Luftwaffe 'winter' camouflage question

[GordonD]

On a Luftwaffe aircraft based in Norway, what colour should the 'blobs' on the upper surfaces be?

I'm building the Airfix Heinkel 111 and the instructions say they should be Hellblau, like the undersides, but that doesn't sound right to me. Surely they should be white, or at least very pale grey, to blend in with the ice and snow on the ground?

The instructions are no help at all because they list the underside colour as Humbrol 65 but the illustration shows it as a pale grey, so the blobs look fine.

Supplementary question: assuming they are white or grey, then where they meet the demarcation line between the Hellblau and the Schwartzgrun/Dunkelgrun of the main camouflage pattern, do they overlap or are they cut off sharply at the line? Overlapping makes more sense as presumably the blobs were applied more or less freehand on top of the existing colours.

[Vesa Jussila]

My understanding is that winter camo was made from chalk mixed with some kind of clue. It was possible just wash it away at spring time. So basically color is somewhere between white and very light grey.

[Arniec]

The winter camo wasn't painted on very needly. I have even seen some pictures of painting the camo with a broom and a bucket full of paint.

The colour could also be RLM76, but that is more of a guess. Because I don't have any refference with me .

Cheers,

[Clinton78]

The scheme appears to be based on the following aircraft. He111H-20 8./KG4 5J+ES found abandoned at Berlin-Gatow at the end of the war. This and another photo appear on page 381 of the Classic Colours Kampfflieger Volume 4, By Nick Beale. On the same page there is also a colour profile which if I'm reading it right attributes the aircraft in the photos as the mount of Major Werner Klümper. A 8./KG4 He111H-20 WNr.7383 in Bardufoss, Norway autumn 1943 (It has exactly the same camouflage pattern....????). Apparently Klümper led operations against Allied Arctic Convoys. Here's the interesting bit the photos showing the wreck at Berlin-Gatow in 1945 are captioned as having standard RLM70/71/65 splinter with blotches of RLM75 (Mittelgrau) which was a fighter uppersurface grey colour. Strangely the profile is captioned as being again RLM70/71/65 but with blotches of RLM76 (Lichtblau) which was a fighter undersurface light blue. I don't quite know what to make of the captions or quite how they have linked the aircraft in the photos (Berlin-Gatow 1945) to that in the profile (Norway 1943)? To be honest the upper surface blotches could realistically be either of those colour's (RLM75 or RLM76). We have a good point of reference though with the undersurface colour (RLM65)and the blotches look an awful lot lighter than that. Could it even be sprayed on white of the permanent variety, not the temporary roughly applied winter camo wash? I suppose it would depend on what theatres of operation KG4 and this aircraft were involved in. If it was attacking arctic convoys the the RLM75 or RLM76 would make more sense (Would it have required extra aerial installations on the nose though?) If it was land based then perhaps permanent sprayed on white blotches might be the better option? To my eye though the blotches look ever so slightly darker than the white of the fuselage cross.

Edit: Quite a difficult scheme to interpret. The state of the swastika on the tail I believe gives credit to the possibility that another colour has been used in large blotches? Possibly RLM70 or 71? The swastika certainly looks as though it has been crudely sprayed around. Also possible evidence of the old larger 5J marking just in front of the fuselage cross? You can even see a small blotch of a dark colour that has been sprayed as a background to the newer application of the small later style of 5J before the fuselage cross.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Clinton78

[JOAN]

Hi,

On fighters it is a white "covering"...Is it different for bombers ?

On the above picture clear blotches look darker than the cross. Isn't it a good example of "preshading" in a 1/1 airplane ? The covering is made from temporary / easy to remove "paint". I guess the density of this fragile covering wasn't very good to look like really white ...( instead of white crosses ..).

Just a thought.

Olivier

[GordonD]

Thanks for all of those replies, particularly the photo which is of the very aircraft I'm modelling!

Consensus is that whatever colour the blotches are, they are not Hellblau RML65. Lichtblau makes more sense but Mittelgrau sounds even more likely. I'm not at the painting stage yet but I'll make a decision when I get there. At the moment I'm tending towards a very light grey.

[Giorgio N]

Wasn't RLM 77 also sometimes used for these blotches ?

[Clinton78]

Unsure Giorgio, realistically it could be either one of quite a few colours?

[Steven Eisenman]

Well, once the blue is taken out of the picture, looks to me like white distemper applied over a dark surface. White distemper was common. Although references on Luftwaffe comouflage do note use of 65 and 76, in addition to white distemper.

Edited September 17, 2013 by Steven Eisenman

[Clinton78]

I agree that it very well could be white, which over the darker surface colour would look slightly darker. I believe that this is not the earlier temporary distemper Ikarin A2515.21 though but the later permanent version 7126.21 that has been sprayed on.

