Was RLM 02 used as a top-surface camouflage colour on Luftwaffe fighters?

Good stuff Andy - look forward o seeing what Dave has to add.

Thanks very much for going to all the trouble. I'd be most interested to see what Mr Wadman has to say on the subject.

No trouble at all. I dropped him a PM on another forum early in our discussion and just received his response this week.

While we're waiting to hear from Mr Wadman, here are a few more thoughts.

With respect to the two photographs of the same 109F, you say because we know the date and place the photographs were taken we can say RLM 74/75 was on the wings. In other words, because the documentary record tells us that RLM 74/75 should be on the wings at that time and place, we can be confident the colours were 74/75, despite what the colours might suggest in the second photograph.

I would agree entirely. So then why do you believe an apparently undocumented colour combination of RLM 02/71 was used on the wings of 109Es in 1940?

Regarding the colour accuracy or reliability of period colour photographs, of course there are some photographs that for a variety of reasons may give a misleading impression of the original colours of their subjects. Strong sunlight shining directly on an object, for example, can alter the appearance of the colour of that object. Take for example this period colour photograph of a Spitfire and see how direct sunlight on the green to the upper right of the roundel has made the original colour almost unrecognizable.


Great colour photos showing Spitfires being rearmed England 03


For this reason, of course we need to be wary of relying on a single period colour photograph as evidence of an officially designated colour scheme. However, when photograph after photograph of 109Es appear to show (to my eyes at least) a two tone grey splinter pattern and not an olive grey (02) /dark green (71) splinter pattern, I think we are on surer ground to start questioning the existence of the latter.

As such, for all their limitations, period colour photographs may still play a role as evidence in this debate. I certainly wouldn't describe their use as "pointless".

Take for example this excellent series of period colour photographs presented by the IWM. While I wouldn't suggest using them as precise colour-matching reference sources, the colours certainly look to be in the right ballpark. The army uniforms look khaki, while the camouflage colours on that Sea Hurricane (pic no. 10) look spot on. So let's not despair of period colour photographs entirely.

22 Amazing Colour Photos Of The Second World War

Regarding the "drawing of new conclusions without pointing to new facts to support a revision to commonly held beliefs", all I'm asking for is evidence of the widely claimed 02/71 splinter pattern colour combination (as is our friend, "The Brushpainter"). So far, I haven't been able to find any evidence of a 02/71 scheme, although as I presented earlier there appears to be compelling evidence to suggest the use of the 74/75 combination instead during the period in question.

So the onus of proof here is not on me. I'm the one asking for proof of the widely prevalent and published assertion that the top-surface splinter pattern colour combination on German fighters from the winter of 1939/40 to at least July 1940 was either 70/02 or 71/02.

It is suggested above that "there is also evidence, both visual (from photo interpretation) and written (from crash reports, descriptions and surviving relics) that another colour was used, in combination with RLM 71 that has come to be referred to as 'RLM 02'". Well, as I say, if you can point to any such evidence, I'm all ears. The 71/02 combination appears to be based on nothing more than the interpretation of black and white photographs. To re-quote Alain Fleuret:

"No substantiation, however, has been offered for the use of colour 70 (which may equally have been 71) and the assumption appears to depend entirely on the interpretation of black and white photographs, a risky area in which to be so dogmatic as it is such a highly subjective one. As any official orders approving this scheme have yet to be produced, the claim of the existence of such orders must for the moment remain a rather dubious one". (See Alain Fleuret, "Luftwaffe Camouflage 1935-40", 1981, Page 101)

Certainly a greater contrast is noticeable in the splinter pattern on fighters in black and white photographs of 109s from the winter of 1939/40 onwards. However, as I've already suggested, an identical contrast is noticeable in black and white photographs of the 74/75 scheme, so there is no need to invent an apparently undocumented scheme like 02/71 or 02/70 to explain that contrast. As Occam's razor suggests, "when presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions".

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

From the comments posted above, it seems that we're already in agreement that two-tone greys were used at least from mid-1940 onwards, so why hold onto the notion of an undocumented 02/71 scheme? What seems more plausible and to have the least assumptions: the Germans went from 70/71 to 02/71 to 74/75 within a six-month period or they went straight from 70/71 to 74/75 (both of which, unlike 02/71, are well documented official colour combinations)?

