Real Colors of WWII
Real Colors of WWII
original colours of the WWII era. The chips that appear in the book,
LIMITED EDITION
even though they are not painted with real paint, are highly controlled,
checked and calibrated in the most precise way under the current and
original colours.
Original idea and concept:
Fernando Vallejo
Francisco Vives
AK Interactive
Executive editor:
Maciej Góralczyk
Art direction:
Tomek Wajnkaim
Cover idea:
Maciej Góralczyk
Color profiles:
Janusz Światłoń
Proofreading:
James Hatch
© 2019 AK Interactive.
All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, actual or future, including photocopy, recording or
www.ak-interactive.com Follow us on any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
index
4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
288 BIBLIOGRAPHY
4 / real colors of wwii aircraft
Acknowledgements
Maciej Góralczyk would like to thank the co-authors: Gerald T. Högl, Jürgen Kiroff, Nicholas
Millman and Mikhail V. Orlov, whose unparalleled research work allowed us to jointly create
this resource. The participation of Mikhail V. Orlov would not have been possible without
the help of Michael Neradkov of ScaleModels.ru, and Massimo Tessitori. The archive photo
material included in this book could only be collated with the help of fellow researchers
and collectors: Dénes Bérnad, Craig Busby, Dino Cerutti, Boris Ciglić, Alex Crawford, James
V. Crow, Dani Egger, Søren Flensted, Chris Goss, Brett Green, Robert Gretzyngier, Thomas
Hesse, Bjarne V. Jansen, Adam Jarski, Phil Listemann, Dan Manthos, Mikael Olrog, Robert
Pęczkowski, Harald Rabeder, Sergio Luis dos Santos, Brian Spurr, Paul Stipdonk, Akira
Takiguchi, Chris Thomas, John Vasco, David Weiss, and particularly my great friend Erik
Mombeeck. Valuable information was collected during some very entertaining online
discussions with Marc-André Haldimann, Tomas Prusa, Sinisa Sestanovic, David Weiss
and most of all, Franck Benoiton and Georg Morrison, whose knowledge and passion of
Luftwaffe research must be emphasized. Janusz Światłoń must be congratulated for both
the creation of quality colour profiles and patient approval of numerous editor comments
and corrections. The involvement of James Hatch was indispensable for ensuring correct
grammar and wording. Tomek Wajnkaim’s talent and experience led to the design of a clear
yet modern-looking layout, of which I’m very proud. Finally, I would like to thank my family
for their continuous support, and Fernando Vallejo for his faith in this project.
Since the death of Ken Merrick, considerable progress was made in the research of Luftwaffe
colours. While this work was created in the spirit of ‘the master’ himself, it was only possible
with the invaluable help of a high number of people and due to space limitations not
everybody can be mentioned here. Of special significance for Jürgen Kiroff and Gerald T.
Högl are our fellow researchers, Jens Mühlig and György Punka. Both gentlemen are not
only the most important contributors of new evidence and they are also a pleasure to
work with. The recreation of Luftwaffe colours and their documentation would not have
been possible without the dedication of Peter Kiroff and Günter Blickle of Farben - Kiroff
- Technik. Jürgen Kiroff has been in charge of the RAL archive for years, and it is a matter
close to his heart to express his gratitude to the RAL gemeinnützige GmbH, and especially
to Ms. Meißenburg, who is always there to help. A special thank you goes to professor Dr.
ing. habil Klára Wenzel, and her colleagues Dr. Krisztián Samu PhD and Ágnes Urbin of the
Department of Mechatronics, Optics & Mechanical Engineering Informatics, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Their
essential help in the field research and the documentation of historic colour samples is very
much appreciated.
Mikhail V. Orlov wants to express his gratitude to everyone who helped him in collecting
material and information about the painting of Soviet aircraft, and particularly M. Maslov,
N. Yakubovich, and employees of the information department of the Yakovlev Design
Bureau: Y. V. Zasypkin and S. D. Kuznetsov. Illustrating the chapter with numerous rare
photographs wouldn’t be possible without the help of the late V. Vakhlamov.
German
Aircraft
Colours In The
Second World
War
1.1 The pre-war and became a subject of rapid growth from a total of 16 Staffeln (squad-
rons) at the time of its foundation to 48 Staffeln on August 1, 1935. During
the same period, aviation materials, including paints, thinners and protec-
and early war tive coatings, are known to have been integrated into the military pro-
curement system and given four-digit codes. When necessary, these were
period
supplemented by two-digit suffixes which meant that a specific colour
must be used, in accordance with the colour coding system of the Reich
Air Ministry [Reichsluftfahrtministerium – abbr. as ‘RLM’].
The expanding German military aircraft fleet initially wore overall silver
and grey finishes. Whilst the former can be attributed to the RLM 01 sil-
ber (silver) colour standard, the greys ranged from the colour standardised
no later than 1935, as RLM-grau (RLM-grey) and, subsequently, RLM 02,
to RLM 63 hellgrau (light grey), which had been introduced with the first
known RLM colour card that was issued in early 1936. In terms of the visual
comparison of colour standards, RLM 63 differed little from RLM 02, but
the difference in pigmentation may have caused increasing difference in
the visual appearance of the finishing paint layer, especially if it had been
applied over an aluminium intermediate layer. Different formulation that
allowed for saving raw materials, was the reason for using the 63 for ex-
ternal finishes.
Silver liveries were common for training aircraft as they provided better
visibility in the air, which was an important factor considering their role and
usage. Many silver trainers were still in use in early 1940s, being gradually
A line-up of He 51 A-1s from 1./Kü.Jasta 136, replaced by more modern training aircraft types finished in grey overall,
photographed before take off from Kiel- and from around 1943, in camouflage schemes, or obsolete combat air-
Holtenau airfield in early 1936. All aircraft craft relegated to flight schools and training units.
were painted in RLM-grey overall (Erik
Mombeeck coll.)
All these colours were introduced with the first known RLM colour card,
issued in early 1936, and they are recorded to have been first applied to
Ju 86 A-0 bombers that had been built since February 1936. This cam-
ouflage scheme would be officially valid until mid-1937 for dive bomb-
ers, and definitively abandoned from use for other aircraft in September
1938, although the situation with reconnaissance aircraft is not fully clear,
as many Do 17 Ps, whose deliveries to the units started in late 1938, are
documented to carry the four colour finish, whilst the majority of Hs 126
A-1s that had been manufactured from the spring of 1938 and delivered
to the units since June 1938, were painted in the new RLM 70/71/65 cam-
ouflage. Quite a number of frontline aircraft retained the RLM 61/62/63/65
scheme well into the Polish and French campaigns, with the most notable
examples being the Hs 123 dive-bombers and aforementioned Do 17 P
reconnaissance aircraft. Worth noting is that available photographic refer-
ence indicates that at factory level, the colour patches of this camouflage
Hs 123 A-1 WNr. 968, coded 52+A13, scheme were typically painted with hard edges. This resulted from the us-
from 3./St.G. 165, Kitzingen, Germany, age of nitrocellulose lacquer paints in this period, which were not suitable
1937. RLM 61/62/63 upper surfaces for mist spraying.
with RLM 65 undersides
Pictured during the summer of 1938, this Ar 68 E, coded Yellow 4, from 9.(l)/JG 132, is a rare example of a fighter aircraft
camouflaged in the RLM 61/62/63 splinter pattern, a few of which are documented to serve with III.(l)/JG 132 in the
aforementioned period (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
The red circle markings which covered the national insignia of this Do 17 E-1, coded 53+A13,
from 3./KG 155, indicate that it took part in the 1938 summer manoeuvers. This aircraft was
painted in accordance with diagram 2a, colour arrangement A, which is reproduced in sub-
chapter 1.5 (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
The new finish was chosen as a standard for the newly manufactured fighter
aircraft (Bf 109 B, C, D, E, and He 112 B, as well as the He 51 C-1) until late 1939.
The Bf 110 heavy fighters, or Zerstörers (destroyers), were factory-finished to
this scheme at least until the late spring of 1940, and many aircraft of this type
still wore it well into the Battle of Britain. During the 1937 and 1938, the RLM
70/71/65 scheme gradually became the factory finish for all land-based bomb-
ers, reconnaissance (except for high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft painted
in grey overall, and recon variants of fighter aircraft that were factory-finished
The original colour card included in the colours specified for fighters) and ground attack aircraft (except for fight-
1938 edition of L. Dv. 521/1. Colours 21 er-bombers, which were painted in colours specified for fighter aircraft), and
to 28 were the marking colours (Jens remained the standard for these classes of aircraft until the summer of 1944.
Mühlig, www.historycolors.de)
Bf 110 C-1, coded 2N+CH, from 1./ZG 1, Neuhausen ob Eck, winter 1939-1940.
Standard factory pattern of RLM 70 and 71 over RLM 65 undersides
A Ju 88 A or D in flight. The
RLM 70/71 pattern on the
upper surfaces quite nicely
resembles the camouflage
diagram reproduced in sub-
chapter 1.5 (Erik Mombeeck
coll.)
A rare picture of a Fw 58 in
flight. We can see a large part
of the RLM 70/71 upper surface
pattern, which is similar to the
schemes specified for other
aircraft. The aircraft belonged to
LNS (See) 6, based at Dievenow
(now Dziwnów in Poland). This
unit trained Bordfunker (radio
operators) for maritime aircraft
(Nationalmuseet, Danmark)
The L. Dv. 521/1 colour card issued in 1938 introduced yet another set of
two dark green colours, i.e. RLM 72 grün (green) and RLM 73 grün (green),
which were intended for maritime aircraft. Again, the underside colour
was to be RLM 65. The style of camouflage patterns was very similar to
those designed for the RLM 71/70/65 scheme. The RLM 72/73/65 scheme
remained the standard factory finish for seaplanes, as well as some of the
Fw 200 C-2 WNr. 0023, coded F8+EH, from 1./KG 40, Bordeaux-Merignac, end land-based maritime aircraft, the notable examples being the Fw 200, Do
of July 1941. Standard factory pattern of RLM 72 and 73 over RLM 65. The 217 E-1 and E-3, Do 217 E-2, E-4, K & M (these variants, however, were to
factory code of this aircraft was apparently BS+AV, as evidenced by visible carry a night camouflage scheme with the lower surfaces painted in RLM
traces of hastily removed letters (Photo: Chris Goss coll.) 22 schwarz instead of RLM 65).
He 45s were delivered to Spain in an overall grey finish, which wasn’t really suitable for
their role. Various camouflage schemes were therefore applied, probably using lacquers
for repairs in colours 61 and 62. These ranged from quite small, rounded blotches,
through patterns of edgy patches (sometimes even showing a loose resemblance to the
lozenge camouflage), to considerably wide bands and large patches of colour, as seen
on this example (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
Some He 51s appear to be delivered in the RLM 70/71/65 scheme (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
…through dense grey over-spray applied in such a way that the unpainted green surfaces formed
meandering streaks, which were subsequently strengthened by random application of a green colour,
as can be seen on examples of Bf 109 Es coded White 8 from 1. Staffel and Gruppenkomanndeur’s
‘chevron triangle’ (worth noting is that low-vis character of the marking of the latter machine; white
outline markings were also used by 2./JG 54 from the autumn of 1939 until at least late 1940, or
possibly until the unit’s reequipment with the Bf 109 F-2 in May 1941) … (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
The new standard camouflage scheme for the single-engine fighter air- the nose; the number of colour patches on the fuselage spine, behind the
craft was introduced in the December 1939-January 1940 period, both at cockpit; the level of colour demarcation on the fuselage sides, and finally,
the unit and factory level. It consisted of RLM 71 and 02 upper surfaces, and the layout of the wing pattern. This so-called 40-er Anstrich (40’s painting)
RLM 65 lower surfaces, with the latter colour covering most of the fuselage would be the standard finish of the majority of Bf 109s during the first half
sides, including the entire rudder and tailfin. A few basic patterns can be of 1940, and some units would still use a lot of Bf 109 Es painted this way
determined when studying the photo reference. These differed from each well into 1941, the 3./JG 26, III./JG 26 and III./JG 54 being notable examples.
other in the arrangement of colours on the wings and upper portion of
Another ‘Emil’ from 4./JG 51, White 9, appears to have the upper surface camouflage applied in reverse way. In this case, the
RLM 70 was applied in the first instance, and followed by quite modest over-spray in RLM 02, which appears to be darker than
on the previous photo due to being applied over a black green background (Paul Stipdonk coll.)
Bf 109 F-2 WNr. 12764, black double chevron, flown by Hptm. Rolf Pingel,
Kommandeur of I./JG 26, July 1941, England. This aircraft was built in early
1941, and according to the British report, was painted in “dark olive green on
the upper surface with pale blue underneath”. The camouflage scheme was
obviously RLM 71/02/65 (Photo: via Erik Mombeeck)
Bf 109 F-2 WNr. 9553 was manufactured in June 1941 and apparently painted in the new RLM 74, 75 and 76 colours, with some addition of 02 for the mottling on the
fuselage sides Note the shiny black finish of the wing root area. The aircraft was coded Yellow 9 and flown by Lt. Siegfried Schnell, Staffelkapitän of 9./JG 2 and one the
leading aces of his Geschwader at the end of 1941 (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
Me 210 A-1 WNr. 2100110139, coded S9+BL, from 3./ZG 1, Lechfeld, January
1942. Standard factory finish of RLM 74 and 75 on the upper surfaces and RLM
76 on the lower surfaces, with the fuselage sides mottled in RLM 74, 75 and 02
This unmarked Bf 109 G-6 was captured at Reims in September 1944. In this
case, the camouflage spots appear to be applied in RLM 74, 75, and possibly
71 or 70 (James V. Crow coll.)
The L.Dv. 521/1 of 1941 also introduced a new colour for markings ap-
plied over night camouflage, i.e. RLM 77. A removable lacquer 7120.77 was
specified for this purpose. No documentary evidence for existence of other
lacquers in this colour is known to these authors. A colour sample of RLM
77 was not included in the colour card issued with the L.Dv. 521/1 of 1941,
neither a recipe for a lacquer in this colour was found amongst those dis-
covered by Jens Mühlig, which is discussed in sub-chapter 1.3.
Bf 110 G-4 WNr. 160616, coded G9+AT, from 9./NJG 1, belonged to a batch
manufactured between December 1944 and January 1945. In this case, dense
over-spray in RLM 75 and 76 was applied to the upper and side surfaces
(James V. Crow coll.)
He 219 A-2 WNr. 290004, coded G9+DH, from 1./NJG 1, Paderborn, Germany,
spring 1944. Standard late war RLM 75/76 finish, with the upper surfaces
sprayed with streaks of RLM 76
After the retreat from North Africa, the tropical colours were still used to
some extent for painting aircraft operating over Italy and other Mediterra-
nean countries until the end of war. It must also be noted that a number
of fighter aircraft finished in desert colours were also sent to the Eastern
Front, being operated in unchanged form by I.(J)/LG 2 (Bf 109 Es from the
summer until at least the end of 1941), and, upon modification, by I. and
III./JG 3 (Bf 109 F-4, spring - summer of 1942), II./JG 5 (Bf 109 F-4 and G-2,
RLM 78 (1941) RLM 79 (1941) RLM 80 late spring of 1942 - spring of 1943), and possibly also II./JG 77 (Bf 109 F-4,
spring 1942).
The colour chips for the new colours were issued in loose form only, and
only RLM 78 and 79 were subsequently added as attachments to the 1941
edition of L.Dv. 521/1, which leads to two significant conclusions. First, this
means that final decision about revision of the initial RLM 78 and 79 was
made after the issue of L.Dv. 521/1 in November 1941. The RLM 78 shade
was changed to a brighter blue, whilst RLM 79 was modified in the oppo-
site way. RLM 80 remained unchanged, but its samples were not attached
to L.Dv. 521/1 most likely because this colour was used only at depot and The first ‘Emils’ in tropical colours
unit level, so the factories didn’t not need its samples. operated over North Africa by I./JG 27,
were repainted at Sicily. This explains
the rich use of RLM 80, as seen on
example of this Bf 109 E-7 trop, coded
Black 8, flown by Fw. Franz Elles
of 2./JG 27 (PK-photo)
Bf 109 G-2 trop, coded Black 2, from 2./JG 77, Tunisia, early 1943.
RLM 80 meandering lines applied over a mid-demarcation RLM
78/79 scheme (Photo: Erik Mombeeck coll.)
Aircraft in desert colours served also on different fronts. In May 1942, III./JG 3 picked up 32 new Bf 109 F-4s from Wiesbaden-Erbenheim. All these aircraft were
factory-finished in the tropical scheme, which was modified by application of large segments of green and grey colours, presumably RLM 70 and 75, to better fit
the conditions in the southern sector of the Eastern Front, where the unit was subsequently deployed (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
A similar finish was also applied to the Bf 109 F-4s, which in April and May 1942 were received by II./JG 5, which fought in the northern sector, operating from airfields
in Finland (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
An improvised winter scheme applied to He 111 WNr. 4500, coded A1+HN, from 5./KG 53. The damaged machine was belly-landed by Lt. Erich Horn on January
21, 1942, near Yukhnov (Thomas Hesse coll.)
A white squiggle pattern applied to the upper and side surfaces was the
typical finish for III./JG 5’s aircraft during the winter of 1942/1943
(Erik Mombeeck coll.)
This Fw 190 from a ground-attack unit carried a highly uncommon white splinter pattern that has been applied over the standard
RLM 74/75/76 camouflage scheme (Erik Mombeeck coll.)
1.3 The Late War the research effort. After Kenneth’s death, research continued and one of
the most important advances was the discovery of the original recipes for
Luftwaffe camouflage colors, for one of the most important paint suppliers
Colours in Germany in World War II, by fellow researcher Jens Mühlig.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the recipes is that within the com-
paratively short period of time from 1943 to the end of 1944, one and the
same top coat of an RLM color is included in different shades with different
pigmentation, and indeed, with different colours. For instance, there are
three different versions of RLM 81 in chronological order, with no indica-
tion that one of the recipes superseded another one. There is also no in-
dication that a certain variant of one colour had to be used with a certain
variant of another colour.
It will be noted that the replacement of the then standard day fighter
upper-surface camouflage colours of 74 and 75 is not mentioned in the
“Sammelmitteilung”. The missing link to fighter camouflage colours was
kindly provided in document form by fellow researcher György Punka: On
The Hungarian version of the Messerschmitt document regarding the change July 29, 1944, a communication from Messerschmitt Augsburg to M.W.G.
of the fighter colours from RLM 74 and 75 to 81 and 82. The date in the upper Györ stipulated the replacement of 74 and 75 by “Farbton 81 (olivenbraun)”
right corner, is the date of the original document by Messerschmitt Augsburg, - olive brown and “Farbton 82 (hellgrün)” - light green for fighters. The orig-
the July 29, 1944. The translation was communicated by M.W.G. in Györ on inal document refers to latest requirements of the ‘General der Jagdflieger’
September 2, 1944 – see lower left corner (Dénes Bernád coll.) (General of Fighters), regretfully without giving further details of how these
requirements were communicated.
A document from Blohm & Voss, dated September 13, 1944, relates to the
use of 81 and 82 for the upper surfaces and 76 for the under surfaces on
the BV 155 fighter.1 The detailed analysis of Messerschmitt Me 262 pro-
duction run already shows the start of a change from RLM 74/75, to green
camouflage colors in August 1944, and from autumn onward the majority
of the new jet fighters left the plant in the 81/82 camouflage.2
On August 15, 1944, only a few weeks after the “Sammelmitteilung”, there
followed “Sammelmitteilung Nr. 2”. Among other changes, it proclaimed
that in future the following colours would no longer be applied: 65, 70, 71
und 74. In the very next sentence it is made clear that the colour 70 would
remain mandatory for airscrews. In other words: The classical camouflage
scheme of 70, 71 and 65 was cancelled, as was the use of RLM 74, the dark-
er colour of the previous day fighter scheme. The maritime camouflage
colours of 72 and 73 were not touched, but the underside colour would
apparently be RLM 76 in future.
As already mentioned, there are three different recipes for RLM 81. They are
marked as “7121.81”, “7121.81 A 2” and “7121 A.3.81”. 7121 is the aircraft lacquer
for a single coating based on a phenol-alkyd resin, originally developed by the
paint manufacturer Warnecke & Böhm. The last-mentioned recipe “7121 A.3.81”
is number 100 in the total list, which ends with number 101, and is apparently
from late 1944. The letter “A” in the names of the recipes, in all likelihood, stands
for “Ausführung” - a frequently used German abbreviation for version or release.
Bf 109 G-10 WNr. 15153x, coded Black
The three recipes of RLM 81 lead to different colours. This is not only shown
22, from 5./JG 52, appears to be a
by the recreation of the colours but becomes clearer in an analysis of the
hybrid of the early and late schemes
recipes: Whereas some pigments show up in every version of the colours
applied to the G-10 at the Erla plant.
(e.g. Zinc chromate), only the first and the last versions contain a red pig-
The engine cowling and tail unit seem
ment and show different forms of khaki. Version 2 is a green colour. Apart
to carry a low-demarcation finish in
from that, the quantities of the pigments in each version changed, and it
one or two dark shades (possibly RLM
is evident that three different versions of RLM 81 were indeed intended.
