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

[John D]

Well, if you don't believe paint can survive in seawater for forty years with its hue still in an identifiable condition, then I suggest you take a look at some of the more-recent finds in Norwegian waters.

Here's a shot of Focke Wulf 190 A-2 (Gelbe 16) being raised on the 1st of November 2006. It ditched in the sea near Herdla (about 40 km northwest of Bergen) on the 15th of December 1943. That's 63 years submerged in sea water and yet its colour scheme was still clearly identifiable when it was brought to the surface. Berge's 109C was only in sea water for 40 years and he was right there on deck to examine it before its condition deteriorated any further.

12 Abandoned, Wrecked & Recovered Aircraft of World War Two - Urban Ghosts Media

And here are some close ups of the paint on Gelbe 16's wing. How could these colours be identified as anything other than 74/75?

If the paint on Berge's 109C was in anywhere near the same condition, it's inconceivable that he could have misinterpreted 71/02 as 74/75. Just going by the detail he provided in his article indicates he knew what he was talking about and made a thorough investigation of the paint left on the airframe. He even documented the demarcation lines, noting they were hand-painted, and the revised number on the fuselage. And by "documented", he meant recorded or reported. He was not referring to period documents, but the recording or documenting of his own findings. The verb "to document" means to record information about something by writing about it or taking photographs of it. In other words, he meant Werk Nr 2450 is the earliest example recorded by a researcher of the use of 74/75/76.

And if you think the paint on Gelbe 16 was a one-off or a freak occurrence and couldn't possibly be representative of what Berge saw on Werk Nr 2450, then what about this 109G, which was raised in 2010 after 67 years in seawater near Gjerdinga Island, about 300km north of Trondheim?

Bf 109 Vikna

Anyway, I'm quite satisfied to take Berge's word for what he found on Werk Nr 2450. I don't see why he should be held to a higher standard than the other researchers in this field, whose writings seem to be automatically taken at face value, even when they don't state their sources. Berge had access to an actual BF 109C airframe from 2 June 1940 as his source of reference. Hard evidence doesn't get much better than that.

I'm sorry, I've been sidetracked. I've got a few more things to say on why I believe the claimed 71/02 splinter pattern scheme never existed, but it'll have to wait. In the meantime, please keep all that evidence coming to justify why you so staunchly believe 71/02 was an actual Luftwaffe fighter scheme.

 

[clinton78]

"Die nachdunkelnden Farbtöne 70 u. 71 der bisherigen Landtarnung werden abgelöst durch die Farben 281 H olivgrün und B 657 hellgrün"
Source: June 1943 report

The above states that by June 1943 the Luftwaffe was specifically concerned regarding the "darkening" of the RLM 70/71 paints after a short period of operational use. "Darkening" in this sense means desaturation. This was the specific reason why the newer RLM 81/82 paints were devised to directly replace the older inferior RLM 70/71 paint formulas. The report goes on to say that "After 9 months of environmental testing they [81/82] are very light-resistant."

RLM 70/71 are very dark greens. They are essentially greys, but with hints of green. RLM 71 being the slightly greener of the two shades. It wouldn't take a lot of desaturation for the 70/71 greens to take on a grey hue. The fact that the Luftwaffe was impressed with the new 81/82 paint formula's ability to stay light-resistant for 9 months suggests that the 70/71 paint formulas were not stable for a very long period at all under operational conditions.

We need to take the above into consideration when we decide how much faith we put into the descriptions of wartime eyewitnesses and the colours they observed on Luftwaffe aircraft. A layman looking at a desaturated RLM 71 with RLM 02 camouflage scheme would be quite correct to describe them as greys.

When Dr. Berge observed the colours on the raised wreckage of Bf 109 C-1, WNr.2450 he would have been seeing a scheme that would have been through 6 months of operational use and then 40 years on the sea bed. It is reasonable to suggest that what Dr. Berge was looking at was the standard RLM 02/71 1940 daylight fighter scheme, but the RLM 71 had heavily desaturated alongside the other various colour shifts that would have affected the paints on the surface considering the environment they had been exposed to over the years.