Besides, while the 74/75 scheme is mentioned in the reissue of L.Dv.521/1 and 2 in November 1941, there is documentary evidence of its existence earlier than that:

"An RLM order, dated June 24, 1941, is believed to have ratified the changeover to an official RLM camouflage scheme incorporating the new colors 74, 75 and 76 in conjunction with 65. By August 15, 1941, Messerschmitt had set forth its new painting chart for the Bf 109 F calling for camouflage colors 74/75/76 with a fuselage mottle of 02/70/74". (See page 24, The official Monogram Painting Guide to German Aircraft 1933-1945)

Even more to the point, the Brushpainter has recently posted on his website this fascinating quote from Thomas Hitchcock, "The LDv.521 in my possession is a 1938 edition and includes the three greys: 74/75/76. This pre-dates the 1941 assumption of their introduction." He reports this quote is from a letter to the editor of Scale Models magazine (February 1973).

This is a loose rendition of the impression I have after reading Ullmans an Merricks books on the subject sometime ago. In my view, the substitution RLM 02 for RLM 70 as an interim camouflage makes perfect sense given the changing requirements as things progressed. As RLM 02 was already in use for application as camouflage paint at the unit level, it would be readily available, if not in sufficient quantities, to overpaint The RLM 70 as required. It seems to me, working from memory, that the substitution of RLM 02 was initiated during the battle of France when the requirement shifted from hiding aircraft on the ground to having the aircraft meld into the background when seen from above when in flight. The use of RLM 02 would do a much better job of breaking up the shape of the aircraft as well as blending in to a lighter background, a very important issue for anyone hitting the deck on the run from a losing situation. Aircraft Camouflaged in this way would most likely carry over into the battle of Britain as did a number of those still camouflaged in 70/71, but I doubt any would be painted in this manner during that phase of the conflict.

The emphasis on the greys as camouflage colors really didn't take hold until the channel crossings began, where becoming less obvious when over the water became rather important, with the ultimate comprise being that which worked well over both land and sea. It may very well be that all the mixing and matching would be as much a matter of necessity as experimentation. I would also add that while the 109 seems to be the primary focus of this conversation the Bf110 was also affected by these camouflage decisions so one could look for pictures of those as well if one is so inclined. I am open to correction as my memory is a bit vague and I am most interested in seeing what Mr.Wadman has to say on the subject

Also, IIRC while there were many variations of RLM 02, the directive was that when used internally the exact shade didn't matter, however, when used externally as a camouflage paint. it had to be within spec.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The problem is, if you "overpaint" the RLM 70 with RLM 02, the 02 ends up where the darker paint is in black and white photographs of the simplified splinter-pattern scheme. In other words, as 02 is the lighter shade, simply "overpainting" the 70 with 02 will not produce a scheme that matches period photographs because the dark shade will be where the light shade is in the photographs. All credit goes to "the Brushpainter" for pointing this out, as for years I just assumed you could get to the simplified splinter pattern by overpainting the 70 with 02, as that's what the books on the subject seem to be suggesting.

That's a thought and a suggestion, but I'll stick to the opinions of those who've studied the issue. I am in no way attempting to change your opinion, just contributing mine to the conversation for consideration and comparison.

Happy New Year to everyone and thanks again for all your contributions to this thread.

Regarding the origins of the 02/71 splinter-pattern claim, you'll recall above that the earliest reference I could find to it was in Thomas Hitchcock's landmark 1973 publication "Messerschmitt 'O-Nine' Gallery" (p.118). Well, I came across the following very-interesting review of Michael Ullman's "Luftwaffe Colours" book on the Hyperscale website in which the reviewer provides a short history of Luftwaffe camouflage publications. This review dates the 02/71 claim to the 1969 Kookaburra publication, "Focke-Wulf Fw-190 Described PART 2" by Anthony Shennan and Geoffrey Pentland. As the reviewer notes, this booklet "proposed the then-astonishing premise that RLM 02 was used in conjunction with RLM 71 as a primary camouflage colour".

Luftwaffe Colours 1935-1945 by Michael Ullmann Book Review by Mark S. Shanks

Page 19 of the 1969 Kookaburra publication features a section by Kenneth A. Merrick titled "Camouflage and markings". It makes fascinating reading and explains the reasoning behind the choice of 02/71 as the colour combination for the simplified splinter scheme seen on German fighters in 1940.

