Boulton Paul Defiant May 1940 colour scheme

[Graham Boak]

I don't have access to Google Drive - there is some confusion over another account that I have access to.

 

I suggest that the most thorough account of these markings is to be found in Paul Lucas's "The Battle Of Britain - RAF May to December 1940", from Guideline Publications, as No.2 in their Camouflage and Markings series.  Paul spends pages 16,17, 24 and 25 on the subject (the intermediate pages are artwork) describing how the idea was first raised by Dowding on 10th May 1937, an initial experiment authorised on 28th July 1937, further trials on 50 Hurricanes advised January 8th 1938.  However Hawkers only painted the outer wing panels, which lead to objections despite Fighter Command being enthusiastic, and on 23rd September 1938 requested that all their fighters should be so painted. This however lead to other problems concerning the painting of ailerons, so on the 20th December 1939 manufacturers were instructed to paint all their airfames, including ailerons, this way on the production line.  This is only a summary of his work, omitting much of the details of correspondence in this period.  However, after Dowding's original suggestion of Aluminium and black, there is nowhere any suggestion of anything other than black and white.  It seems that Night and White were used, although the Air Ministry did have a Black in their paint catalogues.  This scheme was retained until the adoption of Sky undersides on June 6th 1940.

 

Which is quite another barrel of worms, especially for those relying upon old sources!  Or indeed some of Paul's extrapolations in this work.  However he does mention Sky Grey as being found on the underside of two Spitfires lost in the Battle of Britain and dug up in recent years.  His partner in this study Neil Robinson told me that they had also found that all Spitfire tailwheel legs were in Sky Grey but, as  Edgar Brooks pointed out, at least one of the primer greys used by Supermarine and their subcontractors looked very much like Sky Grey.  So there must be legitimate doubt on this.  Not that it has anything to do with fighters in France, but it helps fill out the story of any RAF dalliance with Sky Grey.

[Arcticflyer]

13 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't have access to Google Drive - there is some confusion over another account that I have access to.

 

I suggest that the most thorough account of these markings is to be found in Paul Lucas's "The Battle Of Britain - RAF May to December 1940", from Guideline Publications, as No.2 in their Camouflage and Markings series.  Paul spends pages 16,17, 24 and 25 on the subject (the intermediate pages are artwork) describing how the idea was first raised by Dowding on 10th May 1937, an initial experiment authorised on 28th July 1937, further trials on 50 Hurricanes advised January 8th 1938.  However Hawkers only painted the outer wing panels, which lead to objections despite Fighter Command being enthusiastic, and on 23rd September 1938 requested that all their fighters should be so painted. This however lead to other problems concerning the painting of ailerons, so on the 20th December 1939 manufacturers were instructed to paint all their airfames, including ailerons, this way on the production line.  This is only a summary of his work, omitting much of the details of correspondence in this period.  However, after Dowding's original suggestion of Aluminium and black, there is nowhere any suggestion of anything other than black and white.  It seems that Night and White were used, although the Air Ministry did have a Black in their paint catalogues.  This scheme was retained until the adoption of Sky undersides on June 6th 1940.

 

Which is quite another barrel of worms, especially for those relying upon old sources!  Or indeed some of Paul's extrapolations in this work.  However he does mention Sky Grey as being found on the underside of two Spitfires lost in the Battle of Britain and dug up in recent years.  His partner in this study Neil Robinson told me that they had also found that all Spitfire tailwheel legs were in Sky Grey but, as  Edgar Brooks pointed out, at least one of the primer greys used by Supermarine and their subcontractors looked very much like Sky Grey.  So there must be legitimate doubt on this.  Not that it has anything to do with fighters in France, but it helps fill out the story of any RAF dalliance with Sky Grey.

I agree with all of this except for the specification of 'white', does anyone have access to Air Min documents saying 'white' please? Btw I'm trying to post the actual pictures, please bear with me... 

[Arcticflyer]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fChrtmyFUNgDbDOX23RPqcLY_TIwmNHh/view?usp=drivesdk

[Troy Smith]

7 minutes ago, Arcticflyer said:

Oops, please try now, let me know if still not working...thanks 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

I don't have access to Google Drive - there is some confusion over another account that I have access to.

