to boot).

[Charlie Rock]

I am not referring to camouflage clothing or paint.

The Germans were better at noise and light discipline in daylight, use of foliage attached to tanks, remaining stationary in daylight, and use of terrain, examples include reverse slope defenses to stay hidden.

Fieldcraft:

INTERVIEWER: Were there things that the Germans did during these particular operations that

you haven’t mentioned already that stuck with you? Are there some things they did that led you to adopt some of your philosophies on defense?

GEN DEPUY: I was impressed with several things. First, I was impressed with the positions that

the German infantry soldiers constructed. I was impressed with the skill and the care that they

took in finding positions which had cover and natural concealment. They were almost impossible

to see and yet, they afforded fields of fires exactly where they needed them in order to stop us. In other words, their fieldcraft was super...

This is not because of training or imparted skills from the Russkis, it's because the side without the air superiority learned how to hide and the side with the planes didnt because they didnt have to. If you slap branches on a tank turret the paint scheme beneath doesent matter all that much, IMHO

[Sergei]

blah

[Los]

"Why? Because camouflage cloth offers no huge benefits over field grey, khaki or olive drab."

Which is why every major army in the world today uses camouflage clothing, umm...oh wait...

Not that I really disagree with your arguments.

For instance when at one time in the war or another one side has complete air superiority over the other side, it kind of makes developing the art of camouflage to a higher level a necessity.

But good camouflage is not the purvue of any one nation, (Which I believe is Michael's point). It is necessity that drives the level of camouflage required, the higher the level of necessity, the starker the choice is between surviving until first contact with a sufficient amount of your force intact and death.

It's just another tool in the tool box.

Los

[gunnergoz]

The Japanese were also excellent camoufleurs, in particular their cave bunkers in places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima, were almost impossible to spot ahead of time. In jungle terrain such as New Guinea, they built mg bunkers that couldn't be identified until you were almost on top of them.

WRT camo uniforms and patterns, as neat as they may seem to be, the fact is that movement will spoil the effect of the best uniform or pattern. Nowadays, camo uniform patterns are almost more for identification, morale building and elan, than anything else. The USMC just adopted a modified Canadian pattern with one primary stated purpose being that the Corps wanted its members to look different from the other US patterns in use.

[Los]

No question that movement is key to concealment, however camouflage is a thing where many small factors make up the big picture (or actually... help hide the big picture) Many uniforms today also are developed to aid in reducing IR signature. Take an old pair of OG107s and compare them to say, BDUs under NVGs and one stands out like a reverse image of frosty the snowman.

Los