Noting the appearance of the simplified splinter pattern from 1940 onwards, Merrick states that the darker colour, "a moderately dark green, is almost certainly 71, but the other could not possibly be 70: the contrast is far too great". Moving on to what the second colour might have been, Merrick notes the colour charts LDv 521/2 of 1941, "introducing three new shades of grey; 74, 75 and 76" and LDv 521/3, "issued later in the war adding four more colours; 79, 80 and 82".

However, as Merrick defines 74 and 75 as "new shades" introduced in 1941, he appears to rule them out as contenders for the colours of the simplified splinter pattern of 1940 stating, "Clearly while the range of colours was increased there is no evidence to suggest that any of the individual colours was revised. Therefore it must be assumed that one of the other existing colours was used in conjunction with 71".

To find a colour to go with 71, he then turns to British Air Ministry technical analysis reports on certain 109s brought down over England in 1940, noting the reports refer to "greenish-grey" or sometimes "light olive green". "Both these descriptions", Merrick noted, "appear to correspond exactly with RLM grau 02. The name 'grey' is slightly misleading as the colour has a distinct greenish tinge, and is in fact identical with the British wartime light slate grey. Further, black and white photographic tests using a pattern of 71/02 on a model will produce an identical set of contrasts to those shown on the original aircraft photographs. On the basis of this evidence it is assumed that a combination of 71/02 and not 70/71 was used as the normal scheme on the Fw 190".

So confident were the publishers of this publication in the newly-proposed 71/02 splinter pattern colour combination, they even offered a reward of a complete set of Kookaburra titles, including "all books to be published during the next two years" to any reader "in a position to prove otherwise and provide satisfactory and convincing evidence"! (see page 19)

Some comments on the 1969 Kookaburra publication's 02/71 assumption:

• "The darker of the two…is almost certainly 71" (page 19, Kookaburra publication).

Apparently from the lack of any known suitable alternative, the publication assumes one of the colours was "almost certainly 71". Once this assumption is made, the publication then searches for a lighter shade to go with it, but if the 71 assumption was wrong in the first place, then where does that leave the claim of a 71/02 colour combination?

• "LDv521/2 in 1941, introducing three new shades of grey; 74, 75 and 76" (page 19, Kookaburra publication).

But we now know RLM colours 74, 75 were not "new shades" in 1941. As Thomas Hitchcock stated in his letter to Scale Models magazine of Feb 1973, "The LDv521 in my possession is a 1938 edition and includes the three greys: 74/75/76. This predates the 1941 assumption of their introduction". (see page 113, Scale Models magazine Feb 1973) Also, the recovered 109 C-1 examined by William Berge in the 1970s was "painted in the simplified pattern but using the colours 74/75/76". (page 18, Official Monogram Painting Guide).

• "On the basis of this evidence it is assumed that a combination of 71/02 and not 70/71 was used as the normal scheme on the Fw 190". (page 19, Kookaburra publication)

Considering that the Fw 190A began operating over France in August 1941, does anyone nowadays consider FW 190s were finished in an 02/71 upper-surface camouflage pattern rather than 74/75? Yet in claiming 02/71 for Fw190s, the Kookaburra publication authors apparently considered the high contrast in black and white photographs of the rough-edged pattern seen on Fw190s to be indistinguishable from the high contrast seen in black and white photographs of the simplified splinter pattern on 109s in 1940. Clearly, as 74/75 and 02/71 exhibit the same high contrast, black and white photographs of Fw 190s (now known to be wearing 74/75) can not be relied upon as evidence of the existence of 02/71, but rather 74/75 on 109s in 1940!

• Note the Kookaburra publication does not refer to any official German document that actually mentions an RLM 02/71 upper-surface pattern colour combination.

• In settling on RLM 02, the Kookaburra publication relies on British Air Ministry reports on colours, which we've already noted are unreliable as the British did not use any consistent or codified colour-scheme identification system for downed enemy aircraft. Descriptions of "greenish-grey" or "light-olive green" could well be referring to fuselage mottling or even to 70/71 or 74/75, we just don't know.

• "…black and white photographic tests using a pattern of 71/02 on a model will produce an identical set of contrasts to those shown on the original aircraft photographs" (page 19, Kookaburra publication).

That's fine, but were any other colour combinations tested? Was a pattern of 74/75 tested?

• The publication does not refer to any relics being relied upon to support its 02/71 assumption.

