Bf 109E-3 'white 4' camouflage clarification

[Brian J]

The following inquiry may have been addressed in an earlier post that I missed.  If so, hopefully I can be directed to any responses.  While thumbing through my Battle of Britain Bf 109 files I came across an article from a September 2004 issue of Model Aircraft Monthly that I had totally forgotten about.  According to the following months editorial it, "...caused a bit of a furore in certain sections of our 'community' last month, with our suggestions of Battle of Britain period Messerschmitt Bf 109Es finished in certain non-standard camouflage colours."

 

In this article, the highly respected researcher/author, Paul Lucas gives, what I consider to be a well thought out presentation that several 109Es appear to have been camouflaged in shades of greys and browns.  The example that caught my attention was the well known 'white 4' w.nr 11900 of 4./JG 26 flown by Uffz Horst Perez.  The caption to the colour four view drawing reads, "The under surface/fuselage sides were also 'pale blue', either Hellblau 65 or Hellgrau 76.  The upper surfaces were possibly RLM 66 Schwarzgrau and RLM 61 Dunkelbrun."  I won't go into the background of the camouflage of this aircraft as I posted a question on this subject back in December of 2009.  Several members responded with enlightening, informative comments.

 

Has this new (at least to me) interpretation been accepted as a viable possibility?  If earlier comments are any indication I hope informed members can help clear the muddy waters of these Luftwaffe camouflage schemes.  

Edited January 28, 2020 by Brian J

[JackG]

For those wondering, here's the link to your earlier thread:

 

Supposedly there is this photo taken in 1963 - but I'd think the strips of paint removed from the aircraft would be more reliable, but then again both would be affected by age?

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/horst-perez-bf-109e-of-6-jg-26-was-brought-down-t222576.html

 

 

To me it appears the lighter camou colour  on the fuselage immediately behind the cockpit is similar to the interior, so RLM 02?   It's possible  a light wash of RLM 66 was applied to darken,  which may have given a resulting brown look?   It just seems odd that if the brown was that noticeable, why it wasn't mentioned in the crash report.   There is also the argument that brown would not be used for fear of friendly fire, as the RAF was using an earth tone on their fighters.

 

Anyhow, here's a digital study of the RGB mixed values, RLM 02 on top  and RLM 66 at the bottom,  with 10% increments in between:

 

 

 

regards,

 Jack

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2020 by JackG

[Pauls9cb]

White 4 came down on 30/9/40 about 1,000 yards from my house on the edge of the village of East Dean and an old chum of mine (sadly died about 4 years ago) was one of 2 10 year olds who saw the a/c in trouble and beat the local bobby up to the crash site in the hope of adding to their collections of wartime bits and pieces.

 

While this merely amplifies my interest in this particular a/c, but gives me no special knowledge of the actual colours used in its camo, I've concluded that the most likely colours on the a/c were the standard RLM 65/71/02, possiblywith some modification using field mixed colours to cover up Karl Ebbighausen's Gruppenkommandeur markings. I've got  great respect for Dave  Wadman's knowledge on this and other BoB LW aircraft, but I find it difficult to imagine that White 4 was subject to huge experimentation after Ebbighausen's loss. I find it easier to accept that the ground crews had plenty of work to do keeping as  many a/c flying as possible, rather than spending more time on the paint finish of this a/c. As a result, I'm not convinced the the colours on the IWM exhibit are representative of the a/c's camo on 30 Sept 1940. This may not be supported either by some of the pictures available or  from existing original panels from this a/c at Duxford and the Kent BoB Museum at Hawkinge. It's just my opinion for better or worse. Paul

[Brian J]

Many thanks to the members who responded so far.  Upon looking at the images sent along by JackG something caught my attention.  When would that colour photo have been taken?  It must have been decades after the crash as the original 'blue' paint has been scraped away exposing the original markings under the tiger head and numeral four.  How would the 'brown' and 'grey' colour described by Paul Lucas  been affected?

