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 April 9, 1942, tests were run at Halifax, Nova Scotia, to check the visibility of PBY aircraft used for anti-submarine patrol low over water. One PBY was painted flat white, the second was unpainted and the third was in blue-gray finish. It was reported that the test proved unquestionably the effectiveness of white paint on aircraft used for anti-submarine work on sunny days.

As a result, HQ, 1st Bomber Command recommended that camouflage specs, should be changed to provide for the painting of the undersurfaces of anti-submarine aircraft with oyster white lacquer. The necessary materials should be provided to Bomber Command. This recommendation was supported by both the British and American submarine officers.

Further tests were run on April 21, 1942, and it was concluded that a glossy paint might improve the effectiveness, and that de-icer (boots) along wing and tail surfaces also needed to be white. (Note: the request for a white anti-submarine camouflage led to a long, foot­dragging, contest and caused a lot of hard feelings. Not until June 1943, did Materia! Command issue a final report on further tests of the white finish. By that time, it was immaterial, as responsibility for anti-submarine coastal patrols had been handed over to the US Navy. Full details of this can be found in the following pages).

j

11

s ил

гл

Martin B-26B-1-MA, 41-17707, aircraft number 76, was the 164th B-26B of 1,883 built. It is seen painted in the final Sea Search scheme of neutral gray upper surfaces and white lower surfaces. Note the white leading edges of all surfaces. This scheme was developed at Eglin Field. (USAF)

North American XB-28-NA, 40-3056, was developed to replace the B-25, but it was not adopted. It made its first flight in April 1942. The pre­war.’AAF markings are shown on the rudder, together with a very polished natural metal finish. (March AFB Museum)

The Director of Bombardment sent a memo to the CG., Anti-submarine Group, on November 19,1942, stating that extensive tests at the Air Force Proving Ground (Eglin Field) had shown that the best type of camouflage for anti-submarine aircraft was:

Ail undersurfaces and surface of airplane that was in shadow should be painted with Insignia White, No. 46, and all other surfaces Neutral Gray No. 43. A picture was enclosed showing the manner in which the two colors should be applied.

He requested that a study should be made as to the suitability of this type of camouflage for use in the Anti-submarine Command. If they had developed a more effective type of camouflage, he requested that they should forward the information as to the type of paint used and a diagram of the scheme used.

On November 23, 1942, HQ., Anti-submarine Command replied stating that extensive testing had been made on camouflage for submarine search, and a report had been submitted on August 31, 1942, to the Commmanding General, Air Forces Eastern Defense Command. The results obtained were varied, but in general the conclusions reached were generally the same as those reached by the Proving Ground. They felt, therefore, that adequate tests had been made, that the camouflage recommended by the Proving Ground be adopted without delay, and that a technical Order be expedited for the camouflage of all Anti-submarine Command aircraft.

On November 30, 1942, the Commanding Officers of the 25th and 26th Anti-submarine Wings were informed that the Dir. of Mil. Req. had issued authority to camouflage all tactical antisubmarine aircraft as follows:

Under Surfaces – Insignia White No. 4 Upper surfaces – Dark O. D. (no change)

They were also informed that a Technical Order would be published in the near future.

a. Organization insignia will be placed on each side of each lighter-than-air aircraft. The location for observation balloons will be on each side, halfway between the greatest diameterand the leading edges of the horizontal lobes. The locations for spherical balloons will be at points in line with and three feet from each end of the wording “U. S. ARMY.”

b. In no instance will the size of lighter-than-air insignia exceed 9 square feet. The insignia placed on each craft assigned to an organization will be uniform in size. However, this does not require that insignia of different organizations be of the same size.

c. The insignia for alt lighter-than-air aircraft will be painted on two-ply envelope fabric, code No. 101, and securely attached to the envelope with rubber cement. Each sheet of fabric will be neatly trimmed to the minimum size required, and, to insure adhesion, corresponding areas of the aluminum finish will be carefully removed from the envelopes with suitable wire brushes.

This version of the T. O. was the first to be typeset and printed in color. It included a complete set of the colors from Bulletin No. 41, including the addition of Sand, Shade No. 49. There were two further pages, covering the types of materials to be used for applying the camouflage markings and insignia (these have been omitted from this work as being too technical and of limited use). The great improve­ment over the previous versions showed the extent of its use within the AAF, and the industry that supplied the aircraft at this crucial point in the war. All subsequent issues reverted to being in only black and white.

Only two days later, a later version, T. 0.07-1-1A, had to be issued to correct the titles of Figures 1 and 2. These were now amended to read:

Figure 1 – Operation over Predominately Green Terrain Figure 2 – Basic Camouflage.

All references to Figures 1 and 2 in the first section of the T. O. were to be changed to agree with the amended titles (this was obviously a paste-up error in the production of the document).