81 v.2 and RLM 82, or just the first
one), whilst the remaining part of the
fuselage had been painted in the mid-
demarcation RLM 74/75/76 scheme,
and subsequently toned down with
extensive over-spraying in a dark
colour, possibly RLM 81 v.2, in order
to match the cowling and tail finish
(James V. Crow coll.)
RLM 82
Also RLM 82 is represented with three different recipes as well. Again, the 81 and 82 is connected to the work on the camouflage colors for buildings
first version dates back to 1943, with the last version being the last recipe and ground installations.
in the whole compendium. Contrary to these different versions of RLM 81,
the first and the third versions of RLM 82 are very similar to each other, In April 1941, the RLM released the “Vorläufige Anwendungs- und Verarbe-
and indeed by optical comparison, there is little to choose between them. itungsvorschrift für RLM-Tarnfarben (Gebäude- und Bodentarnung)” - Pro-
With regards to the second version of RLM 82, research is still ongoing as it visional Direction for the Use and Processing of RLM Camouflage Paints
contains a greenish pigment that cannot yet be identified. (Camouflage of Buildings and Ground Installations). This instruction book-
let contained a colour card with eight camouflage colours.
With any currently known combination of RLM 81 and 82 on an aircraft, 82
will be the lighter of the two colours, although the difference between 81 Two of these colours - Dunkelgrün (dark green) and Dunkelbraun (dark
and 82 sometimes is not that marked. It is obvious that several versions of brown) - are rather dark and are similar, but not identical, to the two khaki
these late war colours existed within a very short timeframe. As the Ger- versions of RLM 81. The similarity in light reflection and hue might be a
man manufacturing system in the aircraft industry worked extensively with coincidence, although a remarkable one. It is possible that a third colour -
components manufactured at different locations, it cannot be ruled out Olivgrün (olive green), is connected to the missing shade of RLM 82.7 The
that there’s a possibility of different versions of a particular paint with one issue of these instructions in 1941 fits nicely into a timeline for the devel-
and the same number appearing on one aircraft. opment of new camouflage colours for aircraft, leading to a first official
announcement in 1943, and their actual introduction in late 1944.
It should be noted that all official documents refer to the use of RLM 81 and
82 together with RLM 76. There is no indication regarding the use of any
other combination of colours, nor is there any evidence from documents
that another colour was used for the lower surfaces of Luftwaffe aircraft.5
The exception is the previously mentioned use of existing paint stock: The
darker colours RLM 70 and 74 could be combined with the lighter colour
RLM 82, and vice versa RLM 71 and 75 could be used with RLM 81.
A soft overspray, especially of RLM 82 over 76, created what Ron Belling RLM 76 Late War Variation
described as a “soft yellow effect around the green”.6 This is certainly some-
thing a modeller should care about in the analysis of photos and the mod- In the context of the late war colors 81 and 82, the painting of the under-
elling process. On some photographs this effect is quite evident. sides of a number of aircraft, deserves to be mentioned. A green-blue vari-
ation of (presumably) RLM 76, was found on a number of museum aircraft
In the past it was thought that RLM 81, 82 and 83 were introduced without and were documented by Ken Merrick.8 The colour remains enigmatic up
much preparation and were simply reissues of the pre-war colours RLM 61 to this day and has been widely discussed.9 Up to now, no recipe has been
and 62. Based on current research, a simple reissue can be ruled out. How discovered for this colour which is included in the Real Color range under
much the older colours influenced the creation of 81 and 82 is open to the designation “RLM 76 Late War Variation”.
speculation. It is much more likely though that the development of RLM
This wreck of a Fw 190 D-9 from the 601xxx batch was photographed at
Fieseler’s Kassel-Waldau factory area by advancing Allied troops. Another
rendition of the simplified underside finish is shown, with only the middle part
of the wing undersides left in natural metal (which also applies to the lower
surface of the horizontal stabilizer). The adjacent surfaces were painted in RLM
76 (James V. Crow coll.)
This He 162 A-2 WNr. 120230, coded White 23, from Stab/JG 1, was also pictured at Leck in May
1945. Note the differences in the execution of the camouflage demarcation on this Heinkel-Rostock-
-built aircraft, in comparison with the White 5, which had been assembled at the Junkers factory in
Bernburg (NARA)
The only part of the under-surface of the wing of the He 162 that was not
painted RLM 76 were the ailerons: they were covered in all-over RLM 82 to
make them completely interchangeable.18 The light metal surfaces of the
fuselage and the tailplane surfaces of the He 162 were painted in the stan-
dard paint 7121 (matt). Wheel bay interiors were painted RLM 66.19
Previously, the color RLM 83 was often associated with dark green. Ap-
parently it was the German researcher Michael Ullmann who found doc-
uments identifying RLM 83 as a dark blue colour.20 One document made
public by Mr. Ullmann is a monthly report of the E-Stelle Travermünde, dat-
ed November 26, 1943. The report refers to the development and testing
of a camouflage for use in the Mediterranean.
The test work was completed on November 10, 1943, with a final report,
and the introduction of RLM 83, for use together with RLM 72 for overwater
operations respectively, together with RLM 70 for land based aircraft, was
recommended.
The illustration shows the original recipe for RLM 83 and the recreation after
more than 70 years with the original pigmentation. The first three positions
are the pigments with Heliogenblau (Phthalocyanine) being by far the
strongest and dominant of the three. Although the other pigments are zinc
yellow and zinc oxide, their influence on the final colour is rather small - their
colouring power is low but they provide excellent corrosion protection for light
alloys and steel. The overall result is a plain blue. The remainder of the recipe
consist of lacquer and a solvent (xylol): ‘Farbmahlung’ 7121 consists of an
alkyd resin, solvents and talkum as matting agent. ‘Flieglack’ 7122 is simply an
alkyd resin with xylol as solvent (Jürgen Kiroff coll.)
RLM 83
From the above evidence, it is clear that RLM 83 was a dark blue colour and
that it was at least experimented with. Up to this point, no information has
come to light to show its widespread use. A field test of RLM 83 around the
year 1943 is highly likely though as this was common practice.21 Neither
Another period documents which mention colour 66, are the painting
specifications for the Do 17 E and F that had been issued in April and
June 1937, respectively. Both documents prescribe the use of colour 66
for painting the crew compartment up to frame no.7, whilst the remaining
inner surfaces of the fuselage, engine cowlings and landing gear bays were
to be painted in silver. The 1938 edition of L. Dv. 521/1 stipulated the use
of colour 66 only for the instrument panels. From that time, other internal
surfaces, including cockpits, were to receive RLM 02 finish. The 1941 edi-
tion of L. Dv. 521/1 confirmed the use of RLM 02 as a basic interior colour,
although RLM 66 was specified for painting all areas visible through cock-
pit and canopy glazing. However, it appears that like some other changes
officially approved in the 1941 edition of L.Dv. 521/1, the latter was also a
A study of available painting specifications of the aircraft used at the time confirmation of status quo, as both the photos from the era and analysis of
when the Luftwaffe was offically founded and soon after, reveales that the preserved aircraft parts and retrieved wreckages gives a strong indication
main colours used for the aircraft interior painting during this period were that colour 66 was widely used for painting aircraft cockpit areas at least in
silver and grey, standardized as RLM 01 silber (silver) and RLM 02 RLM-grau the mid-1940. An unidentified RLM report cited by Kenneth Merrick, men-
(RLM-grey) in early 1936. The instrument panels were mainly prescribed tioned the use of an ivory colour for painting the cockpit areas of aircraft
to be painted in grey too (and this could mean the use of short-lived RLM employed in the Mediterranean theatre of operations.
41 grau), although it must be noted that the specification for the Fw 56 A
that had been issued on May 27, 1936, mentioned black as the instrument In the course of war, shortages of raw materials forced the RLM and avia-
panel colour, whilst the specification for the Fw 44 J issued on October 10, tion industry to simplify the interior finishes. Communication Nr. 7/42 is-
1936, stated that a ‘Mattemaille schwarz-grau’ (matte enamel black-grey) sued on May 18, 1942, requested simplification of the surface protection of
should be used for painting the instrument board. This may already refer certain parts of aircraft such as the Fw 190, He 177 and Ar 96. This included
to RLM 66 schwarzgrau (black grey) colour, which was introduced with the i.e. reduction of the cockpit colouring from one to two layers of colour 66,
first known RLM colour card that had been issued in early 1936. Colour 66 and leaving some parts made from aluminium and duraluminium unpaint-
was the last RLM colour to be correlated with the RAL system, although ed. Sammelmitteilung Nr. 2 (Collected Instructions No.2) issued on August
its RAL equivalent will be changed from RAL 7019 to RAL 7021 in 1941, as 15, 1944, mentioned that most of the interior surfaces are no longer paint-
indicated within the 1941 edition of the L. Dv. 521/1. ed, and specified to replace colour 02 with colour 66 as the interior colour.
Although the landing gear legs of Bf 109 Es were usually painted in the specified RLM 02 colour, some anomalies can be found as early as in 1939 (Eric Mombeeck coll.)
An early Bf 109 E cockpit. It appears that RLM 02 was also used for the
instrument panel, except from the black instrument bezels (Paul Stipdonk coll.)
colouring
for Arado Ar 76 partially reproduced below, has a total of 7 pages;
for Arado Ar 68 E and F – a total of 16 pages, with each 8 pages de-
voted to the particular production batches; for Focke-Wulf Fw 44 J
specifications – 9 pages; etc.) mainly due to the mixed construction of the aircraft,
which required using different types of paint and varnish materials,
and their application schedules for finishing the parts made from
The painting specification for the Arado Ar 76 was issued in October 1935. •• two layers of topcoat in RLM Grau (Grey) colour were to be sprayed on and
The reproduced excerpt shows that the specified base colour of the external left to dry for 3 hours;
surfaces was the RLM Grau (Grey). We also learn about the coating system for •• the surface was to be polished with fine sandpaper;
plywood surfaces. From the inside, two layers of protective lacquer were to be •• two layers of topcoat in RLM Grau (Grey) colour were to be sprayed on and
applied and left to dry for 6 hours each. From the outside: left to dry for 3 hours
•• one layer of varnish was to be rubbed into the surface and left •• one layer of topcoat in RLM Grau (Grey) colour was to be sprayed on and
to dry for 3 hours; left to dry for 6 hours;
•• one layer of grey liquid filler was to be sprayed on and left to dry for 4 hours; •• one layer of finishing coat in RLM Grau (Grey) colour was to be sprayed on
•• the surface was to be polished with fine sandpaper; and left to dry.
The Handbook for the Henschel Hs 123 A and B issued on September 19, 1938, still included the pattern diagrams for the RLM 61/62/63/65 camouflage. Above we can
see a diagram of the ‘B’ pattern, and a diagram of the lines of separation between the upper surface and underside colours.
Diagram of the ‘A’ pattern of the RLM 70/71/65 camouflage scheme for the Ju 52/3m, as issued in October 1939.
Dated February 21, 1940, this diagram shows the ‘B’ pattern of the RLM 70/71/65 camouflage scheme for the Ju 88. Note the finish of the engine nacelles, which were
to be uniformly painted in RLM 71 on the upper surfaces and RLM 65 on the undersides. In this case, the RLM 70 and 71 are called schwarzgrün (black green) and
dunkelgrün (dark green), respectively.
Diagram of the camouflage scheme for the Dornier Do 24 T-1 and T-2 as published in the Handbook issued on June 18, 1942. In this case, the RLM 72 and 73 colours
are both reffered to as grün (green).
The painting scheme for the Dornier Do 217 K-1 was very similar to the one intended for the Do 217 E-1 and E-3, but in this case the undersides and side surfaces were
to be painted RLM 22 schwarz (black). The upper surface camouflage pattern retained the RLM 72/73 colouring. The national insignia were to be applied in form of
white (RLM 21) outlines only. This diagram was included in the Handbook issued on July 1, 1943. The same scheme was also intended for the Do 217 M-1.
The diagram included in the September 1943 edition of the Heinkel He 219 A-0 Handbook (issued on January 20, 1944), shows a camouflage scheme that appears to
comprise RLM 75 patches applied over 76 background on the upper surfaces of the aircraft. However, the photo evidence indicates that the latter were actually painted
with a uniform layer of RLM 75, and sprayed over with a meandering pattern of RLM 76.
Developed in November 1944, this diagram showed the revised camouflage scheme intended for the Focke-Wulf Ta 152. The aircraft was to be painted with
a combination of RLM 81 and 82 on the upper surfaces, with RLM 76 additionally used for the vertical surfaces of the fuselage. The undersides were not to be
camouflaged at all. Only the colour reference numbers were mentioned. The initial drawing, which had been issued on March 21, 1944, specified the upper surface
colours as RLM 74 and 75, with RLM 76 for the undersides.
Dated February 23, 1945, this diagram is the last known document that regulated the Messerschmitt Me 262 camouflage scheme. The upper surface colours were
described as 81 braunviolett (brown violet) and 82 hellgrün (light green). Only the steel and wooden parts of the aircraft undersides were to be painted in RLM 76
lichtblau (light blue).
The spectral measurements used for the original analysis and the
manufacturing of the Luftwaffe range of colours consist of 40 mea-
surement points in the range from 360 to 750 nm, and therefore
cover the whole spectrum as is usually seen by the human eye.
Scale colours have been discussed for many years1 but up until now,
how they looked was left to the intuition of the modeller. The simple
reason is that a modeller would need an aircraft in original colours in
front of him, at a distance that conforms to the scale of the model, in
order to mix the scale colour correctly.
A 1:72 scale model seen from a distance of, let us say 30cm, con-
forms to an actual aircraft seen from a distance of 22m, as is shown
on the accompanying illustration. Everybody is invited to take a piece
of cardboard with the original paint of a large object and then to
compare the original colour in his hand with the object at a distance
of 22m. The overall appearance of the colour will have changed: The
hue is different and it looks lighter, for instance a green will be seen
as a different and lighter green.
The reasons for this change of colour appearing to the human eye,
are quite complex. An important part is explained in the accompany-
ing illustration. Close to a large object, the human eye will see a large
field of the color with all the inner parts of the eye which are sensitive
to colour. Walking away from the object, the same field of colour will
10 deg oBserver
50 deg field
of view
2 deg oBserver
U.S. Aircraft
Colours in the
Second World
War
Note that the pigments for Olive Drab and Medium Green were not speci-
fied. That permited manufacturers to use their own procured pigments to
create paint that matched the standard, and therefore the colours could,
and did, vary with exposure and weathering over time - see below.
Dark Olive Drab 41 (OD 41) was a permanent camouflage paint intro-
duced in AAF Bulletin 41 issued in September 1940 following a series of
tests. It was promulgated as the standard upper surface camouflage colour
for US Army aeroplanes from 1941 to late 1943. As mentioned, the pigment
specification was optional, leaving manufacturers free to formulate their
own paints to match the standard. The closest FS 595 equivalent to OD 41
is FS 33070, which is very close indeed at 1.64 where <2.0 = a close match
(Difference quantifications have been calculated using the DE2000 formu-
la. This formula is the most recently recommended by the Commission
International de l’Éclairage. The lower the number the closer the match - a
difference calculation of 2.0 or less usually indicates a close match, but the
figure is drawn from cumulative values, so the direction of any shift must
be quantified by description and/or observation. Whilst it is the experience
of the author that wartime paint batch differences of up to 5 were not
unusual, for precise matching and visualisation purposes any calculation
above 3 can be considered of limited value.).
In March 1942, the JAC agreed that OD 41 could be substituted for MAP
Dark Green (RAF) on aircraft manufactured for export to Britain. In July
1942, it was agreed that this colour would be standardised as Olive Drab
ANA 613, and substituted for MAP Dark Green and MAP Dark Slate Grey
(FAA). The new ANA standards were not officially issued until September
1943, by which time an Army intervention had slightly altered the appear-
ance of this colour.
B-17F-95-BO, s/n 42-30301, was delivered in May 1943. It was the first B-17 ANA 613 Olive Drab
of the 94th Bombardment Group to survive 50 combat missions. Note the In January 1943, Major A.I. Totten Jr. of the Army Resources and Produc-
patchy appearance of the olive drab paintwork that resulted from repairs and tion Division proposed to consolidate the two shades of Olive Drab in
overpainting the nickname initially carried by this aircraft, i.e. ‘Missy G’ (NARA)
A modified B-24D and its crew from the 19th Antisubmarine Squadron
/ 479th Antisubmarine Group, pictured at St. Eval, UK, in the summer of
1943. The aircraft carried a mid-demarcation sea-search camouflage
scheme of Dark Olive Drab 41 over Insignia White 46 (NARA)
P-51D-5-NA, s/n 44-13357, coded B7-R from the 374th Fighter Squadron
/ 361st Fighter Group, was the mount of Lt. Vernon R. Richards, who is
seen at the controls. The aircraft was in natural metal / silver lacquer
finish, with olive drab anti-glare panel, invasion stripes on the lower
surface of the fuselage and wings, yellow spinner and nose band, and
dark blue wing tips, vertical tail tip and trim tab. Interestingly, blue was
the identification colour of the 375th FS (NARA)
Medium Green 42
As to the colour itself, Robert D. Archer traces its evolution from the Bulletin 41
card to colour 318 in US Army Spec. 3-1 of April 1943, thence to ANA 612 in
Bulletin 157 of September 1943, through the first iteration of FS 595 in January
1950 as colour 3406, and finally as FS 34079 in March 1956. There is a slight
hiccup within this chronology, as the Color Card Supplement to Army Spec.
3-1 of April 1943 lists 317 without equivalents but called ‘Forest Green’, and 318
as equivalent to ANA Medium Green and called ‘Dark Green’. In 1956, the Army
Field Manual 5-22 listed 317 as No.11 Forest Green, also called ‘Shadow Green’
and ‘Medium Green’, but in the Army Corps of Engineers T-1213 that colour was
listed as an equivalent to No.12 Forest Green, as were FS 34079, 3406, 317 and
ANA 631, the latter being the mysterious ‘Shadow Green’ for which a chip does
not seem readily available!
In 1969, Ross Whistler cross-referenced ANA 612, using June 1943 ANA FS 34092 is a colour that has been cited to represent Dupont 71-013, which
colour cards, to FS 34092 rather than 34079, noting that 612 was “greyer was applied as a substitute colour for MAP Dark Green on export aircraft
than 34092”. In 1972, Jerry H. Smith referred to ANA 612 as “slightly glossier and also for Dark Green 30, another of the temporary camouflage finishes
than (FS) 34092 and has more yellow in it. The AN color seems more a natural to Spec. 14057, sometimes cited as the origin of the dark green on AVG
green, and harmonises with ANA 613 (Olive Drab) better than 34092 does.” In Tomahawks - but that colour was a black green, very much darker and
1988, David H. Klaus’ IPMS Color Cross-Reference Guide listed both Medi- greyer than 34092.
um Green 42 and ANA 612 as 34092 without comment for the former, but
repeating Smith’s comment for the latter as well as adding that it had su-
perseded Medium Green and BuAer Light Green.
Checking and measuring the standards, this author could not reach those
same conclusions. Suffice it to say that there are no particularly close
equivalents to Medium Green 42 or ANA 612 in FS 595b. The closest value
to both colours is actually 34094, but not that close at 2.86 and 2.96 respec-
tively. The other comparison calculations are as follows: Dark Green 30 Temporary Camouflage
(Paint, Water Dry, Spec. 14057)
Medium Green 42 vs 34092 = 5.42 FS 34079 is a colour also frequently cross-referenced as a match to MAP/
RAF Dark Green from which it differs at 4.31, so the potential confusions in
(34092 is a more blueish-green) the visualisation of these colours can be appreciated. The likely variance in
Medium Green 42 vs 34079 = 5.81 Medium Green as an applied paint and the potential shift of up to about
(34079 is more olive green) 5.0 in wartime paints suggest that it would not be unacceptable to use
ANA 612 vs 34092 = 3.93 those FS values as a basis for a range of colour on a model, adjusting it for
the particular OD that is chosen. The variance is borne out in colour photos
(34092 is slightly lighter and a more in which Medium Green can appear both lighter and darker than the OD.
blueish-green) The darkness of Medium Green 42 has been exaggerated by occasional
ANA 612 vs 34079 = 4.11 comparison to RAAF Foliage Green, the origin of which has even been at-
(34079 is slightly lighter and more olive) tributed to it. But the clue is in the name...
Another clue to the characteristics of this colour is the fact that for the first
time in Spec. 14057-C of December 27, 1939, Munsell colour notations had
been cited for the colours, and Neutral Gray 32 was notated as Munsell N5 (in
the 1929 system). Neutral Gray 32, an earlier temporary camouflage paint, was
Neutral Grey 43 ANA 603 Sea Grey identical to the subsequent NG 43. The 1929 Munsell N5 is entirely consistent
The FS values most often cited for NG 43 are FS 36270 (supposedly in error) and with the Archer chips.
