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:

On May 27, 1942, the Prod. Eng. Sect.(WF), teletyped the Prod. Eng. Sect. (Wash.) that:

In reference to requirements for application of Desert Camouflage to aircraft for 98th Bomb Group project, it is intended to apply permanent camouflage enamel conforming to Air Corps Spec. 14109 of the same color as water color Sand, Chart No. 26. It is also intended to apply this enamel in a solid color coat over the existing Olive drab camouflage and that the under surfaces will remain neutral gray as they are at present.

In-as-much as present instructions at the Material Center concerning camouflage of this type are not definitive, this information is furnished in order that the proper authority may be informed.

(Note: the 98th Bomb Group (Heavy) initially consisted of 35 B-24Ds, They were sent from Morrison Field, Florida, between 17 and 30 July, via the southern ferry route to their Middle East base at Ramat David, Palestine. They went into action on August 1, 1942).

Application of Haze paint to F-4 aircraft reviewed, May 27,1942.

The Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF), reviewed the painting of eight F-4 aircraft of the 5th and 9th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadrons at Felts Field, Spokane, WA. They found that experienced painters, even if unfamiliar with the principal of haze paint application, could quite easily accomplish the work, under proper supervision.

Deletion of “U. S.ARMY” from below wings ordered, May 28,1942.

The AAF directed that the lettering “U. S. Army” be removed from the bottom of wings of camouflaged airplanes then in service and those being produced. All manufacturers were notified that the lettering was no longer desired, and the Material Center was ordered to elimi­nate the requirement from appropriate specifications.

Spec. 98-24102-K, Amendment No. 3 changes insignia requirements, May 28, 1942.

The design of the insignia was now changed to reflect the requirements of the War Department Circular of May 12th. The following now applied:

Lockheed P-38F, showing the new Insignia to 24102-K, amendment no.3, on left wing. Note the condition of the paint on booms aft of the turbo­superchargers, caused by their exhaust. (USAF via Gerry R. Markgraf)

Lockheed P-38F, shows its black number "86E” on nose of cowls, and the red cowl bands behind propellers. It can be seen where the red star was painted out on the fuselage insignia. Note that the insignia is missing from the top of the left wing. (USAF)

Design:

(1) . Training Aircraft. – The design of the insignia shall be a red circle inside of a white five pointed star, inside of a blue circumscribed circle as shown in Figure I. The circumference of the inner red circle shall be tangent to the lines forming a pentagon made by connecting the inner points of the star.

(2) . Combat Aircraft. – The design shall be the same as that described in para

a. (1) for training aircraft except that the circle inside of the five pointed star shall be eliminated and the entire star shall be white. The colors were to conform to the A-N Aircraft Color Standards.

For rudders, the spec, now read:

(1) . Training Aircraft. – The insignia on the rudder shall consist of one blue stripe parallel to the rudder post and 13 alternate red and white stripes parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane as shown in Figure 2.

(2) Combat Aircraft. – The rudders of combat aircraft shall bear no insignia.

Mil. Keq. Policy No. IS, Supply. 1, defines standard basic camouflage, May 29,1942.

A supplement to Mil. Req, Policy No, 15, dated May 29, 1942, set forth the standard basic camouflage for all operational aircraft produced in the U. S. Manufacturers were to apply the olive drab paint to top surfaces and neutral gray to lower surfaces of the aircraft and all lines of demarcation were to be eliminated as much as possible.

A memo issued by the Material Center, WF, on June 8, 1942, further stated that haze paint for special photographic aircraft would be provided if desired and that ail training aircraft should be camouflaged as directed by Theaters of Operations. In order to avoid confusion as to the term operational aircraft, JAC approved on June 12,1942, limitation of this term to apply only to USAAF land based aircraft, with the exception of amphibians.

The first change of 1943 came in the form of T. O. 07-1-1A, dated January 9, 1943, but it was only a minor one. It stated that, under “Camouflaging of Propeller”, that no attempt was to be made to camouflage wood propellers.

Spec, 98-24105-Q, Amendment No. 2 changes color for radio call numbers, January 13, 1943.

There had been some confusion as to how the radio call numbers were to be derived from the aircraft serial numbers. This was because the instructions had slated that the radio call number should start with the last number of the year the aircraft was manufactured, whereas the serial number began with the fiscal year in which the aircraft had been ordered. This led to some duplication of radio call numbers on different aircraft, primarily because the year of manufacture was not necessarily the same year as shown in the serial number. For example, a serial number assigned in 1941, such as 41-2345 and manufactured in 1942, would have a serial number of 41-2345 and a radio call number of 22345, which was incorrect and should have been 12345. Para. E-6A was changed to read as follows:

E-6A. Each airplane shall have a radio call number painted on its vertical tail surfaces. The radio call number shall consist of at least four numerals and shall be determined in the following manner: The first numeral and the hyphen shall be omitted from the serial number of the airplane, using zero where necessary between the year designated and the serial number to make at least four numerals.

