Jump to content

Malta blue spitfires


gruffy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

For the Calendar colours, look to last year's research by Paul Lucas (published in two issues of Scale Aircraft Modelling around January 2106) into original correspondence stored in the National Archives.

 

Does anyone happen to know what issues these were in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't claim to have seen Paul's SAM articles from last year, but Wasp was one of two carriers sent supplies of an experimental USN paint called Dark Blue, which was a supposed near match for Deck Blue stain.  Half of Wasp's air group was supposedly painted in the new color.  If the Spits matched the F4Fs, they could have all been using the new Dark Blue.

 

That is just another possibility - and I'm not claiming that this happened with any certainty - but it's a strong "cudda-bin."

 

Cheers,

 

 

Dana

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Denford said:

What interests me is not the colour (or should it be color) but that the Spitfire shadows all show 4 cannon......

Fairly wellknown fact that (some) Spitfires were ferried in with much needed extra 20mm cannons. One set was removed before the Spitfires were pressed into service.

 

/Finn

Edited by FinnAndersen
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite: Stories differ about this, but one common factor is that if so, no-one seems to have told Malta.  Lucas ("Laddie" not Paul) says that 249 Sq (Takali) flew these Spitfires and then insisted upon the extra cannon being removed as they adversely affected the agility.  However Hal Far continued to fly with them, as they are present on Barnham's aircraft when it featured in publicity photos after he made ace.  One other point is that on Malta it was generally the inner cannon that was removed, which is not to be expected if the removal was preplanned.  On Malta the inner bay was later (not much later) used to include a bomb carrier, reducing the usual drag from such an installation outside the wing.

 

Now it is my belief that the universal wing was designed to take four cannon as the default, as this was the Air Ministry's expressed preference for fighter armament, and the RAF was already flying the Hurricane Mk.IIc (Whirlwind, Beaufighter, Typhoon, Mosquito....).  So far so good: the key question is when was it realised that four cannon was just too much weight outboard?  My money is on Boscombe trials, but the Calendar Spits are among the very first production Mk.Vc.  The Admiralty also wanted four cannon on their Seafires to cope with the armoured shadowers (BV138s) but were told that they couldn't have them, it wasn't a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Graham, Do you have any further detail on the Malta bomb modification? Any photos or plans?

 

I can confirm that inbound cannons were removed on Malta, as this was described as a "local mod", in my grandfathers notes, who served on Malta. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not seen any photographs that are clear enough to show much detail (if any).  The usual comment in text is that when the bomb was dropped only a small stub remained protruding below the wing, suggesting that the small stabilizing arms were either omitted or dropped with the bomb.  As neither approach seems entirely sensible I presume that there is more to be made clear.

 

There are several photos showing outboard cannon only: as usual, they are not dated in books so it is not possible to determine exact timescales.  It would perhaps be interesting to know the earliest data that your grandfather carried out this mod, although presumably it was carried out for quite some time after its introduction so a later date wouldn't help a lot.  However, later Mk.Vc were presumably delivered with only the inboard cannon, so altering these would require moving the cannon which would add work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed Paul Lucas' two-part article - it was my first foray into the perils of discussing the Malta blue Spitfires. I was reading it in mind with perhaps eventually one day building Barnham's aircraft, BP955.

 

According to Lucas, BP955 arrived in Scotland for shipment on April 11th, 1942. Citing an RAF report on the operation, Lucas claims that BP955 arrived in ASU sea camouflage (part 1 page 53). Earlier in the article, he convincingly argues that this ASU sea camouflage is Dark Sea Grey and Dark Slate Grey on top and Sky below (part 1 page 52). Once this batch of aircraft were on board the USS Wasp and the pilots arrived, according to the cited report "S/Ldr Gracey who was commanding one of the squadrons complained (...) that the A.S.U. colours were wrong (...). In consequence the dope supplied by D.S.M. was put on board a.m. 13.4 with the necessary equipment for doping" (part 1 page 53).

 

In part 2 of the article, Lucas goes on to discuss in what colour the aircraft might have been repainted with on board the USS Wasp. His conclusion is that as many aircraft as possible were repainted with whatever paint was brought on board, which according to Lucas was most likely Dark Mediterranean Blue on top and Sky Blue below (part 2, page 53). Lucas cites Barnham, who describes the wings of his Spitfire as "blue-grey metal" which Lucas explains might be a partly repainted aircraft which had been delivered in the ASU sea camouflage. This makes sense (although Barnham in his book also consistently describes German aircraft as being all black so with all respect I'm not sure about the reliability of Barnham's recollection of colours).

