Camouflage painting

[The Smythe Meister]

Interesting stuff this is,I love the early WW2 RAF schemes, they just seem so iconic to me, pattern A or Pattern B..... doesn't matter at all
Stona's knowledge/input is fascinating,as are all the other thoughts and ideas.Excellent thread!

 

[The Smythe Meister]

Hi

Thanks for all your comments, in the end i cheated and got some masks from top notch. Turned out OK I think.

Let's have a look then!

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

So, what prompted the Air Ministry to set up schemes in '36? The Spanish Civil War? All the new monoplanes coming into service? 'Things to Come'?

Stona, you're up!

 

[stona]

The investigations and trials into camouflage schemes began in 1933. These were conducted in various areas over various terrain. The drawings for the Temperate Land Scheme (the classic Dark Earth/Dark Green disruptive scheme, were finalised in June 1936 and presented in the Air Diagrams I mentioned. It was specifically to camouflage the aircraft while on the ground or flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet or less over land.

It is true that most RAF aircraft were camouflaged at the time of the Munich crisis in 1938. New types were being camouflaged on the production lines earlier. The first four Hurricanes delivered to the RAF, to No. 11 (Fighter) Squadron in December 1937 were camouflaged. These are aircraft of the first Hurricane squadron, No.111, taken at Northolt in February 1938, seven months before the Munich crisis. Incidentally, both A and B Schemes are seen here too.



Notice that the other markings are all peacetime markings. It was not until a conference at the Air Ministry on 20 December 1938 that a decision was taken to apply wartime markings in peacetime. It wasn't until 27 April 1939 that A.M.O A.154 - 'Identification Markings on Aircraft of Operational Units and Marking of Unit Equipment' was issued. This led to the roundel style, code letters and colours, etc. that we would see at the beginning of the war. I suspect that it was around this time that many of the older types already in service at operational units received their camouflage.

Likewise, pictures of the very first production Spitfire, K9787, show it to have been camouflaged. as completed in May 1938. Here you can still see the guard for the anti-spin parachute fitted to the fin.




Meanwhile, you should absolutely paint your models as you see fit. I am merely posting information that is a matter of record. It's not for me to tell anyone how to paint their models.

What I won't do is respond to a Gish-gallop. Originally you questioned the existence of the well documented A and B camouflage schemes. Now you are arguing about when camouflage schemes were designed and eventually applied. I'm answering in good faith because there are others here who may have an interest in the facts.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Stona, I apologise if my, usually jocular level, of remarks have been misinterpreted. I wasn't arguing about the EXISTANCE of schemes, just commenting on all the to-ing and fro-ing you get with the usual (strident) commentary/assertions without backing it with evidence.
When someone presents ACTUAL evidence, as you have most eloquently here, all the other arguments fall by the wayside. Not that that stops some still saying 'but I'm RIGHT!' and no amount of REAL evidence will dissuade THEM
Until now, I'd never heard of the 'Munich' schemes (with apologies for using that 'popular' term) appearing so widely before '38, so it was a revelation to hear how far in advance the designs were. Obvious that there had to BE drawings before the Crisis, and that someone in the Air Min. was forward thinking enough to spoil all the pretty silver 'planes! 'What? We no longer have to buff up the cowlings so the Station Warrant can see his face in them? Yay!' You never hear the 'why now' in MTPs or MUs, but you do see the fallout. That's why I asked about what the prompt was to start thinking about it. Sometimes a new regulation is quantifying something that is already in place. An example being the directive from the Admiralty in 1903 that 'all ships are now to be painted grey' (paraphrasing), because most ships were ALREADY grey. How many Air Min. specifications, in this period, were written for a 'plane AFTER it was presented for use (I'm looking at you, Fairey Fox!)

BTW I DO like that pic of the Hurricane line-up, especially with the Gauntlet and Hart (or Demon, can't tell at this distance, shame on me!) in the background. Especially as it's Northolt, where my partner served in the 'eighties as a photographer / interpreter. And he just said 'Are those Finnish Hurricanes?', because he could barely see the red in the roundel

And there's another, genuine, question for Stona. What made the Air Min. choose 'brown' and 'green' as camo colours? And in a 'disruptive' pattern? Many other countries were doing an all-over dark green at the time (and Italy were certainly experimenting with a bewildering number of schemes!). In about '38 the War Office began to issue the MTPs (MTP20?) about repainting vehicles from all-over bronze-green to a 'brown' and 'green' (not what they're actually called I know) disruptive scheme. The Army following what the RAF was doing? Unthinkable!

 

[stona]

They began experimenting in 1933. The schemes were tested for observability on the ground (from the air) and flying at relatively low altitude. I suspect that the context was to hide air assets from enemy bombers, which, as Stanley Baldwin had declared in November the previous year, "will always get through".

