Discussion:
USN/IJN Aircraft Camoflage - Why so different ?
(too old to reply)
c***@earthlink.net
2008-12-21 00:10:31 UTC
Permalink
The United States used different shades of blue while Japan used off
white and green.

Am curious as to why, while they both flew under the same environment,
chose so different a camo scheme.

I can see the benefit of blue over water, but white and green?
Anyone know the intent of this choice of colors?


Craig
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2008-12-21 00:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@earthlink.net
The United States used different shades of blue while Japan used off
white and green.
Am curious as to why, while they both flew under the same environment,
chose so different a camo scheme.
I can see the benefit of blue over water, but white and green?
Anyone know the intent of this choice of colors?
In general, the Japanese didn't think much of camouflage on aircraft. Many
were non-painted.

There's a good discussion at

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/jimlans1.htm

Mike
Scott M. Kozel
2008-12-21 03:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In general, the Japanese didn't think much of camouflage on aircraft. Many
were non-painted.
When the B-29 bomber entered service, the U.S. didn't bother with
painting it! :-)

A big huge silver-colored aircraft.
Bill Shatzer
2008-12-21 05:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott M. Kozel
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In general, the Japanese didn't think much of camouflage on aircraft. Many
were non-painted.
When the B-29 bomber entered service, the U.S. didn't bother with
painting it! :-)
A big huge silver-colored aircraft.
The first B-29s were indeed camouflaged - olive drab over light gray.

Loading Image...

The discontinuation of camouflage on the B-29 corresponded with the
December, 1943 USAAF directive discontinuing camouflage on most combat
aircraft.

Not painting the aircraft saved several hundred pounds of weight,
reduced drag a tad, eliminated the cost of the paint, and skipping the
paint shop speeded up the production and delivery of aircraft. The USAAF
determined that these advantages more than offset any disadvantages of
foregoing the camouflage.

Camouflage has its primary benefits for aircraft parked on the ground
and by December of 1943, few if any US bases were under any serious
threat of aerial attack - For those which were, camouflage could be
applied as a field expedient by the ground crews of the squadrons involved.

Cheers,
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2008-12-21 16:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
In general, the Japanese didn't think much of camouflage on aircraft. Many
were non-painted.
Camouflage has its primary benefits for aircraft parked on the ground
and by December of 1943, few if any US bases were under any serious
threat of aerial attack - For those which were, camouflage could be
applied as a field expedient by the ground crews of the squadrons involved.
I suspect the practice of painting the AC-borne aircraft had as must to
do with protection against the salt air as anything.

Mike
Michael Emrys
2008-12-21 18:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@netMAPSONscape.net
I suspect the practice of painting the AC-borne aircraft had as must to
do with protection against the salt air as anything.
In the context of this discussion, it's interesting to note that the
Corsair, which had wings that folded up instead of back, had the
undersurfaces of the outer wing panels painted the same dark shade as
the upper surface. The reason given for this is that if sitting on deck
with wings folded, they would not be so visible from above. I'm not
sure how much that really mattered in the long run.

Michael
David H Thornley
2008-12-21 22:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Emrys
In the context of this discussion, it's interesting to note that the
Corsair, which had wings that folded up instead of back, had the
undersurfaces of the outer wing panels painted the same dark shade as
the upper surface.
The Navy didn't use the Corsair much on carriers until 1945, when they
were very touchy about kamikazes. This is the period when they were
painting everything navy blue vertical surfaces and deck blue horizontal
just as fast as they could get the paint, with carriers having
priority.

They wanted to make it as hard as possible to spot a carrier from the
air, they were probably very nervous about white underwings.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
***@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
Bill Shatzer
2008-12-22 00:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David H Thornley
Post by Michael Emrys
In the context of this discussion, it's interesting to note that the
Corsair, which had wings that folded up instead of back, had the
undersurfaces of the outer wing panels painted the same dark shade as
the upper surface.
The Navy didn't use the Corsair much on carriers until 1945, when they
were very touchy about kamikazes. This is the period when they were
painting everything navy blue vertical surfaces and deck blue horizontal
just as fast as they could get the paint, with carriers having
priority.
In 1945, the standard color scheme for USN ship-board aircraft was
overall glossy sea blue - that scheme having been adopted in October, 1944.

Fighters had switched to the overall glossy sea blue scheme in March of
that year.

The previous three color scheme (Non-spectacular sea blue upper
surfaces, non-spectacular intermediate blue on vertical surfaces, and
non-spectacular white undersurfaces) was in effect from February, 1943
through October (March for fighters) 1944.
Post by David H Thornley
They wanted to make it as hard as possible to spot a carrier from the
air, they were probably very nervous about white underwings.
A carrier would seem a hard thing to miss, quite regardless of the color
its aircraft were painted.