• The publication refers to the colour photograph on its cover and states, "A line-up of Fw 190Gs of I/S G, a ground-attack unit at Deblin-Irena, Poland. Though the colours of this transparency have lost some of their stability in the intervening years, the scheme can be plainly identified as 71/02 with 65 undersurfaces and 02 mottle on fuselage". (inside front cover, Kookaburra publication).

The publication's cover photograph is fairly well known. I've always regarded it as showing a line-up of grey Fw 190s. Does anyone nowadays regard this photograph as evidence of a 71/02 upper-surface rough-edged camouflage pattern?


Focke-Wulf Fw 190 - World War 2 Color Photo


For its time, the publication presented a reasonable argument for 02/71 and at least provided a more-plausible alternative to the then claim of 70/71 for the simplified splinter pattern seen on German fighters from 1940 onwards. However, we now know RLM 74 and 75 were in existence in 1940 and therefore available as colours for the simplified splinter pattern. Further, primary evidence from relics, period colour photographs and period documents also support 74/75 for the simplified pattern.

I think it's time to take the red pill and move on from the 02/71 assumption. I just can't find any hard evidence to support it. Can you?

I can't match your energy for digging into this topic and feel that I can not add any more to what I have already said. I still await with interest Dave Wadman's input on this and he's a busy man.

I will say, though, that I think that you are spending a lot of time in refuting information from a very old publication whose accuracy has already been dispelled. The article that you linked above states: "In Volume 2, Kenneth A. Merrick proposed the then-astonishing premise that RLM 02 was used in conjunction with RLM 71 as a primary camouflage color. Unfortunately, he went so far as to state that this was the standard for the rest of the war, and that the 74/75/76 scheme "applied only to aircraft based in coastal regions in Western Europe". Merrick revised his assessment with 1972's Kookaburra volumes on the Messerschmitt Me 262."

Ha! Time spent here is time saved getting the colours right on my next model 109E, so it's worth the effort!

I'm not refuting information from a very old publication, but refuting what is repeated in publication after publication to this day that German fighters in 1940 had 02/71 splinter-pattern top-surface camouflage schemes. Going back and finding the source of the 02/71 claim was necessary in order to find out what it is based on. What appears to be clear now is that it isn't based on any period German documents or recovered relics from 109s, but is simply the product of deductive reasoning. The problem with deriving conclusions from such reasoning is that if the premises are wrong, the conclusions are also invariably wrong as well.

As the Kookaburra publication indicates, the 02/71 assumption is based on the erroneous premise that RLM colours 74/75 were not available or in existence when the simplified pattern was introduced. Further, in selecting 71 as "almost certainly" one of the colours of the simplified pattern, a critical error is made in failing to appreciate that for aircraft in the field this would have required over-spraying the existing 70 with 71, because whatever colours were chosen to replace 70/71, the darker of the two remains roughly in the same location in period black and white photographs.

To illustrate this better, here are the wings and tailplane of a 109E in the 70/71 scheme (colours matched to Kiroff samples). Note the left wing tip is painted in the darker 70 colour.



Now here are the wings and tailplane of a 109E in the claimed 02/71 scheme (colours matched to Kiroff samples). Notice the left wing tip is still painted in the darker of the two colours, but in this case it's 71!




Now, let's return to the 70/71 scheme. If you already had 71 on the upper-surfaces and intended to retain that colour and simply replace the 70 with something else, why would you unnecessarily add weight to the aircraft and waste resources by over-spraying the 71 with 02 and the 70 with 71? The lighter an aircraft is the better it flies, so the last thing you want to do is to start adding unnecessary layers of weight (i.e. paint) if you can avoid it; or waste resources and make unnecessary work for that matter. If the Germans had decided to revise the existing 70/71 scheme with 02/71, they would simply have retained the 71 in situ and over-sprayed the 70 with 02. But clearly they didn't do that because the darker of the two colours of the new simplified scheme stays in roughly the same location as the darker of the two colours in the old 70/71 scheme. As our friend the Brushpainter has already pointed out, we are not dealing with some quick field mod, but an overall repaint.

