Category And Colors

Nice line up of B-17s of the 95th BG, 13th CBW, 3rd Air Div, Eighth Air Force, at Poltava, Russia after their shuttle bomb mission over Germany on June 21, 1944. Nearest aircraft is B-17G-55-BO, 42-102678, aircraft BG-R of the 334th BS. Next is B-17G, serial incomplete, aircraft BG-M, with a replacement camouflaged rudder. Next is B-17G-20-VE, 42-97599, aircraft OE-T of the 335th BS; note it does not have the black group rectangle on the tail yet. The sixth aircraft is still fully camouflaged, and has the "B” in black on white tail marking. All of these markings are to ВСІ 55-14, dated December 25,1943. (USAF)

Boeing B-17E-BO, 41-9100, aircraft FR-U, was the lead ship for the 379th BG, but was attached to the 525th BS. It was painted in dark olive drab and white stripes alt over; the stripes below the wing ran from front to rear, and those under the horizontal tail were spanwise. The group marking, black tetter “K” on a white triangle, with a dark olive drab outline. Code letters were in white, with the aircraft serial number and letter “U” on the fin in yellow. It was seen on July 24, 1944. (USAF)

Three B-17s of the 323rd BS, 91st BG, 1st CBW, 1st Air Div, Eighth Air Force, show the latest changes to the CADMs, in ВСІ 55-21, dated October 16,1944. All of the aircraft, natural metal and camouflaged, are carrying the new red vertical tail areas, together with red wing tips and horizontal stabilizers (not elevators). Nearest aircraft is B-17G-45-BO, 42-97304, aircraft OR-C; on its right is B-17G-30-BO, 42-31908, aircraft OR-R, in camouflage, and behind is B-I7G-49-BO, 42-97271, aircraft OR-B. Squadron code letters are in yellow on camouflage and black on natural metal. November, 1944. (CSAF)

Boeing B-17G-35-DL, 42-107033, aircraft DF-D of the 324th BS, 91st BG, 1st CBW, 1st Air Div, Eighth Air Force, in very shiny natural metal finish carries the latest CAMDs to ВСІ 55-21, dated June 23, 1944. For the 1st Air Div, there was little change except that the natural metal finish changed the Air Div triangle from white to black, reversing the color of the group letter in the process from black to white, and changing the squadron code letters from yellow to black. More colorful changes were to come later in 1944, as the strength of the Eighth Air Force built up rapidly. (USAF)

Boeing B-17G-45-BO, 42-97330, aircraft MS-S of the 535th BS, 381st BG, 1st CBW, 1st Air Div, Eighth Air Force, is seen carrying the new red vertical tail, wing tip and horizontal stabilizer (not elevators) markings, added by ВСІ 55-21, dated October 16,1944. These CADMs remained unchanged for the 1st Air Div until the end of the war. (USAF)

Boeing B-17G-95-BO 43-38810, aircraft SC-V of the 612th BS, 401st BG, 94th CBW, 1st Air Div, plus 43-38733, 43-30541, and 43-37780, plus others, lined upon March 19, 1945.They are carrying the new yellow, trimmed with black, sloping band on the vertical tail, added by ВСІ 55­21, dated October 16, 1944. Note that there are some variations in the positioning and size of the triangle markings. Seen at Deenthorpe, England on March 19,1945. (USAF)

Boeing B-17G-75-BO, 43-37921, aircraft UX-N of the 327th BS, 92nd BG, 40th CBW, 1st Air Div, seen in 1945 at one of the forward strips in Belgium. Barely visible is the red band across the vertical tail, with its tower edge in line with the base of the triangle. The unit code letters appear to be in insignia blue rather than black; compare with the star insignia and the black triangle. (William L. Swisher)

мММ i ■

■■■

Consolidated B-24 D-20-Со, 41-24215, aircraft “Z” of the 445th BG, 2nd Bomb Div, Eighth Air Force, at Tihenham, England, in 1944. Note that the aircraft radio call number presentation is incorrect in that it shows both of the year (1941) digits at the beginning of the number; the number “4” should have been omitted. This formation lead aircraft was painted with wide orange bands all over the fuselage and vertical tails. Note that the large letter “F" on the fuselage has lights in all of its horizontal and vertical strokes. (USAF)

Consolidated B-24H or J, serial unknown, aircraft J4-M “Final Approach”, of the 753rd BS, 458th BG, 96th CBW, 2nd Air Div, waiting for take-off at Horsham St. Faith, England, on the Group’s 200th mission. Dark olive drab and neutral gray finish, tail markings are a white vertical stripe on red vertical surfaces. (USAF)

Consolidated B24H, serial unknown, aircraft J3-P, of the 755th Bs, 458th BG, 96th CBW, 2nd Air Div. The markings of the 2nd Air Div were changed to colored vertical tails by ВСІ 55-21, dated June 23, 1944. This aircraft has the red tail with a white vertical band of the 458th BG, together with the earlier upper right wing marking of a white letter “K” on a black circle (for natural metal aircraft). Late 1944. (USAF)

Consolidated B-24H, serial unknown, aircraft Z5-E “The Shack”, of the 754th BS, 458th Bg, 96 CBW, 2nd Air Div. Red tail with a white vertical stripe. Note the grayed-out fuselage insignia, a somewhat superfluous effort! Seen at Horsham St. Faith, England, on February 26,1945.

