Light Earth / Light Green versus DE /DG

[PLC1966]

For all the forwards and backwards in what has mostly been an interesting thread, I just think it is a tired old Wellington that has had an area of the wing at repainted DG/DE at Station level. Nothing more, nothing less.

What anybody else thinks doesn't really matter to be honest, I don't undertake enough research on this subject to be able to give an authoritive opinion. I just feel that is an obvious answer and maybe these things can be over analysed.

Good picture though, the link to the original website has got some good B-17 and Blenheim pictures as well, worth checking out.

[Ed Russell]

I have to agree - the original picture shows a repaint of a DG/DE Wellington with some fresh DE/DG.

It's a human characteristic to look for things new and exciting as distinct from the perceived wisdom. Unfortunately black and white photos, degraded colour photos, 70+ year old memories of the real thing and "they might have made a mistake in the documents" are not always very good evidence. I think the application of Ockham's lex parsimoniae (Occam's Razor) has a lot to commend it in this as in many problems.

[Knight_Flyer]

I have to concur Ed and is one reason why I don't solely look at b/w photos or degraded colour ones not to mention that lighting conditions does have an effect on colour shading or tone. Ideally, as much research as possible should be done to make an "informed" decision. However sometimes the historical evidence isn't enough to give a definitive answer and it's down to the modeller painting the model to his liking.

[mhaselden]

It's not just lighting but also the proximity of other colours as well as individual (ie personal) colour sensitivity that will affect our perception of other colours. To show how adjacent colours can impact perception, check out this post from some time ago - a great example from Nick Millman on how the same colour can be perceived differently. As to personal colour perception, I find a slight difference between my left eye and my right eye in how colours appear. Add to that the numerous photographic/imagery changes that can be applied at the camera, in the dark room, during scanning or even on display monitors. Then there's the impact of weathering, chalking, dust/dirt, oil, fuel spillage...all of which can impact the perceived shade, indeed can change the tone quite markedly. There can be (but not always is) a marked difference between the paint shade that was applied and the colour we perceive when looking at the subject.

Bottom line here is that all photos, colour and monochrome, can only provide a guide to the colours applied to a specific airframe. Imagery needs to be used judiciously in concert with other sources to determine our best guess at what colours were applied...and then we need to make another judgement call as how best to represent that on a scale model (scale colour anyone?). There are always exceptions to the rules for camouflage but that doesn't mean such exceptions were commonplace. Certainly in forward areas or remote locations, once can see the need for local adaptation. Indeed, shortage of paint may result in very ad hoc schemes being applied on the "mejor que nada" (better than nothing) principle - ie it's better to have an aircraft in the air than sitting in a hangar. However, we need to be very careful of looking for exceptions everywhere. Exceptions are just that...one-off or highly unusual local adaptations based on expediency or some other criteria.

[NPL]

Well, you could begin with the colours as specified by the Colour Standards of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and work your way from there.

Secondly, you could try to see what happens when you put a foto into a program like GIMP and begin to sharpen and manipulate it. It will tell you something about variables, and how easily colours are changing and make you better understand why an official colour under special circumstances may look quite different. It is very much what happens under different climatic circumstances, the wear of time, etc. etc.

Then it is up to individual taste whether you want, as modeller, to reproduce a foto, or -- should I say -- the real thing. If you want to go against regulations, there must be very good reasons for it (remembereing, e.g., the discussion about the blue overpaint of Malta Spitfires).

How colours may change on fotos according to the light conditions when taken: Have a look at the various fotographical renditions of PRU blue. Very few examples look like the official colour chip.

[mhaselden]

Well, you could begin with the colours as specified by the Colour Standards of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, and work your way from there.

Yep, that's one of the "other sources" we should all be using.

Secondly, you could try to see what happens when you put a foto into a program like GIMP and begin to sharpen and manipulate it. It will tell you something about variables, and how easily colours are changing and make you better understand why an official colour under special circumstances may look quite different. It is very much what happens under different climatic circumstances, the wear of time, etc. etc.

You could do that but it's something of a pot-luck approach. Trying to find the right colour balance to make things like skin, sky and grass look "right" still leaves sufficient margin of error for there to be considerable differences between the colours in the image and reality. The sky itself has a highly variable palette, and overuse of a blue filter when the weather on the day is more hazy may make the sky look "right" but leave other parts of the image with incorrect hues.

[NPL]

Yep, that's one of the "other sources" we should all be using.

