Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Phantome

Phantome's WW2 color & model paint guides (RAF, USAAF, USN **FAA Added**)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 1/4/2020 at 2:22 PM, Phantome said:

 

Even then, most planes in real life won't look like the color chips! Modeling is definitely an issue of making it look good enough in my book... :)

 

On 1/4/2020 at 2:07 PM, Phantome said:

A.513/41, paragraph 3 ii, later defined as 'Tropical Land Scheme' in Appendix I of A.687/41

 

This is literally what I wrote on the site:

 

Confusion subsequently arises from the fact that from 12 December 1940 (AMO A.926/40), aircraft from the Middle East Command were allowed to substitute the Dark Green from the Temperate Land Scheme for Middle Stone (frequently referred to as Midstone). Compared to Light Earth, Middle Stone was only slightly darker but with a characteristic mustard-like tone, but being a new color (it existed in the earlier BS 381C palette but not for RAF use) it likely took a few months before it became widespread, leaving Light Earth as the default. This would appear to have been the first iteration of what later would be the Desert Scheme although at the time the scheme was not named. However, this combination did not last long. From 10 July 1941 (AMO A.513/41), aircraft abroad were authorized to use Middle Stone and Dark Green instead. However, this appears to have been a mistake by the Air Ministry and corrections were issued shortly thereafter although it is likely that some aircraft were indeed camouflaged this way (Air Ministry orders were not always followed to the letter, much less lower order corrections). A month later, on 28 August (AMO A.687/41), this scheme was formally named the Tropical Land Scheme.

 

There is nothing remotely there that says that without question an aircraft on XX date must have worn certain colors. I understand from other threads that you believe that just because a correction was issued a while later, that it is unlikely that any aircraft would have been painted that way and others disagree. I am attempting to strike a balance to both arguments by specifically stating that a correction was made and that there is still a possibility that some aircraft may have been painted DE/MS. If that doesn't satisfy you, sorry, but like I said above: this is not a thread in which I want to have a heated discussion on color controversies which I am sensing by your tone is what you are looking for.

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your work. Its a large help for serious modelers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we tone down some of whats being written here. Colour threads seem to get heated and we would like to keep this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phantome. Just wanted to say thanks for all your effort on this. I have been dipping in to the RAF section over breakfast this morning. Great work, this will be most helpful. Cheers, John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Julien said:

Can we tone down some of whats being written here. Colour threads seem to get heated and we would like to keep this one.

 

Tell me!

 

 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phantome,

 

I know that took a lot of work - nice job!

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Dana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A very impressive collation from different sources.   I haven't reached the end yet, perhaps there is credit to these references at the end?

 

There of course quibbles: I would have preferred to see references to the Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production colour charts rather than BS 381, which really has very little relevance to wartime British Aircraft camouflage.  For examples; their Sky Blue was much greener than the wartime shade, and their Azure doesn't look much like Humbrol 157 (which does bear a remarkable resemblance to the Light Mediterranean Blue adjacent to Azure Blue on the MAP chart).  I would also have placed much less stress on Eau-de-Nil as this was never (to my knowledge) produced as an aircraft paint, and aircraft (ditto ships and Army vehicles) were not painted in any old paint but used paints very specifically produced to their own specific needs.  The references to EdN on aircraft dug out of the ground all refer to a few units based around the Humber at the time of the introduction of Sky.  It is also worth pointing out that rather than the bombers adopting the Temperate Land Scheme from the fighters, they were the first to be painted in TLS, with Night undersides.  The first fighters in this camouflage followed later.  Both Hurricanes and Spitfires were initially Aluminium underneath, and the adoption of the black/white underside was also somewhat more convoluted than you've given space too.  

 

But the work would have needed to be considerably larger and perhaps less immediately useful if all such qualifications had to be satisfied.  It is an immense subject.  I shall keep these as good immediate references as I've not seen anything on the net that anywhere near approaches them.

Edited by Graham Boak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

A very impressive collation from different sources.   I haven't reached the end yet, perhaps there is credit to these references at the end?

