Camouflage colours on a Ju 87A

[Clint Mitchell]

Graham, I don't have that book. What is the source of the diagram illustration? Is it official period documentation. Is it Ken Merrick's own interpretation based on the photography he had available to him when that book was published?

[Clint Mitchell]

Ok, I've found reference to this idea in Merrick's Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings Vol 1, published by Classic, regarding the Hs123 3 colour pattern:

"In both instances this was the 3 colour upper surface camouflage and the additional designation A or B simply identified standard or mirror pattern. The colour order of each pattern also had two forms, providing four variations overall, thought the latter variation was rarely seen, probably for ease of manufacture once industry commenced a war footing."

I have found no evidence to support this statement when investigating the pre-war camouflage pattern used on the Hs123. I have the official splinter pattern diagrams which are also simply labelled A and B. I have only ever found evidence of two distinct RLM61/62/63/65 variants of the pattern, an A and B scheme. The colours simply changed order, the pattern did not mirror so that rather puts into doubt the claim there was a blanket rule that all pre-war camouflaged aircraft had six possible variations of splinter application.

I have not found the diagram you mention being published in the 1981 Kookaburra publication in Merrick's latest version of his volumes. I would think that would be an important document to show unless he had perhaps changed his opinion on the application of the pre-war schemes in the years between publication of his earlier and later works?

[Clint Mitchell]

Graham, is it possible to post a scan of the diagram you mention?

[Graham Boak]

I suspect a redrawing of original documentation for the book. Judging from the detail of the patterns presented, it is at least based on original period documentation if not a straight copy: there is much more than could be expected from analysis of photographs. It shows four of the schemes: A, A2a, B and B1a for the Ju86E. Patterns A2a and B2a are presented, in very similar format, for the Do17 in Ullmann and also in Merrick (Classic Vol.2) but here there is no mirror effect: possibly an error in the original documentation that neither author spotted? Pattern A2a is the same in both books but pattern B2a in the later books is just the pattern A in the oldest. Although clearly the same pattern, the one in the Dornier views has been trimmed to exclude the outer parts.

It occurs to me that other possible combinations of the colours were possible, the exchange of the colours not being a simple rotation. No reason is given for the restriction to three possibilities.

The three books do include a number of photos of the Ju87A, but (in my opinion) these don't significantly help to answer Denes' question. I would say that, although some of the colour differences could reflect the effect of weathering on RLM63 (i.e. the front of the spat compared to the nose), the very bright appearance of the rudder and fuselage band does not.

Edit: for the Hs123, Merrick states that the aircraft plan view was not central but was offset one square - he doesn't say which but it is to the left from a photo and a piece of artwork. The artwork is plan A2a with the green and grey exchanged (not listed as a standard) the photo A2a (On my interpretation, assuming the brown is the darkest colour.) Neither of these agree with Scheme B as presented in Uhlmann, which would be A1a according to Merrick, but they all have the same pattern without any mirror. This may suggest that the pattern system was indeed simplified to remove the mirror examples, but it seems that the Do17 and Hs123 do not agree on just which alternatives were chosen.

My brain hurts - I hope I haven't misidentified any!

I have not (yet) attempted to study Do17 schemes based on these patterns -perhaps for another thread.

[Clint Mitchell]

I found the diagrams you mentioned in Merrick's earlier 1977 book published by Skybooks Press. To be honest looking at the diagram I'm currently not convinced that they are derived straight from an official period document. This diagram could have easily been derived from studying the Do17 and or Hs123 official pattern diagrams and created by Merrick to show his ideas of how the paint colours were rotated. They do show the pre-war splinter pattern which as pointed out was the same for all aircraft in plan view except the obvious differences in segment placement across different types because of their shape/size.

I think it's clear that the pattern was not mirrored, but I am as yet unconvinced that there were more than two different variants of colour combinations. I'm going to look into the other types to confirm. I am however 100% convinced that this was the case for the Hs123. I have studied hundreds of photos of the type mapping the splinter pattern out and it is a fact that there was just an A and B scheme as far as I am concerned. I'm pretty sure about the Ju87A too, but I currently do not have enough photos to make a detailed study, but I'm working on that.

What you have to take into consideration is the difficulties that would arise if you had aircraft and components painted in six or even four different splinter pattern colour combinations. The units/depots/factories would have had a real hard time stocking components in 4/6 different colour combinations to match the aircraft that they would eventually be fitted on. There is a photo of a Do17M/P in flight with the main wings, tail wings and cowlings left in bare metal, but with the fuselage, control surfaces and tail fins finished in the pre-war splinter, which I think confirms that at least during that period the main components were supplied pre-painted and later assembled into the finished article. After a while you would have had a visible mis match of pre-war camouflaged aircraft with many different combinations of the 4/6 different colour combinations on different replacement components. This is not something that we see in the photographic evidence that survives. It would be much easier to handle this situation with only two combinations, an A and B scheme. This is what we are seeing also on the official diagrams. No mention of 4/6 schemes always A or B... Where are the diagrams that explain the other C, D, E or F schemes? They are no where to be found and if anyone has any hidden away I would love to be proved wrong...

I do think however that in Dénes' Stuka photo that we have an example that has been finished in the A scheme, but has a replacement starboard undercarriage fairing painted in the B scheme.

Anyway, always interesting these camouflage discussions. Still so much to discover even if some are of the opinion that these camouflage conundrums were done and dusted 50 years ago...

