Camouflage!

[montanamotor]

Folks, question:

In some instances, I found several interesting qoutes of fighter pilots concerning the efficiency of camouflage-patterns on aircraft.

I found one finnish ace stating that, the efficiency of russian bomber camouflage during the continuation war was such that, his wing was cruising DIRECTLY ABOVE a formation of SB-3 bombers over water without being able to detect them, although they were directed by a finnish air-controller on the ground, who could clearly see the bombers against the sky.

I remember one picture of a Bf 109 E with spluttered desert pattern over a rocky desert in Libya in 1941, which blended in perfectly with the background and was only discernible by it's iron crosses - and by nothing else.

Erich Hartmann in his biographic book stated that, german camouflage was of great advantage when he was fighting American B 24 Bombers and Lightning-escort-fighters in 1944 over Ploesti/Romania, as in more than one instance, he could sneak in and shoot his opponent down without being detected even by a large formation of enemy aircraft.

Also, with german night fighters, there was great effort put in the development of effective camouflage patterns against detection from british bomber's tailgunners duringthe british night-bombing-offensive. This finally lead to the whell-known, surprisingly light, yet very effective german nightfighter camouflage patterns from 1944 onwards.

So, in general one might conclude that, sensibly applied camouflage works really fine - at least, when spotted from above. What do you think? What's your knowledge on this? Good examples - bad examples availlable? Interesting quotes found anywhere? Then let us have it! Share it with all of us.

And I don't talk about bare and polished B 17 and B 29, folks! That's quite a different story...

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[montanamotor]

Wow -

what a thread... Come on, guys: Are you colour-blind, or what?

Helloho: Anybody out there? Ohmygod - I am ALONE!!!!

:D

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Red Admiral]

Camouflage isn't quite as useful for the allies. You want everyone to know that you are friendly so you don't get shot down by trigger-happy gun nuts either in the air or on the ground. There were quite a few problems when Mustangs were first introduced into the RAF. The wing plan looking like a Bf109.

Later on, the paint came off because it was limiting speed. The US fighters gained about 10mph from having normal metallic sufaces instead of painted iirc.

[GregP]

Properly-applied camoflague was VERY effective.

The problem lies with changing deployments. By way of example, a forrest camo scheme was effective in Europe mostly, but was worse than useless in the desert or in snow.

So, if you have the ability to paint your aircraft, it was useful for a defender that was outnumbered or for a numerically inferior attacker. For a numerically superior attacker ... camo was not necessary since, as stated rather well above, you WANTED to be identified.

It wasn't there in WWII, but today's cano is mostly "Air Superioroty Blue," which is the color of the sky. The intent is that your opponent will have a hard time finding you if he or she is replying on a visual attack. Camo has no effect whatsoever on missiles ... they only see the radar cross section or the heat signature.

In WWII, I'll state that camoflague was quite effective locally in a single theater of war. Planes that transferred between theaters probably needed new camoflague.

As an aside, bare Aluminum was quite a bit lighter, and thus offered slightly better performance, but properly-applied camo was an enormous advantage to a 2-plane flight attacking a larger foe. Yes, the Soviet camo was quite good, especially their winter camo. Splinter white was virtually invisible over a snow-covered field, especially if the national marking were omitted.

Many Soviet aircraft had very gaudy markings (mostly fighters) ... but that was AFTER they achieved air superiority. When they were being beaten soundly early in the war, the Soviet camo was QUITE good.

[Ricky]

quote:Originally posted by GregP

Yes, the Soviet camo was quite good, especially their winter camo. Splinter white was virtually invisible over a snow-covered field, especially if the national marking were omitted.

Many Soviet aircraft had very gaudy markings (mostly fighters) ... but that was AFTER they achieved air superiority. When they were being beaten soundly early in the war, the Soviet camo was QUITE good.


Although I have seen pictures of MiG 3 Interceptors in an all-white finish... with the end third of the wings in bright red. This was apparently done so that shot-down planes could be easily located and the pilots rescued.

[Mark J]

Is there a link to aircraft camouflage examples, what about the superiority blue Greg, sounds interesting.

cheers

[montanamotor]

About "Superiority Blue" - or isn't it rather a "Superiority Grey" nowadays...? - I think this really comes into effect at close range, when you start out-twisting and out-turning your opponent.