 

 

Which is quite another barrel of worms, especially for those relying upon old sources!  Or indeed some of Paul's extrapolations in this work.  However he does mention Sky Grey as being found on the underside of two Spitfires lost in the Battle of Britain and dug up in recent years.  His partner in this study Neil Robinson told me that they had also found that all Spitfire tailwheel legs were in Sky Grey but, as  Edgar Brooks pointed out, at least one of the primer greys used by Supermarine and their subcontractors looked very much like Sky Grey.  So there must be legitimate doubt on this.  Not that it has anything to do with fighters in France, but it helps fill out the story of any RAF dalliance with Sky Grey.

 

Aircraft of the Fighting Powers are really not to be relied on for colour information,  as these would be based on observations,  as the relevant documents on camouflage I presume were still secret at the time.

The google drive says you need a reader, or to download.  

 

Posting the relevant pages would help,  but as I suggested before,  "very pale grey" is most likely discoloured white, as white was the specified colour.

 

As Graham mentions, the only recorded change to underside colour pre the introduction of Sky, was that of some Hurricanes in France,  

2 minutes ago, Arcticflyer said:

I agree with all of this except for the specification of 'white', does anyone have access to Air Min documents saying 'white' please? Btw I'm trying to post the actual pictures, please bear with me... 

 

 

 

[Troy Smith]

4 minutes ago, Arcticflyer said:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fChrtmyFUNgDbDOX23RPqcLY_TIwmNHh/view?usp=drivesdk

 

 

from 1941, while everything since says that the specified colours were Night and White,  contemporary accounts also talk about the problems of the Night/White scheme

 

OK Hurricane France, Lille Seclin,  note the roundel white is the same tone as the underside

 

from

 

more specifically

which has a load of links

 

there is a thread on the new defeucnt Luftwaffe Experten message Board which had a load of wrecked hurricane in France

eg

 

 

compare roundel to undersides

 

the other side

 

 

 

compare underwing roundel tones to underside

and

note aluminium under nose, and clearly lit starboard wing, roundel same tone as wing.

another 

 

 

 

another wreck

 

 

 

 

for comparison

a wrecked Mk.I trop

 

 

 

LEMB thread

https://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-capturedwrecked-hawker-hurricanes/&page=4

 

 

I have not seen a photo of a Hurricane in France with a Night port wing that does not have a White starboard wing,  and when cleary illuminated with a roundel visible,  to be anything other than white.

 

HTH

 

[Graham Boak]

White is not included as a camouflage colour in the AM's original colour card of February 1939, and so can be assumed to be just what it says - I've not seen any suggestion otherwise.  In comparison, Night (which isn't a pure black but is usually referred to as "black") is included in this list.  Had there been some kind of "Camouflage White" this would have been included.  Wherever white is mentioned with a reference it is the same as the prewar paint, and there's no suggestion of RAF prewar roundels being Red, Sky Grey, and Blue.

 

I have however found a reference in Lucas's book showing that he was aware of reports of light grey undersides instead of white, specifically on p53 where he is discussing which other colours were found on wrecks from the BoB period.  Of the 18 aircraft in his published list, two are said to have had Sky Grey undersides and another two unidentified examples of starboard ailerons identified as Sky Grey (out of an unspecified number).   Previous qualifications hold - though in all fairness presumably fabric would have a different (red?) primer.  However the accompanying photo (12 on the back page) is not convincing, at least to me.  It may be more convincing in reality.  Of course these are all from the period when the b&w undersides had been superseded by a single underside colour, but they do reflect possibilities for confusion and suggest strongly that at least some RAF organisations had access to Sky Grey, despite its lack of any official application.

 

I believe that reports of a light grey in France are likelier to refer to the common under-fuselage Aluminium, with the references to the Defiants as being similar or just plain wrong.  However, it is best not be be too dismissive of anecdotal reports of camouflage variations: some (many?) were very dismissive of non-Sky undersides in the BoB yet this is precisely what the wreck recovery has found.  With regard to Troy's photographs of undersides in the BoF: they also show no sign of any other underside colour, despite the stated evidence otherwise.  If a photo did appear showing contrast between the white of the roundel and an darker underside colour, would this be evidence of Sky Grey or the reported light blue?  So far, there's no sign of either, but distinguishing between the two on a b&w photo would be beyond me.  Somewhere back in earlier postings Nick Millman has quoted the reflectivities of Sky, Sky Grey and Sky Blue, but other than by direct comparison on the same photo, that'd be difficult to discern.