I present here an original colour slide shown in Axel Urbanke's wonderful new book on I.(J)/LG 2. The colour slides in this book are some of the most well preserved I have ever seen. It shows a Bf 109 D-1 from an unknown training unit supposedly in February 1941. This airframe would have had many, many months of operational use and the various paint patches and overpaints of areas susceptible to heavy wear are clear to see. What is also clear to see is the upper-surface colours. Bear in mind also that this aircraft would have been originally painted in the 70/71 scheme in 1939 or even earlier so any later paint applications would have to contend with the darker factory applied colours below. The same can be said of the Bf 109 C-1 Dr. Berge observed. I have annotated the image giving my view as to what colours the image clearly shows to be present on the upper surfaces.



While Dr. Berge's analysis of the colours he observed on the surface of Bf 109 C-1, WNr.2450 might well be correct to his eyes. What he has failed to take into consideration is that due to the inherent susceptibility of RLM 71 to be affected (desaturated) by everyday environmental exposure the colours he was observing on WNr.2450 are not necessarily the same colours as when they were freshly applied as a standard scheme in late 1939/early 1940.

The above I would also apply to 100% of the colour photos already inserted into this topic, surviving relics in museums and A.I.1(g). crash reports mentioning greys.

 

[stona]

I've enjoyed reading this thread again.

"Regarding Faber's 190A3, that's an excellent point about the RAF Intelligence Report mentioning dark green, light olive and pale blue. However, those greens may have been fuselage mottling colours."

It refers to "dark and light olive green". Which is not the same at all.

Cheers

Steve

 

[John D]

The possibility of the Berge's misidentification of colours due to desaturation

• It's unlikely the simplified pattern had been on the aircraft long enough for the colours to undergo any significant desaturation before it ditched into the sea on 2 June 1940. As Werk Nr 2450's unit was a night fighter unit its fighters would have been originally finished in the night-fighter scheme of 70/71/65 before being sent to Norway at the beginning of May 1940. With nearly twenty hours of daylight in Trondheim in May, a daytime fighter scheme was required and obviously applied, either shortly before or after the unit left Germany. In other words, the simplified pattern colours had most-likely been on the aircraft less than six weeks, not six months.
• Berge identified 70/71 underneath the 74/75 scheme, which is consistent with the aircraft's background as a night fighter. If the underlying colour scheme was 70/71, why hadn't the underlying 71 also morphed into 74? How was it that Berge was still able to identify it as 71? And don't forget, the 70/71 scheme had been on the aircraft since it was built in 1938; plenty of time for desaturation of the 70/71 colours to occur.
• I know of one Heinkel III P-1 (Werk Nr 1526) and two Ju 88s (Werk Nr 0880119 and Werk Nr 0886146) that have been raised from the depths in Norway in recent years. Presumably they were finished in the standard bomber top-surfaces scheme of 70/71 when they were lost. Had the RLM 71 on those aircraft morphed into 74 by the time they were raised? If not, why would the RLM 71 on Berge's 109C have been any different? Can you cite any confirmed examples of 71 or 02 on recovered Luftwaffe aircraft that morphed into 74 or 75 over time?
• JU88.net
• Preserved Axis Aircraft
• Berge was able to identify the cockpit colour as RLM 02. Why hadn't that RLM 02 morphed into 75? And if you want to know what RLM 02 looks like after being submerged in seawater for 63 years, here's a photo of part of Gelbe 16's radio equipment. It still looks like RLM 02 to me.

• What are the chances of 71/02 morphing into such a close match to 74/75 that Berge was fooled into misidentifying them as 74/75? Although the scope of Berge's article does not include his methodology, there were several reference sources for RLM colours at the time he may have had access too. The L.Dv. 521/1 colour charts of 1938 and 1941, Karl Ries' L.Dv. 521 colour chart first published in 1963 and the L.Dv. 521/1 colour chart at the back of Hitchcock's "Messerschmitt O-Nine gallery" of 1973.
• Thanks for posting the photograph. I'm afraid I must disagree with your interpretation of the colours in that photograph. Desaturation or not, the wing looks like it's painted in 74/75 to me.

74/75 scheme

02/71 scheme

Berge's findings were initially dismissed here as a "field test" scheme and therefore not representative of fighter camouflage schemes of the time. Then Berge's qualifications were questioned. Then the question of paint surviving in sea water was raised. And now we have the claim that Berge misidentified the colours on Werk Nr 2450 because 71/02 had morphed into 74/75. Well here's a thought: rather than trying to manipulate the evidence so the 02/71 hypothesis can remain credible, how about simply letting the evidence speak for itself?

