Camouflage colours on a Ju 87A

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Clint Mitchell

Oh dear the continually offended brigade has turned up.

Clint, considering that you wrote in an earlier post "I don't mean to be rude", I can only say that you're coming awfully bloody close. However right you think your opinions may be, cool it, please.

[Clint Mitchell]

Lets be fair Nick? What gave Graham the right to be offended on someone else's behalf just because I am questioning a statement that has been made in this post? Quite a relevant question I might add. I thought that the tone has been quite reasonable considering how these kinds of debates usually spiral into being locked... It's only Graham throwing his toys out of the pram because piece by piece his claims are being shown to be what they truly are. I simply asked for evidence, but it's ok for everyone to make statements with nothing to back up their claims other than what has been previously written in a book or their own misplaced interpretations of black and white photos.

Why am I not allowed a voice?

You can surely understand the frustration when I offer perfectly reasonable and valid points as to why people have misinterpreted the photos yet they still wrongly continue to push their claims. What is the problem here? Are we not allowed to question evidence and debate previous interpretations just because it goes against what someone else thinks is right? It offends them that I have questioned either them or their heroes? What is this?

Nothing I have written in this topic has been intended to be rude or sarcastic in any way. It's a given that I'm no Shakespeare when it comes to adequately communicating my view points in written form and it may be that my literary skills have given the wrong impression, but I meant nothing by it and simply wish to debate this hotly contested issue in a way that is fair to all interested parties and that any claims are backed up with evidence... Which is sadly something that seems to be lacking...

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Clint Mitchell

Why am I not allowed a voice?

... You can surely understand the frustration when I offer perfectly reasonable and valid points as to why people have misinterpreted the photos yet they still wrongly continue to push their claims.

Nothing I have written in this topic has been intended to be rude or sarcastic in any way...

(A) You are allowed a voice, a polite one. Just like everyone else here.
(B) Getting angrier and angrier with people rarely convinces them so why not try saying something like, "I'm sorry but I disagree because I don't believe the evidence supports your arguments"?
(C) It's as well to be wary of the gap between intention and execution.

[Clint Mitchell]

Ok Nick, sorry, point taken!

Sorry everyone. I didn't mean to cause offence or upset anyone. It was not intended. I'll be more careful in the future to ensure that I do not upset anyone's feelings or call into question anyone's ideas, research or lack of in a way that might make them feel upset, wronged, or sad in any way.

I humbly ask that you accept my apology so that we may continue with this discussion as friends and fellow Luftwaffe history enthusiasts.

[piero]

Hi all,
here another image of the same aircraft, from AirDOC 005.
HTH
Giampiero Piva

[Dénes Bernád]

Yes, same aircraft, same lighting conditions, same obvious difference between colour shades.

I am sticking to my statement, namely the colour shades on the nose (I assume RLM 63) and underneath the fuselage cross and beyond, as well as rudder area, are not the same ones. Question (this is why the whole thread has been started) what colour could that very light one be? I speculate it might be sand yellow/brown, not present in early RLM colour charts. Opinions?

[Simon Schatz]

Dénes,
why do you believe that the lightest colour isn't RLM 63? Just check early planes like the Hs123 http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...hs123-main.jpghttp://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org...es/hs123-3.jpg, Do17 http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...04_634x407.jpg
The shade of light grey is always the same as at the Ju87. Always RLM 63.
The nose is RLM 62 green.

Cheers, Simon

[Clint Mitchell]

Friends,



Yes, same aircraft, same lighting conditions (different angle), same obvious difference between colour shades.

If I may suggest:

The lightest shade seen on the front of the starboard undercarriage fairing, the area beneath the cross and freshly applied on the rudder/tail to overpaint the earlier national markings, is clearly RLM63 (Hellgrau)... Nose area, abundantly clear this is RLM 61 (Dunkelbraun) moving forward to RLM 62 (Grün).

Dear Dénes, I am overwhelmingly apologetic, but I fear that I would be inclined to disagree with your current conclusion regarding the colour attribution of the light segments of the camouflage pattern depicted on the photo very kindly posted by Giampiero Piva, (thank you).

Your attribution of a sand like shade on this pre-war splinter pattern confuses me somewhat. I have always been led to believe in the past that such colourings would be more beneficial in concealing the aircraft in more sandy, desert like regions of the planet, closer to the equator perhaps and not in the more leafy, green and dark brown terrains much farther North. I would even dare to add that the inclusion of such a shade could perhaps be seen as being rather negligent of the fundamental practices of adequate aircraft camouflaging techniques. Which I'm sure had been thoroughly investigated by this point?

[ChrisS]

I have just completed the task of sorting all Ju 87A images of the early 3 tone camouflage scheme into batches of similar pattern, and find myself in agreement with Clint Mitchell.

Here are few others of the formation that 52+C24 was flying in.

[Simon Schatz]

BTW: Can somebody identify the W.Nr. on that plane?