Remove the Splinter from THINE OWN Eye! The Brushpainter

Given that they decided to repaint both the 70 and 71 with new colours in a simplified pattern that could be more-easily applied in the field than the older, more intricate 70/71 pattern, what colours did they choose? Well, we now know 74 and 75 were available to them. We also know that in December 1939, Hitler ordered plans to be drawn up for the invasion of Norway, so the Luftwaffe would have been aware that flying operations over the sea were in the offing and that camouflage colours more suited to such operations would be required. We also know from Berge's work that:

"The recent recovery of a Bf 109 C-l of 11 (N) ./JG 2 from Norwegian waters, and a detailed examination by Herr William Berge has determined that the aircraft was painted in the simplified pattern but using the colours 74/75/76...Herr Berge's research has also located an eyewitness report from the person who captured the pilot of a Bf 109E, when Red 14, of 5./JG 77 made a forced landing at Mandal (about 20 miles from Kristiansand) on April 11, 1940. Camouflage colours were recorded as greys, and photographs of the machine show clearly the very pale colouring typical of 76 camouflaged side surfaces". (See page 18, The Official Monogram Painting Guide to German Aircraft 1939 – 1945")

So, here are the wings and tailplane of a 109E in 74/75 (matched to Kiroff samples), followed by a period colour photograph of 109Es. Looks like a more convincing match to me than 02/71!




https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2f/22/17/2f2217516689a80768092136bfd03c59.png

The loyalty shown in this thread to the 02/71 scheme is a puzzle to me, as there appears to be no firm evidence to support it. As the old Kookaburra Fw190 & Ta152 publication demonstrates, even the originators of the 02/71 idea had to pare it back from their original claim of it applying to all Luftwaffe fighters except those operating in "the coastal regions of Western Europe" and north Africa (p19), indicating it was never based on any incontrovertible evidence and that even those "who have studied the issue" get it wrong sometimes.

The only explanation I can find for the steadfast refusal to accept that the claimed 02/71 splinter pattern scheme never existed is that its repetition in numerous publications over the years has led people to accept it as an indisputable fact. Believe it or not, such a psychological phenomenon even has a name: the "illusory truth effect", which is "the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure", regardless of whether it's actually true or not.

Illusory truth effect - Wikipedia

I've obtained a copy of an article written by William Berge on the BF 109 C-1 (Werk Nr 2450) recovered from the sea off Lindesnes in November 1979. The article appeared in the Norwegian publication "NFF-Kontakt" (issue number 2, 1980) and is titled, "Messerschmitt på Norges sydspiss", which translates as "Messerschmitt on the southern tip of Norway". The aircraft ditched in the sea between Mandal and Lindesnes on Sunday 2 June 1940 after suffering engine failure. The pilot survived the incident.

Dr Berge was aboard the recovery vessel during the recovery operation and made a careful examination of the aircraft after it was brought to the surface. His assessment of its paint scheme is as follows (this is my English translation; the original text in Norwegian is attached below it):

"The aircraft was originally spray-painted in the two-layer system Flieglackkette 04. The whole plane was first painted overall - exterior / interior - in FI. L. 7102, which is a medium-spinach green primer. Next, the cockpit was painted all over in 7109.02, while exterior surfaces were sprayed 7109.71, 65 and 70. It first had the tactical number "white 6", then "yellow 6". Secondly, the aircraft is a peculiarity since it is the first documented example of the use of the new colour tones 74, 75 and 76. This refinement must have taken place shortly before the aircraft was lost - in accordance with the later well-known top-surface scheme from the later part of 1940. These tints gradually came into use in the summer of 1940 by repainting existing aircraft, by overhauling and by new subtypes coming off the assembly lines of the aircraft factories. Note the leading edge of the slat: a red line in 23 indicates "do not touch", red dotted lines delimit allowed walking areas at the wing root. By the way, inscriptions in red 23 and black 22 were painted by hand. Note moreover, that there is no form of "mottle" on the fuselage sides as became the rule on the Channel Coast from July 1940".








Points to note:

• The aircraft was first finished in 70/71/65 and later over-sprayed in 74/75/76. There is no mention in Dr Berge's article of any 02/71 or 02/70 splinter pattern ever being on the aircraft.
• Dr Berge makes no mention of the aircraft ever being the subject of a "field test" colour scheme, as has been suggested by others to explain the presence of the 74/75/76 scheme on the aircraft.
• There is no indication in the article that Dr Berge considered any 02/71 or 02/70 splinter patterns were used in between the phasing out of the 70/71 fighter splinter pattern and the phasing in of the 74/75 splinter pattern in 1940.

Berge states that in early May 1940, the aircraft's unit 11 (N)./ JG 2 had been transferred to Værnes airfield (around 38 km east of Trondheim). Berge states that all known photographs of the unit at Værnes feature 109 D models. So as a C model, Werk Nr 2450 was possibly the odd one out.