Missing to visually catch the image of your opponent for a second or two in a dogfight may give him ample time to find a firing solution at you without you noticing it - and: "Touchdown"...

Somewhere I read, that the dull, black painting of the british night bombers only late in the war was found to be far off the job to "camouflaging" them, as soon as the beam of a surchlight struck them; the dull surface would disperse the light to all directions, making the surface literally light up in the beam to be clearly visible from far from all directions.

It were the AMERICANS, who determined, that high-gloss black would be far superior to dull black, as it would reflect only a short, sharp beam of light from a bend surface back to the spectator at the surchlight, whereas the rest of the light would be reflected elsewhere and remain unnoticeable to a "surchman".

This was the reason, why the Northrop "Black Widow" Nightfighter received it's high-gloss black dress, and not a dull one, as was proposed by the british.

And if this would remind you of the effect of modern "stealth-technology" on radar, you are exactly on the spot, gentlemen!

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Lightning]

Quoting montanamotor:
quote:what a thread... Come on, guys: Are you colour-blind, or what?

Helloho: Anybody out there? Ohmygod - I am ALONE!!!!
Wow!!! This camouflage really works! He can't see us!!!

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi All,

Lockheed did a lot of experimenting with shades of blue for its F4/F5 "Photo Lightnings." Some shades seemed to be effective at lower levels, but actually made the aircraft more visible in the rarified air at very high altitudes!

They finally developed a pretty good shade, but it faded very rapidly and was only good for a limited number of flights. In the end, they went to the natural-metal finish. Not only did it make the aircraft difficult to see at high altitudes, but it lowered the plane's weight and made for easier maintenance. (It was cheaper, too!)

I have an oppinion on the efficacy of the bare-metal finish as it applies to the visibility of medium-to-high-flying airplanes. I have never seen it in any reference source, and I might be completely wrong, but here it is:

If the metal is highly polished, it will reflect, with almost undiminished brightness, the colors and shades of the surrounding sky. This would cause the plane to blend-in quite nicely with its background. The only drawback (and it's a serious one) is that, at certain angles, the polished surface would glint in the sun.

Regards,
Lightning

[Ricky]

RAF PR Spitfires were initially painted pink, and they switched to blue.

Anybody know why?

[montanamotor]

Hmmm, Ricky,

I MAY have an explanation for this.

Today's actual photographic reconnaissance for commercial use - maybe rather to be reffered to as "photographic surveillance...? - is pretty often being done very early in the mornings, or late in the evenings. This is, to let the very low Sun enhance difficult-to-see ground structures by adding deep shadows to them.

In a book on photographic reconnaissance in WW 1, there was also stated that, they would always get to work before dawn or late in the evening, to better capture the low sun rays "sculpturing" any low ground structures (trenches, fortifications) out of the background.

In such an environment - at dawn and dusk, respectively - it might be desirable to have your plane painted pink, to blend in with a pink sky and ground, caused by the low-standing sun.

Yet, during WW II, assessing damage, which was inflicted upon targets by large night-bomber formations, the next following day certainly has become mayor paramount for "reporters". And for unarmed, high-flying photo-reconnaissance-planes nothing could be more desirable than to blend in to a bright blue daylight sky.

Thus the swap of colours may have been caused by a swap of missions.

Reasonable?

Cheers.

Montanamotor

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

RAF PR Spitfires were initially painted pink, and they switched to blue.

Anybody know why?


By mid-war low altitude aircraft were 'pink', high altitude were PR-blue ... and they stayed this way.

The object of camouflage is to make yourself/the aircaft hard to see. There are several ways of doing this. Lightning's polished metal mirrors are using the same method herrings use ... reflect the ambient light (polarizers can cut through this disguise), camouflage patterns (jungle pattern, Iraq pattern, Luftwaffe desert pattern etc) attempt to produce a random pattern with the same colours and the same spatial frequencies as the environment, the objective being to remove all easy cues (including breaking the shape/outline of the camouflaged object). This can be 'seen through' by using different wavelengths (e.g. deep red filters) and by monitoring other cues like motion ... but it makes life more difficult. Air superiority grey (which made its breakthrough because of a painting (in the Smithsonian?)) attempts to provide a totally neutral stimulus ... for physiological reasons human eyes aren't good at detecting this. The PR-pink is yet another method. The paint mismatches the ambient light (light under cloud tends to be blue) and hence the eye sees a sort of 'ventriloquist grey' which is very hard to track. PR-blue OTOH matches the hard blue sky found at altitude (look up from a jet at 40 000 ft and you will see how a hard, dark blue will be very difficult to see).