[Arcticflyer]

Thanks guys but the trouble is I have more references in my other book and  both books are contemporary, one written in 1941 and one the 1966 reprint of a 1954 book...  these are written by people who were there, not interpretations of photos ! I agree the colour is very pale , but is it white, or actually very pale grey! Hence asking for the actual AM directive.... there are a number of links to follow... ( does anyone know how to get these to show as pictures rather than links?) 

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1keW9_t7hSABfIVKOSsA6tZ8L0xv0qbgH/view?usp=drivesdk

[Arcticflyer]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HV2B3sJ9jtKwXxUyilb1QPAKPoqg4A3C/view?usp=drivesdk

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e1W-EjvWKf6YPdymcWxDBOyE2qZg4ySi/view?usp=drivesdk

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1stXPMYFtq2ukWbLCmamfaTmzpqqzn0OO/view?usp=drivesdk

[Graham Boak]

Don't put too much credit on what was available at the time.  Other than direct observation, such as reported in Mike Bowyer's books, the comments do not come from people who were actually were there - other than being on the same planet.  Even those who actually saw and later reported were rarely in a position to know the correct colours as specified and available, let alone what was used.  They were not allowed to write and publish freely.  There was only a small amount of information available for them to use, and what was available tended to be out of date when published.  I would point out here that in Mike Bowyer's Fighting Colours, for a long time the fullest source and collated almost entirely from direct observation by himself and a group of enthusiasts (mainly in the Observer Corps), he writes of black and white undersides.  They are not a new innovation: this is knowledge of long standing and backed by thorough research into original documentation as well as reports by observers at the time.  It is not based on a single observation made by one person and copied ever after.  

 

To pick out one point on what you have linked to (I have been able to read most of them now) the rudder stripes were not on all fighters in France, only those of the Advanced Air Striking Force.  501 Sq was not  an exception because they didn't have time to add them, they were the norm.  This is known now - it wasn't then.  This is but one example of many.  Alongside their genuine value, early works contain a lot of similar errors that are there not because earlier writers were stupid, but because they simply did not have the resources available to inform, check against and confirm their writing.  Many  participants had yet to write their stories.  Official sources were closed, and official publications often misleading.  Historians had yet to get access to valuable sources as unit diaries and signals.  Later writers have built on the foundations the pioneers provided, but much of what was published in the war and in the decade or so after was riddled with myth, errors and exaggerations.  Not to mention PR puff from the companies.  The Stirling's wingspan was not restricted by Bomber Command's hangar doors.  The unarmed bomber was not an invention springing afresh from the brow of a De Havilland designer.  Often what was said in one place was taken as fact and repeated until it became gospel.

 

If balance is necessary, there are times where earlier writings are correct and errors have been introduced later - I can quote deepened bomb-bays on torpedo-bomber Hampdens as one such myth arising, it seems from modelling sources, and then repeated.  On the official side there is the OHMS publication on the Fleet Air Arm which talks of a cannon-armed Sea Hurricane Mk.1 on Operation Pedestal, and the much-published author, a Hawker specialist of considerable standing, who wrote of 100 such SH Mk.1Cs.   (Not, to be fair, all on Pedestal!)

 

No sources are perfect, and all must be checked against others.  These will tell you that Sky Grey, the lightest grey available to the RAF, was not a very pale grey, merely a light one.  Sky Grey is darker than Sky, which can be readily contrasted with white.  That the official instructions (plural sources) called for White.  That observers saw white.  That there was only one shade of White paint available in aircraft-standard colours during WW2 and before.   This comes not from just a single book or even  multiple books of uncertain research on this point  (not every aeronautical writer, even among quality ones, specialises in camouflage colours), but a network of information from differing sources that fit together.

 

When it comes to making a model, you are of course free to paint it whatever you wish.  But to rewrite the current version of history (black/white wings) in favour of an older one (black/light grey) will need much more than a few quotations and an unsupported supposition.  If you can go researching and find much more, then good.  Really good, that's how historical accounts move on.  Until then, Occam's Razor (the most parsimonious explanation of all the facts is most likely to be correct) suggests that black/white has much more in its favour.

