# U.S. aircraft in the Philippines, 1937-1942



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 28, 2007)

In the 1980s, I did research on U.S. military aircraft in the Philippines and had a number of articles published. Pictures of these aircraft are relatively rare and the saga of how I got some of these could have "written" another article. I thought I'd share a few of them with you.

Clark Field, about 1938-39. Note the B-10s, P-26s, O-46s, and O-19s on the field.






A new P-26 taxiing out to takeoff at Nichols Field. #rd Pursuit Squadron, 1938. These aircraft were later handed over to the Philippine Army Air Corps.





Two P-35As being assembled at Nichols Field, end of 1940. These aircraft were originally bound for Sweden and were impounded. About 50 were sent to the Philippines, still Swedish insignia and with metric instrumentation and manuals in SWEDISH!





P-35As flying over Manila Bay, late 1941, 17th Pursuit Squadron (who soon changed to P-40Es. Note the window in the fuselage of the cargo compartment. They could (and did) carry another passenger.





Another P-35A in pre-war colors of the 17th Pursuit Squadron, early 1941, Nichols Field.





How many aircraft can you identify? Nichols Field, 1941





Rare color photo taken of one of the first B-17s in the Philippines, Oct., 1941, Iba Field (which was used for gunnery training). Nine B-17s from Hawaii arrived shortly before.





Finally the photo that tells it all. Three "generations" of aircraft are identifiable in this picture - a Keystone B-3A belonging to the PAAC, a couple of P-26s, still in U.S. colors and a relatively modern P-35A.





These, and other photos appears in an article which I wrote that appeared in Airpower Magazine in November, 1987, "And Then There Were One"


----------



## quintisv (Jan 28, 2007)

Very interesting mate.

Any information on how they fared in combat against the Japanese? This is an area of WW2 that I know little about.


----------



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 28, 2007)

They fared very poorly. Over half were destroyed on the ground in the first day or two. They had to learn tactics against Japanese aircraft the hard way. The P-35s were used by the 34th Pursuit Squadron and as I said, the P-26s were used by the Filipinos. A few P-26s actually got into combat with Japanese aircraft and reportedly shot down one bomber.

Even the more modern P-40ss didn't fare well, due to poor tactics, equipment failures and lack of replacements. The only ace was Boyd (Buzz) Wagner, commander of the 17th PS.


----------



## quintisv (Jan 28, 2007)

I figured as much, against the cream of the Japanese Air Forces at the start.

I will have to do some reading on this Boyd Wagner.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2007)

Excellent Post!!!!

Im quite interested in the war in the pacific, and greatly appreciate this.

If you have more pics or stories to share, please do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You might want to check out my on going thread "The War In The Pacific 65 years ago". Theres "daily" summaries of the land and aerial battles in the PI, among others.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2007)

Very nice. Thankyou for that post. As sys said, any more info or pics that you have would be nice.


----------



## v2 (Jan 28, 2007)

Good post. Thx.


----------



## timshatz (Jan 28, 2007)

Good post, thanks for putting up the pics and info. Am reading "Doomed at the Start" now. About the PI campagne. Depressing.


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 28, 2007)

I need to post my pictures I took at Corregidore.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2007)

Very cool stuff - I had a copy of that airpower magazine!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 28, 2007)

quintisv said:


> I figured as much, against the cream of the Japanese Air Forces at the start.
> 
> I will have to do some reading on this Boyd Wagner.



LT. COL. BOYD D. "BUZZ" WAGNER, USAAF

Buzz Wagner was a "One Man Air Force."
There are many links about him, he even looked like a swave fighter pilot!





acepilots


----------



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 28, 2007)

Boyd Wagner escaped from the Philippines, and if I remember correctly, added a couple of more kills. Unfortunately, like a number of pilots, he was killed in a flying accident in late 1942.

Another outstanding pilot was William E. Dyess, commander of the 21st PS I talked to a number of veterans and without any dissent, they called him the best leader in the Philippines. He also died in a plane crash in November, 1943. He wrote "The Dyess Story" one of the most graphic telling of the Bataan Death March and prison life. 

During the writing of this and other articles on this subject, it was my pleasure to chat and write with a number of former pilots and ground crewmen.

I still remember one old gentleman, a former pilot with the 17th, who _hand wrote_ his experiences in about _30_ pages!! Another pilot, who came from my hometown of Spokane WA, was a friend of Ed Dyess', flew with him on Bataan, went through the Death March and a year later, escaped with nine others (Dyess included - he planned the escape) from the Davao Penal Colony on Mindanao. They served with the guerrillas and were evacuated out (except for one who was recaptured and killed). Stuff that Hollywood wouldn't even believe!

I know a lot of you focus on the P-51, the F4U and other planes which were in their heyday when the Allies ruled the skies. My two favorite planes are the P-40 and the F4F, flown when the skies and indeed the course of the war was in considerable doubt. I will count it one of the greatest thrills of my life to have a chance to meet these men and write about them!

I can also recommend William Bartsch's "Doomed at the Start" as the most complete book on American fighters in the Philippines during this period. Bill and I were writing about this at about the same time and we even corresponded for a while.