All these 'tricks' have been around in nature for 100s of megayears

HTH

[ChrisMcD]

The story I like best is that RAF Coastal Command found that flying with landing lights turned on (during the day) actualy made it harder for U boat crews to spot them as they came in to attack.

Yet another variation on the "lighter is better" idea!

[Lightning]

Hi ChrisMcD,

Quoting you:
quote:The story I like best is that RAF Coastal Command found that flying with landing lights turned on (during the day) actualy made it harder for U boat crews to spot them as they came in to attack.

I never heard this. I know that planes turn on their landing lights in the daytime when near airports (e.g. when in the "pattern") to be more visible to other aircraft both in the air and on the ground. For the life of me, I can't see how this would make them harder to see from the water's surface. Please explain.

Regards,
Lightning

[montanamotor]

With landing lights turned on during approach, You as the AA-gunner aiming at them of course will be able to see them, but you are either blinded by the lights - And nobody can take proper aim with eyes blinking or even closed! - or you can't properly assess distance: This makes you simply shoot past your attacker more often.

Thus, the attacker is improving his chances to get away unhurt by turning lights on. But "being seen" he will be for shure.

Cheers?

Montanamotor

[Lightning]

Hi All,

I came across this the other day:

Technical Order 07-1-1, issued in Europe on 26 December 1943, states, in part:

". . . painting of the exterior metal surfaces of AAF aircraft is hereby discontinued. This does not, however, eliminate the required identification date, insignia, anti-glare coating and corrosion prevention. Man-hours expended on maintaining existing camouflage finishes, now considered unnecessary, will be held to a minimum."

Regards,
Lightning

[Groggy]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi All,

I came across this the other day:

Technical Order 07-1-1, issued in Europe on 26 December 1943, states, in part:

". . . painting of the exterior metal surfaces of AAF aircraft is hereby discontinued. This does not, however, eliminate the required identification date, insignia, anti-glare coating and corrosion prevention. Man-hours expended on maintaining existing camouflage finishes, now considered unnecessary, will be held to a minimum."

Regards,
Lightning

Hi Folks
The Australians/ New Zealanders? In the Indian Pacific theatre found when they removed the camouflage schemes from Catalina’s it saved about 350lbs and the payload or range increased.
It must have made a useful difference in European Theatre. How much?

[Lightning]

Hi montanamotor,

Quoting you:
quote:With landing lights turned on during approach, You as the AA-gunner aiming at them of course will be able to see them, but you are either blinded by the lights - And nobody can take proper aim with eyes blinking or even closed! - or you can't properly assess distance: This makes you simply shoot past your attacker more often.

Thus, the attacker is improving his chances to get away unhurt by turning lights on. But "being seen" he will be for shure.

But if you read Chris's posting again, he states that it "...actualy made it harder for U boat crews to spot them...".

Also, in order to blind a U-boat's gun crew, the attacking aircraft would already have to be pretty close. Landing lights aren't all that powerful--especially during the day when the gunners' eyes are accustomed to bright daylight.

On many (most?) aircraft, the landing lights are not aimed directly ahead in the direction of flight. they are pointed slightly downward so as to provide illumination of the runway as the airplane is on the "flare-out" or "round-out." I don't know if this was the case with Coastal Command's aircraft, but if it was, a plane attacking a U-boat straight ahead would not be shining its landing light directly into the eyes of its crew during the straight-in approach.

A U-boat's main tactic against any threat was to dive if at all possible. The attacking plane's best chance for a kill would be to remain undetected for as long as possible. I can't see how turning on the landing lights--at any stage of the attack--would aid in this strategy.

As to estimating distance to, and establishing lead on, the attacking plane, if he is close enough to blind you, he is close, and if he is attacking straight at you, there is little-or-no lead. You just aim at the light and keep firing until it passes over you as it pulls out of its shallow dive.