 

But let's have a look at the well known photo of Barnham's aircraft:

 

large_zpslpdzqhun.jpg

 

First of all - all profiles of this aircraft show it in desert camouflage colours. Are all these previous interpretations wrong and is this aircraft not a sand yellow but actually Dark Sea Gray & Dark Slate Grey repainted perhaps in part with Dark Mediterranean blue? If so - why does the aircraft still appear to have two tones on top? Has one of the two original colours been repainted? Which?

 

Secondly - the aircraft was coded J-1. In this photo, the "1" has been removed apparently. If it was removed on Malta was it scrubbed off somehow or was it repainted? If it's been repainted on Malta, after arrival, what colour did they cover the 1 with? The RN blue that @tonyot mentioned? But surely that's too dark? Whatever colour it is - it blends nicely with the rest of the aircraft. 

 

As I said, Lucas' article was my first proper introduction into the quagmire of Malta blue Spitfires - I understand why there is so much discussion about it!

 

But apart from Barnham's aircraft - I do think Lucas makes a good point that at least some of the Malta Spitfires were Dark Mediterranean Blue on top and Sky Blue below. They were probably painted these colours on board the USS Wasp with paint that was brought on board, as was described in the RAF report on the operation which Lucas uses for his article.

 

 

 

 

Edited by elger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barnham was an artist by profession: in his book he refers to the green and grey of his previous Spitfire in the UK, and the blue or blue-grey of the Malta one.  I think he can be relied upon for the colours of the aircraft he sees every day, which does include one encounter with a Malta-based Spitfire in desert colours.   It is a shame that he doesn't give us rather more colour descriptions.  He did a painting which showed Spitfires in a strong blue - but yes, a Bf109 in black.

 

The 1 was allocated to the particular squadron for the delivery.  (1 and 2 for Calendar, 3 and 4 for Bowery.)  These are very rarely if ever seen on photographs on Malta, suggesting that they were applied in temporary paint/distemper.  You can see some marks aft of the roundel where something has been rubbed off - perhaps a 1, perhaps not.   In this photo you can also see one of the white polka dots he mentions as experimenting with as a guide - hastily removed when it appeared to be attracting unwanted attention from the other side.

 

I have been wallowing in the quagmire of Malta Blue for well over a decade now... since I was told that the whole idea was nonsense, really, and I wondered why, in that case, did it appear in so many places?   Paul's article (with other earlier guidance from Edgar Brooks and Brian Cauchi in particular) brings welcome relief.  Now to get everyone to read it!  (I must admit my money was on EDSG, but DMB fits as well if not better.)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do remember my Grandfather talking about some Spitfires being blue, but I cant remember the detail, bar that some pilots really liked it, and that the upper surfaces were a much darker hue than the underside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not agree that the undersides were Sky, especially when this colour had been expressly forbidden by HQ Middle East Command earlier in the war. It was a useless colour for camouflage in the blue Mediterranean skies,...... Sky Blue gets my vote,...that is if we are allowed to mention votes at the moment,

 

Cheers

            Tony. 

Edited by tonyot
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To back this, one of the Kiwi pilots mentioned the bright blue undersides in his biography,  Given that ME Command disliked Sky because it was too pale, and Sky Blue is even paler,  Azure Blue seems more likely.  However, Malta seems to have operated on its own rather than under ME instructions, so that particular link is a bit weak.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is Graham, many of the earlier Spitfire photos show an almost white colour on the undersides, which was at a time that Hurricane`s were being tropicalised by RAF UK based MU`s for shipment overseas and part of the conversion process was the application of Sky Blue undersides,......although admittedly some Hurricane`s did make it to places like India with Vokes filters and Sky undersides,....... there are always exception to any rule. By the time C1 Type markings were being applied I agree that Azure Blue would have been applied to the undersides by the factory, with with Mid Stone/Dark Earth uppers, 

 

When the first Spitfire fighter`s were tropicalised by RAF MU`s then they left the MU in the same scheme as the Hurricane`s,....Dark Earth/ Dark Green wth Light Blue (Sky Blue?) undersides, as seen here.

IMG_20150305_0001_zpsmeatel8g.jpg

After the early deliveries to Malta,.......which I believe wore a mixture of DE/DG/Sky Blue and Mid Stone/DE/ Sky Blue colours,.before being refinished in Malta, usually by applying EDSG to the Mid Stone or DG areas ( I interviewd a veteran about what they did with the newly arrived Spits and he says "we did what we did to the Hurricanes,....added some blue grey paint to the camo") .....well, as for those which arrived at Abbotsinch for the USS Wasp I have spoken to eye witnesses (who later went aboard the USS Wasp too) who saw the Spits landing in this DE/DG/Sky Blue scheme and then they saw them wheeled straight to a small hangar where the green areas overpainted with a sandy (Mid Stone) colour. Why were they watching the Spits,....well because they were being flown in by attractive looking female ATA pilots of course,.....servicemen being servicemen!!

