Category And Colors

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:

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

The USAAF was formed after the war in Europe had been un­derway for more than twenty-two months, and it became obvious that it was only a matter of time before the USA became involved. By then, Nazi Germany had conquered Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Denmark, and France, leaving only Britain to fight back alone.

Unable to defeat the Royal Air Force in the summer of 1940, Hitler abandoned his plans to invade England and began an all-out bomber campaign to force the British to come to terms. Meanwhile, he planned a huge offensive in eastern Europe against his erstwhile partner, the Soviet Union and finally launched this on June 22,1941 (this was two days after the formation of the USAAF).

However, Gen. Arnold, commander of the new USAAF, had foreseen the need for a huge expansion of the air forces and plan­ning for just this had been taking place for several years. A great deal of cooperation had taken place with the British and many Air Corps aircraft had been sent to Britain though, obsolete as they were, their only effective use was in training. More importantly, a small force of B-17 heavy bombers in the RAF saw action over Germany and revealed many shortcomings. Re-design of the type into its B-17E version turned it into an effective heavy bomber which was to become the mainstay of the air war against Germany for the next four years.

Among the most important plans laid by Gen. Arnold was those for a huge training effort at all levels, resulting in a disproportion­ately large number of trainer aircraft to combat types. He also pushed the small American aircraft manufacturing base into a huge expan­sion of new plants all over the USA. The results of this are seen in the table showing the strength of the USAAF. When formed on June 20, 1941, it had the following totals of the main types of air­craft:

Despite Arnold’s best efforts, the USAAF suffered grievous losses when the Japanese made their surprise attack on Pearl Har­bor, December 7, 1941, and these continued when the Japanese bombed the Philippines, prior to invading on December 10,1941.

Thus, at the end of 1941, the USAAF had only suffered defeat, but 1942 would prove to be a different story, laying the foundations for the buildup of the biggest air force in history, reaching a peak strength of 79,908 aircraft in July 1944, only three years later.

All of these original USAAF aircraft were painted and marked in accordance with the latest versions of the applicable specifica­tions evolved by the Air Corps and the GHQ Air Force. As de­scribed in the author’s earlier volume, covering the development of these specifications and requirements from 1908 to 1941, these two predecessors of the USAAF had arrived at very complete require­ments for painting their combat and training aircraft.

OPPOSITE: Bell P-39Cs of the 31st PG, in May 1941. They are fin­ished and marked to Spec. 24114 and carry the latest GHQAF desig­nators on the fin. Propellers are camouflaged black; the squadron in­signia has not yet been added to the new aircraft. Aircraft numbers 22, 23, and 30-31P are visible. These are typical of the aircraft taken over when the AAF was formed, incorporating the Air Corps and the GHQAF. (USAF)

US Army Air Forces specifications in use, revised, or issued, by date and version, during 1941. Includes earlier versions issued by the US Army Air Corps, until formation of the USAAF.

The letters indicate a letter revision of a spec., such as T. O. 07-1-1 A. The numbers indicate an amendment to an earlier version of a spec., such as Amendment No. 6 to Spec. 24114.

Existing Orders in Effect for Aircraft Marking, Insignia
and Camouflage when USAAF was formed, June 20,1941.

The principal War Department, Headquarters of the Army Air Forces, Washington, document for finishing requirements was Technical Order No. 07-1-1, entitled:

DOPES. PAINTS. AND RELATED MATERIALS. GENERAL –
AIRCRAFT MARKING, INSIGNIAAND CAMOUFLAGE.

The latest applicable issue of this T. 0. was dated April 8, 1941 and incorporated many references to other specifications. Relevant details from each of the referenced specs, have been provided at the end of the T. O. This information appears under the following headings:

Camouflage Finishes for Aircraft (Spec. 24114)

Colors for Training Airplanes (Spec. 98-24113-А)

Markings for Airplanes and Airplane Parts (Spec. 24105)

Standard Insignia (Spec. 24102)

The T. O. read as follows:

This technical order replaces Technical Order 07-1-1 dated May 15, 1940, and all previous instructions on airplane camou­flage in conflict herewith.

NOTE: The camouflaging of airplanes directed herein will be accomplished as soon as practicable by Service Activities having the necessary equipment, or if necessary, at Depots as arranged with the Control Depot.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Camouflaging of Airplanes.

2. Color of Painted Surfaces of Training Airplanes.

3. Identification Numerals for Training Airplanes

4. Colors for Alaskan Department Airplanes.

5. Marking of Airplanes.

6. Standard Insignia.

7. Organization Insignia.

8. Organization Identification.

9. Command Recognition Stripes.

10. Names of Combat Crew.

11. Paint to be used.

1. CAMOUFLAGING OF AIRPLANES

a. Types of Airplanes to be Camouflaged: All U. S. Army Air Corps and Federalized National Guard airplanes will be camouflaged in accordance with A. C. Spec. No. 24114, with the following exceptions:

(1) Training types of airplanes.

(2) Airplanes of other types regularly used for training purposes by Training Centers.

