The Syrian airfield prepare for reception of military aircraft of China
The latest news about fast emergence in borders of Syria of navy of China encouraged Syrians and res[...]
Camouflage Paint on USAAF Airplanes in the United Kingdom, January 2,1944
Gen. Eaker sent a letter to the CGs,, Ninth Air Force, VIII Bomber Command and VIII Fighter Command, on January 2,1944. This stated that in the near future, certain types of aircraft arriving in the theater would be uncamouflaged. The Generals were directed to notify the VIII Air Force Service Command as to their intentions regarding the use of uncamouflaged combat aircraft, at the earliest possible date. The final decision in this regard was to remain in the hands of the responsible Tactical Commander.
The policy in the theater concerning use of uncamouflaged aircraft would be established through the decisions reached as above. This letter gave the Tactical Commanders concerned the authority to operate their combat aircraft without camouflage if so desired.
On January 15, 1944, Ninth Air Force HQ. replied to F. aker’s letter, stating that their policy would be as follows:
a. Fighter Aircraft. All operational fighters used by IX Fighter Command would be camouflaged, and any uncamouflaged aircraft received would be camouflaged. This would cause extra work for the depot and service units and they would prefer to receive all fighters destined for IX AF in camouflage. They also would, if possible, polish the camouflage paint to attain the equivalent of an RAF “fighter finish”, as this would give them the same performance as uncamouflaged aircraft.
b. Bomber Aircraft. The IX Bomber Comand would use either camouflaged or uncamouflaged aircraft, in an “as received” state. Aircraft delivered uncamouflaged would not be painted, nor would paint be removed from those already camouflaged. No change in operational tactics was anticipated for uncamouflaged aircraft.
c. Troop Carrier Aircraft. The IX Troop Carrier Command did not want to use uncamouflaged aircraft, and any uncamouflaged aircraft delivered to them would be camouflaged before delivery to combat units.
|
Boeing B-17G-5-BO, 42-31134, aircraft CC-G of the 569th BS, 390th BG, taking part in the major offensive against the German aircraft industry in February 1944. Note the while rectangle with the black letter “J” within it; it has usually been called a “square”, but the orders clearly defined a rectangle. It could be seen in a horizontal position on aircraft with wide code letters (see chapter 6 for more information). (USAF) |
Four Boeing B-17Gs of the 323rd BS, 91st BG, 1st CBW, 1st Air Div, Eighth Air Force, over clouds with bomb doors open. Lead aircraft is in Dark Olive Drab and Neutral Gray, with yellow code letters OK-K, others all in natural metal, code letters OK-C, S, and K. Note how the red tail markings show up the different color triangles on the Olive Drab and natural metal aircraft. (ESAF)
Material Command issues Military Requirements Policy No. 60, concerning AAF insignia on leased commercial aircraft, January 6, 1944.
To clarify any misunderstanding concerning the camouflage of AAF aircraft, Material Command issued Military Requirements Policy No. 60 on January 6, 1944. This stated that Army camouflage, insignia and markings were not to be used on any commercial aircraft leased to the AAF, but not flown by AAF crews. Such camouflage, etc., was to be used on any commercial aircraft leased to the AAF for a continuous period exceeding ninety days, which was flown and maintained by AAF personnel. Any AAF aircraft loaned to any other government agency and not flown by AAF crews were to have all Army camouflage, insignia and markings removed before delivery.