[Arcticflyer]

Graham, thank you but I fear you are being too dimissive of precisely the research you suggest that I could do! I too have read a great number of narrative accounts that say Black and White, most recently in a transcript from a downed pilot that was astonished to discover that the GHQ of the BEF didn't even know that the B/W paint scheme meant it was a British plane! The trouble with reading my excerpts is that you dont have the whole thing. You've misinterpreted the observation about 501 Sqn and rudder stripes, it doesn't say 501 were an exception, it says exactly as you do, that none of the 'English-based and sent to France daily' sqns had chance to repaint to match those planes of the AAC.  And none of what you have presented is evidence! I have given you two sources that are far more contemporary than Michael Bowyer's 1975 book. It's not sensible and actually borders on rude to  claim that Aircraft of the Fighting Powers was written "by someone on the same planet".. it is published in Leicester on 1st Jan 1941 with the BoB only  just finished and the Blitz still raging! (and Michael Bowyer is just a child). The authors' experience of the war is a damn sight closer than ours will ever be and the only research needed was to step outside and look! Beneath is the link to the introduction to my other source, that too is not some kiddies book but a serious publication, 20yrs closer to the war and well researched too.

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aIBw-urj20_anMoCsK-CfLtSeVda6f-F/view?usp=drivesdk

The point is that here are two sources, one from only six months after the period in question, that both independently say the same thing... am I to believe that despite getting all their other facts and figures right, they have both got this totally wrong and just made it up? I don't think so. So I go back to my original request..  does anyone have an actual copy of the original Air Ministry instruction? 

[Troy Smith]

 

 

1 hour ago, Arcticflyer said:

am I to believe that despite getting all their other facts and figures right, they have both got this totally wrong and just made it up? I don't think

 

Just because they get other information correct,  does not mean they are always correct.  I don't have Aircraft for the Fighting Powers Vol.1,  but there will be lost of information in there that is no known to be incorrect. 

 

They say 'very pale grey'  everyone else says white.  

 

But If you don't know it's supposed to be white, and see in service aircraft with discoloured white underside, which then looks like it's a very pale grey, then 'very pale grey'  it's an accurate observation, but that still does not mean the paint applied when fresh was 'very pale grey' however it appears to an observer at the time.

Re the 1941 book, I very much doubt the authors of AOTFP had access to AM memos on colour, OK, for ease of reference

 

Lets have a look from a detail and accuracy perspective.

 

Shadow shaded. No mention of  colours at all.

 

"No Markings of any description kind beneath the wings" 

 

Please find me a photo of a Hurricane based in France in 1939 to May 1940  without underwing roundels.  

 

This detail alone should be enough to cast doubt on the accuracy of the other details, and however much you wish to debate,

1 hour ago, Arcticflyer said:

The authors' experience of the war is a damn sight closer than ours will ever be and the only research needed was to step outside and look!

And they can't see underwing roundels? 

 

 

One Squadron has code letters "LK" in front of cockade, individual letter behind.

except on the starboard side, when they run the other way

 

I assume the next bit that no stripes were carried on the fin. Plenty of photos of that.

 

There you go, gone over carefully there will be many details that will be contradicted by more recent research.  Which  have been  verified by photographs and/or documents.

I have demonstrated the period account is not to be trusted in several aspects, and lacks detail in others.

 

There have been very lengthy debates here on what colours were supposed to be, and how they appeared in service, and there is masses of evidence of how colours change in service, but also how colours matched standards when first applied. 

 

Also,  I posted photos of SIX different Battle of France Hurricanes,  with the undersides illuminated enough that the white ring of the roundel is visible, and there is no difference in grey tone between that white ring and the undersides, except for stain and discolouration, on a random selection of aircraft.

that is seen clearly on all six airframes,  taken on eight different cameras, in differing light conditions and films.

 

what is shown is what you would expect if the underside is white, it look the same as the roundel white ring.

 

Please find a photo of a BOF France Hurricane showing the starboard wing to appear a different tone than the roundel white ring.
note, we are now also spoiled for photos, apart from the first IWM shot, the rest are all from private German sources, which have only become available since Germans started selling off private photo albums on ebay.

the most startling aspect is how uniform the appearance is.

another

 

If they are a very pale grey, then it is a very pale grey, so pale it appears the same as something that even you cannot argue is white, the roundel.

