Camouflage painting

[spanner570]

Steve, it seems to me the only limitation on design and the perhaps colours used, is what McClelland Barclay had in his/ her/ their heads and paint store at the time!

...and as a bonus, no one would dare write that something is not right with the modeller's choice.

Sorry Michael, I'm going off topic. Must stop.....

Ron

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

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....

Yes, unlike camouflage schemes meant to HIDE the vehicle, the dazzle schemes were meant confuse what it was being observed. There is a report from one RN sub captain, when dazzle was tested, that he could see the ship perfectly, but couldn't tell how far away it was or the direction it was going in through his periscope
Kind of vital when you're lining up a torpedo shot!

 

[stona]

the dazzle schemes were meant confuse what it was being observed.

There were some other 'deceptive' schemes applied to various aircraft, from a simple 'fake' perspex nose to hide the fact that the aircraft was a heavily armed version with a 'solid' nose to fake nacelles etc. How effective that was is anyone's guess. I'm sure I've seen a picture of a modern fighter jet with a fake canopy painted on the underside - but they're not my thing.

Poor old McClellan Barclay's camouflage was deemed ineffective on aircraft and never used operationally.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

Here's a scan of the conjectural colour for one of the McClellan-Barclay schemes, out of Wings of the Fleet Profiles book from Aviation Workshop

I look at the complexity of the thing and go, 'what were they thinking'? Sure, it's experimental and all, but it's just so complicated. And what was the point of the lines on the underside? And don't get me started on those circles on the wings! I suppose the discovered pretty quickly that complex patterns like this blur together into one colour at a pretty short distance, which maybe why they went for 2/3 shade colouring pretty soon afterwards

Makes an interesting model project though, what with the OLD Airfix Buffalo being re-issued

Nope. I'm sticking to my spotty and smoky Italian schemes, thanks!

 

[Jakko]

BTW, the reference shown in that scan is this page:

USN Aircraft--Brewster F2A Fighters -- 1940 Experimental Camouflage

This page features views of Brewster F2A fighters wearing experimental camouflage schemes tested in 1940.

www.ibiblio.org

It has six views of the same plane, painted like this.

 

[stillp]

The Number 2 scheme looks a bit easier to paint.
Come on guys, someone on here must be mad enough to try one of these schemes!
Pete

 

[stona]

The Number 2 scheme looks a bit easier to paint.
Come on guys, someone on here must be mad enough to try one of these schemes!
Pete

I now at least one person who fits the bill

That's a good guide to that pattern, posted by Chris, the colours are definitely open to interpretation.

 

[Steve-the-Duck]

I now at least one person who fits the bill

That's a good guide to that pattern, posted by Chris, the colours are definitely open to interpretation.

True enough. For all we know, they might have used GREEN rather than blue!
And there is a precedent for that too. When torpedo boat destroyers became a thing at the end of the nineteenth century, many countries experimented on what colour would make them less visible. We went with black, which makes them look VERY sinister, other countries went with shades of grey. The USN went with green
But it all looks grey in the photos!