Mike Starmer

Be aware that Humbrol have drastically reduced their enamel paint range so some mixes that you may already know of will eventually be unattainable. My mix for BS. 381 No16 (216) is 3 x H34 white + 1 x H120 green + 1 x H38 lime. H120 is one of those deleted. I think that they have gone all 'woke' since any colour with military connotations is withdrawn.

From my images Mk.III, IV & V all have rectangular fin/rudders with rectangular flashes.

I love the relic showing the red primer 'grinning' through. Just proves how effective that is.

The P-47s didn't tow target sleeves. The Vengeances did that. The Thunderbolts were the gunnery trainers. Some details are in 'The Mighty Eighth War Manual'.

Don't worry about panel lines. They can barely be seen on the real aircraft.

Heading photograph Whitley V T4149 has de-icer boots. I have two other images of this aircraft from other angles which clearly show them. It was used for rocket assisted take-off trials. Two other Whitleys, Z6633 WL-G and Z9238 WL-R, a Mk.VII, in coastal finish both have the boots. There was a special white paint to cover these boots to complete the head-on aspect of the scheme and for spinners too. A chap I knew flew Whitleys in 51 sqdn, Sept. 1941 to May 1942. His 'queenie' had Lanolin anti-icing paste applied to all leading edge surfaces on his overall matt black Mk.V, Z9133 MH-Q, 51 sqdn. The colour is somewhat darker than Humbrol 81, I added a very small amount of Humbrol 93 to get the colour right on a model I made for him. In flight the thicker applications tended to dribble back a little onto the flying surfaces. Before anyone writes that Whitleys were not overall black, I found that a whole production batch of Z serialed Whitleys were so painted with light grey serial numbers.

If you can find the sprues, check the colours against a BS.4800 decorator's colour card which has a wider range of stronger colours instead of the usual modellers types which are more inclined to dull military shades.

A 1944 AMO specifies dull red and the tone of the images matches the fin flash. But I don't know how long the practice had been before then. Some artwork has shown these and Defiants in TSS but I am doubtful of this since these are land based.

The Albion beyond the Spitfire is in Khaki Green 3 and Dark Tarmac No.4. Should an erk apply an aviation colour, provided he can get a supply without a lot of paperwork, he would very soon be on jankers if the paint were applied to a vehicle. Aviation paints and dopes are cellulose based and will strip enamel paint immediately. Trust me, I did it once on a car.

Desert Pink varied. I have a fist sized rock from Mat Mata parts of which match SCC.11B in BS.987 1942 Camouflage Colours. Other parts are almost off white. I tried to get an average shade in my mix which in fact might be too dark, against this rock. If you can obtain a Humbrol 121 Light Stone you will be not far off on a model. Some of the companies did obtain swatch samples from me but they mixed under Flo lights, 'daylight' lamps etc. which is useless. Some evidently guess according to a name. How misleading is Silver Grey? The same goes for RAF and German Luftwaffe colours. In these cases I have seen mid green and light green representing RLM 70/71 scheme or RAF dark green a RLM 02 grau. Do they actually look at a picture of their subject?

Desert Pink was described to me varied from a mid toned shade to very pale rose pink. The regulation colour over this in specified patterns according to tank type, was Dark Olive Green PFI. Earlier regulations for Australian vehicles stated Dark Green No.7. This is a reference to SCC. No.7 (green) in the BS.987 range of colours. It may be presumed that the 1942 order was intended for that or very similar colour to be used. The orders included alternatives as Dark Slate, Black and Very Dark Brown. Of these colours greens A20 light and A21 dark, black A22 and chocolate A19 existed in the Camcolours range of locally produced colours for camouflaging buildings and other structures. However they could also be applied over enamel painted vehicles as disruptive colours. Some of this range of colours were issued under MESCC and many closely equate to the BS.987 range. It is probable that the 'brown' on the Churchill IIIs was A19 Chocolate similar to SCC.1A dark brown. Terra Cotta is far to bright and orange to be the contemporary 1920-50s brick reds. Examination of the Churchills in use and some Grants too show a deterioration and wear damage in the condition of disruptive areas which strongly suggest the use of Camcolours. There are ten colours in the Camcolour list all of which excluding A13 Milk were also produced as Camemulsion for use on absorbent materials such as canvas, hessian and nets.,

According to my information. the Churchill IIIs were all reworked in UK and painted Light Stone No.61 before dispatch. After arrival and prepared for desert use which included large stowage bins on the rear of the turrets. These are larger and differently shaped than those later fitted in Britain. The colours on these Churchill tanks have been much debated over many years. All of the photographs that I have display a range of tonal contrasts between the colours. This is simply due to a wide range of factors. The type of film used, the use of a coloured filter, a common practice then and the type of emulsions and paper used during developing and printing of the originals. Then there is the effect of the quality of the reproduction process in printed material. The traditional ‘sand and black’ theory was obviously based on interpretation of very highly contrasted and grainy photographs published many years ago. The artwork in some publications show a ‘sand’ and black or fairly bright green, in the majority of cases these bear little or no resemblance to the pattern which can clearly evident on photographs. However there is more than one contemporary report that describes the darker colour on ‘Kingforce’ tanks as ‘chocolate brown’, ‘earth brown’ and ‘brick red primer’, green or black are not mentioned. Although subjective, these three reports cannot be ignored and they therefore provide reasonably reliable clues to what may be the truth. One of the Tank Museum photographs (1781/A6) clearly shows a row of five Churchill tanks during preparation for use showing the left side and another photograph (1781/B2) shows three tanks in echelon each clearly showing the same basic design on their right sides. The disruptive design on all of these tanks is obviously the same basic pattern albeit with some detail variations. This disruptive pattern bears a very close resemblance to that on the drawing A/140/1 issued for Crusader tanks on 6th October 1942 together with the draft painting order which on 4th December became G.O.1650.

The top surface roundel was mandatory following discussion with the RAF. The w/r/w rectangle was a ground forces recognition sign not used after January 1942. In January 1942 the RAF agreed that a white St. Andrews Cross with a dark outline would be applied to horizontal surfaces. But it was found that RAF aircrew had reported that the Germans had much earlier applied one or two white bars across the bonnets of some of their vehicles that had caused ID problems. Following a further meeting in March 1942, GHQ M.E. the decision was taken in March 1942 to supersede the cross with an RAF type roundel with a yellow surround on horizontal surfaces WEF June 9th 1942. An October 1942 required the marking to be on the hull behind the turret. In view of the equipment and personal stowage there, a canvas sheet with the marking on should be employed over those items. An exception for Stuart tanks, which should have two roundels. one on the rear deck and another on the turret roof.

The mix for Desert Pink is mine matched to the darker area of a fist sized rock I picked up at Mat Mata. The colour, according to Ken Ewings, (10 Hussars), could be much lighter so reduce to 118 by one part or a bit less. Another point about the Gazala scheme in general. Some Grants and Stuarts have their turrets a single dark colour which I suggest may be Slate No.34 in line with the use of redundant Caunter colours. I still need to study more of the Brigades tank pictures as there seems to be some anomalies among them. The image of the Grant loading onto the rail flat is in Egypt not Britain.

I am complete agreement with Troy on this company colours business. I use Humbrol and a few Revell enamels. Humbrol's RAF colours were sometimes close to the standard and often way off too. For British WW2 military vehicles none are useful at all. Every colour needs mixing. The representatives I wrote to and met at shows all insisted that the company used the correct standards to match their colours. They were less than forthcoming when asked what those standards were.