(3) Airplanes operating in the Alaskan Department or in any country having similar climatic and terrain conditions. (See paragraph 4.)

b. Application of Camouflage materials over existing protective coatings: Specification camouflage materials in

kind can be satisfactorily applied over existing protective coating on airplanes, that is, specification camouflage lacquer over existing enamel finishes and specification camouflage dope over existing doped finishes.

The colorful appearance of the USAC aircraft changed drastically with the introduction of camouflage in 1940, as seen in these two Curtiss P – 36s of the 36th and 51st Pursuit Groups.

c. Appearance of camouflaged airplanes: Due to the highly pigmented content and dull finish of camouflage materials, camouflaged airplanes will not present as pleasing an appearance as the highly polished Alclad or glossy painted airplanes of the past. No attempt should be made to secure a polish or high gloss, as this will tend to defeat the purpose of the camouflage.

d. Maintenance of camouflage surfaces: Camouflage materials may have neither the adhesive nor the colorfast quality of specification paint materials used heretofore. It is anticipated that there will be minor chipping of the camouflage materials at the leading edges of airfoils, particularly if the airplane is flown through heavy rains. This chipping may be somewhat unsightly, but as long as the material affords a reasonable coverage of the surface, the finish should not be touched up, as the chipping effect is not objectionable from a camouflage standpoint and the additional weight derived through the continued touching-up process might become objectionable.

e. Types of Camouflage materials: Paragraph E-lb of A. C. Spec. 24114 permits the use of two types of camou­flage materials on metal surfaces. Either of these types may be used, subject to provisions of subpara. b. It will be noted that the use of enamel, camouflage, Spec. 14109 on metal surfaces requires the use of but one (1) coat of enamel and that no primer coat is necessary. Results of tests indicate that the least effort that is made toward exactness in the application of camouflage materials, other than the satisfactory spraying on of the prescribed number of coats, offers the best results from the standpoint of camouflage value.

f. Use of special color of camouflage material: The basic color of camouflage material for the top surfaces of all camouflaged airplanes will be dark olive drab, Shade No. 41, A. C. Bulletin No. 41. However, to meet requirements where airplanes are operated over a terrain which is predominately green, the use of one coat of medium green, Shade No. 42, A. C. Bulletin No. 41, is authorized to supplement the top surface camouflage finish.

g. Identification Markings:

(1) All identification markings, insignia, designators and squadron and flight command stripes on camouflaged airplanes will be of specification camouflage materials and of colors conforming to the color shades outlined in A. C. Bulletin No. 41.

Bell P-39Cs of the 40th PS, 31st PG, being refueled during the 1941 annual maneuvers (the last prior to US entry into the war). The white cross is for identification in the maneuvers. fUSAF)

Curtiss P-40C of the 77th PS, 20th PG, at Oakland in 1941. It is camouflaged to Spec. 24114, but does not have the fuselage cocarde. The designator is in yellow, as are the spinner and the wheel covcrs. fPeter Bowers via William L. Swisher)

(2) Airplane designators for camouflaged airplanes:

(a) The designator used on the wings will be as specified in Paragraph 8 b, with the location and size as specified in paragraph 8 c. Insignia blue, shade No, 47 camouflage material will be used.

(b) The designator used on the vertical stabilizer and rudder will be as specified in paragraph 8 b, with the location and size as specified in paragraph 8 c. Black, shade No. 44 camouflage material will be used.

(c) Other identification markings, insignia, and organization identification will be as specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 7,

and 8.

h. Camouflaging of Propeller: The camouflaging of propellers as required in paragraph “E-5” of A. C. Spec. No. 24114 should be accomplished by spraying each propeller blade in the horizontal position and retaining the propeller in this position until the camouflaging materials have set, after which it will be necessary that the propeller be checked for balance.

Tests indicate that one (1) coat of camouflage material on propeller blades offers adequate coverage. It is anticipated that this finish on propeller blades will chip and become unsightly after a period of time, however, no attempt should be made to touch up the surface of the propeller blades at any time until the propeller is overhauled, at which time the assembly will be repainted and balanced.

j. Because of the magnitude of the work involved, and the emergency conditions now existing, all service activities will make every effort, before contacting the depots, to accomplish the camouflage work specified herein with equipment and facilities already on hand or that can be made available locally. When climatic conditions permit, the work may be accom­plished out of doors, or in the lee of hangars or other buildings when partial protection from excessive wind is necessary. It should be borne in mind that essentially all paints, dopes and lacquers are of a toxic nature and inflammable; accordingly, precautionary measures should be exercised in handling and application.

Continuing the effort to get the use of white camouflaged approved for anti-submarine operations, tests had been run at Langley Field, VA, comparing the visibility of different camouflage colors used on B-17E and B-34 airplanes. The colors used were an off white and a brown (olive drab) on one of each type of airplane. It was found that the white painted airplanes had a definite advantage over the brown painted airplanes in anti-submarine operations. It was recommended that:

a. With least practical delay, paint all aircraft inashadeof “offwhite”. Ashadea little more “off white” than those used in these tests was considered preferable.

b. Future aircraft destined for anti-submarine operations should be properly camouflaged prior to delivery to a tactical unit. (Regrettably, it was to be quite a while before any top-level action was taken to implement these recommendations, as we shall see – author).