Because Berge's 109C is not the only piece of hard evidence for the 74/75 splinter pattern existing in 1940. How do you explain, for instance, the Duxford 109 E-3? And how come no-one seems to be able to come up with a single piece of original wing skin with an RLM 02/71 pattern on it? A single piece of hard evidence like that would end this debate immediately. Aviation archaeologists have been digging up crashed planes for years now, so surely they would have found something with an 02/71 splinter scheme on it by now if it ever existed. I've yet to see any such evidence cited anywhere.

Faber's Fw 190 A-3
Regarding Faber's Fw 190 A-3, I'm not sure what your point is as I don't see what difference it makes. One person's "light olive green" could be another's "light olive". As there was no common standard they were matching the colours to, who knows what greens they actually were? Even if the report had stated RLM 02 and RLM 71, if it didn't refer to what parts of the aircraft those colours were on, those colours may well have been mottling colours, we just don't know.

The other point I made about Faber's aircraft is that there were in fact two eye-witness reports. Here's the quote I was referring to in full:

"Two wartime descriptions exist on the camouflage colours of this aircraft. One mentions a "normal" German fighter camouflage, which is hardly helpful as this had been changed comparatively recently from an 02/71/65 scheme to 74/75/76. However, this report does go on to describe a mottled blue-grey finish with pale blue undersides, while the other, an RAF Intelligence Report, mentions dark green, light olive green and pale blue". Page 38 "Luftwaffe Colours Vol 4, Sect 1, Jagdwaffe, Holding the West 1941-1943", D Wadman & M Pegg.

Again, note how a belief in the existence of an 02/71/65 scheme leads the authors to dismiss as "hardly helpful" the description of the scheme as "normal". However, if 02/71/65 is a modern-day myth and 74/75/76 was what those at the time considered a "normal" German fighter camouflage, then it's actually a very helpful and accurate description!

Now, if you accept the RAF Intelligence Report was referring to fuselage mottling colours, the two reports do not necessarily contradict each other. But if you want to argue that the RAF Intelligence Report was referring to the camouflage pattern colours on the wing, tailplane and fuselage spine, then you have to ask which report is the more likely, given we're dealing with an Fw 190 A-3 captured on 23 June 1942.

Even if you don't believe RLM 74 and 75 were used on fighters in 1940, "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)

So, from 24 June 1941, we have documented proof of the existence and use of the 74/75/76 scheme. And when was the Fw 190A-3 first introduced? Well, the Fw 190 A-2 model was introduced in August 1941, with a total of 124 A-2s delivered by the end of 1941. (W. Green, "Warplanes of the Third Reich", 1979, p. 199) Green dates the introduction of the A-3 to the spring of 1942 (p. 200), while "Aero Detail 6" dates it to "late 1941". (Nohara & Shiwaku, "Aero Detail 6: Focke-Wulf Fw 190A/F", 1993, p. 73)

So an aircraft first introduced sometime between late 1941 and the spring of 1942, when the official camouflage scheme was 74/75/76, was somehow painted 02/71/65? Even Wadman & Pegg's Jagdwaffe book features a fine colour photograph of an Fw 190 A-2 in 74/75/76 and dates it February 1942 (see page 16), so what would an 02/71/65 scheme be doing on a later model A-3 on 23 June 1942?

"Red 14" and descriptions of grey camouflage schemes
Anyway, if we don't know what parts of the aircraft are being referred to and the style or pattern of painting, eye-witness descriptions of aircraft colours, while difficult to dismiss, are open to interpretation. The possible exception I would make here is when eye-witnesses describe the colour of a 109 as "grey". We know 109s were originally in 70/71, and 02 (or was it actually 63?) was later used as a mottling colour, so that can explain the descriptions of greens and light olive greens. But grey? What conclusion can be drawn other than the aircraft was possibly in 74/75/76? Even if the eye-witness was only describing the fuselage, we still can't avoid the strong possibility they were describing a 74/75/76 colour scheme.

And this is why Berge's reporting of the eye-witness account of "red 14" is so important. We have his findings of Werk Nr 2450 and we have a corroborating eye-witness account of another 109 also in grey. That sounds like fairly convincing evidence of a widely-used 74/75/76 scheme to me. I don't have the actual eye-witness account Berge was referring to, so will repeat the account of it related on page 18 of "The Official Monogram Painting Guide":

"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 colors were recorded as grays, and photographs of the machine show clearly the very pale coloring typical of 76 camouflaged side surfaces".

