Correct Colour Schemes for Matchbox's Fw 190A3/4 Decals?

[derekS]

+

German Aircraft Markings 1939-1945 by KA Merrick,ISBN 0 7110 0739 X. First published 1977.

On page 83 of the above it is stated that FOUR colour cammo was prescribed for single seat fighters,

74,75,76&65.

Further,colour photo No 20.which shows the above line-up is reproduced in a manner which supports 

this.  

,Maybe the origin of the Matchbox scheme?

As an aside,what`s with the red lower cowl panel in the first photo?

 

Derek S

[Rolls-Royce]

I suspect that the first picture may have been an original color photo in which parts (specifically skin tones and the aircraft in the lineup) were "corrected" due to severe color shifting over time. This very photo was on the cover of one of Ballantine's WWII series paperbacks back in the 1960s or early 1970s with the same difference in cowling, tail, and fuselage underside colors. The second picture of the (presumably) same lineup is probably closer to the true appearance of these aircraft.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Rolls-Royce

[Graham Boak]

derekS: Yes, and next to it on my shelf is his 2004 work from Classic, which gives much more information.  The 4-colour source is indeed from the official 1941 L.Dv.521, which he describes as "enigmatic" but he refers to the later scheme as 74/75/76 throughout.  In particular reference, he states that Versuchs Fw.190 were in 02, but A-0 machines were in 74/75/76.  He then goes on to describe aircraft of JG26 and JG2 as appearing to have a 71/02 camouflage, which he suggests may be because of their coastal operations.  He also points out that Bf 109F-1s and early 2s were also finished in 71/02.

 

I think (pretty sure) that the 1977 book is too late to have influenced Matchbox, and suspect that the earlier Kookaburra was more likely to be the prime cause - but as Troy says this was discussed between interested parties and adopted by others. 

 

Incidentally, I think it was the 1977 book, produced after falling out with Pentland partway through the Kookaburra Luftwaffe camouflage volumes, that he first aired his theory that the early Luftwaffe desert yellow was using Italian paints: something which was widely adopted but he came to regret upon discovering the original German paint chips for these colours.  I'm sure he's not the only author to wish his pervious work could disappear....  I can think of quite a few of my own postings...

 

These older Luftwaffe books should be regarded as a good source for photos - I recall Uhlmann saying that many of the Karl Reiss photos were no longer to be found - allowing for poorer reproduction, but unreliable for colour help.

[derekS]

Sorry, I meant the photo Troy posted of black 2 from JG51.

Of the two a/c,both have the yellow theatre fuselage band,but whereas the rear 

a/c has a yellow under cowl,the near one is in red

 

Derek S

[tempestfan]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

Incidentally, I think it was the 1977 book, produced after falling out with Pentland partway through the Kookaburra Luftwaffe camouflage volumes, that he first aired his theory that the early Luftwaffe desert yellow was using Italian paints: something which was widely adopted but he came to regret upon discovering the original German paint chips for these colours.  I'm sure he's not the only author to wish his pervious work could disappear....  I can think of quite a few of my own postings...

 

There may be some, but really I see no reason for regrets if the respective work was based on the then-available sources, and any conclusions drawn/theories clearly marked as such and not the universal truth. There may be a universal truth about Luftwaffe camo, but as it's the sum of all information and data that ever existed - and much of it is lost or has not yet been unearthed -, we will probably never know it in completeness.  

[SafetyDad]

Thanks for the shout @Troy Smithbut I can't really add anything to the comments above about older sources.

 

But I do like the way that tempestfan has phrased this -

5 hours ago, tempestfan said:

There may be some, but really I see no reason for regrets if the respective work was based on the then-available sources, and any conclusions drawn/theories clearly marked as such and not the universal truth. There may be a universal truth about Luftwaffe camo, but as it's the sum of all information and data that ever existed - and much of it is lost or has not yet been unearthed -, we will probably never know it in completeness.  

