Jim,

I'll be starting the OAW D.III rework very soon. I'd like your input.

As far as I can tell, would it match the OAW built D.VII? How about the tape color?

Thanks,

James
'OvS'

They were using the 5 tone lozenge (upper and lower) with light blue tape...



Illustration by Dave "BLOWHARD" Douglass

they had also their distinct patern in dark green-mauve camo:

The overwhelming majority of photos I have show them in dark green/mauve, but there are those in irreg polygon fabric, too. I can't tell you via serial number which used either. It may just be that I happen to have more photos of the green/mauve machines, just out of chance.

However, note in Elephant's photo above that the wing crosses are centered on the aileron actuator arms. Also, the fuselage crosses are further forward than the Johannisthal-built machines but more than that, they have thicker white borders. I think a more accurate description is they don’t have thicker borders but the borders appear to be thicker because the black portions are thinner than the Johannisthal versions.

Check out this comparison. Alb D.III(OAW) at left, Alb D.III at right.

Removed for various reasons.

Great points Jim and Lowe. Those little things are what I am looking for. I want it to look distinguished from the J-built Albs. As far as the lozenge pattern vs the camo, I'll mix and match, however, focus more on the higher Jasta numbers for the lozenge. By the time those Jasta received the OAWs, the D.V's were fully operational and beginning to fly with lozenge.

Also, I agree on the J-built crosses. I'll make some adjustments to the look of some of my skins I have done already. No big deal, easy to fix. I also used a thinner lined crOSS as well as a slightly larger fuse cross on some skins I made. From many hundred profiles and pictures I looked at, there seemed to be some variation to the fuselage crosses, especially if personal markings were applied over/near them.

One other question for you guys was the use of the light green/olive (dark) green camouflage on the later J-built D.III's. Serial # 700+? Ted and I went through this once before, but back then, info was limited. DSA had sent me a flat-out description of Jasta 11 D.III'so and who had what, but do you have better info on the use of this pattern?

Thanks as always.

J

Hello!

About the light green/dark green only camo. The short answer—respectfully to DSA—is that’s wrong. The long answer below is why that’s wrong (I know it’s long, but lots of info).

Dan-San wrote that because of a directive to do so, all 600 and 750-series Albatros DIIIs had light/dark wing camouflage only and that the venetian red was omitted. What is this directive? Here it is, in its entirety:

Telegram—Charlottenburg 12 April 1917
Red, or red/brown paint on top surfaces of wings has lead [sic] to misunderstandings- - being taken to be enemy colors - - and led to fights between our own aircraft. Therefore DARK GREEN and LILAC should be used only. [Upper case in original]

However, the 600 and 750-series Albs were ordered ca. two months and one month respectively PRIOR to the Idflieg directive. Thus, why would Albatros discontinue using Venetian red months before being directed to do so? Additionally, photographs show 600 and 750-series planes with three-color camouflage, such as 624-17 and 767/17. 760/17 has a two-color camo, which looks to be the dark green and venetian (possibly). So I don’t believe it is accurate to make a broad-brush statement that all 600 and 750-series Albs had pale green and dark green wing camo only.

Furthermore, assuming Albatros omitted Venetian red months before being directed to do so, why use pale green and dark green? The directive says NOTHING about pale green, at all. As shown above, it says “dark green and lilac should be used only.” ONLY. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t believe the word “only” can be misunderstood. So Albatros gets this directive and says, “Okay, it says to use lilac and dark green. We’ll just use light green instead.”? It defies sense and there is no evidence of this. But, when the DVs are produced, what do you know, they all have green and mauve from the get-go. I.e., their production order came in the same month as the directive—April 1917.

So, only 50 machines were in the 600-series Alb DIII, ordered in February. WHEN (specific date) in February I do not know, but seems reasonable to conclude (until evidence directs otherwise) that all of them were built prior to the 12 April directive. I.e., no light/dark green-only camo. Again, only 50 machines in the 750-series, ordered in March. WHEN in March I do not know, but seems reasonable that at least some if not all of the batch was constructed prior to the directive. I.e., 760/17 (11th machine of the batch), 767/17 (18th machine of the batch). Were they all finished prior to 12 April? I don’t know right now. Regardless, I do not subscribe to light/dark green-only camo for all of these two series.

As some have theorized, perhaps some D.IIIs had their venetian red overpainted in the field? Could be and likely so. But did the directive specifically address this? No, and there wasn’t a blanket adherence to paint everything “light green and dark green.” And why wouldn’t they use lilac, as per the directive, to repaint the wings, if the directive was aimed at extent machines already in-field? Why would they use light green, or leave the light green, when the directive says NOTHING about light green? The directive doesn’t specifically say to eliminate venetian red, it just says to use dark green and lilac only. By definition, this implies the discontinuation of venetian—but doesn’t it also imply the discontinuation of light green?

Regardless of that discrepancy, look at Jasta 11 Georg Simon’s 2015/16/G.42. Photographs and the British G-report clearly show it STILL had venetian red almost two months after the directive! No repainting there. And 624/17. Records indicate it arrived at Jasta 11 on 28 April, when the trees were still struggling to foliate. In the photos of this machine the leaves at Roucourt are fully leafed, the grass has grown, and men are not bundled for winter. So, that obviously indicates some unknown weeks later, but certainly at least mid-May. So at least a month after the directive, the three-camo remains on that machine, even though Jasta 11 found time to completely overpaint that fuselage in red, overpaint the tail an unknown (to me) color, and meticulously repaint the serial number in (presumably) white! So they clearly had the time to overpaint the wings if ordered to do so by Idflieg, but they did not.

There are just too many examples of three color camo on photographed 600 and 750-series Alb DIIIs, and the directive says nothing about light green and dark green.

Here's a famous shot of three Jasta 30 750-series Albs, clearly using venetian red and pale green in their wing camos:



Here's Jasta 11's 624/17, at Roucourt, with three color wing camo:

Thanks Jim. I intend to put all this to good use when I get back.

All the best.