 

Mr Lucas included a quote from that original Flying Review article made by an eye witness at the crash site, "The upper surfaces of the wings and tailplane, and the top of the fuselage were dark grey - about the same shade as the old naval 'Home Fleet grey'.  On the extreme top of the fuselage, the grey had a near brownish tinge, as this had been sprayed on as an absolutely final finish...the brownish effect was also noticeable on the upper surfaces of the wings, particularly near the leading edges and the fuselage junction."  

 

I realize I'm digging up that horse we beat to death several years ago, but I'm having a hard time disregarding that description given almost 80 years ago.  In the aforementioned article Mr. Lucas includes studying several other 109 air frames that show signs of various shades of brown and grey.  Have any other members read the article in question? 

[JackG]

Thing is, those that are promoting brown are not sure themselves, terms like 'brownish' and 'possibly' just don't come across as an absolute.

 

To me it just does not make sense to consciously decide to apply brown paint to aircraft that were operating mostly over water at that time.   The comparison to 'Home Fleet Grey' is plausible since various greys were being mixed and applied in the field.  That said, I wouldn't rule out that by chance a certain combination(s) of paints would end up having a slight brownish tint, or when viewed next to grey appeared to be a slightly warmer shade, hence the brownish description?

 

There was mention that the only distinct brown shade  uncovered was found underneath the extant paint - this could well have  been primer which was necessary before the Luftwaffe reformulated their paints, such that they were sprayed directly onto bare metal.  See Nick Millman's  description of Roth's 7101.99 primer (post #6) here:

 

 

regards,

Jack

[Brian J]

Many thanks to those members who have put up with my hand wringing over a topic that has finally be setttled...at least in my mind.  I've been pouring over previous comments and photos provided by JackG and David Wadman.  Many thanks to both of them.  

 

I re-read the observations made by Dave in an e-mail I shared with members back in 2016.  "Subsequent examination of all 'strips' made available to us after various forms of rubbing and polishing to remove dirt, oxidization etc clearly showed that the upper surfaces were finished in two separate shades of grey far removed from 74 and 75.  Similarly, the same treatment given to the lower surfaces blue 65 strips clearly showed several different shades of blue!....

 

I too read that article and have had access in the past to the pieces mentioned but what the author failed to make clear was that the few distinct brown shades mentioned were under the extant colours...

 

What must be remembered is that these various grey and grey/green schemes were adaptions of the basic camo pattern insofar that they were only lightly applied over the existing 70/71 or 02/72 finishes and were generally applied to follow the existing pattern lines."

 

After re-reading these comments this morning I was drawn to look at the colour image Jack provided in his first post.  For me, the two shades of grey on the upper fuselage verify what Dave commented on.  

 

I feel much more confident about FINALLY getting to that build-up that has been on the shelf of doom for years!  That colour image was the deciding factor as well as the b&w photo at the top of page 281 of Jagdwaffe: Battle of Britain, Phase Three, showing the upper wing camouflage pattern.  Thanks guys!   

 

[JackG]

This photo is interesting, notice on the port side wing the original cross position was painted over and new ones placed more inboard,  as was directed by revisions   dated October 24, 1939.  So it's quite possible the original scheme was 70/71?

 

 

 

regards,

Jack

 

[Brian J]

Thanks, Jack, for including that photo I was referring to as my computer skills are limited.  To add to your comment about the original camouflage scheme I'll add another comment made by Dave Wadman.  "Three of these pieces of upper surface skin retained a substantial amount of paint which allowed us to continually but gradually 'cut back' the paint in some areas which showed that the greys had been lightly applied over the original 70/71 colours."  Was the port wing more lightly over sprayed than the starboard wing leaving a faint shadow of the original cross not found on the starboard wing?

 

I also couldn't help but notice how the upper wing colours extended up onto the fuselage at the wing roots.  Is this another indicator that the 'greys' were field applied?

[Brian J]

This may be my final comment on this subject (we can only hope) but I'd like to share a passage found on page 22 of the invaluable The Official Monogram Painting Guide to German Aircraft 1935-1945 for those members who may not have access to it.  It dove tails nicely in earlier posts.  

