[GrahamB]

Pilot,

Many thanks for the signs of some support for my observations – I was starting to feel quite lonely! I’m not surprised by the inconsistency in the current and previous literature about the use/identification of single dark-colour upper sides on pre/early war Luftwaffe aircraft (those certainly in one colour, not misidentifications of low-contrast 70/71 applications). Most of it seems unsupported and is largely one person’s opinion versus another’s. The most recent example is in ‘Scale Aircraft Modelling’ Vol. 28 no.7 with Mark Rolfe depicting several early Bf 109s in topsides of only RLM 70. Smith & Gallaspy (Luftwaffe Camouflage & Markings Vol.2) wavered between calling RLM 70 or RLM 71 for the Ju 52 aircraft in overall dark camouflage – but at least they acknowledged the overall dark colour and did not invoke the use of temporary black for the undersides. The recent ‘Transporter’ books also contain the same interpretation but the artist missed an opportunity to profile one (‘1Z+AZ’ on pages 20-21 of Vol.1) in the overall dark scheme, choosing for some reason to use RLM 65 and black codes for the lower surfaces. There are many other examples in the literature.

I guess it does not really need spelling out, but there were clear groupings of colours that were designed for particular roles – this was not mere haphazard use. The Germans were (apologies for my being a bit stereotyping here) sticklers for rules and regulations, so observed departures from standards were obviously rare, forced by demands of in-service pressures or changed practice. Alternatively there may be other ‘standards’ for which we have no current official or corroborative evidence. The possible partial and non-standard pattern over-painting of a single dark colour (RLM 64?) with RLM70 splinter on some pre-‘standard 70/71/65’ factory-painted Ju 52s would have to fit in the first category, as perhaps were the various (and inconsistently interpreted) schemes used in the Spanish Civil War, where landscape and climatic conditions were very different from the Luftwaffe’s expected theatre of operations in northern Europe. A theoretical motive for the possible use of RLM 70 on all-dark Ju 52s could actually be the reverse of what Merrick and others have proposed: rather than creating a night camouflage by adding black under surfaces to a daylight 70/71/65 scheme (even specialised German night fighters didn’t turn black until mid-late 1940) it was the creation of a disruptive upper surface camouflage for reducing detection from aerial observation during daylight – contemporary Luftwaffe ‘policy’. A dark, low-contrast splinter effect is not really of any added value at night.

The early series colours RLM 61, 62 and 63 also formed a disruptive land-based (daylight) camouflage, with RLM 65 the single colour for under surfaces; ditto the paired 70/71, 72/73, 74/75 and of course 81/82. These are all specific schemes using more than one colour, the implication to me being that any one of the upper surface colours was to be used only with the other in the group and not singly – part their ‘design’ or formulation. Other than for RLM 63 (?), there are no known official documents (?) authorising their use singly until the late-war use of RLM 75 on night-fighters, perhaps a combination of deletion of RLM 74 and a change in camouflage practice (pale concealing colour versus dark concealing colour at night). Obviously the lower-surface colours such as 65 and 76 were employed as single-colour applications, if we exclude later pragmatic/field use in specialised schemes (maritime and night especially). The apparent ‘oddballs’ are the upper-surface RLM 64 (see further), 77 and 79 (RLM 80 was introduced slightly later according to K. Merrick). It is interesting that in the recent literature the interpretation of the role of RLM 77 has seemingly changed or been supplemented from [non-camouflage] night-fighter letter-coding to [camouflage] high-altitude use without explanation – although it certainly looks right – a single-colour application, or as a pragmatic substitute for one of the 74/75 colours – as per RLM 02 with 70/71) – a similar role to RLM 64=83 substituting for RLM 74?

If this logic (not too circular?) is applied, then RLM 64 (basically a very useful olive-drab) could have been used as a single colour application for either upper surfaces, and/or as an overall dark-dull scheme for Ju 52 3/m g3e night bombers, paralleling RAF and French practice (the RAF’s NIVO is abbreviation for Night Invisibility Varnish, Orfordness, matched to FS34096). The Turkish He 111 F-1 order still fell in the period of 61/62/63 use, so if M. Griehl’s information is correct, the (dark) olive green could well have been [single-colour use] RLM 64 rather than [officially multi-colour use] RLM62 (or 70 or 71). Similarly, there are some authorities who are claiming overall RLM70 for Bf109s as early as 1936 (e.g. Michael Ullmann for the Bf 109V-5, page 42 of Luftwaffe Colours 1935-1945). Perhaps it was more likely that, at this time, RLM 64 was used – a single colour application implied by its non-linkage to other colours – RLM70 was almost certainly developed to ‘belong’ with RLM 71, especially at this early period before pragmatic or substitution usage was adopted.

Kenneth Merrick seems to have inadvertently provided some support for the actual existence and if not actual earlier use of RLM 64 by proposing its resurrection as RLM 83. Does this mean that [previously deleted] stocks were already available, or that the same colour paint (a bloomin’ good military colour anyway, that would not actually ‘need’ a pre-existing version) was quickly re-developed using more modern or economical formulations? It also seems strange to me that all these late-war colours (RLM 81-83) required field testing (by JG54?) when aircraft wearing the pre-war 61/62 (and 64?) were still in service. Additionally, there is a hint of actual usage of RLM 64 that Merrick admits (although no role could be found for it), through the comments on one of the 1938 colour charts about it being ‘secret’, along with 61-63 and 65. Why classify a defunct or non-existent colour as secret?

What I really want to do is find some spare time to finish my Heller Ju 52. A huge 1/48 Revell kit also waits, although the frustration is that I can’t use the wonderful snake markings for ZG26’s ‘3U+ML’ because the faired and spatted undercarriage is not supplied in the kit!

Best wishes

Graham

Sorry for this post being rather long and complicated!