36173 (supposedly correct), but both contain rutile titanium dioxide (white),
phthalocyanine blue (red shade) and carbon black (blue shade). In addition, A study which explores the subject of applied paint in forensic detail, is
FS 36270 contains benzimidazolone yellow, whilst FS 36173 contains red iron ‘The Whole Nine Yards’ by John King, documenting the restoration and
oxide (blue shade). Contrary to some assertions, NG 43 did not evolve into service life of surviving RAAF P-40N A29-448 (42-104730). It contains an
any other standard colour after its appearance in Bulletin 41 of September 16, informative chapter devoted to the subject of paint colours, providing a
1940. It was superseded by the darker ANA paint colour Sea Gray 603 (a Mun- valuable insight to Curtiss factory applications. This follows convention in
sell B - Blue close to FS 26132 at 2.26) introduced with Bulletin 157 of Septem- matching the undersurface NG 43 paint to FS 36173 based on extant sam-
ber 28, 1943, and that colour standard in turn evolved to become FS 36118 (a ples from A29-448 and other P-40s, but the following comment is made:
Munsell PB - Purple Blue). “There is little evidence in the literature of wide colour shifts in the Neutral Grey
lower surface paint, other than normal oxidisation of the surface layers, which
The closest FS value to NG 43 is FS 36134, which is very close indeed at 0.49. is easily removed with a mild abrasive.”
FS 36134 Gray was introduced in 1999, and does not appear in earlier issues
of the Federal Standard. Also, at the time of writing, no details of its pigments Geoff Thomas, in an article for Airfix magazine in February 1983 (‘True Co-
are available. The closest FS value to ANA 603 is 26132 at 2.26, with FS 36118 lours’), matched NG 43 to Munsell 5 PB 4/1 - the closest FA value to which
close by at 2.29, but distinctly more blueish. Both Smith and Whistler declared is 36118 at 2.06. But even so, 36118 is visually more blueish than the Munsell
ANA 603 as near identical to FS 36118, with Smith qualifying it as having a faint value as shown. In the same author’s ‘Eyes for the Phoenix’, NG 43 is matched
purplish cast (which seems inverted as to the actual colour measurement of to FS 36173, Methuen 22D-E2 and Munsell 6 PB 4.1/2.5. This variance possibly
603 vs 36118), and Whistler commenting that 603 is greyer than 36118 (which represents matching to extant paint samples rather than to a paint standard
conforms to this author’s findings). swatch. All these colours seem more typical for Sea Gray ANA 603 than NG 43.
Sand 26 was a 1931 paint colour standard for a water-based temporary paint
to Spec. 14057 (‘Water-Dry’) that Gen. Arnold ordered to be applied to the up-
per surfaces of aircraft operating over the desert on May 6, 1942, and which
was then added to TO 07-1-1 Camouflaging of Aircraft issued on June 1, 1942.
On May 27, 1942, Sand 26 had been required to be made available as a perma-
nent enamel to Spec. 14109 to be painted over the existing Olive Drab for the
98th BG ‘project’ for the Ploesti raid (the under surfaces remained Neutral Gray).
Sand 26 is very much ‘pinker’ than Sand 49 - almost a salmon pink or flesh
colour. It is similar to but slightly darker than FS 21433.
colours were a continuum of the same colour standard and not separate but that both were slightly darker and pinker than 30279. The implica-
colours. None of them are similar to the much yellower RAF Middle Stone, tion that Sand 26 and 49 were identical was perhaps due to his exam-
the US equivalent of which was 304 in the Supplement to US army Spec. ining a later Sand 26 swatch in the Bulletin 48 Color Card for Temporary
3-1 of 1943 and ANA 615 in Bulletin 157, and all were designated simply as Camouflage Finishes, first issued in May 1942, but valid to August 1954.
‘Sand’. The Spec. 3-1 equivalent of Sand 49 and ANA 616 was Desert Sand It is probable that Sand 26 and 49 colours were homogenised after the
313, which was almost exactly similar but just a little brighter and ‘pinker’. enamel paint version was developed.
Note that FS 30279 is now officially designated ‘Desert sand/ANA 616’. Just to complicate the matter, in addition to Desert Sand 313, Spec. 3-1 also
The colour name was changed from ‘Sand’ to ‘Desert sand’ in Bulletin had Earth Yellow 305 and Sand 306 which were both featured in the so-
157e of October 1964. In evaluating ANA 616 Smith described FS 30279 called Corps of Engineers camouflage for aircraft in NW Africa. Earth Yellow
as “lighter in shade and considerably less “peachy” in hue compared to the 305 is a little lighter than FS 30257, and Sand 306 is a beige colour closely
616 of June 1943”. He opined that 30279 seemed like the same colour as similar to FS 33448. The RAF Middle Stone equivalent 304 in Spec. 3-1 and
ANA 616 with white added to it. Bearing in mind the propensity of war- ANA 615 evolved to FS 30266, which is now officially designated ‘Yellow
time paint to chalk, this difference is not really an issue for modellers. sand/Tan/ANA 615’, but is darker than 304.
Whistler described FS 30279 as a good match to Sand 26 and Sand 49,
Also be aware of field-size metameric failure which occurs because the rel-
ative proportions of the three cone types in the retina vary from the center
of the visual field to the periphery, so that colours that match when viewed
as very small, centrally fixated areas, may appear different when presented
as large colour areas, usually seeming lighter or brighter (although as al-
ways illumination will be a factor). The author has experienced this several
times when holding a colour swatch up against a larger surface several
feet away and thinking “No, too dark”, then finding that when the swatch is
placed directly against the surface, it proves to be identical. This is the real
reason that small models will sometimes appear too dark when correctly
matched to full size paint colour.
When considering the above schematics (which show the colour stan-
dards), bear in mind the variance of applied paints, and the bleaching/fad-
This F-5A, coded 71, from the 90th ing effect from desert exposure and service. Also consider the probability
Photographic Reconnaissance Wing, of Sand No.306 applied to OD 41 and Field Drab No.303 applied to OD 41,
was apparently finished in the original both over Neutral Grey.
Haze paint (NARA)
comparison with the other shades (refer to Appendix 1 Para C2 for details).
The heavier the sprayed coat of Haze Paint was, the whiter and lighter the
finish appeared, with the lightest 45% finish on the horizontal under sur-
faces, the darkest 8% on the horizontal top surfaces and the median 14%
finish on the fuselage sides. The Haze Paint was to be applied over two
The unit assignment of this F-5E, coats of standard black lacquer. Note that the aircraft’s identity markings
named ‘Potent Tater’, is unknown. This and insignia were supposed to be applied after the black finish, but before
aircraft appears to be painted with the Haze Paint was applied. In other words, the Haze paint was to be ap-
Synthetic Haze paint (James V. Crow plied over the markings.
coll.)
80 of the 99 F-4 Photo-Recce Lockheed Lightnings, all 20 F-4As, about 30
of 40 F-5A-1s and -3s, and the only F-5A-2 produced between March and
October 1942, were painted using the Haze system. There exists evidence
for a Haze painted RNZAF Kittyhawk (above - note also reference to “duck
2.2.6 Haze Camouflage egg blue” rather than “sky grey”!).
It is best to let the original documents shown here do most of the ex-
plaining about this unique system of camouflage for high flying and The Haze camouflage system, considered too complex and toxic in ap-
photo-reconnaissance aircraft. The primary ingredient of Haze Paint plication and of dubious effectiveness, was terminated by Lockheed in
was zinc oxide (Pigment White 4), which is a semi-translucent white October 1942 and a two-part Synthetic Haze paint, light blue in character,
pigment and not blue. As stated in the primary source documents was developed instead. A deep sky blue hue, which Lockheed designated
reproduced on the following page, “Haze Paint is a colloidal dispersion ‘Sky Base Blue’, was experimentally applied to an F-5A, and then the un-
of zinc oxide in oil which is manufactured by Samuel Cabot, Inc., 141 Milk der surfaces and sides were lightly sprayed with a tinted white designated
Street, Boston Massachusetts.” and “Unlike ordinary paints, the blue color is ‘Flight Blue’. The Sherwin-Williams company standardised these paints as
generated without the use of coloured pigments by a mechanism similar to Synthetic Haze for use on all Lockheed F-5As and F-5Bs, but it is not known
that by which the atmosphere itself acquires its color.” how many were actually painted in these colours. Some of the F-5As oper-
ating in the UK in the standard OD 41 over NG 43 were repainted in service,
There were four shades of Haze Paint to be applied, determined by the but there is evidence that RAF paints PRU Blue and Azure Blue were used.
heaviness of spraying and for three of those shades sample chips were pro- The F-5s from the 10th Photo-Reconnaissance Group were reported to be
vided to guide the painters, with a diffuse reflectivity of 8%, 14% and 45% painted ‘sky blue‘ in February 1945. ‘Sky Base Blue‘ has been compared to
respectively. For comparison, RAF Dark Mediterranean Blue had diffuse FS 15123 but a little darker, whilst ‘Flight Blue‘ has been compared to FS
reflectivity of 8%, RAF PRU Blue 14% and RAF Sky 43%. The fourth shade 35190, but the author has been unable to verify that, or to present mea-
intended for the vertical (fin and) rudder surfaces was to be arrived at by sured sample chips.
2.2.7 Jet Black ANA 622 use of but one (1) coat of enamel and that no primer coat is necessary.”
(Subpara.b related to the use of enamel over lacquer and vice versa.)
The National Defence Committee issued a report dated October 12, 1943,
with the results of trials in which gloss and matt black under surfaces for use Northrop were later criticised for failing to adhere to subsequent specs
in night operations had been compared, using model experiments and full which superseded this, and made it clear that even with enamel finishes
scale tests with searchlights. The report concluded that whereas the matt primer coats were required, but the question of where the blame lay was
surface was continuously visible, the gloss surface was completely invisible never resolved, because the issue of the communication and receipt of
for 75% of the time. The effective range of radar-controlled searchlights changes and revisions came up. This came about because the USAAF were
was reduced by at least 50%. The high gloss enamel paint used in the trials investigating and enforcing manufacturer compliance to specifications
was based on carbon black pigment with a high degree of dispersion, with as a result of quality issues reported by service recipients. A suggestion
the diffuse reflectivity reduced to less than 0.1%. This paint became the that Northrop deliberately omitted the primer coat to save money seems
basis for ANA 622 Jet Black, later designated simply as ‘Jet’. tenuous given the existence of, and their compliance to, the earlier Tech-
nical Order instructing that a primer coat was unnecessary with enamel
finishes. The author was unable to locate any reference to two coats of
primer as has been suggested - but only to Spec. 24114-A of September
1942 requiring one coat of primer and either two coats of lacquer or one
of enamel. This was reiterated generally in Technical Order 07-1-1 of June
15, 1943: “It will be noted that the use of both types of materials for metal (lac-
quer and enamel) require use of primer, zinc chromate.” As the Technical Order
revisions did not change the T.O. number but only the date, Northrop’s
ANA 622 Jet Black inappropriate compliance may be understood.
The closest FS 595 colour to ANA 622 is FS 17038 at 1.70, and indeed FS
17038 subsequently superseded ANA 622 with Bulletin 166d of March 11, The unsatisfactory finish of the P-61 as reported from theatre was dis-
1959, being designated equivalent to OSHA Black, ANA 515 (Gloss Black) cussed at the Material Laboratory (MatLab Wright Field) in March 1945,
and ANA 622. The pigments used for 17038 are Rutile Titanium Dioxide, and related to the new Jet (ANA 622) finish (gloss black) being applied
Benzimidazolone Yellow, Carbazole Violet and Carbon Black (Blue Shade). to the type. Tests concluded that it was partly due to the absence of
primer, but also partly due to the type of enamel being used. As a result
The tatty looking black finish seen on some Northrop P-61 night fight- of these tests, the MatLab advised the Procurement Section to provide
ers has its roots in the Spec. 24114-A (E-1b) authorisation of two paint Northrop with the latest list of approved specs and to request them to
types for coating metal surfaces - lacquer to Spec. 14105 and enamel to apply a coat of zinc chromate primer before applying two coats of 622
Spec. 14109. Northrop adhered perfectly to Technical Order 07-1-1 of lacquer. They also advised that the materials being used by Northrop
April 8, 1941, which stated quite clearly at Para 1e that: “Either of these be checked for conformance to specification requirements. The 622 fin-
types may be used, subject to provisions of sub para.b. It will be noted that ish was new and there seem to have been no issues with the previously
the use of enamel, camouflage, Spec.14109 on metal surfaces requires the applied OD on the P-61.
colour saturation. It is best described as a slightly ‘warm’ gray with a very faint In ‘The Official Monogram US Navy and Marine Corps Aircraft Colour Guide,
yellowish undertone rather than a pure neutral gray. The closest FS 595 colour Vol.2 1940-1949’, John M. Elliott provides three separate paint chips for the
by comparison is FS 36440 at 1.36, this FS colour superseding a later USN co- Blue Gray as follows:
lour Light Gull Gray (ANA 620) in March 1959.
On February 26, 1941, BuAer instructed that non ship based amphibian aircraft 1. An extant sample found on a Grumman FM-2 airframe
were to be painted as per patrol planes with Blue Gray upper surfaces. On during restoration by NASM, which he compared to Munsell
October 13, 1941, the Blue Gray upper surfaces were promulgated for all ship 10 B 5/4 and FS 35189. Those two colours show a difference of
based aircraft and from February 6, 1942, for all land based USN aircraft. The 6.91. The actual #1 chip as measured by the author is very close
undersurfaces of any folding parts of wings were also to be painted Blue Gray. to Munsell 5 B 4/2 at 1.33, which coincidentally is the same as
the 1929 Munsell colour cited by Palmieri!
Identifying the true hue of the Blue Gray is complex. It has been asserted 2. A colour he suggests as interim intended for the later three-
that the Blue Gray colour was ‘ad hoc’ and not governed by a standard. tone scheme, but not used, which Munsell identified as 5.5 PB
Palmieri described it as being made from Iron (Prussian) Blue, Titanium Ox- 2.6/3.3.
ide, Antimony Oxide (Lead white; the reason for two white pigments is un- 3. A colour chip he found in a classified camouflage publication
known. From the appearance of aircraft in colour photographs the paint of the period, which he believes is the actual colour intended,
surface chalked significantly, therefore the Titanium Oxide was probably of if not actually used, which was visually determined at the
the anatase kind.) and Lampblack, and compared it to Methuen 23 (E-F) 5, National Bureau of Standards as Munsell 9 B 3.5/1.5
Munsell 5 B 4/2 (1929) and FS 35189 (as a good match). The author found
a significant difference of 6.91 between the cited Munsell and FS colours.
M-485 Blue Gray Elliot #1, M-485 Blue Gray Elliot #2,
M-485 Blue Gray Elliot #3
During Operation Torch, the November 1942 invasion of North Africa, the
fuselage and underwing national insignia of the participating Navy aircraft
received yellow borders, as seen on the example of SBD-3s and F4F-4s parked
on the deck of USS Santee (ACV-29). All aircraft are painted in NS Blue Gray
over NS Light Grey (Lt. Horace Bristol via NARA)
Palmieri stated that the Blue Gray paint(ed) chip given by Jay Frank Dial in
‘United States Camouflage WWII’ is ‘very inaccurate, being about the right
value but much too purplish’. Bill C. Kilgrai in ‘Color Schemes and Markings
US Navy Aircraft 1911-1950’ gives basic colour descriptions, but no com-
parisons to colour standards and no colour chips.
The Palmieri Methuen values are in the approximate range of the Elliott #1
and #3 chips. FS 35189, although of the correct hue, is considerably lighter
than Elliot #1 (4.2 B 5.3/2.1 vs 4.5 B 4.1/2.1). These colours are consistent
with the best colour slides of the period and the known pigments used.
On January 14, 1942, BuAer issued instructions that for the purposes of
night camouflage aircraft were to be painted with removable NS black
paint.
The Blue Gray over Light Gray scheme continued in use until January 1943,
when a major camouflage revision saw the introduction of a complex to
F6F-3, coded 17, from VF-9, USS Essex apply three-colour, counter-shading and counter-shadowing scheme con-
(CV-9), October 1943. Three-colour sisting of Semi-Gloss (SG) and NS Sea Blue, NS Intermediate Blue and NS
scheme of SG and NS Sea Blue, NS Insignia White. The diagrams shown here reveal how the paints were sup-
Intermediate Blue and NS Insignia posed to be applied, but in practice may not have been rigidly adhered to
White (Photo: NARA) as several photos show aircraft with fairly hard edged demarcations. The
scheme was referred to as ‘The Basic Camouflage Design’.
All horizontal airfoil surfaces seen from above were to be painted SG Sea
Blue, whilst all horizontal airfoil surfaces seen from below were to be paint-
ed NS Insignia White. The wing leading edges were to be counter shaded
by gradually blending these two colours using NS Sea Blue, which was to
extend to approximately 5% of the upper wing chord.
F6F-3 Hellcats of VF-5 being loaded The slightly lighter appearance of the SG Sea Blue chip compared to the NS
onto the deck of the USS Yorktown Sea Blue chip, appears counter-intuitive if not contrary to the original camou-
(CV-10) in April 1943. The aircraft are flage rationale, but the Munsell measurements for the colours verify the slight
painted in “The Basic Camouflage difference. Elliott gives FS 25042 and FS 35042 as the closest FS 595 colours
Design”. Interestingly, the SG Sea Blue for the two Sea Blues respectively, but Elliott’s SG chip is slightly closer to FS
has a quite light appearance on this 35045 than 25042. Palmieri gives the same two FS matches as Elliott, but notes
photo (NARA) a disagreement with Whistler. Elliott compared several sets of preserved chips
and concluded that the ANA and FS colours were intended to be identical,
showing only minor differences. In 1969, Whistler observed that ANA 606 ap-
peared more blue than FS 25042, which was darker and glossier. The 607 chip
was also more blue than 35042, which was darker and more grey. In 1972,
Smith observed that the FS colours 2/35042 appeared darker than the 1943
ANA chips, which appeared more blue.
It may be worth noting at this point that FS 25042 superseded ANA 606
SG Sea Blue in March 1959, but at that time no FS replacement was cit-
ed for ANA 607 NS Sea Blue, the ANA chip being cited as the still current
standard. ANA 607 was not superseded by FS 35042 until October 1964.
The probable reason for a slightly more blueish appearance of the wartime
ANA standard is that Ultramarine (blue) pigment was used instead of Iron
(Prussian blue), whereas the FS colours use Phthalocyanine Blue (Green
Shade) pigment.
Al Wright of VB-5 pictured in the cockpit of his SBD-5 Dauntless in October 1943.
The photo gives a nice close up on the SG Sea Blue and Intermediate Blue surfaces
(Lt. Charles E. Kerlee via NARA)
ANA 621 Dark Dull Gray ANA 620 Light Gull Gray
Dark Dull Gray was a neutral gray, which Whistler compared to FS 36231 as
a good match. Smith had no chip to compare, but Palmieri agreed it was
matched by 36231. Elliott concurred. The author measured the ANA 621 as
slightly darker than 36231, and a more neutral gray of Munsell N 5.5.0 as sug-
gested by Palmieri. The FS colour contains blue and yellow pigments as well as
white and black. ANA 621 was superseded by FS 36231 in March 1959.
Insignia colours were common to both services and existed as ANA stan-
dards in both the exactly similar camouflage ‘600’ series colours and the
‘500’ series gloss colours, with minor differences from their specific service
predecessors. Charting all these minor differences is beyond the scope of
the current article, so the colours shown are mainly restricted to the USAAF
and later ANA camouflage standards.
Bronze Green 9
Dana Bell in ‘Air Force Colors, Vol.1’ gave FS 14050 as the closest FS 595
equivalent to Bronze Green, but noted the latter as a little darker and
glossy. This author appraised Bronze Green as a more saturated green than
14050 and closer to 14056, but not as dark.