A couple of more pictures:

1) It was customary for U.S. Army aircraft to meet incoming ships. This photo was taken from the USAT "Washington" in May, 1941. It is my favorite picture from an "artistic" standpoint:






The first page from my article in "Airpower":






I'll try to include some more pictures and stories from time to time.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 28, 2007)

Thanks for the insight on something I've always found interesting . Is that the same Dyess as the AFB?


----------



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 28, 2007)

One and the same. Sam Grashio, one of his fellow pilots said that Ed would be enjoying a good laugh in the Great Beyond over the fact that Dyess AFB was a SAC base, while Ed Dyess was a fighter pilot!!


----------



## quintisv (Jan 28, 2007)

I am far more interested in the pre and early war aircraft than the later "uber" kit.

I am particularly fond of the Curtiss Hawks. Fly them a good deal in Fighter sims. 

WWIIOL in particular, since its system of introducing equipment gradually, allows for a couple weeks where everyone is flying around in H.75A-3s, Hurri.Is, H.81A-2, D.520s, Bf.109E4s, etc.


----------



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 29, 2007)

The P-35A was an export version of the Army's standard P-35. A slightly bigger engine, another .50 caliber gun in each wing and a few other modifications. Although a little more manuverable than the P-40, they were no match for the Zero is several categories. The ones not shipped to the Philippines or Sweden were used as advanced trainers.

I mentioned there was a compartment that in a pinch, could hold a passenger. One of the surviving P-35s flew from Bataan to Cebu, which, at the time, was still held by the Americans. The officer meeting the plane was amazed to see no one but TWO passengers crawl out of the compartment - PLUS another person riding on the pilot's lap!! Talk about claustrophobia!!

Another interesting story was during the pre-war period. The 17th PS had a monkey as a mascot and one of the pilots (apparently not the one with the highest i.q.!) took the monkey on a flight with him. The monkey was NOT taken with flight and the pilot was lucky to land the plane!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 29, 2007)

You have any information on the naval aircraft there?

I dont suspect anything but PBY's....... but since this was a backwater in pre war years, the navy must have had some ancient planes in service.


----------



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 29, 2007)

You're correct - mostly PBYs of Patrol Wing 10 (PatWing 10) - however, there were a few others. OS2Us, a couple of SOCs and J2Fs. One J2F was sunk as it lay moored. It was raised, repaired and became "The Candy Clipper", carrying supplies, medicines passengers and (yes) candy to Bataan and Corregidor from Cebu. The night Bataan fell, it carried several passengers out of Bataan.

If you want to read a good book on this subject, read _In the Hands of Fate: The Story of PatWing 10_ by Dwight Messimer. It may be out of print but may be available in libraries on used. Great book.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

Really good stuff, youall. I also enjoy material about the early days in the Pacific. I understand that Tex Hill is still living in San Antonio.


----------



## renrich (Jan 30, 2007)

I believe there were some Beechcraft UC-43s in the Philipines when war broke out.


----------



## varsity078740 (Jan 31, 2007)

Some trivia regarding the pictures. The B-17D shown at Iba was the one that
Colin Kelly brought out from Hawaii, though not the one he was shot down in
(a C model). "61" was badly damaged at Clark on Dec. 8th, and was rebuilt and flown by the Japanese along with 2 E models captured in Java. The P-35A
in metal finish 17/4MP was Wagner's ship. I met a number of 17th Pursuit vets
on a trip with them to the PI in 2002 for the 60th anniversary of the fall of Bataan. They said Wagner was quite a character, and lived up to the image.


----------



## Rick the Librarian (Jan 31, 2007)

Good answers - I'm especially impressed by the guy who recognized the A-27s!! They were "beefed up" AT-6s that were designed as light attack planes and destined for Thailand. They were intercepted on the Manila docks and used as hacks and trainers.

I recognized #61 from some captured Japanese photos. Here's one taken by the Japanese when they captured Nichols Field. You can see a couple of P-35A wrecked in the foreground.







Someone mentioned B-18s - 12 were sent to the Philippines for the 28th BS in early 1941 but they were soon used as transports. Some B-10s were still around, as well. This was serving as a hack with the 4th Composite Group HQ. Taken at Nichols Field, 1941.


----------



## wingnutz (Apr 21, 2007)

wow...amazing info rick...

thanks for these images...

would greatly appreciate it if you have any more photos of actual PAAC aircraft during the advent of ww2 in the philippines???

i'm particularly interested in verifying the actual clor schemes on the aircraft handed over to the PAAC like the B-3, P-26, B-10, O-49...

thanks again...


----------



## GCvanderL (Jun 27, 2010)

Hey guys, found this article on the web, posted by a Mr. Rob Arndt. It's an excerpt from the memoirs of Capt. Jesus Villamor. So far this is what I've gathered from my limited research on the web of the 6th Pursuit Squadron.

