Category And Colors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

мММ i ■

■■■

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALLIED INVASION STRIPES

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

TOP SECRET TOP SECRET

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS COPY No.38

ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

OPERATION MEMORANDUM ) 18 April, 1944

NUMBER 23 )

DISTINCTIVE MARKING – AIRCRAFT

1. OBJECT

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

2. SCOPE

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

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

3. GENERAL

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

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

4. DISTINCTIVE MARKINGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. BRIEFING

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

By command of General Eisenhower:

W. B. Smith

Lieutenant General, U. S. Army,

OFFICIAL: Chief of Staff.

H. R. BULL,

Major General, G. S.C.,

Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Operation Memorandum number 23 refers.

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

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

a. Coastal Command aircraft.

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

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

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

e. High altitude photo-reconnaissance aircraft.

f. Gliders.

4. Request your concurrence or comments by 030900B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If approved request Air Ministry initiate action.

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

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

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

DISTINCTIVE MARKINGS – AIRCRAFT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Command of General EISENHOWER.

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

UNIT INSIGNIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also:

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

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

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

Army-Navy Porcelain Plates, September 1938

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

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

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

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

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

Development of the AAF Camouflage Colors

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

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

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

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

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

Bulletin No. 41 Color Card issued, September 1940

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

On April 24, 1942, Gen Arnold issued a directive ordering the use of Sand, Shade No.26, on the upper surfaces of aircraft operating on sandy or desert terrain. WF ordered initial shipments of ample quantities of the water paint, brushes, buckets, etc..

Dir. of Mil. Req. (Wash.) does not object to anti-submarine tests of white paint, May 8,1942.

The Dir. of Mil. Req. stated on May 8,1942, in a letter to the CG, Material Command that a series of tests over several years had proved that a neutral gray was the best color for camouflage under ordinary conditions. However, there was no objection to the Coastal Patrol aircraft being furnished with oyster white paint for testing. If this shade proved superior, Specs, and Technical Orders should be so revised. Mat. Com. (Wash.) should forward to 1st Air Force any appropriate paint material found.

Gen. Arnold requests changes to application of camouflage, May 8, 1942.

Brig. Gen, Fairchild also wrote another letter to Material Command on May 8,1942, requesting that revisions be made to Spec. 24114 and T.0.07-1-1, covering the application of camouflage to AAF aircraft. These had been requested by Gen. Arnold as a result of watching paint being applied to aircraft at the Douglas Company. The changes requested were:

(1) Spec. 24114 be revised to change the demarcation line between the upper and lower surface camouflage colors as necessary to prevent appearance of a definite, even and continuous boundary line. Masks will not be employed to separate the two shades, The lines of demarcation shall be eliminated as far as possible by blending the colors at the junction lines by overspraying.

(2) Spec. 24114 should also provide for the use of “haze” paint on special photographic aircraft.

(3) Training Aircraft of wood and fabric covered aircraft to be painted with aluminum-pigmented dope.

(4) T. O. 07-1-1 to be revised to include the use of Sand Shade No. 26 for the upper surfaces of aircraft operating over sandy and desert terrain. Also trainers to be painted as in (3) above. Trainers would only be camouflaged as directed by Theatre of Operation Commanders, Training Center Commanders, or Commanders of posts or schools with the necessary authority.

(5) Variations in the basic aircraft camouflage would permit the use of Medium Green Shade no. 42 instead of Dark Olive Drab when the aircraft operate over terrain so predominately green that the darker shade proves to be unsatisfactory. Sand Shade No. 26 could also replace the Dark O. D. over desert type terrain.

(6) Along the leading edges, tips and trailing edges of the wing, vertical and horizontal stabilizers and rudders, splotches or patches of Medium Green No. 42 were to be allowed to break the continuity in appearance of the wing, stabilizers, and rudder outlines. The size of the splotches or stripes were to extend inward from the edges at various distances ranging from zero to 20% of the wing, stabilizer, or rudder chord. If the aircraft was definitely going to a desert or sandy region, the Dark O. D. might be replaced or painted over with Sand Shade No. 26. The above modifications in the basic camouflage scheme were probably going to have to be made at modification centers or at staging points after the aircraft left the production line.

Use of haze paint for special photographic aircraft camouflage was also suggested. Mat. Com. was asked to initiate necessary action for these revisions. Technical Instruction TI-1111, was issued on May 15,1942 to initiate the requested action. All of the above changes were duly added to revised versions of Spec. 24114 and T. O. 07-1-1.

Change in Serial Numbers and Nomenclature, May 11,1942.