Kenneth Merrick's "Luftwaffe Camouflage and Markings 1933-1945, Volume 2" (2005) features a photograph of several of the unit's 109Ds at Værnes in 1940 (see page 304). Ullman's "Luftwaffe Colours 1935-1945" (2008) features a photograph of one of the unit's Bf 109Ds (N + 1) at Værnes, which he dates at sometime between May and late August 1940 (see page 169). Ullman identifies the unit as a "twilight" fighter unit, noting that its aircraft were identified by the letter "N" for night. Page 7 of "The modeller's Luftwaffe painting guide" (1979) also features a photograph of the unit's 109s in Norway in 1940, although I would contend wrongly identifies them as C models (the different exhausts and flame strips identify them as D models). Although all three photographs are in black and white, all the authors of these books describe the colour schemes of the aircraft depicted as being 71/02/65.

Elsewhere in his book, Ullman states that at the start of the war, "the camouflage for night fighters was the same as that for daytime use" (i.e. 70/71/65) and that the "upper sides of aircraft used as night fighters were painted with RLM 22 Schwarz from 1941" (see page 170).

So, the fact that Werk Nr 2450 was a night fighter and thus originally finished in 70/71/65 is as expected, but then why was it repainted 74/75/76? Interestingly, Berge notes an unconfirmed claim by Gebhard Aders in "Geschichte der deutsche Nachtjagd" that 11 (N)./ JG 2 had been sent to Værnes for "propaganda reasons". If this was so, then repainting a batch of obsolescent aircraft in the latest camouflage scheme (i.e. 74/75/76) may have been an attempt to make them appear more modern than they actually were.

However, in his book "Bf 109D/E aces 1939-41", John Weal offers a more-plausible reason for the unit's move to Norway. Responsible for the aerial defence of Norway's southern and western coastline, Weal describes how II./JG 77 and its 109Es found itself under increasing pressure from RAF bomber raids. 11 (N)./ JG 2 and its ageing 109s were therefore sent from Aalborg to Trondheim as reinforcements. Weal notes that given the very light nights of mid-May, "the staffel flew virtually in daylight around the clock".

Thus, 11 (N)./ JG 2 clearly had need of a daylight fighter colour scheme and I would contend adopted the official fighter scheme of the time, 74/75/76. How else do you explain the following eyewitness report from the person who captured the pilot of a Bf 109E "Red 14" of 5./JG 77 that made a forced landing at Mandal (about 20 miles from Kristiansand) on April 11, 1940? Camouflage colours of Red 14 "were recorded as greys and photographs of the machine show clearly the very pale colouring typical of 76 camouflaged side surfaces". (See page 18, The Official Monogram Painting Guide to German Aircraft 1939 – 1945").

Furthermore, if the 74/75/76 scheme on Werk Nr 2450 was simply a "field test" scheme as some claim and not representative of the official daylight fighter scheme of the time, then why was a night-fighter unit selected to test such a scheme? Also, given the incontrovertible evidence that Werk Nr 2450 of 11 (N)./ JG 2 was finished in 74/75/76, what is the basis of Merrick and Ullman's claim that the unit's fighters were finished in 71/02/65?

From the book, "Luftwaffe Fighters and Fighter-Bombers Over the Far North - Units • Camouflage • Markings 1940 -1945" by Andreas Brekken and Kjetil Akra, printed 2008...

"When II./JG 77 and its Stab arrived in Norway on 11 April 1940, their Messerschmitts all carried the standard finish for such aircraft at the time, i.e. a RLM 71/02/65 scheme with the fuselage sides in plain 65 with the demarcation line being level with the cockpit or higher. The upper wing pattern on those aircraft where it is visible corresponds to the Type 5 Pattern of Merrick (2004: pg. 78)......"