 

And here are the freshly `desert' painted Spits being loaded aboard the USS Wasp.....they would be painted again once on board,.....using what I believe to be US Grey Blue (the same eye witnesses stated that they used the paint used to finish the carriers own aircraft,.....but when this began to run out it was thinned and later still black was added to eak it out);

Image result for malta spitfire blue

With light coloured undersides;

Image result for spitfire tropical

Why would they load paint aboard for this journey when the Spitfire`s had just been specially repainted before loading aboard the carrier? For the second Wasp deployment I believe that camouflage was better organised and the TSS scheme is most likely,.....but I believe that the Blue undersides would have been retained and that Sky would not have been added.

 

 

Anyway,.......just in case anybody thinks that I only paint blue Malta Spits,....here is an old post;

 

All the best folks,

                         Tony

 

Edited by tonyot
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, tonyot said:

Why would they load paint aboard for this journey when the Spitfire`s had just been specially repainted before loading aboard the carrier?

 

If Lucas is right it's not a question of "why" - Lucas claims that paint was brought on board. He cites an RAF report on the operation to make this claim; the report states "In consequence the dope supplied by D.S.M. was put on board a.m. 13.4 with the necessary equipment for doping" (cited in part 1, page 53). According to Lucas' article, the reason for it was that just after loading, it was discovered by the squadron leader that the aircraft had been painted the wrong colour.

 

But that is if Lucas is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, elger said:

 

If Lucas is right it's not a question of "why" - Lucas claims that paint was brought on board. He cites an RAF report on the operation to make this claim; the report states "In consequence the dope supplied by D.S.M. was put on board a.m. 13.4 with the necessary equipment for doping" (cited in part 1, page 53). According to Lucas' article, the reason for it was that just after loading, it was discovered by the squadron leader that the aircraft had been painted the wrong colour.

 

But that is if Lucas is right.

Is this for the first or second USS Wasp delivery? I`m talking about the first one.

Cheers

           Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@tonyot Lucas mentions it's the first of the two delivery missions, Operation Calendar, and according to the quote from the report, the paint was brought on board on April 13th, one day after the Squadron Leader had complained about the initial colours being wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, elger said:

@tonyot Lucas mentions it's the first of the two delivery missions, Operation Calendar, and according to the quote from the report, the paint was brought on board on April 13th, one day after the Squadron Leader had complained about the initial colours being wrong.

Fair play,.... but two blokes that I spoke to who were aboard the Wasp said that they used the paint from the Wasps own supplies and that there wasn`t enough left to do the job properly,...... they could have just surmised this though,..... when asked what colour it was they said that it was the same colour as that seen on the ships Wildcat`s. It is possible that Med Blue was used I suppose.

 

Cheers

           Tony 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, tonyot said:

Fair play,.... but two blokes that I spoke to who were aboard the Wasp said that they used the paint from the Wasps own supplies and that there wasn`t enough left to do the job properly,...... they could have just surmised this though,..... when asked what colour it was they said that it was the same colour as that seen on the ships Wildcat`s. It is possible that Med Blue was used I suppose.

 

Cheers

           Tony 

 

In part 2 of the article Lucas does describe how because there were so many Spitfires on board they did run out of paint, adding black to the mixture and towards the end having to thin the paint which by then was not much more than a dark blue gray wash. Lucas estimates that perhaps as few as one third of the Spitfires received a proper coat of Dark Mediterranean Blue with the supposed Sky blue undersides - BR124 2-U being a notable example of this.

 

Some aircraft might not have been repainted on board - according to Lucas five aircraft were suspended from the ceiling making it difficult to repaint them. The identity of these aircraft is not known.

 

Lucas concludes that "Because there was insufficient material to repaint all of the Spitfires, something like two thirds of the Spitfires might have left the USS Wasp in the same disruptive sea camouflage colours and Sky undersurfaces as they had been finished in when they were put aboard and consequently carried these colour schemes into combat" (part 2, page 53).

 

Perhaps the darker, thinned wash made the aircraft look similar to the USN aircraft on board?

Edited by elger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A Malta Story" parts 1 and 2 by Paul Lucas, appearing in Volume 37 issue 10 (December 2015) and issue 11 (January 2016) of SAM, respectively.

Edited by elger
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...