The trials literally involved painting aircraft in various schemes and seeing how well they worked.

I actually have some images of the Air Diagrams, but not on this computer. The Dark Earth and Dark Green scheme was simply judged to be most effective over temperate terrain.

The red of the roundel is barely visible on those Hurricanes, but it is there. I'm not a photographer, but I know that the type of film and indeed filters used for professional publicity shots like that one can alter the resulting B&W image in 'interesting' ways I can't tell a Hart from a Demon in that image either, but I reckon that's a Gloster Gauntlet in front of it.

Disruptive schemes were not that unusual. The Germans had used a variety of multi-colour schemes before settling on the two green (RLM 70 and RLM 71) with which they started the war. They changed the RLM 70 for RLM 02 which gave a much higher contrast. The French used a three colour scheme, Gris Blue Fonce (dark blue grey), Terre Fonce (dark earth) and either Kaki (khaki) or Vert (green) on the upper surfaces. The Italians did go for softer edged schemes, but still featuring, typically, three colours like Giallo Mimetico (camouflage yellow), Verde Mimetico (camouflage green) and Marrone Mimetico (camouflage brown).

I've no idea why the Army would have followed the RAF with disruptive schemes. Maybe it did it's own research and came to a similar conclusion? Oddly, RAF vehicles went from a two green camouflage (described as green and 'tarmac green') to, in 1942, a two brown camouflage (brown special No. 2 and dark brown). I think even later the disruptive pattern was applied in black.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Hmm, never heard of 'tarmac green' before. I wonder if that equates to the army 'Dark Tarmac'? Though that appears to be a very dark greyish colour. I did read a while back that when RAF vehicles started to be camo'ed, Dark Earth and Dark Green were used, because those were the available paints! That's how my RAF Standard 'Tilly' is done, and NOT in the blue-grey apparently beloved of vehicle restorers!

Another question, and this comes perilously close to 'what is NIVO'. Was there a new regulation for medium bombers to go green or did they go straight to 'disruptive'? They went straight through from 0/100s through Virginias to Heyfords in 'night bomber' green, but I've never seen a Sidestrand / Overstrand in camo. Did 1158 only apply to new monoplanes?

 

[spanner570]

....My poor good buddy Steve (Stona)

 

[stona]

This doesn't tell us what the colours were, but it does give stores references which might help an interested party track them down.



The various classes of bombers went straight to disruptive schemes.

NIVO (Night Invisible Camouflage Orfordness) was developed to be precisely that, and was used in a single colour for that purpose. Dark Slate Grey was the nearest of the newer colours, and was used in maritime camouflage schemes. Coastal Command was under Air Ministry control at the beginning of the war, despite the Admiralty's efforts to wrest control, but the aircraft would have been camouflaged in the Temperate Sea Scheme, though we know a lot of aircraft that came from Bomber Command were not re-finished.

As for the Sidestrand and Overstrand, they are both irrelevant to WW2 . Even the Overstrand was withdrawn from frontline duties in mid-1938. Neither type is listed on any squadron in Coastal Command's order of battle in September 1939. A few did remain in secondary service, how they were painted I don't know.

The upper surfaces are clearly not aluminium, but I couldn't tell you whether that is one colour or not.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

My ex-RAF partner points out that 'distemper 'is usually a temporary, removeable colour, like a whitewash. So was that a stop gap measure before full repainting? Interestingly, the tank colours are G3 and G4. That's not to say that, just because the numbers match, the paints have any relationship

Not sure about the Overstrand wing NOT being aluminium dope, as it does, kind of match the shade of the top of the fuselage, so it could just be the angle. However, it's not very shiny, unlike the tail surfaces, and the lower wing. Could be wrong, but you'd have to wonder WHY it would be something other than aluminium dope. 'If the light bombers and fighters can have decorations, why can't we?' There's a cigarette card shows a silver top wing, and that's a 'colourised' photo, but you'd hardly call it authoritative, even if it is about the only contemporary reference. The tops of the engine cowlings are definitely a different colour, probably NIVO.

I should have remembered, the Wildebeest and Vincent had camo schemes, and then we get into the light green / light earth counter-shading. And I do have a Hawker Hector profile that has a fifth colour added!

Were secondary duties aircraft in WW2 painted yellow underside and camo uppers? Was THAT a regulation?

NOW, to pick Stona's brains further, I've seen a painting of the defence of Habbaniya in 1941 where an Anson is camo but the Harts are still silver. When shoukd out-of-the-way (of the main war that is. Habbaniya was one of the largest RAF basses anywhere) stations have their 'planes re-schemed? Of course, THEN we get into all the stuff about regulations being written up to make changes already in place 'official'.