 

Finally,  if this is a 'very pale grey'  why is there no reference to this colour being used, where is the stores reference, and the relevant AM order to Hawker to use a very pale grey.

Are you saying also that Spitfires are very pale grey and not white? 

Again,  there will be a stores reference for White.   

here's a chart of RAF WW2, from the RAF museum reprint of the British Aircraft Colours

 

No very pale grey.

 

I would need to download the books and then open them up to properly see what is in them, but I suspect gone over carefully there will be many details that will be contradicted by more recent research, as I demonstrated above.

 

I'll have a go at a download of the 1954 camo book and see if I can find some more of these.

 

OK, 

 

"This resulted in RAF Squadron in France reintroducing rudder striping"

 

1 sq, yes,

73 Sq yes,

85 sq no

87 Sq, had both, stripes seem to have appeared briefly in early 1940.

Do you want me to post photos to demonstrate this?   The above statement is true, in some cases, but not all.

 

"During this critical period some units had their code letters painted out"

No, this is wrong,  

 

From photos, the only units to this were 1sq and 73 sq, and this occurred from looking at photos in the autumn of 1939.    For security, this is correct, also many cases of serail being painted out in this period, not mentioned, visible in photos, but it seems only the very first planes sent over,  later aircraft show serials.

 

If anything code letters were repainted later on in early 1940, 

this famous shot of 73 Sq shows at least one plane with the TP code

 

 

Note, at the back is "X"

again here

 

and here's "X"  a few weeks later, after the yellow outer ring is added, with "TP" added in a different style

 

It is know that this is the same "X" P2647 in all the photos.

 

2 hours ago, Arcticflyer said:

Beneath is the link to the introduction to my other source, that too is not some kiddies book but a serious publication, 20yrs closer to the war and well researched too.

And, again, it is demonstrated  that this book is also inaccurate.

 

So, to rely on either publication on a very pale grey, when it can be shown that in the specifics you quoted, there are several errors easily shown to be wrong from photographic proof, which I have posted,  that you still wish to believe in the use of a totally undocumented in any source that they undersides were 'very pale grey' while everything published since says 'white'

 

 

Hurricane mk.I by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Arcticflyer]

You miss the point, Troy; Graham said that these books were written by people who happened to be on the same planet, my point isn't that they were in France but they were in Leicester in late 1940, not that far from the factories where some of these aircraft were built, and that's a hell of lot closer than we've been! The colours of the shadow shading are stated at the beginning of the book. I'm sure all books have inaccuracies or at best state as fact things we know to be variable, such as the actual colour of Sky!  I can produce photos where undersides easily look white but we know they are actually yellow training aircraft.. and if your point that dirty white could be mistaken for grey holds true then surely pale grey could also be seen as an off-white, and when put next to black, sky grey looks pretty pale, and is on the AM chart... but you're still in visual interpretation territory and I'm looking for the AM order ... 

[Troy Smith]

 

9 minutes ago, Arcticflyer said:

but you're still in visual interpretation territory and I'm looking for the AM order ... 

you'll need to go to the public records office in Kew and see if there is one.

 

10 minutes ago, Arcticflyer said:

and if your point that dirty white could be mistaken for grey holds true then surely pale grey could also be seen as an off-white, and when put next to black, sky grey looks pretty pale, and is on the AM chart...

 

I added this in as a postscript when I was critiquing your other reference.

 

you'll write this off as visual interpretation, but please note the undercowl.

 

the books you quite have demonstrable errors,  several in each quote,  but you still insist on the veracity of the information  about a 'very pale grey' that is explainable as discoloured white, an easy mistake to  make, not forgetting the use of aluminum dope, which can appear as 'very pale grey'

Spitfire  Mk. I by Etienne du Plessis, on Flickr

 and was used in combination with Black and White, 

 

 

 

These are not training aircraft.

 

 the choices for the colour are "white" , an observed "very pale grey"  (from a writer in 1941 states that no Hurricanes in France have underwing markings, which is entirely wrong and demonstrably so) which is explainable by weathering, and an actual undocumented very pale grey which in a whole slew of photos from multiple sources appears the same as white, and none that show an actual difference. 