 

There of course quibbles: I would have preferred to see references to the Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production colour charts rather than BS 381, which really has very little relevance to wartime British Aircraft camouflage.  For examples; their Sky Blue was much greener than the wartime shade, and their Azure doesn't look much like Humbrol 157 (which does bear a remarkable resemblance to the Light Mediterranean Blue adjacent to Azure Blue on the MAP chart).  I would also have placed much less stress on Eau-de-Nil as this was never (to my knowledge) produced as an aircraft paint, and aircraft (ditto ships and Army vehicles) were not painted in any old paint but used paints very specifically produced to their own specific needs.  The references to EdN on aircraft dug out of the ground all refer to a few units based around the Humber at the time of the introduction of Sky.  It is also worth pointing out that rather than the bombers adopting the Temperate Land Scheme from the fighters, they were the first to be painted in TLS, with Night undersides.  The first fighters in this camouflage followed later.  Both Hurricanes and Spitfires were initially Aluminium underneath, and the adoption of the black/white underside was also somewhat more convoluted than you've given space too.  

 

But the work would have needed to be considerably larger and perhaps less immediately useful if all such qualifications had to be satisfied.  It is an immense subject.  I shall keep these as good immediate references as I've not seen anything on the net that anywhere near approaches them.

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

I would point out that "Phantome",  who has chosen not to use a real name , requested that "PM me if you notice some glaring error" which is why I have responded and this is a forum is it not?

Yes, it is. And a PM is a PRIVATE MESSAGE, not a public posting. Did you try sending a civilised message before wading in with your view of the number of angels able to dance on a pinhead? As it is, Phantome has done a great deal of work putting something extremely useful together: if it’s good enough for Dana Bell, it’s good enough for me...

 

And what do you think is the significance of “chosen not to use a real name”? That’s hardly unusual on this forum or any other, and has diddley-squat relevance to the subject in hand...

 

best,

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

Yes, it is. And a PM is a PRIVATE MESSAGE, not a public posting. Did you try sending a civilised message before wading in with your view of the number of angels able to dance on a pinhead? As it is, Phantome has done a great deal of work putting something extremely useful together: if it’s good enough for Dana Bell, it’s good enough for me...

 

And what do you think is the significance of “chosen not to use a real name”? That’s hardly unusual on this forum or any other, and has diddley-squat relevance to the subject in hand...

 

best,

M.

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

If you state something incorrectly (which you have unless you can prove otherwise) then I feel no reason why this should not be pointed out in as pleasant a way as possible, which is what I am trying to do.

Hi,

Input and corrections are good. But as they say on the other end of the Channel "c'est le ton qui fait la musique".
My first impression reading your initial reaction was that it looked more like a rebuke and the whole effort was complete rubbish - and I don't think that is quite what you mean.

Granted, I don't know you from Adam, but first impressions do count.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

not turn it into a flame war which eventually gets frozen. It is a forum where debates occur not insults directed at individuals.

I would agree wholeheartedly, and would advise everyone including yourself to step away from the keyboard for a bit and return with calmer minds. @Julien asked everyone to cool it earlier and was resoundingly ignored.  Not cool guys :fraidnot:

 

Why the bright colours?  It's in the hope that someone actually reads this and takes our advice on board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mike said:

I would agree wholeheartedly, and would advise everyone including yourself to step away from the keyboard for a bit and return with calmer minds. @Julien asked everyone to cool it earlier and was resoundingly ignored.  Not cool guys :fraidnot:

 

Why the bright colours?  It's in the hope that someone actually reads this and takes our advice on board.

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cracking work there sir! Thank you for sharing it with us, i've saved the US Navy and USAAF pages as that is the only models i'm making. I have a Helldiver coming next week and looking forward to adding it to my collection, this guide is fantastic for the colours i need for it and other US Navy aircraft i have kits for.😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree to what everybody said, a very extensive compilation that covers everything, thanks for your efforts Phantome !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmatthewbacon said:

Yes, it is. And a PM is a PRIVATE MESSAGE, not a public posting. Did you try sending a civilised message before wading in with your view of the number of angels able to dance on a pinhead? As it is, Phantome has done a great deal of work putting something extremely useful together: if it’s good enough for Dana Bell, it’s good enough for me...