Even sticking to silver wings RAF stuff gets complicated

Outside of the model-making community, am I a nerd to find this stuff endlessly interesting? I do Regia Aeronautica 'planes so I have to deal with four-or-five versions of the'same' pre'1941 colour! And also why I don't go on RA forae. It's so much more well-mannered around here

 

[stona]

"Were secondary duties aircraft in WW2 painted yellow underside and camo uppers? Was THAT a regulation?"

No. They were supposed to conform with the relevant regulations for their type, role and organisation.
Training aircraft were supposed to have yellow undersides and received the disruptive scheme on upper surfaces in 1938 along with everything else. Aircraft at OTUs were camouflaged as per whatever command they belonged to as were those of the Air Fighting Development Unit, Fighter Interception Unit and, while it existed, No. 2 School of Army Co-operation Command. .
Experimental and prototype aircraft, including private venture aircraft, were to have yellow undersides, though operational aircraft temporarily on the strength of experimental establishments were allowed to retain their 'normal colourings'.
Ambulance aircraft - white under surfaces.
Target towing aircraft - black inclined stripes on a yellow background. Black stripes 3 feet wide with a six foot yellow spacing.

The last one came with a helpful diagram:



In all cases the demarcation between upper and lower colours was determined by one of two 'patterns'. The detail is beyond the scope of this reply, but 'Pattern No. 1' was a low demarcation, 'Pattern No. 2' much higher. Which was to be used was specified in the instructions for each class of aircraft.

Aircraft were supposed to be finished in accordance with the relevant Air Ministry Orders. However, there was a war on, supplies of the relevant materiel, particularly to overseas commands for aircraft outside the metropolitan air force were inconsistent and the further away from London the less likely things were to be done on time, or even at all.

Malta is not that far away, but look at the can 'o' worms the colours on the Spitfires delivered there can be.

 

[Jakko]

In about '38 the War Office began to issue the MTPs (MTP20?) about repainting vehicles from all-over bronze-green to a 'brown' and 'green' (not what they're actually called I know) disruptive scheme. The Army following what the RAF was doing? Unthinkable!

I don’t think they were following what the RAF was doing. Looking at the aircraft schemes, they seem intended to break up the aircraft’s outline and so make it harder to spot/hit. The British Army’s scheme was meant to even out the perceived colours on the vehicles, thereby making it stand out less as a whole — that’s why the top surfaces were painted dark, and there were dark blotches around the wheel arches but inside/below those arches was the lighter colour.

 

[SteveT]

You know, I always assumed that camo was just a random pattern put onto aircraft, never realised there was a set pattern and lots were the same. Very interesting!

 

[Jakko]

That applies to German AFVs from the Second World War, as well as a number of other nations/time periods, but a lot of camouflage has been designed specifically for a purpose and/or the vehicle/plane/ship it’s on. A layman won’t be able to tell the difference between those official patterns and something that comes from a modeller’s imagination, of course, but those who’ve researched it even a little, probably will.

 

[stona]

You know, I always assumed that camo was just a random pattern put onto aircraft, never realised there was a set pattern and lots were the same. Very interesting!

They were exactly specified. That's not to say there were not some small variations in the application between the various datum points.



US built aircraft were finished to British specifications, in agreed substitute colours.

 

[SteveT]

They were exactly specified. That's not to say there were not some small variations in the application between the various datum points.

View attachment 504738

US built aircraft were finished to British specifications, in agreed substitute colours.

View attachment 504739

Thanks, that's really interesting.

 

[Scratchbuilder]

And to add even more confusion to the mix do not forget the father of camoflague - the Dazzle schemes used in WW1.... Used to hopefully off set the enemy when using you as a target....

 

[stona]

And to add even more confusion to the mix do not forget the father of camoflague - the Dazzle schemes used in WW1.... Used to hopefully off set the enemy when using you as a target....

They tried some of those on aircraft too!

The Americans were quite keen on it for a while. This 'Vindicator' sports one of the McClelland Barclay experimental schemes.



If you Google "McClelland Barclay camouflage" all sorts of his schemes will turn up on various aircraft. Fortunately for us these schemes were shown not really to work at all on aircraft.

 

[spanner570]

Steve, now that has my juices flowing good style!

 

[stona]

Go for it Ron!

Here's a shameless plug for the F2A in another exotic McClelland Barclay scheme.



As far as I know nobody is sure of the colours, though I've seen White, Black, Mid-Grey, Dark Grey, Sea Green, Blue and Silver Grey listed. I've never really researched these schemes, so have no idea about the combinations. I'm not sure anyone does!