Bf 109E Upper surface camouflage pattern

[Touvdal]

The upper surface camouflage pattern of Bf 109E.

I have never seen a study of the upper surface camouflage pattern of the Bf 109E, so I decided to make my own based on what I could find of photos in my rather large book collection.

As a model builder it has annoyed me that nobody has published anything on the camouflage pattern of the 109E, similar to the in-depth studies of the 109K and 190D.

I have tried to find what is possible of pictures where booth sides of the wings are visible, but not many photos of a quality that enable one make out the pattern.

My pattern are by no mean made professional, merely by the use of hand colouring on copied line drawings, I never got around to learn to use Photoshop properly.

I have been able to make out 2 what I would call standard patterns A and B, but there are also a lot of other patterns, so if there has been any standards made by RLM or only guidelines I cannot say based on my study.

All comment and suggestions are welcome.

Cheers

Jes

My Standard A pattern

ref. III/JG3 Prien p.82, E-4, 9 /JG3

ref JV 2, Prien, p. 67, E-1, 2/JG 2, wn 4859

ref JG51 Stipdonk, p. 59, E-1, 2/JG51

ref JG51 Stipdonk, p. 199, E-4, Stab/JG 51

Standard B pattern

Jagdwaffe 2, Mombeck, p. 169, E-4, 1/JG 2

JV 5, Prien, p. 207, E-3, 8/JG 27, wn 2772

ref. III/JG3 Prien p.82, E-4, 9 /JG3

ref. JV 2, Prien, E-3, II/JG 27, wn 143?

ref JV4/I, Prien, E-4, 9/JG 2, wn 1224

[Touvdal]

None standard Patterns

Jagdwaffe, Mombeek, p. 48, E-1, I/LG 2

JG51, Stipdonk, p.80, E-1, 3/JG 51

JV 3, Prien, p. 9, E-3, II/JG 77, wn 1365

I/JG#, Prien, p. 48, E-1, 3/JG3

Edited May 5, 2011 by Touvdal

[Don McIntyre]

Nicely done and an interesting exercise. Thank you for sharing.

[andym]

Once you start looking closely you'll see that there are many variations in the 70/02 schemes, also don't forget 70/71 schemes. The more pics I look at the more differences come to light.

Andy

Edited May 5, 2011 by andym

[Stonar]

That's quite a labour of love,very interesting thanks for posting.

Now all you have to do is work out which ones came from which factory or sub-contractor,which ones are re-sprays of earlier schemes etc.........only joking!!

Cheers

Steve

[tango98]

Interesting approach to sorting them out Jes but when Stonar wrote: "Now all you have to do is work out which ones came from which factory or sub-contractor,which ones are re-sprays of earlier schemes etc" he was a lot closer to the truth than he probably thought! Additionally, and to confuse the issue further, a number of the aircraft which had worn the 'experimental variations' used during and following the Polish campaign retained these finishes until quite late in 1940.

Thus far, drawings for six or seven distinct variations of the patterns for the upper surface camo from the 109B/C to the late model 109Es have come to light and looking at your drawings you seem to have got at least five of them very close to being spot on.

Cheers

Dave

[Clinton78]

Guys, all of the above patterns are loosely based on one single standard pattern. The fact that they differ is that they were applied freehand by a human being. To think that these guys carefully measured out each splinter line and angle each time even at the factories or when respraying from the 1939 camouflage to the 1940 style camouflage in the field or repair depot is just unbelievable. You're looking too deep at something that just was not there. These German's were just as human as everyone else and not the strict robotic humans that everyone thinks. Every single aircraft differred ever so slightly. The markings differed ever so slightly. You get a non standard pattern pop up now and again but those are rare and nothing to do with a certain factory. It just means that the guy that painted the aircraft on that specific day was not too bothered about following the general standard pattern. I'm working with the largest ever assembled photo database of Bf109Es containing high quality published and unpublished original photos. I have not been able to establish any kind of distinct pattern variations at all, other than the general loose variations of the one standard 71/02/65 pattern with single non standard anomalies popping up no and again. Even when we have known WNr. and two factory painted aircraft a couple of WNr. apart, sometimes massive differences can be seen and almost always a very slight difference. The fuselage demarcation lines, splinter patterns etc all differ. It would make my life a lot easier if a distinct pattern could be discerned based on what factory the aircraft was produced at but it simply is not a situation that ever existed. Diagram 7e in Merrick's camouflage book Vol 1 is what I consider as being the standard pattern issued by the RLM. 99% of 1940 Bf109E schemes are loosely based on that pattern with unlimited slight variations.