Consolidated B-24H-L-FO, 42-7478, aircraft ЕС-P bar, “Flying Crusader” of the 578th BS, 392nd BG, 14th CBW, 2nd Air Div, typifies a late camouflaged B-24. The vertical tail markings are white, with a black horizontal stripe. Note that the right tail has received a replacement dark olive drab rudder, still showing its medium green blotches and its portion of the old circle marking painted over. The group code letter “D” does not appear on the right wing circle. Code letters on fuselage are gray and the radio call number on the fin are in yellow. Aircraft letter on the tail is white. (USAF)

Consolidated B-24H, serial number unknown, aircraft “I” of the 715th BS, 448th BG, 20th CBW, 2nd Air Div, taking off from its base of Seething, England. It is on the way to drop supplies to Allied troops battling east оГ the Rhine river in Germany, in the spring of 1945. Group markings were a black diagonal bar across the yellow tail; the squadron insignia was the yellow diamond on the black bar. The aircraft letter is within the diamond. (USAF)

Boeing B-17 of the 452nd BG, 45th CBW, 3rd Air Div is seen from above, showing the group letter "L” in a white rectangle above the right outer wing. Taken over Berlin on April 29, 1944, it appears as if both outer wing panels have been repaired, but not repainted prior to this mission. (USAF)

Consolidated B-24H-15-FO, 42-52618, aircraft R5-K “Chief Wapello”, of the 839th BS, 487th BG, was in one of the five H-24 groups in the 3rd Air Div, which also had nine B-17 groups. It proved to he too difficult to operate the two types together, and they were replaced by B-17s after only a few months. The group code letter “P” is seen on the tail and on the wing in the white rectangle. Code tetters were gray, and the aircraft letter “K” was in yellow in both positions, as was the radio call number. (USAF)

Boeing B-17G-45-BO, 42-97258, of the 452nd BG, 45th CBW, 3rd Air Div, with a lot of company, on the way to Germany in May, 1944, No squadron codes were used by this group. The CADMs are to ВСІ 55-14, dated December 25, 1943. Note that this B-17 has a replacement camouflaged outer right wing panel. (USAF)

Boeing B-17G-65-VE, 44-8439, aircraft “R”, of the 95th BG, 13th CBW, 3rd Air Div, seen at a strip in Belgium in 1945. It has the usual Mack rectangle on the tail and the red band up the trailing edge of the rudder; however, a replacement rudder has not yet been painted in the red color. A red band at an angle across the lower left outer wing completes the markings. Date not known, but after January 11,1945, and prior to March 7,1945, in conformance with the latest CADM orders. (USAF)

Boeing B-17G-70-BO, 43-37928, aircraft “D”, of the 490th BG, 93rd CBW, 3rd Air Div, seen in Belgium in 1945. The group marking is a red band across the vertical tail, one-third of its height, together with red hands across the wing, at the inner end of the aileron, and across the middle of the horizontal tail. The 9rd CBW adopted these markings when it was originally equipped with B-24s, and carried them across when the 3rd Air Div became an ail B-17 force in summer 1944. It was the only group in the 3rd Air Div whose markings could be seen easily, and this lead to major changes in the other group markings in the 3rd Air Div in early 1945. (William L, Swisher)

Two B-17Gs, 42-97627 in natural metal, and 42-97555, in camouflage, of the 413th BS, 96th BG, 45th CBW, 3rd Air Div, are seen on their bomb run over the target in late 1944. Using the H2X radar housed in the usual ball-turret position, these acted as radar path-finders for the main bomber force in bad weather when the target could not be seen visually. As they were used with any of the 3rd Air Div forces, they did not carry the usual group tail markings. (USAF)

ALLIED INVASION STRIPES

On April 13, 1944, the newly formed Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force issued a draft of a major Operation Memoran­dum, Number 23, entitled “DISTINCTIVE MARKING – AIRCRAFT”. This was approved very quickly and issued on April 18, 1944. Only 100 copies of the Top Secret document were made; 55 were issued to the necessary commands, each bearing its own number. The other 45 copies were held as spares. The following information comes from copy number 36, issued to the Chief Administrative Officer (this was declassified by DOD on October 12,1966, at the request of the author).

TOP SECRET TOP SECRET

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS COPY No.38

ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

OPERATION MEMORANDUM ) 18 April, 1944

NUMBER 23 )

DISTINCTIVE MARKING – AIRCRAFT

1. OBJECT

The object of this memorandum is to prescribe the distinctive markings which will be applied to US and BRITISH aircraft in order to make them more easily identified as friendly by ground and naval forces and by other friendly aircraft.

2. SCOPE

a. The instructions contained herein will apply to the following types of US and BRITISH aircraft; (I) Fighters and fighter – bombers. (2) Tactical and photographic reconnaissance aircraft. (3) Aircraft employed in spotting for naval gunfire and field artillery. (4) Light bombers. (5) Medium bombers. (6) Troop carrier aircraft, including four engine types. (7) Glider tugs, including four engine types. (8) Liaison aircraft and Air OP’s employed in forward areas for fire spotting and adjustment or for advanced aircraft control. (9) Coastal Command, Air Sea Rescue and disembarked Fleet Air Arm aircraft except seaplanes and four engine aircraft which need not be marked.

b. These instructions will not apply to the following classes of aircraft:(l) Four engine bombers. (2) Air transports. (3) Gliders. (4) Night fighters. (5) Seaplanes.

3. GENERAL

a. The instructions contained herein will be effective on the day of the assault and thereafter until it is deemed advisable to change. Aircraft will be given distinctive markings as shortly before the day of the assault as it is possible in order to protect the effectiveness of their use.

b. These instructions are in no way intended to change the present US and BRITISH national markings now in use, namely: the USAAF white star on a white horizontal bar; and the RAF red, white and blue roundel.

4. DISTINCTIVE MARKINGS

a Single engine aircraft. (It Upper and lower wing surfaces of aircraft listed in paragraph 2 a above, will be painted with five white and black stripes, each eighteen inches wide, parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane, arranged in order from center outward; white, black, white, black, white. Stripes will end six inches inboard of the national markings. (2) Fuselages will be painted with five parallel white and black stripes, each eighteen inches wide, completely around the fuselage, with the outside edge of the rearmost band eighteen inches from the leading edge of the tailplane.

b. Twin engine aircraft. (I) Upper and lower wing surfaces of aircraft listed in paragraph 2 a above, will be painted from the engine nacelles outward with five white and black stripes, each twenty-four inches wide, arranged in order from center outward: white, black, white, black, white. (2) Fuselages will be painted with five parallel white and black stripes, each twenty-four inches wide, completely around the fuselage, with the outside edge of the rearmost band eighteen inches from the leading edge of the tailplane.

c. Four engine troop carrier aircraft and glider tugs. (I) Same as for twin-engine aircraft, wing stripes to be outboard of the outer engine nacelles.

d. Stripes will in no case be painted over the national markings, which take precedence. Wing stripes will extend from leading edge to trailing edge of wings. Special equipment, such as deicer boots, will not be painted over.

e. Types of paint to be employed: (1) USAAF Units – as directed by the Commanding General of the Air Force concerned. (2) RAF Units – as directed by the appropriate BRITISH agency.

f. At Appendix ‘A’ are sample sketches of aircraft painted according to these instructions.