Renumbered Paragraph E-6D, “Camouflaged Airplanes”. – Delete the last sentence of this paragraph and substitute the following:

For light colored backgrounds, the numbers shall be black in accordance with color chip No. 44 of Army Air Forces Bulletin No. 41, and for dark backgrounds, the numbers shall be yellow in accordance with color chip No. 48 of Army Air Forces Bulletin No.41,

Many manufacturers had asked for clarification of the color requirements in Spec. 24105-0 for the radio call numbers on dark back­grounds, because although T. O.07-1-1 called out yellow for these, the spec had required either red or black. This new amendment corrected this to require the use of yellow only.

The same day that the revised version of AN-19a introduced the new rectangular bar insignia, HQ. AAF issued a revision to T. O. 07-1­1, which stated that:

The work directed herein will be accomplished immediately by service activities with the aid of sub-depots, if necessary. Under para. 4. STANDARD INSIGNIA., it stated:

a. A cocarde of new design as described below will be placed on all aircraft of the AAF immediately. (Refer to figure 11.)

(1) A five pointed white star within a blue circle (as formerly),

(2) The straight line formed by the top edges of the two star points which are located to the left and right respectively of the upper star point, will be extended outward a distance equal to 1 radius of the circle on either side. Draw lines perpendicu­lar to this line at each end and extending downward for a distance equal to 1/2 the radius of the circle. Draw lines parallel to the above horizontal line from the ends of the two perpendicular lines until they intersect the circle. The bars thus created will be painted white.

(3) Using a width which is 1/8 the radius of the circle, describe a border of red around the entire design outlined in paragraphs 4.a.(l) and (2).

At the end of this section of the T. O., the following was added:

NOTE: Existing insignia may be reworked by adding the white rectangular areas and the red border provided that the provisions of paragraphs 4.b. and c. are complied with in so doing.

Results of camouflage speed test sent to Commanding General, Eighth Air Force, England, by HQ. VII! Bomber Command, dated July 1, 1943.

In accordance with the earlier request to delete camouflage from its aircraft, the 1st Bomb Wing ran camouflage speed tests on a B-17F, with its original camouflage applied and then with it removed, to check the improvement, if any, in its speed. The report stated that removal of the camouflage required the removal of all fabric covered surfaces and the engine cowlings before the job could be started. It took 1,300 man-hours to complete the operation, using 155 gallons of paint remover, one bale of rags, and eight pounds of steel wool. It took this much effort because it was the first time it had been done in the field, there was a lack of paint brushes, lack of a sufficiently strong paint remover, and lack of proper stands to facilitate access all over the aircraft. It was considered that fifty gallons of double strength paint remover would be sufficient to do the job if brushes were available instead of rags. B-17F, serial number 42-29780, was used for the tests.

North American B-25H-NA. of the 823rd BF, 38th BG, оГ the 5th Air Force in the Pacific area, shows both its fearsome tiger marking and its 75mm cannon and four 0.5 inch guns in the nose. It is in the normal dark olive drab and neutral gray camouflage. (March AFB Museum)

North American B-25J-1, possibly 43­3892, of the 823rd BS, 38th BG. F ifth Air Force in July 1943. (March AFB Museum)

The results showed that the speed gain varied between 2.3 and 3.2 miles per hour, and it could be expected that a maximum gain of 4-5 miles per hour would result from removing the camouflage paint. In view of the small gain in speed, it was not recommended to remove camouflage paint from operational aircraft. HQ. VIII Bomber command agreed with this recommendation in their letter to the CG., Eighth Air Force. (This small speed increase was in contrast to the earlier assertion that 20 to 25 miles per hour could be gained – author).

T. 0.07-1-1C fixes diameter of the new wing insignia, July 3,1943

A few days after the new insignia was issued, a change was made to the wing insignia size. The new order read : “Diameter of the blue circle will be 75 percent of the distance between the leading edge of the wing and the aileron cut-out except that the circle will not be greater than 60 nor less than 30 inches in diameter.”

Smooth surface camouflage report released, July 9,1943.

