Category And Colors

The National Insignia was revised in T. O, 07-1-ID, to require the use of a BLUE BORDER in lieu of the RED BORDER formerly specified.

The work was to be accomplished as soon as possible and not later than the next 25-hour inspection by service activities with the aid of sub-depots, if necessary.

The newT. O. changed all previous references to the RED BORDER to one of BLUE. The new insignia was to now consist of a five – point, white star within a blue circle, as previously specified, together with the two white rectangles, this entire design to be circum­scribed by a BORDER of BLUE whose width was 1/8 the radius of the original blue circle. Existing insignia could be reworked by painting over the existing red border with insignia blue, shade No. 47.

The order for the revised insignia went out to industry very quickly, where it was required that the changeover should be made at the factories and mod centers as quickly as possible without delaying deliveries. For example, this revision reached Douglas Aircraft at Long Beach and Santa Monica, and Lockheed Aircraft at Burbank on September 29, 1943.

It should be noted that the Navy moved even faster, sending out the change on September 23,1943, one day before the issue of T. O. 07-1- ID. In fact, their teletype was dated September 15,1943, but its transmission was apparently delayed by coordination with the AAF.

New’ ANA BULLETIN No. 157 standardizes names and numbers of Army-Navy colors for aircraft camouflage, September 28, 1943.

The results of the JAC standardization of aircraft camouflage colors was finally issued on September 28, 1943, as ANA Bulletin No.157. This listed the following:

COLOR NO. COLOR NAME

601 Insignia White

602 Light Gray

603 Sea Gray

604 Black

605 Insignia Blue

606 Semi-Gloss Sea Blue

Two Consolidated B-24Ds of the 376th BG, shortly after their return from the Ploesti mission. The nearest aircraft is 4І-П630, aircraft no.83. Note that the RAF fin flashes are on both sides of the vertical tail. (March AFB Museum)

Note 2a. of the original document stated that:

The Arm у-Navy Aircraft Camouflage Color Standards supersede Army Air Forces Bulletin No. 41 and any other color standards for the colors listed herein for Army and Navy aeronautical use.

For many reasons, these new color standards did not take effect for several months. For example, the engineering department at Douglas Aircraft Co’s. Santa Monica plant did not receive their copy until October 30, 1943. However, the main reason was it took several months before the necessary camouflage paint specifications were revised to meet the requirements (for full details see Chapter 7). Also note that there were no high altitude camouflage colors included, despite the request of August 13, 1943, to the Tech. Sub­Committee on Camouflage.

None of the colors in the Bulletin were changed, except for the major one of color No. 613, Olive Drab. This replaced the previous Dark Olive Drab No. 41 of Bulletin No. 41, per the Army request of January 22,1943 (described earlier). There was quite a difference in the shade of the two colors, but in the event, the change was not to appear in the combat theaters for many months, and as it so happened, not on the AAF major combat aircraft. This was because, as a result of Gen. Arnold’s inquiries to his theater commanders (described earlier), far-reaching changes were about to be made in the AAF camouflage requirements.

a. Organization insignia will be placed on each side of each lighter-than-air aircraft. The location for observation balloons will be on each side, halfway between the greatest diameter and the leading edges of the horizontal lobes. The locations for spherical balloons will be at points in line with and 3 feet from each end of the wording ‘U. S. Army.”

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

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

3. MATERIALS REQUIRED, (omitted from this work – author).

* * *

This concluded the AAF work on aircraft camouflage, markings, insignia and colors for 1943. The situation world-wide had changed to where the AAF was preparing to go on the offensive with massive strength in all combat theaters, particularly in Europe. The Allies intentions were to beat Germany first and then concentrate on Japan. Russia’s insistence on a “Second Front" in Europe played a key role in the planning for 1944: the US and British response was the planning of Operation OVERLORD, the landing of strong Allied forces on the north coast of France. This obviously required total air supremacy in that area, thus the destruction of the Luftwaffe’s capability to defend the Channel Coast was paramount in the plans for 1944.

The story of 1943 is one showing that the AAF was no longer worried about defending its airpower on the ground against hostile attack. This allowed them to concentrate on getting the maximum production of the required aircraft and getting every little bit of performance out of each type. The deletion of basic camouflage from its aircraft at the end of 1943 showed that these aims were being achieved, despite the heavy losses of the Eighth Air Force Bomber Command in the summer of 1943. In 1943, key problem in Europe had been shortage of aircraft, rather than crews. This was to change drastically in 1944. The arrival of the P-51 in England finally gave the Eighth AF the long-range escort fighter it needed to destroy German industry without suffering prohibitive losses.

A completely new version of T. О. 0-7-1-1 was issued on August 25,1944, stating that it was revised to include additional information. However, close examination shows that there was really very little new information, most of the changes being present in the earlier T. O. 07-1-lAand T, О. 07-1-1B supplements. The statement re “troop carriers, transports” needing camouflage was changed to read “troop carrier transports.” In section, “3. MARKINGS,” under c. RADIO CALL NUMBERS, para (2), for aircraft operating solely within the continental limits of the United States, a final sentence was added: “However, the suggested method is to apply 16 x 24 numerals on the lower left wing.”