Jesus Villamor and the P-26 Against the Japanese - rec.aviation.military | Google Groups

Known members:

*CPT Jesus Villamor, MOV* - Victories: 1x Mitsubishi A6M Zero destroyed (12/10/41), 1x Mitsubishi G3M "Nell" bomber destroyed (12/12/41). He later joined the Allies as an Intelligence officer and worked closely with Gen. MacArthur.
*LT Godofredo Juliano* - He was the first to take off during the Dec. 10th battle, and provided air cover for the rest of the group during their takeoff.
*LT Jose Gozar* - Reportedly not a member of 6PS, but took off to help on Dec. 10th even though his P-26 was unarmed. He fought in Bataan and Corrigedor, and was later captured by the Japanese and presumed dead.
*LT Cesar Basa* - First Filipino pilot to be KIA. Shot down 12/12/41 and was strafed by the Japanese during either his parachute descent or when he was trying to flee on foot.
*LT Alberto Aranzaso* - Not mentioned in the excerpt. He was one of the pilots who took off on Dec. 10th. He later was killed in Corrigedor while trying to escape captivity along with an American officer, MAJ Damon Gause.
*LT Antonio Mondigo* - Survived the Bataan Death March, and later joined the Allies as an Intelligence officer.
*LT Geronimo Aclan* - Survived the Bataan Death March, and later joined Filipino guerrillas in raiding the Japanese, and liberating American POW camps.
*LT Manuel Conde* - Survived the war to become a pretty successful actor, director, and producer in the Philippines.

There is presumably at least one or two (and maybe more?) reported victories by Filipino pilots including a Zero, although these are unconfirmed, and have not found any credible source stating these victories (as you can imagine the difficulty in researching history on Filipino pilots).

Cheers,
GC


----------



## Capt. Vick (Jun 28, 2010)

Hey Rick!

Great stuff! Thanks for posting!

Hey do you have any guess on which P-35 (marking wise I mean) was the one that was credited with shooting down a zero? Also, I noticed from the pictures in "Doomed from the start" that not all P-35's had the window in the door. Any info on which did or didn't and why?

look forward to more!

Regards


----------



## Propellorhead (Jul 10, 2010)

Can anybody recall details on the first kamikaze attack of WW2 when a B-17 pilot dived his aircraft into a Japanese warship during japan's conquest of the Philippines?


----------



## varsity078740 (Jul 12, 2010)

Propellorhead said:


> Can anybody recall details on the first kamikaze attack of WW2 when a B-17 pilot dived his aircraft into a Japanese warship during japan's conquest of the Philippines?



It never happend. Purely a propagandized version of Colin Kelley's demise.

Duane


----------



## unclejoepby (Aug 17, 2010)

Do you have anay info on Patwing ten


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 14, 2012)

Capt. Vick said:


> Hey do you have any guess on which P-35 (marking wise I mean) was the one that was credited with shooting down a zero? Also, I noticed from the pictures in "Doomed from the start" that not all P-35's had the window in the door. Any info on which did or didn't and why?



Nothing like resurrecting an ancient thread...

AFAIK there's precious little info on the identity of specific P-35A airframes involved in the fighting for the Philippines. As for the fuselage window, all the P-35As were fitted with it. I suspect the windows on some aircraft were overpainted when the OD/NG camo was applied - this is just a hunch but it makes sense. I guess it is possible that some aircraft had the window replaced with sheet metal. Again, no rhyme or reason to these changes.

The one aspect I find interesting is the mix of markings on the P-35As. Some of the camo'd airframes wore national markings on just the upper and lower wing surfaces (both wings, both surfaces), while others had the more normal port upper surface/starboard lower surface marking. Finally, some aircraft had national markings on the fuselage (and, again, there was apparently a mix of wing markings associated with these aircraft). Then we have the unit codes which appear in both black and white on the fins of different aircraft...and the different shades of cowlings. Overall, for such a small contingent of aircraft, the marking variations are considerable.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 15, 2012)

Don't forget to include _Capt. Bud Sprague _in the list of fallen P-40 pilot heroes at the war's start. Companion book to *Doomed at the Start i*s Bartsch's _*Every Day a Nightmare*_ describing the Java campaign of the 17th Provisional Pursuit Squadron. Sprague was evidently a Group staff officer in the PI who flew some combat missions. He was evacuated to Australia and became CO of the 17th. He was, by all acccounts a great combat leader, and was KIA. That episode of the war might provide a clue as to what might have happened in the PI after December 8, 1941 had the units been blessed with better leadership and preparation.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 17, 2012)

Just to illustrate what I was talking about re P-35A markings:

1. No fuselage star on this bird and the tail codes are white, with the individual aircraft number repeated in white on either side of the cowl ring:







2. A couple of pics of the same 2 aircraft wrecks. In the first pic, the red centre to the national marking is barely visible (I suspect that's just a trick of the lighting conditions) but I think I can just make out another star on the opposite wingtip. White fin codes on the aircraft behind. Note that the '125' seems a different shade to the '24P' either due to different rates of wear or perhaps the 24P being yellow (unlikely but possible). 