 

"Despite an exhaustive search of both official intelligence reports, private notes and many contemporary photographs, not one single conclusive example has been found of a Bf 109E operating over Britain wearing an RLM camouflage scheme of 74/75/76 for this period.  Grays certainly existed and were used during the period of the daylight air war over Britain in 1940.  Most, if not all, appear to have been unit-mixed paints.  Recorded descriptions are ambiguous enough to be interpreted as identifying one of the two new grays, 74 or 75.  The first reports of grays appear during August 1940, but usually in conjunction with other known or hybrid colors and obviously unit-applied.  An JG 2 veteran recalled mixing stocks of the standard greens with 65.  Black-Gray 66 mixed with 65, produced a variety of grays.  However, the undiluted 66 is probably the true identification of the black mottling sometimes recorded.  The 66/65 mixture may also account for various references to a dirty blue color quoted with various gray applications.

 

More positive descriptions of two tone gray schemes appear in September 1940.  Again the reader is cautioned that such references as "...cloudy gray on fuselage", "...wings battleship gray", or "...two shades of gray on upper surfaces" or "...gray dappled black" do not substantiate the use of an RLM scheme of 74/75/76.  It is possible that small stocks of the new gray colors were made available, either together or singly, to some front line units."  However, the high attrition rate suffered by the fighter units and the maintenance pressures on ground staff during the period under discussion make it unlikely that time was available to repaint entire aircraft."

 

For me, I'm finished beating this dead horse...unless I see it breathing again!!

[JackG]

I would definitely go with mixing your own grey from the existing paints available during the summer of 1940,  using RLM 65 as the base mix.  To me it looks like just one application of grey, translucent enough to see the splinter shapes underneath.   You can pretty much extrapolate the original scheme as this:

 

 

The outer section of the port side could be just worn off paint, and less likely it was purposely left exposed like that?   It's also bit odd that the starboard wing seems to show the splinter shape more clearly - could be lighting just washed out  the details a bit in the foreground? 

 

The dark wing root I think is just a carry over from the original splinter scheme underneath.   When the fuselage sides were ordered to be painted with the underside colour, some aircraft had the area painted up to, while others painted over the wing root area.  Could be, but not sure, an indicator of which aircraft were corrected in the field, and/or the factory they came from.  Likely some exhaust staining in there too.

 

 

 

regards,

Jack

 

 

[Michael louey]

Hi Brian,

 

I had to research a similar crashed 109 a while ago. You might like to read some of the research collected via the following links -

 

 

Photos of the actual aircraft are here:

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/Messerschmitt-Bf-109E-3-0750

 

And my interpretation of the plane is here -

Good luck with your investigations however I doubt we'll ever know what really was done during that period.

 

Regards

 

Michael

 

 

[Brian J]

Jeez, just as I was throwing the last shovel full of dirt on that dead horse it started breathing again and you fellas come up with more interesting insights and comments. 

 

I got dizzy following all of the comments on Michael's post!  Can there be a deeper quagmire then trying to get to the bottom of Battle of Britain 109 markings?  I loved your interpretation of the upper wing camouflage on your 'yellow 7' build-up in light of Jack's previous comments, Michael.  Well done!  

 

Jack, your comments about the application of a thin translucent grey finish is noteworthy, something I hadn't considered.  It sort of fits in with how Michael finished his build-up.  That large, clear photo of 'white 4' really adds to the discourse.  I've never seen that photo before.  What really caught my attention was the colour of the tailplane.  It seems to be one colour.  Could that explain that grey translucent wash you suggested?

 

I'm going to try and get that horse back on it's feet.  Maybe he hasn't finished his last race!  Thanks again gentlemen to your time and efforts...much appreciated.  Keep them comments coming!

[Milos Gazdic]

Hello all!
Very interesting discussion(s) here! 
Before I give my opinion - I would just like to ask if did any of you guys have ever try painting a large surface with the paint gun as those used in car paint shops for instance? And if you did - how easy was to paint a transluscent layer? I know we are used on a miniature world of our scale models but what about the 1:1 application... And how easy would that be for a low skill black man on the frontline airfields to do?
Just a thought before we start discussing all the options...