5. BRIEFING

Army, Navy and Air Commanders will disseminate complete information concerning these distinctive markings to all troops under their commands no earlier before the day of the assault than will insure the complete distribution of the information.

By command of General Eisenhower:

W. B. Smith

Lieutenant General, U. S. Army,

OFFICIAL: Chief of Staff.

H. R. BULL,

Major General, G. S.C.,

Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3.

First Army Commander requests change to narrower stripes (“Invasion Stripes”) for Field Artillery and Liaison Aircraft, May 1944.

The First Army Commander, Lieut. Gen Omar Bradley, on May 16, 1944, requested authority to modify distinctive markings for Field Artillery and Liaison (CUB) aircraft. Modification requested was to use 8 inch stripes instead of 18 inch stripes, it was not considered that this change would jeopardize the safety of these small aircraft through identification failure by friendly Air and Ground Forces. Reason for the request was the excessive weight added by paint and the increased difficulty in concealing such aircraft in forward combat areas. This request was approved the next day.

HQ Allied Expeditionary Air Force informed SHAEF, HQ 21 AG, Advanced Allied Expeditionary Air Force, HQ Second Tactical Air Force, Main HQ Ninth Air Force, HQ Air Defense Great Britain, HQ USSTAF, HQ Eighth Air Force, ANCXF, and HQ Coastal Com­mand, on June 22,1944, that:

Small artillery liaison aircraft (Piper Cubs) may be seen in the Beachhead combat zone, with no distinctive markings on the top surface of wings and fuselage. Markings will continue to be carried on the ventral surfaces. This necessary due to difficulty encountered in providing camouflage for these aircraft while they are on their unprotected landing grounds very near to the front lines.

On July 6, 1944, HQ Allied Expeditionary Air Force sent SHAEF Forward HQ a request that the provisions of SFLAEF Operation Memo.

No. 23 for distinctive markings be suspended effective (hat date. The request continued:

Recommend that no further aircraft be given the distinctive markings and that markings already on aircraft be allowed to fade out and not be renewed. If suspension approved request that all Army and Navy Commanders be instructed to inform all troops particularly gun crews that henceforth they can expect to see friendly aircraft without distinctive markings and that absence of the markings can no longer be accepted as an indication that aircraft are hostile.

In response, SHAEF Forward, signed Eisenhower, sent the following signal to ANCXF, Main EXFOR, on July 9, 1944:

With reference AEAF signal A-124 dated 6th July, 1944. As distinctive markings reduce speed and add to maintenance of aircraft it is desired to suspend SHAEF Operation Memorandum No. 23. Advise earliest date by which you can inform all concerned so that the Memorandum can be canceled from that date. AEAF state it is impracticable to remove markings from all aircraft on one date. National markings remain unchanged.

This signal was followed up by another dated July 30,1944, from the same source, sent to EXFOR, 12 Army Group. This read as follows:

1. Operation Memorandum number 23 refers.

2. Proposed to retain distinctive aircraft markings on the fuselage only and allow markings on the wings to fade out naturally. This to apply only to those aircraft that operate in immediate battle areas.

3. Propose following classes of aircraft do not carry distinctive markings:

a. Coastal Command aircraft.

b. Shore based Fleet Air Arm aircraft, (unless based in FRANCE.)

c. 8th Air Force fighter aircraft. (These aircraft do not operate in close support of the Armies.)

d. Fighter aircraft employed exclusively in anti-CROSSBOW operations. (Attacks against V-l sites in Europe – au­thor).

e. High altitude photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

f. Gliders.

4. Request your concurrence or comments by 030900B.

EXFOR MAIN responded on July 31,1944, stating that:

Ref. your signal of 302025B. Subject distinctive markings on aircraft. Proposal agreed.

However, on August 1, 1944, ANCXF (Allied Naval Commander Expeditionary Forces) responded to the SHAEF proposal with the following signal:

Yours 302025. Proposal to retain fuselage markings only concurred in but consider this should continue to apply to all classes of aircraft as in your memorandum number 23.

Markings have proved valuable to Naval Forces where operations are not confined to Assault Area and to remove them from some classes of aircraft will cause doubt.

If it is decided to remove wing markings concede that this should be done in as short a time as possible and all concerned then informed.

Somewhat later, on August 7, 1944, HQ Twelfth Army Group (signed Bradley), sent SHAEF Forward the following signal:

Reference SHGCT dated 30 July 1944. This Headquarters concurs in the proposed change of distinctive aircraft markings as contained therein.

Change No. 4 to the Op. Memo No. 13, dated October 13, 1944 ordered the removal of all stripes on Allied aircraft, but on October 25, 1944, a TWX from USSTAF to the various fighter commands stated that:

The present method of applying distinctive markings on your fighters authorized by SHAEF. By this authority you are autho­rized to disregard instructions contained in change no. 4 to Operations Memorandum No. 13 (29 April 1944) of HQ ETOUSA dated 13 October 1944.

Distinctive Markings on single and twin engined aircraft will be as follows:

(A) The under, repeat, under surface of fuselages of single engined aircraft will be painted with five (5) parallel white and black stripes, each eighteen (18) inches wide, with the outside edge of the rearmost band eighteen (18) inches from the leading edge of the tailplane.