In the second pic, again we have the '25' repeated in white on the front of the cowl (this airframe is 125/24P from the previous image). Note national markings under both wings for the aircraft to the rear in this shot:







3. Another image of a wrecked P-35A (bottom left corner) clearly with national markings on both upper wing surfaces. The B-10 wreck was also in the Philippines:







4. Really like this colour pic. None of the P-35As have fuselage markings. The aircraft on the left (side on to the viewer) has the national marking on the port upper wing. The one behind it has no national marking on the starboard upper wing whereas the rather tatty aircraft to its right has the national marking on the starboard upper wing and the rudder strip markings (blue vertical stripe at the hinge with horizontal red/white stripes over the rest of the rudder, can also be seen). Note the white tail codes for the P-35A to the rear and the relative differences in wear-and-tear on the four P-35As. Also note the P-26 in the background still in 17th PS markings:







5. Yet another variation - overpainted fuselage window and possibly natural metal undersides. Note the 'US Army' marking. Still no national marking on the fuselage and, on this airframe, no code numbers on the fin:







6. Now we have a P-35A with national markings on the fuselage. Note also the darker appearance of the cowling. This aircraft still has the fuselage window clearly visible:







7. Normal operating conditions in the Philippines? I think I'm seeing a star marking under the port wing of this airframe:







8. Not very informative but a cool colour pic of a P-35A with the fuselage star marking, although it does show neutral grey undersurfaces:







9. And last but not least a couple of pics showing an intact captured P-35A. Shame we can't see the front of the cowl on the first pic. However, the aircraft clearly has fuselage markings. 




On the second pic, we now have the unit numbers on the fin but this time in black:


----------



## vikingBerserker (Mar 17, 2012)

Rick what an awesome thread, thanks!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 17, 2012)

Hi Dave,

Bet you'll like this video clip, then - colour footage of the P-35As still in Swedish markings (plus a B-17 towards the end of the series). You'll need to scroll down through the thumbnails to see the P-35s:

Stock Footage - Members of the U.S. Army 17th Pursuit Squadron at Nichols Field in the Philippines, before World War II, in the Pacific.


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 17, 2012)

The wrecked a/c were at Nichols. One is still in NMF. The reason for the 24 being a different shade may be because it recently
replaced the 4th Composite group designater(4M). the 1 prefix before the plane in group number 25 on the OD a/c denotes a second line a/c. All the P-35s were slated to go to the Philippine Air Corps as soon as more P-40s became available. The paint on the a/c was temporary water based.

Duane


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 17, 2012)

Hi Duane,

Re the whole water-based paint issue, I suspect it was more complex than that. As can be seen in my Pic #4, it's clear that the aircraft in the centre-right was painted using some form of non-permanent paint hence the extreme wear and tear visible. However, the captured airframe at #9 is hardly weathered at all. That airframe, and perhaps a few of the other airframes visible in Pic #4, were probably camouflaged using durable paint. I suspect that the non-permanent paint was initially applied during the latter half of 1941 as the risk of war increased. However, as aircraft were cycled through depot-level maintenance, they had a full repaint. This would explain, in part, some of the marking variations and the differences in wear and tear visible on several of these aircraft.

Cheers,
B-N


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 17, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> Bet you'll like this video clip, then - colour footage of the P-35As still in Swedish markings (plus a B-17 towards the end of the series). You'll need to scroll down through the thumbnails to see the P-35s:
> 
> Stock Footage - Members of the U.S. Army 17th Pursuit Squadron at Nichols Field in the Philippines, before World War II, in the Pacific.



Really cool video seeing that Seversky P-35 fly and the one on the field with Swedish markings. Spending so much time in the last few weeks immersed in "_*Doomed at the Start,*_, it's history come to life. Thanks for posting!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 17, 2012)

I'm slowly working through "MacArthur's Pearl Harbor", the latest Bartsch book - it's excellent! I must pick up his tome on USAAF operations over Java.


----------



## pbfoot (Mar 17, 2012)

Slightly off topic is there any pics of US Forces using Bren Gun carriers in Philippines, they were for the Canadians at Hong Kong but the ship diverted to Philippines upon outbreak of war and I have no idea whether they were used or just so much scrap


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Mar 17, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> Slightly off topic is there any pics of US Forces using Bren Gun carriers in Philippines, they were for the Canadians at Hong Kong but the ship diverted to Philippines upon outbreak of war and I have no idea whether they were used or just so much scrap



Worth a thread? Never heard that story. It's not mentioned in "_*Doomed...*_ which is the only account I've read other than on the web below."

How about this link.... it looks like bren gun carriers were taken up and used by Phillipine army units.

Company C, 194th Tank Battalion in the Philippines, 1941-42

and:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=75965

From this forum thread:

"An unexpected addition to the tanks of Col. James R.N. Weaver's Provisional Tank Group was received shortly after the start of war. The Japanese attack left marooned in Manila Harbor the *Don Jose*, *a vessel belonging to the Canadian Government and carrying a cargo of motor equipment for two Canadian motor battalions in Hong Kong*. MacArthur immediately requested that this matériel be released for use in the Philippines, and the War Department secured the Canadian Government's consent. _*The cargo included fifth-seven Bren gun carriers, forty of which were made available to Colonel Weaver.*_ Unfortunately, the guns for the carriers were not included in the cargo, and they had to be armed by the Manila Ordnance Depot."


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 18, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Hi Duane,
> 
> Re the whole water-based paint issue, I suspect it was more complex than that. As can be seen in my Pic #4, it's clear that the aircraft in the centre-right was painted using some form of non-permanent paint hence the extreme wear and tear visible. However, the captured airframe at #9 is hardly weathered at all. That airframe, and perhaps a few of the other airframes visible in Pic #4, were probably camouflaged using durable paint. I suspect that the non-permanent paint was initially applied during the latter half of 1941 as the risk of war increased. However, as aircraft were cycled through depot-level maintenance, they had a full repaint. This would explain, in part, some of the marking variations and the differences in wear and tear visible on several of these aircraft.
> 
> ...