Early detection was the U-boat's best defense, and complete surprise was the aircraft's best tactic.

Regards,
Lightning

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Folks,

The Landing Light story is a bit counter intuitive and I have been unable to find the reference.

But, the point is that U boat crews were spotting Coastal Command aircraft as 'dots' against the sky in plenty of time to crash dive - so the obvious solution was to lighten the aircraft against the sky background.

It was shown that when two aircraft flew towards an observer, the one with lights on took longer to spotted as a 'dot'!

In the event Coastal Command went in for reverse shading camouflage (ie white below and grey on top, just like gulls) and flew higher. This gave them the best chance of spotting the U-boat before the lookouts spotted them.

Dazzling U boat crews as part of the attack was certainly done (before they got Leigh Lights) but that is a seperate issue.

[ChrisMcD]

This is about as good a reference as I could find!!

http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9708&L=flight-800&D=0&P=31538

you need to scroll down a bit

Lot of US work on Project Yehudi

[montanamotor]

Lightning,

from early 1944, Admiral Roeder of the german U-boat fleet expressedly ordered his submarines NOT to crash dive any more in case of an aerial attack, but to stay at surface and fight attacking aircraft with newly installed "Vierlings-Flak" (Quadruple Flak - installation of four 20 mm Oerlikon-cannon - on land devastatingly effective against attacking aircraft).

German U-boats had found out that, even crash-diving took too long to bring subs to a save depth when being attacked by aircraft with waterbombs.

Bad point was, that while installed on a moving and twisting submarine, the accuracy of the installed Oerlikons suffered severely. And when british anti-sub-aircraft started using (heavy) guns and rockets against not-yet-submerged targets, staying afloat for the targeted u-boat was about the worst thing they could have done.

But when Germany finally realized this and found a new solution in the "Snorchel" to leave a submarine submerged even when running by diesels, war was about over.

Cheers,

Montanamotor

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Montanamotor,

U-boats fighting it out on the surface led to the only daytime Ju88G long range fighter gruppe being set up (as part of KG 40?) to give them a hand. They did a lot of damage to the Whitleys, Wellingtons and Sunderlands.

This in turn led to massive fights with Beaufighters and then Mosquitos above the Bay of Biscay.

I recently read a book about it which was very interesting. Sounds like the Ju88's had the measure of the Beaufighters, but were vulnerable to the Mosquito.

[Lightning]

Hi Chris,

I read your source with interest. The theory of variable-intensity lights arrayed along the nose and leading edges of the wings being able to blend in with the sky's ambient light sounds a bit questionable to me. The British were very innovative during the war and would not hesitate to try something new if it had any chance of success. I therefore don't doubt that they tried this; I only question its effectiveness.

At any rate, the original contention was that the British aircraft turned on their landing lights to keep from being spotted. I firmly reject this for the reasons I have already given. Allow me to cite an every-day occurrance to prove my point:

Go out to any large airport and pick a spot from where you can see the airplanes on "final-approach." On a high-volume day (almost any day), there will be several planes approaching one-behind-the-other. Many will have their landing lights on. The farthest aircraft will only appear as specks in the distance, but their landing lights will stand out boldly against the sky. Should some of the planes not have their lights on, they will be much harder to see. This is true regardless of whether the weather is overcast, cloudy, or clear.

Quoting you:
quote:Dazzling U boat crews as part of the attack was certainly done (before they got Leigh Lights) but that is a seperate issue.
Was this during the day? Was it done with landing lights? How late in the attack were the lights turned on?

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi montanamotor,

Quoting you:
quote:from early 1944, Admiral Roeder of the german U-boat fleet expressedly ordered his submarines NOT to crash dive any more in case of an aerial attack, but to stay at surface and fight attacking aircraft with newly installed "Vierlings-Flak" (Quadruple Flak - installation of four 20 mm Oerlikon-cannon - on land devastatingly effective against attacking aircraft).
If they were already under attack, this makes sense. A "buttoned-up" (i.e. one that is in the process of crash diving) U-boat still on, or just below, the surface is completely vulnerable and defenseless to any kind of attack. If, on the other hand, the boat's crew spotted an aircraft in time, it would be foolish to remain on the surface. That is why early detection was so important to survival.

