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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Подпись: Douglas B-18A Finished in the most effective anti-submarine aircraft camouflage, a combination of Dark Olive Drab, Neutral Gray, and Insignia White. Jan. 1943. © Victor Archer

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


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