Smooth surface camouflage was discussed in a report issued on July 9,1943 by Eng. Div. (WF). The smooth finish, which had been tested at both Eglin Field and WF, was discussed thoroughly. Eglin Field had also issued a final report, No. 3-43-48, dated May 12, 1943, of additional comparative tests, and this was attached to the WF report. The reports concluded that:

A definite gain of from 1% to 2 % in top speed.

There would be no decrease in camouflaging qualities or delay in production if the smoothing operation was properly fitted into the production schedule.

Boeing B-17F-10-BO, 41­24453, aircraft LG-O, and LG-P, of the 322nd BS, 91st BG, in the pre-June 1943 insignia. Note that the hlue-over-yellow out­lined fuselage insignias have been heavily grayed over, unlike those on the wing upper surfaces. Note the heavily-applied me­dium green blotches all over the aircraft. They show up particularly well on the fabric doped sur­faces. (USAF)

In view of these facts, Eng. Div. recommended that all camouflaged combat aircraft be smoothed and the current painting procedures and specs, be modified to require a minimum of smoothing effort. They also recommended that aircraft manufacturers be requested to review their aircraft designs and methods of construction to prevent dents, skin lap joints and poorly fitting doors, as the resulting drag could be greater than that of rough camouflage paint.

Eglin Field run tests on camouflage of bombardment aircraft, July 12,1943.

On July 12, 1943, Eglin Field made an interim report on tests they were running to determine whether or not bombardment aircraft should be camouflaged differently than the basic camouflage for fighter aircraft. The otive drab color had been developed primarily to protect fighters from observation from above. This color was also used on the sides as well as on the top of the aircraft, because the side areas were small and unimportant.

However, on bombardment aircraft, the increased side area made a specific color coloration necessary for those areas, since the dark olive drab on the side areas silhouetted the aircraft against a bright sky when seen from the side.

Eglin Field believed that camouflaging the under surfaces of bombardment aircraft was unimportant, thus the camouflage could be omitted, also saving weight. They recommended that a gray color be used for camouflaging the sides of bombardment aircraft. Their final report, No. 3-43-77, “Test of Daytime Camouflage for Heavy Bombardment Type Aircraft”, was issued on November 12, 1943.

On August 5,1943, Eng. Div. (WF) informed the Mat. Div., (Wash.), that they felt that painting the sides of aircraft was effective in reducing recognition of low flying aircraft, but that olive drab was better camouflage when viewed from an angle above the aircraft. They also believed that the same coloration would not be effective in all situations, and therefore different colors should be used depending, on the background (sky, water, or land) against which the aircraft would be seen, to achieve the best camouflage effect.

Eglin Field reports on test to increase the visibility of training aircraft, July 28, 1943

Report No. 3-43-99, “Test to Increase Visibility of Training Planes”, was issued by Eglin Field on July 28, 1943. Unfortunately, this is another of the missing reports referred to earlier, but we do know that on December 26,1943, a major revision of T. O. 07-1-1 included new requirements for special trainer markings. No other changes were made to trainer markings prior to this time, so it is most likely that these resulted from the Eglin Field test. The changes affected only aircraft used for instrument training and consisted of adding large areas of insignia red to various parts of the trainer aircraft (see paragraph 3f of the revised T. O. 07-1-1 later in this chapter).

Tech. Sub-Committee on Camouflage asked to approve colors for high-altitude aircraft camouflage, August 13,1943.

A memo dated August 13, 1943, was sent to members of the Tech. Sub-Committee on Camouflage telling them that the suggestion that Army, Navy, and British ideas be exchanged, might prove useful in the development of high altitude camouflage. The members were asked to signify their approval of colors to be added to the AN Standard aircraft camouflage colors. (Note: the British already had a wide range of such colors, such as PRU Blue, Sky Blue, Deep Sky, and Dark Mediterranean Blue, developed for use on their high flying fighters and reconnaissance aircraft. In view of the earlier cooperation between the two countries on standardizing camouflage colors, it is surprising that at this date that such a request should have to be made. Possibly, it was a result of the feelings re British type camouflage expressed earlier by the Dir. Mil. Req, – see the entry for July 27,1942, In the event, Lockheed ended up by painting all of the later F-5A aircraft in a color very similar to the RAF PRU Blue – author).