[Navy Bird]

They didn't use mats?

Cheers,

Bill

[Procopius]

As you know, the WWII-era Germans were able to freehand airbrush hard delineations, thanks to their Teutonic thoroughness and the aid of Nazi superscience.

[Clinton78]

Show me some examples of hard delineations on a Bf109E photo...?

Edited October 15, 2013 by Clinton78

[Navy Bird]

As you know, the WWII-era Germans were able to freehand airbrush hard delineations, thanks to their Teutonic thoroughness and the aid of Nazi superscience.

They invented Tamiya tape, too?

Cheers,

Bill

[Procopius]

Show me some examples of hard delineations on a Bf109E photo...?

I'm being facetious; I doubt very much if I could even tell between a hard or soft delineation in a black and white photo.

[Clinton78]

I did wonder Procopius, where's the facetious smiley when you need it.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Clinton78

[Stonar]

And yet to describe the patterns a grid pattern was placed over the outline of the aircraft and included very precise measurements. Either some factories couldn't read the diagrams properly or they were operating to a different scheme.

Cheers

Steve

[Clinton78]

Steve, you think for every single aircraft produced, they pulled out the measuring tapes and precisely marked out every splinter segment. Seriously.... Do you honestly think the painters would bother doing that. I've no problem believing that may have been the case for the first couple of planes but after that the painters would have worked out their own reference points on the airframe and the diagram and measuring tapes would have gone out the window. As can be seen in literally thousands of Bf109E photos. If these other variations of scheme were anything but anomalies why are we not seeing many, many clear examples of them. If what you are saying is correct then there must have been thousands of different RLM patterns issued because nigh on every single aircraft is slightly different.

[Black Knight]

The original schematics were drawn on a grid, with plenty of extra area included so that the airframe could be placed anywhere within that grid and still had the correct pattern, a wide area or degree of latitude was allowed. The grid pattern was not big enough to go on an airframe, just a guide to where the paints were to be applied. In the same way the AM issued one for RAF types.

Contrary to popular belief, the mottle on the G fuselage was not totally free art. A pattern existed but was longer than the fuselage, again so that the painter had a good amount of latitude.

Anyone who has done freehand spraying on 1/1 subjects will agree that one places ones own reference points and works to them, not needing lines chalked out.

[Test Graham]

The existence of some small variations does not mean that our grandfathers were incapable of following detailed instructions. Anyone who has looked at the signwriting of the time, or the trims and details of the liveries on trams, lorries, buses and trains, has to recognise that very precise measurements were very commonly used in paint shops. The pattern on the Bf109's wings are crude in comparison. We may be a bit lazy and couldn't-care-less about such things, but this attitude shouldn't be passed backwards in time.

[Space Ranger]

No doubt there were standard patterns, but field conditions and repairs often meant that the standard patterns could not be rigidly adhered to.

For example, your sketches show the entire upper surface of the port flap to be painted in one color, but some of the photos show this not to be the case. And in the photo tagged "ref. III/JG3 Prien p.82, E-4, 9 /JG3," the upper surface of the port flaps on both aircraft appears to be the other color!

Edited October 15, 2013 by Space Ranger

[Clinton78]

Graham, I'm not suggesting for one second that signwriters in days gone were useless, on the contrary having trained as an Illustrator/graphic artist whilst computers were still in their infancy and scorned upon by some of the older tutors. I had to learn both the old school and computer side of things and I can assure you those signwriters who were rendering typefaces by hand in those days were far more masterful in the skills required these days to do the same task. I am specifically talking about the application of the 71/02 uppersurface scheme on 1940 Bf109Es and early Fs. It pains me to see people continually regurgitating the same old rubbish about these schemes. Every single photo in the original post above shows the same scheme and anyone who studies them properly and doesn't get tricked by how the sun reflects light on angled surfaces will plainly see that this is the case. They are all just slightly different, yet a conclusion is drawn that obviously these must all be totally new schemes and every single Bf109 in that WNr. batch was identical as having this 'new' scheme applied. There is massive amounts of photographic evidence showing that a single distinct scheme was used on 71/02 Bf109Es. It's clear that this was not the case with later G/K models and there's enough evidence to support that drastically different schemes existed but on the E it's just not the case. The evidence points to the exact opposite. As per usual people are clutching at straws to try and find some kind of pattern and structure in the absence of any evidence whatsoever except the usual tricks of light that have caused so many researchers in the past to stumble. To suggest that a painter would measure out each splinter scheme to the mm in times of war is quite frankly laughable.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Clinton78

[Stonar]

No, I don't think the painters in any one facility painted every aircraft the same to the nearest centimetre. I do believe that with a few datum points the pattern could be closely followed.

