Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
WW2 camouflage
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 29th March 2009
Ive never really understood the point of the camouflage patterns used by WW2 aircraft.
Firstly, they all had brightly coloured national symbols & unit identification letters which must have negated any advantage from the camo.
Second, a plane in mid-air appears as a black silhouette regardless of how its painted - if you can see the camouflage you're too close!
Does the fact that later in the war US planes were painted silver show that they had given up on the idea of camouflage? -
Message 2
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Sunday, 29th March 2009
Well, they had to paint them something, so why not.
As a civilian flyer, I find that the contrast between a plane's color and background does help in spotting them from the air sometimes. A white plane against dark foliage is much easier to spot than one against the lighter colored background offered by most cityscapes.
I would think that any pattern that breaks up the outline of a grounded plane viewed from the air would make it a bit harder for strafing or bombing pilots to pick out the target. As long as there is any possibility and no harm, why not occupy a few conscripts putting it on? And a light grey on the upper surface of planes that operate over water might help. I think it is more a matter of pattern breakup than of color matching. -
Message 3
Posted by farmersboy (U5592874) on Monday, 30th March 2009
Quite often the camouflage was intended to hide the planes whilst they're parked on the ground, but it depends what background you're trying to blend into.
German high altitude interceptors were quite often painted a pale blue-grey to blend in with the sky above cloud level. If I remember rightly so did the photo-recce Spitfires of the RAF..
You see the brighter colours where recognition was paramount, such as the Battle of Britain where hundreds of aircraft could be all mixed up in huge dogfights - you need to know if the chap in your gunsights if friend or foe very quickly! German aircraft used bright colours under the wings to help identification by searchlight and flak teams, and all Allied planes were painted with black and white 'Invasion Stripes' for D-Day so they stood out from German aircraft.
The US planes were left unpainted in the latter stages of the war because it didn't really matter - the Allies had pretty much achieved air superiority and didn't see the need for camouflage. -
Message 4
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 30th March 2009
Ive been told that the US stopped painting its planes for a couple of reasons. One it speeded up production. Two the performance of the planes was improved slightly because of the abscence of the weight of the paint.
-
Message 5
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 30th March 2009
Late in the war, USAAF aircraft were not 'painted silver' but left unpainted. This saved weight, money and production time. One of the purposes of the paint was to protect the airframe against corrosion, but the combat life of aircraft tended to be so short that it didn't matter. However, if you chose to paint your aircraft at all, it made sense to use camouflage colours.
The effectiveness of camouflage depended on the conditions and angle of view. Silhouetted against a bright sky, aircraft usually looked dark from the ground. However, in air combat the most dangerous enemy was usually the one above you, and then the contrast between the earth and the camouflage paint was much lower.
A well-known illustration in biology textbooks shows how a deer becomes much less visible to predators by having a light-coloured belly, than by being brown overall. Most aircraft were painted in a similar manner, with a light belly and dark top surfaces, to break up their outline. The exception were aircraft operating at night, which had their undersides painted black, or at high altitude, which often were light grey or pale blue overall.
The significance of camouflage paint also depended on the role. For USAAF heavy bombers flying in large formations, it probably did not matter that much. For fighters operating in large formations, bright colour markings for easy recognition might be more important than camouflage. But for a lonely reconnaissance aircraft deep into enemy territory or out over the ocean, remaining unnoticed was much more important.
Paint could also, oddly as it may sound, make a big difference in performance. A smooth layer of paint could reduce drag, a carelessly applied, uneven layer of thick paint could significantly increase it. -
Message 6
Posted by George1507 (U2607963) on Monday, 30th March 2009
B17s and other USAAF bombers were camouflaged in the early years of the war.
By 1944 and 1945 the USAAF realised that the glossy finish of the silver paint helped the bombers fly faster than the matt finish of a camouflaged bomber.
So the camouflage was gradually replaced with silver paint. There was less threat of aerial attack by then, so being camouflaged on the ground was less important.