I agree with you 100%. I should have noted that I was referring specifically to those in the color pic at Iba. I have read references to a "war scare" earlier in 1941 that prompted quick paint jobs on the P-35As. Whether that was the reason or not, I'd guess that at the time, that was the only paint available. The lack of fuselage insignia at that time is remeniscent of the stateside experimental waterbase camo paint finishes on aircraft in the late 30s, the P-36s of the 27th Pursuit Squadron being a good example.
The insignia regulations had not yet been changed. As you have said, in the PI, different a/c being cycled through depot maintainance at different times, and new regulations regarding camo and markings would largly account for variations at any given time prior to the war starting. 

Duane


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 18, 2012)

Thanks Duane. Nice to know we're in agreement. I've been lambasted as a heretic in the past for suggesting that some PI-based P-35As were painted in durable camouflage colours. Apparently one of the (few) books on the subject only mentions water-based paints and that has become "accepted history" even though the photographic evidence indicates greater variety in camouflage application and durability.

Do you know of a reference for the various marking changes that took place during 1941 and early 1942? I'm trying to work out when the fuselage stars would have been applied, or when national markings in 4 or 6 locations were specified.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## muscogeemike (Mar 18, 2012)

Great post, I did not know about the P-35's carrying passengers, thanks.


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 18, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> Thanks Duane. Nice to know we're in agreement. I've been lambasted as a heretic in the past for suggesting that some PI-based P-35As were painted in durable camouflage colours. Apparently one of the (few) books on the subject only mentions water-based paints and that has become "accepted history" even though the photographic evidence indicates greater variety in camouflage application and durability.
> 
> Do you know of a reference for the various marking changes that took place during 1941 and early 1942? I'm trying to work out when the fuselage stars would have been applied, or when national markings in 4 or 6 locations were specified.
> 
> ...



Air Force Colors Vol. 1 1926-1942
Dana Bell
Squadron Signal Publications

You can get it on Amazon

One only has to look at the pic of the captured P-35A to confirm the use of durable(oil base) paint. Can you imagine what it would have looked like at the time of its capture if it had gone through the campaign in water based paint?

Duane


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 18, 2012)

OK. Here's another one to ponder. Where did the practice of painting out the red center of the insignia start? Officially, orders came down in May of '42. However it's more or less common knowledge that in Australia it started sometime after the withdrawal from Java, at least on P-40s of the 49th Pursuit Group and it was assumed that it was where the practice started. Published photos of John Brownewell's P-40E at Del Monte and of one captured at Del Monte lead me to think otherwise. Both a/c have the center painted out. While it's impossible to pin down when it was done I tend to believe that the practice started there and was picked up and fowarded to Australia by crews of supply and evacuation a/c coming in and out of Del Monte. I recently saw a pic of a 3rd Bomb Group Royce Mission B-25 taken right after it's return from the mission. The center was brush painted out in such a rushed manner that runs in the paint were evident. I'm betting it was done in the PI when it got there.

Duane


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 19, 2012)

Duane,

Can you point me to the published pics of the P-40s at Del Monte that lack red centres to the insignia? I've been through a great little Japanese book on captured Allied aircraft and all the PI-based airframes have the red centres.

Cheers,
Mark


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 19, 2012)

Here's the pic of the captured one. I think I got it off J-aircraft.com. I suspect you have the same little Japanese book that I have which has a different view of this ship with Japanese markings. Brownewell's P-40 is shown on page 60 of On Wings We Conquer by John H. Mitchell. It's apoor quality photo but the new white paint stands out. The captured P-40 was one of two flown by American pilots to Nichols under escort. They were also demonstrated by American pilots for JAAF officials.


----------



## Capt. Vick (Mar 20, 2012)

This is, without a doubt, my favorite thread!


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 20, 2012)

varsity078740 said:


> Here's the pic of the captured one. I think I got it off J-aircraft.com. I suspect you have the same little Japanese book that I have which has a different view of this ship with Japanese markings. Brownewell's P-40 is shown on page 60 of On Wings We Conquer by John H. Mitchell. It's apoor quality photo but the new white paint stands out. The captured P-40 was one of two flown by American pilots to Nichols under escort. They were also demonstrated by American pilots for JAAF officials.



Thanks Duane. I think it will be hard to come up with any definitive answer to your question about overpainting of the red centres to the national markings. The red centre is still visible in the pic you posted suggesting water-based white paint, hurried application or, perhaps, even just odd lighting and the red centre isn't actually overpainted (although this latter option may be something of a reach). Aside from this exception (and the other in "On Wings We Conquer" which I haven't seen), all other pics of Philippines-based aircraft show red centres (eg the P-35A wrecks and even the captured P-35A in the pics I posted). It's rather baffling because I just don't see individual pilots saying, "The red centres make me look like a Jap fighter so I'll have my groundcrew overpaint them with white" but, conversely, if it was mandated by higher command I'd expect to see more examples of the practice on wrecks or captured airframes.

'Tis a puzzlement!


