Blenheim camouflage

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 11/16/2018 at 7:49 PM, Graham Boak said:

Yes Mark, but as has-been pointed out to you in particular, numerous times in the past, it was officially proclaimed as such in an AMO.  Your research has clarified matters considerably by finding out that this issue was very rapidly corrected, but this did not create a time machine.  The scheme did officially exist on paper, however briefly, and given that it was reported in theatre by a veteran then we should be careful with the use of such definite terms as "never".

 

Nonetheless, I agree that it should not be assumed unless all other more likely options have been ruled out.  Offhand, this does not appear likely when we are relying on interpretation of b&w photos. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Graham Boak]

 

7 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Graham, that is not the research that I did. The research that I did proved that the AMO was an ERROR that was corrected, and NOT whether it had been rapidly corrected or not. As I pointed out to you at the time, the name "Tropical Land Scheme" was not an error and was NOT corrected and therefore refers to the originally intended colours scheme of Dark Earth and Midstone given in the AMO. 

 

Graham, an error in an AMO is never an OFFICIALLY PROCLAIMED scheme. Furthermore, a SINGLE account by a veteran which contradicts other veterans can not be assumed to be VALID as what you are assuming. We do not know what aircraft he was referring to or the circumstances.  P40s, for example, were in a lighter shade of Dark Earth and Dark Green. 

 

Unfortunately, thanks to you and a few others posting heresy on forums like this, modelling companies are now publishing this as factual. 

 

 

 

 

 

I understood that following the discussions on the internet it was you who discovered the correcting documentation which quite rapidly followed the offending AMO.  If not, then my apologies to whomever it was. 

 

However, that the combination of DG and MS was an error does not over-ride the basic principle that the issue of an AMO describing a colour scheme means that this scheme has been "OFFICIALLY PROCLAIMED".  If not, just what else can such an AMO be, and just what is required for an official scheme to be proclaimed?  It does mean Air Ministry Order, does it not?  As such, to be obeyed.  If we cannot rely upon AMOs (corrected ones of course) then very large chunks of the history of RAF camouflage will have to be cast into doubt.  If something else was required to make such camouflage instructions official then an immense amount of documentation has been lost - and is not even known to have existed as a category.

 

However I feel that modelling companies are much more likely to be relying upon the much earlier publication of this scheme by Ian Huntley than anything I and others may have said considerably later, particularly considering your own input to those selfsame threads.

[GrahamB]

Pale colour could be Light Stone, an army colour in widespread use in Middle East at the time.

[mhaselden]

5 hours ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Graham, that is not the research that I did. The research that I did proved that the AMO was an ERROR that was corrected, and NOT whether it had been rapidly corrected or not. As I pointed out to you at the time, the name "Tropical Land Scheme" was not an error and was NOT corrected and therefore refers to the originally intended colours scheme of Dark Earth and Midstone given in the AMO. If it had referred to another colour scheme then the name would have been changed as well but it was not. 

 

Not sure why you jumped in my knickers given that I freely admitted that it could be the standard scheme.  However, the logic of your argument here is flawed. 

 

Let's say Tropical Land Scheme was always SUPPOSED to be DE/MS.  Now let's say an error is made in the promulgation of that order, and DE is replaced with DG in the orders received by units.  Short of clairvoyance or a time machine, the receiving units won't know that the AMO described the wrong colour (eg DG).  Now, some receiving units could ask for clarification but it's not implausible to think that at least some units accept the new AMO as written...after all, it's direction from HQ.  On that basis, it's not unreasonable to think that some aircraft might (stress MIGHT) be repainted in the "wrong" colour until such time as a correction is distributed. 

 

We've been round this buoy so many times now that I'm dizzy. I'm not sure why you find it so hard to accept that mistakes happen and that dissemination of an incorrect specification might (again, stress MIGHT) lead to some aircraft being painted in the incorrect scheme.  

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 11/17/2018 at 3:18 PM, mhaselden said:

 

Not sure why you jumped in my knickers given that I freely admitted that it could be the standard scheme.  However, the logic of your argument here is flawed. 

