no camouflage on USAAF planes

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

rank amateur

Airman 1st Class
226
12
Mar 21, 2009
Schiedam, Holland
During 1944 American Army Airforce in Europe gradually did away with the camouflage paint. Some sources claim that this was because of the diminished oposition and the fact that the aircraft performed better without. I am curious to know from which point (date) this happened and who initiated it. It certainly gave the US airplanes a sense of glamour and it contributed to the confidence of the allied armies. But still, was this planned or just dumb luck. I have been googling on tis subject and have not come up with much.

I hope some of the forum members can provide me with usefull info.

Chrzzzz
 
I'm not very well versed with Allied aircraft but I believe they went to the unpainted aluminum-look because it reduced drag and added a few mph to the airspeed.
 
'Bare metal' aircraft started to be seen in the ETO from early 1944. There were a number of reasons for omitting camouflage paint, including weight saving, improved performance, and reduction in production time and costs. In the case of fighter aircraft, and accepting the virtual air superiority, it was though that, not only was camouflage now unnecessary, it was also a benefit, as USAAF fighters wanted to be seen, to draw Luftwaffe fighters into combat. However, when some fighter units moved to temporary bases on the Continent after D-Day, some of those fighters which had previously been in 'bare metal', were given a top coat of locally-sourced camouflage paint, to reduce the chances of being spotted on the ground.
 
Still, who initiated this? And I can't help feeling sorry for those guy's in the B17's and B24's who probably could do well without the luftwaffe attention.
 
rank amateur said:
Still, who initiated this? And I can't help feeling sorry for those guy's in the B17's and B24's who probably could do well without the luftwaffe attention.
Click to expand...

The Olive Drab (sometimes with a splodge of Medium Green) camouflage of USAAF bombers in the ETO never had anything to do with making them less conspicuous in the air.It was to camouflage them on the ground. With the Luftwaffe's offensive capabilities,certainly over the UK) reduced to near zero by 1944 this had become unnecessary.
Cheers
Steve
 
Airframes said:
... reduction in production time and costs.
Click to expand...

That was quite important considering the resources needed to manufacture the paint in the first place. With naval AC requiring to be painted, it was a macro economic decision to let then navy get the paint they needed and the AAF do without as it was mostly unneeded.
 

Ype, think about it. What good did top cammo do at 20,000 ft?
 
N4521U said:
Ype, think about it. What good did top cammo do at 20,000 ft?
Click to expand...

Some good, assumedly - if the other guy is a 30,000ft.
I have another theory . Seeing as the RAF continued to paint their fighters in olive drab and brown, the USAAF penchant for garish colours on bare maetal is just another example of exhibitionism. Bloody Yanks...
 
The "Air Space" magazine had a story about this back in the early 90's. Many of the arguments against the paint have been mentioned here. If anyone has access to old copies of the mag, look it up.
 
CobberKane said:
I have another theory . Seeing as the RAF continued to paint their fighters in olive drab and brown, the USAAF penchant for garish colours on bare maetal is just another example of exhibitionism. Bloody Yanks...
Click to expand...

Errrr ....Dark Green and Ocean Grey which was considered a compromise between concealment on the ground and some measure of camouflage,against the ground, in the air. The earlier Dark Earth and Dark Green was primarily for concealment on the ground. The Luftwaffe were very keen to bomb our airfields!

When you don't have,or lose air superiority or your airfields are vulnerable to attack,ground camouflage is more important. It is no accident that Luftwaffe camouflage for land based fighters went from two greens (70/71) to two greys (74/75) as the became dominant,but then reverted to greens and browns (81/82/83)as the allies reversed that position.

This is almost the reverse of the RAF who changed one of the two upper colours of their disruptive scheme from brown (Dark Earth) to a bluey grey (Ocean Grey) which is surprisingly close to RLM 75,a colour phased out by the Germans towards the end of the war.

Cotton did a lot of work on this for the British.

As for the Americans' penchant for garish colours......some things never change
It makes for some interesting model projects! More seriously it must have helped identifying friend from foe. I've always thought that our Sky fuselage band and Yellow leading edge stripes were a bit understated to put it mildly. I wonder if they worked at all?

Cheers
Steve
 
Last edited:
stona said:
As for the Americans' penchant for garish colours......some things never change
It makes for some interesting model projects! More seriously it must have helped identifying friend from foe.
Click to expand...

Did any person or unit mimic Jasta 11 Manfred von Richthofen's practice of painting their aircraft?
 
gjs238 said:
Did any person or unit mimic Jasta 11 Manfred von Richthofen's practice of painting their aircraft?
Click to expand...

Well I don't think we ever got anything approaching another "flying circus" on any side.
Both the Luftwaffe and USAAF seem to have allowed more leeway in what could and couldn't be applied to aircraft than the RAF. Interesting stuff like US red tails,blue noses and fancy nose art,as well as the Luftwaffe's checked or tulip noses,yellow tails and plethora of personal emblems simply weren't allowed by the spoil sports at the Air Ministry.
There's a really sad directive from the AM laying down exactly where and how big the lettering on a presentation aircraft might be. It gives the impression that really the Ministry would prefer the acknowledgement not to be there at all.
Cheers
Steve
 
Balljoint said:
Once heard that the Japanese used soot from a rich acetylene torch to kill the glint with almost no weight.
Click to expand...

I wonder about that, not exactly the safest way to paint a aircraft. Plus it would just last till the first rain, they'd sure go thru a lot of acetylene.

That used to be a old customizers trick, they'd put acetylene soot on a fresh light color, then put clear over it. But again, not the safest way to paint a car.
 
I bet those pink PR Spitfires were flown by closet homosexuals produced by the English public school system. Or closet communists. Or is that the same thing?
 
I have another theory to add to the mix here gents...recognition issues.
I'll be damned if I can remember the source, but I have read that the introduction of the Mustang in the ETO lead to many "blue-on-blue's". This due to the similarity of the P 51B/C and the Bf 109, when viewed at certain angles. I know for a fact that this is documented; and also that it had a bearing on the decision to "go naked".
The other advantages of such a decision have already been added by other posters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

C
Goosestepping Markings on Planes
Replies
3
Views
684
Snautzer01
Luftwaffe Camouflage Schemes....
Replies
1
Views
962
fubar57
M
Were Any Other USAAF Aircraft Marked This Way?
Replies
5
Views
491
Wurger
Favorite World War II aircraft camouflage scheme
Replies
8
Views
2K
buffnut453
N
RAF WW2 camouflage colours with RGB values
Replies
2
Views
1K
Nomisllewdor
N
Menu
Log in
Register