(B) The under, repeat, under surface of twin engined aircraft will be painted with five (5) parallel white and black stripes, each twenty-four (24) inches wide, with the outside edge of the rearmost band eighteen (18) inches from the leading edge of the tailplane.

In other words, this meant that the stripes now disappeared from the top of the wings and fuselages of all fighter type aircraft.

The requirements for the distinctive aircraft markings did not come up again until December 5, 1944, when SHAEF MAIN from Robb (RAF Air Marsha] J. M. Robb, Deputy Chief of Staff (Air)), sent the following message to “MED Allied Air Force for Slessor and Bottomley”:

Reference MAAF Signal dated December 2. (not retained in this file – author). Identification difficulties have also been experi­enced in this theatre, and several incidents have occurred recently involving attacks by American fighters against friendly aircraft, sometimes with fatal results. The P. R. Wing aircraft, especially Mosquitoes of Second TAF, have been the chief victims of such attacks and CONINGHAM’s request that the aircraft of this wing be allowed to retain the distinctive striped markings used for OVERLORD operations in order to facilitate identification has been agreed.

CONINGHAM has recommended that the standard RAF markings be made more distinctive on operational aircraft by widen­ing the yellow ring surrounding the roundels. Agree that this is the best arrangement for fighters and fighter bombers which operate low down but prefer your proposals for remaining day types.

If approved request Air Ministry initiate action.

Final action on SHAEF Operation Memorandum Number 23 came the next day, December 6, 1944, when SHAEF released the following document:

This is the First Suspcnsion/Cancellation of a SHAEF OPERATION MEMORANDUM.

SUSPENSION OF OPERATION MEMORANDUM NUMBER 23, 6th December, 1944

DISTINCTIVE MARKINGS – AIRCRAFT

1. The provisions of Supreme Headquarters, AEF, Operation Memorandum No.23, Distinctive Markings – Aircraft, are suspended effective December 31st, 1944.

2. Except as noted in sub-paragraph 4d. below, distinctive markings will be removed where this can be done without damage to the aircraft and with due regard to the materials and time available for this work.

3. Addressees will ensure complete dissemination of the pertinent provisions of this suspension by the quickest pos­sible means consistent with security.

4. All Commanders will particularly ensure that personnel under their command are instructed that:-

a. The fact that an aircraft of allied manufacture is seen without distinctive markings does NOT necessarily indicate that the aircraft is hostile.

b. For some time Allied aircraft may still be seen carrying distinctive markings, which, with the exception of those in sub-paragraph d below, should now be disregarded.

c. Faded striping under certain conditions of light closely resembles the German cross.

d. For the purposes of facilitating identification by other friendly aircraft all of the photo reconnaissance aircraft of Number 34 Wing, Second Tactical Air Force will be painted with standard invasion markings until such time as all recipients of this instruction are notified by Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Second Tactical Air Force.

5. The removal of these distinctive markings in no way affects the presently prescribed national markings, which will continue to be carried on aircraft.

6. In future, should there be a requirement for distinctive markings, application will be made to this Headquarters.

By Command of General EISENHOWER.

Thus ended the saga of the now famous “invasion stripes.” Frankly, they were a testament to the sad state of aircraft recognition throughout the armed forces (on both sides) and that most armed men would rather take the risk of shooting down one of their own aircraft rather than letting a doubtful type escape (the author taught aircraft recognition throughout WWII and later served with the Royal Observer Corps in England, so he was very familiar with the problem). The problem persists to this time, under the euphemism of “friendly fire.”

UNIT INSIGNIA

These unit insignia are of four famous Fighter Groups and some of their Squadrons, assigned to the Kth Air Force in England, during 1942-1945. The 20th FG was in the 67th Fighter Wing of the 1st Air Division, the 55th and 78th FGs were in the 66th Fighter Wing of the 3rd Air Division, and the 56th was in the 65th Fighter Wing of the 2nd Air Division. Note that the insignia shown here arc the WW2 ones, and have been superseded by later ones in some cases. The insignia of the 3rd Air Division HQ completes the page.

These insignia are from four Fighter Groups and one Bomb Group of the 18th Air Force. The 353rd FG and 357th FG were part of the 66th Fighter Wing, of the 3rd Air Division, the 355th FG part of the 2nd Air Division, and the 356th FG part of the 67th Fighter Wing, 1st Air Division, The 91st BG was part of the 1st Combat Bomb Wing, 1st Air Division.

These insignia are all from 8th Air Force units, except for the 44th BS, 40th BG which was assigned to the 20th Air Force, initially in India and then on Tinian Island. This unit used B-29s. The 34th BG was assigned to the 93rd Combat Bomb Wing, 3rd Air Division, the 92nd BG to the 40th Combat Bomb Wing, 1st Air Division, the 93rd BG to the 20th Combat Bomb Wing, 2nd Air Division, and the 94th BG was part of the 4th Combat Bomb Wing, 3rd Air Division.

The 95th BG served with the 13th Combat Bomb Wing, and the 96th BG with the 45th Combat Bomb Wing, both assigned to the 3rd Air Division. The 303rd BG served with the 41st Combat Bomb Wing, and the 306th BG with the 40th Combat Bomb Wing, both of the 1st Air Division. The 13th, 22nd, and 27th PRS units were part of the 7th PRG. All units were part of the 8th Air Force. Final four insignia are from the often forgotten support units, also of the 8th Air Force.

lb. The listing of products in this bulletin does not waive the inspection requirements of the specification. The furnishing of paint which proves to be unequal to the test samples submitted, may be sufficient cause for removing the product and the manufacturer’s name from the list.

2. The failure of a product furnished by the parent company or any authorized plant or affiliate will result in the removal of the product from the approved list and thus prohibit the furnishing of the material by either the parent company and its plants or affiliates until such time as satisfactory requalification has been completed by the parent company.

Color photographs reproduced with varying degrees of accuracy in various books and magazines during the last fifty years have been offered as evidence of variations in USAAF standard colors, not to mention such fanciful creations as bright blue P-5 Is in the Eighth Air Force in England.

