RAF Markings and Camouflage (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Interesting. I did some quick math and then measured my existing models and that looks about right-Scale 24-30" from the past.

I hesitate to ask, but is duck egg blue a light blue or a light green?
 
After looking at exhaustive black and white photos, it's easy to say that while there was a basic pattern for the Spitfires, they varied wildly. As far as front-line birds go, I have yet to see two that are exactly the same. You will find the general layout in almost every Spit, but they have noticeable differences from plane to plane, and occasionally the pattern was barely followed at all. You can free hand it and so long as you adhere to the basic pattern, you're 100% accurate. I'm sure command ordered a uniform camo, but the guys in the field didn't care! LOL!
 
The 'guys in the field' didn't paint the aircraft, they were painted in the factories, the main production source being Castle Bromwich Aircraft Factory.
Although the 'A' and 'B' Schemes more or less ended by late 1941 / early 1942, they were still used, and the basic patterns were adhered to. There could, of course, be minor variations, depending on production source, but the basic patterns were the same - unless re-painted due to extreme wear and tear, or due to replacement panels, for example.
Those Spitfires sent to Burma, had the Ocean Grey overpainted in Dark Earth at the MU in India.


 
I beg to differ Airframes. I've seen several photos on Google Image Search for "Spitfire Camo" showing field painting taking place, especially in the tropics where the extreme sun, heat and humidity destroyed the factory paint jobs very very quickly. There are squdron photos where no two Spits are the same and a couple of them are wildy out of specification. There is the way it was supposed to have been versus the way it really was at play. This is very common in war time. Command issues orders but the reality of warfare mean they are of minor importance to the combat units fighting and dying. They did not care about "regulations." They had far more important matters pressing in upon them.

Also, I've read several threads on the web that the Griffon Spits in the Indian and Burma theater did not have the brown/green livery applied as it was late in the war and there was simply no time to fool with it.
 
As I mentioned, there were variations, but the basic patterns were adhered to, and the aircraft left the factories in prime condition, which was maintained as much as possible, allowing for the operational states at the time. Yes, as mentioned, some re-painting might be required at times, but this was not the 'norm', and certainly not the way it was 'supposed to be versus the way it really was'.
OK, the aircraft did get dirty, with dust, oil and other staining, and of course suffered the effects of the atmosphere and environment, but when time allowed, they were cleaned - a dirty aircraft can be a slow aircraft, and if anything can be done to improve performance, it was done, an example being the removal of the rear view mirror on those Spits used on anti 'Diver' patrols, which gained 4 to 5 mph.
Not all Griffon Spits (i.e. MkXIV) retained the grey/ green camouflage in the CBI.
I asked Ginger Lacey about his MkXIV, back in the early 1980s, and he was specific in describing it as Green and Brown (Dark Earth), which is supported by photo evidence of his, and other Mk.XIVs of the period.
 
I specifically stated that there was a basic scheme, but that it varied wildly; usually depending upon who painted it at the factory that week, and then field re-paints (authorized or not it happened and there are tons of photos showing it). I don't think we're at odds here on any of this. Yes, there were the specifications. No, they weren't adhered to strictly. Just google "Spitfire Camo" and select Black and White Photos from the Tools and there are hundreds of shots showing it.

As far as the Brown/Green; ok. But MOST of them were Grey/Green. Griffon Spits that is.

EDIT: I specifically stated the basic livery/variations in another thread; my mistake. The ultimate point being made is that guys are being way too anal retentive about Spitfire camo. You don't have to use a stencil as if there was just ONE Spitfire during the war and they just changed the letters and roundels. There is a plethora of options that are all accurate and a lot of them were really gnarly looking and cool. It's almost impossible to mess it up.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that the basic scheme "varied wildly, usually depending on who painted it at the factory.." You say there are "tons" of pics. Perhaps you can post 3 or 4 pics of factory fresh Spits showing "wildly" varying schemes.

The drawing that Terry posted (copied from J Goulding & R Jones: "Camouflage & Markings: R.A.F. Fighter Command Northern Europe, 1936-45", Ducimus,1970/1971) was prepared from shop drawings and shows specific control points for the application of camouflage. Between these control points, the applicator did use his own discretion and patterns did vary but the basic scheme did not vary by much as the control points needed to be followed.
 
I can hardly think of any RAF scheme that doesn't make a plane more visible, no idea what the thinking was at all.
 
Two photos of one production batch, and there are variations in the scheme if you look closely. And here's some "reality in the field" and there are hundreds more if you go google it.


First two are similar, but not the same, then the third and further back are even more different.



Nowhere near spec.


Whoa Mama! (And Gate Guards were not the pampered planes they are today. They just threw them on a post right from the Squadron back then).

And there are literally HUNDREDS of other photos. Not sure why Google isn't being used here but it's there if you want to. No, the basic scheme varied WILDLY and what was in the field was NOT what rolled off the line, even though there ARE variations in the line paint jobs as well.

You guys can paint the same scheme over and over and over again if you desire to--and more power to you--but it's not a reflection of reality. It's just not and the photos prove it. This was a war, and in war, what command orders is a pipe-dream that lives in paper-pushers heads. They did not bother with making everything the same. Things were moving too fast. People were dying. Making the paint exactly the same all the time was irrelevant by comparison.
 
Last edited:
Well I guess what you term "wildly" is more like minor variations to me. I would say all of the examples you posted (with the exception of the gate guard which hardly represents a factory fresh aircraft) show that the basic scheme was followed with camouflage control points being respected.
 
Look at the nose cowlings! There is paint where absolutely non exists on the others. That's "Wild" variation. Look CLOSELY!
 
Sorry but I just don't see the "wildly" varying camouflage to which you refer. In your first post, the basic scheme is the same. Yes, there are some detail differences but they're hardly glaring. The same is true for the second pic, indeed it's exactly the same scheme as shown in the first image. When I think of "wildly varied" patterns, I think of schemes that are entirely different, and not subtle variances in detail. The examples you posted aren't precisely identical but they are accurate to the specified pattern.
 
Do I need to take these into paintshop and put red circles around all the variations? And these are but three photos out of HUNDREDS! Just use Google and really LOOK at the liveries.

I love this one even though I've posted it before. Sloppy-sloppy!



Now imagine all the planes that WERE NOT photoed!
 
Paint the size of a man on one bird where it does not exist on the other, and then an arm and a leg and so-on, is WILD variation. Especially in the Commonwealth where the Officer Corps there really threw fits over things like this. I've known a lot of British and Commonwealth military men in my life. Trust me, their Officer Corps tradition is very anal retentive compared to the USA's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

C
Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwader Markings
Replies
1
Views
371
Wurger
M
French Air Force Recon Lighting Markings
Replies
3
Views
366
le_steph40
C
Goosestepping Markings on Planes
Replies
3
Views
764
Snautzer01
Luftwaffe Camouflage Schemes....
Replies
1
Views
1K
fubar57
L
Help with B-17g markings
Replies
6
Views
1K
EAIAnalog
Menu
Log in
Register