[Richard B.]

Recently, I was building a BF 108 in winter camouflage.

I found IPMS Stockholm to be helpful.

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2000/06/stuff_eng_tech_winter_camo.htm

Edited September 17, 2013 by Richard B.

[tank152]

I think you're getting 2 completely different camouflage schemes mixed up here. The aircraft you mention in Norway would have had the white distemper applied over what ever camouflage they carried, normally at unit level although some aircraft arrived from the factory white. At unit level this white was applied with spray guns, brush and sometimes with both methods on the same aircraft. There was no set pattern for applying it so every aircraft was different as photos show. Obviously this was to help camouflage aircraft in the snowy conditions.

The He111 in the earlier post was camouflaged for operations at night and the blotches would almost certainly have been RLM76. This colour tended to be a lot lighter in shade, almost white, towards the end of the war. RLM76 was found to be a excellent colour for night time, just look at pics of Night Fighters, most of those had some form of RLM76 camouflage. There are also numerous photos of Ju188s with RLM76 applied over their RLM70/71 finish.

RLM77 was basically used for markings although it did find its way to be used on late war 109s, K4s especially.

Edited September 17, 2013 by tank152

[Clinton78]

Hi Tank, what two schemes do you think I/we are mixing up? Have you looked at the relevant page of the Kampfflieger volume I mentioned that itself mentions the two schemes? I was puzzled by the profile and photos in the publication that to my eyes all depict the same aircraft but they are captioned differently. Can anyone confirm if they in fact all show the same aircraft or they show the two as captioned. The air fix kit almost certainly used the Kampfflieger volume as it's source. Knowing whether it used the profile as the visual source or the photos is the key to working out whether it's the Norway one or the Gatow one or whether they are all the same aircraft anyway...

Just out of interest how do you know the He111H-20 found abandoned at Gatow was camouflaged for night operations.

[tank152]

Hi Tank, what two schemes do you think I/we are mixing up? Have you looked at the relevant page of the Kampfflieger volume I mentioned that itself mentions the two schemes? I was puzzled by the profile and photos in the publication that to my eyes all depict the same aircraft but they are captioned differently. Can anyone confirm if they in fact all show the same aircraft or they show the two as captioned. The air fix kit almost certainly used the Kampfflieger volume as it's source. Knowing whether it used the profile as the visual source or the photos is the key to working out whether it's the Norway one or the Gatow one or whether they are all the same aircraft anyway...

Just out of interest how do you know the He111H-20 found abandoned at Gatow was camouflaged for night operations.

Where did I say you was getting mixed up, did I quote you?

Has for the He-111, I doubt very much it would have been used in.day light opp, it would have been a sitting duck and.soon.shot.out of the skies, unless you know.different of course.

We all different opinions on these things, something you.might like to.take.on board.

Tim.

[Clinton78]

Whoa! Hold on a second there pal. Did you or did you not write he following: I think you're getting 2 completely different camouflage schemes mixed up here.

To which I wrote: what two schemes do you think I/we are mixing up?

A valid question I might add. You are correct that we are allowed opinions, I didn't say that you were not did I? I live in a world were we need sources for claims like: "The He111 in the earlier post was camouflaged for operations at night." I simply wish to know what source says that KG4 were soley operating at night? Or is it just your opinion? Well I'm sorry but you will have to do better than that. If that is the case why are it's undersides not painted black? You also make a completely wild and unsupported claim that it would get shot out of the sky in daylight camouflaged the way it is. I have seen far stranger disruptive camouflaged aircraft operating during the day. Especially wearing these possible white blotched winter schemes which as you quite correctly say varied greatly from one aircraft to the other. So don't get the hump just because I'm asking you for worthy sources to your statements because your answers are possibly the crux to what we are seeking to discover that's all. So just calm down and stop being so childish.

[tank152]

Whoa! Hold on a second there pal. Did you or did you not write he following: I think you're getting 2 completely different camouflage schemes mixed up here.

To which I wrote: what two schemes do you think I/we are mixing up?

A valid question I might add. You are correct that we are allowed opinions, I didn't say that you were not did I? I live in a world were we need sources for claims like: "The He111 in the earlier post was camouflaged for operations at night." I simply wish to know what source says that KG4 were soley operating at night? Or is it just your opinion? Well I'm sorry but you will have to do better than that. If that is the case why are it's undersides not painted black? You also make a completely wild and unsupported claim that it would get shot out of the sky in daylight camouflaged the way it is. I have seen far stranger disruptive camouflaged aircraft operating during the day. Especially wearing these possible white blotched winter schemes which as you quite correctly say varied greatly from one aircraft to the other. So don't get the hump just because I'm asking you for worthy sources to your statements because your answers are possibly the crux to what we are seeking to discover that's all. So just calm down and stop being so childish.