These variations are mainly due to indifferent color separations and/or variation of inks used in the color printing process. The author has not found any evidence of such color variations in viewing original USAAF color material. Variations from regulation paint schemes and colors did exist in the field, particularly in the early days of the Pacific war theater, but this was under dire combat conditions and most decidedly not the norm for the USAAF.

The War Department’s original standard for paint and related materials, for use by the Army and all of its branches, was specification No. 3-1, dated November 28, 1919, but it was not made mandatory for use by the Air Service until July 19, 1922. The relevant portion of the “General Conditions” stated:

This general specification relates to and is a part of each and every War Department specification for paints and related materials except as may be otherwise specifically stated in such individual specification.

Also:

Color designations in War Department specifications and publications refer to the color chart attached. Flat or gloss finish when specified shall take precedent over the finish which the color card may present. Requirements for color include those for shade and tone.

Enclosed with the specification was a color card, entitled, “Color Card Referred to in general specification for Paint and Related Materials,” and titled “Supplement to No. 3-1 and Revisions thereof.” This color card had a long life, for it was not superseded by a later one until April 1943.

Although the color card showed twenty-four different glossy color chips, it did not include either black or white. Of the twenty-four colors, only Flat Bronze Green, Color Chip 9 was still being used by the AAF (as an anti-glare coating) in 1941. Alt other colors (these being solely gloss colors) had been superseded by those in the joint Army-Navy Porcelain Color Plates, issued in September 1938

Army-Navy Porcelain Plates, September 1938

Sets of the new joint Army-Navy porcelain enamel (gloss) aircraft color standards were issued to the major paint manufacturers at the end of June 1938.The letter to the manufacturers stated:

These plates are standard for both services and arc to be used for the color control of all paint materials furnished the Air Corps or Air Corps’ contractors on and after September 1, 1938, unless the shade represented by the former Army Porcelain Enamel Color Plates is specified for the purpose of completing an existing order.

With the exception of the Light Blue shade now represented by the True Blue plate, the colors are in quite close agreement with the former Standards and will require only slight pigment modifications to effect the change.

Paints produced in colors represented by the Lemon Yellow, Willow Green and Aircraft Gray are not used by the Air Corps. International Orange has been used only in ready mixed paints for obstacle markings and Cream for dope in accordance with Spec. 3-159.

These porcelain plates probably represent the most accurate method in physical form of matching colors and surviving sets were still in use in the mid-1960s for supplying paint to the services, despite the many changes made to the later color standards issued since 1938. Each set of the porcelain enamel standards contained fifteen plates of the following shades:

Development of the AAF Camouflage Colors

The AAF camouflage color standards were the same as those developed for the Air Corps’ combat aircraft. These had resulted in the issue of Bulletin No. 41, Color Card for Camouflage Finishes, on September 16, 1940. However, development of the necessary flat camou­flage colors had begun as early as 1926 with the use of commercial water color paints mixed to suit local conditions.

As a result, a new specification, No. 14057, “Paint, Water, Dry,” was issued on April 3, 1931 to cover the use of such temporary camouflage finishes. No colors were originally specified, the specification merely stating that the colors should be mixed to match those specified in the color card supplement to 3-1, the only color being used at that time being olive drab,

As tests continued on the temporary camouflage finishes several suitable colors were evolved, culminating in the issue of Spec. 14057- C, on December 27,1939. This listed the same colors as previously and added a new shade No. 34, Rust Brown, intended to provide an additional color for use in autumn camouflage. The shades, together with the associated Munsell Color Notation, were as follows:

(Note: the Munsell Notations were changed completely from the 1929 ones to the current (post 1942) one, so it is only possible to check these color shades against a 1929 edition of the colors; the author had access to a 1929 edition to check the actual color shades. It is worth noting that this was the first use of Munsell Color Notations in an official Air Corps specification).

Spec. 14057-C continued to be used by the USAAF and was not finally canceled until 1954, although it had long since ceased to be used prior to that date.

Bulletin No. 41 Color Card issued, September 1940

One of the chief items studied in the development of permanent camouflage finishes for the Air Corps, under Study No. 42, was suitable matt shades of color for the camouflage. Tests were run on various shades, using water paint and other types of lacquer and enamel finishes then being developed simultaneously. The results of Study No. 42 culminated in the issue of the Air Corps Bulletin No. 41, dated September 16,1940 (one day after the decisive combat between the Royal Air Force and the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain). Entitled “Color Card for Camouflage Finishes,” it contained eight card color chips, each one inch by three inches (2.54 x 7.62 cm) in size. The new colors were:

This volume covers the history and development of how and why the US Army Air Forces finished and marked their aircraft, between 1941 and 1947. The US Army Air Forces was formed out of the earlier unsatisfactory command structure, when in March 1941, the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, directed that action be taken to place the existing Air Corps and Army Air Force Com­bat Command (which had replaced the earlier GHQ Air Force) un­der one command. Shortly after this, he revived the office of Assis­tant Secretary of War for Air; the new secretary, Robert A. Lovett, proceeded to promote increased aircraft production and to stream­line the Army air arm.

The resulting reorganization created the new Army Air Forces (note the plural form of the title) on June 20, 1941 with General H. H. Arnold appointed as its Chief, directly responsible to the Army Chief of Staff. The new AAF was superior to the Air Corps and the Air Force Combat Command. Under Arnold, Maj. Gen. George H. Brett, the new Chief of the Air Corps, and Lt. Gen. Delos C. Emmons, commanding general of the Air Force Combat Command, were made responsible for service and combat functions, respec­tively.

However, it soon became apparent that there were still defects in the new organization, but it was not until early in 1942 that these were finally rectified by making the AAF a virtually autonomous force within the War Department. These changes had been made possible by official recognition of the major part airpower had played in the Nazi conquest of Europe, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

As a result, a new War Department Circular, No. 59, was is­sued on March 2,1942, effective on March 9,1942. This abolished the Army GHQ, and placed the AAF on the same level as the ground army, if not as that of the Army itself. The earlier Office of the Chief of the Air Corps and the Air Force Combat Command were abolished. Despite this new directive, Gen. Arnold still obtained most of his authority, as head of an all-but independent air force, from being a member of the American-British Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) and the American Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), formed in February, 1942.