Tests show that the newly standardized JAC olive drab did not meet the reflectance requirements. Testing continued to correct the problem. June 25,1943.

Numerous tests had been made by Eglin Field to determine the reflection factor of the standard dark olive drab camouflage paint, and they advised Mat. Com. (WF) on June 5, 1943, of the results. Eng. Div. (WF) used these test as a basis and found that the original Dark Olive Drab Shade No. 41 had a reflectance of 7.8, but that the new Olive Drab standardized by the JAC (without Mat. Com. (WF) assistance), had a reflectance of 9.4. This exceeded the recommended 8.0%, and testing was under way to reduce it to the required value.

Material Command Report on camouflaging of Anti-Submarine Aircraft, June 23,1943.

Report No. ENG-56-M-4531, dated June 23, 1943, was issued to report on the results of tests of various color arrangements of camou­flage paint on airplanes in flight, conducted at Langley Field, VA, between January 8-21,1943. It contained the following data:

The 1st Sea Search Attack Group provided five B-18 aircraft, with serial numbers 37-464,

37-465,37-561,37-574, and 37-621. Three of the B-18s were painted over their existing finish, while the other two were left in their existing colors. The test color schemes for each of these aircraft followed the paint boundaries shown in Figure 1, and were as follows:

(1) B-18 no. 37-464 was painted on all underneath surfaces (area “A”) in Shade No. 46 Insignia White camouflage enamel. Side and top areas (areas “B” and “C”) were finished in Flight Camouflage white enamel white (haze paint) applied in a pattern of graduated light reflectance values, over black camouflage enamel, to produce a bluish “haze” effect.

(2) B-18 no. 37-468 was painted over all exterior surfaces (areas “A, B, and C”) in flight camouflage white enamel (haze paint) applied in a pattern of graduated light reflectance values, over black camouflage enamel, to produce a bluish “haze” effect.

(3) B-18 no. 37-621 was painted on all underneath surfaces (area “A”) in Shade No. 46 Insignia White camouflage enamel, with the vertical control surfaces and side of the fuselage (area “B”) painted with Shade No. 43 Neutral Gray camou­flage lacquer. The top surfaces (area “C”) were left in the original Dark Olive Drab color.

(4) B-18 no. 37-561 was left in its original camouflage colors of Dark Olive Drab above and on the sides surfaces (areas “B and C”), with the lower surfaces in Neutral Gray (area “A").

(5) B-18 no. 37-574 was left in its original finish of Shade No. 47 Insignia White all over.

All of the test flights were made on days with unlimited ceiling, with normal haze conditions for the area and with widely scattered or no clouds. Aircraft were viewed from the ground while they were flying at altitudes of 2,000, 4,000, 6,000. and 10,000 feet, both directly overhead and at a distance of approximately one mile from the viewing point while flying in E-W and N-S directions. The relative effectiveness of the camouflage was observed on both approach and departure runs.

Conclusions: it was found that the most effective combination of camouflage schemes under all conditions was as follows:

a. Underneath surfaces, leading edges and “front view” areas – Shade No. 47 Insignia White.

b. Side (essentially vertical) surfaces – Shade No. 43 Neutral Gray.

c. Top surfaces – Shade No. 41 Dark Olive Drab.

The exact shade of gray used on the vertical surfaces was not critical, but it was recommended that very bright or very dark grays should not be used. Tests were also run by flying a B-17E, at 6,000 and 10,000 feet, above the camouflaged B-18s flying at 2,000 and

4.000 feet. It was found that none of the different camouflage schemes were best under all of the test conditions. It was also found that the haze painted airplanes did not have any camouflage characteristics which were better than at least one of the other schemes. The report finally recommended that the Anti-Submarine Command should paint its aircraft in the scheme described in the conclusions above.

A major revision of T. 0.07-1-1 was issued on December 26,1943. It started by stating that painting of the exterior metal surface of AAF aircraft was discontinued, except as directed for aircraft destined for foreign agencies. This was a major revision of the requirements and the document is reproduced below:

Martin Baltimore Mk 1, FA204, prior to delivery to the RAF, in Dark Earth and Middlestone over Azure Blue finish. These were the standard RAF desert colors for North Africa. (USAF via Gerry R. Markgraf)

їШШШШ

Douglas C-53-DO, 41-20062, as seen at Lubbock Field, Texas, in late 1943. It has the identification yellow nose and rear fuselage bands ordered for transports flying within the continental USA. (Nick Williams)

TECHNICAL ORDER No. 07-1-1 December 26, 1943

DOPES, PAINTS AND RELATED MATERIALS
GENERAL—AIRCRAFT CAMOUFLAGE, M ARKINGS AND INSIGNIA

This Technical Order replaces T. O. Nos. 07-1-1, dated June 15,1943; 07-1-IC, dated July 3, 1943; and 07-1-ID, dated September 24,1943.