Due to the change in nomenclature of the Air Corps to Air Forces, Material Command directed the following change in identifying USAAF equipment:

a. Lettering on trucks and trailers is to be changed from “U. S. Army Air Corps" to “U. S. Army Air Forces”. Also name plates and records with reference to serial numbers of airplanes and engine, are to be changed from A. C. to A. F.

Responsibility for the development of. and requirements for aircraft camouflage defined in Material Command Office Memo­randum No.42-16, May 12, 1942.

(1) The Air Proving Ground Command (Eglin Field), under the Dir. of Mil, Req., was charged with the development of camou­flage colors, designs, markings and insignia for the concealment of aircraft on the ground and in the air, for both day and night operation.

(2) The Corps of Engineers was responsible for developing the use of nets, drapes or other coverings for concealing aircraft on the ground.

(3) Thc Material Center (WF) was responsible for preparing specifications for paint materials recommended by the Air Proving Ground, for approving materials and processes used by aircraft manufacturers in camouflaging aircraft, and for investigating new mate­rials and processes as directed by the Dir. of Mil. Req..

(4) The Air Service Command was responsible for the publication of instructions, and the procurement of necessary materials for the maintenance of camouflage on service aircraft.

Red center removed from insignia, rudder stripes deleted on combat aircraft, May 12, 1942.

War Department Circular #141, dated May 12, 1942, stated;

Markings of Military Aircraft. – 1. The red circle in the center of the insignia as used at present will be eliminated. The new insignia will therefore be a five-pointed, white star within a blue circle.

2, The red and white tail marking will be eliminated.

3. These changes will apply to all combat aircraft of the Army and Navy after May 15, 1942.

The circular did not state any reason for this drastic action, but it had arisen as a result of extensive combat action in the Pacific area against the Japanese. The Japanese national insignia was the red hinamoru circle and, in the heat of combat, USAAF and Navy pilots tended to fire at any aircraft with red in its insignia. (Note: red was to return briefly in June-August 1943 to the US National insignia, then it disappeared completely until after the end of the war. It returned as the color of the center stripe of the current US insignia in January 1947).

Southeast AAF Training Center, Maxwell Field, AL, revises marking and insignia for its trainer aircraft, May 20,1942,

Maj. Gen. Stratemeyer issued General Orders No. 54, revising the marking and insignia requirements for the Training Center’s aircraft to the following:

1. Aircraft in this training center will be marked with identifying numbers as follows:

A. Basic and Advanced – Aircraft belonging to Basic and Advanced Schools will be marked with a code group consisting of an identifying letter or letters for both schools as shown below, plus a digit or digits from 1 to 999, the numbers to be assigned by the station commanders. The letter and number combination will be consecutive with no dash or space between them. The following identifying letters arc assigned:

b.

Primary – Primary aircraft will be identified by a number only. Numbers may run from 1 to 999,

c. Four-Engine Schools – Four-Engine Schools will not use an identifying letter but will use an identifying number of not more than two digits.

2. All identifying letters and numbers will be placed to the rear of the rear cockpit. They will be proportioned and placed in accordance with Para З, T.0.07-1-1, dated April 8, 1941.

3. The radio call letter designator will be placed on the vertical fin of all aircraft in accordance with Para. 8 с. T. O. 07­1-1 A, dated October 23, 1941. On the primary training aircraft the designator will be placed diagonally on the fin, i. e., from the lower left to the upper right comers on the left side of the fin and from upper left to lower right corners on the right side of the fin. Designators will not be placed on the fuselage of any training aircraft.

4. The distinctive insignia of this Training Center will be centered on the fuselage, just forward of the trailing edge of the lower wing.

5.
If desired locally, the identifying letters and/or numbers of single-engine aircraft may be placed on the nose cowl for aid in identification. They may also be placed on the nose of twin-engine training aircraft.

The USAAF faced an uphill struggle world-wide at the be­ginning of 1943 to gain air superiority. Heavily engaged in Eu­rope, North Africa, and the Pacific, air superiority had not been gained in any of these theaters of operation. Perhaps the closest to this was in North Africa as a result of Operation “Torch”, but the fight against the Luftwaffe was very tough, even with the aid of the Royal Air Force in the Mediterranean area. In Europe, the 8th Air Force had seen much of its strength sent to North Africa and it was just beginning to rebuild. In the Pacific, the various Air Forces were fighting back at the Japanese, but losses continued to be heavy.

