Camouflage and subtype for 4./TrGr186 Ju87 Stukas during the PC?6

[Larry Hickey]

Hello,

As part of the Color profiles for the EOE Volumes on the Polish Campaign, I've chosen J9+AM, the a/c of Hpt. Erich Blattner, the StaKap of 4./TrGr186 for that unit's Ju87. However, I've got two questions about this a/c and others from that unit for the Polish Campaign period.

1) the aircraft looks like a Ju87B-1, but some sources suggest that these were Ju87C-0s or Ju87C-1s. Can anyone tell whether this is a "B" or a "C" model?

2) After looking at about a thousand Ju87B photos for the 1939-40 period, the camouflage on these a/c does not look like the standard 70/71 green shade, which has less contrast between the dark upper surface colors. I suspect that at least some of them were in a gray maritime camouflage color scheme during the PC, although some photos of unit aircraft from this period appear to be in the standard 70/71 colors. I'd appreciate your comments about this, and what colors these might have been, if not 70/71. Would this unit have been flying at least some a/c in a Gray two-tone maritime camouflage scheme during the PC?

Regards,

[Recceswind]

1) It is Ju 87 B-1.
2) In my opinion it is a standard RLM 70/71/65.

How do you know that both photos show J9+AM?

[Nordpol54]

Larry,

i presume that in both pictures the post war standard colour-scheme is to be seen, consisting of RLM No.s

- 61 dunkelbraun (dark brown)
- 62 grün (green)
- 63 hellgrau (light gray)

Although this kind of three-coulor splinter camouflage (Segmenttarnung) only was applied on a/c up to the year 1938 and after that had been changed, a lot of LW-birds joined in WW2-action with this pre-war camouflage.

If i am already had slipped out of my track, everyone is welcome to put me back on route...

y/f
Norbert

[Recceswind]

It is for sure not RLM 61/62/63 over 65 scheme. During the PC 4.(St)/TrGr 186 aircraft did not wear such type of camouflage (there is a good photo evidence of that).

[Nordpol54]

I really have not mentioned RLM 65 at all...
... i only presumed pre-war standard-sprayings as mentioned before.
For to add: I never have seen any colour-picture evidence that these Stukas had been camouflaged in a special way.

y/f
Norbert

[philippe1]

hello larry,
difference beteen B1 and C
B1- engine jumo 211Da
-1200hps
-prop Ju HPC III
-like the B-0 version it had a capability for carying bombs of a total weight of1000kg
-schlos is a 500XIB
-kraftstoff:max 500 liter
-armement; 2x 7,9mm MG 17 with 1000 rounds in the wings
;1x 7,9mmMG 15 at the back
-FT anlage FUG VII a ith EiV
-max flight distance 800 km


construction series;C
those were made to beinstaled on the german plane carrier "graf Zeppelin"who as constructed in Kiel in 1938 but never finished this due to other military priorities
-in the C "ceasar version" there are 2 categories
C-0
jumo Da engine
-reconversion of a B-2 ith instalation to be catapuled and also hooks so it could also land on the ship
-it had also a rejectable landing gear for emergencies to land on the water
-additional equipment for survival;inflatable boat,schwimfesten,flairbullets and extra emergency food
-extra air tanks so it could float an extra 3 days
-armement as same as a B-2(schloblaffete with schlob1000/500XIB,2ETC50
VIIIe)
C-1
jumo Da engine
-same as a C-O but had electrical folding wings that could be unfolded in 2minutes
-possibility to instal torpedos
-extra tanks for longer acciradius
-armement as like a B-2 but due to katapult armement as reduced to 500kg

excuse me for the wrong writing but i had to translate it from german language,and even i am not english speaking person
hope the difference might be of anny help,
with regards phil-mertens

[Graham Boak]

The patterns were standardised and very different: to my eye these are the patterns for the 70/71 scheme and not those of the 61/62/63, but this is from memory and not direct comparisons. Use of the patterns allows us to distinguish between the colour schemes without having to make use of colour interpetation from b+w photos. There are a number of features that point to the later scheme, apart from the lack of a third colour in either photo.

Although 70/71 were often very difficult to distinquish from one another in many prewar photos, with fresh fairly-glossy finishes, with use the 71 appears considerably lighter. This may also be a function of the film and the filters used, but the contrast presented is not untypical of that seen in many 1940 photos.

[Pieter H]

Larry, all,

I agrre with above observations on the color scheme, and indeed this is almost certainly standard 70-71 scheme. I have no evidence of any Stukas in the western campaign with different schemes.

Regarding the type, the picture of the J9+AM clearly does not show a C-version. In that case the original protrusion of the arrested hook fixation should be visible below the tail. So this is almost certainly a standard B-1 version.

The only question I have from my side is what happened with the C-0 and/or C-1 aircraft of the unit when they transfered to the Luftwaffe. I can't find how many C-types were in the end produced and effectively taken into operation. I have the impression it were not many, probably some prototypes only. I haven't seen any reports of C-type losses during the WC. But can anybody confirm?

Regards, Pieter

[Larry Hickey]

Hello all,

I'm now comfortable that J9+AM is a Ju87B-1, and not a Ju87C, although some of the reference sources on the Stuka say that some of the C's originally destined for the aircraft carrier graf Zepplin served with 4./186 even after it became clear that the carrier wasn't going to be finished. However, it isn't clear how many and exactly when. It wouldn't surprise me if the StaKap had one of them, but unless someone else jumps in here with different evidence, I consider that part of my query settled.

Regarding my second question, I don't yet consider that settled. I've worked with interpreting color in WW II B&W film, both of US and European manufacture, for about 40 years, and I'm very familiar with the problems caused by the different sensitivities to color between panchromatic and orthochromatic film. That could be the explanation for what bothers me about these photos.

However, since we know that part of the initial complement of Ju87s assigned to 4./186 were from an a/c batch intended for use on the abortive German a/c carrier graf Zeppelin, it makes a lot more sense to me that these a/c would have initially been camouflaged in a standard maritime camouflage of 72/73 uppersurfaces (two shades of gray) with 65 blue undersurfaces, rather than the two shades of green (70/71 uppersurfaces with 65 blue undersurfaces), which would be more appropriate for a land-based a/c. Two shades of gray would be much better for ship-based aircraft which would likely be flying over water much of the time, and green camouflage would serve no camouflage purposes whatsoever on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Since the photos that I posted from this unit show unusually high-contrast uppersurface segments, is is possible that maritime camouflaged Ju87s in use with 4./TrGr186 were pressed into service for the Polish Campaign? Or could these photos have even been taken showing a 72/73 camouflage sometime prior to the PC? I have no doubt that all the Stukas in I./TrGr186 were in 70/71 camouflage after 4 Staffel was expanded to a full Gruppe immediately after the PC. The problem is all in the timing.

To answer the question by Mateusz K., the two photos probably don't show the same a/c, but probably show two a/c of the same unit showing this problematic (for me) camouflage during this same time period.

I'd like to hear what Adam Thompson, David Wadman or Chris Goss thinks about this issue.

Regards,

[Pilot]

This side is interesting