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:

Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF), investigated the method for camouflaging pursuit aircraft which were being used in studies of photographic installations. Two kinds of paint were used for the tests, namely:

(1) Cabot Haze Paint, which was a colloidal dispersion of zinc oxide in oil. The plane had a bluish appearance (sky) when the paint was applied in a thin coating over a black background.

(2) A pinkish white and a micaceous paint procured from the Lowe Bros. Paint Co, Dayton, Ohio (hereafter Lowe Bros.) The tentative conclusions were that a flat white camouflage paint was most suitable for camouflage against clouds and the haze paint was preferable for blue-sky conditions. Exp. Eng. Sect, stated that further tests would be conducted to ascertain satisfactory results.

Permanent Camouflage Paints tested in Florida, January 1942.

Suitable finishes for permanent camouflage of aircraft were discussed in a report prepared by WF. Laboratory tests of applications and removal, adhesion, durability and optical reflection characteristics were included in the investigation. WF concluded that, after five months of Florida exposure, permanent materials, of low gloss, color retention and satisfactory adhesion, had been developed, A method of measuring the specular gloss of camouflage finishes had also been developed.

Two of the B-25B-NA* of Col. Jimmy Doolittle’s Tokyo strike force on the deck of the carrier CSS Hornet, on April 18,1942. The right aircraft is 40-2282. Note how crammed the aircraft were on the deck. (USAF)

Request by the RAF for standardization of B-I7E camouflage, January 28,1942.

The RAF requested that the JAC make another effort to standardize the camouflage being applied to B-17Es at the modification centers, commenting that the previous differences of location of operational units of the two countries did not now apply, so it should be possible to find a common camouflage scheme for each class of aircraft. Under the aircraft allocation pooling then in force, it was difficult to paint different patterns at the manufacturing plants.

Technical Sub-Committee On Camouflage decides that the AAF basic camouflage scheme and the U. S. Navy basic camouflage scheme be accepted as the production standard for all aircraft produced in the U. S. March 5, 1942.

The Technical Sub-Committee on Camouflage met on March 5, 1942, to discuss the problems raised by the British Air Committee requiring that British camouflage schemes be painted at the factory on all aircraft destined for the RAF and FAA. This was to be applied

either before the aircraft left the U. S. or after it reached the British theater of war. The British also stated that it was impossible for them to accept the U. S. camouflage schemes operationally.

The Sub-Committee decided that it was impracticable to adopt the British schemes as standard, because that system was based on the Service being able to anticipate the aircraft’s operational theater or role while it was being completed at the manufacturer.

They then considered camouflage schemes which could be used as a basis for all aircraft and could be converted to other services requirements with the least difficulty. It was agreed that this consideration could be converted into two standard basic schemes, (1) camouflage for land based aircraft, (2) camouflage for ship based aircraft, this to also include flying boats.

The British representative stated that 70% of the British camouflage schemes used a “Dark Green,” which was very similar to the Army dark olive drab, thus they could accept this in lieu of the Dark Green throughout the camouflage programs. For ship based aircraft, the British stated that the U. S, Navy colors would be acceptable.

The current policy of pooling all aircraft production was given as a very strong reason to accept the two basic camouflage schemes, and this was accepted by all present. It was also recommended that the requirements for insignia and markings of a particular Service be accomplished as follows:

a. When the allocation of aircraft was determined before production was complete, the insignia and markings of a particular Service would be applied at the factory.

b. When an aircraft was diverted from one service to another, the change of insignia and markings would be made at the modification centers.

In conclusion, the British representatives at the meeting agreed to submit the U. S. Navy camouflage system to the authorities in Great Britain for a decision as to whether or not it was acceptable. It was also agreed that the British would submit to the U. S. Army their specific requirements for camouflage on all types of Army aircraft in production in the US.