 

And what do you think is the significance of “chosen not to use a real name”? That’s hardly unusual on this forum or any other, and has diddley-squat relevance to the subject in hand...

 

best,

M.

 

Careful! He does know how to use the personal message system. He used it to tell me he has registered a complaint against me for my posting above, though I have yet to hear from the admins.

 

 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dogsbody said:

And another good and useful topic is about to be locked down or deleted because someone has got their shorts in a twist over some old documents that they think is/was/maybe accurate. 

 

If you think Phantome's posting is inaccurate, start your own and please leave this one alone. It's about hobby paint for scale model aircraft. Lighten up!

 

 

 

Chris

Surely if someone is referencing an official source to provide a correction, this should be encouraged? Otherwise an, albeit unintentional, inaccuracy will go unchallenged.

 

Or are we not grown up enough to allow someone to present an alternate set of data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, dogsbody said:

 

Careful! He does know how to use the personal message system. He used it to tell me he has registered a complaint against me for my posting above, though I have yet to hear from the admins.

 

 

 

Chris

 

 

Edited by Mark Mackenzie
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Useful work Phantome. Thanks.

I have saved the linked articles as I expect this thread will be deleted at some stage as the mods warnings are ignored. I am sure @Phantome will update them and I hope he lets people know when that happens.

Edited by Tom R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dana Bell said:

Hi Phantome,

 

I know that took a lot of work - nice job!

 

Cheers,

 

 

 

Dana

Thanks! And quite an honor coming from you :)

 

 

Do drop me a line if you find some egregious fault that needs correcting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

A very impressive collation from different sources.   I haven't reached the end yet, perhaps there is credit to these references at the end?

 

There of course quibbles: I would have preferred to see references to the Air Ministry/Ministry of Aircraft Production colour charts rather than BS 381, which really has very little relevance to wartime British Aircraft camouflage.  For examples; their Sky Blue was much greener than the wartime shade, and their Azure doesn't look much like Humbrol 157 (which does bear a remarkable resemblance to the Light Mediterranean Blue adjacent to Azure Blue on the MAP chart).  I would also have placed much less stress on Eau-de-Nil as this was never (to my knowledge) produced as an aircraft paint, and aircraft (ditto ships and Army vehicles) were not painted in any old paint but used paints very specifically produced to their own specific needs.  The references to EdN on aircraft dug out of the ground all refer to a few units based around the Humber at the time of the introduction of Sky.  It is also worth pointing out that rather than the bombers adopting the Temperate Land Scheme from the fighters, they were the first to be painted in TLS, with Night undersides.  The first fighters in this camouflage followed later.  Both Hurricanes and Spitfires were initially Aluminium underneath, and the adoption of the black/white underside was also somewhat more convoluted than you've given space too.  

 

But the work would have needed to be considerably larger and perhaps less immediately useful if all such qualifications had to be satisfied.  It is an immense subject.  I shall keep these as good immediate references as I've not seen anything on the net that anywhere near approaches them.

I agree, I added the BS 381C references because a lot of colors are labeled as such on model paints. The exception being those that don't have a direct post-war equivalent like Ocean Gray. It is my understanding that these colors didn't have a MAP code or something of the sort? At least I didn't see any from the IWM book, just the names.

 

And yes, a lot of sections were simplified because there is a TON of info. I did dedicate time to obscure issues like the Malta Spits because they seem to be popular subjects in the modeling world. 1938 Hurricanes less so...

 

You make another few good points that I will amend in the text in the next couple of days :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, dogsbody said:

I have yet to hear from the admins.

Hi Chris :)

 

(now you have)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mike said:

Hi Chris :)

 

(now you have)

 

Roger that!

 

 

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your work @Phantome. :thumbsup2:

 

Producing detailed syntheses of an historical subject - whether from primary or secondary sources - is never easy.

 

Particularly when you're not being paid to do it.

 

It seems to me that you've adopted a very fair-minded heuristic approach to the matter, one that all of us on here can gratefully benefit from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...