This specification also introduced for the first time a so-called Yellow Green
finish for luggage, cargo and bomber’s compartment. The Yellow Green
was not to an established colour standard, but the Specification included a
formula with which to prepare it:
The rear fuselage interiors of the B-17 bombers Zinc Chromate Primer Specification No.14080 - 1 gallon
were mostly left unpainted. Only some bulkheads Black Enamel Specification No.3-98 - 1/10 gallon
and longerons were primed in Zinc Chromate or Aluminium Powder Type B, Specification No. TT-A-476 - 4 ounces
Yellow Green (NARA) Toluene Specification No. 50-11-38 - 1 gallon
In colour terms, the zinc chromates are Pigment Yellow 36 Colour Index
(CI) 77955 and Pigment Yellow 36:1 CI 77956 and CI 77957. Pigment
Yellow 36 is a bright, greenish yellow, whilst Pigment Yellow 36:1, also
known as Basic Zinc Yellow, is a dull reddish yellow. CI 77957 is an or-
ange-yellow pigment. It has been erroneously stated many times that
the use of Zinc Chromate for aircraft was unique to the USA, but the
Luftwaffe paint colour RLM 02 Grau also contained basic zinc yellow
pigment and that already existed under several other names, even in
industrial usage, such as zincgelb, jaune de zin, giallo di zinco, amaril-
lo de zinc, aenki, etc.. Zinc Chromate preparations were also applied
to the Spitfire prototype. Several authoritative chemical studies report
that zinc yellow has a tendency to darken with exposure to light due to
This aircraft most likely already had the formation of chromium oxide. This causes the pigment to develop
Interior Green cockpit, with the earliest a grey-green colour. Colour mixtures containing zinc yellow suffer the
built examples having their cockpits same effect.
finished in Bronze Green 9 (Grumman
via AJ Press coll.) Zinc chromate primer in USAAC/USAAF use was defined in the Dictio-
nary of Maintenance Terms, Section H Paint and Dope, published by
HQ ATSC in November 1944 as TO No.30-1-2-H: “Primer, Zinc Chromate
- A semi-transparent, greenish-yellow liquid of zinc chromate base, thinned
Lt. Rui Moreira Lima Of The 1st Brazilian with toluol, very generally used as a primer on aircraft metal surfaces. Be-
Fighter Squadron sitting at the controls cause it dries quickly, coats of lacquer, enamel, etc., can be applied on top of
of a P-47D somewhere in Italy, in 1945. it within a few minutes, though it is best to allow the primer to set for a few
Thunderbolt cockpits were painted in Dull hours.” Toluol or Toluene was an industrial grade solvent widely used in
Dark Green (NARA) lacquers, paints and synthetic enamels.
The use of the term zinc chromate base is significant. The basic pig-
ment became synonymous with the coating preparation in which it
was a principal component, and was used as a generic term for such
coatings. The term Zinc Chromate Green (which became Interior Green
in the USN) refers to the coating produced by tinting Zinc Chromate
with (usually) black pigment (there are various explanations for this,
from improving UV protection to making crew accommodation areas
more ergonomic). The term Yellow Zinc Chromate (YZC), a tautology as
Zinc Chromate is yellow, then developed as a convenient description
to distinguish the original primer from the green tinted form. Such col-
loquial designations are not unique to the US military and abound in
various industries where specific designations of convenience rather
than accuracy have developed over time, and are in commonly under-
stood usage within those fields.
It has also been erroneously stated that the aluminium powder had
no effect on the colour appearance. The type of aluminium powder
flakes were non-leafing, as used in primers and build coats, where they
are dispersed within the body of the paint film and do not migrate to
the surface (Leafing aluminium flakes float to the surface of the paint
film to form a layer with overlapping flakes orientated parallel to the
surface to form a bright film with high lustre. Non-leafing flakes create
a resistant barrier to corrosion throughout the strata of the paint film).
However, they still affected reflectivity.
The points to note here are the variable amount of black in the mix and continued in the wording. On December 12, 1942, the BuAer Chief advised
the addition of white (especially for those who assert that Interior Green the manager of the Naval Aircraft Factory as to the proper shade of Zinc
was a mix of only Zinc Chromate Primer and Black). The curiously con- Chromate to be used stating that it had been agreed by the Army Air Force
fusing layout of this section could have resulted in both Lampblack and to adopt the Navy cockpit green as the standard colour for tinted Zinc
Carbon Black being added to the mix, as well as the variable proportions Chromate primer, and that it had also been agreed to change the name of
which would affect the final colour appearance. Some hobby paint interior this colour to Interior Green.
greens are quite garish and “leap out” on models, perhaps the result of for-
mulating colour based on flash photographic images of cockpits, but it is Some colour photographs of USN aircraft taken during 1942 reveal a slight-
an illuminating exercise to mix the colour using the specified constituent ly yellowish grey-green cockpit colour, which does not appear as dark or
pigments. The variance in black might have been specified to compensate as green as Dull Dark Green, and is closer in appearance to the later ANA
for a yellow-green variance in the Zinc Chromate Primer in order to better 611 Interior Green.
match the standardisation for Interior Green (ANA 611) as ANA Bulletin 157
issued on September 28, 1943, stated: “ANA 611 Interior Green is intended
for standardisation of the product obtained by tinting zinc chromate primer,
Specification AN--TT--P--656, for shop coat or interior finish purposes.”
Meanwhile the USN had developed their own cockpit interior colour
during 1940 camouflage experiments based on the Army Air Corps colour
Dark Green 30 (q.v.).
It seems that no official colour standard was established for Dull Dark
Green, which in USN applications was subject to BuAer approval. On Sep-
tember 12, 1942, Spec. No.98-24113-A, Amendment No.6, changed the
Army cockpit requirement for Bronze Green 9 to Dull Dark Green. The same
ambiguity with Yellow Green as to which was to be applied and where
3
British Aircraft
Colours in the
Second
World
War
An aspect essential to preliminary understanding in the study of aircraft or, worse, a colour photographic image. Whilst by no means ruling out
paint colours is the difference between colour standards and actual ap- the evidential value of such artifacts and images caution is advised, es-
plied paints or dopes. The two are often confused. The colour standards pecially when seeking to use a single example as evidence of a colour
were the benchmark for the colour required by the specifying author- standard or official painting practice.
ities. and aircraft and paint manufacturers were expected to provide
and apply paint or dope which matched, within reasonable tolerance, This study examines the colour standards promulgated for the Royal Air
to those standards, sometimes in terms of formulae, but always in Force (RAF) and Royal Navy (RN) Fleet Air Arm (FAA) by the British Air Min-
terms of the colour appearance to be achieved. It was inevitable that istry (AM) during the Second World War and disseminated to aircraft man-
variance was introduced in the manufacture of the paint, even before ufacturers by the Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP). Aircraft manufac-
other factors such as the application processes, surface treatment and turers were expected to procure paint which matched the official colour
wear, environmental degradation or age-related colour shifts had oc- standards, but were not constrained by standard formulae. This resulted
curred. When extant paint samples which have been subject to any or in paints which when new, matched the colour standards in accepted
all these factors are measured, they may be found to vary significantly tolerance, but which could and did vary significantly in terms of colour
from the original colour standard, therefore it is inappropriate to cite shift and quality when subjected to age and exposure. In addition, the AM
them as reliable examples of that original colour standard. They are only procured paints direct from manufacturers for retention in RAF stores and
examples of specific paint as applied to a specific aircraft, reflecting application by service units for purposes of maintenance and/or re-finish-
all its life changes, and cannot be considered definitively “typical” for ing during overhauls, or for changes in camouflaging practice. Therefore
all aircraft of that type or the colour standard(s) concerned. Thus it is an aircraft finished in standard colours using paint from one manufacturer
essential to refer to the original colour standards in order to understand might be re-finished or touched-up after repair by service personnel using
the actual colour as specified and required. Linked to the tendency to paint ostensibly of the same colour standard but from a different manufac-
confuse between colour standards and applied paints is a tendency to turer and with pigments of quite different photo-chemical characteristics.
identify any significant colour variations found on applied paint arti-
facts as completely new and hitherto unknown colours. This tendency Air Ministry Orders (AMO) relating to colour schemes were considered to
has increased with a general trend for revisionist research marked by be policy directives and were not intended to be technical instructions. Air
a failure to grasp the manufacturing technology, pigment chemistry Ministry considered that in every case Directorate of Technical Develop-
and ageing characteristics of 1940’s paints. The further away the events ment (DTD) Technical Circulars specifying camouflage colours for aircraft
become, the more the earlier references (even where impeccably docu- types and types of operation were to be taken as the overriding authority
mented) are sometimes disregarded for new theories based on the tan- for production and maintenance purposes.
gible “smoking gun” or “silver bullet” of an extant applied paint sample
The colours and general scheme having been decided on, trials of the
camouflaged aircraft were held elsewhere, tested in the Army Manoeuvres
of September 1934 and with service trials in Army Co-operation and Fight-
Dark Green Dark Earth er Squadrons, all of which resulted in favourable reports. As the aircraft in
use were still predominantly biplanes, the RAE devised a shadow shading
The tendency of Dark Earth to chalk (the polymer of the paint surface is scheme whereby the upper surfaces of the lower wings and lower fuse-
eroded by a combination of heat, moisture and light resulting in a pow- lage sides of biplane aircraft were painted in lighter shades of the Dark
dery, greyish-white pigment or patina forming on the surface. This process Green and Dark Earth to compensate for the shadow caused by the upper
is exacerbated by certain types of white pigment, for example the anatase wings and the darker appearance of the lower fuselage as seen obliquely.
form of titanium dioxide as well as by common paint fillers and extenders
like China clay. Titanium dioxide is both a UV-activated oxidation catalyst
and a UV absorber. Free radicals are formed at the surface of the paint film
and these then oxidise the paint binder by photocatalytic degradation.
This reduces the gloss and produces a friable layer on the surface of the
paint film - “chalking”. In effect the titanium dioxide pigment and any ex-
tender/filler particles are being ‘released’ from the fractured binder to form
a greyish-white powdery patina over the surface of the paint. This has the
effect of dulling and greying the appearance of the underlying colour and Light Green Light Earth
is often mistaken for colour fading. The powdery residue, like fine chalk
dust but usually slightly greyish rather than pure white, will appear on the The Light Green is comparable to FS 34102 as a fair equivalent, the FS colour
hand when rubbed across the paint surface. Within a careful maintenance being a slightly more saturated green. The Light Earth is comparable to FS
regime the surface chalking can be reduced by cleaning off or “cutting” to 33245 also as a fair equivalent, again the FS colour being slightly more satu-
reveal the original colour of the paint strata beneath.) more significantly rated. A curious anomaly is that the contrast between the shadow-shading
than Dark Green with exposure resulted in increasing contrast between colours was greater than for Dark Green and Dark Earth, Light Green being
the two colours with the appearance of the Dark Earth often becoming 11% but Light Earth 30%. No explanation for this has so far been discovered.
lighter, more yellowish or greyer. The Dark Green is comparable to FS
34083, a close and useful match in the modern US FS 595 colour standard. In February 1936, the Air Ministry decided on their policy with regard to
FS 34079 is often cited as a match for Dark Green but it is lighter, less satu- the camouflaging of aeroplanes, concluding that all Home based fighters
rated and slightly less olive than the standard, being a Munsell GY - Green and bombers should be camouflaged, and to incorporate a conspicuous
Yellow rather than Y - Yellow (in the Munsell and other colour systems olive yellow ring around the national markings which could be painted out on
drabs are effectively very dark yellows). The Dark Earth has no close equiva- mobilisation.
lent in FS 595, the closest being FS 33105 which is not reddish enough and
is less saturated. FS 30118 is also cited for Dark Earth, but is similarly not In March 1937, the new camouflage colours were established for the ‘high
reddish enough and less saturated, Dark Earth being a Munsell YR - Yellow speed interceptor monoplane’, the Hawker Hurricane, with Hawker Aircraft
Red, whilst 33105 and 30118 are both Munsell Y - Yellows. Ltd. confirming that the scheme could be applied in production. Hawk-
The pattern of camouflage for Dark Green and Dark Earth was based on a
study of aerial photographs of Southern England which revealed “a broken, Air Ministry Scheme for High Speed
irregular patchwork of small fields separated by hedges and interspersed Interceptor Monoplane
In May 1937, the C-in-C Fighter Command, Air Chief Marshal Hugh Dowding,
endorsed the adoption of the ‘approved green camouflage scheme’ (it was lat-
er clarified that he meant TLS). Also in 1937, with the basic colours and pattern
settled on, the RAE conducted tests of various proprietory camouflage paints Night Black
submitted by in order to meet the new standards, including Night (q.v.). By
August 1938 the standardised Dark Green and Dark Earth upper colours were Night still exists in the modern British Standard (BS) 381C as 642 Night and
being referred to as the Temperate Land Scheme (TLS). although included in the “greys” section, now has a cited Munsell value of
8.9 B (Blue) 2.1/0.2 which is indeed an extremely dark blue - or blue-black
Camouflage pattern designs specific to each type of aircraft had been de- of low colour saturation. A wartime MAP swatch for Night confirms a sim-
veloped by the time of the Munich crisis in 1938 with the exception of ilar very deep blue-black hue of 0.3 B 1.3/0.9. A pure black, without colour
Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command. Scheme colours for aircraft based tone, is Munsell N 1.0/0.0 and in some post-war BS 381c colour listings 642
overseas had not been decided on, but TLS and Temperate Sea Scheme Night was given a Munsell value of N 1 for gloss and N 1.5 for matt, possibly
(TSS - q.v.) would form the basis for all future, non-specialised camouflage being confused with the ‘Glyptal Synthetic’ type glossy black paint adapted
schemes in the RAF. Air Observation aircraft (e.g. Auster) were camouflaged from the USA (as a result of searchlight trials held in May and July 1944,
with TLS on both upper and under surfaces. Squadron and individual air- the latter using a Halifax repainted with the US gloss black paint at USAAF
craft code letters with TLS were to be Medium Sea Grey (q.v. under 3.5 Day Burton Wood, specifications were drawn up for the new glossy black under
Fighter Scheme) which was first standardised for identification markings surface paint and with materials imported from the USA it was applied to
on camouflage aircraft in October 1936. Spinners on Day Bombers were to new bombers in production from April 1945). On its own, or in juxtaposi-
be Dark Green or Dark Earth. tion to other colours Night might simply look like black to many observers.
The colour chip published in ‘British Aviation Colours of World War Two’ is
a Munsell YR - yellow red - and effectively a very dark black brown! Apart
from a possible aberration, it might have a lot to do with variance in the
3.3.1 Night carbon black pigment used - available from blue shade to red shade. Ap-
Night was an alternative under surface colour to aluminium for night plied Night could present a slightly blueish - or slightly purplish-brown un-
bombers in TLS and other types where considered appropriate to opera- dertone, dependent upon actual pigment composition and illumination.
tions. As a camouflage colour Night has a longer pedigree than is generally However, in colour science terms the wartime standard was not pure black
realised, mainly because it was often referred to colloquially as ‘matt black’ but blue-black.
by RAF personnel and even in official documents. In early 1935, experi-
ments re-commenced to explore a superior under surface anti-searchlight
finish to NIVO, still considered effective night camouflage from above, but
very clearly visible in searchlight beams from below. A darker and more
matt finish was considered to be more effective, but difficulty was expe-
rienced in creating a serviceable matt black dope using the standard car- Air Ministry diagram showing TLS
bon black pigment. As a result, it was found that adding ultramarine (a with Night under surfaces on a Bristol
Blenheim Mk.1
As searchlights became more powerful, concern was raised about the ef- of Bomber Command with three Blenheims and three Whitleys finished in
fectiveness of Night and in consequence a Special Night finish was de- Special Night on their under surfaces. In January 1940, Special Night was
veloped from 1939 as “dead black cellulose camouflage dope”, with minor authorised for the under surfaces of all night bombers.
changes to improve its composition over time. Unlike Night which was a
dark blue-black, Special Night was a true matt black finish. Manufacturers RAE stated that during 1940/41 Special Night was being misapplied as an
were allowed some leeway in its specification and the finish required spe- overall finish on RAF night fighters such as the Boulton-Paul Defiant, Bristol
cial application and special cleaning. A post-war report on the develop- Beaufighter and De Havilland Mosquito, as well as Night Intruder aircraft
ment of RAF wartime camouflage described the development of Special like the Hawker Hurricane. This related to an instruction issued by the Air
Night from 1940, but that related to a revision of the original 1939 Special Ministry on November 27, 1940 that night fighters were to be painted ‘matt
Night specification in February 1940 as Ch.127 or R.D.Mat.2A, where the black (special night)’ on all surfaces with national markings as for night
pigment became a “special black dye on a metallic oxide base”, and was bombers, a requirement repeated in AMO A.513 of July 10, 1941 (Para 2(i)
considered to be superior in terms of resistance to wear and tear. (c)). During 1941/42 Special Night was also applied overall to the Whitleys
of No.4 Group. However, Special Night was never intended as an overall
On May 22, 1939, trials of Special Night were held at the Air Fighting Devel- finish for night flying, but only as an under surface anti-searchlight finish
opment Unit (AFDU) at Northolt with a Wellington painted overall in the for night bombers.
finish. In August of the same year, further trials were held by No.6 Group
3.3.2 Sky
Sky was developed from a pre-war proprietory paint colour devised by Sid-
ney Cotton for his secret pre-war photographic reconnaissance flights. He
described it himself thus:
“One day at Heston I was watching the Maharajah of Jodhpur take off in
his private plane, and very soon after it left the ground I lost sight of it. Soon
A nice in-flight shot of Whirlwind Mk.I I realised that it had disappeared altogether. It was painted a pale, duck-egg
(P6985), coded HE-J of 263 Sqn. RAF, green, and I was convinced that this was why I had lost sight of it; it had simply
reveals yet another interpretation of merged in the background. I got the Titanine Dope Company to make up a
the order issued on November 27, 1940 similar paint, slightly lighter in hue, and I registered it as ‘Camotint‘ (although I
(Phil Listemann coll.) took out no patents), and I had the Lockheed painted with it.”
In May 1937, Air Chief Marshal Dowding had suggested that fighter aircraft
with aluminium painted under surfaces should be finished with one under
surface wing painted ‘dull black‘ to improve anti-aircraft recognition. Alumini-
um was critical to wartime aircraft production and RAE began an exploration
of aluminium versus white as an under surface colour. In October 1937, Dowd-
ing reported the results of experiments at North Weald, and recommended
that the Hurricane should be produced with the under surface of the wings
painted white to starboard and black to port. A memo of January 8, 1938, from
DTD to the Resident Technical Officer (RTO) at Hawker Aircraft Ltd., confirmed
Hurricane Mk.I (most likely P2549), coded SD-L of 501 Sqn. RAF, prepared for a
sortie at Betheniville, France, in May 1940. This aircraft was finished in TLS in
‘A’ pattern, with white/Night undersides, although it appears that the under
surface of the starboard stabilizer and elevator remained in aluminium dope
(Crown Copyright)
that the port side colouring “is not strictly black but the standard ‘night‘ finish”. At
first, the centre section of the aircraft continued to be painted aluminium. In
April 1938, the scheme was extended to Spitfires, and in May it was confirmed
that the black and white colours should meet on the centre line, obviating
the aluminium-painted centre section. Correspondence then continued as
to whether the ailerons could be painted by service units re-painting earlier
delivered aircraft in view of balance considerations. It was not until April 1939
that the Director of Operational Requirements confirmed that ailerons should Sky
remain as factory-doped in aluminium.
Sky is a Munsell GY - Green Yellow and bearing in mind the variance in for-
With the commencement of hostilities and RAF aircraft operating over mulae and pigments used, FS 34424 is a useful if not precise match in FS 595.
France, the colouring of under surfaces was again considered, but con- The original proprietory Titanine ‘Camotint’ formula for Sky of White rinted with
siderable confusion at first reigned over the introduction of ‘Camotint‘ for about 4% Yellow Oxide and a trace of Prussian Blue used on early photo-re-
the under surfaces of Blenheim bomber and fighter squadrons. The RAE connaissance unit (PRU) aircraft, later gave way to various revised formulae
had been investigating under surface camouflage, comparing ‘Camotint‘ combining White, Black, Green and Yellow “bases”, the constituent pigments of
to a blue finish which they had developed and which they preferred. On one of these being Antimony Oxide (white), Vegetable Black, Chromium Ox-
November 25, 1939, C-in-C Bomber Command had advised the Air Minis- ide (green) and Yellow precipitated Iron Oxide with China Clay as an extender.
try that the under surfaces of Blenheims of 139 Sqn at Watton (in TLS) had Other proprietory formulae were used and the paint was available in several
been painted “grey-blue so as to merge into the background of the sky when media, including distemper, resulting in considerable variation in the appear-
viewed from below”. Whether this colour was related to ‘Camotint‘, to the ance of the colour. As with many paints of this era, surface “chalking” tended to
French gris-bleu clair (light grey-blue) colour (as the aircraft were preparing reduce the colour to a lighter and more greyish appearance unless a rigorous
to go to France) or to the blue developed by the RAE as ‘Sky Blue‘ (q.v.) is maintenance regime was in place.
uncertain. On November 30, a telegram was sent to Fighter and Coastal
Commands that a ‘light blue‘ rather than black under surface colour was By March 1940 Camotint or Sky was already in use as an overall colour
being introduced for Blenheim squadrons. On December 2, 1939, the Air on Spitfires and Blenheims of the Photographic Development Unit (PDU),
Ministry formally approved the adoption of ‘grey-blue‘ for the under sur- Heston. On June 6, 1940, the Air Ministry advised all Commands that all
faces of Blenheim aircraft. At a Directorate of Equipment meeting held on fighter aircraft were to be painted with ‘Sky Type S’ on the their under sur-
January 10, 1940, a representative of RAE produced samples of the original faces. A flurry of immediate queries resulted in a clarifying instruction the
‘camotint green egg-shell finish‘ and the ‘new egg-shell blue finish’. It was following day that Sky could be described as ‘Duck Egg Bluish Green’. On
recorded that samples were being made up by Cellon as an alternative June 10, a further instruction stated that in view of a shortage of Sky paint,
source of supply to Titanine, and that DTD would decide the best colour aircraft could continue to be operated with black and white under surfaces
and finish to be adopted, after which the finish would be introduced in the interim, but by the end of the month it was clear that units were mix-
and given a DTD specification. By April 1940 Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., ing their own ‘pale blue‘ paints from available stores of white, yellow and
were advised that “the pale blue-green which has been called Camotint is blue paints to re-paint aircraft. This resulted in non-standard versions of Sky
now defined as Standard Sky and this description should be given in your bearing resemblance to contemporary BS colours ‘No.1 Sky Blue‘ (not to be
schedule” (for Blenheim IV). Despite this, the new paint was still being confused with MAP/RAF Sky Blue) and ‘No.16 Eau-de-Nil’. Indeed units may
referred to inconsistently in documentation, including ‘Light Sea Green‘ have referred to those standards when attempting to mix ‘Duck Egg Bluish
and ‘Duck Egg Green’. Green‘ themselves.