One North American B-25C-NA, 41-12848, with two B-25Ds, operating in the anti-submarine role. B-2SD-1-NC, 41-29917, has no ventral turret, while B-25D-20-NC, 41-30583 has both ventral and dorsal turrets. The latter aircraft were the Kansas city built version of the B-25C. Note the white anti-submarine finish on the B-25C. (Harry Gann)

Responsibility for Aircraft Camouflage development defined, April 1942,

At this time, the Chief of Engineers was the War Dept. Agency responsible for the development of protective coloration and camouflage of all items of equipment, supplies and materials except aircraft. The Air Corps Board had held that responsibility for aircraft since 1940, while the Exp. Eng. Sect. (WF) was responsible for the material necessary for the camouflage.

The Director of Base Services (Washington) on April 2,1942, recommended that;

The Air Corps Board continue their responsibility for the development of means and methods for the camouflage of aircraft in flight and on the ground.

Chief of Engineers continue development of all materials for camouflage of aircraft on the ground.

The Dir. of Mil. Req. (Wash.) be responsible for the approval and execution of camouflage schemes.

The Dir. of Mil. Req. pointed out on April 8, 1942, that the Air Corps Board had been inactivated as such, and functions were being handled by the AAF Proving Ground Command, Eglin Field, Florida, operating under Dir. of Mil. Req. That Directorate would now be accountable for the approval of camouflage schemes for aircraft developed by Material Command or Air Service Command. (Note: this points out how difficult it had been for Gen. Arnold to get a complete grip on the responsibilities and authority of the recently formed USAAF).

Gen. Arnold directs that “summer” camouflage be put immediately on all aircraft leaving U. S., March 14,1942.

Gen. Arnold caused some confusion by directing that “summer” camouflage be painted immediately on all aircraft leaving the U. S. He ordered that machinery was to be established so that camouflaging would be automatic as soon as it was determined for which theater the plane was destined. Brig. Gen. Fairchild, Dir. of Mil. Req. (Wash.), on April 7,1942, pointed out that there was no summer camouflage, but that the Joint Aircraft Committee (JAC) had approved the following camouflage for all land-based aircraft produced in the U. S.:

a. Surfaces seen from above to be painted the Army olive drab; surfaces seen from below to be painted a neutral gray. For night operations, a flat black color was to be used.

Prior to this, on March 19,1942, the Eng. Sec.(WF) had been told of Arnold’s order by the Prod. Eng. Sec., Washington. They replied on March 25, 1942, that after Study 42 had been conducted, it had been decided that all tactical aircraft should be camouflaged with a uniform design and color. They therefore recommended that all aircraft leave the country with the standard camouflage finish and that the special colors be applied in the combat zone to suit the particular terrain. This recommendation was based on the difficulty presented by the ever changing military situation.

In a letter to the AAF Resident Representative at Burbank, dated November 18,1942, Lockheed summarized data regarding the camou­flaging of F-4 and F-5A aircraft. Cabot haze paint had been used, as instructed by WF. This had proved unsatisfactory due to the difficulties in obtaining timely deliveries, the experimental stage of development, roughness of surfaces finished with this paint and the length of drying time. Lockheed had requested that they be allowed to use a Lowe Bros, lacquer type haze camouflage or Sherwin – Williams Kern-Haze enamel. These paints were not acceptable to Mat. Center (WF) because the permissible reflective values were exceeded by these paints. After a thorough inspection of the aircraft and test flights, the haze camouflage had to be “touched-up”, which produced a whiter surface than desired.

Summarizing, Lockheed’s investigation and experience to date in the use of the various haze camouflage materials, they felt that this type of camouflage scheme was extremely impractical for permanent applications, since it was impossible, underproduction conditions, to apply a finish which presented the desired camouflage effects.

Lockheed requested that they be allowed to revert to the standard camouflage on the remaining F-5A aircraft. (This report did not result in any changes to the existing haze camouflage requirements for the F-5As for some considerable time. See continuation in Chapter 2 – author).

7. TRAINERS,

a. The following types of aircraft are considered to be trainers:

(1) Primary Trainers (PT).

(2) Basic Trainers (ВТ).

(3) Advance Trainers (AT).

(4) Training Gliders (TG).

(5) Aircraft of other types regularly used for training purposes by the Flying Training Command.

