RAF Markings and Camouflage

You're saying a gate guard is sporting a factory paint scheme. If that was the case, it would not have a squadron code. The photo is not proof. Hell, where I come from, air cadets paint gate guards and you can find "TONS" of pictures of those too. Proves nothing.

I firmly believe that you are right in your own mind and that no-one will convince you otherwise. That's my last post on the topic.

Didn't you say you were out of here and this was a waste of time? Ok, fair enough on the gate guard, but no, they did not repaint them until the 80's by-and-large. The photos I posted, and the hundreds more to see on Google images are well outside the template. Like it, don't like it, argue with the photos! The fact is, there is wide variation and anyone wanting to paint a Spitfire can do it any number of ways and be backed up by photo proof, and since few of the Spits were even photoed, and many were re-painted several times, the assumption that you have to follow the template is disingenuous. You should stay with the basic schematic, but you don't have to use a template in order to be "accurate" especially if you are doing a COMBAT Spitfire. The proof is right there for all to see, and look up. I can't make it any more plain that that. If some suffered trying to duplicate the template when they could have done it a lot differently, well; but for those doing a Spit now and in the future, you have a wide playground of options to use.

"Photos prove nothing." They prove EVERYTHING!

But not the one with the gate guard. The plane is the Spitfire F.21 with serial LA226 and was dismounted from its pole at Little Rissington to join a movie about the BOB. What is more the phot is copied from the Air Pictorial Magazine, September 1967. Judging by the code latters ond shining paint it was repainted after the war and does have noting in common with the war.

Gate guard Spitfires were already replaced, or were being replaced, by more 'modern' types, or 'plastic' replica Spitfires, by the mid to late-mid 1970s.
Most, if not all, only became gate guards in the mid 1950s, and most had, as previously mentioned, been Instructional airframes, when they would have been in an overall 'silver' finish, with a 'M' serial number.
I've seen most of the (real) Spitfires which were used as such, and I've also seen them soon after painting in the early 1960s, when the job was given to National Service station personnel, with gloss paint of an approximate shade, and, in some cases, a camouflage pattern drawing taken from a model kit !

And BTW, photos might prove a lot, but not always everything - if the specifics of the photo quality are known, and the viewer knows how to interpret them.
As others have noted, it seems you have your own beliefs, so I'm also finished here.

The gate guard may not be original, or it may just have it's markings painted over. Fair enough Wurger. That said, it's a minor niggling point compared to the hundreds of photos of Combat Spits and their ragged, out of spec camo jobs; which is the primary focus here. The whole point of this is to provide modelers options. If someone wants to do a factory bird that was done perfectly that is fine. I'm providing evidence to those that don't want that. The push-back I'm receiving is nit-picky and abrupt in it's absolute denial of the photo evidence. I can't say why it's being done but it's needless and false. The photos show what they show. Nobody can change that.

Does that mean: "You have a point" Airframes? LOL! It's all good man. Again, in actual WAR, you see all kinds of deviations from the "official specification."


Never buy a car built on Monday or Friday. On Monday they are all hung-over. On Friday they are all ready to go get drunk in a big hurry. Same for any assembly line machine.

SuperFire said:

"Photos prove nothing." They prove EVERYTHING!

Click to expand...

You are misquoting me. Read my post EXACTLY.

That goes both ways Crimea! Care to threaten me with banishment for posting photo proof and a point of view that isn't "It has to be done THIS way?" Stop focusing on the Gate Guard. It doesn't matter if that ONE example is not accurate, and it may well be. What matters is that I posted photo proof that the template varied and those variations got pretty big at times. THAT is what is important. You can accept that or you can try to find any chink in the armor of my argument, but it changes nothing about the fact that each Spitfire was not the same. Not only not the same but sometimes very different. And field re-paints did happen. They happened all the time, especially in the tropics. And the over worked ground crews did not give a good darn about what "official orders" were. They just got the dern things patched up, cleaned up as best they could and back in the air to KILL and gather INTEL. There was no time to obsess about "the way it ought to be" in the middle of a massive war. That's for peacetime folks who can afford to do it.

SuperFire said:

Didn't you say you were out of here and this was a waste of time? Ok, fair enough on the gate guard, but no, they did not repaint them until the 80's by-and-large. The photos I posted, and the hundreds more to see on Google images are well outside the template. Like it, don't like it, argue with the photos! The fact is, there is wide variation and anyone wanting to paint a Spitfire can do it any number of ways and be backed up by photo proof, and since few of the Spits were even photoed, and many were re-painted several times, the assumption that you have to follow the template is disingenuous. You should stay with the basic schematic, but you don't have to use a template in order to be "accurate" especially if you are doing a COMBAT Spitfire. The proof is right there for all to see, and look up. I can't make it any more plain that that. If some suffered trying to duplicate the template when they could have done it a lot differently, well; but for those doing a Spit now and in the future, you have a wide playground of options to use.

Click to expand...

