Colors of Luftwaffe Bombs

[edwest]

Thank you all, especially Andy. The book you mention looks like the one I'd pick up if I needed such information.



Best,
Ed

[pstrany]

Pawlas' book is indeed an excellent reference. I do have a copy of it, just did not mention same as it mirrors the L.Dv.4200 document fairly closely. Pawlas does not always cite an overall color for some weapons, such as the SC250. Where he does cite an overall color, it is either beigegrau or dunkelgrau. There is no mention of dark green as an overall color for a bomb, nor is there any mention of light blue as an overall color for a bomb.

The website cited is also a good reference, again I did not mention it as it is drawn almost entirely from TM 9-1985-2, which again mirrors OP 1666.

As to the photo, I have interpreted it as a bomb painted overall light blue that later had a coat of a dark color (dark green?) applied to the top for purposes of concealment on the ground. If you look at it closely, you can see the upper surface color is very roughly applied, from appearances with a mop or coarse brush, and is definitively painted over TOP of the lighter color.

I will mention two other books, "German Air-Dropped Weapons to 1945" by Wolfgang Fleischer, and "the Blitz, Then and Now Volume 1". The former deals with many details of German bombs (but not the overall colors, aside from a reference to RAL 7027 for the AB-250). The latter has a section on German bombs, and mentions the colors colors green-gray, tan, field gray and light blue.

Again, thanks to all for your input!

Paul

[Clint Mitchell]

Originally Posted by pstrany

As to the photo, I have interpreted it as a bomb painted overall light blue that later had a coat of a dark color (dark green?) applied to the top for purposes of concealment on the ground. If you look at it closely, you can see the upper surface color is very roughly applied, from appearances with a mop or coarse brush, and is definitively painted over TOP of the lighter color.

This was the same style of application for the undersurfaces/sides of the bombers. The Black temporary paint was often applied with brooms, mops, brushes. Photos show this being applied in such quick careless way.

[pstrany]

Exactly! Here is a photo of just such an application. By the by, I think I know what most of the stenciling is (fuse type, bomb filling) but right in front of the fusing stencil there is a stencil that appears to be cut off. The letters visible are "fer-" or "fen-". Anybody have an idea what that might be?

Paul

[edwest]

I don't think the ground concealment theory is valid as per your latest photo. The underside of the bomb was painted a dark color while the top is left a light color. The branches in the photo indicate the concealment method. This suggests the dark paint was applied before the bomb was put into its wooden transport frame. I can't imagine manhandling something so heavy after it was fully packed up.

A thought occurred to me regarding the larger bombs. They were usually delivered set inside a wooden frame which was secured with I presume to be metal rods, likely threaded at the top and bottom to accept a nut that was tightened. The bottom lengths of wood usually had the ends cut upward, giving the appearance of sled-like runners. Which brings up the next question. How were the larger bombs loaded for transport and unloaded into/onto an aircraft? I've seen photos of soldiers carrying what look like substantially heavy bombs, but the larger bombs with the wooden runners appear to be made to be pulled by a vehicle.



Ed

[pstrany]

Sorry, should have been more clear. The second photo illustrates Clint's point, a bomb originally in a light color that had an application of a dark color (black?) applied to the lower areas in a very rough manner to aid in concealment from beneath on a night mission. Thus, the first picture, a light-colored bomb with a rough application of a camouflaging color for concealment while on the ground. The second, a light-colored bomb with a darker color, also roughly applied, to conceal the bomb while carried on an aircraft (presumably for a night bombing mission.)

As to the sleds, you are absolutely correct. Everything I've read indicates that the larger bombs were installed on these sleds at the factory or larger distribution point for ease in handling and shipping. Once on an airfield, they could be dragged around with tractor or other vehicle, and indeed were sometimes loaded onto aircraft directly from the sled. Below is a scan (partial) from "German Air-Dropped Weapons to 1945" by Wolfgang Fleischer. His source appears to have been a German aircraft manual, and illustrates how a bomb can be winched into a bomb bay directly from the shipping sled. The second image, also from Fleischers' book, shows bombs at a factory being mounted on sleds prior to leaving the factory. The author identifies the sled as a TG-3 Transportgestelle (there were evidently several different models, with other units identified elsewhere in this book.)

There were, of course, quite a few pieces of airfield equipment designed to lift bombs of various weights for mounting on aircraft, such as the LWC-500 lifting dolly (for weapons up to 500kg) and the Hercules II (Gerätenummer 20277) which was designed for larger weapons. However, these were largely for mounting bombs and not for shipping or moving them for anything but a short distance.

Paul

[JägerMarty]

Originally Posted by Clint Mitchell

The bombs in the last photo posted look to have the undersides blacked out. Same as with the undersides of the bombers during the blitz. Not a good idea to have a nice night camouflaged bomber with bright RLM65 bombs underneath to attract the search beams.

Here is a good link containing Luftwaffe bomb specs and colours: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bombs.html

I agree with Ed in that the ordnance would have been repainted in field as and when required for their specific use. Specific bombs presumably would have specific overall colours depending on whether they were carried internally or externally. For example a bomb with fittings for vertical suspension inside a He111 would not be required to be painted RLM65 (sky colour) so would probably leave the factory in a dark green (RLM70 or RLM71?). Whereas a bomb with fittings for external horizontal suspension would likely leave the factory RLM65. There appear to be no strict rules as I've seen photos of light blue and dark green used externally. The only thing that would need to be strictly adhered to are the markings for identification which would be for the specific type of bomb. These markings also vary greatly from stripes, rings, to the whole rear cone area being painted in the bomb type identity colour.

So the conclusion is unless you have a photo showing your specific Fw190 carrying a specific coloured bomb then you could take your pick.

Reviving an old thread, would bombs have been repainted in north Africa?
I've got a Stuka project on table with SC and SC50 ordinance to fit

[pstrany]

Bombs destined for the Mediterranean theater were originally painted either silver or light blue. The reason generally cited was to keep the bombs from "cooking" in the hot tropical sun.

Of course, not all bombs that made it to North Africa and environs were so painted. Some smaller bombs (e.g. SC50 or SC250) did arrive in beige gray or dark gray. I've also seen pictures of bombs on transit (usually on ships) that had their upper surfaces painted in a darker color, which I interpret as an effort on the part of the ships' crew to "tone down" bombs that were carried as deck cargo.

Hope that helps.


Paul