buffnut453
Captain
I'm out of this conversation. We're clearly seeing different things...and as someone who served in the "anal retentive" British Officer Corps, I respectfully disagree with your characterization.
RAF Markings and Camouflage
- Thread starter Micdrow
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you served as an officer in a Commonwealth force then you should know that the gulf between the Officers and "the lads" is deep and wide. What goes on in garrison is a far cry from the way it is in Combat. I said there was a basic schematic, but the reality was that they varied wildly, and they do. You can free-hand a Spitfire camo, and so long as you follow the basic shape--even adding quite a bit or taking it away--you are still going to hit some Spitfires' paint job about right.
Crimea_River
Marshal
This is a f!cking waste of time.
Why is it a waste of time? Because the photos show a high degree of deviation from technical specification? How is that a waste of time? There is no argument. The photos prove all. This is highly valuable to anyone wanting to paint a Spitfire.
Look-it, I'm not trying to make anyone angry, but some are saying there is ONE WAY to do a Spit and that's simply not true. It's a candy-land of variation, especially when taken IN CONTEXT of the Commonwealth systems notoriously rigid hierarchy. The Officers say one thing, but the lads do it the way they need to when push comes to shove. Please just use Google. Re-posting all the photos would be an endless exercise. It's there for all to see with their own eyes.
Look-it, I'm not trying to make anyone angry, but some are saying there is ONE WAY to do a Spit and that's simply not true. It's a candy-land of variation, especially when taken IN CONTEXT of the Commonwealth systems notoriously rigid hierarchy. The Officers say one thing, but the lads do it the way they need to when push comes to shove. Please just use Google. Re-posting all the photos would be an endless exercise. It's there for all to see with their own eyes.
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
Nobody has said that there's one way to paint a Spitfire but, equally, it wasn't a case of "anything goes".
I never experienced a wide gulf between the officers and men during my service, at least not in the RAF. Some of my best mates were enlisted troops who served alongside me. I served alongside the US military throughout my 20 years and, with a few exceptions, I found a greater gulf between the officers and men in the US military than I did in the Brit military.
A little less sweeping generalization and a little more acceptance that others have differing opinions might be in order.
I never experienced a wide gulf between the officers and men during my service, at least not in the RAF. Some of my best mates were enlisted troops who served alongside me. I served alongside the US military throughout my 20 years and, with a few exceptions, I found a greater gulf between the officers and men in the US military than I did in the Brit military.
A little less sweeping generalization and a little more acceptance that others have differing opinions might be in order.
I never said "anything goes." I said there was a scheme, and it varied, sometimes wildly. Then I posted photos proving it and can even red-circle the variations in the photos Wurgur posted showing variation. The field paints are even more out of spec. No sweeping generalizations here on my part; only cold hard proof in photo format.
As to your service; when? In WWII? Korea? 'Nam? Peacetime? The GWOT? Context is important. What branch of service? Navy? Army? Marines? JSOC? Keeping in mind that in Combat, officers generally issue orders, the lads salute, and then go do what they want. The officers find out, can't have their image tarnished and go tell the other officers the lads obeyed them. Or they get hard-nosed and depending upon war get fragged, and then higher-higher covers it up because they can't have the rest of the lads being inspired by it.
Commanding peace-time and garrison troops has nothing what-so-ever to do with commanding Combat Troops, who have killed, have weapons, and are in no mood to put up with pomp and circumstance.
Please also keep in mind that only a tiny fraction of Spitfires were photographed. Imagine what you haven't seen! In war, nothing goes as planned. That is the one constant.
P.S. Remember a few years back when an SAS man was put in jail and the SAS told Command to release him or they wouldn't fight for them anymore? (They couldn't release him fast enough) The difference between who is officially in charge, and the lads with the guns.
Gulfs!