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 20, 2012)

I know in a lot of older automotive paint systems, red would "bleed" through all light colors, especially white. With white even after several coats, you'd still have a pinkish tint where ever it had been red. The only way to prevent it was to first cover it with black, then topcoat it with whatever color you wanted. They were probably too rushed to do a perfect refinish.


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 20, 2012)

Entirely agree...I'm still just puzzling why these 2 airframes appear to have overpainted red centres when other airframes in the Philippines, including ones that were captured intact (and hence were probably still operational quite late in the campaign) , still retained red centres.


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 21, 2012)

I'm speculating, of course, but maybe it was only done on Mindanao.

Duane


----------



## JoeB (Mar 21, 2012)

The P-40 in the photo, above also featured in photo from a different angle in Bartsch (in “Doomed”, can’t see the star), as well as the other P-40 captured there, were from the three P-40E-1’s brought crated to Mindanao by the blockade runner Anhui in March 1942, not ones on Luzon at the beginning of the war. This is described by Bartsch as well as in other sources. The nose color scheme was an unusual product of the contingent on Mindanao, said to be inspired by publications they’d read (probably also brought in by the blockade runner) showing AVG P-40 tiger/shark mouths. So perhaps the white out of the red star center was another improvisation of the same imaginative team who painted that airplane. AFAIK there’s no photo of the other plane which can be verified as being that plane and having been taken near the time of its capture. 

The Japanese captured at least 5 P-40E’s restorable to flying condition, since the P-40 detachment of the JAAF 50th Flying Regiment in Burma in 1943 had that many. The others were probably reconstructed from semi-wrecked P-40’s captured at airfields on Java, or from the crated P-40’s from the freighter Sea Witch dumped into the harbor at Tjilatjap on Java. So, later photo's of captured P-40's could be PI or DEI planes.

But here’s something interesting I found wrt the markings of P-40’s captured on Java. The first picture is from 日本軍鹵獲機秘録 , (~‘Japanese Army Captured A/c –Secret Files’, ISBN 4769810474, maybe it’s the ‘small Japanese book’ referred to above?), p.61. The second picture is from Bartsch’s “Every Day a Nightmare” p.138. It seems to be the same two a/c taken from a slightly different angle (trees and tents seem to be the same). Perhaps the Japanese painted or retouched out the red dots to avoid confusion of the lay public in Japan who might also mistake the red dot for the ‘hinomaru’ marking? I’m not attached to that theory, but anyway that photo comparison makes it harder to draw any conclusion about the meaning of the lack of red dot in the Mindanao photo.

Note also that the Japanese repainted some of the captured P-40’s in an imitation pre-war USAAC scheme, with tail stripes, for the movie “Kato Hayabusa Regiment”. Again perhaps the tail stripes were supposed to remove any confusion about the nationality of these planes to the Japanese audience, though the enemy in this movie, of the 64th Flying Regiment in Burma in 1942, flying Type 1 Fighters aka Hayabusa and led by Kato, would have been the AVG, whose a/c carried Chinese Nationalist AF markings.

Baeza’s “Soleil Levant Sur l’Australie” has a number of photo’s of USAAF P-40’s in Australia with the red center dots dated as late as May 1942, in line with the general conventional wisdom that elimination of the dots dated from that month (the change was officially ordered in the USN on May 15, and some sources say it was applied to USAAAF in the field generally in late May). However the dates of those photos can’t be independently verified by the reader.






日本軍鹵獲機秘録 p.61, dots





"Every Day a Nightmare" p.138, no dots





日本軍鹵獲機秘録 p.97, captured P-40, unknown origin, painted for "Kato Hayabusa Regiment"

Joe


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 21, 2012)

varsity078740 said:


> I'm speculating, of course, but maybe it was only done on Mindanao.



But why on just a few aircraft? The whole point of national markings (at least in WWII) was to fulfill a basic visual IFF function. Why adopt a national marking variation that nobody else was using, bearing in mind that the change would have to be promulgated to all AAA and ground force units in hopes they don't shoot at your own aircraft?


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 21, 2012)

Joe,

I like your idea of the Japanese retouching the US insignia. That does make (some) sense - I think it's more plausible than having one or two aircraft being re-marked by US forces. That said, the quality of the second image isn't great - is the right edge blurred in the digitizing process (looks like the book wasn't laid flat on the platen) or is the original blurred too?

Cheers,
B-N


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't buy the theory that the insignia in the Bartsch photo was painted out by the Japanese, especially when photos from a different angle show them intact. Besides one has to be carefull when viewing photos of a/c with the early insignia. Glare can
fool one into believing the center is not there especially in a poor quality pic. Besides, assuming that the Del Monte P-40 was altered by the U.S., why do all the other photos of captured a/c either have the insignia intact, or removed entirely and replaced with japanese insignia? In my opinion the tail stripes on the "movie" P-40 was intended to highlite that it WAS an American a/c and used the pre-war tail stripes and the circle around the cocarde to direct attention. After all, it was Japanese hollywood.