In the same section, the following new paragraph, covering PT type aircraft markings was added: e. SPECIAL TRAINER MARKINGS

(4) PT type aircraft in use at installations under the jurisdiction of the CG, AAFTC may, for purposes of increased visibility, have the following markings, applied locally. These will be of corresponding materials applied over the aluminized finish.

(a) A 30-inch band of international orange completely around the fuselage, near midway between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of horizontal stabilizer.

(b) International orange on each wing tip, covering the area from the leading to the trailing edges, top and bottom, and extending inboard a distance of 24 inches. On biplanes, this color will be applied to the top and bottom of the tips of both the upper and lower wings.

It is important to note here that AAFTCs request on March 25, 1944, to revert to its earlier blue and yellow paint scheme for its PT type aircraft, was not carried out. Although it had been approved by HQ AAF on May 6, 1944, these new instructions now directed AAFTC to paint international orange bands on the wings and fuselage instead.

Although no reason for the reversal of the earlier approval by HQ AAF was given, it seems likely that the decreasing need for new pilots at this state of the war was reducing the need for anti-collision paint schemes.

The tremendous numbers of pilots trained by the AAFTC can be seen by the 35,000 day fighter pilots that passed through the schools between December 1942 and August 1945.

Exterior wood surfaces (fabric covered) will have a minimum of one brush coat of varnish, thinned with an equal portion of naphtha, and two brush or spray coats of clear tautening dope, Specification No. ANTT-D-514, prior to attachment of fabric. The fabric may be cemented in place with the second coat of clear dope, or may be laid on the dried second coat with cementing effected by wetting the fabric with thinner or thinned dope The finish over the fabric shall consist of a minimum of one brushed (first) coat and two sprayed coats of clear tautening dope followed by the necessary spray coals of pigmented dope.

10. FABRIC.

a. Exterior fabric parts will have a minimum of two brush and two spray coats of clear nitrate dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514 (aluminized dope vehicle, Specification No. AN-TT-D-551, is not a suitable substitute, as it does not have the tautening qualities of Specification No. AN-TT-D-514). The weight of clear dope coats should be between 2.5 and 3.5 ounces per square yard. This will be followed by two or more coats of aluminized dope prepared by addingS ounces per gallon pigment, aluminum paste, Specification No. AN-TT-A-461, to dope cellulose nitrate, clear, Specification No. AN-TT-D-551, before

thinning. The weight of the complete finish should be between 4.5 and 5.0 ounces per square yard. Patching will be accom­plished with clear dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514, applied in same manner and will be covered with suitably colored pigmented dope coats as prescribed for new fabric.

b. For emergency rejuvenation of old fabric, add a fluid ounce of each tricresyl phosphate and castor oil to 1 gallon of two to one mix of clear dope, Specification No. AN-TT-D-514, and blush retarding thinner, Specification No. AN-TT-T- 258. Apply one coat by brush to clean surface, followed by one spray coat, After several hours drying, spray one coat of aluminized dope, prepared as specified in paragraph 13.a,

SECTION III MARKINGS

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)

During the winter of 1943-1944 the USAAFgrewat a tremen­dous rate in Europe, far exceeding its losses, and launched a major assault on the German aircraft factories in February, 1944. This became known later as “Big Week” and put a major, and lasting, crimp into the Luftwaffe’s ability to defend Germany. With the ad­vent of the long-ranging Merlin engined P-51 escort fighter, the Eighth Air Force B-17 and B-24 bombers were able to cover the length and breadth of Germany in raids of up to 1,000 aircraft.

At the same time, the Twelfth and Fifteenth Air Forces in the Mediterranean area were advancing up Italy and making major at­
tacks on eastern Europe and southern Germany, primarily against the all-important oil producing plants needed to keep German forces and industry active.

However, the major effort in Europe was the preparation for the long-awaited Allied invasion of France, culminating in the land­ings on June 6, known hereafter as “D-Day”. The Ninth Air Force in England roamed far and wide over France and the Low Coun­tries, attacking the entire transportation system to prevent swift German reactions against the vulnerable Allied forces on the beaches of northern France.

All of this effort resulted in a virtual lack of Luftwaffe action over France on D-Day and ensured the success of the landings. German attempts to cause destruction and panic in England, using the new V-l flying bombs and the V-2 rockets, brought intense USAAF and RAF attacks on their launch sites. This blunted the effect and the new weapons had no substantial effect on the Allied

advance across France, Paris being liberated on August 25. More important was the German introduction of the Me-163 rocket fighter in July, followed by the Me-262 jet fighter in October, but various technical problems with both types prevented either one from be­coming an effective weapon (note: the Me-262 is generally cred­ited with being the first jet fighter in action, but the RAF Gloster Meteor was used in squadron strength against the V-l bombs, be­ginning in August).