As to your service; when? In WWII? Korea? 'Nam? Peacetime? The GWOT? Context is important. What branch of service? Navy? Army? Marines? JSOC? Keeping in mind that in Combat, officers generally issue orders, the lads salute, and then go do what they want. The officers find out, can't have their image tarnished and go tell the other officers the lads obeyed them. Or they get hard-nosed and depending upon war get fragged, and then higher-higher covers it up because they can't have the rest of the lads being inspired by it.
Commanding peace-time and garrison troops has nothing what-so-ever to do with commanding Combat Troops, who have killed, have weapons, and are in no mood to put up with pomp and circumstance.
Please also keep in mind that only a tiny fraction of Spitfires were photographed. Imagine what you haven't seen! In war, nothing goes as planned. That is the one constant.
P.S. Remember a few years back when an SAS man was put in jail and the SAS told Command to release him or they wouldn't fight for them anymore? (They couldn't release him fast enough) The difference between who is officially in charge, and the lads with the guns.
Gulfs!
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
You have a very jaundiced view of leadership that does not align with my experience of mission command. I was trained to provide objectives and then trust the team to accomplish the objective without having to tell them exactly how to do it. That's been my experience of leadership in 20 years spanning Gulf War 1 until GWOT. I'm not going into specifics of where I served because, frankly, you don't need it.
I suspect we're saying very similar things but the language is different. What you see as "wildly varied" I see as minor variations in the established scheme. Please do show me where there are differences the size of a man on the images you posted.
I suspect we're saying very similar things but the language is different. What you see as "wildly varied" I see as minor variations in the established scheme. Please do show me where there are differences the size of a man on the images you posted.
So effectively peacetime service. Nothing wrong with that. Thank you. I said SOMETIMES "wild variation." Just look at three photos I posted on the last page. Man, those are WILDLY out of specification, and that's just three. We are saying the same thing buffnut, but I am trying to frame it in the context of combat, not "the way it was supposed to be." As to the size of the mans body, look at the second photo where they are gassing up the spit. the entire top of the cowling is covered; more than enough for a man to lay down inside of.
As far as my view of Officers, yeah, it's "jaundiced." I've had to suffer their nonsense time and again. There are some good ones, but the majority of them are dorks that we booted in the arse on the way out the door. Not like they could do much about it, except go back and make themselves look like they were in charge. They weren't.
As far as my view of Officers, yeah, it's "jaundiced." I've had to suffer their nonsense time and again. There are some good ones, but the majority of them are dorks that we booted in the arse on the way out the door.
Not like they could do much about it, except go back and make themselves look like they were in charge. They weren't.
buffnut453
Captain
Gulf War 1 peacetime? Really? Must remind the families of the people we lost that we weren't really at war.
How do you know the schemes are out of spec? What's your criteria? Also, of those 3, one of them was a gate guard so can be discounted. The other 2 all have very similar camo patterns. Certainly close enough to be considered as "in spec". What differences are you seeing?
How do you know the schemes are out of spec? What's your criteria? Also, of those 3, one of them was a gate guard so can be discounted. The other 2 all have very similar camo patterns. Certainly close enough to be considered as "in spec". What differences are you seeing?
Gulf One. 73 casualties; mostly from blue-on-blue. RIP to the fallen and their families, but it's not in any way comparable to any of the other conflicts I pointed out. We lose more people than that in training in a given quarter. In the 80's we (the USA) had the acceptable training loss at around 3,000 a year! Even the GWOT pales in comparison to real conflicts like 'Nam and Korea and WWII, so I'm not sparing current service members either.
The schemes are out of spec compared to the templates posted. The factory ones in a minor way. The field ones in a major way. And again, in the US Army Air Corps it would have been nothing, but in the Commonwealth it was a big deal. Context, Context, Context!
The schemes are out of spec compared to the templates posted. The factory ones in a minor way. The field ones in a major way. And again, in the US Army Air Corps it would have been nothing, but in the Commonwealth it was a big deal. Context, Context, Context!
buffnut453
Captain
I give up. If it was such a big deal for the Commonwealth, why was it permitted? I'm out of this conversation - it's a complete waste of time.