It is also important to point out here that it was not always the aircraft that made the first detection. Under many circumstances, the plane was easier to see against the sky than was the low, narrow form of the U-boat against the grey, choppy surface of the sea. He who spotted first had the advantage.

Regards,
Lightning

[ChrisMcD]

Hi Lightning,

As I understand it the result of the tests was to not proceed with the use of landing lights because it was just too dificult to get the right balance, but instead to paint the aircraft undersides white and fly significantly higher.

Bear in mind that a lot of the early aircraft were transfered night bombers and tended to have very dark (even black) colours and to be flying at about 500 feet, where their advantage in observation was very limited.

Painted white and at a higher altitude the aircraft were harder to spot, because they were bound to be against a light background; whereas the U-boat wake was always going to be more visible.

So the results of the trials were to maximise the chances of the aircraft observers spotting a U-boat first, while minimising the chances of the U-boat lookouts getting the first sighting.

You can either say that this is a triumph of British 'Operational Research' or simply bloody stupid tactics at the start.

I am not too sure about the use of landing lights to blind crews during night attacks. What is clear is that the sheer power of the Leigh lights made it much harder to simply 'shoot up the beam' which is what I would have thought U-boat crews would have done to an attacker who switched on his landing lights.

[montanamotor]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi montanamotor,

Quoting you:
quote:from early 1944, Admiral Roeder of the german U-boat fleet expressedly ordered his submarines NOT to crash dive any more in case of an aerial attack, but to stay at surface and fight attacking aircraft with newly installed "Vierlings-Flak" (Quadruple Flak - installation of four 20 mm Oerlikon-cannon - on land devastatingly effective against attacking aircraft).
If they were already under attack, this makes sense. A "buttoned-up" (i.e. one that is in the process of crash diving) U-boat still on, or just below, the surface is completely vulnerable and defenseless to any kind of attack. If, on the other hand, the boat's crew spotted an aircraft in time, it would be foolish to remain on the surface. That is why early detection was so important to survival.

It is also important to point out here that it was not always the aircraft that made the first detection. Under many circumstances, the plane was easier to see against the sky than was the low, narrow form of the U-boat against the grey, choppy surface of the sea. He who spotted first had the advantage.

Regards,
Lightning





Lightning,

spell after me: R-A-D-A-R. The Roeder-doctrine, for U-boats to fight sub-hunters with flak instead of diving for cover, came into effect only after german submarines constantly became increasingly assaulted in surprise attacks by british anti-sub-planes, which had picked the sub's position by use of radar before. When such a Wellington suddenly came in on your U-boat roaring from above the clouds (i.e. out of nowhere) guided by radar, there simply was no time any more to dive - at least, in a controlled, reversable fashion...

Consider that, it took tremendous time, effort and ressources to equip submarines with "Vierlings-Flak". No one of the Big Brass would ever have approved this new tactic - let alone, order it - without running out of options other than that, after british sub-hunters once became equipped with radar - or RDF (I like that). At the time of order early 1944, the flak-tactic against anti-sub-raiders seemed to be the only option to Roeder & Cie., to do at least SOMETHING against sudden airborne sub-hunter-attacks - with VERY mixed results, to say the least.

Cheers!

Montanamotor

[Lightning]

Hi montanamotor,

Quoting you:
quote:spell after me: R-A-D-A-R. The Roeder-doctrine, for U-boats to fight sub-hunters with flak instead of diving for cover, came into effect only after german submarines constantly became increasingly assaulted in surprise attacks by british anti-sub-planes, which had picked the sub's position by use of radar before. When such a Wellington suddenly came in on your U-boat roaring from above the clouds (i.e. out of nowhere) guided by radar, there simply was no time any more to dive - at least, in a controlled, reversable fashion...

Like I said: quote:If they were already under attack, this makes sense. A "buttoned-up" (i.e. one that is in the process of crash diving) U-boat still on, or just below, the surface is completely vulnerable and defenseless to any kind of attack. If, on the other hand, the boat's crew spotted an aircraft in time, it would be foolish to remain on the surface.