However, this new command structure did get the AAF a posi­tion commensurate with its growing size and power. This resulted in Gen. Arnold and the AAF assuming a role in the war effort far greater than that prescribed in War Department Circular No. 59. This finally reached a point where the AAF reached a quasi-equal­ity with the Army and Navy, as compared to its actual legal status of equality with the Army ground and service forces.

Very rapid growth of the AAF resulted in the formation of no less than sixteen separate Air Forces world-wide. First of these were the Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, and Southwest Air Forces, within those areas of the continental USA. These soon became the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Air Forces. The Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Twentieth Air Forces served in the Chinese-Burma-Pacific theaters; the Eighth, Ninth, Twelfth, and Fifteenth in the Europe-Mediterranean theaters; the Sixth in the Panama Canal Zone, and the Eleventh in Alaska. The Eighth Air Force was re-deployed to the Pacific theater in 1945, after the end of the war in Europe.

Other specialized commands were eventually formed, includ­ing the Technical Training Command and the FlyingTraining Com­mand (these were later merged into a single Training Command), Air Corps Maintenance Command, and the Air Corps Ferrying Com­mand (this eventually became the Air Transport Command).

At the peak of its strength, the AAF had no less than 2,411,294 men in service, and 78,757 aircraft in its inventory. There were no less than 243 active groups in service by April 1945, and 224 of these were overseas. After the end of the war, the reduction in strength was very rapid and only 303,600 men remained in the ser­vice by May 1947. Less than four months later the AAF was re­placed by the new, independent, US Air Force, on September 18, 1947. Planning for this event had actually begun in 1943, but it took all of this time before the Air Force finally became an equal partner with the Army and Navy.

To make the subject matter of this volume more manageable and understandable, it has been broken down into seven chapters and two appendices. Chapter 1 covers 1941, Chapter 2 1942, Chap­ter 3 1943, Chapter 4 1944, Chapter 5 1945-1947. Each of these chapters fully covers, in chronological order, the development of standard aircraft color schemes and finishes, development of cam­ouflage color schemes and finishes, evolution of the national insig­

nia, the markings for airplanes and airplane parts, unit insignia and tactical markings, and the evolution of standard color shades.

Chapter 6 covers briefly the development of the colorful Com­bat Aircraft Distinctive Markings for the Eighth Air Force in En­gland, the special SHAEF “Invasion Stripes, and Unit Insignia”. Chapter 7 covers the development and usage of the standard USAAF aircraft color shades.

Appendix A covers the aircraft designation system used throughout the life of the AAF, and Appendix В covers the various aircraft maintenance markings used.

Photographs and color drawings have been included in each chapter and appendix, where applicable, to illustrate the applica­tion of the requirements to aircraft. Some photographs also illus­trate mistakes or incorrect application of the requirements. With the vast number of aircraft used by the AAF, it is only possible to display a representative selection of their photographs, and the reader should also make use of the large number of titles published on the AAF for further reference. However, much incorrect or misleading information has been published on the subject of this book; readers are advised to use their discretion and make use of the official in­formation contained in this volume.

All of the data in the text has been extracted from a huge vari­ety of official documents, specifications, technical orders, memo­randum, etc. produced by the AAF during the period covered by this volume. The AAF used a logical, uniform numbering system for all of its specifications, and all of the earlier aircraft ones fell into category 98-XX or 99-XX. The official nomenclature has been used throughout, including the various changes it went through. To save space, the reference “Specification Number” has been short­ened to "Spec.”. In contrast to many other publications on this spe­cialized subject, the author has given the full text of the main offi­cial documents. This allows the reader to follow the requirements laid down for USAAF personnel to follow, and those levied on the huge number of manufacturers involved during the war. In many of these requirements, the needs of our Allies also had to be consid­ered and, indeed, there were many joint committees formed for just such needs.

Most of the time, the new USAAF cooperated very closely with its chief ally, the older British Royal Air Force, to their mutual benefit. However, as one reads the history of these events, it be­comes apparent that there were two areas in which there appears to have been a degree of unwarranted chauvinism on the part of cer­tain USAAF personnel. The first one was the tremendously slow effort to use white camouflage on the Anti-Submarine Command’s aircraft, like the RAF Coastal Command had been using very suc­cessfully for some time. In fact, the white scheme was not adopted until just before the USAAF handed over this duty to the US Navy.

The second area was the paint and colors to be used on the USAAF long range, high flying, Lockheed F-5 reconnaissance air­craft. Much effort was expended on the so-called haze paint schemes, but in the end various synthetic blue colors were used. This was despite the existence of well-developed color schemes in use by the RAF for the same duties. The discrepancy in this area is height­ened by the later use of totally undocumented blue colors on vari­ous Consolidated F-7 (B-24 modified) aircraft for use in the Pa­cific. These color discrepancies were all the more surprising in view of the existence of the joint Army-Navy committee that issued the joint ANA 157 and 166 color bulletins. However, such events were very unusual, and contrary to the normal cooperation in effect until the end of the war.

To avoid confusion, all dates have been converted to the month/ day/year format. Some of the official nomenclature may seem strange, such as the use of the French word "cocarde” for the “star – in-circie” insignia in Specification 24114 of October 1940, but this was the official term used until the issue of the joint Army-Navy Spec. AN-I-9 in 1943.

To fully understand the use of the official documentation, it is necessary to realize that specifications were mandatory for use by both contractors and the service, while technical orders and techni­cal instructions were only applicable within the service. However, waivers or deviations could be obtained by contractors in specific situations, when agreed to by the service. Although all of the speci­fications, etc., are dated, it did not necessarily mean that the re­quirement went into effect immediately, unless a mandatory com­pliance date was included. Effects of this lag in applying require­ments are called out in the text, where known.