On to 11.(N)/JG 2, from the same book... "Merrick (2004: 95) - describes the colours of the single C-1 operated by 11.(N)/JG 2, lost in June 1940, which according to Norwegian researcher, William Berge, carried a modified scheme of RLM 74/75/76. If this is the case it was probably the only one so camouflaged as photographic material only show aircraft in the 71/02/65 scheme"

Thanks very much for the references. Going by the quotes you posted, it looks to me like the Andreas Brekken and Kjetil Akra book based its assessment on Merrick's book, so we're going around in circles a bit I guess. All the photographs of the unit I referenced above are in black and white and they probably constitute the only known photographs of the unit in Norway (Berge says in his article there are only 3 or 4 known photos, so they must be the ones). As such, the statement "photographic material only show aircraft in the 71/02/65 scheme" is most likely a reference to those known black and white photographs, so it's a question of interpretation. I would contend that those black and white photographs of 11 (N)./ JG 2 in Norway show a 74/75/76 scheme and that's not only backed up by Werk Nr 2450, but an eye-witness account of the grey colours on Red 14 of 5./JG 77, which made a forced landing at Mandal on 11 April 1940 (indicating the scheme was not only adopted by 11 (N)./ JG 2).

....and I would contend they show 71/02/65

There is a footnote to my first post..."According to Merrick (2004: pg 95), eyewitness accounts describing an aircraft from II/JG 77 that made an emergency landing on 11 April near Mandal, state that it was grey. However, as this is anecdotal evidence only, it must remain speculation"

"given the incontrovertible evidence that Werk Nr 2450 of 11 (N)./ JG 2 was finished in 74/75/76, what is the basis of Merrick and Ullman's claim that the unit's fighters were finished in 71/02/65"

Maybe I'm thick but what is this so-called "incontrovertible evidence" ? Because Dr Berge says it was the"first documented example of the use of the new colour tones 74, 75 and 76"? Where is this document? Why should we believe Berge to say it's 74/75/76 any more than we would believe Merrick and Ullmann when they say it's 71/02/65?

I agree we are going in circles. It's been a great discussion.

It's a question of what weight you choose to place on the different types of evidence available. Primary sources such as period artefacts and relics, documents and eye witness accounts are often more convincing and authoritative (because of their direct link with the events being studied) than secondary sources such as books written by authors long after the events in question have passed. Were archaeologists to find tomorrow an intact Trireme lying on the bottom of the Mediterranean, surely you would agree that such an artefact would be a better guide to what those fabled ships actually looked like than all the theorizing and speculating of historians and naval architects (however great their standing) over the years?

Dr Berge touches on this in his article when discussing one of the purposes of salvaging aircraft wrecks: "…the recovery of vital parts of a plane can bring the aircraft's identity and distinctive colour scheme to light with a view to use on other, better preserved specimens of the species - as well as to all those who are seriously interested in markings & camouflage; firm evidence is the best documentation". [Original Norwegian text] "Dernest kan heving av vitale deler av flyvrak bringe flyets identitet og særegne bemaling avgjøres, med henblikk på bruk på andre, bedre bevarte eksemplarer av arten – samt for alle dem som er seriøst interessert i Markings & camouflage ; er håndfaste beviser den beste dokumentasjon".

So you could say there's a hierarchy of evidence in this field. At the top is having an intact example or part of the actual aircraft right in front you. Accordingly, Kenneth Merrick's examination a few years back of the paint still intact on the Australian War Memorial's Me 262 or the Smithsonian's examination of the paint on its FW190F could equally be described as "incontrovertible" proof of the colour schemes of those aircraft when they were in service.

You could argue that next in the hierarchy is period documentary evidence, followed by period photographic evidence, then eye-witness accounts, and lastly by secondary sources such as books written after the events in question by professional writers in the field, especially if those books fail to reference or cite their sources!

What took me aback in your responses was your apparent contention that there is a hierarchy of authors in this field with the inference that some authors should be believed over other authors, regardless of the level or significance of the evidence they present. Fine as the books are written by the "rock stars", they're not without their errors or contradictions. Compare for instance these two descriptions of the same photograph in publications associated with the same author:

1. "A line-up of Fw 190Gs of I/S G, a ground-attack unit at Deblin-Irena, Poland. Though the colours of this transparency have lost some of their stability in the intervening years, the scheme can be plainly identified as 71/02 with 65 undersurfaces and 02 mottle on fuselage". (inside front cover, "Focke-Wulf Fw-190 Described PART 2" Kookaburra publications).



2. "These Fw 190s of II/SG 1 wear the four colour camouflage of 74/75/76/65 that was originally specified for all fighter aircraft" (see photo 20 and description on page 89 of "German Aircraft Markings 1939-1945" (1977) by K.A. Merrick.

So one publication makes the confident and authoritative assertion that "the scheme can be plainly identified as 71/02" while the other contradicts that statement entirely!