I believe the speed gain was something like 20mph on like for like repainting. -
Message 7
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 30th March 2009
I spoke at some length with a USAF captain who had fought in Africa in WW2. He had flown B-24's in the desert, and he informed me that the a/c in his wing were originally painted a light brown but that colour was changed to a kind of pinkish shade that blended in with the desert background so well that from medium or high altitude they were virtually invisible (as long as their shadow couldn't be seen). He referred to the colour as ''desert pink'' and showed me a model of a B-24 that he had of that colour. It was definitely pink.
I guess until one actually observes an attempt at camouflage, one can never be sure which ones work best. -
Message 8
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Monday, 30th March 2009
I'm guessing that's very much like the old pink land rovers used by the SAS in desert operations? Always wondered why pink shows up less in the desert than sand coloured things!
-
Message 9
Posted by farmersboy (U5592874) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
The pink color was thought the best color to hide the vehicles at the most dangerous times of the day (sunrise and sunset) and help the vehicle to disappear in the hazy horizon when seen at a distance.
Some of the coulour schemes were quite striking, with pinks, blues and greens being combined. -
Message 10
Posted by MB (U177470) on Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Wasn't the SAS colours based on the LRDG who used a combination of rose and pink?
Camouflage can have a number of different purposes.
Aircraft flying low will have camouflage to make them difficult to spot against the ground underneath but the undersides will be a colour to make hard to see against the sky. The PRU aircraft used a particular shade of blue (egg-shell?) which had been selected by Sidney Cotton as the best for high flying aircraft.
Coastal Command were given aircraft no longer needed by Bomber Command and initially continued to use them in their original Bomber Command matt black night camouflage but OR discovered that white aircraft had a better chance of being undetected by U-Boats so they adopted that colour scheme.
As above Bomber Command used matt black but the RAF now uses as black as a high visibility colour for training aircraft!
Some ships used disruptive camouflage, I think the Luftwaffe also used this to make it difficult to both identify an aircraft and also judge its speed.
The markings on the aircraft were usually less visible than those used in peacetime, the RAF dropped the white ring from the roundels and used dark colours for the identification numbers.
Of course later they painted very conspicuous marking on aircraft after D-Day because the biggest danger was being shot down by friendly fire so it was important for them to be able to recognise Allied aircraft.
MB -
Message 11
Posted by petes (U3344676) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
The purpose of camo is two fold, to break up the outline and to blend into the background.
Ships were always painted grey to blend in, the predominant colour of the sea/sky. But they were sometimes painted in black/white/grey to break up the outline. There’s pictures of the Bismark her 1941 black-and white striped ‘Baltic’ camouflage designed to make her difficult to spot, here
Buildings such as hangers, factories and offices were usually painted brown/green to break up their outline. Amazingly parts of the Jaguar works at Castle Bromwich, originally the Spitfire factory, still shows faint traces of it’s camo paint job after 69 years. -
Message 12
Posted by WarsawPact (U1831709) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
The ultimate in the theory of using camouflage to break up outlines, was the WW1 'dazzle camouflage' used at sea...
-
Message 13
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Thanks for replies so far
On a related issue: What do people make of the French army's use of 'horizon bleu' in WW1? This replaced the previous dark blue coat & red(!) trousers. As the name implies the new colour was supposed to make the soldier blend in with the colour of the sky but something tells me this was not a very successful experiment... -
Message 14
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 5th April 2009
JMB
Of course later they painted very conspicuous marking on aircraft after D-Day because the biggest danger was being shot down by friendly fire so it was important for them to be able to recognise Allied aircraft.Ìý
The aircraft of the the Advanced Air Striking Force had the undersides of their aircraft painted black on one side and white on the other for recognition.
It's the only one I could find.
Trike. -
Message 15
Posted by Snezzypeanut (U13980840) on Saturday, 23rd May 2009
In reply to your post, in reverse order, when the USAF etc no longer camo'd their planes, it was at the latter stage of the war, when the allies had are supremacy, and also it was realised that painting the 'planes increased weight, resulting in loss of speed, hence leaving them in bare metal. If you look at early pattern roundals on fighters etc earlier on in the war, they were quite vivid, but various patternswere tried and agreed on, the same with cammo, early spit's and Hurries had lower halves half black/half white as a visual id method, this was soon stopped, but cammo continued as a means of concealement when viewed from above or when in blast pens and covered by scrim net. Various patterns were tried and tested.There was more trouble when the allies had a plane that in profile was not that dissimaler to a luftwaffe plane, for example the Fw 190 v Tempest, so black n' white id stripes were put on the planes, the germans in turn painted coloured spirals on their spinners as a means of id.