You could do that but it's something of a pot-luck approach. Trying to find the right colour balance to make things like skin, sky and grass look "right" still leaves sufficient margin of error for there to be considerable differences between the colours in the image and reality. The sky itself has a highly variable palette, and overuse of a blue filter when the weather on the day is more hazy may make the sky look "right" but leave other parts of the image with incorrect hues.

Absolutely, although you can in the program reduce the blue effects, even eliminate them. I didn't say that it is possible to recreate the original colours; only that it is easy to manipulate the colours on any foto.

So, basically, it is about what you want: a reproduction of an old foto, or a reproduction of the original model for the foto. And my point was: If you begin with the regulations, and work from there, you are more likely to come closer to the original.

[occa]

Just a thought:

What if the AC in the OP (except the starboard wing) is in (albeit bleached) TSS ?

The Blenheims in the same series are all in TSS so why not the Wellington too ?

[NPL]

Just a thought:

What if the AC in the OP (except the starboard wing) is in (albeit bleached) TSS ?

The Blenheims in the same series are all in TSS so why not the Wellington too ?

Now I am getting confused. I think you mean Temperate sea scheme camouflage. A.926 says: consists of two colours, DARK Grey and EXTRA DARK SEA GREY. Another look at the Wellington will have problems identifying these two colours. The worn colours seem definitely DARK GREEN & DARK EARTH, as they should be. The cleanness of the right wing seems a little suspicious; the dark earth being much too light. It is rather light earth. Did somebody ran out of the right colour?

I do not hope that my reference is wrong, it's from British Aviation Colours of World War Two, RAF Museum series, 3. 1976.

[occa]

Now I am getting confused. I think you mean Temperate sea scheme camouflage. A.926 says: consists of two colours, DARK Grey and EXTRA DARK SEA GREY. Another look at the Wellington will have problems identifying these two colours. The worn colours seem definitely DARK GREEN & DARK EARTH, as they should be. The cleanness of the right wing seems a little suspicious; the dark earth being much too light. It is rather light earth. Did somebody ran out of the right colour?

I do not hope that my reference is wrong, it's from British Aviation Colours of World War Two, RAF Museum series, 3. 1976.

Yeah I was supposing it too from the beginning that the right wing is LE/LG but most claim it is impossible cause of regulations and rules and all that ... I am quite confused too lol.

Btw TSS consists of extra dark sea grey and dark slate grey, the latter is a yellowish green grey, an olive grey a bit like live drab when fresh. It's not the first time that that scheme has been confused with DE/DG like on that infamous shot of FAA Hurricanes and Spitfires in flight.

My humble opinion of course, I am aware that it is not 100 % certain to determine if it's ^^ TSS or TLS ...

Tho wearing the late war roundels it hints to that they are in TSS

This photo was already discussed on britmodeller but as usual there was no consensus reached ...

[NPL]

I have no problems with the foto of the Spits and Hurries .. definitely dark green and dark earth. Open it in GIMP, and use the colour balance facility, and it becomes clear.

As to the TSS, the 1940 regulation says, as I quoted, dark grey and dark sea grey. But if I look after it at the colour chart included there is a lot of greys, but nothing called 'dark grey'. It could be the dark slate grey, which you refer to. The 1942 regulation, also printed in the volume, which I referred to, says sark slate grey and extra dark sea grey. I guess that they corrected the text of the 1940 regulation.

Pace Edgar, maybe they shot the painter who painted this wing on the Wellington.

[occa]

Hello All,

Occa, I'm with you...(hope that's not your forum 'kiss of death') but since this thread has already died down, my butting in shouldn't disaffect the discussion much further.....

I saw the same with the nacelle being the 'same' colors as the opposite wing/nacelle, but we're the ones with the poor color perception. Obviously, one starts with the service color standards, and since we know Bomber Command had a LE/LG standard, though it's assumed to have been limited to the Grand Slam attack Lancasters, in that photo we have a definite anomaly that doesn't fit that established paradigm. So, we obviously ignore what's before our eyes? Remember the arguments that your photo of a Grumman hanger caused? We were obviously wrong to even assume that Grumman might have used the USN blue-gray on the FAA Martlets in lieu of a possible shortage of the new sea gray. You will recall the many shouts of "Grumman only used..." you name the paints, when we know they didn't even when allegedly bound by contract. (Gloss Willow Green was not a camouflage color!)

Sorry, pet peeve digression....

It seems if some want to see DE/DG when it's clearly not, or so you and I believe, well, I guess we all see what we want; so back to square one...?

Maybe I should have just continued lurking on this one....

Cheerio!

Sorry expositor for responding this late ...

You have some ponts there, obviously many don't dare looking closer and study even a good quality color photo cause the regulations (<--- can only be those that are already known so far) are more important to them.