To clarify and coordinate the mass of data generated between 1941 and 1947, charts covering the specifications, technical orders, color specifications, etc., issued during each year, will be found near the front of Chapters 1 through 5.

These charts allow complete correlation of all of the service marking and color requirements for any given period, as detailed in each of the Chapters. To make it easier to find specific references in the text, many sub-headings indicate the more important data in all chapters. To save space, and endless repetition, several have been used in the captions to the photographs; these will be found in the list of abbreviations.

The publisher has decided to print the numerous standard USAAF color shades, rather than using inserted color chips. Every effort has been made to make the printed color shades as accurate as possible: those whose needs require the highest possible accu­racy in color shades are requested to contact the author, via the publisher,

The author is aware that it has not been possible to include all of the available data in this volume; for example, it was found that the data for the section on the very colorful Combat Aircraft Dis­tinctive Markings was so extensive that, after consultation with the publisher, it was decided to publish it later, as a separate work. Nevertheless, the author believes that this work covers a subject long demanding this kind of attention and has done his best to sat­isfy the objective; any errors that may be in this volume are his responsibility. He hopes that the reader will enjoy the volume and that they will inform him of any corrections or additions that may come to light.

USAAF Time Line — National Star Insignia

1941

Insignia Spec. no. 241102-K July 20, 1941 to May 28, 1942

1942

Insignia Spec. ПО.24102-К Amend. #3 May 28, 1942 to June 29,1943

Allied invasion of North Africa Novembers, 1942

1943

Variation with 2 inch yellow outline, 8th AF. op. memo no. 9, October 1, 1942 Also used in North Africa.

Insignia to AN-l-9a June 29.1943 to August 14, 1943

Insignia to AN-l-9b August 14, 1943 to January 14, 1947

Insignia Spec. no. AN-1-9b, Amend.#2 January 14, 1947 to September 26, 1947

USAAF becomes US AIR FORCE September 26, 1947

The Prod. Div. (WF) informed the Martin Omaha, Nebraska, plant of the paint scheme for use on B-26s destined for desert use. Sand shade enamel was to be used instead of, or over the existing Olive Drab shade, but there was no change to the Neutral Gray under surface color. All upper surface fabric-covered parts were to be painted with Sand color dope.

Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF) test camouflage on B-29 stainless steel wings, August 1,1942.

Tests were run by the Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF) to determine the value of camouflage finishes on stainless steel wings for B-29s. They found that camouflage finishes on stainless steel were equal to similar finishes on aluminum coated aluminum alloy. Their report also indicated that the methods used for cleaning the metal surfaces, prior to the application of paint, was satisfactory for stainless steel (note: B-29s did not use stainless steel for the production aircraft, because satisfactory aluminum alloys were available-author).

Douglas Company asked to delete “U. S. Army” lettering under the wings of all camouflaged aircraft, August 10,1942.

Wright Field requested the Douglas Company to delete the words “U. S. Army” from the underside of all camouflaged aircraft. They requested that immediate action be taken to remove this wording on the undersurfaces of camouflaged wings for models C-53, C-54, C – 54A, and C-74 airplanes (this was a very early mention of the C-74 – author).

T. O. 07-1-IB revision issued on August 15, 1942, covering use of Medium Green blotches, deletion of “U. S. Army” under wings and the use of decals for organization insignia.

A revised version, T. O.07-1-1B, was issued on August 15, 1942, and added paras. l.f.(l)(c) and revised paras 5.a., 6, and 7.e.

l. _f. Use of Special Color of Camouflage Materials.

(1) The basic camouflage scheme in permanent camouflage materials for Army Air Forces airplanes is as follows: **********************#*************#*#*$*******************************

(c) Medium green, shade No. 42 in splotches or patches along the leading edges, tips and trailing edees of the wing, vertical and horizontal stabilizers and rudders.

1. Application should be made so that the continuity in appearance of the wing, stabilizer, and rudder outlines

is broken.

2. The size of the splotches, or stripes should extend inward from the edges at various distances ranging from 0 to 20 per cent of the width of wing, stabilizer or rudder member.

5. Markings.

a. The markings for all military aircraft will be in accordance with Spec. 98-24105 (airplanes), or 99-2050 (lighter – than-air aircraft) except that on camouflaged airplanes the marking “U. S. Army” on the under surface of wing will be omitted.

6. Standard Insignia. – Standard military insignia will be placed and maintained on each airplane as outlined in Spec. 98­24102, or Spec. 24114 (airplane camouflage) which includes the following:

a. The new insignia is a five pointed white star within a blue circle.

b. All rudder stripes will be eliminated and color of rudder will be the same as the upper surfaces of the fuselage except as noted in para. l. f.(l)(c).

c. Decalcomania transfers may be used if desired, (for application of decalcomanias on airplanes assigned to Air Service Command see T. O. No. 01-1-21.)

7. e. Decalcomania Insignia. – Where personnel are not available to print organization insignia in a satisfactory manner, the use of decalcomania insignia on airplanes is authorized. (Eland or sprav painting of the new Air Service Command Insignia is not authorized – see T. O. No. 01-1-21.) Owing to the local nature of their usage, however, it will be necessary for organizations (except the Air Service Command) desiring to use these transfers to obtain them by local purchase. Their application does not require skilled workmen. Instructions for applying decalcomanias are furnished by the manufacturer. They should be stored in a dry place where they will not be exposed to temperature above normal.

First production Lockheed F-5 haze painted, August 21, 1942.

The Prod. Eng. Sect (WF) told the Photo Lab. Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF) that the first production F-5 aircraft had been given a coat of haze paint, which had failed to meet expectations, possibly due to improper application. The Material Center (WF) had been made responsible for the testing this aircraft. Problems continued with the application of the haze paint to production F-5 aircraft and the in-flight results were very variable. It was thought that the properties of the original Cabot haze paint were responsible for the poor results, but testing done with haze paint produced by two other companies were also disappointing. Eglin Field eventually produced a Final Report on October 23, 1942, entitled “Test of Haze Paint” (see later in this chapter-author).