The unit mixed and applied Eau-de-Nil type colours typically resembled
FS 14533, whilst the Sky Blue type colour(s) resembled FS 34325, but there
was variation.
DTD Circular No.83 issued on August 23, 1940, established that the under
surfaces of all operational aircraft would be either matt black (e.g. Night)
or Sky (still referered to as duck-egg blue), and might be one or the oth-
er at the discretion of Commands to meet operational requirements. It
was emphasised that the following classes of aircraft would be produced
with duck-egg blue under surfaces: Fighters, Army Co-operation, Gener-
al Reconnaissance, Torpedo Bombers, Blenheim Bombers, Close support
Bombers, Troop Carriers and Bomber Transports. All Bombers except those
mentioned were to be produced with matt black under surfaces. Subse-
quently, DTD Technical Circular 360 of February 23, 1943, required all day
bombers with the exception of Mosquitoes to be finished in TLS with Sky
under surfaces.
On November 27, 1940, the Air Ministry ordered that the under surface of
the port wing on day fighter aircraft of Fighter Command was to again be
painted black and the roundel on that side surrounded by a yellow ring.
Additionally, a vertical band, 18 inches wide, of duck-egg blue, was to be
applied completely around the fuselage in front of the tail plane, and the
spinner was to be painted duck-egg blue. The use of the term ‘duck-egg
blue‘ in this instruction and the appearance of some colour photographs
has given rise to speculation that some units possibly painted the band
and spinner using Sky Blue (q.v.) paint.
On April 7, 1941, the Air Ministry instructed that day fighter aircraft were
to revert to an all Sky under surface finish, dispensing with the port black
wing, but owing to a shortage of Sky (again!) implementation was post-
poned until April 22.
Sky Blue
The possible use of Sky Blue for other purposes during the war is conten-
tious and not supported by firm evidence. This uncertainty is exacerbated
by the habit of referring to colours inconsistently in official documents
with Azure Blue (q.v.) for example frequently being referred to as ‘sky blue’
(sic). At one time it was believed that Sky Blue was possibly used for the
under surfaces of RAF aircraft in the Far East, but official instructions of the
time actually required Azure Blue.
The scheme was of slightly lower contrast than TLS, the Extra Dark Sea Grey
being a Munsell PB - Purple Blue, comparable to FS 26118, and the Dark
Slate Grey a low saturated Munsell GY - Green Yellow. FS matches to that
From 1933 a requirement for sea camouflage colours for the naval aircraft colour are unsatisfactory, FS 34086 being slightly too dark and FS 34096
of the Fleet Air Arm went through a similar period of development involv- being too green. The closest FS colour to Dark Sea Grey is 36118, but the FS
ing experimentation, tests and trials as those which had resulted in TLS. is darker. The closest FS value to Light Slate Grey is 14159, but the FS is sig-
The first tests of proposed colours took place at Lee-on-Solent in October nificantly lighter. By August 1940, when DTD Technical Circular No.83 was
1935, again using Fairey IIIF aircraft and later Blackburn Sharks. The Admi- issued, this scheme was being referred to as the Temperate Sea Scheme
ralty were keen to discover whether a single scheme could be adaptable (TSS). At a conference held on July 23, 1940, to discuss achieving standard-
for FAA aircraft for Home and Overseas service. The camouflage scheme isation and at which the Admiralty were represented, it was agreed that
identified as S.1.E. was adopted in 1939, consisting of Extra Dark Sea Grey was no objection to the FAA adopting duck-egg blue (Sky Type S) for un-
and Dark Slate Grey in a similar pattern to the TLS, with shadow shading co- der surfaces of aircraft rather than Sky Grey. CAFO 1719 of September 26,
lours of Dark Sea Grey and Light Slate Grey for the lower wings of biplanes. 1940, set out that all operational FAA aircraft were to have under surfaces in
With the exception of fighter aircraft, which were to follow the RAF require- Sky except that, in certain circumstances, under surfaces could be painted
ment of split black and white under surfaces, the under surfaces of all other matt black to meet operational requirements.
Extra Dark Sea Grey Dark Slate Grey Dark Sea Grey Light Slate Grey
Swordfish Mk.I (P4167), coded U4B, from 816 Sqn., based at HMS Furious, in
April 1940. Temperate Sea Scheme of Extra Dark Sea Grey and Dark Slate Grey
on the upper surfaces with shadow shading of Dark Sea Grey and Light Slate
Grey for the lower wings and Sky Grey on the undersides
A diagram from the DTD Technical Circular 360 of July 1943, showing the
two patterns used in the schemes specified for Special Coastal Duties
From August 10, 1941, RAF Coastal Command (CC) adopted TSS for the up- single colour Extra Dark Sea Grey on the upper surfaces and either Scheme
per surfaces of all operational aircraft. Wellingtons, Whitleys and Liberators A with Glossy White under surfaces to Pattern No.1 (low demarcation) or
were to have matt white sides and glossy white under surfaces. Torpedo Scheme B with Night under surfaces to Pattern No.2 (high demarcation)
bomber and long range fighter squadrons were to have a 50/50 diversity were specified. However, Amendment No.1 of March 30, 1944, to DTD
of aircraft with duck-egg blue (Sky) and matt black (Night) under surfaces. Technical Circular 360 Issue 2 of November 2, 1943, specified Sky for the
All other General Reconnaissance (GR) landplanes were to have duck-egg under surfaces of Scheme A.
blue (Sky) under surfaces. Units were instructed to re-paint their operation-
al aircraft as soon as possible, whilst arrangements were in hand to make The same Circular also specified the scheme for low-flying photo-recon-
the necessary changes on Hudson, Beaufighter and Beaufort aircraft on naissance (PR) aircraft as Extra Dark Sea Grey and Extra Dark Sea Green (q.v.)
the production line and at Maintenance Units (MUs). However, it was not on the upper surfaces with PR Mauve (q.v.) on the under surfaces. Spinners
possible to introduce the new colour scheme into the production line in could be either Extra Dark Sea Grey or Extra Dark Sea Green. A note was in-
the case of Blenheim, Wellington and Liberator aircraft, although it might cluded that the service were permitted license in the colouring and mark-
be possible in certain cases for Whitley V aircraft. The new scheme was not ing of PR aircraft, and although the colour schemes given had been used
at that time to be applied to CC Operational Training Unit (OTU), Develop- for a considerable period, before camouflage was applied to any new type
ment Unit (DU) or Tactical Development Unit (TDU) aircraft. or mark of aircraft known to be alloted for those duties the requirements
were to be confirmed.
DTD Technical Circular 360 of February 23, 1943, specified schemes for air-
craft on coastal duties except PR, Meteorological, Air/Sea Rescue and oth- Light Slate Grey was specified for the colour of code letters and serial num-
er Special Duties as single colour Extra Dark Sea Grey upper surfaces and bers against white on Coastal Command aircraft.
Glossy White under surfaces. Also schemes for Special Coastal Duties of
This Mosquito was painted in Medium Sea Grey overall with Dark Green
disruptive pattern on the upper surfaces, which was promulgated as
standard night fighter scheme from October 1, 1942. However, DZ700
was operated by 333 (Norwegian) Sqn. RAF as F Mk.II, without the radar
system which was not needed for the fighter reconnaissance sorties off the
Norwegian coast. When this photo was taken during late spring or early
summer of 1943, RAF Leuchars was also home of 235 Sqn. RAF, whose
Beaufighters can be seen in the background, including Mk.Ic (JL725),
coded T, which was finished in TSS. This aircraft was damaged and
belly-landed on July 4, 1943. The Hampdens visible in the far background
probably belonged to 455 Sqn. RAAF (Riksarkivet, Norway)
The mixed grey is often presumed to have been darker than the subsequent
3.5 Day Fighter official Ocean Grey, but that is unconfirmed. Apart from speculation regard-
ing the tonal values of monochrome photographs and the expected variance
from mixed paints, it is probable that the idea has also arisen from modellers
Scheme seeking to replicate the mixed grey according to the formula, but using black
instead of the blue-black of Night. The scheme was subsequently designated
the Day Fighter Scheme (DFS), and the change was made immediately in 10,
11 & 12 Groups (and in order of priority for 13, 14, 9, 82 & 81 Groups as supplies
Following concerns expressed about the effectiveness of TLS on fighter aircraft of Ocean Grey paint became available). For DFS, squadron code and individual
operating at higher altitudes from 20,000 to 30,000 ft, trials of colours intended aircraft letters were usually applied in Sky, but there were exceptions to this.
to lighten the scheme were conducted by AFDU. During May 1941 the Hawker
Hurricanes of 56 Sqn at North Weald had been trialled with an experimental At a conference on camouflage held at RAE on September 1, 1941, it was not-
scheme consisting of Medium Sea Grey (q.v.) and ‘Smoke/Olive Grey’ on the ed that in Coastal Command Medium Sea Grey had replaced Sky as an under
upper surfaces with Sky Blue (q.v.) on the under surfaces. This experimental surface colour “because it provided a better compromise camouflage, covering
scheme was not adopted, but it was agreed that a predominantly grey cam- both high and low altitude flying.” From September 11, 1942, the Air Ministry
ouflage would be more effective on day fighters. On August 11, 1941, DTD required night fighter aircraft of Fighter Command to be camouflaged Dark
requested RAE to prepare standards for a new grey colour to be used on the Green and Medium Sea Grey on the upper surfaces, with Medium Sea Grey on
day fighters of Fighter Command for the use by Aircraft Inspection Depart- the under surfaces. Spinners, fins and rudders were supposed to be Medium
ment (AID) and to give the colour a new name. The new colour was mixed Sea Grey too. The following types of aircraft employed as night fighters were
from 7 parts of Medium Sea Grey to 1 part Night. RAE replied immediately that specified: Mosquito, Boston, Hurricane, Beaufighter, Havoc, Typhoon. Intruder
the new colour was to be called Ocean Grey. On August 12, 1941, HQ Fighter aircraft were similarly camouflaged except that under surfaces were specified
Command instructed a change to day fighter camouflage with effect from Au- to be Night. DTD Technical Circular 360 of February 23, 1943, specified that
gust 16, 1941. Upper surface Dark Green camouflage was to be retained, but Mosquito Day Bombers were to be finished in DFS.
the Dark Earth was to be replaced with the grey mixed from 7 parts of Medium
Sea Grey to 1 part Cellon Night. From June 7, 1943, Medium Sea Grey was designated as the upper surface
colour for High Flying Day Fighter Aircraft (e.g. Spitfire VII).
From April 1944, the under surface colour of aircraft under South-East Asia
Command (SEAC) was changed from Azure Blue (q.v.) to Medium Sea Grey,
probably to ease production and delivery, as the requirement for aircraft
to be finished in the Desert Scheme had diminished with the commence-
ment of the Italian campaign.
Under surfaces were to be finished in Medium Sea Grey rather than Sky
(RAE had suspended work on the visibility of under surfaces for day flying
when Sky was introduced, but on July 18, 1941, resurrected a recommen-
dation from a September 1937 study of daylight camouflage by Professor
Morton [RAE Report E&I 1082] in favour of grey. Whether this influenced
the introduction of Medium Sea Grey as an under surface colour for DFS
is unconfirmed but probable), but the Sky rear fuselage band and spin-
ner were to be retained. In addition, the leading edges of the wings were
to have a strip of Identification Yellow (q.v.) from the wing tip to half way
along the wing. On August 21, more detailed instructions regarding the A Typhoon Mk.Ib of a RCAF
yellow leading edge strips were issued by Air Ministry to HQ Maintenance unit. The photo was taken
Command, copied to Fighter Command Group HQs. On Spitfire aircraft, in 1945, as evidenced by
the strips were to have a depth of 4 inches with 2 inches each side of the the black spinner colour
centre line of the wing edge. On Hurricane aircraft, the strip was to extend introduced in January
from the wing tip to the landing light with the depth of the strip measured of this year (Library and
round the curve to be 6.5 inches and at the wing top 2.5 inches. Archives Canada)
3.6.1 Middle Stone (sometimes rather than Dark Earth on aircraft operating in the Middle East. A Desert
Scheme (DS) was formalised in AMO A.664 of July 2, 1942, with Middle
referred to as Midstone) Stone replacing Dark Green and the upper surface camouflage becoming
Dark Earth and Middle Stone with Azure Blue (q.v.) under surfaces.
On August 25, 1940, after a perod of flux, the Air HQ Middle East (ME) is-
sued a statement summarising the situation regarding aircraft camouflage
and identification in that theatre. A colour referred to as Midstone (sic) to-
gether with ‘Dark Brown’ (sic) was specified for the sides and upper surfac-
es of Gladiator, Gauntlet and Valentia bomber transport aircraft. Bombers,
Hurricane and Blenheim (fighter) aircraft were in TLS with black and black/
white under surfaces respectively, in the process of being altered to ‘Light
(Middle East) Blue’ (sic). A colour standard for Middle Stone existed as No.62
under that name in BS 381 of 1930, and was of similar if slightly lighter Middle Stone
appearance to the subsequent MAP colour Middle Stone.
Middle Stone or Midstone is a yellow ochre with a strong yellowish tone
Middle Stone was formally introduced in Air Ministry Order (AMO) A.513 of when new, but in applied paint a tendency to fade to a lighter, sandier
July 10, 1941, for the so-called ‘Tropical Land Scheme’, where apparently it colour with ultra-violet (UV) exposure. The closest FS 10266 equivalent may
was to replace the Dark Earth of the Tempeterate Land Scheme to create therefore be reasonably visualised as a slightly weathered example of the
an upper surface camouflage of Dark Green and Middle Stone. However, colour.
a correction issued on December 11, 1941, made it clear that this order
was issued in error and the Middle Stone colour was to replace Dark Green
Tomahawk Mk.IIb (AK402), coded GA-F, flown by F/O Neville Duke of 112 Sqn.,
based in Egypt, in November 1941. Desert Scheme of Middle Stone and Dark
Earth upper surfaces over Azure Blue undersides
Azure Blue, a Munsell PB - Purple Blue of strong saturation (6.0) has no close Reflectivity was reduced to only 8% on the final colour. Deep Sky has no
or useful equivalent in FS 595. The closest colour FS 35240 is too dark and close equivalent in FS 595, the closest FS 15080 being darker and less sat-
less saturated, being more greyish, whilst FS 35231 also cited as an equiva- urated. The application of Deep Sky to the under surfaces of RAF Flying
lent and of the same hue and of similar saturation, is even darker. Fortress day bombers is contentious and beset by apparently conflicting
documentation. The use of Deep Sky as an overall colour on PR aircraft in
On October 30, 1941, the Air Ministry instructed that operational aircraft the Middle East is unconfirmed.
for service abroad were to be camouflaged in TLS or DS according to the
nature of the country in which they were to operate. Under surfaces were
to be Azure Blue and this included the TLS aircraft of SEAC. The tendency
for RAF personnel to refer colloquially to Azure Blue as ‘sky blue’, even in
official documents, has caused confusion with the colour Sky Blue (q.v.),
which was paler and more greyish in appearance.
3.7 Photo-
-Reconnaissance
(PR) Colours
The RAF’s Photographic Development Unit (PDU) and later Photo Recon-
naissance Unit (PRU) developed from Sidney Cotton’s clandestine pre-war
aerial photo surveys. The unit was permitted extensive leeway in its own
development and use of specialised finishes for its aircraft. AMO A.926 of
December 12, 1940, stated that:
“Aircraft of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit and No.421 Flight (Early
Warning Reconnaissance) are coloured and marked in accordance with opera-
tional requirements and the colour schemes need not conform to the standard
system. Special arrangements are to be made by the Photographic Reconnais-
sance Unit and No.421 Flight with HQ Fighter Command for the safety of these
aircraft.”
Not all the schemes used, especially experimental or ad hoc schemes, have
been documented or confirmed. Monochrome photographs showing ap-
parently unusual tones and combinations have attracted much specula-
tion but very little certainty. Contemporaneous descriptions suffer from
the usual tendency to refer to colours by generic or popular names rather
than official nomenclature.
Spitfire PR.IV aircraft of the PRU Egypt and operated in the Middle East re-
ceived a finish referred to as ‘royal blue’ or ‘bosun blue’, and the two PR
Hurricanes sent to Burma as well as the Hurricane and B-25 aircraft of No.5/
No.3 PRU (India) were reportedly painted in this colour. Whether this ‘royal
blue’ was actually Deep Sky, Dark Mediterranean Blue or some other un-
officially promulgated colour is unknown. It has been suggested that the
colour might have been the No.6 Royal Blue of BS 381c of 1930 (still extant
in BS 381c as No.106 Royal Blue), but that colour is such a dark purplish
blue as to be almost black, and seems an unlikely contender.
Mosquito B Mk.IX (ML897), coded D, from No.1409 Met Flight, based at Wyton,
in late 1944. PRU Blue overall. The external fuel tanks that had been painted in
Medium Sea Grey, were probably replacement parts
3.7.2 PRU Special Pink DTD Technical Circular 360 Issue 2 of November 2, 1943, also specifies this
PRU Special Pink was applied overall to fighter-reconnaissance Spitfires, scheme for PR low flying aircraft. Spinners were to be Extra Dark Sea Grey
but does not appear as a specification within AMOs or DTD Technical Cir- or Extra Dark Sea Green.
culars. PRU Special Pink was not in Vocabulary of Stores (NIV) therefore not
a ready mixed colour.
PRU Special Pink PRU Mauve was at first made up from 5 parts PRU Pink, 2 parts PRU Blue
and 1 part Identification Red (Bright), but was later held in stores as listed
The PRU Special Pink is rendered from a measured sample of the colour in DTD Technical Circular 360 Issue 2 of November 2, 1943, as 33B/594 in 5
provided to RD Materials by PRU Benson in August 1941. It is a pale, gallon containers to DTD 83A or 308 Cellulose and 33B/597 and 33B/599
pink-tinted greyish ‘pumice’ colour and not as saturated as many depic- in 5 gallon containers to DTD 314 or 517 Synthetic for Home and Overseas
tions suggest. It has been compared to FS 31668 and althought that is the use respectively. However, the use of this colour overseas has not been
closest colour in FS 595 it is more saturated and ‘warmer‘ than the actual confirmed.
colour being a Munsell YR - Yellow Red rather than R - Red.
Spitfire Mk.Vb (BL591) of 277 Sqn. On January 24, 1943, the HQ Fighter Command requested that the red
RAF, summer or autumn 1944. Note code letters of 277 ASR Sqn Spitfires should be replaced with yellow code
the yellow codes that had been letters. The red code letters were found to be without authority and should
specified for ASR units in January have been Sky for Spitfires engaged on ASR duties. After discussion with
1943, and invasion markings limited Air Ministry the code letters for both 276 and 277 Sqns were specified to
to the lower areas of the aircraft be yellow, with additionally a black line, 12” wide, running from the root of
(Chris Thomas coll.) the spinner to the tailwheel underneath the aircraft.
3.9 Transport
Aircraft
Amendment No.5 of June 29, 1943, to DTD Technical Circular 360 of Febru-
ary 23, 1943, specified that service transport aircraft were to be finished in
TSS with Azure Blue or, if specially required, Night under surfaces.