 

The only source for 'very pale grey' are two old books, the short excerpts you quote having a series of errors,  so why do you think they got the 'very pale grey' right while getting the other details wrong?

 

@tango98 has examined various wrecks, and he may know the AM order too.

[MilneBay]

Aluminum dope tends to weather to what appears at a distance to be a pale grey. As one gets closer the silver aspect becomes clearer. In any case B/W pics are just going to show it as a grey shade anyway, as they do every colour except black and even that on many photos will just appear as a very dark grey. 

 

    

Edited June 19, 2018 by MilneBay

[brewerjerry]

Hi

    there is some good stuff in A/c of the fighting powers books 

 

  despite the wartime censorship It was my first research lead in the 1970's,  to whirlwind fighters being used by 25 Sqn

no other books hinted at that.

 

  colours i am not an expert on a subject so deep,

 

    i saw painter mixing paint in early 1982  to what they thought would match the MOD paint colour, as it was not available in MOD stores but specified on the W/O's

 

  so I can only imagine what might have happened in WW2 with paint shades/colours 

 

   Like anything colours can only be described by what the person thinks or thought they saw.

 

 In the end its your / our own model /s so paint it how you like, there is no ministry inspector going to check it 

 

   cheers

      Jerry

   

  

 

[Mr T]

The two books that I think you are referring to are Vol 1 of 'Aircraft of the Fighting Powers' and 'Aircraft Camouflage and Markings 1907-1954'. I have both books and would not rely on them for much in terms of correct colour schemes. Partly for the reasons given by other posts, but also because the people that wrote them were general aviation writers (Owen Thetford and Bruce Robertson) rather than having a specific interest in camouflage and markings. The 'Aircraft Camouflage and Markings' book relied on a lot of material from two earlier books published in about 1942-43. The AM orders are mentioned in both the Paul Lucas book and the 'Camouflage and Markings' series as well as 'British Aviation Colours of World War Two' which should be available through your local library one way or another

During World War Two access to aircraft  and information about them was quite tightly controlled and photos of them, other than from officially sanctions sources were not allowed to be published (most shots taken by service person were theoretically illegal) and camouflage and markings schemes were seen as operationally sensitive and therefore restricted. Even the colour names were officially not part of the public domain until late in the war (Vol 5 of Aircraft of the Fighting Powers published the Air Ministry colour chart with names in late 1944, but the descriptions of camouflage and markings were still a bit off, eg day fighters in dark sea grey rather than ocean grey as still no access to official documents). I have been interested in RAF camouflage and markings for the last 50 years from the age 14 and I am still amazed by what turns up.

As Jerry says, it your model, but a delve into some of the material referred to by some of poster's will give you a feel about how aircraft were painted. There seems to be fairly tight control over how aircraft came out the factory and a lot of what happened to them after that has shown up in documents that have been uncovered by researchers from archives that are now open to the public. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Mr T
Tidying up

[Mike Starmer]

I have read this thread with great interest and concur with the results regarding documentation now available and contemporary as in Fighting Powers etc.  Since no one yet mentioned them, RAF stores reference for white:  33B/ series,  161 Gloss White DTD 260, 168/169 White, DTD 308,  343 White DTD 314 5 Gall.,   356 White.   The image of the factory line-up of Defiants was taken late 1939 when they had B type roundels.  The caption stating when particular aircraft were shot down could be misleading since it is irrelevant to the picture.  Some quotes from FP Vol. 1 might be appropriate too.  For Blenheim and Beaufort  upper surfaces are dark green and light earth, with silver underneath Beauforts and a light shade of green on Blenheims.   Defiants are green and brown on top with 'light blue in accordance with standard practice'!  Swordfish are dark green and light earth on top with light grey underneath while Rocs are shadow shaded on top and 'duck-egg' blue underneath.  Copies of the wartime magazine The Aeroplane Spotter occasionally carried colours notes in the same vein.  It was vagaries like this which made me ask in the 1950s "OK but what dark green and brown?  Thus leading to these discussions 70 years later.

[Seahawk]

17 hours ago, Arcticflyer said:

I agree with all of this except for the specification of 'white', does anyone have access to Air Min documents saying 'white' please? 