If the U-boat is already under attack, it would be foolish to dive. If the U-boat spots the plane in time (a U-boat could crash dive in 30-45 seconds), it would be foolish not to dive.


quote:...after british sub-hunters once became equipped with radar - or RDF (I like that).

I should think you would like RADAR better in this scenario. RDF merely tells the direction from which a transmitted signal is coming. In order to determine the location of the target, two conditions must exist:

(1) The target must be transmitting a signal--Radio silence on the U-boat's part would preclude this.

(2) At least two, and preferably more, receivers--significantly separated--are required to "triangulate on the source of the transmitted signal in order to determine its location.


RADAR, on the other hand, tells you both the direction (the "D" in RADAR) and the range (the "R" in RADAR) to the target. That's all you need to determine location. In addition, you don't have to wait untill the target transmits.

Regards,
Lightning

[ChrisMcD]

Gents,

You are compressing a steady development of tactics and weapons.

Early on you had the scenario I described of clapped out bombers,painted in high visibilty black flying at 500 feet with no radar.

Under those conditions the U-boat lookouts were spotting them in time to crash dive before the bomber was able to drop its bombs. And remember the ealy 'anti-submarine' bombs relied on direct hits.

The change of tactics to; flying higher, being painted white, carrying depth charges and introducing radar meant that the balance of success moved to the aircraft.

Byut these were all big slow aircraft with poor armour dead ahead and often with very little armament. Against these aircraft a U-boat had a good chance of fighting it out if they persisted in the low slow depth charge aproach - and remember a surfaced U-boat was a lot less vulnerable to a depth charge set destroy a diving U-boat.

Also, it was at this time that the Ju88G's were intoduced to shoot down the Coastal Command aircraft. They may have had some trouble with Sunderlands, but Whilteys, Wellingtons and Catalinas would have been dead meat to a schwarm of Ju88's.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d144/chrismcd3/ju88soverbiscay.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0947554874/sr=8-1/qid=1156179741/ref=sr_1_1/102-5229690-5454544?ie=UTF8

You then get the further escalation of centimetric radar, Leigh Lights, B24's with batteries of forward firing guns, Beaufighters and Mosquitos - not to mention Fido!

With the whole lot coming to an abrupt halt in June '44

All in all a very interesting campaign.

[JoeB]

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

At the time of order early 1944, the flak-tactic against anti-sub-raiders seemed to be the only option to Roeder & Cie., to do at least SOMETHING against sudden airborne sub-hunter-attacks - with VERY mixed results, to say the least.

The "stay up and fight" order was given in March '43 not '44 (as you may have meant to say) by Doenitz after AA fire appeared effective by several boat commanders who did it spontaneously. Even when the order was rescinded some months later individual boat CO's had the option to stay up. This was unlike eg. US subs whose CO's had no authority to attempt to fight off a/c unless they were unable to dive. It was indeed a response to the general increase in effectiveness of Allied ASW a/c, but all aspects all over, not just radar (though the German never recognized several other factors: HF/DF, code breaking, Fido) not just Bay of Biscay and not just RAF. For example an incident mentioned here not long ago, last B-18 kill of a U-boat, was at the end of a marathon stay up battle in the Carribean which saw USN PBM's shot up and shot down. Also the U-boats downed a number of CVE Wildcats and Avengers in mid Atlantic in the stay up period, and even a USN blimp.

Joe

[Ricky]

The U-boats had the best defense against radar-equipped planes - the Naxos radar-detector equipment. However, British Intelligence managed to convince the Germans that Allied aircraft were able to detect Naxos at greater ranges than Naxos could detect radar (untrue...) so Raeder ordered his commanders not to use it.

[curmudgeon]

quote:Originally posted by JoeB

quote:Originally posted by montanamotor

At the time of order early 1944, the flak-tactic against anti-sub-raiders seemed to be the only option to Roeder & Cie., to do at least SOMETHING against sudden airborne sub-hunter-attacks - with VERY mixed results, to say the least.