3.11 Identification Dull Blue stores items, but simply described those paints Red 33B/166-167
and Blue 33B/164-165 as ‘Colour, identification, cellulose, matt’. This sug-
gests that the latter were possibly the original ‘bright’ colours. However,
Colours on September 1, 1940, the MAP wrote to RTOs referencing DTD Circular
No.84 Identification Colours on Aircraft, requesting them to advise their
firms that dull identification colours were required “because it is understood
that several firms are still purchasing the bright colours which are glossy.” The
issue appears not to have been resolved because on September 29, 1941,
the MAP again wrote to RTOs referencing DTD Technical Circular No. 227
Prior to the re-introduction of camouflage, the national insignia - roundels Aircraft Roundels - Glossiness of Paint, advising that when existing stocks of
and fin flash on RAF aircraft were in ‘bright’ colours - red and blue. On June paint were exhausted, the non-glossy yellow, dull blue, dull red and white
30, 1936, DTD advised that all colours used for application in connection were to be used on all types of aircraft.
with camouflage schemes should be matt finish, and additionally request-
ed the RAE to provide 100 standards on metal for Dull Red and Dull Blue. An RAE note on Identification Markings in November 1941 suggests that
Some confusion has arisen from the fact that Stores listings and official the Red in particular might have been subject to variance, because reflec-
documentation did not always distinguish between bright and dull co- tivity of 18% is given for it, whereas reflectivity of the bright Red standard
lours, but simply state ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’. Terminology has also caused prob- was 12% and for the Dull Red standard 10%. The Blue, however, was con-
lems where ‘Dull’ is sometimes used ambiguously in relation to a matt sistent with Dull Blue at 4%, and the Yellow at 57%.
finish rather than to colour value. However, the actual 33B (Aircraft Dopes
& Finishes Vocabulary) listings in Aircraft Design Memorandum No.332 (Is- On July 20, 1942, the HQ Bomber Command noted that No.4 Group had
sue 2) of 1939 onwards verify Dull Red 33B/73-74 and Dull Blue 33B/69- issued local instructions to tone down their identification markings and
70. The question of whether bright paints continued to be used in some the description of that in the document tends to exacerbate uncertainty as
cases has not been fully resolved as Vocabulary numbers for Red and Blue to whether bright red and bright blue paint were still being used:
listed in parentheses were noted ‘to be used first’ before the Dull Red and “Where ‘red’ dope is required, ‘dull red’ to be used
The ‘bright’ red is close to FS 21105. The ‘bright’ blue is approximately simi-
lar to FS 15052, but the FS colour is slightly darker. The Dull Red is approxi-
mately similar to FS 20109, but just a little more red saturated. The Dull Blue
is approximately similar to FS 25053 in hue, but darker.
Identification Yellow was a uniquitous paint colour used for many purposes.
Aircraft Design Memorandum No.332 (Issue 2) of 1939 stated that unless oth-
erwhise specified, all training aircraft were to be given a glossy yellow finish
over all their external surfaces. The Memorandum listed materials to be used of OTU, AFDU, Fighter Interception Unit (FIU) and No.2 School of Army
and emphasised that a glossy finish was required - for metal and wood parts Co-operation were to conform to normal camouflaged colour schemes
33B/162 Synthetic Yellow and for fabric covered components 33B/77-78 Iden- for the aircraft role. Target towing aircraft were to have yellow under sur-
tification Yellow, followed by 33B/85-86-87 Covering, transparent with a note faces with 3 ft wide, black diagonal stripes, set 6 ft apart on the yellow
that ‘the colour, identification yellow, is for use over the standard red dope, and the background. Anti-Aircraft (Searchlight Co-operation) aircraft were not to
covering transparent is to be used as the final coat, to impart a glossy finish’. be painted black underneath rather than yellow, whilst prototype and ex-
perimental aircraft, including private venture aircraft, were to have yellow
Enclosure 1A of B.6200/39 appended to a minute of RDM on September 2, under surfaces. DTD Technical Circular 360, Amendment 4 of May 28, 1943,
1939, required the top surfaces of communications aircraft to be finished exempted prototype flying boats and amphibians from having yellow un-
in TLS with sides and under surfaces in yellow. On November 21, 1939, the der surfaces, but instead to be painted according to their intended role.
Air Ministry advised a change whereby training aircraft were to be cam-
ouflaged but with sides and under surfaces remaining yellow. On August DTD Technical Circular No.489 issued on April 5, 1945, required all es-
1, 1940, an instruction sheet issued to the Civilian Repair Organisation by cape doors, hatches and break-in panels to be marked internally and
Director of Repair & Maintenance (DRM) advised that all training aircraft, externally in yellow in two stages. In Stage I, inside the aircraft, all
communication aircraft and air transport squadron (sic) with TLS or TSS knobs, handles and releases were to be painted yellow with the pe-
upper surfaces had the lower half of the fuselage and all under surfaces riphery of all normal hatches and exits to be marked with a continuous
painted yellow, whilst Anti-Aircraft (Searchlight Co-operation) aircraft were 2” wide line. Externally, all knobs, handles and releases were likewise to
similarly painted, except that their upper surfaces were ‘black’. be painted yellow and on camouflaged aircraft all normal hatches and
exits were to be marked with a broken yellow line 0.5” in width, each
AMO A.926 of December 12, 1940, now required aircraft with yellow under yellow segment 1” long with a gap of 12” or less if necessary, between
surfaces to have the upper surface camouflage extended downwards to each segment. On uncamouflaged aircraft, all these markings were to
cover the whole of the side surfaces of the fuselage, a requirement first be bright red (q.v.). In Stage II, all external break-in panels were to be
signalled to units on November 27, 1940, following a proposal in an Air marked by right-angle corner markings, yellow on camouflaged aircraft
Ministry meeting on October 30, 1940, to discuss the matter. All aircraft and bright red on uncamouflaged aircraft.
Soviet aircraft
colours,
1940-1945
4.1 Terms layers of various painting materials formed the coating system.
Around 1937, probably under the influence of the painting schemes car-
ried by the German aircraft of the Legion Condor, used during the Spanish
Civil War, light grey colours were added to the “palette” of Soviet military
ALG-5 primer aviation. These were oil enamel AE-9 and nitrocellulose lacquer AII light
gray, both intended for finishing the external surfaces of land-based air-
craft. Technical specifications [технические условия, abbr. as ТУ - “TU”] for
these paints were officially introduced on January 1, 1938, but they could
be manufactured earlier in accordance with temporary specifications.
‘Aerolacs of the second coating’ AII were intended for painting the fabric
skin that had been pre-impregnated with a colourless ‘aerolac of the first
coating’ AIN, as well as wooden surfaces that had been covered with fabric
and prepared for painting. The AE-9 enamel was designed for painting the
external duralumin surfaces of the aircraft, but it could also be used for the
internal surfaces of the fuselage. In the case of aircraft of mixed construc-
TU for the AE-8 paint was introduced in December 1938. Its nitrocellulose
equivalent for painting wooden and fabric skin was aluminum lacquer AII
Al.. The examples of aircraft entirely painted in grey and aluminum colours
were the UT-2 trainers, and the SB and DB-3 bombers. Some silvery DB-3s
DB-3T of the 1st MTAP (Mine-torpedo flew at least until 1943.
Bomber Aviation Regiment), 1938. The
aircraft was painted with AE-8 (metal Introduction of the AE-9 light grey, AE-8 aluminum, and the AII lacquers of
surfaces) and AII Al. (fabric surfaces) the same colours did not exclude the use of the usual painting of the up-
per surfaces of aircraft in a protective colour. At the beginning of February
1937, the head of the Department of the Material and Technical Supply of
the Air Force of the Red Army, Brigade-engineer E.V. Aleksandrov, signed
Circular No. 133580 for all senior military representatives of the Red Army
Air Defense Forces at the aircraft factories on “the issue of choosing stan-
dard colours for painting the aircraft, engines and aggregates”. According
to this document, the upper surfaces of the wings, stabilizers and fuse-
lages were to be painted in a protective colour, whilst the undersides in
silver-aluminum, instead of the previously used blue. The reason for this
However, the new colours approved by the GUAS KA were sharply rejected
by the Air Force Staff. On May 29, the deputy head of the logistics depart-
ment of the Air Force Staff, Col. Romanov, wrote about the new protective
finish in a report to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. F.K. Arzhe-
nukhin: “On May 28, the logistics department accidentally learnt that the
factories were painting aircraft in accordance with a newly developed and
approved recipe, taking into account the camouflage requirements.
The Air Force leadership, and in particular its commander, Lt. Gen. Y.V. Smush-
kevich, considered the proposal of the Staff as rational, and decided that
instead of many scattered works, one study that will combine efforts of all
the interested parties, should be conducted. As a result, fifteen camouflage
schemes were developed: six for SB, six for I-16 and three for I-153. These
schemes were prepared for different military districts within the country.
The patterns intended for the SB consisted of five, four and three colours.
To avoid applying patches of a small size that may merge together when
viewed from a long distance, the patterns for fighter aircraft were limited to
two or three colours. Practically all of them included the 4BO green (protec-
tive), which by that time has already been selected as the standard colour.
In addition, sand, dark green, dark brown, yellow-green and grey were used.
I-30 fighter painted in black and green The aircraft used for comparison, carried factory finishes that had been
camouflage, developed in OKB of A.S. standard at the time of manufacture: the upper surfaces of the I-16
Yakovlev (A.S.Yakovlev Design Bureau) were painted in protective colour AII Z; I-153 - a new, lighter green co-
lour AII Sv. Zel.; SB - light grey colour AE-9. Furthermore, the recently
purchased example of a German Bf 109 E in standard factory camou-
flage was delivered. From all heights (500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000
m), the Messerschmitt was clearly visible. The observers reported: “... the
best seen is the MSh-109 aircraft, which immediately catches the eye
with its dark paintwork.”
On August 28, 1940, six aircraft from the 134th SBAP (High-speed
Bomber Regiment), based in Podolsk, flew over the airfield of the
Air Force Research Institute (Научно исследовательский институт
военно воздушных сил, abbr. as НИИ ВВС - “NII VVS”). The crews were
tasked with determining the number and type of aircraft located on the
airfield. It turned out that none of the crewmen detected all aircraft.
Different numbers from 0 to 17 were specified. Only one bomber crew
specified the type of aircraft, indicating the presence of two SBs. In fact,
there were 16 camouflaged planes at the airfield: six SBs, seven I-16s,
and three I-153s, plus one example of each type finished in standard
protective painting. The largest test of disruptive patterns conducted
in the USSR ended in success. The camouflage was washed off from the
aircraft, and the latter were sent back to their units.
Now the leadership of the Air Force inquired the NKAP about introduc-
ing camouflage patterns in three, four or five colours for all aircraft from
December 15, 1940. However, the implementation of this plan was not
The base colour for camouflage painting was to be a protective colour. The
process of repainting the entire aircraft fleet of the Red Army Air Force as of
1941, with this colour, would require 124 tons of glyptal or oil enamels, and
266 tons of nitrocellulose lacquer. Moreover, it was necessary to paint new
aircraft built in the factories. It took time to produce so many paints.
Despite all the works carried out in 1940, none of the multicolour schemes
had eventually been used in mass production. The last pre-war governmental
orders were those issued on May 23, 1940, which had been discussed above.
In accordance with them, at the beginning of war most of the Soviet aircraft
had green upper surfaces and blue undersides. There were also earlier-built
aircraft in the ranks, which were still entirely finished with light grey or silver A drawing of the black and green
paint. camouflage scheme for the I-26
fighter, developed in 1940 in OKB of
A.S. Yakovlev (A.S. Yakovlev Design
Bureau)
Notes: Oil and glyptal enamels were used for painting metal surfaces, whilst nitrocellulose lacquers (“aerolacs of the second
coating”) were intended for wooden and fabric surfaces, and metal surfaces previously primed with hot-dried primer.
* From mid-1940 used only for the priming layer for nitrocellulose lacquers.
** Used for duralumin surfaces of seaplanes.
In the first half of 1941, temporary TUs for the new range of nitrocellulose lac- On the last peaceful Friday, June 20, 1941, the USSR People’s Commissariat
quers, in new colours, were developed. To quickly launch their production, a of Defense issued Order No. 0043 “About camouflaging aircraft, runways,
glossy version was also designed, which differed from the matte one in the and airfield structures”. In addition to ascertaining negative facts, the or-
absence of the so-called “additives for dullness”, ie. talc and zinc stearate. Glossy der included instructions for action: “By July 20, 1941, the aviation units,
nitrocellulose lacquers received the designation AGT [АГТ: A - аэролак - “aero- through their own efforts and with the involvement of aircraft workshop
lac”; Г - глянцевый - “glossy”; T - meaning unknown]. Each colour was marked manpower, should apply camouflage to all available aircraft in accordance
with a different number that coincided with the colour reference numbers with the attached colour scheme, with the exception of the lower surfaces
mentioned in the previous paragraph. However, during the war glossy nitro- which are to be left in the old colour (…) Action plans to be reported on
cellulose lacquers were practically unused. Their time came after the war’s end, June 23, 1941.”
when their usage increased due to a lack of combat losses. An aircraft’s longer
service life would then require using more durable and weather-resistant paint On the same day, the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. P.F.
and coating materials. However, in 1941, the Air Force applied constant pres- Zhigarev, approved the “Instruction on the camouflage painting of aircraft
sure to the industry, demanding the release of matte nitrocellulose lacquers. of the Air Force of the Red Army”. That document contained four short in-
These were designated AMT [A - аэролак - “aerolac”; M - матовый - “matte”; structions signed by the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. B.L.
T - meaning unknown]. The numbers that indicated the particular colours, re- Teplinsky, and two colour diagrams of black-green camouflage schemes.
mained the same as those of the AGT lacquers. For the purpose of painting The inclusion of such a number of instructions was caused by the need
all-metal aircraft, oil-based enamels of nearly the same colour, were developed. to introduce uniform camouflage for aircraft already in service, that had
been painted in varying ways. The whole process was to be performed in a
An active participant in the development of the new colours was a VIAM as- way that would ensure the minimal use of materials and time. On all-metal
sociate, V.V. Chebotarevskiy, who is not widely known despite the fact that his aircraft with upper surfaces painted in a protective colour, black patches
contributions to the Soviet aviation, were no less significant than those of the should be applied using the new oil paint, A-26m. The paint should be
famous general designers. A magazine article dedicated to him was entitled applied in one layer, using a brush or a spray gun. Within the instructions, it
“The man who painted Aeroflot”, but this is not true, or rather, not the whole was also designated AM-26, whilst on the colour schemes - FM-26 (glyptal
truth. Chebotarevskiy “painted” not only (and actually, not really much) the variant of enamel). In the case of aircraft with wooden or fabric skin, the
Aeroflot fleet, but also the entire Soviet military aviation. Since the late 1930s, camouflage patches were to be applied with black AMT-6 nitrocellulose
the USSR did not build a single aircraft which didn’t use putty, paint or varnish lacquer. The colour of the lower surfaces and the green (protective) base
developed by Chebotarevskiy, or with his participation. colour of the upper surfaces was to remain the same. Repainting aircraft
that had been painted in a light (grey or silver) colour, was more difficult.
On May 6, 1941, the NKAP issued Order No. 417сс “About disruptive paint- Firstly, the upper and side surfaces had to be covered with a green A-24m
ing of aircraft”, which instructed the directors of aircraft factories to deliver enamel (for all-metal aircraft) or AMT-4 nitrocellulose lacquer (for aircraft
aircraft with disruptive camouflage of the upper and side surfaces, and of wooden or mixed construction). Then the camouflage patches were to
light grey undersides, from October 1, 1941. However, the camouflage be applied with a suitable black paint. Again, the instruction did not say a
schemes had not yet been determined, so the whole process was broken word about repainting the lower surfaces. It therefore can be concluded
into several stages, and eventually the plan went awry. that the aircraft that had been previously painted grey or silver overall, re-
tained their original colour on the lower surfaces.
A critical impulse to the introduction of camouflage was given less than
a month before the outbreak of war. As A.S. Yakovlev writes in his mem- The first camouflage diagram included in the instructions was intended for
oirs: “In late May or early June, senior executives of the NKAP and the Air single-engine aircraft, whilst the second - for twin-engine aircraft. Howev-
The camouflage scheme intended for twin-engine aircraft, included in the “Instruction on the camouflage
painting of aircraft of the Air Force of the Red Army” that had been issued on June 20, 1941
er, the camouflage scheme was, in fact, the same - the camouflage patches the wings and relocated to the tailfins on the fuselage sides. Only those
had the same colours (green and black) and similar shape and arrange- located on the wing undersides remained unchanged. In practice, the na-
ment. The artist used drawings of the Yak-1 and Yak-4 aircraft as a basis. tional insignia were usually applied both on the tailfins and fuselage sides.
As the latter had a twin tail, the scheme could be easily used for the Pe-2
bombers, but problems could arise when camouflaging SB, DB-3 and Li-2 The instruction was signed for printing on the second day of the war - June
aircraft. In the case of single-engine aircraft, no complications were fore- 23, 1941. However, on June 23, hardly anyone remembered the instruc-
seen. Each diagram depicted the aircraft in four views, but their choice was tions and the “action plan”. The war itself repainted the aircraft, and this had
strange: port side, top, bottom, and… front. The camouflage of the star- to be performed under the enemy fire. Of course, the instructions could
board side was therefore left for free interpretation. One circumstance al- not reach the front lines in a timely manner, but the included schemes
lows us to assert that these painting schemes were intended for the aircraft were used with sufficient accuracy to paint aircraft in the factories. This
industry, rather than for military units. In contrast to the instructions, which especially concerned Yakovlev and Lavochkin fighters.
ignored the case of underside colour, the diagrams included the following
information: the lower surfaces should be painted with “matte light blue At the factories subordinated to the NKAP, the rush was not smaller. In re-
paint”. The type was not listed, but the mention of matte paint indicates sponse to the order for efficient camouflage painting, at the beginning of
that these were to be the new colours that had received the designations June 1941, Factory No. 21 in Gorky started to apply multicoloured cam-
A-28m (oil-based enamel for all-metal aircraft), and AMT-7 (nitrocellulose ouflage to LaGG-3 fighters. According to the memoirs of Chebotarevskiy,
lacquer for aircraft of mixed construction). The shape and arrangement of who took part in these works, glossy and matte nitrocellulose lacquers
the black patches strongly resembled the camouflage schemes applied to of light brown, grey, green and black colours were used. The shape and
Yakovlev UTI-26-1, I-28 and I-30 fighters. This was especially notable on the arrangement of the camouflage patches were determined by sketches
tail part of the aircraft, whilst the forward part of the fuselage, tailfin and that had been drawn in several variants. A total of 28 aircraft were painted
wing, the black patches had a simpler form. Thereby, A.S. Yakovlev, without this way. Amongst them was LaGG-3 s/n 3121376, completed on June 10,
hesitation, proposed a widespread introduction of a somewhat simplified 1941, which crashed during tests at maximum speed on June 14. The cam-
disruptive camouflage scheme of his fighters. Worth noting is that the di- ouflage proved to be effective even at close distances. Despite this, the
agrams and instructions show the changed, four-position arrangement of remaining 27 aircraft, which had not yet been transferred to the Air Force,
the national insignia. The stars were removed from the upper surfaces of were repainted in accordance with the new order No. 547cc, issued by the
NKAP on June 20, 1941, which introduced the two-colour camouflage as a standard. The factories were ordered from July
1 to paint combat, training and passenger aircraft in accordance to the approved scheme. Exceptions were made for the
remote Factories No. 153 and No. 126, which were given two weeks more to implement the order. The order defined the
colours of the paints: blue, green and black. Furthermore, the aircraft already serving in the Air Force units were to be
repainted. However, the order was not even sent to the factories before the war began. The dispatch was carried out on
June 24 and 25.
Numerous confirmations for the application of black and green camouflage can be found in the instructions and
repair documentation issued during the first years of the war. This included the Production Instruction VIAM K17
(LK9) entitled “The main types of protective coatings of land-based aircraft from corrosion” (approved on July 18,
1941); “Interim guidelines for the repair of the Yak-1” (1942); “Repair of the LaGG-3 and La-5” (1942); “Catalogue of
materials for the repair of aircraft and engines” (approved on April 10, The TUs for AMT-4 and AMT-6 were introduced in early July 1941, whilst
1943); “Norms for the consumption of materials for single restoration the TU for AMT-7 came in August 1941. This explains the lack of this name
and field repair” (1943); etc.. All these documents regulated the use of in the instructions dated June 20, 1941. The colour of these lacquers was
AMT-4 green, AMT-6 black and AMT-7 light blue nitrocellulose lacquers controlled “in accordance with the sample reference cards, within the limits
or A-24m, A-26m and A-28m oil-based enamels of the relevant colours of the approved technical tolerances”. The AMT lacquers were designed
for camouflage painting. Paints for exterior surfaces with other colors for painting the fabric skin, pre-impregnated with a colourless ‘aerolac of
and designations are not mentioned in documents issued before 1943. the first coating’ AIN and primed with an ‘aerolac of the second coating’ AII
With the exception of AMT-1 light brown, which was introduced in Aluminum (in wartime used only for combat aircraft), as well as for painting
1943, nitrocellulose lacquers in the remaining three colours from the wooden skin that had previously been covered with fabric, puttied, and
range of seven developed in late 1940, had never been used in Soviet primed with AII Al.. What’s more, the AMT lacquers were used for painting
aviation. In the case of the AII lacquers, aside from the light blue colour the metal surfaces of mixed construction aircraft. For this purpose, a special
that had been used very rarely, only red and white (for insignia) and primer was used.
aluminum (for the priming layer for AMT paints) are mentioned.
