Sub-Committee on Standardization, JAC’ (Wash.), continues use of camouflage and adopts two new Navy colors, January 19, 1944

The JAC sub-committee on Standardization met on January 19, 1944, to review the new requirements and policies of the three services concerning the use of camouflage on their aircraft. Particular attention was paid to the latest AAF Military Requirements Policy (MPR) No. 15, dated January 6,1944. The new AAF camouflage policy read as follows:

Aircraft allocated to Lend-Lease beneficiary governments and the Navy will be delivered with standard U. S. Army camou­flage, unless other specified camouflage has been requested bythe recipient Agency.

The AAF stated that MRP No. 15 only referred to camouflage paints and that the Material Command retained control of protective coatings. The committee decided that in view of this, that the existing service specifications should continue to define protective coatings. The AAF, Navy and British committee members agreed that:

1. The weight of camouflage paint applied to aircraft was less than had been commonly believed; for example, the paint on a B-24 aircraft only weighed 71 pounds, an insignificant proportion of the aircraft’s 60,000 pound gross weight.

2. The increase in drag due to rough camouflage paint was not a serious factor.

3. Aircraft on the ground could be camouflaged more effectively than in flight.

4. Navy tests on an F4U-1 aircraft showed that speed increases due to lack of camouflage were smalt, and their results substan­tiated those obtained by AAF and British tests.

The British member stated that they had found that nets were less effective over non-camouflaged aircraft on the ground, and the Navy member agreed with this statement. The AAF member said that MPR No, 15 did not apply to this situation.

Consolidated B-24H-20-DT, 41-28967, was the Formation lead aircraft for the 458th BG, 96th CBW, of the 2 Air Division, Eighth Air Force, it crash landed on March 9,1944. The forward half of the fuselage and all surfaces of the wing were painted in white with blue and red polka dots. The left of the aircraft was olive drab with yellow and red polka dots. Outer surfaces of the red vertical tails had a white stripe in the middle. The letter Z was in red. Just visible in the photograph is the row of lights on the white stripe in the middle of a red circle, replacing the fuselage cocarde. (USAF)

Consolidated B-24H-20-DT, 41-28967, shown in happier days while it was still flying. Note the red, black and white shark teeth around the nose and the black outlined “eye”. (USAF)

Consolidated B-24 crew prepare to board aircraft ‘‘Lonesome Polecat, Jr.” It is finished in Dark Olive Drab and Neutral Gray. (USAF via Gerry R. MarkgraD

In view of these statements and data, the committee decided that standard camouflage schemes would be applied by the manufacturers; if this was not possible, the camouflage would be applied at the Modification Centers.

The committee also approved the addition of the Navy Light and Dark Gull Grays to the standard camouflage colors. The Dark Gull Gray would replace the Navy Light Gray and the British Sea Gray Medium, and the Light Gull Gray would be an additional color.

These recommendations were approved by the JAC on January 27,1944.

North American P-51B-1-NA, 43-12216, aircraft AJ-U of the 356th FS, 354th FG, Ninth Air Force early in 1944, It is folly camouflaged and has the specified white bands around the nose and across the wings and tail surfaces. The spinner was also white. These markings were intended to help differentiate the P-51 from the German Messerschmitt Mel09. (USAF)