Best

Milos

[Rolls-Royce]

Milos, the mechanics of that type of paint application are the same, whether 1:72 or 1:1. Thin very heavily and spray lightly in a mist or wet coat. At that stage, the German maintenance crews had not seen the kind of attrition they would later in the war, so IMHO, the majority would have been experienced to one degree or another. I also don't feel they would have handed each plane's crew a spray gun and told them to "get to it". It's more likely the painter was either specifically trained as such, had demonstrated some level of skill, or was directly supervised by an experienced/trained painter.

For the record, I have assisted in painting a real aircraft. We did not do translucent coats as it was a high gloss white polyurethane and had to go on fairly thick (late 1970s formulas).

Edited January 30, 2020 by Rolls-Royce

[JackG]

The suggestion of using thinned paint is more about having better control on the model, as well as mimic what is being perceived in the period photos.  Was that done on the actual aircraft, I would not know.  It does seem though the grey(s) added was more about subduing the current scheme as opposed to a full bore repaint.

 

The tail planes may have received a heavier coating of the mixed grey paint - but I still see some remnants of the splinter camou along with some  spotting, paint buildup perhaps.  It's really difficult to say how heavy the application was since the lighting in certain photos tends to wash out details.   That said, I would include 02 sections, even though the original factory finish was 70/71.   I'm guessing the 02 application in the field (to comply with  orders revising the earlier scheme) introduced the feathered edges as opposed to the factory demarcations which was more hard edged, though not to the degree the RAF exhibited at the start of the war.

 

Apparently for  the current display, it was decided not refurbish the starboard wing.  So make what you will, keeping in mind the aircraft sat outside for a good two decades before being brought back to the UK:

 

 

 

Finally a disclaimer, all that I've suggested is an inward glance at how I would approach the subject had I tackled this model.  So in no way am I saying this is the right way.

 

regards,

Jack

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by JackG

[Brian J]

More welcomed additions to the conversation!  I doubt we'll ever be able to appreciate the conditions Luftwaffe ground crew worked under since replacement airframes were brought in and repairs were done to damaged aircraft as well.  I quote from a Dave Wadman article entitled An Overview of Bf 109E Camouflage and Markings, 1939-1940.  "With more fighter engagements taking place over the sea and increasing numbers of replacement aircraft entering service, camouflage variations became all the more widespread, often occurring when easily interchangeable parts such as cowlings, rudders, armament access panels and battery hatch covers were swapped between aircraft to expedite servicing."

 

When comparing the two photos that Jack has included I found two interesting points I hadn't noticed before.  Compare the height of the blue 65 on the fuselage between the port and the starboard sides.  On the starboard side it touches the top of the Balkenkreuz while it is noticeably higher on the port side.  Also there is a noticeable difference in the extension of the dark colour at the back of the wing root.  It appears these colours were applied with little concern about exacting standards!  

 

Also, is it possible that one of the wings was a replacement which would explain the difference in the shade of grey?  Could the port wing tip been sprayed with a thinner wash which would explain the visible early Balkenkreuz?  As a student I spent four summers working in a local auto plant, one of which was in the paint booth.  More than once I was chewed out by my foreman for not applying an even coat of paint (if I ever needed motivation to stay in school it was spending those summers working in an auto assembly plant).  I can appreciate the lack of a uniform finish and I can just imagine the conditions the ground crew worked under. 

 

Again, I welcome comments.  We may soon get to the bottom of this mystery! 

 

I just noticed the latest posting by Jack, sent as I was typing this post.  That large colour image of the starboard wing is a most welcome addition to the dialogue.  I agree that it appears this airframe probably had at least three different applications of paint.  Well done, Jack!

Edited January 30, 2020 by Brian J

[Crimea River]

Interesting discussion. I wonder if that phantom Balkenkreuz in the photo above is a bit of double exposure. It looks as though it would be centered on or just behind the trailing edge and looks identical to the more visible one inboard.

Edited January 30, 2020 by Crimea River

[JackG]

Crimea River, I think you are on to something.   Looking closely again,  I now even see what looks to be a wheel superimposed over the top left corner of that phantom Balkenkreuz.  