New AAF Spec. No. 24115 Protective Coatings and Finishes (for Aircraft Wood Surfaces), issued on September 3, 1942.

The AAF had an increasing number of new types of aircraft under development using wood as the main material. It was found necessary to issue a spec, covering the requirements for protective coatings and finishes on these aircraft and Spec. No. 24115 was issued on September 3, 1942. (this was exactly three years after the declaration of war by Britain and France on Germany brought the Allies into World War II. This spec, had a very short life, being canceled and replaced by a new Army-Navy Aeronautical spec., AN-C-83, on July 1,1943 – author.)

For plain wood surfaces, interior enclosed surfaces were to receive at least two coats of a clear sealer. Interior open surfaces were to be finished with at least one coat of clear sealer, one coat of surfacer and one coat of the specified color, or at least two coats of pigmented sealer and one coat of the specified color. Exterior surfaces were to be finished the same as interior surfaces, except that at least two coats

of the specified color were to be applied. Wood surfaces that were fabric covered were to be given at least one coat of sealer and either two coats of clear dope and one layer of suitable fabric, or one coat of clear dope and one layer of pre-doped fabric. After the fabric had been applied, the finish was to be completed by the use of three coats of clear dope (including the taping dope) and two coats of pigmented dope. The first coat of clear dope used on either the pre-doped fabric or the un-doped fabric was to be thiimed 50% with thinner.

All color coats were to be either camouflage enamel or lacquer.

On March 16, 1943, Ihe Dir. of War Org. and Movement (Wash.) reviewed a report from Eglin Field covering tests which had been conducted to try to reduce the surface drag caused by the basic camouflage, and also to reduce the weight of the finish without impairing its camouflage effectiveness. Eglin Field believed that the weight could be reduced by 20 pounds without hurting the camouflage (type of aircraft not stated-author).

They stated that Mat. Center (WF) should investigate the possibility of producing a non-specular clear varnish with that property inherent in the coating, so that pumicing would not be necessary (i. e. that no rubbing down of the clear varnish to make it a flat finish would be necessary after it had dried-author).

Supermarine Spitfire Mk. VC, BM635. originally of the 309th FS, 31st FG, before that groups’ personnel were moved to North Africa. Their Spitfires were retained in England and used by the 67th Rec. G, at Mcmbury, England. This is one of the reverse lease-lend aircraft supplied to theAAF. It is in standard RAF camouflage of dark green and ocean gray over medium sea gray, with sky spinner and band around the fuselage. It has the yellow outlined cocarde on the fuselage. (USAF)

Another view of the same Spitfire shows the single wing cocarde replacing the normal RAF roundels on both wings. In the background is a Piper L-4 of the 67th Rec. G, without the yellow outline on the fuselage cocarde. (USAF)

Dir. of Mil. Reqmts. surveys active operating theater commanders on their needs for camouflage, March 24,194.1.

The Dir. of Mi.1. Req. (Wash.) asked for a survey of the active operating theaters to get their recommendations as to the types of camouflage on which emphasis should be laid so that Material Command could expend its efforts on the most profitable areas. Specifi­cally, the comments of the Service were especially desired as to whether camouflage should be provided for:

a. Concealment of parked aircraft?

b. Confusion of attacking aircraft in order to induce inaccurate fire?

c. Night operations?

d. Concealment against observation from above or beneath the aircraft in flight?

e. Low altitude operations as opposed to high altitudes?

f. Concealment from observation by sea or ground forces when operating against vessels or troops?

g. Other tactical needs?

Comments were also requested as to whether the tactical advantages of camouflage had been minimized by the enemy’s use of radio sounding equipment (later known as radar – author.)

In a teletype dated October 1, 1943, to the Eng. Div. (WF), the AC/AS, MM&D (Wash.), sought information relative to the possibility of deleting camouflage from combat aircraft. In a reply dated October 6, 1943, the Chief of the Eng. Div. (WF), stated that the small increase in speed, of 1 to 2 percent at top speed and a decrease in weight of 15 to 20 pounds on heavy bombers, was considered to be out­weighed by the resultant reduction in protection against corrosion. Wax coatings offered inadequate protection. Thus, WF recommended that camouflage not be removed from combat aircraft if corrosion resistance was to be maintained in a salt atmosphere. (We now know that a decision re removal of camouflage was being made at the top level in Washington, DC, and that WF’s opinion did not prevail – author).

CHAPTER 3:1943—The Struggle for Air Superiority

Consolidated B-24D, 42-52744(7), and two others of a training school, in loose formation. Aircraft are numbered in yellow on the nose, 768,864, and 812(?). (USAF)

Consolidated B-24J-30-CO, 42-73296, on a test flight over San Diego, shows the blue outline insignia on the standard dark olive drab and neutral gray finish. (Convair)

Consolidated B-24H-I-CF, 42-64435, is one of the 738 of this block built at the Convair Forth Worth factory. (Convair)