The variations between patterns are enough in some cases to suggest that different facilities were not applying the same pattern, either by design or by a different interpretation, just like the mottling seen later in the war. It is very often possible to identify where a later war aircraft was produced from the camouflage pattern so I'm hardly making a radical assumption.

Cheers

Steve

[Test Graham]

Just what is so difficult about applying a tape measure to the leading/trailing edges of a Bf109, or along a panel, and placing a little tick where the camouflage changes? This is not rocket science, and certainly isn't "frankly laughable". The words "dead easy" springs to mind. That doesn't mean they won't sometimes make mistakes, which perhaps is what we see in these small variations.

[Clinton78]

Gentlemen, I've not just come on here without any prior investigation into these claims. I have made a detailed study of the uppersurface schemes of 1940 camouflaged Bf109Es, as I have said with access to a photographic library the likes of which has never been assembled before. My job has meant that not only have I had to painstakingly study these photos, I have also had to very accurately plot the exact dimensions of the 1940 style uppersurface splinter onto the top of precise renditions of the upperwing form of the Bf109E. I've made careful study of in field, repair depot, and new factory applied versions of these schemes from around January 1940 when they first started being applied all the way to the end of 1940 onto the uppersurfaces onto the first Bf109F-1s including all fighter units during this period. So far I probably have in excess of 200 accurately plotted drawings and countless personal visual analysis of good quality published and unpublished photos. The drawings are growing daily. Whilst undertaking such a task which is the byproduct of a much larger project I am working on I have been able to notice certain trends and anomalies. My findings are that the majority of claims that a different variation of uppersurface scheme existed are simply situations where certain lighting conditions and angled areas on the surface of the aircraft including the control surfaces are reflecting light differently and making it appear to have large light or dark sections segments that are not there. All of the photos in the first post of this topic are a perfect example of how this is happens. Take a detailed look at all of the photos and you will see that they all display the same scheme. Below are the same photos but I have highlighted the splinter segments:

I can't be the only person who can see a distinct pattern across the upper surface of all of those Bf109Es? Do you all also agree that although they clearly show the same pattern. They all clearly differ ever so slightly. Now if they were following a camouflage diagram and as Graham has said "dead easily" measured all of these segments out, why are we seeing such small variations in angle, size and position? Surely not all mistakes... I can assure you it's not just these photos that show not only this pattern but also show that this slight variation in angle, size and position is across the board.

The differences in angle, size and position are enough to prove that they did not strictly adhere to the exact dimensions of the standard pattern that was issued by the RLM and almost certainly show that they were quickly freehanded and eyeballed by whoever painted them whether a respray or brand new applied at a factory. Surely the sheer amount of instances of differing variation in angle, size and position means that not all of them had a different splinter scheme diagram issued each time by the RLM. It's just absurd to think so.

What I have found during my studies is that the horizontal stabilisers also appear to loosely adhere to a standard pattern but again this pattern varies in angle, size, and position just as much as the main wings uppersurface. The fuselage spine is often grossly different on almost every single different aircraft, in that it seems the only real rule appears to be that it had to be painted RLM 71 with a chunk of RLM 02 right at the front near the spinner and segment in the middle of the spine. The variations are almost infinite.

I agree that there are very rare instances where clearly the standard pattern has not been followed at all for whatever reason but these instances are so rare without any other aircraft either in the same unit or during the same period showing the same rare unique pattern anomaly that they must be just a one off. You do get certain units that during the period where it seems a certain amount of confusion existed not only in the repainting from the 1939 70/71 camouflage to the new 1940 71/02 but also with the application of the new larger style balkenkreuz. These specific units appear to have followed their own agenda around about the time that the RLM would have been issuing any such standard diagram for the new 1940 scheme. Whether this is because they had not received the diagrams or prior to any higher orders being given they had taken it upon themselves to alter the 1939 70/71 schemes on their fighters in light of their own experiences in combat and the less than adequate colour pallette used on the old scheme. That being said especially in I./JG54 there appears to have been an attempt to follow this new scheme and apply the new 71/02 and high demarcation line 65 to a certain degree but the way that they painted each aircraft was sometimes outrageously different from the standard scheme and nothing like the next aircraft in line. Almost to the point of each fighter having it's own unique pattern with glimpses of the standard scheme mixed in. Then we have JG53 who were experimenting with all sorts of wild non standard unique experimental patterns. Something Mölders might have had a personal hand in but which is another whole new discussion in it's own right.