However, 1943 was to see a gradual build up to air superior­ity in all of the combat theaters. In Europe, the AAF was to see its cherished doctrine of day bombing brought almost to a halt by intense Luftwaffe opposition, but grim determination and the de­velopment of the long-range escort fighter began to rebuild the impetus, ready for the great air battles of 1944. The Axis forces lost the war in North Africa and the Allies invaded Europe from the south. The Pacific Air Forces grew to a major support of the long battle to dislodge the Japanese from the island chains leading to Japan. The fight of the anti-submarine aircraft in the Atlantic and the Caribbean gradually overcame the deadly anti-shipping menace of the U-boats, breaking their back in 1943.

During 1943, the USAAF continued its massive growth, so much that it more than doubled its strength between June 1942 and June 1943, to more than 49,000 aircraft. However, its losses in action against Germany and over the Pacific also jumped, to more than 3,000 in Europe and the Mediterranean and some 800 versus Japan. These losses reflect both the decision to concentrate on defeating Germany and the large role played in the Pacific by the US Navy.

The intensive development of suitable camouflage, markings and colors for aircraft of the USAAF and its allies continued in 1943, only to culminate in the major decision that camouflage was not necessary at all for most types of combat aircraft! This decision was arrived at tentatively in mid-1943, and put into full effect by the end of the year, causing the biggest change in the USAAF’s aircraft appearance during the war. Ever-growing strength of the AAF led to entirely new types of combat aircraft distinctive mark­ings (see Chapter 6), especially in Europe (the Allies had agreed to defeat Germany before turning their full strength on Japan).

During 1943, the results of world-wide combat experience led to the following major changes in the marking and camouflaging of USAAF aircraft:

Northwest African Air Forces adopt local theater camouflage, March.

Value of camouflage questioned by Gen, Arnold, March.

Dark Olive Drab No. 41 replaced by a new shade, March, effective September.

Markings for walkways and “No Step” markings added, June. Anti-submarine white camouflage finally adopted, June,

T. O. 07-1-1 issued in full-color printing, June.

Star insignia has white bars and a red outline added, June.

Ail trainers to be painted aluminum, or be natural metal finish, June. National insignia outline color changed to insignia blue, Septem­ber.

Names and numbers of Army-Navy aircraft camouflage colors stan­dardized in ANA Bulletin No, 157, September,

Camouflage no longer required for almost all USAAF aircraft, ex­cept night fighters, September.

High Gloss black paint developed for night use, November. Standard aircraft gloss colors for aircraft issued as ANA Bulletin No. 166, December.

US Army Air Forces specifications in use, revised, or issued, by date and version, during 1943. 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.

* *

On June 29, 1943, the Chief, Req. Div., OC&R (Wash.), requested that the AAF Board, AAF School of Applied Tactics, Orlando, Florida, comment on the use of special black paint for night camouflage. The AAF Board replied that, since the standard olive drab camouflage gave an equally effective protection against searchlights and was better in bright moonlight, special camouflage paint was not only of no particular value, but was extremely undesirable in that it would limit the use of those aircraft only to night operations.

(It seems that this request arose as a result of a report from Eglin Field, No. 3-43-31, “Test of Night Camouflage”, dated June 5,1943, No copy of this report has been found, together with many others issued by Eglin Field during World War II. The author submitted a request for copies of all of these reports in 1967. He was informed that all of the remaining copies were in such a poor state that they could not be copied by any means available at that time, and the author would have to go to Eglin Field to review them. Unable to do so at that time, the author finally got to Eglin Field in 1992, only to find that the current librarian had no record of the location of any of the reports!).

White bars and a red border added to the star insignia by AN-I-9a, June 29, 1943.

During combat over North Africa in support of Operation TORCH, it was found that the AAF star insignia was being confused with the Luftwaffe cross at distances exceeding normal resolution (this had also happened during World War I, and led to the adoption of the tri­circle insignia for all AEF aircraft in France).

On June 15, 1943, Eglin Field, was directed to conduct tests on modifying the AAF insignia so that it would not be confused with enemy insignia at distances exceeding normal resolution.

As it so happened, tests had already been conducted earlier and had been reported in Service Test No. 3-42-18, “Revision of Aircraft Marking”, dated May 9,1943. These tests had been run to determine the cause of the confusion at distances (the results agreed with those reported in McCook Field Report No. 1305, dated August 20, 1920, showing that at a distance the white star of the insignia blended into a circular blob).

The tests had shown that a long narrow rectangle added to the star insignia proved to be discernible at a distance twenty-five percent farther than the Luftwaffe cross or the AAF star insignia.

Three slightly different versions of the design were finally proposed. The finally selected design of the new insignia was not sym­metrical, but it was considered that this was outweighed by its ease of construction, an important consideration in view of the huge number of aircraft that would have to have their insignia repainted in a hurry.