I've answered the OP's question and given some reasons for my thinking, like I said to you earlier we all have our opinions on such things, I'm sorry that you can't accept that. I'm not willing to enter into an argument with you like it now seems you're hell bent in doing so with me.

[Test Graham]

The statement that He111s did not operate in the bomber role during daylight in late 1943 to 1945 appears to be a statement of the blinding obvious. The type had generally been transferred to transport and support roles before then, with various units of KG4 being among the last, if not the last, to retain it in the night bombing role. It was operating in the Eastern Front (Ukraine/Smolensk) area in late 1943 so was not carrying out missions against allied convoys from Norway. For more detail of its basing and operations see Classic's Bomber Units of the Luftwaffe 1933-45.

It seems unlikely that the same individual aircraft would have retained the same camouflage for nearly two years, although not impossible. Late-war He111s demonstrate a range of distinctive camouflages which generally display these lighter patches (not always so light), which would not seem to be ideal for either winter or night operations as such, but perhaps a compromise because of the varied conditions over which these aircraft opeated in the final stages of the war.

[Clinton78]

Tim,

I'm sorry but that was not my intention. I suggest you reread your original post #12. In it you make a statement which reads a bit different to an opinion. The way you wrote it, it suggested that you actually 100% knew that the bomber was camouflaged for night operations. Which would be great, because that means that the RLM76 or RLM75 would be a more of a contender and we could disregard the possibility that white had been used. All I asked for was how you knew the bomber was camouflaged for night operations. I don't know how you know this. For all I know you could have been a pen pal with a former KG4 crewman who had told you that KG4 were operating solely night operations from 1942 to the end of the war. Or you might have had some other credible source by a respected author on the subject. I was interested that's all because your points were valid and could quite possibly be correct. Now the original OP at some point is going to be spending a certain amount of time and expense buying and then painting his model in what he hopes to be an accurate representation of what the photo shows. So what happens if say for instance in the next edition of Luftwaffe im Focus a colour photo of said He111 appears and it's totally different to your opinion? All I'm trying to get across to you is that opinions are great but don't make a statement unless you can back it up with some credible evidence or a respected source. Really you didn't tell us anything we didn't already know except you garnished it with a spurious claim as to what the black and white photo showed. Please stop trying to get the sympathy vote by making out I'm the big bad suppressor of your opinions. I just wanted your source which you clearly don't have....

[Clinton78]

Here is the page in question from page 381 of the Classic Colours Kampfflieger Volume 4, By Nick Beale:

Clearly we are suffering from a case of bad editing and wrongly captioned profiles. The profile is clearly the one in the photos and not the one as described in the caption.

[tank152]

I've got the Classic book, the whole series in fact. I'm at work now so.haven't got the time to answer you fully. The only thing we can be 100% at is that none of us can be 100% at knowing anything about the colours on aircraft like that He111.

[Clinton78]

Here's another small photo.

Tim, I agree.

[GordonD]

Guys, guys, please don't fight on my account!

Clinton78, thank you very much for posting that colour profile - while the caption may be wrong the illustration will be extremely helpful when I get to that stage of the model. RLM76 it is then!

[Test Graham]

The same two photos appear in the Classic book - though there is a mistake in their caption too! (5J+AS, not 5J+ES - just one of those slips, I think.) 8/KG26 had Ju88s and did indeed operate from Norway in August 1942, but were in Southern France in August 1943. Kluemper is not listed as III Gruppen Kommandeur at any time, but was I Gruppen Kommandeur at the ime of the Norway operations in 1942 and shortly afterwards became Geschwader Commodore.

[Vesa Jussila]

I'm not He-111 specialist, this plane is stated as a H-20 variant and year -42. My understanding is that H-20 came to production during late -43. I can look next week book about subject that was written by Hannu Valtonen and there is plenty of information about Norwegian based units.

[Clinton78]

Thanks, Vesa, I would at this point disregard anything about this aircraft serving in Norway. The Norway connection was based on the wrong caption allocated to this aircraft in the Classic Kampfflieger title.

Gordon, you're welcome. I would take that profile with a pinch of salt really and rely solely on the photographic evidence that has been presented. I can see elements that have clearly been missed on the profile. Put it this way, no one's going to be able to tell you it's wrong whether you use RLM76 or RLM75. As can be seen these things can only be proven by a colour photo. The white is not a bad call either but as Graham pointed out the scheme could have been devised so as to cover all options due to the units ever changing tasks during these difficult times that ranged from daylight/night bombing and transport/supply/support for the retreat of the German forces on the Eastern Front.