Crimea_River
Marshal
Hope the mods are watching Superfire cuz I think you take pleasure in pushing people's buttons. Keep it up and you won't last long.
I posted photo proof. I'm not pushing anyone's buttons. I'm stating and posting facts. I get it that you don't like that. That's unfortunate, but it doesn't change the valuable information in any way. Should the mods "watch me" for posting the truth or something? I am not responsible for your emotional reaction to photo proof. That onus is on you.
A strange discussion anyway, if a modeller is making a generic model he will refer to the generic scheme, if it is a model of a specific plane on a specific date or period then he will use photos to establish the differences between specific and generic. Seems obvious to me and I havnt made a model in 40 years.
Airframes
Benevolens Magister
I still don't see 'wild variations', but I do see some minor differences, within the tolerances of the specs, on the MkXIIs, and I also see staining and dirt, and shadow and photo highlights 'burning out' some demarcations in the second pic. The gate guard can be discounted, as, at that particular period, they could be painted in an approximation, having most likely been previously silver doped overall, as Instructional Airframes.
The pic showing the application of the AEAF stripes also shows the standard camouflage pattern, although granted with heavy exhaust staining obscuring some of the colours, and also dirt.
These stripes were very hastily applied on the evening of June 4th, following orders to delay until evening, so that it was done a few hours before what should have been 'D-Day' which, as we all should know, was postponed for 24 hours due to bad weather. The 'paint' used was a water-based, 'washable' distemper -type emulsion, ans as there were so many aircraft on each forward operating strip along the south of England, accuracy in application was not a crushing concern, and many were painted by whichever personnel were available, including Army.
No one is saying that every Spitfire was absolutely identical in its paint finish, but they certainly were not 'wildly varied and, if a modeller wants to be 100% accurate, which is probably impossible, then he or she needs to study every available image of the actual subject aircraft, replicating the paint scheme, pattern and shades, and any weathering and staining, the latter being a totally different matter, compared to variations in pattern.
The pic showing the application of the AEAF stripes also shows the standard camouflage pattern, although granted with heavy exhaust staining obscuring some of the colours, and also dirt.
These stripes were very hastily applied on the evening of June 4th, following orders to delay until evening, so that it was done a few hours before what should have been 'D-Day' which, as we all should know, was postponed for 24 hours due to bad weather. The 'paint' used was a water-based, 'washable' distemper -type emulsion, ans as there were so many aircraft on each forward operating strip along the south of England, accuracy in application was not a crushing concern, and many were painted by whichever personnel were available, including Army.
No one is saying that every Spitfire was absolutely identical in its paint finish, but they certainly were not 'wildly varied and, if a modeller wants to be 100% accurate, which is probably impossible, then he or she needs to study every available image of the actual subject aircraft, replicating the paint scheme, pattern and shades, and any weathering and staining, the latter being a totally different matter, compared to variations in pattern.
buffnut453
Captain
Because you are not posting facts. You are posting an assumption.
A diagram was provided earlier in this thread that showed the generally-approved camouflage pattern. That's not a painter's guide. It's a depiction of how the Spitfire was camouflaged.
A specification should tell you closely (+/-) the actual painting of aircraft should match the pattern. You keep saying that the photos prove that the aircraft were painted out of spec but you cannot make that statement unless you know what tolerances were permitted. What was the acceptable tolerance for painting the camouflage pattern and how was that tolerance measured? If you can answer that simple question, then maybe I'll start listening to you.
buffnut453
Captain
Proof of what, though? There is zero proof that the aircraft shown are out of spec (and you said they were). Please provide the spec and I'll pay attention.
As for gate guards, yes they were painted. Do you know when that particular aircraft was mounted? What's the date of the photo? Again, give us some facts and we'll listen. Otherwise you're just spouting your assumptions.
As for gate guards, yes they were painted. Do you know when that particular aircraft was mounted? What's the date of the photo? Again, give us some facts and we'll listen. Otherwise you're just spouting your assumptions.