Note that the eye-witness in question actually captured the pilot, so close proximity to the aircraft and the chance to observe its colour scheme appears to have been highly likely.

I would therefore strongly disagree with the above-mentioned quote from page 95 of the Merrick book (2004) that "….as this is anecdotal evidence only, it must remain speculation". "Anecdotal" is defined as "(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research". "Speculation" is defined as the "forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence." (see online Oxford Dictionary).

Considering the claim for RLM 02 as a splinter-pattern colour is based in part by Merrick on eye-witness accounts of "greenish-grey" and "light olive green", I find it curious to find the same author dismissing an eye-witness account of "grays" as anecdotal and speculation! For all their limitations, eye witness accounts are primary or original sources of information. I don't see how they can be dismissed as anecdotal or speculation, especially if they're readily accepted when they appear to support the 02/71 hypothesis.

And if you think Berge's eyewitness account is the only mention of greys so early in 1940, what do you make of the following by a Belgian, Mr Gaston Fally:

"On 10th May 1940 I was acting as a sergeant in the First Light Infantry Regiment and on the 14th, with my squad, I was ordered to assume protection of a Bf 109 that had crashed near Wolverthem, Belgium, until a recovery team arrived. That 109 was the first aircraft I was able to see so close, so I remember her very well. It was painted solid dark grey on the top surfaces and light blue beneath". See page 19 of "The Modeller's Luftwaffe Painting Guide" (1979).

 

[stona]

"One person's "light olive green" could be another's "light olive". As there was no common standard they were matching the colours to, who knows what greens they actually were?"

We don't know what greens they were, but it is difficult to see how RLM 74 or 75 could be described as green at all. RLM 02 could be.

Cheers

Steve

 

[John D]

"Even if the report had stated RLM 02 and RLM 71, if it didn't refer to what parts of the aircraft those colours were on, those colours may well have been mottling colours, we just don't know".

In other words, I'm not disputing they may have been greens. That RAF Intelligence report may well have been describing RLM 02, RLM 71 or even RLM 63, but was it describing mottling colours or splinter-pattern colours? If it didn't refer to what parts of the aircraft those colours were on (e.g "the fuselage", "the wing", "the tailplane"), those colours may well have been fuselage mottling colours, we just don't know. If it was describing fuselage mottling colours, then the report is not incompatible or in conflict with the splinter pattern on the upper flying surfaces being in 74/75. This thread is about the official splinter-pattern colours, not mottling colours.

 

[clinton78]

"As Werk Nr 2450's unit was a night fighter unit its fighters would have been originally finished in the night-fighter scheme of 70/71/65 before being sent to Norway at the beginning of May 1940."

70/71/65 was not a night fighter scheme. It was a daylight scheme applied to all bomber aircraft for almost the duration of the entire war and all fighters until late December early January 1940. IV.(N)/JG 2 had already repainted to the 02/71/65 scheme in early 1940. Proven by photos depicting this unit's Bf 109s on a snow-covered airfield while still based in Germany, early 1940. See JFV Teil 2.

"If the underlying colour scheme was 70/71, why hadn't the underlying 71 also morphed into 74? How was it that Berge was still able to identify it as 71? And don't forget, the 70/71 scheme had been on the aircraft since it was built in 1938; plenty of time for desaturation of the 70/71 colours to occur."

We do not know how Dr. Berge identified the colours on the wreckage. As far as we know he just eyeballed them and came to his own misguided conclusions. It is not like he catalogued his findings in any scientific manner so as to allow others to check his claims. Neither are his credentials as being an expert of early Luftwaffe camouflage paints and paint analysis known. Quite frankly I do not class Dr. Berge as someone who has the necessary expertise in such areas and I do not believe he is in a position to be claiming that such and such colours were categorically applied to the wreckage he had the good fortune to examine. I certainly do not class him as an expert in such areas. The wreckage was in such an advanced state of decay that none of the aircraft was able to be saved and only the propeller assembly is preserved and on display. The rest was broken up... That doesn't sound like a wreck whereby any kind of serious analysis could be achieved...

"I know of one Heinkel III P-1 (Werk Nr 1526) and two Ju 88s (Werk Nr 0880119 and Werk Nr 0886146) that have been raised from the depths in Norway in recent years. Presumably they were finished in the standard bomber top-surfaces scheme of 70/71 when they were lost. Had the RLM 71 on those aircraft morphed into 74 by the time they were raised? If not, why would the RLM 71 on Berge's 109C have been any different?"