(6) Ail types of aircraft not regularly assigned to, or normally located in, theaters of operation.

b. FINISHES,—All trainer aircraft will have aluminized finish, except those being by construction having an Alclad alloy finish. (See figure 8.)

c. APPLICATION OF FINISHES.

(1)
Anodized alloy and miscellaneous steel parts may have two coats of aluminized lacquer, if neces­sary to match surrounding parts.

(2) All other exterior metal surfaces will be finished with one coat of zinc chromate primer, Specifi­cation No. AN-TT-P-656, and two coats of aluminized lacquer consisting of lacquer, cellulose nitrate, class A, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-L-51, with 6 to 8 ounces per gallon of bronze aluminum pigment paste, type B, Specification No. TT-A-468 or AN-TT-A-461.

(3) Exterior plywood surfaces will be finished in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions except that two or more finish coats will be pigmented with 8 ounces per gallon of bronze aluminum, pigment paste, Specification No. TT-A-468 type B, or Specification No. AN-TT-A-461.

(4) All exterior fabric parts will have four 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-D-514.)This will be followed by two or more coats of aluminized dope prepared by adding 6 to 8 ounces per gallon of bronze, aluminum pigment paste, type B, Specification No. TT-A-468 or AN-TT-A461, to dope, cellulose nitrate, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-D-551.

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

(6) EMERGENCY REJUVENATOR FOR OLD FABRIC,—To one gallon of 2 to 1 mix of clear dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514, and blush retarding thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-258, add one fluid ounce each of tricresyl phosphate and castor oil. Apply one coat by brush to clean surface, followed by one spray coat. After several hours’ drying, spray one coat aluminized dope prepared as specified in para­graph 7.a.(4).

(7) For removal of all types of paint material from metal surfaces, use paint and varnish remover, Specification No. 14119. For removal of dope from fabric surfaces, use nitrate dope and lacquer thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T-256.

d. MARKINGS.

(1) Each part and assembly will be permanently and legibly marked with 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-Q.)

(2) Various detail and code markings for the cockpit, fuselage, oil lines, etc., as required in Specifi­cation No. 98-24105-Q will be maintained. Use of one coat of varnish, Specification No. TT-V-121 orAN-TT – V-116, for protection of fuselage legend is authorized.

(3) Radio call letters will be used as prescribed in paragraph 3.c.

(4) Painting of ring cowls is authorized in colors as directed by the CommandingGeneral of the Flying Training Command.

(5) Field numbers are authorized as designated by the Commanding General of the Flying Training Command for use in Army Air Forces Training Centers and Civil Flying Schools. They will be of contrasting color, preferably block type, and will be applied to opposite sides of the fuselage between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer directly in front of the star insignia. The height will be approximately 75 percent of the height of fuselage at that point. (See figure 8.)

e. Standard insignia will be used as prescribed in paragraph 4.

/. All markings and insignia will be made with enamel, Specification No. AN-E-3, insignia colors in oil. Specification No. 3-120, or lacquer, Specification No. AN-TT-L-51.

It is worth mentioning at this point that large numbers of aircraft were supplied to the Soviet Union during the war, under the provisions of Lend-Lease, by the USA and the United Kingdom. Very little was ever released by the Soviet Union on the extent of this help, and in view of the previous entry describing the requirements for camouflage on some of these aircraft produced by Douglas, we are providing a list of the aircraft sent to Russia:

EglLn Field publish report on Glossy Paint for Night Camouflage, December 10,1943.

On December 10,1943, Egiin Field published report No. 3-43-114, “Test of glossy Paint for Night Camouflage”. This stated that compa­rable tests were conducted at Egiin Field with aircraft finished with a special black paint of high specular and low diffuse reflectance and aircraft finished with the standard matt black paint. The matt black aircraft appeared “silvery” white in the searchlights, while the glossy black (622 Jet Black) aircraft was invisible 75% of the time and the effectiveness of both optically and radar controlled searchlights was greatly reduced, except from the specular angle.

The visibility of the glossy black in moonlight was increased over the standard matt black. Waxing or “simonizing” assisted in maintain­ing the effectiveness of this camouflage since a high gloss played such an important part. Egiin Field recommended that the special black paint be standardized and replace the standard matt black