On the other side I am not always right either, such is life.

Cheers !!

[occa]

I have no problems with the foto of the Spits and Hurries .. definitely dark green and dark earth. Open it in GIMP, and use the colour balance facility, and it becomes clear.

As to the TSS, the 1940 regulation says, as I quoted, dark grey and dark sea grey. But if I look after it at the colour chart included there is a lot of greys, but nothing called 'dark grey'. It could be the dark slate grey, which you refer to. The 1942 regulation, also printed in the volume, which I referred to, says sark slate grey and extra dark sea grey. I guess that they corrected the text of the 1940 regulation.

Pace Edgar, maybe they shot the painter who painted this wing on the Wellington.

Yes, I think I heard that is was an ommision that made dark grey out of dark slate grey in the 1940 issue of the regulations ... they meant the same colour ...

[mhaselden]

Sorry expositor for responding this late ...

You have some ponts there, obviously many don't dare looking closer and study even a good quality color photo cause the regulations (<--- can only be those that are already known so far) are more important to them.

On the other side I am not always right either, such is life.

Cheers !!

Occa,

I think you're being a tad unfair. It's a question of taking a balanced view of all available evidence. You criticize those who cite documentary evidence in favour of imagery but are you not doing the same thing in reverse (ie citing imagery in preference to documentary evidence)?

Taking the Lancaster pic as an example, it's clearly a shot of a pre-delivery test flight. Any change from DE to LE at the factories, either due to a shortage of DE or because of some change to required camouflage patterns, would surely have been documented and the likelihood of it not surviving in at least one file is extremely low. Those files have been pored over for years by many people so, again, the likelihood of it remaining unseen is also extremely low. Despite what we see with our eyes, the most plausible explanation is that it's just a normal Lancaster.

As for the Wellington in the OP, clearly the starboard wing has been repainted but, again, one has to ask what is the most plausible explanation for the shade we're seeing? Is it the exceptional application of LE or just unusual lighting (or changes made to the image over time) that have brightened the image to make the DE seem more like LE? This is clearly a well-worn operational Wellingon probably taken at its home base. Given the prevalence of DE across the RAF from 1938 onwards, is it realistic to believe that they had a shortage of DE and enough LE (which wasn't even needed for Wellingtons) at such an airfield in the UK? Overseas may be different, particularly at locations where biplanes were or had been operated, but the balance of evidence would strongly suggest that we're just looking at a bog standard Wellington.

Clearly, there were exceptions to the rules, particularly in more remote areas or in second-line units operating a mix of hand-me-down aircraft. New information is also coming to light - the LIFE archive images of 27 Sqn Blenheims in Singapore being a classic example of a step-change in understanding the markings applied to those airframes...and it's a theatre where wartime documentation is lacking due to the subsequent loss of Singapore. The same is not true for the UK so we need to be very careful about seeing exceptions for mainstream aircraft types operating in usual environments. If we are to posit an exception, then there ought to be a plausible explanation for why it occurred but I'm really struggling to find such a plausible explanation for either the Wellington or the Lancaster pics shown in this thread.

Just my two penn'orth.

Cheers,

Mark

Edited August 18, 2015 by mhaselden

[expositor]

Gents,

Both sides of this mentioned reg's; the extent to which the MAP or RAF went to apply the LE/LG standard to planes other than the Grand Slam Lanc's is the question. In that light, the anomalous photo in question can reasonably lead one to consider the use of those colors on other bombing aircraft, or at least a Wellington. Again, one must consider the faded, chalked colors of the engine nacelle of the starboard wing in relation to fresh(er?) colors of the wing's surface. How many fresh colors are glaringly lighter than a faded coat of the same color? I don't pretend expertise in paint pigments and the effects of wear and sunlight, but can a tan and green as light as those in the photo in question wear, fade, and chalk to much darker shades??? We all get the idea re: erroneous photo conclusions; hell I can't forget how wrong I was with the G-36A photo in the Detail and Scale book that was poorly reproduced, until the accurate color photo was posted here by Occa and GB....

Apparently, this thread will have a conclusion similar to the one re: the Hurricanes; agreement to disagree, hopefully sans insults.

Cheers to All!

