RLM 64 and the Junkers Ju 52???

[GrahamB]

After getting used to seeing the colour RLM 64 listed as a pale blue, the recent books by Michael Ullmann and Kenneth Merrick have now established it as a dark olive green, supposedly resurrected as the late-war colour RLM 83. No use for the colour during its existence pre 1938, when it was deleted from the colour cards, has been offered and no surviving documentary evidence has yet been discovered. After studying many photographs of Junkers Ju 52 aircraft (see previous post on engine mountings) there may be a possible use.

Many photographs appear to show Junkers Ju 52/3ms in an all-dark camouflage, notably the ‘gm3e’ version in the early war years during the campaigns in Scandinavian, the Low Countries and in Crete, and especially those with the centrally-placed pre-war style swastika on the tail fin/rudder. In many cases this has been interpreted (correctly) as a ‘standard’ RLM 70/71 scheme with black undersurfaces or as an overall green – either RLM70 or RLM71. A common, but not exclusive, feature of the Ju 52 ’70/71’ scheme is the very low contrast between the colours. The overall dark scheme is sometimes claimed to be a faded version of this. It is odd that in other cases the fading is claimed to result in an increased contrast between the two colours. Another feature of the 70/71 painted aircraft is that many show non-standard (relative the RLM diagram) patterns, suggestive of post factory application.

Junkers Ju 52 3/m ge and g3e/g4e aircraft were manufactured from 1934 and appeared in two principal military painting schemes: an overall grey-green (RLM 63) with black trim and subsequently a 3-toned splinter scheme of dark brown (RLM 61), medium-dark green (RLM 62) and grey-green (RLM 63) on the uppersurfaces, with pale blue (RLM 65) below. During 1938 the camouflage was simplified and introduced the RLM 70, RLM 71 and RLM 65 scheme that the Ju 52 would wear (with some modifications and specialised overpainting) until the end. Bomber aircraft produced before 1938 (i.e mainly the g3e version) that were converted to transports by Weserflug and Wiener Neustadter Flugzeugwerke could be entirely repainted, partially repainted or left in original camouflage depending on condition, pressure of work and amount of conversion/restoration required. Obviously, upgrading anachronistic markings would be more important than changing one dark green for another.

There is one apparent painting scheme that needs to be accounted for, however. It is evident that some pre-war g3e bombers were painted in an overall dark colour, probably for a night-bombing role – the best photograph of this scheme is that on page 11 of the AirDOC No.1 book, of a g3e aircraft attached to an unknown training unit There is absolutely no evidence of splinter pattern, as there is none in many other photographs. I offer the possibility that RLM 64, a dark olive green, was used for this scheme. It has parallels with the camouflage practices of the RAF and French airforce during the early-mid 1930s, the RAF using NIVO (more or less the same as Dark Slate Grey) while the French night-bombers were finished in an overall Vert Tableau or Ombre Calcinee (burnt umber). This was an application of the principle of a single dark concealing colour being most effective at night. If this was the case, the fact that RLM 64 was more or less confined to this limited use on Ju 52s, for a short period before the 70/71 scheme was adopted, has minimised the possibility of finding officlal evidence. Also, aircraft in this scheme, fairly new, would not need a great deal of re-painting when required for front-line transport service and if partially overpainted with RLM 70 this would probably show slightly less contrast with the putative RLM 64 than the slightly paler, greyer RLM 71.


I would be grateful for any comments - no doubt these will be forthcoming in any case!

[Graham Boak]

There is another scheme not accounted for.

Apparently coming between the 60-series and 70-series scheme, with fewer segments than the first but more than the latter (as seen along the fuselage sides. The key recognition feature is a large area of light (grey?) around the nose, and another on the rear starboard fuselage. It is seen on KG255 He 111Ps, Romanian He 111H-3s, and apparently on at least one Ju 52. It may be the 60-series colours.

[Modeldad]

On the other hand it could have been plain ol' 70 or 71. It should be noted that many of the Bf 109 Ds also had a single dark green top color.