Or what about this? In discussing L.Dv.521/1 and 2 of November 1941, Merrick states, "The colours 61, 62 and 63 had long been discarded as also had the use of the colour 02 as an overall finish for sea based aircraft (the actual colour recorded was 04, an obvious printing error as all yellow seaplanes had never been in vogue!)". (see page 83 of "German Aircraft Markings 1939-1945" (1977) by K.A. Merrick.

But if you turn to pages 129 to 133 of Michael Ullman's "Luftwaffe Colours 1935-1945" (2008), you'll see that Ullman doesn't regard "04" as a printing error in L.Dv.521/1 at all, as he points to several maritime aircraft that may have been painted in that colour!

So who's right? Now if a not very well known Norwegian researcher in some remote part of Norway dredges up parts of a Luftwaffe maritime aircraft painted in RLM 04, I think I'll go with the not very well known Norwegian researcher, thank you very much!

So, I'm not sure engaging in ad hominem arguments really helps here. I have made some inquiries regarding Dr Berge and was advised by someone who knew him that he was a person of great historical knowledge and a pioneer in the field of research into Luftwaffe colour schemes. He had travelled in Germany and had many contacts there, including those with personal experience as aircraft painters during the war. I was advised that the possibility that he may have misinterpreted the colours of the paint on Werk Nr 2450 is nearly non-existent.

He wrote at least one book, "Fra nøytralitet til krig. Kristiansand og befestninger 1939-1940", which is about fortifications in Kristiansand. He is also mentioned in Merrick's "German Aircraft Markings 1939-1945" (1977) with respect to JG 5. Merrick writes on page 82, "Herr William Berge kindly supplied actual fabric samples from this unit's Bf 109Gs and examples of several camouflage greens were found under the grey top coat".

So, unless you know something about Dr Berge that I don't, I see no reason to question the veracity of his findings. Indeed, I think we are fortunate that someone of Dr Berge's undoubted ability and knowledge was on hand to examine Werk Nr 2450 when it was raised and before its condition deteriorated further.

I'm sorry for this post being a bit long. I'll stop here, but will be posting more later on the issue of eye-witness accounts. I've also noticed something interesting about L.Dv.521/1 of November 1941, which I'll report on later.

"What took me aback in your responses was your apparent contention that there is a hierarchy of authors in this field with the inference that some authors should be believed over other authors, regardless of the level or significance of the evidence they present. With respect, it sounds to me almost like a groupie mentality, with the "rock star" authors in this field being fawned over and their findings never critically examined, while the important findings of fine researchers such as Dr Berge are dismissed because they're not as well known (at least in the Anglosphere)."

I'm not saying that at all and don't appreciate you characterizing me as a groupie.

You started this thread looking for proof that 02/71 was the typical scheme. While the "proof" you are looking for did not materialize, the countering arguments that you have presented do not, in my mind, present "proof" of the use of 74/75/76 to the same degree that you are looking for for the use of 02/71. Just because something is grey doesn't meant that it's a colour that was officially promulgated a year later. My mother drives a VW Jetta that looks like RLM 75 but I can assure you that that is not the colour spec.

When Dr. Berge saw greys on his recovered aircraft, what caused him to conclude that these were 74/75/76 and how did he account for the years of probable deterioration of the original colours? How is it that the recovered 109 represents "the first documented example" on the use of the new colours? What document is he talking about, or is the document that he refers to the one that he himself wrote? The "proof" that you have presented, to my mind, is far from "incontrovertible" until these questions are answered.

I agree.
I have stated more than once, and indeed started a thread on the subject some time ago, that there is much evidence to at least suggest that a colour we have come to refer to as 'RLM 02' existed as a top-surface camouflage colour in 1940.
I will again repeat that this colour (more of which later) presents a different tonal value in B&W period photos and film footage, compared to the grey which later became RLM 75.
As previously mentioned however, my personal belief is that this colour described as RLM 02, was not the shade that has been produced, in recent times, by model paint manufacturers, but more of a light to mid slate grey, a shade that is a greenish grey, the same that used to be offered as RLM 02 some years ago, by the major paint manufacturers of the time.
Allowing for degradation and / or repeated reproduction of original wartime colour images, this (model paint) shade closely matches what is shown as the lighter colour (alongside the green, RLM 71) in these images, and is / was a very close match to the piece of aircraft skin I used to possess.
As I think I have previously mentioned, perhaps the question should really be "What was the shade of the so-called RLM 02 used ?"