[mhaselden]

Gents,

Both sides of this mentioned reg's; the extent to which the MAP or RAF went to apply the LE/LG standard to planes other than the Grand Slam Lanc's is the question. In that light, the anomalous photo in question can reasonably lead one to consider the use of those colors on other bombing aircraft, or at least a Wellington. Again, one must consider the faded, chalked colors of the engine nacelle of the starboard wing in relation to fresh(er?) colors of the wing's surface. How many fresh colors are glaringly lighter than a faded coat of the same color? I don't pretend expertise in paint pigments and the effects of wear and sunlight, but can a tan and green as light as those in the photo in question wear, fade, and chalk to much darker shades??? We all get the idea re: erroneous photo conclusions; hell I can't forget how wrong I was with the G-36A photo in the Detail and Scale book that was poorly reproduced, until the accurate color photo was posted here by Occa and GB....

Apparently, this thread will have a conclusion similar to the one re: the Hurricanes; agreement to disagree, hopefully sans insults.

Cheers to All!

Fading and chalking may not be the only weathering actions in play on this airframe. There could also be exhaust and oil staining in the vicinity of the engines (where the darkest tones are visible). Plus there are always differences between batches of paints. Again, why would an operational Wellington base have stocks of LE available? It's not a shade that would be needed based on the MAP regs of the time. So, again, we're left with a lack of plausible explanation other than "it looks different".

I'd also like to point out that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone...my previous post was all about balance of probabilities for what constitutes the most plausible explanation for what we're apparently seeing. I'm offering opinions based on my personal study of the subject, including primary source material, my experience analysing various types of imagery, and my knowledge of military procedures.

Edited August 19, 2015 by mhaselden

[Nick Millman]

Fading and chalking by their very nature tend towards lightening the appearance of the paint colour. Darkening tends to be the result of pigment colour shift (from a number of causes) but can also be caused by heat or staining from surface films like oil or polish.

Dark Earth lives up to its designation as far as the MAP standard for it goes, being dark. It had a reflectivity of about 13%, roughly half the reflectivity of Mid Stone by way of comparison.

The port wing surface, fuselage top, tailplanes and extreme right Dark Green segment on the starboard wing appear to be chalked - the variegated chalky greyish patina can be clearly discerned - suggesting an older coating. Whilst the main part of the starboard wing appears to be freshly doped I have no explanation as to why the colours appear so light compared to the expected appearance of standard Dark Green and Dark Earth.

Nick

[noelh]

"Whilst the main part of the starboard wing appears to be freshly doped I have no explanation as to why the colours appear so light compared to the expected appearance of standard Dark Green and Dark Earth."

Perhaps because the paint is new and clean and because the photo was taken on a bright sunny day with a 1940s camera using 1940s film, 73 years ago which has now been reproduced on a website to be viewed on a screen made up of millions of pixels of data? But even with modern digital cameras you can see the same effect particularly when the photo is taken on bright days.

It's a pity Robert Capa didn't take another shot of the wing from a slightly different angle. He did take other shots of the Wellington which shows it to be a very tired and dirty aircraft that had seen a bit of service. Maybe he did and perhaps Magnum might still have other shots in the sequence that they didn't think were fit to display. Indeed they probably have the original slide in their collection.

But my own view remains. The paint on the wing is new and clean DE/DG. The paint on the rest of the aircraft appears darker simply because of the ingrained muck built up from operating in the coal fired sooty atmosphere of 1940s Europe. As someone earlier pointed out in this thread it's hard nowadays to imagine how sooty the atmosphere was back then. Many is the housewife who found to her dismay that her carefully washed whites were ruined after a rain shower. That's the air the Wellington spent much of it's time traversing. It's dirty, simple as that. The new paint no doubt was just as bad a few weeks later.

To me the biggest argument against the use of the lighter colours is the simple lack of documentary evidence and indeed the lack of witness evidence. To look at that picture and the Halifax and indeed the colour photos of the Hurricanes in the other thread you would imagine that the use of these lighter colours was widespread. I think someone would have noticed. You might then expect a terse note or two in the records somewhere from someone in officialdom mentioning this issue or perhaps a message from a factory or squadron asking for new stocks of DG/DE while stating they were having to use LG/LE in the meantime.

But there's nothing. Just a few colour photos taken on a sunny day that appears to show lighter colours.

It wouldn't stand up in a court of law. That's for sure.

[ejboyd5]

the gun barrels are wrapped in white cloth, as it a test flight.

EDIT

Lancaster showing same wrapping, on a test flight.

Note unpainted or perhaps taped fuselage joints, right now I can't recall the details of this.

This is a beautiful photograph which I had not had seen before - thanks for sharing.

[Charlie Hugo]

Looking at the Wellington picture from this site I would say you are looking at standard Dark Earth and Dark Green, just extremely fresh.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/havent-seen-99-of-these-before-34-great-colour-images-of-warbirds.html/3

[Max Headroom]

Looking at the Wellington picture from this site I would say you are looking at standard Dark Earth and Dark Green, just extremely fresh.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/havent-seen-99-of-these-before-34-great-colour-images-of-warbirds.html/3

Some wonderful photos thre, thanks for sharing.