 

Let's say Tropical Land Scheme was always SUPPOSED to be DE/MS.  Now let's say an error is made in the promulgation of that order, and DE is replaced with DG in the orders received by units.  Short of clairvoyance or a time machine, the receiving units won't know that the AMO described the wrong colour (eg DG).  Now, some receiving units could ask for clarification but it's not implausible to think that at least some units accept the new AMO as written...after all, it's direction from HQ.  On that basis, it's not unreasonable to think that some aircraft might (stress MIGHT) be repainted in the "wrong" colour until such time as a correction is distributed. 

 

We've been round this buoy so many times now that I'm dizzy. I'm not sure why you find it so hard to accept that mistakes happen and that dissemination of an incorrect specification might (again, stress MIGHT) lead to some aircraft being painted in the incorrect scheme.  

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[mhaselden]

You're the one who raised prior discussions about the AMO error.  I was just talking about the appearance of the scheme in this photo.  I never mentioned any standards because this airframe is unusual 

 

What was the official scheme prior to May 1940?  And why is the Blenheim wearing non-standard (for 1940) Type B roundels on the fuselage?  I'm not being snarky and I really do want a reasonable, non-snarky answer in response.  I don't have chapter and verse on the many marking changes and I would like to know what the applicable standards were for this airframe based on the timeframe we think the image was taken.  

Edited November 17, 2018 by mhaselden

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 11/17/2018 at 11:04 PM, mhaselden said:

What was the official scheme prior to May 1940?    

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[mhaselden]

Mark,

 

I asked about camo schemes prior to May 1940.  Your answer talks about August 1940.  I wish you'd stop haranguing me about my comments about dark green and mid Stone (which I freely admitted could be incorrwct) and answer my straightforward questions. 

 

I said NOTHING in this thread about the Aug 41 AMO until you raised that issue.

 

I really do just want to know what the official scheme was prior to May 1940 and why, if this image dates from 1940, this airframe has Type B fuselage roundels which were supposed to have been long-since replaced with Type A?

Edited November 18, 2018 by mhaselden

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 11/18/2018 at 11:08 AM, mhaselden said:

Mark,

 

I asked about camo schemes prior to May 1940.  Your answer talks about August 1940.  I wish you'd stop haranguing me about my comments about dark green and mid Stone (which I freely admitted could be incorrwct) and answer my straightforward questions. 

 

I said NOTHING in this thread about the Aug 41 AMO until you raised that issue.

 

I really do just want to know what the official scheme was prior to May 1940 and why, if this image dates from 1940, this airframe has Type B fuselage roundels which were supposed to have been long-since replaced with Type A?

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[mhaselden]

5 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

As I understand from past comments in older posts, the August 1941 AMO is the evidence being purported for a Dark green/Mid Stone Scheme in early 1941 and 1940?  That is why I pointed out the dates were wrong and that is why I posted it in response to your post.

 

The August 1940 letter clarified camouflage colours for the purpose of identifying aircraft and was not an order. If any aircraft preceding that date by months, were in Dark Green/Mid Stone, then I find it very hard to believe that this letter did not identify them as such. 

 

That explains your actions on this thread but it still does not answer the question about what instructions were provided prior to May 1940. 

 

This Blenheim photo clearly pre-dates May 1940 due to the lack of fin flash.  However, it's not clear when the photo was taken.  If it was during the first half of 1940, then the fuselage markings are completely out of specification.  If it was much earlier than 1940, then it might explain the Type B fuselage roundels but it also opens up other questions about what camouflage was applied because, AFAIK, the Dark Earth/Mid Stone scheme wasn't around as an official scheme prior to 1940...unless I'm misunderstanding the situation.  

[rossm]

No direct answers but references to early documents appear in these threads:

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234970698-munich-crisis-biplane-lower-wings-question/&tab=comments#comment-1792975

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71814-demons-with-wacky-camo/&tab=comments#comment-1711289

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235029657-dark-greendark-earth-camouflage-implementing-date/&tab=comments#comment-2876884

 

I'd also add a cautionary note that aircraft didn't always conform to the up-to-date official standards, partly due to the need for time, manpower, materials and facilities to carry out repaints but occasionally because of experimental or local schemes like the Demons above. Certainly later in the war I think there was a tendency for documentation to run behind events, or at least for the master documents like AMOs and DTDs to play catch up with letters, postagrams etc. any of which could have errors. Only useful here as an example of what can happen with documentation but the move away from the White scheme on Beaufighters shows most of these issues with the added bonus of interpreting non-standard references to colours like "pale blue" made by people presumably unfamiliar with the official names.