Perhaps it was the need to get the aircraft out in the field ASAP. Perhaps the Ju 52s were quick over paints of the 61/62/63 scheme. This was commonly done to the HS 123 which quite frequently was seen in a single green when committed to combat.

I am of the persuasion that a nation going to war does not use a special color when there were other greens to choose from. 71 would have done the job quite nicely.

[GrahamB]

Thanks for the replies.

I don’t want to be pedantic or obsessive about this suggestion but there are problems with some of the previous interpretations of this all-dark scheme. Obviously, RLM 64 sits within the 61-65 bracket and the dark-olive it represents is a very useful military camouflage colour. The evidence suggests that all-dark Ju 52s existed in 1938 and probably earlier than that, when the Kamfgeschwader zur besonderen Verwendung were exactly that – bomber units. As the 70/71/65 scheme came in about late 1937 or 1938 the implication is that this is the scheme the Ju 52s should have been wearing; new-build (military) aircraft coming off the lines in 1938/1939 (probably g4e and even g5e versions) would certainly be painted in the familiar 70/71/65 camouflage, with the deletion of RLM 64. Conversions from earlier g3e, g4e and even ex-LUFTHANSA ge versions would have needed some sort of repainting (see original posting). Some Ju 52s originally with the 61/62/63 scheme did (at some point) receive a dark-coloured paint job on their undersides.

A few days ago I managed to obtain a copy of the original (1973) K. Merrick book Luftwaffe Colors Vol.1. In it he says that the dark under surfaces were temporary black, applied (eg. as on page 106) because ‘it saw service on the war front’. To me this is not a particularly strong argument: (a) the dark scheme was in place before WW2; (b) apart from Ju 52s where are the other Luftwaffe aircraft ‘on the war front’ with black under surfaces before the night bombing of Britain in late summer 1940 (i.e. why no He 111s with dark undersides during Polish campaign?).

The transport role of the Ju 52 in the early war years was primarily by daylight, including mass-landings on crowded fields such as during the attacks on Norway, Holland, and Crete.

Remember as well that there are no official German RLM publications (I think) to show the 77/76, 77/65, 65, 76, 77 or 02 high-altitude schemes, nor the 70/02/65, 71/02/65, 77/75/76, 76/75/76 day-fighter schemes or the 82/83/76 and 81/83/76 late-war defensive schemes that have been proposed over the years. We are fortunate that good colour photographs or real aircraft/fragments have confirmed some (but not all) of these. There is just one colour photograph that could just be interpreted as the RLM 64 scheme – page 104 of Transporter Vol.2: a very olivish Ju 3/m g3e, at least in comparison with the few blues and true greens left in the print. It is just not good enough for validation though.

What we need is a wreck of an early-war g3e in an unquestionably all-dark, unicoloured paint scheme!

Best wishes

Graham

[Modeldad]

"Remember as well that there are no official German RLM publications (I think) to show the 77/76, 77/65, 65, 76, 77 or 02 high-altitude schemes, nor the 70/02/65, 71/02/65, 77/75/76, 76/75/76 day-fighter schemes or the 82/83/76 and 81/83/76 late-war defensive schemes that have been proposed over the years."

Now I'm too lazy at the moment to pull all the books. But does your stament mean that Mereck, Mombeek, Ullman, Wadman, Smith, Creek etc have been making it up all these years?

Any one want all my books, they are now worthless.

[Graham Boak]

I believe the comment that many known Luftwaffe schemes are not to be found in RLM technical orders is correct. It is certainly difficult to otherwise explain such schemes as seen on as KG100's He 177s, to name but three examples. I suspect that the authors you quote would agree. However several of them are more known for their technical and/or operational knowledge than for their detailed study of camouflage schemes: on the evidence of the work I've seen I'd personally not trust at least one of them on colours. (Other matters, clearly yes.)

If you've any books I haven't, do send them. But I suspect I have all Ken Merrick's.