The "stay up and fight" order was given in March '43 not '44 (as you may have meant to say) by Doenitz after AA fire appeared effective by several boat commanders who did it spontaneously. Even when the order was rescinded some months later individual boat CO's had the option to stay up. This was unlike eg. US subs whose CO's had no authority to attempt to fight off a/c unless they were unable to dive. It was indeed a response to the general increase in effectiveness of Allied ASW a/c, but all aspects all over, not just radar (though the German never recognized several other factors: HF/DF, code breaking, Fido) not just Bay of Biscay and not just RAF. For example an incident mentioned here not long ago, last B-18 kill of a U-boat, was at the end of a marathon stay up battle in the Carribean which saw USN PBM's shot up and shot down. Also the U-boats downed a number of CVE Wildcats and Avengers in mid Atlantic in the stay up period, and even a USN blimp.


the first Mk 24 mine/Wandering Annie/Fido success was on 12 May 1943, on 23 May the first success with RPs ... damned if you did, and damned if you didn't!
Also the tactics for air attack and the use of aircraft carriers all came together. Michael Cannon's book "Black May" covers the complex situation (in almost 500 pages).

[Lightning]

Hi montanamotor,

The title of this thread is "Camouflage." This, in the original intent of the thread, pertains only to methods by which visual detection can be thwarted by deception of the the human eye. This includes color-blending, concealment among/behind seemingly normal objects/materials (foliage, buildings, terrain features), the breaking-up of tell-tale shapes/outlines, etc.

When you brought RADAR into the discussion, you went completely off subject. If you want to discuss the effects of SONAR and RADAR on the prosecution of submarine warfare, that is fair enough, but it belongs in another thread entirely--not here.

As to the wisdom of a submarine,s fighting against ant-submarine patrol aircraft while remaining on the surface, one facet of this tactic has been overlooked: If the aircraft is in range of friendly surface warships (as was often the case) and surprises the sub before it has time to dive, the submarine is in an untenable situation no matter what it does.

In this case, the aircraft really doesn't have to come within range of the sub's guns. It merely has to maintain contact while it radios to the surface fleet the sub's position. The submarine's commander now has a decision to make: If he dives, the aircraft will make an un-opposed attack with guns, bombs/depth charges. If he remains on the surface, the aircraft will simply stay out of range until the surface ships get there with their (big)guns, depth charges, and SONAR.

In my opinion, the better choice would be to dive as soon as possible, take a chance on surviving the one attack pass by the aircraft, and try to prevent detection by the surface ships who still have a reasonably long time to get there.

What would you choose?

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

I've no experience to base an opinion, but my instinct would be to DIVE, MAN! DIVE!

This is another great thread. I like to build models, and have for a long time. The camouflage thingy is a very conspicuous element in modeling, naturally.

Some thoughts I've got would be, the special blue that was developed by Pittsburgh Paints or Kelly Moore or something like that. I know it was an American company nonetheless. It was a special formulation to make airplanes "invisible". Well, invisible a high altitude, I suppose. There's a government film showing a fine P-38 flitting about with a secret blue coating.

My other comment is about 'Snow Camouflage'. Especially the German motiff that was a white overall with crookedy, black lines here and there. It was really neat looking. I built a Ju-52 that had that and it really made a striking model.

Continuing... It came late to my awarness that there was actually a common paint scheme that was reproduced in the same pattern for the various green, grey, brown camouflages put onto their respective countries airplanes. ie; when you park a gaggle of Spitfires that have a camouflage pattern, they have all the spots and blotches in the same places.

More... Another interesting camouflage thing is the Japanese patterns. The way that they made sloppy looking, overly thinned greens over bare metal. Was paint running short? That's what I figured. They applied it on some planes like they used one airplanes worth of paint coverage onto an entire squadron. The Hien Tony was commonly photographed with such a paint job.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Groggy

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi All,

I came across this the other day:

Technical Order 07-1-1, issued in Europe on 26 December 1943, states, in part:

". . . painting of the exterior metal surfaces of AAF aircraft is hereby discontinued. This does not, however, eliminate the required identification date, insignia, anti-glare coating and corrosion prevention. Man-hours expended on maintaining existing camouflage finishes, now considered unnecessary, will be held to a minimum."

Regards,
Lightning

Hi Folks
The Australians/ New Zealanders? In the Indian Pacific theatre found when they removed the camouflage schemes from Catalina’s it saved about 350lbs and the payload or range increased.
It must have made a useful difference in European Theatre. How much?