[Graham Boak]

That Merrick's basic pattern extends beyond the limits of the Do17 and Hs123 patterns, unnecessarily so for his purpose, rules out any simple derivation. I agree about the likely problems with multiple schemes, but note that the published diagram for the Do17 refers to Sichtschutzordnung 2a, which would appear to relate to Merrick's terminology of A2a and B2a. To suggest that he simply invented mirror images and altered colours appears unjustified: an invented (or even just extrapolated) scheme would have had a more obvious colour rotation and be slightly more consistent in the terminology. Perhaps we should look at photos of the Ju86 as this is the type shown by Merrick? And indeed extend this to other types with this scheme - Ju52s and He111s? You speak of official diagrams - I've only seen a reference to these for the slightly later Do17 and Hs123, do you have more?

I postulate that the initial idea of six (or more) options was superseded - probably for the reasons you suggest, and even possibly before adoption - by just two options, before being replaced by the much rarer form with fewer segments (He111P, Romanian He111H-3, Portugese Ju52). There does appear to be more to be said about this earlier camouflage than has been presented in organised form to date.

[Clint Mitchell]

Graham, my only concern for these larger diagrams is the fact that we have not seen them reproduced in their original form. We have only seen them redrawn with the source stated as being "Factory Drawings". What factory drawings are we talking about here? I wasn't aware that any Ju86 blueprints had survived and not having access to the Ju86 handbuchs I do not know if they are sourced from those either. Luftarchiv Hafner usually have a small thumbnail of the camouflage diagrams displayed on their site if they are featured in that specific handbuch, but I cannot see any camouflage diagram thumbnails included for the handbuchs that are available for the Ju86. I just find it strange why all of the other camouflage diagrams in the Merrick volumes appear as original scans and not contemporary reproductions and this particular Ju86 one does. Why did he not simply include examples in their original form instead of recreating them? Unless it was to illustrate his own personal ideas/interpretations?

I notice Ullmann mentions the same regarding the mirror and four combinations when captioning his contemporary rendition of the Ju86 camouflage diagram in his book. Again sighting as being sourced from "Factory drawings" was Ullmann simply relying on Merrick's previous observations/interpretations of the Ju86 schemes? It would have been nice to have been supplied with a proper source instead of just "Factory drawings" so that one could check. Merrick does make other assumptions without the help of any surviving factory documentation. I just wonder if this instance with the Ju86 patterns is the same? Currently there is no way of knowing unless the originals diagrams can be sourced or Ken Merrick can comment?

The problem with the Ju86 is finding enough photographic evidence to be able to make a thorough analysis. Too many assumptions regarding LW camouflage have been transformed into fact in the past while being based on very little photographic evidence. I try to be realistic and unless enough survives to claim reasonable accuracy in any statements, I think it's better to be open minded. With the Hs123 I had enough to complete an analysis that really left no question as to what I was seeing. In fact I didn't find a single photo that caused me to not believe that there were only two schemes in use. Every anomaly could be easily explained if you took factory code and other markings overpaints, exhaust staining and weathering/dirt into consideration. Much the same with Dénes' Stuka photo that started this discussion. There's nothing special about it, no break from the norm. Just a standard Ju87 pre-war splinter with code overpaints, dirt and exhaust staining tripping people up... My analysis of the Hs123 camouflage spurred me on to question what I had been led to believe in the previously published sources as my findings did not mirror what I had been led to believe and my aim is to get these as accurate as possible...

I'll have a look at what original period camouflage diagrams I have for this scheme. I know that I definitely have the Hs123 and Do17 ones at the moment. Some company handbuchs had them, some didn't...

My real goal at the moment is finding the original source of the Merrick Ju86 diagrams. It could be that initially it was planned to mirror the scheme and use other combinations of the colours, but then decided that it was not a good decision for the reasons I have already stated and therefore why we do not see it in the surviving photographic evidence. I have original period diagrams showing the RLM70/71 splinter camouflage pattern mapped/planned on the Bf109F which as you know came to completion long after that scheme had been abandoned on fighters. It shows that just because you have a document you do not necessarily have proof that what it depicts was ever used and assuming that it was can be dangerous without backing it up visually from a large enough pool of photos.

Regarding the export schemes, personally I think these are a totally different ball game and have no relation to what we are discussing here which is the standard pre-war RLM61/62/63/65 scheme in use with the Luftwaffe. They were in effect export schemes for use with other air forces and it's futile lumping them together with the scheme currently under discussion. I'm pretty sure there is no evidence that the LW/RLM had any input into how these particular export aircraft were finished and the schemes may have been simply devised by the factories whilst working alongside the purchasing nation, but using paints that were in stock at those factories at the time? The LW/RLM might not have wanted the export aircraft sporting the LW splinter pattern during that period so were supplied finished in different camouflage schemes?

[edNorth]

Are you perhaps referring to same (?) splinter diagram marked "scheme A2c"
in Ju 86 "booklet" (Militaria 142) p. 57

-Ed

[Clint Mitchell]

Not sure, I do not have that "booklet". The diagram consists of four basic Ju86 plan views with the splinter pattern laid over the top with a key describing the scheme number/code.

[edNorth]

Found one Merrick book "Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings 1933-1945" vol.1
(Classic Colours) with splinter diagrams on Do 17, Hs 123, etc. and Ju 87 later pattern 70/71 but no Ju 86´s or old Ju 87 patterns in here so far...