So I suggest you attempt to actually accurately plot out some of the 1940 uppersurface schemes and I believe that you yourself will come to the same conclusion that a single scheme was almost certainly issued by the RLM around about late December January 1940 and any straying from this scheme is purely a unique, one in a thousand anomaly that would not have warranted an all new special 71/02 diagram to have been issued by the RLM nor does it prove that such a new diagram must have been issued by the RLM.

Please post any evidence that you may have on the contrary, I would very much like to see it.

[Touvdal]

Nice to see that my 2 year old post, has come to life again.

I have read your post Clinton, and find it very interesting, and i must say that i agree to your findings, looking at it now.

cheers

Jes

[Fernando]

Hi, Clinton78,

I still cannot make out if you intend to say that there was one and one only approved scheme, which was executed with minute variation from plane to plane, or that there were many variations or even many schemes with some common elements.

Anyway, I think that the paint instructions in every single serious kit in any scale comes with a scheme similar or identical to the "base scheme" you show, casting doubt in the existence of any "finding".

Therefore, the purpose of all this work still escapes me, though I cannot rule out some subtlety I am not able to discern. Looks like a "high Gaston" (in HS parlance) to me. Hope not to have been rude.

FErnando

[Clinton78]

Hi,

I don't get this bit: "Looks like a "high Gaston" (in HS parlance) to me. Hope not to have been rude." Can you explain?

The following is my opinion and exactly 100% what I was aiming to get across : "There was one and one only approved scheme, which was executed with minute variation from plane to plane."

What I mean is that I strongly believe that there was only one approved scheme for the 71/02/65 fighter splinter camouflage pattern. Although no documentary evidence survives that shows any early Bf109E splinter schemes. There is massive amounts of photographic evidence that shows that one specific pattern was in use all the way from the beginning of 1940 to August 1941 when we see the issue of, this time a single surviving revision diagram of the Luftwaffe's new daylight fighter splinter pattern as used on the Bf109F-2 and onwards (until 1943 and the G). Seeing as 95% of all Luftwaffe documents were destroyed and the specific 1940 Luftwaffe daylight fighter splinter pattern diagram is yet to surface and maybe never will do, we are left to make educated guesses. It is my opinion that what we are seeing in all these photos is tiny variations of one scheme. I mean, that part is fact, proven by photographs. Literally thousands of them. They simply would not be releasing hundreds of slightly different modified editions of these camouflage diagrams. My issue is that all it takes is for one photo to exist or surface that shows some different pattern to the standard one I have pointed out and there is automatically a cry that it's a new official variant of the 71/02 splinter pattern that must have been applied to a certain batch or by a specific factory. Merrick in his Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings Vol 1 suggests the existence of three distinctly different patterns. One first variant for the E-1 (Type 3), one second variant for the E-1 and E-3 (Type 4), then one third variant for the E-1, E-3, E-4, and E-7 (Type 5). Photographic evidence suggests that, that simply was not the case at all. Many photos exist that show E-1s that have been re-painted from the old 1939 70/71 Luftwaffe daylight fighter splinter pattern into the single official 71/02 Luftwaffe daylight fighter splinter pattern that I have mentioned and highlighted on Jes ' Touvdal's' original posted photos in late December 1939 to early January 1940. I am suggesting that any extremely rare instances that exist, where we have a Bf109E painted in 71/02 but in a different pattern to this 'official' Luftwaffe daylight fighter splinter pattern, are simply one off, one in a thousand anomalies and in no way anything as exciting as a whole new official pattern. A different official pattern would mean that for a certain period of time and at at least one specific factory many Bf109Es would have been painted in the same non standard pattern using an official RLM/or Messerschmitt diagram for guidance. If there was such different official variations we would be seeing many more examples of these non standard patterns in period photographs. For an example of what I mean as being a non standard pattern please see the bottom right hand photo of page 54 of Ken Merrick's Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings Volume 1.

Just for clarity, Merrick's 'Type 5' splinter pattern is what I consider to be the official standard Luftwaffe 71/02/65 daylight fighter splinter pattern.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Clinton78