Buff. You have to realize that at that stage of the war there really was no standardization of national markings in the Pacific. They varied greatly depending on the area. As an example. All a/c in Hawaii, including Army a/c had red and white tail stripes added per the Navy directive in early 1942. This included transient a/c eventually bound for other areas such as Austrailia. As a result, the B-26s of the 22nd BG had them when they reached Austraila and for time after that. The Royce Mission B-17s that had previously been in Hawaii had them and were certainly the only a/c at that time in the Philippines with tail stripes. As the photo of the 8th PS P-40 shows, there was no continuity regarding markings even within the 49th PG. The 9th squadron often retained the full size red center on the fuselage but painted out the wing centers(page 39, Protect Avenge The 49th Fighter Group in WWII). The 7th squadron apparently did not alter their a/c The P-400s in the well known photo at Henderson Field still had the red center in August of '42!

Duane


----------



## JoeB (Mar 22, 2012)

varsity078740 said:


> 1. I don't but the theory that the insignia in the Bartsch photo was painted out by the Japanese, especially when photos from a different angle show them intact. Besides one has to be carefull when viewing photos of a/c with the early insignia. Glare can
> fool one into believing the center is not there especially in a poor quality pic.
> 
> 2. Besides, assuming that the Del Monte P-40 was altered by the U.S., why do all the other photos of captured a/c either have the insignia intact, or removed entirely and replaced with japanese insignia.
> ...


1. The point about glare seems possible, different sun condition in the one photo, though the contrast of the dots in the other photo seems pretty high. The 'no dot' photo is only blurred on the right because I didn't hold the book down so heavily on the scanner; the book is still nice and new . I can make out no sign of the dot in the 'no dot' photo, even with a strong magnifying glass. Is there perhaps some other case of a photo where we know for sure there were red dots but they became invisible in a photo due to light conditions, to demonstrate that theory?

Anyway, the photo quality is something to consider, but something else to consider is the provenance of these various photos of captured Allied a/c. A number of them come from the Japanese version of 'Life' magazine, ie were published for the Japanese public. But others may not have been. So IMO as important a missing piece of info about the dot/no-dot pair of photos as relative sun condition (which I guess we could never know) would be whether they come from a Japanese wartime publication or a non-published participant/witness collection. Neither book makes that clear; the Japanese book just doesn't say, and Bartsch just credits his version to his own collection.

2. But, assuming we still think it's possible the Japanese altered one version of the "Java"* photo above (I still do) there aren't actually a lot of other photos. The Hayabusa movie ones don't count IMO because we know the markings were altered by the Japanese at least on the tail. In fact, that movie was filmed in 1943 so the a/c in the picture was almost certainly painted in Japanese markings earlier and later completely repainted in the movie maker's version of US markings.

3. That's what I meant, publicity types wanted to be sure a general audience knew that the P-40's in the movie were American planes, rather than be accurate. I theorize that by the same token published pictures of captured or semi-wrecked P-40's with red dots included in their markings might have been viewed as less than 100% clearly American to a Japanese general audience, so in that case they simply painted or re-touched out the red dots, rather than the more elaborate addition of tail stripes. OTOH once the a/c were in Japan they needed Japanese markings for safety reasons. The best known photos in Japanese markings were taken at a public display of the various captured a/c at a fair ground in the Tokyo area in summer 1942. At that time three P-40E's appeared; the other 2+ the Japanese eventually flew were not present, perhaps not restored yet.

*I said Java but those two P-40's were captured semi-wrecked at Denpasar a/f on Bali.

Joe


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 22, 2012)

Joe:

You're using examples that do not apply to the original thread-U.S. a/c in the PI. Speculating on if, how, what, and why the Japanese marked up a/c captured in the East Indies for propaganda movies is another topic to be dicussed. But what evidence is there to indicate that the Del Monte P-40 was altered by the Japanese? Why would they paint out the red center AND THEN replace it with Japanese insignia? As early as March of '42, P-40s in Australia were altered in a fashion BY AMERICANS that in no way conformed to then current regulations. Why is it such a stretch to accept that the same thing occured at Del Monte and may have originated there?


----------



## JoeB (Mar 23, 2012)

varsity078740 said:


> Joe:
> You're using examples that do not apply to the original thread-U.S. a/c in the PI. Speculating on if, how, what, and why the Japanese marked up a/c captured in the East Indies for propaganda movies is another topic to be dicussed. But what evidence is there to indicate that the Del Monte P-40 was altered by the Japanese? Why would they paint out the red center AND THEN replace it with Japanese insignia? As early as March of '42, P-40s in Australia were altered in a fashion BY AMERICANS that in no way conformed to then current regulations. Why is it such a stretch to accept that the same thing occured at Del Monte and may have originated there?


I'm not saying it's impossible the US crews painted out the red dot in the Mindanao photo. It's just that that photo is a Japanese photo of the plane after it was under Japanese control, not a US photo when the plane was under US control. So it's reasonable to consider the possibility the Japanese altered the marking or the photo. And this possiblity seems at least potentially supported by the two photo's of the Denpasar P-40's, where one Japanese photo seems to have eliminated the dots (again on this point I'm not 100% insisting that the dots aren't present but OTOH I find the theory that they'd become so invisible just due to glare less than 100% convincing as well; again showing an example of a photo with 100% known red dots which become that totally invisible in a photo due to glare would make it more convincing IMO).

Since the various incidents we're discussing all happened around the same time, and if the planes/photos were altered it would be the same people involved (Japanese publicity authorities) I don't see that the Denpasar case is off topic at all.