 

I'm aware of profiles going back to the 50s that  appeared in RAF Review mags and still make their way into contemporary mass-market publications. But earlier sincere writers, such as Ries,  who published their interpretations of Luftwaffe colours have helped us get where we are today - the story may not yet be complete but without them we would perhaps not be where we are now.

 

SD

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, derekS said:

Of the two a/c,both have the yellow theatre fuselage band,but whereas the rear 

a/c has a yellow under cowl,the near one is in red

 

I think this has been discussed before.  the undercowl maybe a combination of ww2 film and RLM 04?  It's not the same red as the spinner ring, being quite orange, and RLM 04 is 'redder' than RLM 27, which also loops us back to the early 190' 71/02/65 vs 74/75 /76 question

 

 

Back to the realms if archival Luftwaffe research,  there are a fair few profiles of fighter with red nose and rudders,  

 

although the red and green 109 does look rather good!   

 

29 minutes ago, SafetyDad said:

But earlier sincere writers, such as Ries,  who published their interpretations of Luftwaffe colours have helped us get where we are today - the story may not yet be complete but without them we would perhaps not be where we are now.

 

6 hours ago, tempestfan said:

There may be some, but really I see no reason for regrets if the respective work was based on the then-available sources, and any conclusions drawn/theories clearly marked as such and not the universal truth.

Indeed, one of the reasons I have been mentioning previous researchers, and what was known when is how understanding has evolved, and why older sources have been superseded.   I know many of the contributors have been following Luftwaffe camouflage debates for years,  but I'm sure some others may find the reasons for why older kits show different colours to a modern kit (the point of the thread) perhaps of use.  

 

We have a lot more readers than posters,  so what maybe 'obvious' to those who have been following the subject for many years may well help in a wider understanding of how and why the knowledge has changed, and that while the picture we have now is imperfect, it's the best one available, and what once was the preserve of those dedicated enough to purchase expensive and specialist books can now be accessed far more easily.  

 

 

 

[derekS]

I`m not convinced re the red?cowling on black2.However ,as an illustration of how far research

has come I`ve just dug out my copy of "Aircraft Camouflage & Markings 1907-1954".The whole

of the WW II Luftwaffe is covered in four pages.Still, from such beginnings.....

 

Derek S

[Graham Boak]

As a record of how our knowledge has changed, these works are valuable   As a source of photographs, they are at times very useful.  As a guide to the colours actually used for the aircraft concerned, to be repeated down the ages as equally valuable as that based on a much wider understanding of the subject, then they are a positive menace and waste of modellers' time.  Knowledge moves on.  We do not now believe in only four elements, phlogiston, nor count the number of angels dancing on a pin head.  However we are stuck with people encountering aged obsolete assumptions and posting them here as current evidence for existence.

 

We knew very little in the fifties; there was an outburst of information in the 70s, which was built on by research on the 80s and 90s.  Apart from small specialist areas, and a continued enlarging of what we know about the final months, the story has remained the same since 2004.  Yes, there is a problem because newcomers meet old profiles regurgitated without thinking in the kind of "hoovered facts" books published by people who think this passes for real research, but know they will sell to the non-specialist.  The modeller's equivalent of "celebrity" TV or political promises.

[SafetyDad]

10 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

 

although the red and green 109 does look rather good!   

 

Indeed it does! As a teenager in the 70s, a friend finished his Revell 1/32 109F in this scheme - it looked excellent!

This 'red-nosed' scheme hung around for a long time - in part I suspect as it was featured in the Profile publication on the 109F (as per your drawing here). It's a good example of the 'old knowledge' that influenced thinking perhaps past the point where it was appropriate. 

 

45 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

 However we are stuck with people encountering aged obsolete assumptions and posting them here as current evidence for existence.

 

We knew very little in the fifties; there was an outburst of information in the 70s, which was built on by research on the 80s and 90s.  Apart from small specialist areas, and a continued enlarging of what we know about the final months, the story has remained the same since 2004.  

