Malta's Hurricanes camo scheme (1941)

[VoyTech]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

I know of no direct evidence that Sky was used in the theatre, in 1940/1, although I would not exclude it.

In one of your previous posts you seemed to agree that ME Command rejected Sky as being too light. I think this implies that aircraft with Sky undersurfaces must have been delivered to the theatre, otherwise how would they know that the colour was too light? Sky was only just introduced on undersurfaces of RAF aircraft in mid-1940, and did not become standard until late 1940, so there seems little doubt that aircraft with Sky undersurfaces were delivered to the Med in 1940/1.

Please do not use the term Azure: this is a different, earlier, colour, which may well have been used in the ME but where you actually mean Azure Blue.

Please, do not tell me what I "actually mean". AMO A.664/42 issued 2.7.42 specified "azure" as standard undersurface colour for three categories of aircraft (including 'Day fighters, abroad'). The term "Azure Blue" was not used.

I find it interesting that you suggest that the phrase "Sky, Azure and Mediterranean Light Blue" in the AMO cannot mean Sky Blue but does mean Azure Blue. Consistency suggests otherwise.

Consistency suggests that one should look at the entire document rather than just a part of it. AMO A.664/42 specified the 'Undersurfaces colouring' (column 3) for both Section 1 (iii) 'Day bombers, abroad' and Section 2 (iii) 'Day fighters, abroad' as "Sky or azure". The word "blue" was not used. Subsequently A.664 was amended by A.1377 of 24.12.42 which required for Section 2 (iii), column 3: "Delete existing detail and substitute ''Sky, azure or light Mediterranean blue.''" To me this meant simply adding 'Light Mediterranean blue' to the list of undersurface colours for day fighters used abroad, without affecting the two colours that had been authorised previously. If, as you believe, this amendement meant adding 'blue' to those colour names (changing 'Sky' into 'Sky blue' and 'azure' into 'azure blue') then why, in your opinion, was 'blue' not added in a similar manner to the names of "Sky and azure" authorised for bombers?

Re RAAF Spitfires: I was referring to Pentland's comment in the Kookaburra Spitfire Mk.V booklet, that Spitfires were received in a number of colours including Sky Blue. As the early deliveries to Australia include aircraft diverted from the ME/Malta, the relevance seems apparent.

I presume you mean 'Spitfire Markings of the RAAF' Part 1 by Frank Smith & Geoffrey Pentland, published by Kookaburra in 1970. On p. 1 it says: "These machines, tropicalised Mk Vcs, bore the British desert scheme of dark earth and middle stone with azure blue undersurfaces". On p. 2 it refers to "aircraft which arrived in the normal RAF day fighter scheme of dark earth, dark green and sky or sky blue". The text clearly links the alleged sky blue undersurfaces with dark earth/dark green upper surface camouflage. I thought you did not believe any Spitfires were despatched to ME/Malta in such upper surface colour scheme?
More importantly, Geoffrey Pentland's research into Spitfire colours did not end there. Ten years later he has published his fundamental volume 'RAAF Camouflage & Markings' 1939-1945 Vol. 1, also by Kookaburra. On p. 137 he wrote: "The first RAAF Spitfires, received in late 1942, were found to be in an unsuitable desert scheme of dark earth, middle stone and azure blue. (Some also arrived in dark earth and dark green, but the lower surface color or colors are unknown.)" In a case like this, where the same author has published two different intepretations of the same matter, I would rather go for the later one. I feel it is significant that after ten more years of research he no longer felt it right to name 'Sky blue' as one of the undersurface colours applied on Spitfires by the RAF.