The introduction of these new weapons did little to prevent the massive Eighth and Fifteenth Air Force attacks against the shrink­ing Nazi empire, and by the end of the year the Allies were on the borders of Germany, victory seeming to be imminent. The contri­bution of air power to the Allied successes was underscored by the surprise Nazi attack in December, the Battle of the Bulge. This was launched in extremely bad weather which kept the allied air forces grounded for several days. However, when the weather opened up, the huge air attacks on the German forces helped to completely turn the tables. On December 24, the Eighth Air Force put up 2,046 heavy bombers and 853 escort fighters in their biggest mission ever against the Nazis.

In the Pacific, the Allies had fought their way up the long is­land chain leading to Japan, culminating in the landings on the Phil­ippines. The naval battle of the Leyte Gulf resulted in the virtual destruction of the Japanese navy, together with their lack of air power. In Burma, the British advance took them close to the cap­ture of Mandalay, aided by the USAAF Tenth Air Force.

All of these victories were bought at a heavy cost and during 1944, the USAAF lost 11,618 aircraft in Europe and the Mediterra­nean, together with 1,671 in the Pacific area. This was out of a total peak strength of 79,908 aircraft on July 1944. This included

US Army Air Forces specifications in use, revised, or issued, by date and version, during 1944. 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.

more than 12,165 B-17. B-24, and B-29 heavy bombers, 8,341 medium and light bombers, 15,644 fighters, 9,433 transports, and 27,907 trainers, by far the biggest air force ever seen. It stands as a staggering industrial and military achievement.

During 1944, the rapid changes in the war situation led to the following changes in the marking and camouflaging of USAAF aircraft’.

Camouflage no longer required on combat aircraft in Europe, Janu­ary.

Gloss Black paint overall finish ordered for P-70 and P-61 night fighters, January.

Radio Call number colors changed to black, international orange, or insignia red for various types of aircraft, March.

ANA Bulletin No. 157A listed all AAF, Navy, and British equiva­lent or superseded colors and changed Insignia Red to Bright Red, March.

T. O. 07-1-1 gives first instructions for the removal of camouflage, April.

Camouflage to be continued on Douglas A-20H and A-20K air­craft, July.

T. О. 07-1-1B added camouflage requirements for troop carriers and transports, and new markings for war-weary and surplus air­craft, August.

PT trainer aircraft to be finished in aluminum with international orange bands around fuselage and wings, August.

Camouflage deleted from Republic P-47s destined for Britain and France, November.

Ь

Boeing B-17G-35-BO, 42-32025, aircraft VP-Pof the 533rd BS, 381st BG, 1st CBW (red tail, wing tip, and horizontal stabilizer), 1st Air Div (black triangle), Eighth Air Force. Spring 1944, Behind Is B-I7G-20-BO, 42-31570, aircraft VP-W, of the same unit. Note marked difference of the Dark Olive Drab on the two aircraft’s fuselages and the large oil stains from all engines, extending back over part of the horizontal tail. (CSAF via Gerry R. Markgraf)

In a letter dated September 11, 1944, the Production Engineering Section (WF) informed the Bombardment Requirements Division (Washington, DC), that there was little difference in the visibility of Jet No. 622 camouflage in daylight from that of an unpainted, bare – metal aircraft. Aircraft seen from the ground were usually darker than the sky, an indication that the gloss black finish would make little difference in daytime.

The Jet No. 622 paint added about 150 lbs to the weight of a B-29, but they felt that this would be counteracted by the increased smoothness of the finish,

(B-29s used the gloss black finish while serving with the new Twentieth Air Force in the Pacific – author).

Douglas service document details requirements for Removal of Camouflage and Enamel Finishes, October 1944.

The following document was issued by Douglas in a service bulletin and details what a job it was to remove camouflage finishes from previously painted aircraft, After reading the details, it is obvious why it was not done very often.

Stripping. Removal of Camouflage and Enamel Finishes.

Removal of camouflage finishes and zinc chromate primers from metal surfaces is a headache regardless of the process used. The following, however, has the advantage of being less injurious to the metal surfaces and of minimizing work for ground crews.

Materials

1. Turco paint remover (L-713C): This remover is toxic and contains ingredients which are harmful to the eyes and skin. Workmen must be protected from contact with the stripper by wearing caps, goggles, gloves, aprons, and other clothes which will give complete protection.

2. DuPont acetate dope (5306) or acetate butyrate dope (AN-D-1).

3. Cellulose nitrate dope and lacquer thinner (AN-TT-T-256).

4. Ethyl acetate (AN-O-E-758).

5. Kraft wrapping paper (40 pound): The resistance of this paper to the remover may be considerably increased by impregnating it with acetate dope. Run the paper through a container filled with acetate dope (5306) having a viscosity of 45 to 50 seconds (measured by a No. 3 Zahn cup, while the dope is at a temperature of 25°C). Remove all excess dope with a rubber scraper and allow the paper to dry at least 1/2 hour before rolling it up and storing it for use.

6. Scotch masking tape (1- and 2-inch).

7. Waterproof cloth (AAF16094, Type 2, Class A).