Hope this helps ? -
Message 16
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Idamante
As usual with replies there is a great profussion of responces, however to naswer your original question it is contrary to belief the painting aircraft is not a method to employ idle hands. Darwin pointed out elagantly that an animal that blends with the background has a better chance to survive, breed and pass on those genes that best protect it (very similar for fighter pilots). The object of camoflage is not invisibility but a reduction in visibilty thus increasing the chance of survival.
If we confine ourselves to WW2 for the sake of brevity then we can use the example of the Spitfire. The Mark 1 Spitfire had a wing area of 242 sq ft(22'.4 sq M)which might sound a lot but by contrast the average double decker bus has a side elevation of approximately 330 sg ft(30 sq M). If this vehicle is viewed from 800 yards(731 M)which was, in the Battle of Britain, the standard distance at which the RAF fighters guns were synchonised to converge for maximum effect you wili see just how small it the relative wing span appears. As Kurt pointed out it is quite difficult under ideal conditions to see another aircraft in the sky, but suppose your visibility is further troubled by poor weather conditions and the distortion of the cockpit canopy? Your other question regarding markings- the 1937-1945 Standard RAF roundel for fighter aircaft was 36-39 inches (990mm)which at the distances previously mentioned would aid an opposing pilot to recognise it - if conditions were ideal. But suppose that a pilot is looking towards the ground at operational height. His chances of success would be his ability to see an aircraft perhaps 3,000 ft (914M) below him. Of course the side elevation would be even more difficult to see and recognise at similar distances and head on virtually impossible.
Larger aircraft, for example, the Lancaster 1 had a wing area of 1,297 sq ft(120 sq M)had the undersurfaces in matt black with no national markings in the hope that they would blend in with the night sky and dark camoflarge on the upper surfaces to merge with the ground below.
Of course the introduction of air-to-air radar made camoflarge of this sort obsolete.
There was much experimentation in the effective use of camoflage where it was discovered that the most effective colour for high altitude PRU aircraft was pale pink. Parachutes used by agents dropping into occupied territory were white/grey and not black. -
Message 17
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Further note and apologies for the grammar etc of the previous ... it seemed to off in my hand.
Naval camouflage was to either as someone else has mentioned to blend in - and you try spotting with a naked eye a grey ship twelve miles away with the sun bouncing off the surface (no wonder that Nelson was going blind). Dazzle painting was designed to break up the outline of the ship to make identification difficult and some even had false bow waves painted on to confused submarines as to which direction they were sailing. At a time when range-finding was accomplished by eye, baffles were erected in the shape of triangles in an attempt to confuse the range-finder. It was part of a cunning plan! -
Message 18
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Of course the introduction of air-to-air radar made camoflarge of this sort obsolete.
Ìý
WWII air-to-air radar got the aircraft close enough to sight it visually and then the attack was done visually so anything that reduced visibility would make it more difficult to attack. Similarly bombers might have radar to warn them of approaching fighters but the actually defensive fire was aimed visually so again anything reducing visibility would help protect fighters. -
Message 19
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
JMB,
Greetings. You are quite correct but I had jumped beyond WW2 when I made that statement. They had also (during WW2) developed apparatus to home in on Oboe and H2S transmissions and on IFF signals and could be warned when radar had locked on to them, which again somewhat nullified the effects of camouflage, but only as far as air-to-air combat is concerned. As far as naval warfare is concerned I imagine that visual identification of a target now takes a very low priority but they still paint the ships grey, so perhaps I am wrong. I suppose it would be a brave man who proposed going to sea in anything other than grey. -
Message 20
Posted by MB (U177470) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Except the stealth ones which tend to be black!
-
Message 21
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 24th May 2009
Western Approaches camouflage for escort vessels was largely white, pale blue, and pale green. It was intended to make the vessel less visible in the dark. This was the logical end to the progression which changed small vessel camouflage from the all-black of early WWI destroyers.