I know the Ju 88A-1, WNr. 0880119 quite well. I worked with the guys restoring it to create detailed drawings of the aircraft to be displayed in the museum alongside the restoration. In fact, my drawings appear on the Ju88.net website you linked to above. The following photos show the exterior paint surface. As can be seen, zero evidence of the green hues of the original 70/71 scheme is evident on its post-recovery exterior. Instead, they appear as very dark greys... Are you now going to claim that the Ju 88 in the photos was painted RLM 74/75 too?

"Can you cite any confirmed examples of 71 or 02 on recovered Luftwaffe aircraft that morphed into 74 or 75 over time?"

Morphed into 74/75 is not an accurate statement in this context. The dark grey/green paints have altered to very dark greys from exposure. Nothing to do with the RLM 74/75 greys. One example I can cite is the well-known wreck you have already mentioned that resides at Duxford. I have examined the paintwork up close and the other surviving wing panels at Hawkinge BoB museum and although now grey in appearance it is abundantly clear from photos of the airframe in UK and US in the early 40's that it carried the standard RLM 02/71/65 pattern and colours that 99% of the other Bf 109s were carrying at the time.

"Berge was able to identify the cockpit colour as RLM 02. Why hadn't that RLM 02 morphed into 75?"

Again, Dr. Berg has not recorded his findings so as to allow his peers to scrutinize them. In all likelihood, he had prior knowledge that in general Bf 109 cockpits were mostly painted in RLM 02 at the time so confirmed his observation from that.

"And if you want to know what RLM 02 looks like after being submerged in seawater for 63 years, here's a photo of part of Gelbe 16's radio equipment. It still looks like RLM 02 to me."

A factory-applied RLM 02 alongside all of the necessary surface preparation. Not in the field, one coat applied RLM 02 on top of an existing dark camouflage scheme.

"What are the chances of 71/02 morphing into such a close match to 74/75 that Berge was fooled into misidentifying them as 74/75? Although the scope of Berge's article does not include his methodology, there were several reference sources for RLM colours at the time he may have had access too. The L.Dv. 521/1 colour charts of 1938 and 1941, Karl Ries' L.Dv. 521 colour chart first published in 1963 and the L.Dv. 521/1 colour chart at the back of Hitchcock's "Messerschmitt O-Nine gallery" of 1973."

We do not know how close a match for 74/75 the observed paints on the surface were. I suspect they simply looked grey and Dr. Berg rather naively identified them as being 74/75. You are speculating as to what sources Dr. Berg had available to him.

"I'm afraid I must disagree with your interpretation of the colours in that photograph. Desaturation or not, the wing looks like it's painted in 74/75 to me."

That in itself leads me to suspect that your ability to interpret the paint colours from photographs is in serious doubt. The lighter colour on the wing of that Bf 109D-1 is like no RLM 75 I have seen in any colour chart in existence today. It is very clearly an application of RLM 02.

Berge's findings were initially dismissed here as a "field test" scheme and therefore not representative of fighter camouflage schemes of the time.

Not by me. I have always believed Dr. Berg's analysis to be complete nonsense.

"Then Berge's qualifications were questioned."

What qualifications? Just because he is either a medical doctor or more likely he has a PhD in something completely unrelated to early war Luftwaffe camouflage schemes and paint analysis does not make him an expert in those fields.

"Then the question of paint surviving in sea water was raised."

It is obvious that every photo you have shown of previously submerged aircraft that the paint colours have suffered to some degree or another. All of them show varying degrees of colour shift depending on the particular conditions those particular airframes have been exposed to. The environmental circumstances of each underwater wreck is different.

And now we have the claim that Berge misidentified the colours on Werk Nr 2450 because 71/02 had morphed into 74/75.

Not morphed into 74/75, but altered to dark greys as can be seen on various other surviving examples that are known to have carried these colours...

Well here's a thought: rather than trying to manipulate the evidence so the 02/71 hypothesis can remain credible, how about simply letting the evidence speak for itself?

You have presented absolutely zero credible evidence to back up your own claims. I am not manipulating any evidence. I am simply using my eyes, my experience and knowledge of how paints, their chemical make-up and pigments can be affected by exposure to various environmental conditions. Something I know Dr. Berg did not even take into consideration. If he had done he would not have been so confident that the greys he observed on the surface were RLM 74/75. Quite frankly he does not know what he is talking about.

