Spitfire Vb Correct Camouflage

[fishplanebeer]

I've just bought the KP Spitfire Vb 'Aces' kit which is excellent but somewhat confused about the camo references it shows so would appreciate some help please.

 

The kit has 3 decal options, one of which is for Stanford Tuck in what they claim is medium sea gray undersides and ocean grey and dark green upper surfaces with a sky spinner and tail band.

 

The second option is for Eric Lock with sky undersides, spinner and tail band and with the upper surfaces in dark brown/earth and dark green.

 

The final option is for R L Milne with medium sea grey undersides, light slate grey and extra dark sea grey upper surfaces with a sky spinner and tail band.

 

Admittedly my knowledge of post BoB schemes isn't great but I'm not sure if any of these suggested schemes is correct, apart from the Eric Lock scheme which seems to fit as this depicts an early Vb possibly before the new camouflage scheme was introduced.

 

Any clues/advice greatly appreciated.

 

Colin.

 

 

[Giorgio N]

Guess that Milne's aircraft is coded ZD-F....

If so, then my guess is that KP suggested those colours to match a well known picture of this aircraft. And IMHO got it wrong as Light Slate Grey and Extra Dark Sea Grey were never used in a scheme together... EDSG with Dark Slate Grey yes, the wel known Temperate Sea Scheme, that however is not applicable to this aircraft.

You can see the picture here for example:

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spitfire_VB_222_Sqn_RAF_in_flight_1942.jpg

 

From this, you can try and draw your own conclusions. I'm sure this aircraft has been discussed here before, some see it as some kind of repaint in Dark Earth and Dark Green, where the two colours have been transposed (Dark Green should go through the canopy in the standard scheme)

Others see this as an example of a repaint in Dark Green and Ocean Grey, where the grey is for some reason darker in many areas and the green shows an accentuated brownish shade. Personally I lean toward this view. Undersides seem to be grey, that fits well with the use of Medium Sea Grey as in standard Day Fighter Scheme

In any case it is clear that the aircraft shows a few panels that have either been replaced or repainted. Ailerons and right wingtips are also replacements.

 

 

[Troy Smith]

Scheme 1 and 2 are fine,  Tucks is Day Fighter Scheme(DFS), introduced in Aug 41,  Lock's is Temperate Land Scheme (TLS)

 

the 3rd, Milne, is odd, 

Seafire camo is temperate Sea Scheme, (TSS) Dark Slate Grey/ Extra Dark Sea Grey uppers, Sky underside.

IS this a Malta plane ?

 

 

this will explain far more on NW Europe Spitfire camo

https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Modeling-References/Camoflage-Markings/01-Supermarine-Spitfire

[fishplanebeer]

Thanks ever so much for the guidance on this.

 

On that basis I'm probably going to go for the Tuck example and then add the Lock version when I've got through more pressing other subjects currently on the go.

 

Thanks again.

Colin.

[rossm]

8 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Others see this as an example of a repaint in Dark Green and Ocean Grey, where the grey is for some reason darker in many areas and the green shows an accentuated brownish shade. Personally I lean toward this view.

 

I'm with you on that, maybe with the grey some panels being "Mixed Grey" and others Ocean Grey? The expedient "Mixed Grey" was IIRC 7:1 Medium Sea Grey and Night and I've mixed this previously and it's slightly different from Ocean Grey, at least when using Xtracrylix. In my case it was for a Whirlwind where it was noticeable there were two tones in the grey areas on the reference (B+W) pic and a mixture of the two colours was my best guess. The differing areas were those that would have been overpainted for Dieppe so a repaint seemed possible although maybe it was just the removal of the temporary white markings that caused the difference. In any case I needed differing tones of grey so used "Mixed Grey" and Ocean Grey and it looked ok to me.

 

[Bengt]

Another photo of ZD-F from Imperial War Museum. Dark Green and "Mixed Grey" with Medium Sea Grey undersides.

 

 

Bengt

'

Link: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126549

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Bengt

[occa]

1 hour ago, Bengt said:

Another photo of ZD-F from Imperial War Museum. Dark Green and "Mixed Grey" with Medium Sea Grey undersides.