 

I'd always start by assuming the official scheme but make myself happy there were no obvious anomalies. In this case the red/blue roundels seem to need explaining even if it's only "waiting for repaint" although the fairly fresh appearance of the camouflage casts a shadow on that idea. Could the date given for the photo be wrong? That's not unknown in my experience, having seen some photos with different captions in different books.

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 11/18/2018 at 3:47 PM, mhaselden said:

 

That explains your actions on this thread but it still does not answer the question about what instructions were provided prior to May 1940. 

 

This Blenheim photo clearly pre-dates May 1940 due to the lack of fin flash.  However, it's not clear when the photo was taken.  If it was during the first half of 1940, then the fuselage markings are completely out of specification.  If it was much earlier than 1940, then it might explain the Type B fuselage roundels but it also opens up other questions about what camouflage was applied because, AFAIK, the Dark Earth/Mid Stone scheme wasn't around as an official scheme prior to 1940...unless I'm misunderstanding the situation.  

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Dave Fleming]

I’d be thinking more of one of the pre-War experimental schemes, using sand and red-brown shades. AFAIK there is no official ‘two browns’ scheme in any of the wartime or pre-war AMOs until the introduction of the Desert scheme (via the correction to the Tropical Land scheme) but there were suggested Schemes in that period from the mid 1930s.

 

I don’t think anyone tried to use the TRop Land argument earlier in the thread, Mark H merely said what the shades /tones suggested. (Although, with an obviously orthodox picture, it’s hard to know what the colours are. ).  

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[occa]

Has anyone mentioned yet the darker colour seems to neatly blend into the undersurface colour?

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 11/19/2018 at 12:22 AM, Dave Fleming said:

I’d be thinking more of one of the pre-War experimental schemes, using sand and red-brown shades. AFAIK there is no official ‘two browns’ scheme in any of the wartime or pre-war AMOs until the introduction of the Desert scheme (via the correction to the Tropical Land scheme) but there were suggested Schemes in that period from the mid 1930s.

 

I don’t think anyone tried to use the TRop Land argument earlier in the thread, Mark H merely said what the shades /tones suggested. (Although, with an obviously orthodox picture, it’s hard to know what the colours are. ).  

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[Julien]

Gents there seems to be some unpleasantness creeping into the thread, it must stop now. Rasing our voices (ie typing in caps) and throwing accusations around has no place here. 

 

Please keep the thread relevant and polite. 

 

Julien

[mhaselden]

11 hours ago, rossm said:

No direct answers but references to early documents appear in these threads:

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234970698-munich-crisis-biplane-lower-wings-question/&tab=comments#comment-1792975

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/71814-demons-with-wacky-camo/&tab=comments#comment-1711289

 

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235029657-dark-greendark-earth-camouflage-implementing-date/&tab=comments#comment-2876884

 

I'd also add a cautionary note that aircraft didn't always conform to the up-to-date official standards, partly due to the need for time, manpower, materials and facilities to carry out repaints but occasionally because of experimental or local schemes like the Demons above. Certainly later in the war I think there was a tendency for documentation to run behind events, or at least for the master documents like AMOs and DTDs to play catch up with letters, postagrams etc. any of which could have errors. Only useful here as an example of what can happen with documentation but the move away from the White scheme on Beaufighters shows most of these issues with the added bonus of interpreting non-standard references to colours like "pale blue" made by people presumably unfamiliar with the official names.

 

I'd always start by assuming the official scheme but make myself happy there were no obvious anomalies. In this case the red/blue roundels seem to need explaining even if it's only "waiting for repaint" although the fairly fresh appearance of the camouflage casts a shadow on that idea. Could the date given for the photo be wrong? That's not unknown in my experience, having seen some photos with different captions in different books.

 

Rossm,

 

I agree entirely with everything you write here.  AFAIK, there was no official desert/Tropical Land Scheme prior to May 1940.  I'm also skeptical that the image we're discussing was taken in 1940 based on the non-standard fuselage roundels.  

 

I still think DE/MS is the most likely but we're dealing in probabilities rather than in absolutes and there remains a possibility that we're seeing a trial scheme or something other than DE/MS.  As others have pointed out, we cannot say with 100% certainty what colours were applied to this particular Blenheim.

