View Single Post
  #1  
Old 5th September 2006, 02:31
GrahamB GrahamB is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 73
GrahamB is on a distinguished road
Smile RLM 64 and the Junkers Ju 52???

After getting used to seeing the colour RLM 64 listed as a pale blue, the recent books by Michael Ullmann and Kenneth Merrick have now established it as a dark olive green, supposedly resurrected as the late-war colour RLM 83. No use for the colour during its existence pre 1938, when it was deleted from the colour cards, has been offered and no surviving documentary evidence has yet been discovered. After studying many photographs of Junkers Ju 52 aircraft (see previous post on engine mountings) there may be a possible use.

Many photographs appear to show Junkers Ju 52/3ms in an all-dark camouflage, notably the ‘gm3e’ version in the early war years during the campaigns in Scandinavian, the Low Countries and in Crete, and especially those with the centrally-placed pre-war style swastika on the tail fin/rudder. In many cases this has been interpreted (correctly) as a ‘standard’ RLM 70/71 scheme with black undersurfaces or as an overall green – either RLM70 or RLM71. A common, but not exclusive, feature of the Ju 52 ’70/71’ scheme is the very low contrast between the colours. The overall dark scheme is sometimes claimed to be a faded version of this. It is odd that in other cases the fading is claimed to result in an increased contrast between the two colours. Another feature of the 70/71 painted aircraft is that many show non-standard (relative the RLM diagram) patterns, suggestive of post factory application.

Junkers Ju 52 3/m ge and g3e/g4e aircraft were manufactured from 1934 and appeared in two principal military painting schemes: an overall grey-green (RLM 63) with black trim and subsequently a 3-toned splinter scheme of dark brown (RLM 61), medium-dark green (RLM 62) and grey-green (RLM 63) on the uppersurfaces, with pale blue (RLM 65) below. During 1938 the camouflage was simplified and introduced the RLM 70, RLM 71 and RLM 65 scheme that the Ju 52 would wear (with some modifications and specialised overpainting) until the end. Bomber aircraft produced before 1938 (i.e mainly the g3e version) that were converted to transports by Weserflug and Wiener Neustadter Flugzeugwerke could be entirely repainted, partially repainted or left in original camouflage depending on condition, pressure of work and amount of conversion/restoration required. Obviously, upgrading anachronistic markings would be more important than changing one dark green for another.

There is one apparent painting scheme that needs to be accounted for, however. It is evident that some pre-war g3e bombers were painted in an overall dark colour, probably for a night-bombing role – the best photograph of this scheme is that on page 11 of the AirDOC No.1 book, of a g3e aircraft attached to an unknown training unit There is absolutely no evidence of splinter pattern, as there is none in many other photographs. I offer the possibility that RLM 64, a dark olive green, was used for this scheme. It has parallels with the camouflage practices of the RAF and French airforce during the early-mid 1930s, the RAF using NIVO (more or less the same as Dark Slate Grey) while the French night-bombers were finished in an overall Vert Tableau or Ombre Calcinee (burnt umber). This was an application of the principle of a single dark concealing colour being most effective at night. If this was the case, the fact that RLM 64 was more or less confined to this limited use on Ju 52s, for a short period before the 70/71 scheme was adopted, has minimised the possibility of finding officlal evidence. Also, aircraft in this scheme, fairly new, would not need a great deal of re-painting when required for front-line transport service and if partially overpainted with RLM 70 this would probably show slightly less contrast with the putative RLM 64 than the slightly paler, greyer RLM 71.


I would be grateful for any comments - no doubt these will be forthcoming in any case!
Reply With Quote