 

 

Bengt

'

Link: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126549

 

 

That is on TSS with touch ups of what appears to be Ocean Grey (or Mixed Grey)

[Graham Boak]

I'm with Giorgio:  early Day Fighter with Mixed Grey, with replacement panels in fresher colours of Dark Green and Ocean Grey.  This is not the usual photo printed of this aircraft at this time - certainly taken on the same sortie - and I agree that the colours do rather look like TSS on this print.  However the other photo has a long history of discussion, and I don't think anyone ever suggested TSS!  That's because on most other printings the faded green looks much browner, and the alternative suggested is Dark Green and Dark Earth.  Not something that I found convincing: however it should be said that the late Edgar Brooks claimed to have seen the original photo in RAF records and that it was DG/DE.  I think that this second photo rules out that interpretation.  Thanks for posting it - where did you find it?

 

TSS would not be seen with Medium Sea Grey undersides, but Sky, and not on Fighter Command aircraft.  If you want to do a Spitfire Mk.Vb in TSS/Sky, then there is a photo showing FAA Spitfires (one Mk.I and one Mk.Vb) escorting the Fw190 after a visit to Yeovilton in (I believe) 1944.  This would leave you with the problem of finding Yellow Y2 codes.

[Smithy]

I agree with the others, almost certainly the Mixed Grey which was probably more common during the first several months of the change over than has possibly been thought.

[72modeler]

FWIW, I also think that  Spit has a mixture of mixed grey and ocean grey panels; my thinking being early examples used mixed grey due to an initial shortage of ocean grey, with the formula stated by @rossm being the one I recall seeing in written references. That would make for an unusual but accurate color scheme. Me- I'm still waiting by the mailbox for the new-tool Airfix kit!

Mike

[occa]

If that's the day fighter scheme indeed then the mixed grey came out extremely dark almost like fresh EDSG

[Smithy]

34 minutes ago, occa said:

If that's the day fighter scheme indeed then the mixed grey came out extremely dark almost like fresh EDSG

 

It could be very dark. For example the Hurricanes IIbs of 331 Sqn in service from August to November were a particularly dark version of Mixed Grey.

[Giorgio N]

IIRC the late Edgar Brooks also mentioned how the so-called mixed grey was what became Ocean Grey, or better that the often mentioned mix (7 parts Medium Sea Grey and 1 part black) was what became officially known as Ocean Grey.

Now I don't know if this was proven with absolute certainty or not, anyone interested should do a search on this same forum. The presence of such dark greys in some early DFS camouflaged aircraft is undoutbtedly proven but maybe the right term for these greys should not be mixed grey but rather "improperly mixed grey"... 🤣

With this I mean that while the mix mentiond above may be a bit different than the standard Ocean Grey, some greys that can be seen in some pictures are much darker than this mix. I personally tend to attribute this to the use of improper mixes or improper application of the paints more than to the use of different paints, particularly when it comes to in-service repaints, where unusual paints would be much less available than modellers often tend to think

[Terry1954]

13 hours ago, 72modeler said:

FWIW, I also think that  Spit has a mixture of mixed grey and ocean grey panels

 

Certainly from that picture of ZD-F posted by @Bengt above, I would tend to agree Mike, that could be a possibility, and I agree it would make a cracking subject with those differing grey panels. That's given me an idea for my next Spitfire!

 

Terry

[rossm]

That different photo makes me wonder if there's battle damage repair involved?

 

I've also wondered if there's rain involved - the front of the port roundel appearing a different shade of blue for example? But it doesn't seem entirely consistent with that idea.

[303sqn]

On 10/22/2020 at 7:36 PM, Bengt said:

Another photo of ZD-F from Imperial War Museum. Dark Green and "Mixed Grey" with Medium Sea Grey undersides.

 

 

Bengt

'

Link: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205126549

 

There are in fact in several photographs, taken by Charles Brown on 4th May 1942 northwest of Dunmow, Essex, flown by S/Ldr R.M.Miln, that are so similar you have to look carefully to distinguish them. The difference between your photograph and the controversial one is that it has been taken at a higher altitude. The Spitfire had the presentation name West Borneo 1 and there is a (black & white) photograph of it taken at the factory, that shows the it was finished in the standard TLS A scheme. If the colour photographs show it in the TLS then the Spitfire must have been repainted reversing the colours!