No, I don't but the document you seek would appear to be AMO A.154 "Identification Markings on Aircraft of Operational Units and Marking of Unit Equipment" dated 27 April 1939.   Graham has already drawn attention to Paul Lucas's book on camouflage and markings in the Battle of Britain period.  For the benefit of those without the book, and omitting detail on the build-up to the decision as outlined by Graham, I quote from page 25: "The change in policy from fighters in peacetime having silver undersides to having black and white undersides was made following a conference on 20 December 1938 to discuss aircraft markings, and the decisions were promulgated in AMO A.154 "Identification Markings on Aircraft of Operational Units and Marking of Unit Equipment" dated 27 April 1939.  The AMO stated that, "Fighter aircraft were not to carry the national marking on the lower surface of the wing tips, but the lower surface of the starboard mainplane and half the undersurface of the fuselage was to be painted white.  The corresponding port side was to be painted black."  This is the culmination of a number of written exchanges, all given precise dates by Mr Lucas, between the Air Ministry, Fighter Command and the manufacturers in which the discussion is invariably of black and white undersides.

 

If you are intent on seeing this document in the flesh, I imagine it could be readily tracked down via the National Archive.  Paul Lucas himself might be able to give you a steer as to the file on which it is held: you could try contacting him via the editor of Scale Aircraft Modelling magazine, in which he has a regular column.

[Arcticflyer]

Thanks Jerry and It's nice to read other views that may hint toward the answer. Troy, perhaps if your answers were less condescending you might be more convincing! My former partner is a Director of the National Archive in Kew and that may be the next step. You keep saying there's 'a slew of mistakes' but beyond our discussion of the grey/white, but your only other argument is about markings on the undersides at a period of great fluidity. Producing a colour picture of a different plane doesn't alter the fact that yellow can appear white in b/w pictures. Etienne's colour picture is certainly the beginnings of a possible answer being faded dope if there was a transitional period from all dope to the 50% black. Somewhere there is a logical answer to how two authors had this view and simply saying they're wrong is not a convincing argument.  

[gingerbob]

Have a look at AIR 2/2064 at the PRO: "Camouflage of Home Defence fighter aircraft - suggestion from Fighter Command"

 

Just one example:

76. FO1a to OR 5/11/38

            spoke FC this morning, confirmed with 111 Sqn that orders have been given for black/white, not cancelled.

The ailerons remain aluminium.

 

(Note: I was there in the olden days when I had to manually transcribe documents into my computer (or pay hefty copy charges), but I didn't change words that would alter meaning.)  There are plenty of cases where the ailerons were also painted, this was just a concern about it being done locally without proper regard for maintaining balance.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by gingerbob

[Arcticflyer]

Thank you Seahawk, now we are getting somewhere. I'm quite prepared to accept that. It still intigues me that both authors specify light grey, even if they are wrong, there must be the beginnings of a reason for doing so that went unchalleged at least until 1966 and through six reprints! ... It makes me laugh that Robertson is described as a general aviation author, his book and AFP is specifically on markings for modellers and pretty damn extensive in its coverage even if it contains a few errors. The AFP vol 1 was put together in Autumn 1940 and does contain names (dark green, light earth etc) where they are known. It's hardly surprising that it refers to a light shade  of  green or the new duck egg blue as those colours had barely entered use at that point. 

[gingerbob]

You are quite right not to dismiss "anomalies" too readily- sometimes there's a nugget of truth or even a shocking revelation there.  However, sometimes people do just get it wrong.

[Arcticflyer]

4 minutes ago, gingerbob said:

You are quite right not to dismiss "anomalies" too readily- sometimes there's a nugget of truth or even a shocking revelation there.  However, sometimes people do just get it wrong.

Thank you Gingerbob, that's precisely my point. At that point in the war (May 1940) we were losing aircraft at a shocking rate and replacements were gone in hours. Keeping up with localised  paint schemes would have been almost impossible. 

[Graham Boak]

I'm sorry if you think I was being offensive, but having an editorial office in Leicester in 1941 does not provide one with access to classified information, aircraft factories or military establishments, then or now, but particularly at a time when public movement was highly restricted and a strong air of suspicion was directed to any such interest.  There is every reason to accept that those writing in such perilous times did not have access to the level of information that we do now, leading to inevitable errors. 