North American 0-47A, 37-327, finished in Dark Olive Drab and Neutral Gray, is seen with the new insignia. These obsolete aircraft were used for coastal reconnaissance patrols until other aircraft were available. (USAF)

Cuitiss P-40E. Close up view of Col. Robert L. Scott’s aircraft in China on September IS, 1942. This shows crew chief J. R. Hill pointing to Col. Scott’s five kills on the side of the airplane. By this lime the American Volunteer Group (AVGl had become the 23rd FG of the L4th AF in China. (USAF)

Curtiss C-46-CU, 41-5180, is one of the initial production model built as troop transports. This is aircraft no.21 of the first batch of 25. (llarry Gann)

The local situation in Northwest Africa caused the HQ. Northwest African Air Forces to issue instructions for changing the basic camou­flage on all aircraft in its command. These instructions contained information on new camouflage patterns for P-38, P-40, A-20, B-25,

B-24, and B-17 aircraft. These patterns were to be applied by spray gun, using paint mixed with gasoline! Seven colors were called out from an existing US Army, Corps of Engineers Color Specification. These instructions were not generally known outside of the theater and the accompanying color drawings are being published for the first time. The document read as follows:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AIRCRAFT CAMOUFLAGE
NORTHWEST AFRICAN THEATER.

Color

General (This color combination will be used on all aircraft except those noted under Special Cases.)

A – Field Drab

В – Olive Drab. (If airplane is already painted in Olive Drab, do not apply new coat unless necessary for maintenance). C – l/8th pint Blue plus one gallon White.

Special (These color combinations will be used when color of plane standing areas have a decided color accent of one color, such as red, yellow, green or sand.

RED

A – (1/2 Earth Yellow) + (1/2 Earth Red)

В – Earth Brown

C – (1/8 pint Blue) + (one gallon White)

YELLOW

A – (2/3 Earth Yellow) + (1/3 Field Drab)

В – Earth Brown

C – (1/8 pint Blue) + (one gallon White)

GREEN

A – Light Green В – Olive Drab

C – (1/8 pint Blue) + (one gallon White)

LIGHT SAND f Desert 1 A – Sand

В – Sand (if area is all sand color)

Field Drab (if area is spotted)

C – (1/8 pint Blue) + (one gallon White)

Note: All colors specified are according to Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army tentative specifications No. T-1213, Dec. 15,1941, Amendment #1 Feb. 5, 1942.

The eight color chips shown in the document were:

2/3 EARTH YELLOW + 1/3 FIELD DRAB. LIGHT GREEN

1/2 EARTH RED + 1/2 EARTH YELLOW. OLIVE DRAB

FIELD DRAB EARTH BROWN

SAND 1/8 PINT BLUE + ONE GAL. WHITE

APPLICATION OF PAINT Paint used will have a dull surface when dry.

Paint will be sprayed on just heavy enough to cover the surface with a solid coat of color.

Paint will be sprayed solid up to the pattern line and then shaded out into the next color.

The following sketch shows how this is accomplished, (omitted—author)

TRANSFER OF PATTERN

Mark off, on airplane, two foot squares with a snap line/chalk.

Sketch in the pattern line appearing in each of the squares, checking with corresponding square on the pattern plan.

On curved surfaces, such as the fuselage, the pattern will have to be sketched freehand. The following sketch shows how this is to be accomplished, (omitted—author)

PATTERN DESIGN

The pattern designs shown on Sheets 1 to 6 may be used directly; however, additional camouflage patterns will have to be designed, as the repetition of one pattern on one type of plane will result in a dangerous eye attraction. Use the suggested pat­terns as a guide in making additional designs, keeping in mind the following points:

(a) Scale of spots: Relate them to the size of the airplane, using the suggested designs as a guide.

(b) Shape of spots: Keep them irregular and varied in form. Avoid any recognizable shape, such as a square, diamond, heart, circle, etc.

(c) Size of spots: No two spots should be the same size.

(d) Placement of spots: Locate the spots in such a manner that the wing, fuselage, tail and rudder surfaces are broken by the darker patches. It will be of assistance to work up new designs in the same scale as the suggested sketches, follow­ing the instructions previously given in transferring the pattern to the airplane.

CAUTION!!

Spray painting with gasoline mixed paints must be done outdoors or in an extremely well ventilated building. Precautions must be taken with flames and lighted cigarettes.

Issued by Headquarters, North West African Air Forces,

Engineers – Section, U. S.A. P.0.650 Drawn by H. W. T. and C. R.H. date 10th March 1943.

50% EARTH YELLOW 50% EARTH RED

This is the only recorded in-theater change of USAAF aircraft camouflage and was undoubtedly the result of the sharp German reaction to the Allied Forces advance towards Tunisia. On February 14, 1943, the Germans launched a powerful counter-attack from the Faid Pass in Tunisia, breaking through to the Kasserine Pass, They made many heavy attacks on the desert air bases and these were probably the cause of the above camouflage changes. Photographs of the time show that it was chiefly the A-20, B-25, and P-40 units that adopted the new camouflage.

No photographs seem to have come to light showing the recommended camouflage on P-38, B-17, or B-24 aircraft. Variations of the recommended camouflage have been seen on many A-20 aircraft, particularly those of the 47th BG, stationed at Canrobert, Algeria, during March, 1943.

Another report by Eglin Field, No. 3-42-106, “Test of Camouflage for Photographic Airplanes at Extremely High Altitudes”, was re­leased on September 22, 1943. It is yet another of the missing reports referred to previously, so we are not sure of the contents. However, we do know that Lockheed finally painted all of the later production F*5As and F-5Bs in a single color synthetic blue haze paint. Later F – 5s were converted from P-38 aircraft at modification centers. It is not known what colors the converted aircraft were painted in, but refer to the entry dated October 16, 1943 (later in this chapter), covering the painting of F-7 aircraft in two shades of blue.

Consolidated B-24J-25-CO, 42-73250, is seen on a test flight, with the red outline insignia in mid-1943. (Convair)