36 Sqn Vildebeests - Serial/Code Letter Tie-ups

[Nick Millman]

3 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Bottom line is that, by the time of the Endau Raid, the Vildebeests appear to have worn a low-contrast scheme as per this example (which we can now identify as K4188 per Post #1):

 

 

On the one hand that seems possible because AMO A.513 of 10/7/41 refers to five camouflage patterns (as described in Annex A to DTD Technical Circular 144 of February 1941) where there is no mention of biplane shadow shading.

 

On the other hand interpreting the tones in photographs is not reliable and in December 2009 the late Edgar Brooks observed that as late as October 1944 the Air Ministry was still instructing that biplanes should be shadow shaded. I've not come across that instruction yet but DTD Technical Circular 360 Issue 2 of November 1943 required Naval biplanes and trainer biplanes to be shadow shaded on the lower wings with a subsequent (12/12/43) important caveat from MAP to Resident Technical Officers that "The upper surface colours of the top plane are used for the fuselages of biplanes."  I'm not sure when that change was first implemented. The lighter colours were included in Stores listings throughout the war.  

 

Nick

[mhaselden]

On ‎10‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 1:08 PM, Nick Millman said:

On the one hand that seems possible because AMO A.513 of 10/7/41 refers to five camouflage patterns (as described in Annex A to DTD Technical Circular 144 of February 1941) where there is no mention of biplane shadow shading.

 

On the other hand interpreting the tones in photographs is not reliable and in December 2009 the late Edgar Brooks observed that as late as October 1944 the Air Ministry was still instructing that biplanes should be shadow shaded. I've not come across that instruction yet but DTD Technical Circular 360 Issue 2 of November 1943 required Naval biplanes and trainer biplanes to be shadow shaded on the lower wings with a subsequent (12/12/43) important caveat from MAP to Resident Technical Officers that "The upper surface colours of the top plane are used for the fuselages of biplanes."  I'm not sure when that change was first implemented. The lighter colours were included in Stores listings throughout the war.  

 

Nick

 

Hi Nick,

 

I'm using "low contrast" simply to differentiate the 2 different camouflage schemes but my Post #6 makes it pretty clear that the low contrast scheme continued the practice of shadow shading on the upper surfaces of the lower wing, "Sometime after May 1940, the Vildebeests appear in a much lower contrast scheme with shadow compensation colours applied to the upper surface of the lower wing" and "Later overpainting of Light Earth with the correct Dark Earth tone on the upper surface of the upper wing and the fuselage sides and uppers would match the known appearance of the later scheme."

 

I still think the contrast between the colours applied for the "high contrast" scheme is too great for the darker tone to be Light Green but, as with so much about these airframes, that's just my thinking on the subject and not based on anything other than my perception of the photos.

 

Cheers,
Mark

[Nick Millman]

2 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Hi Nick,

 

I'm using "low contrast" simply to differentiate the 2 different camouflage schemes but my Post #6 makes it pretty clear that the low contrast scheme continued the practice of shadow shading on the upper surfaces of the lower wing, "Sometime after May 1940, the Vildebeests appear in a much lower contrast scheme with shadow compensation colours applied to the upper surface of the lower wing" and "Later overpainting of Light Earth with the correct Dark Earth tone on the upper surface of the upper wing and the fuselage sides and uppers would match the known appearance of the later scheme."

 

I still think the contrast between the colours applied for the "high contrast" scheme is too great for the darker tone to be Light Green but, as with so much about these airframes, that's just my thinking on the subject and not based on anything other than my perception of the photos.

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

Sorry, Mark, the speculation and mixing up of schemes in all that confused me!  The scheme for land-based torpedo bombers abroad was supposed to be Temperate Land for which biplanes received shadow shading incorporating Light Green and Light Earth colours. Initially the lighter colours were painted on the fuselage sides up to the line of top decking and including the fin and rudder. That is not my "idea" but the requirement of the official instructions and the C3A scheme as illustrated for those. 

 

It was at the discretion of Commands whether under surfaces were Special Night (matt black) or duck-egg blue (Sky) per operational requirements but subsequently the latter colour was to be replaced by Azure Blue for all operational aircraft overseas. We know that was not always complied with from colour film footage of Hurricanes.

