Deletion of camouflage on A-20 aircraft leads to considerable detail changes, detailed in AAF-Douglas Aircraft correspondence, December 8-20, 1943

The AAF Material Command wrote to Douglas Aircraft Co., Santa Monica, on December 8,1943, concerning the deletion of camouflage on A-20G, A-20J, A-20H, and A-20K aircraft. This letter stated that higher authority had directed that camouflage was to be deleted from all of these versions, at the earliest possible date without delaying production. Only aircraft destined for Russia were to be camouflaged; this was to be applied to aircraft at the Douglas plant if possible, however, it could be done at the Modification Center.

It was also required to delete camouflage from all spares shipped with uncamouflaged aircraft (except for the Russian aircraft). Basically, exterior surfaces of fabric, plywood, wood, magnesium and unclad dural were to be treated with primer and aluminized finishes, while exterior alclad and stainless steel surfaces would not need any finish. Black anti-glare paint was required on top of the fuselage to cover forward areas seen by the pilot.

Douglas were to deliver all aircraft with a uniform color of finish, i. e., no aircraft were to be delivered with some assemblies camouflaged and some not. No existing camouflaged parts or assemblies were to be scrapped. Propellers were to remain black with yellow tips. If existing camouflaged parts in stock would cause a marked delay in carrying out these orders, Douglas was to remove the camouflage or refinish them to an aluminum color without delaying aircraft deliveries.

Douglas was also told to not irrevocably convert its camouflaging facilities to other uses (presumably in case it became necessary to use camouflage finishes at a later date). They were asked to let the Material Command know when they could deliver completely uncamouflaged aircraft so that the necessary contract changes could be issued.

Enclosed with the letter was a sheet containing instructions for the removal of the camouflage. This agreed with the details in the letter, except for two areas. The instruction sheet called for the use of “Dark Green” anti-glare paint on the top of the forward fuselage, whereas the letter had asked for “Black” paint, and it also required the removal of camouflage from spinners (apparently, even higher authorities got their signals crossed!).

This anti-glare paint disagreement was resolved by a letter from Wright Field, dated December 13, 1943, which directed that all A – 20G and A-20H aircraft having camouflage deleted required Olive Drab No. 613 anti-glare paint on top of the fuselage and inboard side of nacelles, forward of the wing leading edge, to cover forward and lateral vision areas seen by the pilot. It also stated that in addition to “Moth” (P-70) aircraft, it was still necessary to camouflage all Lease-Lend aircraft.

The general confusion over details of camouflaging production aircraft continued, and Douglas Aircraft found it necessary to ask the Material Center to clarify the situation in a letter dated December 15, 1943, This stated that an AAF letter directed that standard A-20 camouflage should be applied to all P-70 aircraft. Other AAF directives stated that Lend-Lease and “Moth” aircraft only should be camouflaged. They received a reply from Material Command on December 17,1943, stating that camouflage was required on all the P­70 night fighter versions. In turn, on December 20, 1943, they acknowledged the directives received, stated that they were determining the effective dates for deletion of camouflage on the A-20G, H, J, and К versions. They also requested immediate official contract authority for the change, so that they could implement it without delay.

This correspondence clearly shows the time involved in contract changes at that time, due to transit times for mail, even with the use of teletypes.