Still, the underwing surfaces which were up when the wings were folded
were painted intermediate blue even under the 1943 scheme - they were
never white - white was reserved undersurfaces which were always down;
with the exception that some aircraft had a small patch of white rather
than intermediate blue on the portion of the vertical fuselage
immediately under the horizontal stabilizer.
m***@netMAPSONscape.net
2008-12-27 06:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Shatzer
Post by David H Thornley
They wanted to make it as hard as possible to spot a carrier from the
air, they were probably very nervous about white underwings.
A carrier would seem a hard thing to miss, quite regardless of the color
its aircraft were painted.
Yeah, but

The kamikaze pilots were, shall we say, not quite "elite", pilots flying
mostly obsolete aircraft, the vast majority receiving a few classroom
lessons and 20 minutes in a wooden box with a wooden stick counting
as the total of their "flight training". If they successfully got the
aircraft off the ground in the first place, they had to navigate to a
general area which, if not under a cover of marine fogs, may or may
not have ships which most of the pilots could not identify beyond
the fact that they were ships.

Against such a force, even seemingly small improvements in camouflage
might be expected to help a bit.

Mike

Bill Shatzer
2008-12-21 19:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@earthlink.net
The United States used different shades of blue while Japan used off
white and green.
Am curious as to why, while they both flew under the same environment,
chose so different a camo scheme.
I can see the benefit of blue over water, but white and green?
Anyone know the intent of this choice of colors?
Except for the so-called "surrender aircraft", I don't think any
Japanese a/c were white.

The overall light gray scheme used by many IJNAF aircraft was not all
that dissimilar to the overall light grey scheme used by USN ship-based
a/c from 1940-41 or the blue gray over light gray scheme used from 1941-43.

Camouflage's primary benefit is to aircraft parked on the ground -
obviously green would be the color of choice for IJNAF land-based
aircraft. As the war progressed, more and more IJNAF aircraft were
land-based and the green over light gray (or green over natural metal)
scheme became more and more common.

For aircraft in flight, colors tend to blur together and be
indistinquishable at any distance and tone becomes more important than
actual color. In other words, any dark color tends to blend with any
dark background and any light color tends to blend with any light
background. The tone is more significant than the particular dark or
light color selected.
Bob Martin
2008-12-21 20:02:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@earthlink.net
The United States used different shades of blue while Japan used off
white and green.
Am curious as to why, while they both flew under the same environment,
chose so different a camo scheme.
I can see the benefit of blue over water, but white and green?
Anyone know the intent of this choice of colors?
I don't know about your neck of the woods but the North Atlantic is a browny-green!
j***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2008-12-21 20:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
I don't know about your neck of the woods but the North Atlantic is a browny-green!
Much of WWII in the Pacific was fought in tropical or semi-tropical
zones. The ice-cream machine commonly found on board USN ships was as
important as the cocoa apparatus on board RN ships.
--
John Dallman, ***@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
Don Phillipson
2008-12-21 20:22:05 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Prisoner at War
2008-12-24 20:44:06 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Don Phillipson
2008-12-24 23:44:25 UTC
Permalink
May . . . ask about naval camouflage...I have this
encyclopedia of WWII weapons and the illustrations of naval ships have
them in all kinds of bizzare get-ups...I'm talking zebra strips, tiger
stripes, dabbed puffs, even what look like abstract maple leaves!!
This is called Dazzle camouflage, invented for ships during
WW1, mentioned also in the S.J. Gould book cited in this
thread. (HMS Broke, the first RN ship thus camouflaged
was thereafter three times in collision with other RN ships
who each time said they never saw the Broke. But this is
merely a paradoxical coincidence. Dazzle camouflage was
designed to mislead gunlayers (viewing through gunsights)
as often as submarine periscopes or ordinary lookouts.))
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Bill Shatzer
2008-12-24 23:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prisoner at War
Ah, great question, something I keep meaning to ask but always forget
to when logged on here!
May I piggyback and ask the same about naval camouflage...I have this
encyclopedia of WWII weapons and the illustrations of naval ships have
them in all kinds of bizzare get-ups...I'm talking zebra strips, tiger
stripes, dabbed puffs, even what look like abstract maple leaves!!
A rather extensive discussion of the various US Navy camouflage schemes
and the considerations in selecting among the various alternatives are
in the Navy SHIPS-2 documents which are posted on line at:

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/SHIPS2.htm

Probably more depth than you want but the answer to just about any USN
WW2 camouflage question is in one of these guidebooks someplace.

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/ships2_3_43_guide_to_selection.htm is
something of a good introduction.

Cheers,
Loading...