I would like to believe that things are a little more positive - we now have a number of authors and small publishers consistently producing specialist material which is and has advanced the current body of knowledge to a great extent. I'm thinking of people like Axel Urbanke, However, your point is valid about old ideas continuing to circulate and influence newcomers.  

 

Perhaps the real issue with any outdated thinking is having the capacity to sift through what's out there and being able to distinguish right from wrong (and I don't mean that to sound either arrogant or easy). Even those well-versed in Luftwaffe colours struggle and disagree over key issues - I well recall trying to make sense of the various sub-versions of the late Bf 109 from the material available. Not straightforward at all.

 

With regards to your first point, it helps the reader significantly if posters are able to give the source of any evidence they offer - that allows for objective appraisal and checking.

 

SD

 

[tempestfan]

1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

 As a guide to the colours actually used for the aircraft concerned, to be repeated down the ages as equally valuable as that based on a much wider understanding of the subject, then they are a positive menace and waste of modellers' time.  Knowledge moves on.  We do not now believe in only four elements, phlogiston, nor count the number of angels dancing on a pin head.  However we are stuck with people encountering aged obsolete assumptions and posting them here as current evidence for existence.

 

We knew very little in the fifties; there was an outburst of information in the 70s, which was built on by research on the 80s and 90s.  Apart from small specialist areas, and a continued enlarging of what we know about the final months, the story has remained the same since 2004.  Yes, there is a problem because newcomers meet old profiles regurgitated without thinking in the kind of "hoovered facts" books published by people who think this passes for real research, but know they will sell to the non-specialist.  The modeller's equivalent of "celebrity" TV or political promises.

But that is a "phenomenon" not confined to modelling, but to all sorts of researching science (hope this doesn't sound too grand). Get outdated material and one will be stuck in the middle ages. I mean, the earth IS flat, isn't it?!

[Jochen Barett]

In an atempt to answer 3DStewart 's question ... in the olden days 70/71/65 was believed to be "accurate"

check; https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/4/9/5/178495-87-instructions.pdf

 

So for building a historic 1972 OOB 1/72nd Matchbox PK-6 Fw 190 HG1, HG2, and HG5 are the proper colors for the model. Aaaand black prop blades with red tips (cough cough!).

 

Today there seems to exist a tendency to vote for RLM 74/75/76 (HG4, HG11 (added to the range by Humbrol in 1981), and HG3 or any other paint maker we trust) (and in case we trust the first pic of the SG 1 lineup, we may add RLM 65) - and a minority voting for 71/02(HG6)/76 (and we haven't even talked about the cockpit interior in 02 or 66 or a mix). And usually we'd recommend black-green prop blades.

 

Maybe a poll would be a good solution.

[3DStewart]

Folks, thanks for all your replies.

 

There seem to be two views here.  RLM 74/75/76 if you accept newer research and RLM 71/02/76 or 65 if you go for older research and believe the extant colour photography to be broadly correct.

 

Have I summed up correctly?

[Werdna]

51 minutes ago, 3DStewart said:

Folks, thanks for all your replies.

 

There seem to be two views here.  RLM 74/75/76 if you accept newer research and RLM 71/02/76 or 65 if you go for older research and believe the extant colour photography to be broadly correct.

 

Have I summed up correctly?

 

Hmm, not exactly.  As mentioned earlier, there is evidence of Faber's A-3 being painted in colours which seem to correspond to the 71/02/65 scheme. Whether you want to regard the RAF intelligence report of the time (I still can't find it) as 'old research' is another matter, but it does refer to the colours as being 'dark green, light olive green and pale blue'.  Pale blue could obviously be seen as either 65 or 76, but I don't think 'dark green and light olive green' could ever be seen as describing 74 and 75.  Who knows.

 

There's useful thread here for further reading..