At the same time as the nitrocellulose lacquers, oil enamels of similar co-
Let’s try to clarify the shades of these colours. An album of paint samples, lours were developed: A-24m (green), A-26m (black), and A-28m (light
ie, samples that are painted with the actual paints, and not printed, can blue). These enamels could truly be called “matte”, as this was ensured not
help us. Such an album was issued by the Ministry of Chemical Industry only by inclusion of the “additives for dullness” (talc and kaolin), but also
in 1948. It included all the basic colours used during the war. Of course, by their film-forming component. But the same component, because of
during almost 50 years (the description and comparison of colours was its yellowish hue, brought some colour change that was especially notice-
done in 1996), the shade of the colours had changed, but preserving the able in the case of bright colours. For example, the colour of the A-28m
album in a library. under constant temperature and with the absence of enamel eventually got a greenish tinge due to the addition of the oil var-
light, had significantly reduced the level of these changes, which makes nish’ yellowness to the blue pigment part. The greenness was enhanced
the album the most reliable source in existence. Moreover, the samples under the influence of temperature and sunlight exposure, etc. The A-24m
from this album match other samples of aviation paint that are preserved green enamel differed a little in colour from the AMT-4 lacquer. Its rather
in the Russian archives. dark shade made the difference in the optical properties of nitrocellulose
and oil varnishes indistinguishable. The A-24m and AMT-4 were originally
AMT-4 green nitrocellulose lacquer. “Green” is the so-called “normative” made from lead chromate (yellow pigment), Milori blue or chromium ox-
name, which in some cases does not accurately describe the actual co- ide (green), and carbon black with addition of other pigments. Oil enamels
lour. The colour of the AMT-4 was based on the 4BO standard (although were designed to be applied over the previously primed external metal
was not a direct match for the latter), so the name “protective” or “green surfaces of aircraft, using a spray gun. Due to the unsatisfactory painting
with a yellowish tinge” is more appropriate for it. Despite “matte” included properties, brush application was allowed only as an exception, under the
in its name, a fresh layer created with this lacquer was semi-matte, and condition of subsequent flicking, ie. leveling applied to the painted surface
this feature was typical for all paints from the AMT range. Sometimes with the tip of a dry brush.
aircraft painted with AMT lacquers were covered with a layer of AV-4d/v
[АВ-4д/в] colourless varnish, which gave the surface a glossy finish. As ex- Despite the numerous orders issued by the NKAP and the Air Force, there
plained in the Manual for Aviation Engineering Service [Наставление по were still many unresolved issues at the factories and repair organizations.
инженерно-авиационной службе, abbr. as НИАС-43 - “NIAS-43”), this was However, the leaders did not dare to act at their own discretion. On July 17,
done “to improve the aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft”, so to raise 1941, the Deputy People’s Commissar of the Aviation Industry, P.A. Voronin,
the speed of the mass-produced aircraft to the level achieved by the pol- sent a letter to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. P.F. Zhig-
ished prototypes, the camouflage properties could have been sacrificed. arev, in which he enquired as “to indicate whether it is necessary to strictly
follow the scheme approved by you on all aircraft, both with respect to the
AMT-6 black nitrocellulose lacquer. In this case, the colour name faithfully shape of camouflage patches and the relative arrangement of colours”. In
reflects the reality. the same letter, he suggested to clarify whether it was possible to use the
old glossy (AII light blue) instead of the new matte light blue paint (AMT-7).
AMT-7 light blue nitrocellulose lacquer. More precisely, it can be described
as light grey-blue. When stored, a “slight change in colour” was allowed. The simplification of the paintwork usually concerned the priming layers
rather than the finishing layers. For example, in the case of U-2 aircraft, con-
We cannot rule out the possibility of using other types of paints in the
NKAP factories, and, especially, in the repair workshops of the Air Force
during the first months of the war. There are many reasons for this: evac-
Yak-7s pictured at Factory No. 153 in uation of the paint and coatings factories, difficulties with supply of raw
1942. The standard ’1941’ scheme is materials and ready-made paints, loss of territories on which deposits of
fairly accurately reproduced on the raw materials were located, etc. All of this disrupted the program of mil-
port side of the aircraft, although the itary equipment production and could force the use of stocks of the old
patches on the vertical tail correspond AII nitrocellulose lacquers. The shortage of raw materials was practically
to the pattern developed in OKB of A.S. constant. The main task was to replace the rare raw materials with less
Yakovlev in 1940 (V. Vakhlamov coll.) deficit ones. In 1941-42 period, there was not even enough chalk, which
the differences in some details, the painting scheme of these aircraft may
be called standard, which means not full compliance with the approved
scheme, but the use of most of its elements: colours, shape and arrange-
ment of the basic camouflage patches. Curiously, some photographs of
Lavochkin fighters reveal a reversed colour scheme, ie. with green patches
applied in place of the black ones, and vice versa. The presence of such
scheme does not contradict the requirements of camouflage. On the con-
trary, it is confusing that there are very few photos documenting it.
The standard ‘1941’ scheme was also used for painting Yakovlev fighters.
The Yak-1 aircraft produced by Factory No. 292 in Saratov usually carried
a semicircular patch on the tail part. The same is observed on the pho-
tos of Yak-7 built by Factory No. 153 in Novosibirsk. However, sometimes
this patch is missing. In most of such cases, however, the forward fuse-
lage wears the standard pattern. Often, the aforementioned patch may be
found on the photos of the starboard side of the aircraft. As it is difficult to
find photos showing both sides of the same aircraft, a question arises: did
the factories, in order to reduce the repeatability of colours, sometimes
apply the camouflage scheme in a mirrored way, and that deviations from
the standard were accepted only when they concerned the starboard side,
which was not shown in the camouflage diagrams? OKB Yakovlev contin-
ued to stand out among others. Experimental Yaks were often painted dif-
ferently, and some mass-produced aircraft built by Moscow factories (No. Управления Заказов и Технического Снабжения ВВС КА, abbr. as ГУЗиТС
82 and No. 301) could adopt their camouflage. ВВС КА – “GUZiTS VVS KA”] requested the NKAP to paint 20 LaGG-3 and
Pe-2 aircraft at the Factories No. 21 and No. 22 for testing a new tricolour
Photographs of biplanes (I-15, I-153, U-2), camouflaged in accordance with camouflage. This scheme was tested in several regiments in the rear and at
the standard ‘1941’ scheme, are practically unknown. On some photos of the front line and received positive evaluation. Its total advantage over the
the I-16, the camouflage patterns resemble the standard to some extent. standard two-colour scheme, was noted. Until 1943, the question about
The same situation is observed with regard to MiG-3s, many of which were the introduction of the tricolour painting passed through a number of in-
completed before the war. All these aircraft received their black and green stances, but no final decision was made. Another discussed camouflage
camouflage not at the factories, but at the unit level, or at the mobile option was a bright, single-colour scheme intended for fighter aircraft.
aircraft repair shops [Подвижная авиационная ремонтная мастерская, However, the factories continued production of aircraft in two-colour cam-
abbr. as ПАРМ - “PARM”]. It’s likely that the “Instruction on the camouflage ouflage until mid-summer of 1943.
painting of aircraft of the Air Force of the Red Army” did not reach many
combat units, or was found by them too complicated. In 1942, the VIAM developed inflammable chlorovinyl (chlorinated PVC)
paints in standard colours: KhV-4 [ХВ-4] green, KhV-6 [ХВ-4] black, KhV-7
However, the NKAP factories did not always adhere to the standard [ХВ-4] blue and DD-118А grey. The latter was intended for painting the
scheme. The patterns applied to the Il-4, Yer-2 and Pe-2 bombers, as well as internal surfaces. In July, tests of the new paints were conducted on Yak
the Li-2 transports, differed a lot from it. The only common feature was the fighters. From August, work was carried out on the introduction of these
use of the prescribed combination of colours. At the same time, the two materials to the industry, but in April 1943 it was far away from being fin-
colour camouflage of the Yak-6 can safely be called standard. ished, as the paint factories had no free capacity. Chlorovinyl paints be-
came widespread only after the war.
One way or another, due to the efforts of industry and the Air Force, cam-
ouflage became commonly used. According to the recollections of Maj.
Gen. K.D. Denisov, in August 1941 he received an I-16 fighter with camou-
flage finish. There was no other similar aircraft in his regiment. However,
in June 1942, he fought in a single, uncamouflaged Yak-1 in the regiment.
The number of “patched” aircraft in the Air Force increased, but the effec-
tiveness of the standard black and green camouflage did not suit the mil-
itary. “The camouflage of the La-5 aircraft, like other domestic fighters, is
unsatisfactory” - such phrases are often found in reports and letters sent
to the NKAP. This led to the tests of the new schemes. In June 1942, the
Main Directorate of Orders and Technical Supply of the Air Force [Главное
By October 1941, the VIAM developed MK-7 paint, which was indistin-
guishable in the ultraviolet range of the spectrum. It consisted of a paste
(chalk diluted with water with alcohol, and 0,1-0,2% ultramarine added to
Winter of 1941-1942, MiG-3 of the 16th eliminate the yellowing of chalk) and a fixer (casein glue mixed with wa-
IAP PVO (Fighter Aviation Regiment of ter). The paste and the fixer had to be mixed immediately before use in
the Air Defence Force). Judging by the a 6:1 ratio, filtered, and then diluted with water in order to achieve the
shine of the engine cowling, we can proper consistency. The paint was to be applied directly over the summer
assume that the aircraft, in violation camouflage in two layers, using a spray gun, or in one-two layers using
of the rules, was painted with white oil a brush. The resultant paint layer should have been smooth, without any
paint or AII Al. (V. Vakhlamov coll.) signs of roughness, and applied in such a manner that the summer camou-
flage layer would slightly show through it. Depending on the size of chalk
grain, the winter camouflage could reduce the aircraft’s speed from 10 to
25 km/h. It was possible to significantly reduce the loss of speed, or even
fully avoid it, by polishing the painted surfaces with fine sandpapers No.
Yak-1B flown by Maj. V.I. Shishkin of the 1, 00, and 000, or simply a rough rag, once the paint layer dries, but such
581st IAP (Fighter Aviation Regiment), measures were not realistic in frontline conditions.
January 1943. The upper surfaces are
uniformly painted in white, whilst the The MK-7 was applied in two ways. According to the instructions issued on
undersides remained in AMT-7 October 12, 1941, it should cover the entire upper and side surfaces of an
aircraft, except for the identification markings. The aircraft was to remain in
this form until the spring. When the snow started to melt, exposing patches
Worth noting is that the tactical and technical requirements of the NII VVS The AMT-11 had a medium grey colour with a slight bluish cast. The TU
for the development of aircraft paint and varnish coatings for 1943, ap- for its oil enamel analog was not introduced in 1943, as it was specified
proved by Maj. Gen. P.A. Losyukov on February 24, 1943, stipulated that only for the camouflage of fighter aircraft, whilst at that time there were no
“the upper and side surfaces of aircraft should be camouflaged with at all-metal fighter aircraft built which would require painting with oil enam-
least three colours: green (colour no. 4), black (colour no. 6), and sand els. The metal cowlings of mixed construction aircraft were painted with ni-
(colour no. 1)”. The colour numbers matched the numbers of the relevant trocellulose lacquers, which were applied over the surfaces that had been
AMT lacquers. Furthermore, according to the draft of the order to switch previously primed with ALG-5 primer and dried with hot air. This process
to the new painting schemes that had been developed in April 1943, the could be performed without any special difficulties at the NKAP factories.
tricolour camouflage was planned for all aircraft, including fighters, and
the ratio of green, black (rather than dark gray, as eventually used) and The AMT-12 nitrocellulose lacquer and A-32m oil enamel were to replace
light brown colours was supposed to be 5:2:3. In April, the NII VVS also the black AMT-6 and A-26m paints in the new camouflage scheme. From
tested a Yak-9, which was painted in two shades of grey. The conclusion now on, the latter would only be used for painting propeller blades. Both
of this camouflage trial was sharply negative: both shades of grey “stand new dark grey paints were quite dark, with the AMT-12 lacquer being a
out against the background present in most of our districts. This makes bit darker than the A-32m. The reason for such a seemingly insignificant
the aircraft parked at the grass/ground apron easily distinguishable even change was the conclusion drawn by the camouflage specialists that the
for visual observation with the naked eye. In terms of its physical prop- pure black colour does not occur in the background of the earth. Even the
erties, both shades of the grey paint are decodable, and the painted air- shadows made by the folds of the terrain, when viewed from above, do not
craft is easy to detect when viewed from the air through special glasses. appear to be black, but dark gray.
As far as the concealment measures are concerned, this kind of painting
scheme is completely unsuitable for combat aircraft”. In conclusion, it was The Order No. 389c/0133 also determined the procedure for introduc-
only allowed that one grey be used as one of the components of 3- or tion of the new camouflage schemes. The supplies of all necessary paints
4-colour camouflage scheme. Let’s remember these facts, and return to should have been delivered by July 25, 1943. The fighter aircraft painted in
the “Schemes ...”. the new camouflage scheme should start leaving the factories from July
15, the remaining aircraft types - from August 1, and before that date, on
July 15, it was prescribed to replace the black colour used in the existing
two-colour scheme of built aircraft, with dark grey. Prior to receiving the
Standard camouflage scheme for
fighter aircraft, introduced in 1943
Standard tricolour
camouflage schemes
for Il-2, introduced in
1943
Standard tricolour
camouflage
schemes for Il-4,
introduced in 1943
Standard tricolour
camouflage
schemes for U-2,
introduced in 1943
standard blue-grey and dark grey paints, it was acceptable to use mixtures N.P. Seleznev, requesting to give instructions to the military leaders of the
of AMT-7 light blue and AMT-6 black nitrocellulose lacquers, or A-28m light 11th Main Directorate (mass production of light aircraft: U-2, Yak-6, etc.) to
blue and A-28m black oil enamels, made in accordance with the special accept aircraft painted in two-colour camouflage until September 1. From
instructions and samples provided by the VIAM. Such measures for mixing the draft of that letter, as an unreal dream, the Deputy People’s Commis-
paints, never allowed before, indicate a special urgency in the introduction sar of the Aviation Industry, P.V. Dementyev, removed the proposal to also
of the new camouflage. Documentary evidence of the use of paint mix- retain the two-colour camouflage on these aircraft “for a further period”.
tures was not found, nor were the “special” instructions and samples them-
selves. However, it is impossible to exclude their use at the initial stage of Even if the aircraft was actually painted in a tricolour scheme, it’s not always
the introduction of the new camouflage. In this case, the colours of such possible to see this on the photographs, because the AMT-4 and A-24m
paints could significantly differ from the “real” AMT-11 and AMT-12 (A-32m). greens, and the AMT-12 and A-32m dark greys had similar reflectivity: up
In the same part of the order, the need for delivery of aircraft painted in to 9% and 12%, respectively. Given that the green colour on black and
different variations of camouflage schemes (concerning those types for white photographs looks like a dark gray, you can distinguish these colours
which two variants of camouflage had been developed) was highlight- only on high quality images, on which the camouflaged surfaces are well
ed. Repainting the aircraft that had already served with the Air Force, was illuminated. On this background, only the AMT-1 light brown enamel is
not planned. The new camouflage was to be applied to them only during clearly visible (reflectivity up to 22%). These bright patches that fully match
overhauls. the shape and arrangement ordered in the “Schemes...”, are visible in some
photographs of Il-2, U-2 and, less commonly, Pe-2. Based on this, the pres-
How meticulously were the requirements of the “Schemes…” met? The ence of standard tricolour camouflage schemes on these aircraft types can
standard scheme is very often observed on the photos of fighter aircraft be confirmed with sufficient confidence. There are photos of other aircraft,
from that period, such as LaGG-3, La-5, Yak-3, and Yak-9, although the such as the Il-4, which clearly show tricolour camouflage, but the patterns
shape of camouflage patches happens to be somewhat distorted. Usually do not match the prescribed schemes. The “Schemes...” do not include any
this is expressed in the absence of precise angles, which became rounded patterns for the Tu-2. At the time of the development of this document,
when the camouflage pattern was applied with a spray gun, without using the mass production of Tu-2 at the Factory No. 166 in Omsk was stopped.
a stencil. Most differences from the prescribed schemes are observed in On July 17, 1943, the day before the approval of the “Schemes...”, the State
engine cowling areas. The reason for this was probably that the paint coat- Defense Committee issued Resolution No. 3754 on the launch of the Tu-2
ing on the latter was more likely to be repaired, being the most prone to production at the Factory No. 23 in Moscow. The first production aircraft
damage during the operational use of aircraft. left the assembly line only in November. Although it was possible to use
the Pe-2 camouflage schemes for painting the Tu-2, the factory preferred
The situation was different in regard to the tricolour camouflage, which to develop their own pattern consisting of the same three colours: A-21m,
was not easy to apply to aircraft such as Pe-2, Il-4, Pe-8, etc. because of their A-24m and A-32m.
large size. In many factories, the introduction of new camouflage schemes
was delayed due to the lack of new paints, and it was more difficult to ap- And what were the reasons for changing the camouflage colours? The
ply three colours (not counting the blue for the lower surfaces) than two. green and black camouflage gave best protection from detection from
On the last day of July, the NKAP appealed to the Chief of Main Director- above to the aircraft standing on the ground or flying at a low altitude,
ate of Orders of the Air Force, Lt. Gen. of Engineering and Aviation Service i.e. when the distance from the aircraft to the earth background was sig-
Let’s remind ourselves of how the wooden skin of aircraft was created. The
plywood covering was glued to the framework and covered with two lay-
ers of nitrocellulose glue, then a thin layer of putty was applied, again a lay-
A classic photo of a classic example paint layer. Moisture penetrated through the cracks, dramatically reduc-
of the standard camouflage scheme ing the strength of the fabric adhesion, and led to its separation. Cracking
prescribed for fighters in 1943. In the concerned nearly a thousand aircraft, including the Yak-7 fighters built in
foreground, Yak-9D flown by Hero Factory No. 153, Yak-1s from Factory No. 292, and La-5s from Factories No.
of the Soviet Union, Capt. M.I. Grib, 21 and No. 99. The factory brigades were sent at the front and returned the
from the 6th GvIAP VVS ChF (Guards defective aircraft to service in 2-3 weeks (in the rear, the repairs continued
Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Black until September). And literally within 2-3 days, as A.S. Yakovlev notes in his
Sea Fleet Air Force). Note the victory memoirs, the famous battle at Oryol-Kursk salient began!
markings in form of small stars applied
above the “shoulders” of the national As we can see, an attempt to solve the problem of lead chromate shortage
insignia on the tailfin. May 1944, by its removal from the putty composition, almost led to serious shortages
Sevastopol area (Author: Y.A. Khaldei) of aircraft in a decisive battle. However, the lead chromate was included in
the green paints A-24m and AMT-4. If you cannot remove it from the putty,
tographed from various distances. The grey camouflage scheme turned out
to be the best, but some points raise doubts. For example, if aircraft standing
on the ground that are painted in grey-blue and tricolour scheme, are equal-
ly poorly visible and merge with the background of the grassy terrain when
viewed from 3000 m - which is quite possible - then as the observation alti-
tude decreases, strange things begin to occur. From an altitude of 2000 m, the
tricolour Yak-1 “is easily detectable and sharply visible against the background
of the airfield”, whilst the Yak-9 painted in grey-blue tones “is difficult to de-
La-5FN s/n 392120104, built by tect, merges with the background of the terrain”. Even more interesting are
Factory No. 21 in May 1943. It was the views from altitudes of both 500 m and 1000 m: “both aircraft are easily
withdrawn from trials at the NII VVS detectable, but the grey-blue scheme better merges with the background of
due to repeated damage of the fabric the green terrain, making it difficult to determine the silhouette of the aircraft,
covering of the wing (Russian State whilst the tricolour scheme sharply stands out, and highlights the contour of
Archive of Economy) the aircraft”. Of course, the light brown patches of the tricolour scheme could
“stand out” on a green background, but it’s strange that the grey-blue cam-
ouflage is said to merge with green terrain when viewed from 500 m. Per-
haps other factors had an impact on the conclusions drawn by the testers?
Undoubtedly, the blue-grey painting scheme provided the best camouflage
effect in the air, both when viewed against the background of the earth, and
against the sky. In the latter case, it allowed for the concealment of the dimen-
sions, and in some cases, the silhouette of the aircraft and the distance to it.
Finally, it is interesting that in the conclusion of the report from the camouflage
tests, the blue-grey scheme was not compared with the tricolour camouflage,
but only with the standard two-colour finish:
1. “Painting the upper and side surfaces in the blue-grey scheme gives a
better camouflage effect than the standard two-colour scheme used for
mass-produced aircraft”.
2. “The blue-grey painting scheme of the Yak-9 aircraft No. 01-18 is consid-
ered to be the standard”.
4.7 Winter
of 1943-1944
During the winter of 1943-1944, the winter camouflage of Soviet aircraft
An Il-4 flown by the crew of Jr. Lt.
was a subject of some changes. Formally, due to the introduction of a new
Chizhov from the 1st GvAD DD
fighter camouflage of two shades of grey, but most likely in order not to
(Guards Long Range Aviation Division)
reduce the maximum speed, the white camouflage was ceased to be ap-
pictured after an accident on February
plied, which was recorded in a number of orders. This, however, did not
16, 1944. The painter apparently used
apply to other aircraft. In this regard, we provide the full text of the letter
a lot of imagination when applying
sent by S.V. Ilyushin to the People’s Commissar of the Aircraft Industry A.I.
the winter camouflage to the vertical
Shakhurin, dated October 1943 (original spelling and punctuation are pre-
tail (V. Vakhlamov coll.)
served):
“The Il-2 aircraft leave the factories painted in summer and winter camou-
flage schemes.