 

-----------------------------------

 

Must be missing some photos, as I've only access to those linked here:

https://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Bf-109E/JG26.II.html

 

I really don't see one wing lighter than the other,  just a difference in lighting conditions between photos   The only other period photo that gives a shot of the port wing is this one, which looks like a light source is directly above creating the glare:

 

 

 

regards,

 Jack

Edited January 31, 2020 by JackG

[Milos Gazdic]

Looks like they didn't also bother with cleaning the airframe before exhibiting it. Considering it went into a belly landing - there was lots of dirt & dust there for sure

 

[Brian J]

Is it possible the spine of the fuselage wasn't painted with the 'grey' that is confirmed to have been applied to the flying surfaces?  It appears somewhat 'clean' with a distinctive colour contrast.  Don't tell me I'm going to have to put my build-up back on the shelf of doom!

[Rolls-Royce]

20 hours ago, Brian J said:

 

When comparing the two photos that Jack has included I found two interesting points I hadn't noticed before.  Compare the height of the blue 65 on the fuselage between the port and the starboard sides.  On the starboard side it touches the top of the Balkenkreuz while it is noticeably higher on the port side.  Also there is a noticeable difference in the extension of the dark colour at the back of the wing root.  It appears these colours were applied with little concern about exacting standards!  

 

 

However, the boundary between the upper surface and lower surface colors is right at the top of the "4" on both sides. Go figure!

[JackG]

12 hours ago, Brian J said:

Is it possible the spine of the fuselage wasn't painted with the 'grey' that is confirmed to have been applied to the flying surfaces?  It appears somewhat 'clean' with a distinctive colour contrast.  Don't tell me I'm going to have to put my build-up back on the shelf of doom!

hmmm... I still think it's the varying light creating different look to the finishes from photo to photo.  To me, the upper surfaces look to be a uniform scheme.

 

Dave Wadman had stated in 2013,  he was still in possession of the fuselage strips obtained from the museum,  describing them as two greys, but definitely neither 74 nor 75.   The thread I found this in, did contain another post that made me stop and wonder.  It was stated that the then current RLM paints (02,70,71) could fade and appear to be grey.  

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/experten-regarding-the-two-tone-light-blue-bf-109e-t209469-s20.html

 

 

Then I found another reference to Dave Wadman and a contradiction- so what does this mean, those fuselage strips he has only look grey, but are actually just the standard RLM colours of 1940?

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/walkaround/1190/1190.htm

I say "restored" because the team which redid the aircraft chose a 74/75/76 scheme which is wholly and entirely incorrect for this aircraft...the standard scheme for day fighters at this point in the war was 71/02/65, and David Wadman (co-author of the Jagdwaffe series of books on the Battle of Britain) has confirmed that this aircraft was no exception, based on airframe relics from 1190 still in Canada.  Why the aircraft was repainted in this fashion is a complete mystery, and one can only hope that at some point the restoration team will seek to correct this oversight.

 

-----------------------------------

 

I still believe though, there is a valid argument for field mixed paints, because demarcation between the two paint shades is much more lose and not running in straight lines.  Unless this was how the RLM 02 was applied when incorporated into the splinter scheme?   On the upside, if on your model you apply a light grey fading overall, you have both bases covered.   It can either represent field mixed greys, or the standard paint scheme with a faded look.

 

regards,

Jack

[Brian J]

The following comments may finally put this topic to bed as I don't think there is much more to add after Jack's last post.  I pulled out several photo references over the weekend that pertain to the subject at hand and have come to the same conclusion Jack made.  I think the colour 'grey' and it's limitless variations are very difficult to pin down as to an exact FS or RLM number, especially when one considers weathering and fading under operational conditions plus touch ups and repairs on the real aircraft using whatever was at hand.   

 

Many Luftwaffe model subjects are finished as though they were just off the production line with a little bit of exhaust stain.  RLM 70/71 surfaces on operational aircraft sure don't look like the colour chips, let alone faded RLM 02. RLM 66, etc.  I'm going to take Jack's advice, and mix my own greys using 02 and 66 and maybe try some 70 or 71, creating a faded, washed out effect.

 

Thanks to all the members who took the time to add to the discussion.  Great to know there are so many folks who know more than me who are willing to help clarify things!