Some comments:

1. Your statement about gate guards not being painted until the 1980s is patently untrue. Many gate guards weren't even wearing wartime camouflage but postwar high-speed silver or some other postwar affectation of wartime camo. Here are just a couple of examples:


RAF Wilmslow had a retired Supermarine Spitfire as a 'Gate Guardian'. It was a Spitfire Mk Vb; serial 5377M aka EP120. RAF Wilmslow closed in 1962...so no 1980s repaint in this case.


RAF Northolt gate guardian - photo taken in 1970. You're telling me this hasn't been repainted since WW2???


2. A diagram is NOT a template nor is it a specification. It is a general plan. In order for a plan to be a template, it should be constructed at full scale and distributed so it can be used as a mask. In order for a plan to be a specification, it should include details of approved tolerances in areas where such things were important. For example, a plan might show a 1/4in diameter bolt that's 1in long. The SPECIFICATION should articulate the allowable tolerances. If the spec calls for length tolerances of +/- 1/8in, then we could place 2 bolts side-by-side and find that the first is 1-1/8in and the other is 15/16in but BOTH of them meet the SPECIFICATION. Now apply that to RAF camouflage. What is the SPECIFICATION for how closely the applied scheme should match the plan? Short answer....THERE ISN'T ONE. About the only spec cited was the degree of feathering between the camouflage colours (no more than 1in). There's NO wording ANYWHERE that I've seen which states that the applied scheme must be within so-and-so inches of the diagram. You keep stating that the photos "prove" that the aircraft were painted "out of spec" but you CANNOT make that assertion without providing the spec...and all its associated tolerances. For the third time of asking, PLEASE provide the spec and I'll start listening to you.

3. Nobody is saying that the plan was followed slavishly. That said, neither is it a "wide playground". The photos show some slight differences in the positioning of the demarcation lines but it's only really visible when aircraft are seen side-by-side. In terms of impacting the overall camouflage scheme, there's zero appreciable wholesale difference. Where I will agree is that we should always strive to consult photos of the actual aircraft in the timeframe we wish to model in order to correctly capture the look of the aircraft, to include any unique markings (eg noseart) or distinctive weathering patterns.


The above is offered in a final attempt to explain my position. I'm done with the propagation of false information and the attempt to somehow link it to jingoistic perceptions about British Commonwealth personnel in general or their officers in particular. I look forward to any substantive comments you may have.

Focus upon the gate-guard and assume all were because arguing with the in-the-field combat photos is obviously pointless. That's not a good strategy mate. And any restored Warbird is so pampered and perfect--because they cost millions of dollars--they have almost zero bearing on the real thing.

You operate in the ideal and perfect. War doesn't work like that. I've shown the proof. I've shown you where to find lots more. I am not responsible for a bruised ego. War is dirty. Accept that, or not. Feel free to free-hand the camo lads. You don't have to follow the rules very closely to be accruate, because real life is not an Officers desire. It just happens, and it's sloppy.

No bruised ego here...but also no substantive additional input from you. You're the one who claimed that gate guards weren't repainted until the 1980s, which is totally bogus.

You pick on my first comment but ignore the other 2 comments. Photos do not prove a failure to meet a spec. They simply prove there was variation in the details of the scheme. In order prove that they didn't meet the spec, you must produce the actual spec. So where's the spec (not a diagram...a spec with tolerances)? Put up or shut up.

I don't have to argue with you buffnut. The photos are the undeniable proof all by themselves. You keep coming back and arguing with the visual record. I have no idea why. I put up before you even arrived. This was over the moment the photos appeared.

What, precisely, do the photos prove?

Reality. You done?

Reality as opposed to what? The spec?

It's very important to you to prove the photos are not what they are. Why is that? I'm not trying to be insulting, only curious. You can't argue with them. That's a fact. What do you get out of telling future builders that your opinion is so correct it overcomes actual photographic proof?

I'm not arguing with the photos. I'm arguing with your interpretation that they are evidence that a spec was not followed.

My interpretation that the livery's varied, sometimes wildly, especially by Commonwealth official standards? That's not an opinion. That's a fact borne out by the photographs. So what's the real beef here? Because the facts are laid out in black and white, literally.

You don't like it that I'm correct? Noted! Have a nice day!

But what "official Commonwealth standards" are you citing? A painting diagram is not a standard. It's a general depiction of how the scheme is supposed to appear. In order for it to be a standard (or a specification) it should have tolerance values so that an evaluator could assess compliance. Since those tolerances aren't present, it should be expected that we'd see variation in the details of the camouflage patterns of different airframes...which takes us back to your comment about anal retentiveness. You made 2 false assumptions (1. Painting diagram = Specification and 2. Anal-retentive Brits worried excessively about the specific application of camouflage on each airframe) and are using photographs to "prove" them but it's abundantly clear that the diagrams are not specifications (due to lack of tolerances or any quantifiable metrics for assessing differences between airframes) and the practical proof that all echelons of the RAF really didn't care if the demarcation lines weren't identical on every single airframe, or even on any 2 airframes.