Model Forum / General / Models / March 2010

Camo, on an aircraft or on one's person for that matter is most useful in a
static defense. Once a camouflaged object becomes mobile the advantages of
camo diminish. Look at camo'd aircraft from another angle - who was still
applying camo right up to the very end of WWII? The Germans - and most
likely due to the need to conceal their static aircraft, parked there and
about and under constant threat of strafing and bombing. Just as Allied air
superiority reduced concerns for their own static defense, the lack of air
superiorty amplified the Germans concerns.

Other considerations for the allies were that the large, high altitude
formations of bombers and escorts rendered camouflage ineffective. The
Germans had excellent intel and tracking and the targets of these formations
weren't such a mystery - especially at the end when the list of unscathed
targets grew shorter and shorter. Luckily, knowing and doing something about
it are different animals. Paint also comes with a weight penalty -
especially on something the size of a B-17 or B-24. Less pounds, better
performance.

Naval air war was very much localized in the Pacific due to the expanse
betweens islands (and campaigns). All it would take to deal a death blow to
a concentrated fleet force would be one effective localized ad hoc air
attack on its carriers.  I would think glittering aluminum aircraft on the
deck of a flattop or anyhwere near it (like in CAP) would pose a less than
helpful security risk. Blue or grey - it seems to be a Navy thing.

On the other hand, the USAAF aircraft in the PTO seem to have followed the
pattern of their ETO brethren and gone au-naturel in the final year of the
war. B-29s, P-38s (inc. the two leading aces, Bong and McGuire) and P-51s
stand out as examples that were more often than not sans camo.

Only really worthwhile on the non-aluminum parts I would think.

WmB

Hi Craig,

I think You need another line of thought - Did the carrier planes in the ETO
miss their paint jobs? I belive no. Saltwater and salty air is a potent
corrosive agent to planes, thats why You never see the carrier planes in
bare metal finish. Well what about the land based Corsairs then? I belive
that most of them were at one time or another carrier baser or expected to
be available for carrier use.

In the PTO the P-47, the P-51, the B24 and B29 were NMF. So as far as I
know, it has to do with salty environment (But then what of the Thunderbolts
on the small islands?)

As others have already opined - it seems to have largely been just
a matter of Navy doctrine vs. Army doctrine - as much as, or more than,
any "environmental" or tactical concern.

I suspect it was mostly because they need to be corrosion controlled -
at least for Navy planes...ever see what happens to raw aluminum that's
been exposed to salt foam?  You get powdered metal, eventually...some
USN planes were painted silver, pre-war.  But they were still painted.

...OTOH, there were also PTO P-38s that were silver...painted or not.
But they were shore based.

I will shortly be building a Hellcat whif.  It will be in the pre-war yellow
wings scheme.

Blue = easy ID.
It's worth it to load up a flight sim--demos are free--and see how
hard it is to ID a distant plane. Most prop single-engine military
planes look the same. The story about Shomo's record kills was that
the JAAF in that area had never seen a Mustang, and thought they were
Ki-61's. I think only USNAF planes were blue, and they were often the
only Allied force in the area.