4.8 1944-1945 search for ground-based attack aircraft), the green colour would naturally
change its shade just like the background colour. The introduction of a
painting scheme consisting of patches of dark grey and blue-grey colours
on ground attack and liaison aircraft can only be explained by disregarding
On March 15, 1944, a new order of the NKAP and the Air Force of the Red the camouflage in the conditions of air supremacy, and (or) an even great-
Army No. 194c/045, was issued. The directors of Factories No. 116 and No. er shortage of pigments needed for manufacturing green paint.
168, which manufactured the UT-2 and UT-2M aircraft, were ordered to
paint the entire aircraft in blue-grey colour with AMT-11 nitrocellulose lac- In addition to the already known AMT-11, AMT-12, and A-32m paints, the
quer, instead of applying the tricolour camouflage to the upper and side A-33m oil enamel appeared on the list. In 1944, this enamel was produced
surfaces, and a light blue colour to undersides. Factory No. 168, in Volzhsk, in accordance with temporary specifications. It was necessary only for
Standard camouflage
scheme for fighter
aircraft, introduced in
autumn 1944
Standard
camouflage
scheme for Pe-2,
Pe-2I and Tu-2,
introduced in
autumn 1944
Standard
camouflage
scheme for Il-4,
introduced in
autumn 1944
Standard camouflage
scheme for Pe-8,
introduced in autumn
1944
Standard camouflage
scheme for Li-2,
introduced in autumn
1944
Standard
camouflage scheme
for Po-2, introduced
in autumn 1944
Standard
camouflage scheme
for Yak-6, introduced
in autumn 1944
Period of
Name Colour Colour description Use
application
Light greenish
А-28m Light blue Undersurfaces Since 1941
blue **
MK-7f
White White Winter camouflage 1941-1943
[МК-7ф]
“Night”
Black Black Undersurfaces of aircraft used at night Since 1942
[“Ночь”]
Notes: The “A-” oil enamels were used for painting the external metal surfaces, whilst the “AMT-“ nitrocellulose lacquers were intended for
wooden and fabric surfaces, and external metal surfaces of mixed construction aircraft.
* From the second half of 1943, used only for painting the propeller blades.
** After some time of use.
real colors of wwii aircraft / 279
4.9 Frontline
experience
The previous sub-chapters discussed how Soviet aircraft paintwork
evolved during World War Two, in accordance with orders and other of-
ficial documents. Now, let’s see what remained from the instructions in
ordinary life of the military repair units, such as the mobile aircraft repair
shops PARM-1, which were part of the aviation regiments. It is based on
the memories of V.V. Pshenichnov, who commanded PARM-1 No. 1087 of
the 562nd IAP PVO (Fighter Aviation Regiment of the Air Defence Force),
in 1941-1945, and illustrated with photographs he took during that peri-
od. Pshenichnov finished the war as a technician-lieutenant and devoted
his life to the development of rocket and space technology. He eventually
Yak-1M M-105PF built by Factory No. became a doctor of technical sciences, a professor, and was awarded six
115, tested in 1943 at the NII VVS. The orders, including the Order of Lenin.
camouflage pattern applied at Factory
No. 115 differed from those applied by
other factories (OKB Yakovlev)
In winter, all aircraft were painted white. Coarsely ground chalk was used,
which could only be applied with brushes. As the painting process was
carried out in cold weather conditions, in order to prevent the mixture of
chalk, casein and water from freezing, an alcohol-based liquid had to be
added. The resulting surface was very rough. White paint layer successful-
ly survived until the spring of 1942, when it was washed off, not without
difficulty.
The need for painting occurred for two cases: mechanical damage to the
aircraft and damage to the surface itself. Most of all, the personnel tried to
paint only the repaired areas, without touching the remaining ones. At the
same time, they did not follow any standard schemes, which, by the way,
they did not know. During the painting process they were rather guided
by instinct and intuition, although they naturally looked around and con-
sidered the appearance of other aircraft. In result, the regiment was com-
posed of quite differently painted aircraft, which camouflage often did not
resemble the factory-applied schemes after various repairs and installation
of spare parts.
One of the most common defects of Soviet aircraft was the poor quality of
paint coatings. Aside from the reasons mentioned above, the aircraft were
constantly parked in the open air and suffered from the sun, rain and snow
(the tarpaulin covers covered only the engine cowling and the cabin). As a
PARM-1 No. 1087 belonging to the result, the surface was covered with a net of cracks. This mainly concerned
562nd IAP PVO. Carpenter Popov, who the wings. The aircraft of the PVO units had a longer service life than those
successfully mastered the painting from the frontline aviation, but after a year, or a year and a half of operation,
process, at work (V. Vakhlamov coll.) it was necessary to change the fabric coating of the wings. When restoring
the aircraft skin, the PARM personnel tried to follow the factory technology.
After removal of the old coating, the wing was covered with nitrocellulose
glue, then the fabric was stretched over it, and sealed with another lay-
er of nitrocellulose glue. Once it had dried, the ‘aerolac of the first coating’
was sprayed over, the putty applied, sometimes in two passes, then the
The painting process is almost finished. surface was sanded and, finally, the ‘aerolacs of the second coating’ could
The camouflage pattern follows the be applied, using a spray gun. The latter were usually applied in one layer,
scheme applied by Factory No. 115
(V. Vakhlamov coll.)
At the beginning of war, an attempt was made to simplify the rules for
painting internal surfaces. An instruction issued in July 1941, specified the
following options for painting metal surfaces: coating with paint consist-
ing of equal parts of ALG-1 primer and A-14 enamel, or ALG-1 with an addi-
tion of 6% of aluminum powder. Before applying the aforementioned paint
coating, parts made from aluminum and magnesium alloys underwent
chemical oxidation or anodization in chromic acid. The aluminum parts
were not painted after anodic oxidation in sulfuric acid. Later, for painting
parts made from magnesium alloys, a system of coatings from layers of
ALG-1 primer, ALG-5 oil-based primer of a grey-green colour, and an outer
layer of A-9 blue oil enamel (or glyptal A-9f ), was used. Before painting,
the parts made from magnesium alloy, as the least corrosion-resistant, un-
derwent chemical oxidation. Later, steel and aluminum parts were simply
painted with ALG-5 primer. This coating was matte, grey-green, of medium
lightness.
Painting the propellers was never a secondary matter. Aside from protect-
As an exception, AII light blue or AMT-7 nitrocellulose lacquers could be ing the metal blades from corrosion and the wooden ones from rotting,
used. The internal surfaces of the wooden aircraft framework could be there are two other issues. Firstly, the colour should reduce the light reflec-
covered with 17-A colourless lacquer or AS [АС] antiseptic lacquer. For the tion caused by rotating propeller, and secondly, the rough paint coating of
convenience of monitoring the condition of welds, the 17-A lacquer could the airscrew greatly reduced the aircraft speed. Since 1941, the propeller
also be applied over welded joints. blades were painted with A-26m matte oil enamel or AMT-6 nitrocellulose
lacquer. In both cases, ALG-1 or ALG-5 primer was used for priming the
When repairing the aircraft, the choice of options depended on the avail- metal blades. For the AMT-6, a red-brown 138A primer could also be used.
ability of materials and the type of paint that had been applied earlier. The In the winter period, when the aircraft were camouflaged with MK-7 wash-
A-14 enamel could be applied over any coating, but the VIAM-B3 glue - able white paint, this did not concern the propeller blades, as otherwise
only over an old coating applied with the same glue (which formed a film the maximum speed of the aircraft could be reduced by 0,5-1%.
of red or red-brown colour). In the absence of resin glue, or at low tempera-
ture, the DD-118B chlorovinyl paint could be used. Due to its shortage, AII The fuel tanks, pipes and components of various systems were always
Al. was ruled out from being used for painting the internal surfaces during painted in the same colour for convenience of maintenance. The tanks and
repairs. pipes of the fuel system were painted in yellow (A-6 oil enamel); cooling
system - green (A-7); oil system - brown (A-8); components and aggregates
The cockpit surfaces were painted, as a rule, with A-14 grey enamel, ex- of the hydraulic system - dark blue (A-9), oxygen system - blue (A-10), air
cept for the instrument panels/dashboards. From the first half of the 1930s, conditioning and pressurization system - black (A-12), fire-fighting equip-
the latter were painted with FG-5 [ФГ-5] black, semi-matte nitrocellulose ment and inerting system - red (A-13). This painting system was used since
lacquer, which later was replaced by T black, matte nitrocellulose lacquer. at least 1937, and deviation from it could only occur due to the shortage
Once dry, the film of this paint cracked, revealing the priming layer, which of necessary colours. Therefore, for example, in 1943, at Factory No. 21, hy-
was usually red. In result, a net pattern was formed from numerous red draulic pipes were painted with AII Al. aluminum nitrocellulose lacquer. All
cracks on a black background. oil enamels used for the aforementioned purposes were glossy. The A-7
had a toxic-green hue, whilst A-8 brown was quite dark. In addition to oil
For painting the engines, special oil and nitrocellulose paint and coating enamels, all these systems could be painted with DM nitrocellulose lac-
materials were used. There were several options. Before painting, the en- quers of the same colours, which differed a little in shades.
gine parts were primed with ALG-1 or ALG-5 hot-drying primer. Then, in
the first two variants, the paint was blackened with 2086f [2086ф] glyp- When using the ski-equipped landing gear, the skids were covered with
tal enamel, or with two layers of MV-109 [MB-109] nitrocellulose lacquer a special varnish AV-4 d/l [АВ-4 д/л (д/л - для лыж - „d/l - dlya lyzh - for
and the outer layer of MV-6 [MB-6] nitrocellulose lacquer. MV-6 created a skis”)], which served to prevent the freezing of skis. The colour of the var-
film that was semigloss black, with a violet hue. The engines could also be nish could vary from straw yellow to light brown. The varnished surface
painted in grey-blue colour with two layers of AM-4 glyptal enamel, or sub- acquired a uniform satin finish.
sequent layers of MV-1 [MB-1] and MV-2 [MB-2] nitrocellulose lacquers. The
latter gave a glossy coating of medium lightness. The engine parts made
from magnesium alloys were oxidized, primed with ALG-1 zinc chromate
primer, and coated with the same paints as other surfaces, but necessarily
applied in two layers. Other options for engine painting included the use
of MV-8 [MB-8] and MV-108 [MB-108] nitrocellulose lacquers, which formed
glossy coatings of a light grey colour. The octane number of consumed
gasoline, was applied to the suction pipes of the engines, using MV-3 [MB-
Painted surface Top coat colour Paint type Period of application Notes
Steel grey А-14 (A-14f) [А-14ф] Since 1930s (since 1940)
Metal and wooden surfaces
Light grey AE-9 [АЭ-9] Second half of 1930s
Underwater parts of
Dark grey AE-10 [АЭ-10]
wooden seaplanes
Underwater parts of
Light blue AE-14 [АЭ-14] wooden seaplanes (below
Since 1930s the waterline)
N 17
Colourless
Antiseptic AS [АС] Wooden surfaces, details of
From light to dark duralumin frameworks
ALG-1 [АЛГ-1]
yellow
Parts made from magnesium
Dark blue А-9 Since 1940
alloys
Blue АМТ-7
Silver AII Al. [AII Ал] Approximately since 1942
DD-118A [ДД-118А] Approximately since Wooden surfaces
Grey
(DD-118B) [ДД-118Б] 1943-1944
Grey-green ALG-5 [АЛГ-5] Since 1940s Steel part surfaces
Dark green А-15 (A-15f) [А-15ф] Late 1940s
Cockpits Steel grey А-14 (A-14) [А-14ф] Late 1930s
MV-6 [МВ-6]
Black Since 1930s
2086f [2086ф]
Water-cooled engines АМ-4
Grey-blue 1935
MV-2 [МВ-2]
Light grey MV-108 [МВ-108]
2318/19 Since 1930s Cylinders
Air-cooled engines Black
102/19 Other components
Protective Since early 1930s Wooden propellers. After
Light green painting, a layer of AV-4(/v)
DV [ДВ]
Second half of 1930s [АВ-4(/в)] varnish was
Red applied
AE-11 [АЭ-11]
1930s
Propellers DM [ДМ]
Black Backside of metal blades
А-26m
Since 1941
АМТ-6
А-6
Yellow Since 1940s Blade tips
DM [ДМ]
Aggregates and pipes:
Fuel system Yellow А-6 (A-6f) [А-6ф]
Cooling system Green А-7 (A-7f) [А-7ф]
Oil system Brown А-8 (A-8f) [А-8ф]
Hydraulic system Dark blue А-9
Since 1930s
Oxygen system Blue А-10 (A-10f) [А-10ф]
Air conditioning and
Black А-12
pressurization system
Fire-fighting equipment Red А-13 (A-13f) [А-13ф]
The colour was specified
From straw yellow
Ski skids AV-4 d/l [АВ-4 д/л] Since 1930s for varnishing unpainted
to light brown
surfaces
Chapter 2:
• Archer, R. D. (1995). The Official Monogram US Army Air Service & Air Corps Aicraft Color Guide, Vol.1. Sturbridge: Monogram Aviation Publications.
• Archer, R. D., & Archer, V. G. (1997). USAAF Aircraft Markings and Camouflage 1941-1947. Atglen: Schiffer Publishing.
• Baugher, J. (n.d.). USAAS/USAAC/USAAF/USAF Military Aircraft Serials. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/usafserials.html
• Bell, D. (1979). Air Force Colors Vol.1. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications.
• Bell, D. (1997). Air Force Colors Vol.3. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications.
• Bell, D. (2018). Aircraft Pictorial #9. Aircraft Painting Guide Volume One. Tucson: Classic Warships Publishing.
• Dial, J. F. (1964). United States Camouflage WW II. Arlington: Scale Reproductions.
• Elliott, J. M. (1989). The Official Monogram US Navy and Marine Corps Aircraft Colour Guide, Vol.2 1940-1949. Sturbridge: Monogram Aviation Publications.
• Kilgrain, B. C. (1973). Color Schemes and Markings US Navy Aircraft 1911-1950. s.l.: self-published.
• King, J. (2002). The whole nine yards. The story of an Anzac P-40. Auckland: Reed Publishing.
• Martel, C. (1860). On the Materials Used in Painting with a Few Remarks on Varnishing and Cleaning. London: George Rowney & Co. Ltd.
• McDowell, E. R. (1998). Thunderbolt. The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt in the European Theater. Carrollton: Squadron/Signal Publications.
• Pamieri, D. (1981, July). USN Camouflage of WW2 Part 13. US Naval Aircraft Colours. Scale Models (UK).
• Smith, J. H. (1972). ANA Standard Aircraft Colors 1943-1970, Modeler’s Journal Color Chart Supplement C.3. s.l.: self-published.
• Thomas, G. J. (1983, February). True Colours. Airfix Magazine.
• Thomas, G. J. (1999). Eyes for the Phoenix - Allied Aerial Reconnaisance Operations South East Asia 1941-1945. Aldershot: Hikoki Publications.
• Whistler, R. (1969). USAAF Camouflage 1933-1969. Dover: self-published.
• AER-E-25-FZ, F-39-5 (00261) dated September 30, 1940.
• AER-E-25-HY, F-39-5, F-39-1 (010282) dated February 26, 1941.
• AER-E-2571-DMC F-39-5, VV(063183) dated October 23, 1941.
• AER-E-2571-MVS F-39-5, F-39-1 (021076) dated February 6, 1942.
• SR-2c dated January 5, 1943, effective February 1, 1943.
• AER-E-2574-MVS F-39-1 (14708) dated January 30, 1943.
• AN-1-9 dated March 1, 1943.
• AN-1-9a dated June 29, 1943.
• SR-2d Amendment 1 dated March 13, 1944, effective March 22, 1944.
• SR-2e dated June 25, 1944, effective October 7, 1944.
Chapter 4:
• Hornat J., & Migliardi, B. (2006). Colours of the Falcons. Ottawa: Iliad Design.
• Бурче Е.Ф. «Маскировка ВВС ВМФ», М-Л., 1944.
• Бурче Е.Ф. «Маскировка летательных аппаратов в воздухе», М-Л., 1928.
• ВИАМ, Производственная инструкция № К17 (ЛК9) «Основные виды защитных покрытий сухопутных самолетов от коррозии», М., 1941.
• Ворожейкин А. В., “Истребители”, М., 1961., стр. 257, 264.
• Грекин А.И., Лебедев М.С., «Инструкция по ремонту самолета УТ-2», М., 1939.
• ГУ ВВС КА, «Инструкция по маскирующей окраске самолетов ВВС Красной Армии», М., 1941.
• ГУ ВВС КА, «Военные самолеты СССР», М., 1941.
• «Древесина и ее обработка в самолетостроении», М. 1941.
• Келейников А.М., Маскирующие окраски подвижных объектов», М., 1942.
• МХП СССР, «Альбом накрасок. Образцы накрасок, характеристика красок, основные физико-малярные показатели, применение красок», М., 1948.
• НКАП СССР, Инструкция по технологии лакокрасочных покрытий деталей и агрегатов машин металлической и смешанной конструкций», М., 1939.
• НКАП СССР, “Спецификация на лакокрасочные материалы” 203 АМТУ (взамен 180 АМТУ), М., 1941.
• НКАП СССР, ВИАМ, «Каталог действующих ТУ на авиационные материалы», М., 1942.
• НКАП СССР, Эксплоатационный бюллетень №60 на самолет Ла-5, «Устранение и предупреждение дефектов лакокрасочного покрытия».
• НКАП СССР, «Действующие технические условия на авиационные материалы», Выпуск 18 «Лакокрасочные материалы», М., 1943.
• НКАП СССР, «Руководство для конструкторов», т. 3, М., 1944.
• НКОП СССР, Инструкция ВИАМ №4 «Окраска металлических сухопутных самолетов», М., 1938.
• Платонов Г.П., Карпов Г.И, Полевой ремонт самолетов, М., 1943.
• Русский архив: Великая Отечественная: Приказы народного комиссара обороны СССР. т 13 (2-1), М., 1994.
• Туманов А, Маскировочная окраска, в журнале «Авиация и космонавтика» № 3 1969.
• Технические условия на авиационные лакокрасочные материалы.
• УВВС КА, «Схемы маскирующей окраски самолетов», М., 1943.
• УВВС КА, «Руководство по нанесению лакокрасочных покрытий при ремонте самолетов», М., 1944.
• УВВС КА, «Схемы маскирующей окраски самолетов», М., 1945.
• Чеботаревский В.В., Лаки и краски в народном хозяйстве», М., 1960.
• Яковлев А.С., «Цель жизни», М., 1987.
• Архив ОКБ им. Яковлева.
• РГВА, ф. 29, оп. 23, д. 348.
• из “Ведомости выполнения постановлений КО при СНК СССР по истребителям” по состоянию на 22. июля 1940 г., РГВА, ф. 29, оп. 56, д. 175, л. 246.
• РГВА, ф. 29, оп. 56, д. 183.
• РГВА, ф. 29, оп. 63, д. 30.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 307.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 652.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 849.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 952.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 996.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 998.
• РГАЭ, ф. 8044, оп. 1, д. 1123.
• ЦАМО, ф. 317 ИАД ПВО, оп. 1, д. 122.
• ЦАМО, ф. 4 ГИАД, оп.1, д.77.
• ЦАМО, ф. 7 ГИАД, оп. 1, д. 33.
• ЦАМО, ф. 2 ВА, оп. 4233, д. 2.
• ЦАМО, ф. 12 ВА ИАС оп. 6134, д.4.
• ЦАМО, ф 12 ВА ИАС оп. 6155, д. 2, 8, 19.
• ЦАМО, ф. НИИ ВВС, оп. 485690, д. 161.
• ЦАМО, ф. НИИ ВВС оп. 599240, д .3, д. 51.
• Запись беседы с В.В. Чеботаревским, личный архив М.В. Орлова.
For a long time now Jürgen has been consultant and supplier of the
Deutsche Technikmuseum - DTM in Berlin.
Worldwide renown aviation experts like Prof. Dr. Dr. Holger Steinle,
the former curator of DTM aviation exhibition, Koloman Mayrhofer of
CraftLab in Austria, Jerry Crandall in the USA and Alexander Kuncze
in Bavaria appreciate the up to date know how of Jürgen and he is
in very good contact with the Norwegian Aviation Museum and the
Flugwerft Schleißheim of Deutsches Museum.
A network of experts in the chemical industry ensures access
to detailed knowledge and the ability to get the necessary raw
materials.
Jürgen Kiroff is also the speaker of the “NIL - Nürnberger
Interessengruppe Lack” the Bavarian network of paint manufactures.
Part of Jürgen’s knowledge was made available for historically
interested enthusiasts and modellers through his participation as
co-author of two recent books: Real Colors of WWII and Real Colors of
WWII Aircraft.