Because Berge's 109C is not the only piece of hard evidence for the 74/75 splinter pattern existing in 1940. How do you explain, for instance, the Duxford 109 E-3?

See the above explanation.

And how come no-one seems to be able to come up with a single piece of original wing skin with an RLM 02/71 pattern on it? A single piece of hard evidence like that would end this debate immediately. Aviation archaeologists have been digging up crashed planes for years now, so surely they would have found something with an 02/71 splinter scheme on it by now if it ever existed. I've yet to see any such evidence cited anywhere.

You have been asking the wrong people. Below are several BoB relics which clearly show RLM 02/71 painted on them.

Wing skin from Uffz. Alfred Fahrian's 6./JG 3, Bf109 E-4 which exploded over Meopham on 30 October 1940:



Wing skin from unknown BoB Bf 109E:


Source: René Wouters collection.


Wing skin from unknown BoB Bf 109E:


Source: René Wouters collection.

Is that enough real evidence for you? Do the above examples look very RLM 74/75 to you?

BTW, the browning of the RLM 02 is due to the "Zinc Yellow" pigment which is used in the RLM 02 formula for its anti-corrosive qualities. This particular pigment is known to turn brown after a few years. This fact is widely documented amongst historical architectural experts and art historians. This is the reason for the completely wild and ridiculous claims by some authors of various modelling magazine articles that Bf 109s were flying around during the BoB painted in brown...

So rather than going off on your own cocky and condescending little crusade alongside that shockingly naive and incompetent "Brushpainter" guy, start trying to collect real evidence to back up your claims before calling into doubt what is pretty much old news and universally accepted historical fact amongst experts in Luftwaffe camouflage and markings practices.

 

[fubar57]

Ouch!!!

 

[Antonio Argudo]

I know the Ju 88A-1, WNr. 0880119 quite well. I worked with the guys restoring it to create detailed drawings of the aircraft to be displayed in the museum alongside the restoration. In fact, my drawings appear on the Ju88.net website you linked to above. The following photos show the exterior paint surface. As can be seen, zero evidence of the green hues of the original 70/71 scheme is evident on its post-recovery exterior. Instead, they appear as very dark greys... Are you now going to claim that the Ju 88 in the photos was painted RLM 74/75 too?

those ju88 pics are cool, I can see a very direct relation with the bf109 in Australia which has a very particular camo, on wing shares the same grey tones

 

[Antonio Argudo]

since many years and relic evidence I see in the scale model kit world and other areas also, the misrepresentation of RLM 74 as a green color, I strongly believe that it was dark blue with no green hue, and also tonally close to rlm 66 but slightly lighter, I am posting some relics and ww2 era pics and my personal color chart for 74/75/76, cheers

 

[fubar57]

The colour is in the name grün = green

 

[Antonio Argudo]

The colour is in the name grün = green

RLM 74 Dunkelgrau= dark grey
well, in many years of research I haven't seen a clear picture of rlm 74 with green hue, I have post many ww2 and relics in favor of the blue hue, would you post any to your support?
cheers

 

[fubar57]

I was looking at this....

 

[fubar57]

 

[Antonio Argudo]

I was looking at this....

View attachment 539143​

I guess we need some RLM official documents to see the original nomenclature for the 74 color and if dunkelgrau was the original name or grungrau a later addition, that's why the pictures support my statement

 

[Antonio Argudo]

View attachment 539150​

what source is that?

 

[Crimea_River]

I've fired up the air popper.........

 

[fubar57]

Official war documents showing RLM71 DUNKLEGRUN and RLM74 GRAUGRUN.

 

[CATCH 22]

Official war documents showing RLM71 DUNKLEGRUN and RLM74 GRAUGRUN.

We need a bit of caution here: using the official (or maybe popular?) names of RLM tones is a "dangerous method" (to quote the name of the movie). Some of the colours are named with the same name (e.g. 72 and 73 are simply "grün"), there are grün-s and grau-s everywhere and some of them are easy to mismatch (as a shade!)
In Michael Ullman's book "Luftwaffe colours" the shades 74, 75 and 76 are given as they appear in the paint-shop handbook (Handbuch der Lackierbetriebe) from1944 and in Messerschmitt AG. documents (as seen above).

As you see the names are different, the shades are the same though.
Anyway, both names give us a hint that 74 is a greenish shade of grey.

 

[Antonio Argudo]

more RLM 74 from relics, very grey blue to me
cheers