Camouflage colours on a Ju 87A

[Dénes Bernád]

This is a very good new shot. Can you describe the colours (from nose to rear), as you see it? Thanks.

[Simon Schatz]

How serious is the "Red C" at this colorized photograph?
http://konflikty.pl/wp-content/uploa...u_87_col_5.jpg

Dénes: My intension is: Colours from nose to rear: RLM 62/RLM61/RLM62/RLM61(overpainted with other colour because of new markings, below the letter A there is the original RLM61) RLM 63
Undercarriage right leg: RLM 63 and RLM 61

[Clint Mitchell]

Dénes, my interpretation is the same as Simon's.

Simon, I have no idea regarding the red code letter, but as I'm sure you know the colorisation would leave me suspicious at this point...

[Dénes Bernád]

Here are the shades I believe I see (putting aside what OUGHT TO be, according to the official painting scheme). I purposely did not identify the colours.
I cannot readily explain the shades I see on the rear fuselage (marked with ?)

[Primoz]

Clint, you're right about the spat – it's not a replacement. It seems that we have found an interesting anomaly here.

Of the mathematically possible six color combinations, probably only three were used; on the fuselage two colors prevailed, with only small segments in the third color:
1. the dark camo (brown/green), for instance 52+C24 or 29-5 in Spain
2. grey/brown (35+A13, 29-2)
3. grey/green (29-3), if we can name them after the two dominant colors.

Interestingly, there were three camo variations for the port spat (which had a very characteristical pattern):
a) forward 61, aft 63
b) forward 62, aft 63
c) forward 61, aft 62

but only two for the starboard one:
a. forward 63, aft 61
b. forward 61, aft 62

The normal combinations of fuselage and spat camo were 1. c) a., 2. a) b. and 3. b) b. (these designations are my own, of course, and by no means official)

So both »lighter« camo versions had identically painted starboard spats: forward 61, aft 62.

Then the early Ju 87B-1 had the same (mutatis mutandis, considering the different shape of the spats) pattern, but with inverted colors: forward 63, aft 61. So at least on the port spats, four variations seem to have been used.

[Clint Mitchell]

Primoz, thank you. I have not had time to make a detailed study and mapping of the available Ju87A photos I have available to me yet. I am however collecting them and various other sources so I can carry that out in the near future. However, whilst checking through what I do currently have available whilst participating in this topic, I too share your opinion that there was clearly not six schemes. There is a distinct pattern though, but at this point I'm not in a position put forward a detailed study for you all to consider.

One thing that is clearly obvious to me at this point from the photos that I do have (200+) is that the majority of them stick to two distinct patterns as previously mentioned in this topic. However this could be due to a lack of a large enough pool of photos from which to consult. I have only two photos that are "maybe's". I am yet to look deeper into these two photos to see if the "maybe" cannot simply be explained by lighting conditions or other factors.

Currently I am of the opinion that there is definitely two distinct standard prewar splinter patterns in use on the Ju87A with the possibility of there being three, but categorically not anything near six variations as was previously suggested...

[Primoz]

Well, six variations were just a mathematical possibility.

Here's another interesting photo of a Ju 87A with a very unusual camo pattern. I guess it was repaired and repainted after an accident. The camo on the spat looks more or less standard.
http://www.worldwarphotos.info/galle...burg-ost-1939/

[Clint Mitchell]

Certainly looks like some overpainting. Perhaps the wing roots walkway area and side of the fuselage got a bit too scuffed up?

[sirbob]

Re; the photo in post #1 that stared this debate.
It appears to me that the light colour on the rudder is the same as the trim of the Hakenkreuz which it blends into, which is white. This is more obvious in the photo included in post #49 and repeated in #50 .
I had always assumed that it was a tactical identification marking.