"Mountbatten mauve" or "Plymouth pink" was specifically intende to make light forces (MTBs, MGBs etc) less visible under searchlight illumination.
Admiralty Disruptive camouflage, applied to many other vessels, was intended to make range finding and course calculation more difficult.
As has been pointed out before, this wasn't just made up on the spur of the moment - Operational Research suggested these measures on the basis of experiments. -
Message 22
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
JBM,
A bit late I know, but isn't the finish of the Stealths more to do with absorption rather than camo? -
Message 23
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
"JBM,
A bit late I know, but isn't the finish of the Stealths more to do with absorption rather than camo?"
Bit of both - the paint does have certain properties which affect "radar-return" as well as acting as a heat sink but it's also partly to reduce visability at night for the simple fact you might not see a B-2 via radar but a pilot in something as old and in effect useless MiG 19/21 could catch a glimpse and shoot it down (after all they are subsonic and apparently not the most maneurable aircraft) so every little helps.
However the cost of being in effect a "night-bomber" means you stand out like a sore thumb any other time. A B-2 without massive fighter escort during the day would be almost a sitting duck. An F-117 not much better. -
Message 24
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
Sorry, I have a question.
I have seen pictures of late WW2 US fighters. Sometimes the body is silver, which could be explained by avoiding the use of paint. But parts of the aircraft, the tail or nose area, are painted bright colours. Yellows and blues.
I always assumed that, in the later part of the war, the US airforce WANTED their fighters to be seen, so that the enemy fighters could be engaged all the easier.
Is this assumption simply wrong ? -
Message 25
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Wednesday, 27th May 2009
Greeting TimTrack,
The practice of brightly painted aircraft has of course little to do with camouflage and more to do with morale. 'We belong to the Red Noses' or 'Green Hearts' sort of mentality. Needless to say such a practice was frowned upon by the British generally. It does makes it easier for fellow pilots to spot their own aircraft. It's bit of a throwback to Medieval-ism really. In WW1 fighter pilots were often referred to the 'Knights of the Air' and 'chivalry' was another word banded about and this leaked over into WW2 I think, although there was in reality little chivalry ever displayed. It was for the most part a brutal business. -
Message 26
Posted by Darrenatwork (U11744656) on Thursday, 28th May 2009
Following on from Spruggles's post. In any fight the person hunting the enemy will need to keep their eyes open for threats as well as targets so (in many cases) the camo only needs to work for perhaps a few seconds - perhaps only fractions of a second to be effective. A 10% chance of not being spotted is a hell of a lot better than zero chance of not being spotted.
-
Message 27
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Thursday, 28th May 2009
I always assumed that, in the later part of the war, the US airforce WANTED their fighters to be seen, so that the enemy fighters could be engaged all the easier.Ìý
Early in the war, most air forces made very optimistic assumptions about the ability of aircrew to identify other aircraft, even if the other aircraft was a mere dark speck against a light sky. In reality errors in identification were very frequent.
Late-war US fighters were at serious risk from friendly fire, from the bombers they escorted, from troops on the ground, or from other Allied fighters. They were at relatively low risk from enemy fighters because there were not that many of these left. Therefore carrying bright identification colours made some sense.
Another factor was that US bombing raids were flown in large, complex formations that were difficult to assemble. Markings that allowed aircraft of the same unit to recognize each other instantly, reduced the risk of confusion and made forming up easier and faster. Old bombers painted in outrageous colour schemes were used to provide rallying points for the formation (but these would not participate in the raid.) -
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Thursday, 28th May 2009
One point to note - the rule in the Pacific War was - no red on any allied aircraft. Even the British roundels had to be changed.
Red = "the meatball" = Japanese. -
Message 29
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 29th May 2009
Mutatis Mutandis,
I recently read that the crews that manned the assembly aircraft did so with some trepidation as they tended to stick out like sore thumbs in the formations and therefore claimed more enemy attention. -
Message 30
Posted by Flobblem (U13967960) on Friday, 29th May 2009
On the subject of naval camouflage, I believe these pictures would be of use:
and
When you see some of the patterns it really confuses the eye, and when putting yourself in the position of a gunner it is easy to image how effective a tool camouflage was. I am sure it was a similar case with sky camouflage too.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.