I can't resist telling you that once I spoke to an U.S. Airforce ground crewman that had been working for years on the C-5A Galaxy. He said that if you scrape all the paint off a C-5A and weigh all the debris, it totals 2500 pounds! He swore it was true.

[Lightning]

Trexx, Buddy!!!

Where the !#$%^ &*()@ have you been??? I believe your last posting was back in December of last year--I may be mistaken, but it's been a long time. Glad to see you back! I was beginning to think something happened to you.

Quoting you:
quote:I can't resist telling you that once I spoke to an U.S. Airforce ground crewman that had been working for years on the C-5A Galaxy. He said that if you scrape all the paint off a C-5A and weigh all the debris, it totals 2500 pounds! He swore it was true.

I don't doubt this a bit. I would guess that paint weighs somewhere around 10 lbs/gal (water weighs 8 lbs/gal], so multiply the number of gallons it would take to paint that monster (several coats) by 10 pounds, and it would have to be a pretty hefty weight.

Anyway, I'm glad you're back. Don't be a stranger.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

Thanks, Lightning.

I was super busy at work and had to concentrate on some big projects.

[8D]

[Lightning]

Hi Trexx,

Quoting you:
quote:I was super busy at work and had to concentrate on some big projects.
What on Earth could be a more important project than The Great Planes??? :D

Regards,
Lightning

[Double T]

In regards to the gloss-black paint-jobs on P-61 Black-Widows...
A matte-finish paint will inherently result in increased drag compared to a slick gloss-finish will it not?
My crew-chief friend has stated that they waxed the leading edges of wings, rudder and tail on "his" P-47D. This was done to help protect the painted surfaces from the abrasive qualities of pulverized coral used on Pacific-theatre airstrips... and I imagine also made it more-slippery.
When I asked if his plane would show wear--bare-metal--underneath?... he replied that ALL surfaces exposed to weather/elements were painstakingly checked and repainted. No bare-metal was left exposed, top or bottom. (This was at Saipan in June '44.)

[Pete57]

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

More... Another interesting camouflage thing is the Japanese patterns. The way that they made sloppy looking, overly thinned greens over bare metal. Was paint running short? That's what I figured. They applied it on some planes like they used one airplanes worth of paint coverage onto an entire squadron. The Hien Tony was commonly photographed with such a paint job.


Actually, it had to do more with the non-application of a primer.

See http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/weathering_question.htm

Regards.

[Trexx]

I watched a taped interview of a World War Two, United States Army Air Force P-51 pilot that told a story about his plane getting refinished. While he was out on a mission, a few new P-51Ds had arrived. They were shiny, bare metal. He hopped down onto the wing of his P-51B that was Army green and grey all over, and commented to his crew chief about how swell the newly arrived mounts looked, all silvery and such. He said that he didn't give it anymore thought than that comment. But when he returned the next morning to his old plane, his crewmen had taken rags soaked in gasoline and scrubbed every speck of paint off to reveal the pristine, bare metal P-51B underneath. They had worked all night to have it done for the next mission. All his very tired crewmen were beaming with pride, however their hands were bloody and raw he noticed. He was happily surprised by their efforts. As the gentleman related this story, tears were streaming down his face... 65 years after the deed.

Note that the US had plenty of fuel then...

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Pete57

quote:Originally posted by Trexx

More... Another interesting camouflage thing is the Japanese patterns. The way that they made sloppy looking, overly thinned greens over bare metal. Was paint running short? That's what I figured. They applied it on some planes like they used one airplanes worth of paint coverage onto an entire squadron. The Hien Tony was commonly photographed with such a paint job.


Actually, it had to do more with the non-application of a primer.

See http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/weathering_question.htm

Regards.


Thank you.

[Trexx]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hi Trexx,

Quoting you:
quote:I was super busy at work and had to concentrate on some big projects.
What on Earth could be a more important project than The Great Planes??? :D

Regards,
Lightning




Good question. I've taken the better part of two weeks to think of an answer!

I'm a worker... in the print business... Lot's of political thingys to work on lately. The junk mail isn't as important as the wage that it provides me though.

Sooo... remember... junk mail employs hundreds of thousands of copy writers, photographers, illustrators, designers, consultants... etc. It's bread and butter for hordes of us lackies!