Trevor

[occa]

May I point out that fresh DG/DE paint once dried should be much darker ?

May I also repeat that the original faded and chalked paint on the left wing is mostly still darker (except where it has worn off) than the fresh colors on the right wing ?

The enigma of the fresh paint cannot just be fixed by claiming 'it must be therefore it is' ...

I'll leave it at this ... it has been repeated by others too.

Cheers guys, I am out of this thread

Looking at the Wellington picture from this site I would say you are looking at standard Dark Earth and Dark Green, just extremely fresh.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/havent-seen-99-of-these-before-34-great-colour-images-of-warbirds.html/3

[sanguin]

Gentlemen,

I have spent some hours fruitlessly seeking the Britmodeller link where I found some remarkable informaation from Edgar that just may be helpful in this discussion.

When It appeared I copied information from two documents from it and now have failed to find them again.

However, this link provides a clue:

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/76391-raf-late-war-camoflage/page-3

Nick Millman refers to the first document from WR Merton on 17th Sept 1942 about 'chalking' on a Whitely bomber and asking for Dr J E Ramsbottom at RAE to look at one on loan from 612 squadron currently at the RAE.

This referred to repainting a small part of a 'chalked' upper surface TSS camouflage scheme and its markedly increased reflectivity.

The response from Ramsbottom on the 25th September noted that the fading was indedd due to 'chalking' but also pointed out that washing with soapy water and a stiff brush followed by rinsing with fresh water restored the original finish BUT the original paintwork had whitened considerably. The dark Slate grey was between the original colour and Light Slate Frey and the Extra Dark Sea Grey was nearer to Dark Sea Grey.

This was on Whitley Z9377, WL-M of 612 Squadron.

How relevant this is to a canvas-covered Wellington wing I cannot say, but the finding is interesting and may well account for some of the variations in colour/hue/tone seen within a singlre print.

Does this help or hinder? Clarify or confuse? You decide.

John

[Edgar]

I have spent some hours fruitlessly seeking the Britmodeller link where I found some remarkable informaation from Edgar that just may be helpful in this discussion.

When It appeared I copied information from two documents from it and now have failed to find them again.

The enquiry:-

The response:-

Perhaps I can now point out that no researcher, worthy of the name, will base his writings on a single source (like a photo,) but will try to find confirmation in other sources. Since the war, dozens of books, and hundreds of articles, have been written on the subject of aircraft colours, many by men who were there, and physically inspected airframes. If you don't have their books, I recommend getting as many as you can; I still have some by Bruce Roberton, Michael Bowyer, Alan Hall, Ted Hooton, James Goulding, Bob Jones (first IPMS President,) the RAF Museum, and not one of them contains a single reference to wrongly painted aircraft. Ian Huntley visited our club, many years ago, and brought his collection of fragments collected from crashed aircraft; he never mentioned seeing any "wrongly painted" aircraft.

I don't claim to have any definitive answers (definitely not a wise way to go,) but you might like to consider a few facts. Spares were ordered to be delivered in primer, but unpainted; at the start of the war this meant silver doped, but, at some stage, the silver was dropped, and only red was used. If the spare wing, on that Wellington, was still silver, what difference would it make to the top coats in bright sunshine?

In Autumn 1942, Supermarine found the ideal (at the time) paint (a synthetic type) which was smooth and matt, so Spitfires were painted with it, swiftly followed by Hawker (Typhoon) and Bristol (Beaufighter,) then bombers. Post-war, it was quickly dropped, in favour of other synthetic paints, due to its propensity to chalk and fade badly (giving rise to the daft idea that Spitfire were painted in two greens and two greys on their top surfaces.)

Regarding the Light Green/Light Earth/Ocean Grey on the Grand Slam Lancasters, I feel that there is a likelihood that, somewhere, there is correspondence on it, but I've yet to find it. I do have copies of 617's request to repaint the undersides of Tallboy aircraft, and the response allowing them to use Sea Grey Medium.

Finally, I would like to point out that I've also spent 50+ years talking to groundcrew and factory workers, and not one has said that they disobeyed orders, and used whatever paint they fancied.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Edgar

[NPL]

Edgar,

That should settle it. Then it is up to some wizzard to try to manipulate the colours, e.g., the chips in the RAF colour book, to see how they develop under different circumstances. It should be possible and would explain some of the mysteries which may not be mysteries at all.