Four P-47s were painted with different insignia; one had the existing star insignia, one the proposed star with the white rectangles, one the Luftwaffe cross, and the final aircraft had the Japanese hinomaru red disc. Flight tests on June 18, 1943, showed that the proposed new design showed up as a rectangle at varying distances and left no confusion of recognition.

A report. No. 3-42-18-2, “Test of Aircraft Insignia”, dated July 7, 1943, was submitted to HQ USAAF, recommending that the new rectangular insignia be adopted as standard. However, in a surprising show of speed, the new insignia had already been adopted by both the Army and Navy, leading to a revised AN-I-9a, dated June 29, 1943. (Contrast this with the lethargy shown on the adoption of a new camouflage scheme for anti-submarine aircraft, as described earlier).

The revised An-I-9a changed the design to the following:

D-l. Construction. – The national insignia shall be an insignia white five pointed star inside an insignia blue circum­scribed circle with an insignia white rectangle, one radius of the blue circle in length and one-half radius of the blue circle in width, on each side of the star and the top edges placed to form a straight line with the top edges of the two star points beneath the top star point; and an insignia red border one-eighth radius of the blue circle in width outlining the entire design. The con­struction of the star is obtained by marking off five equidistant points on the circumscribed circle, and connecting each point to the two non-adjacent points. See Figure 1. The national insignia shall be applied so that in the normal flight attitude of the air­plane one point of the star points upward and perpendicular to the line of flight on vertical surfaces or forward and parallel to the line of flight on horizontal surfaces. A gray color, obtained by mixing one part of insignia white with one part of light gray, shall replace the insignia white on applications to upper wing surfaces when finished semi-gloss sea blue.

D-2a(2). Size. – The insignia shall have a blue circle with a maximum diameter of 60 inches and a minimum diameter of 30 inches. Standard sizes shall have blue circle diameters in multiples of 5 inches. The blue circle diameter selected shall be the standard size which is closest to, but does not exceed 75 percent of the distance between the leading edge of the wing and the aileron cutout at the point of application.

D-2b. Fuselage Insignia.

D-2b(l). Location. – On patrol seaplanes, the insignia shall be applied to each side of the bow, in such position that it is completely visible when the plane is water borne in normal load conditions.

a. Painting of the exterior metal surface of Army Air Forces aircraft is hereby discontinued, except as may be directed otherwise by the Commanding General Army Air Forces for aircraft destined for delivery to foreign agencies. This does not, however, eliminate the required identification data, insignia, anti-glare coatings, and corrosion prevention. Man-hours expended on maintaining existing camouflage finishes, now considered unnecessary, will be held to a minimum.

b. Paint may be removed from presently painted metal aircraft by the operating organizations at the discretion of Commanders concerned, as local facilities and materials are available, provided no interruption in operations is entailed. Alumi­nized parts installed on a camouflaged aircraft will not be camouflaged. However, when any unpainted metal surface of suffi­cient area is installed that would materially affect the flight characteristics of the airplane, the remaining camouflage paint may be removed. Camouflaged metal parts installed on unpainted airplanes need not have camouflage removed.

c. All fabric control surfaces and fabric-covered aircraft will be aluminized when re-covering is necessary.

d. PARTS IN STOCK.

(1) Aircraft airfoils and other exterior metal parts in stock need not have the camouflage paint removed.

(2) Fabric control surfaces in stock, or installed as replacements, need not be refinished for any color match­ing purposes.

e. Camouflage black need not be applied to propellers unless required for antiglare purposes or corrosion resistance; however, the 4-inch yellow tip must be maintained as a safety measure. Repaired hollow steel blades from which any of the protective plating has been removed will be painted as outlined below, to protect against corrosion. Wood propellers will not be painted black.

(1) If camouflage black is to be used for antiglare or corrosion resistance purposes, it will be accomplished by spraying the hub and each propeller blade while in a horizontal position, and retaining the propeller in this position until the camouflaging materials have set. Over one light coat of zinc chromate primer, Specification No. AN-TT-P-656, one light coat black cellulose nitrate camouflage lacquer, shade No. 44, will be applied and will extend to within 4 inches of the tip of the blade; this 4-inch tip section will receive one light coat of yellow lacquer, shade No. 48, The propeller will then be checked for balance.

(2) When necessary, three-and four-blade metal propellers may be lightly touched up between overhaul periods, while installed on the airplanes. Care will be exercised to apply proportionate amounts of paint to each blade to maintain proper blade balance.