 

A controversy has developed over the scheme due to the appearance of the Spitfire in the first photograph. The date, yellow leading edge strips and grey under surfaces suggest that it should be in the Day Fighter Scheme. However, the photograph is often reproduced with what should be the green areas of the camouflage looking very brown. This has led to the idea that it was painted in some strange variation of the Land Temperate Scheme with Medium Sea Grey under surfaces. This camp’s explanation goes like this.

It left the factory in the Land Temperate Scheme Dark Earth/Dark Green/Sky. It was then repainted. The under surfaces Medium Sea Grey but the upper surfaces in Dark Earth and Dark Green. But! The colours of the camouflage were reversed. In other words the areas that were Dark Earth were painted Dark Green and the areas that were Dark Green were repainted Dark Earth. (It is a common misconception that reversing the colours of say the A pattern gives the B pattern. This is not so. The B pattern is a mirror image of the A pattern. Reversing the colours results in a new pattern.)The spinner, fuselage band and codes were painted white. The explanation for this is again a shortage of Sky paint. This all seem to be based on what are very poor reproductions of the photographs, very dark and with very high levels of contrast.

The Air Ministry/RAF Dark Green is in fact an Olive Green shade. Olive Greens are notorious for their ability to look green or brown in colour photographs depending upon the lighting conditions, exposure etc. under which they were taken. For example, Olive Drab, Polish Khaki. Indeed, there are better reproduced versions of the photograph where the supposed Dark Earth looks greener and the supposedly Dark Green looks rather grey. The Land Temperate camp will have none of this. According to them the photograph has been deliberately manipulated to make it look as though it is in the Day Fighter Scheme colours. (Perhaps because they think the two photographs are the the same.) This I find, frankly, to be ridiculous. While it is possible to modify images to almost anything you want these days with the sophisticated software available it was not so in the past. I quote from the RAF camouflage expert Paul Lucas on the problems of making an image appear the way you would like it to.

“As for the suggestion that colour photographs might be deliberately reproduced with a certain emphasis to support a particular interpretation. Whilst I suppose it might be possible, on balance I think it unlikely. I once spent a whole afternoon with a designer ‘on a well known modelling magazine’ trying to obtain the correct colour balance to get a particular colour illustration to reproduce ‘just so’ as it was quite important to the validity of the argument I was trying to make. After some three and a half hours we gave up, utterly defeated, as we simply could not persuade the colours to print out properly. Given all the variables in the colour printing process I am therefore more inclined to believe in ‘cock up’ rather than conspiracy’.

 

There does not seem to be any other evidence, apart from what people think they can see in the photograph, that supports the strange LTS, nor any good explanation of why anyone should want to go to all the trouble of painting it that way. As for the white spinner, band and codes. There was a shortage of Sky paint when it was introduced in 1940 but I have never heard of any shortage at the time the Day Fighter Scheme was introduced. As it had been used for some time by then I would expect there to be a surplus if anything.  Each time a photographic image is reproduced there is an increase in the contrast. Sky can often appear white for this reason or because it is overexposed.

 

Combat Colours No 8 claims it was repainted in an experimental scheme, Dark Sea Grey and Light Slate Grey, possibly for operations over sea and that the presentation name was painted out at this time. Only half correct for one of the photographs taken at the time, (De ‘Indische’ Spitfires Nico Geldhof & Luuk Boerman Dutch Profile) with two friends, shows the port side. On the port side the presentation name is still visible. The simplest and most sensible explanation for this is that on the starboard side the name can no longer be seen as it was painted on a Dark Earth background that was painted over with Mixed Grey. The name is still on the port side as it was painted on a green background which was not over painted when the change was made to the DFS.

 

Why the difference in colour between the two photographs? I think the difference in altitude is the cause, the camera being fitted with a compensating filter for the blue/UV light at higher altitudes.

[rossm]

10 hours ago, 303sqn said:

There are in fact in several photographs, taken by Charles Brown on 4th May 1942 northwest of Dunmow, Essex, flown by S/Ldr R.M.Miln, that are so similar you have to look carefully to distinguish them.

 

My copies of Camera Above The Clouds (vols 1,2,3) are out of reach due to an impending house move so I have to ask a question which I think is answered in one of them - Charles Brown generally used glass plates for his black and white photos but were his colour shots on roll film?

 

It would rule out possible minor variations in material and processing if all the colour photos were on one roll of film. We also have to remember different colour films (especially early ones) have different colour responses, something now baked in to some digital cameras and software with "Kodachrome" or "Velvia" etc. settings.