 

Cheers,
Mark

[Graham Boak]

Can I return to the suggestion that it is simply the Temperate Land Scheme with very faded Dark Earth?  Yesterday I took a book off the shelf which I hadn't touched for some time.  It is called Clipped Wings, and is Elizabeth Dent's recounting of her father's experiences as a corporal in the RAF in WW2.  There are a fair number of photos of RAF aircraft in India, but you don't need to buy the book, just look at the cover.  A crashed Audax showing the same very high contrast on the wings, although not on the fuselage.  Inside there are other photos showing the same effect, including a clear view of a Hart, together with others with less strident or even low contrasts, expecially on metal airframes.  

 

Although the majority of photos showing such high contrast are from the early years of the desert war, we also saw such contrast on the Far East Vildebeestes in that long-running thread.  There is, I believe, no suggestion that Middle Stone was adopted early in India, other than appearing on the small number of aircraft transferred to India directly from the Middle East.  The presence of this high contrast in seperate theatres does tend to discount the suggestion that it is a specifically ME scheme - although there certainly are examples of such.  There's the further suggestion, which I admit could do with further investigation, that the light colour seen on these early ME aircraft is predominantly seen in the parts of the design that were painted Dark Earth in the Temperate Land Scheme.

 

I did consider whether this high fading was a feature of the pre-war cellulose-based paints, which were intended for  fabric covered airframes and also for metal airframes, whereas the later paints were for use on metal only.  The obvious problem here is that the Blenheim  is an all-metal aircraft, but the early paint was dual-use.

 

The interesting question then becomes what colour the Dark Green fades to?  I've seen later paints fading to either a brighter green or to a dark brown, presumably depending upon the original manufacturer.  So well-used aircraft could look either like DE/MS or like DG/MS - substitute Light Earth for MS if you prefer.  The latter would be sufficient to convince observers of the presence of such a scheme.  What is missing from this is knowledge of how the prewar DG paints faded.

[Dave Fleming]

In the Blenhiem's case, the darker parts are the ones that would normally be Dark Earth. The obvious use of ortho film may have rendered it darker.

 

My problem with the 'fading' or weathering theory is, in the Blenheim case at least, it looks fresh - a little weathering/chalking on the upper wing but otherwise pretty pristine.

 

 

[mhaselden]

I tend to agree with Dave Fleming.  Rather like images in the long-running Vildebeest thread, the paintwork on this Blenheim appears pretty pristine and even.  I would expect fading to be more patchy, particularly in areas that were less exposed such as the lower portions of the fuselage.  It would also be odd for the paint applied to the metal components and the dope applied to the rudder to both fade to exactly the same extent.  

[Graham Boak]

It wouldn't be odd if both surfaces had been painted with the same prewar cellulose-based paints.  You get differences where different paints are used for the two materials, as became normal.

[mhaselden]

But that still doesn't explain the entirely uniform "fading" to include areas of the fuselage normally in shadow, or at least seldom exposed to direct sunlight.  The uniformity of the light camouflage colour isn't adequately explained by fading, IMHO.  

[Dave Fleming]

There are actually a couple of areas where it is strongly suggestive this is a repaint.

 

- the antenna mast on the upper fuselage. Only the lower part is painted light (and this would be the Dark Green sction on that demarcation)

- the edge of the missing hatch on the upper fuselage - original colours underneath?

 

Everything imo points to an unofficial or as yet undocumented sand and Dark Earth scheme

 

- 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Dave Fleming

[mhaselden]

Hmmm....good spot on the hatch surround.  However, the forward part of the hatch appears tonally lighter than the aft section.  That said, the aft hatch surround appears to have been repainted and is slightly darker in tone than the underlying shade.  This image is certainly hurting my poor brain.

[occa]

In my humble opinion it could have been an overall black AC that got a provisional disruptive desert camo with a light earth or light sand colour.

At least on areas that have a similar angle relative to the observer the prop seems to have the same hue as the dark upperside color, also the upperside color appears to extend on to the lower side color and a sharp demarcation is visible on the lower fuselage

 

Very difficult to, assert anyways, I am likely wrong on this.

 

Btw if you play with the contrast the full serial is L4823 is even clearly readable.