Bob Hope’s entertainment group is shown arriving at Mateur, Tunisia, on August 10, 1943. They were flown in the 325th FGs B – 25 “Passion Flower 2nd”. Lt. Col. Baseler is in the center of the group, with Frances Langford and Bob Hope at the right. (Robert L. Baseler)

North American B-25D-15-NC, 41-30428, is seen with the Twelfth Air Force in North Africa in 1943. The aircraft is camouflaged in the special North West African scheme of March 1943. (March AFB Museum)

a. The exterior of metal fuselages and metal airfoils do not ordinarily require paint as a protection against corrosion (T. O, No. 01-1-2), However, where it is necessary to provide additional protective finish on any parts not made from chromium – coated sheet material, any such unprotected parts will be cleaned with phosphoric acid alcohol cleaner, finished with one coat of zinc chromate primer, Specification No. AN-TT-P-656, and two coats of aluminized lacquer. Aluminized lacquer consists of lacquer, cellulose nitrate, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-L-51, pigmented with 12 ounces per gallon of paste, aluminum pig­ment, Specification No. TT-A-468.

b. Antiglare camouflage olive drab or dull dark green paint is authorized, where necessary, to be applied to top of the fuselage in front of the cockpit and on the inside upper one fourth of the engine nacelle.

c. Exterior plywood surfaces will be finished with two coats of sealer, Specification No. AN-S-17, or on open grained woods, one coat of sealer followed by one coat of surfacer, Specification No. 14115, sanded down, before the final two coats of aluminized varnish. Use 16-20 ounces of pigment, aluminum paste, Specification No. TT-A-468, in each gallon of varnish. Specification No. AN-TT-V-116 or No. AN-TT-V-118.

d. All exterior fabric parts will have a minimum of two brush and two spray coats of clear nitrate dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514 (aluminized dope vehicle AN-TT~D-551 is not a suitable substitute, as it does not have the tautening quali­ties of AN-TT-D514), This will be followed by two or more coats of aluminized dope prepared by adding 8 ounces per gallon of paste, aluminum pigment, TT-A-468, to dope, cellulose nitrate, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-D551, before thinning.

e. Patching will be accomplished with clear dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514, applied in same manner as semipigmented dope previously used.

f. EMERGENCY REJUVENATOR FOR OLD FABRIC. – To one gallon of two to one mix of clear dope, Specifica­tion No. AN-TT-D-514, and blush retarding thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-258, add 1 fluid ounce each of tricrcsyl phos­phate and castor oil. Apply one coatby brush to clean surface, followed by one spray coat. After several hours drying, spray one coat aluminized dope, prepared as specified in paragraph 2,d.

g. For removal of all types of paint material from metal surfaces, use paint and varnish remover, Specification No. 14119, for removal. If not available, lacquer finishes may be removed with material compounded by the following formula: 3 gallons benzene, 2 gallons acetone, 1 pound paraffin wax. For removal of dope from fabric surfaces, use nitrate dope and lacquer thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-256.

1. MARKINGS.

Only such markings and identifying insignia as outlined herein will be used on AAF aircraft except as specifically authorized by the Commanding General, Army Air Forces.

a. Each part and assembly will be permanently and legibly marked the same number as the drawing number in such location, that it can be read after assembly in the unit.(See Specification No. 98-24105.)

b. Various detail and code markings for the cockpit, fuselage, oil lines, etc., as required in Specification No. 98-24105 will be maintained.

c. Radio call numbers of not less than four numbers will be maintained on all AAF aircraft, utilizing both sides or each outboard side, as applicable, of vertical stabilizer and rudder assembly; on all airplanes operating solely within the continental limits of the United States, the radio call numbers will also be placed on the lower surfaces of both wings. These are not required, however, on primary trainers not equipped with radio and which bear field identifying numbers. Wing numerals will be placed with the top forward on the right wing immediately inboard of the insignia and in a corresponding position on the left wing. Call numbers, or designators, will be of a size discernible at a distance of 150 yards. They will be derived by deletion of the first number of the serial number (4) and the hyphen, and the combination of the remaining four or more numerals. In case of serial numbers of type 41-7, use zero as necessary to make four numerals as 1007. Decalcomanias may be used where available.

d. Under no conditions will the letters “U. S. Army” be applied to any airplane lower wing surface,

e. American propeller blades, design Nos. A-2721107 add C-3821306, used in sets in Aeroproducts and Curtiss propel­lers, respectively, will be identified by a yellow stripe, 3/8 inch in width and 3/8 inch inboard of the yellow tip section, A. O. Smith propeller blades used in sets in Curtiss propellers will be identified by two 3/8-inch yellow stripes, one 3/8 inch inboard

of the yellow tip section and the second stripe 3/8 inch inboard from the first. These stripes will extend completely around the blade section.

CAUTION Care will be exercised to mask any angular graduations on the propeller hub or blades. The space between the blade shank and barrel will be masked-off to prevent paint from contacting the seals.

The stenciled markings between the 18- and 24-inch R stations on the cambered side of the propeller blades will be retained.