 

 I don't think that there is a lot to be gained from a detailed run-through of other errors to be found, but I do feel the need to answer your criticism of the example I gave.  The reference to Hurricanes squadrons (not just 501) having no time to add rudder markings is still wrong.  There were Hurricanes units rushed to France after May 10th, i.e during the German offensive, and it is perfectly fair to suggest that these units had no time to change their markings.  But there was no reason why they should do so.  There were other Hurricane squadrons in France before them, with the Air Component but not with the Advanced Air Striking Force, and these also did not have the rudder stripes painted because they were not required to do so.  Only the AASF fighters had this requirement.  It is easy to understand why earlier writers were not aware of this fact, but the text is still incorrect on the matter.

 

Linked to the above, of course, is the heavy loss rate in France in May 1940, but the claim for light grey undersides is not restricted to this period.  The scheme was not "localised".  It covered the UK and the RAF in Franc, in peacetime and all the wartime period before May 1940, when no such attrition was occurring.  It can certainly be used to explain the lack of evidence for the supposed use of light blue on Hurricanes in France, but not this.  Basically the loss rate in France is irrelevant here.

 

I've a feeling that Bruce Robertson did have some access, at least at some time later in the war, to the official documentation on changes in camouflage.  Without this, It is difficult to understand how he managed such a thorough account of the changes in the second of the Harleyford books (Aircraft Markings, etc.).  I'm fairly clear however that he is less detailed on the pre-war and early war changes.

 

Is it really true that there was no description of the black/white before 1966?  It's fair to say that there were no major works published to compete with the Harleyford masterpiece, but then very few books on the subject were published at all in this period.  It was only in the late 1960s and 1970s that the pace began to pick up to the plethora we have today.  But then, aircraft spotters and model makers were thinner on the ground in the 1950s.  That doesn't mean that there was nothing at all available.  There was some discussion in Aeromodeller for example, and there were other aircraft/modelling magazines around at the time that dealt with camouflage matters.  But I no longer have any of these to search through.  At a quick glance the oldest reference to b&w undersides I have found in my library is Francis K Mason's Hurricane Mk.I Profile published in the late 60s, I believe - the Spitfire Mk.I will have been slightly earlier but for the moment I can't lay my hands on that.  The first advert I had for the Profile series will have been in 1964 or early 1965 - they were being published at a rapid rate in my years in Bristol 1965-68, much to the damage of my grant!  Then the Ducimus series (James Goulding and others) came slightly later.   It might be worth digging through old Flying Reviews.  One thing that I am sure of, and that there was no outcry of "but they were grey!" when works appeared describing the black/white undersides.

 

Drawing up a list of references and comparing numbers alone wouldn't prove one side right and the other wrong.  You are only quoting a very small handful of sources, written in difficult times without access to official resources.  Were they only countered by a couple of writers expressing anecdotal evidence, that would be one matter, but it is difficult to accept that they accurately reflect the true state of the time when they are countered by a large number of detailed official and unofficial accounts from a wide range of different sources.   Not the least, RAF paint records.

 

PS Given that these two sources are both from the Harleyford stable, it's fair to suggest that they are not truy independent and the later writer is simply copying what the earlier one wrote.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Graham Boak

[gingerbob]

54 minutes ago, Arcticflyer said:

Thank you Gingerbob, that's precisely my point. At that point in the war (May 1940) we were losing aircraft at a shocking rate and replacements were gone in hours. Keeping up with localised  paint schemes would have been almost impossible. 

 

Did you see my Post #45?

 

I am not defending your particular sources- though I am not rejecting them out of hand, either.  It is amply documented that black/white (with variations) WAS the desired scheme.  Furthermore, the scheme existed before the war began, so it wasn't a sudden "Yes, I know there's a crisis, but this new idea from the boss has to be complied with."  That's far more the case with the transition to Sky from June.  [Edit: having now read the last post or two, also to some degree the case with changes in roundels/flashes.  The variety of sizes of fuselage roundels during the Battle of Britain, for example, can be traced to the roundel first painted on the aircraft (depending on when it was built) and how individuals went about bringing it up to the current standard- or as close as convenient.]

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by gingerbob