As far as the painting of the planes in Japanese markings, as I mentioned that was done when the a/c were shipped to Japan, an obvious precaution against them being mistaken during their test flights for US planes somehow attacking Japan, something the Japanese military and public was hyper-sensitive to at the time, following the Doolittle Raid. And when photos of the planes in those markings were published in Japan, it was in reporting a public display of the a/c in Tokyo, so any earlier issue of making clear that the planes were war booty would have disappeared anyway. The timing of the marking change and display of the planes is explained in the 日本軍鹵獲機秘録 book mentioned above.

Joe


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 24, 2012)

Joe: Here's a perfect example of how glare can distort an image. Go to Stock Footage Archival Video Clips and Historic Photo Images from CriticalPast. Search P-40. On the third page, click on the third video Air Defence In Hawaii, a pre war newsreel. Where's the red center on the first P-40 you see?
You can just make it out in the 2nd one. On the 3rd on it's much clearer. Regarding the Del Monte P-40, if you read Bartsch's account of how the P-40 was transfered to Nichols, it's pretty clear that the photo in question was taken just prior to the initial ferry flight from Maramag(where it was captured) to Malaybalay, two days after it was found hidden in the jungle. The account notes the presence of American ground crew and a pilot which is what the photo shows. The photo
shown in the "little red book" was taken at Nichols and has Japanese insignia. Doesn't it stand to reason that the first pic shows the P-40 as captured, Prior to a change to Japanese insignia for the flight to Nichols? Why alter the markings twice?

Duane


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 24, 2012)

Duane,

Your final question is entirely valid and, to be honest, I don't know if anyone has, or will ever have, a definitive answer. However, there's another question that has yet to be answered - why would US personnel alter the markings of one or two aircraft? As noted previously, national markings are primarily a visual form of identification. The argument that the red centres were overpainted it to prevent confusion with Japanese hinomaru doesn't make sense if your proposed timeline, that the red centres were overpainted towards the very end of the campaign, is correct. Specific reasons for the theory not making sense include:

1. There were no other friendly air forces so no real risk of airborne blue-on-blue.

2. If the concern was about ground forces, the information about the marking change would have to be promulgated to those ground units (and the PBI is notoriously bad at aircraft identification in any case). Indeed, the Japanese had such aerial supremacy by the latter stages of the campaign that ground forces would feel entirely justified in shooting at anything in the sky so, again, changing the markings makes little sense.

3. Why do all other pics of captured aircraft and wrecked airframes show markings with red centres? Surely the markings on all USAFFE aircraft should have been modified to ensure adequate overall protection of the dwindling air assets?

In short, although we have no plausible explanation for the Japanese to change markings, equally there isn't a good logical reason for US personnel to overpaint the red centres on one or two airframes when all other aircraft in that theatre still retained the red dots? 

Sadly, photographs can be misleading because things can change very quickly. A photo of an aircraft taken in the morning may show one set of markings, or perhaps a partial transition between marking styles, whereas another photo taken that afternoon could show the airframe in a very different condition. Unless we know precisely who took an image and when, it's very difficult to interpolate the reasons for some of the changes we're discussing here.

Cheers,
B-N


----------



## varsity078740 (Mar 24, 2012)

B-N: I can't say why a/c on Bataan didn't have altered markings(or no evidence of it)but the simple answer to altering several a/c on Mindanao is that's all they had!! The number of P-40s there for any amount of time was 5 give or take. We only have photo evidence of two, Brownewell's and the Sharkmouth, and Brownwells was destroyed before the surrender. Also, conditions on Bataan and Mindanao were very different. Bataan was isolated while evacuation and supply flights came into Del Monte, keeping personell there more aware of goings on. While I do believe that the marking changes could have originated in Del Monte, it's also plausible that they resulted from word passed on from crews from Australia about changes there as with the 49th PG which were well in advance of orders issued in May of '42. That is the presumed expalnation for the sharkmouth painted on the P-40 in question-that photos of AVG a/c in Life magazine passed on, inspired t it. That kind of interchange was not possible on Bataan. Again I'll reiterate that there was no standardization of markings in Australia where the conditions were
incomparable to those in the PI. That certainly could have been the case relative to a/c on Bataan vs those at Del Monte.

Duane


----------



## varsity07840 (Sep 13, 2013)

On page 45 of Eagles of the Southern Sky(Ruffato and Claringbould), the authors state that on March 27 1942, an order was issued by UASFIA(U.S. Army Forces In Australia) calling for the removal of the red center in the insignia. That was just before the Royce Mission aircraft moved to Del Monte on April 11. In the book Operation Plum, the story of the 27th Bomb Group, there is a photo of a B-25 taken just after its return from the mission. The red center is painted out. It stands to reason that seeing the altered insignia on the Royce aircraft and possibly receiving orders from Australia, personnel at Del Monte removed the red centers from the aircraft remaining there.

Duane


----------



## beitou (Sep 20, 2013)

What a great thread, sums up why I come here, everyday is a school day learning from people with an astounding depth of knowledge.


----------



## syscom3 (Sep 20, 2013)

beitou said:


> What a great thread, sums up why I come here, everyday is a school day learning from people with an astounding depth of knowledge.



Isnt it amazing? Just when you think you knew it all, someone comes on here and takes us to school!


----------