 

As already mentioned the relative contrast between the lighter colours was greater than the contrast between the darker colours due to the reflectivity of Light Earth. At some point, exact date unknown, the darker colours were to be applied to the fuselage sides (including fin and rudder) of biplanes so that only the lower main wings retained the lighter colours.

 

Confirmation of paint shortages would be required to substantiate the notion that Temperate Land scheme using only Light Green and Light Earth (or Dark Green and Light Earth) was applied to the whole airframe, but the dreaded "Tropical Land scheme" and confusion from AMO A.513 of 10/7/41 might be considered the culprit for a non-standard scheme of Dark Green and Light Earth (in place of Midstone). I have copies of draft and Command circulated copies of A.513 and all of them imply a "Tropical Land scheme" of Dark Green and Midstone (corrected in SY312/DIY of 3/8/41 and Air Ministry Postagram S.59966/11/F.O.6 of 30/10/41). This error was also made in DTD Technical Circular No.183 which included colour scheme diagrams and that was not instructed to be corrected until 11/12/41. However all that seems too late for your "high contrast" Vildebeest scheme. 

 

There is an RAE letter referring to an unsatisfactory lightness of the Dark Earth paint on Wellesleys but that was in 1937.

 

It would be useful to reconcile dates of photos with the various instructions and communications, if possible.    

 

RAF Stores listings would have been standard and all the colours were available in 5 gallon (overseas) containers with the exception of Deep Sky. No documents I have seen so far refer to any particular shortage of Dark Earth.  

 

Regards

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mhaselden]

3 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

Sorry, Mark, the speculation and mixing up of schemes in all that confused me!  The scheme for land-based torpedo bombers abroad was supposed to be Temperate Land for which biplanes received shadow shading incorporating Light Green and Light Earth colours. Initially the lighter colours were painted on the fuselage sides up to the line of top decking and including the fin and rudder. That is not my "idea" but the requirement of the official instructions and the C3A scheme as illustrated for those. 

 

It was at the discretion of Commands whether under surfaces were Special Night (matt black) or duck-egg blue (Sky) per operational requirements but subsequently the latter colour was to be replaced by Azure Blue for all operational aircraft overseas. We know that was not always complied with from colour film footage of Hurricanes.

 

As already mentioned the relative contrast between the lighter colours was greater than the contrast between the darker colours due to the reflectivity of Light Earth. At some point, exact date unknown, the darker colours were to be applied to the fuselage sides (including fin and rudder) of biplanes so that only the lower main wings retained the lighter colours.

Hi Nick,

I'm not trying to contradict the camouflage specifications, I'm simply suggesting that the dark shade in the high contrast scheme appears too dark for Light Green.  I'm not basing this on some gut feeling based on the tonality in the pictures but on the fact that the high-quality image I have of K4167 shows no darker version of the light colour anywhere on the fuselage.  I understand that the early shadow compensation scheme called for Light Earth to be applied to the fuselage sides but I'd expect Dark Earth to be visible somewhere on the upper fuselage and it's not.  The lighter colour on the top decking immediately aft of the gunner's cockpit appears to be exactly the same shade as the fuselage sides, as is the area immediately in front of the pilot's cockpit and the area between the cockpits.  There simply doesn't appear to be any Dark Earth anywhere on the fuselage...which suggests that this is an unusual camouflage scheme and not the standard shadow compensation scheme. 

 

 

3 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

Confirmation of paint shortages would be required to substantiate the notion that Temperate Land scheme using only Light Green and Light Earth (or Dark Green and Light Earth) was applied to the whole airframe, but the dreaded "Tropical Land scheme" and confusion from AMO A.513 of 10/7/41 might be considered the culprit for a non-standard scheme of Dark Green and Light Earth (in place of Midstone). I have copies of draft and Command circulated copies of A.513 and all of them imply a "Tropical Land scheme" of Dark Green and Midstone (corrected in SY312/DIY of 3/8/41 and Air Ministry Postagram S.59966/11/F.O.6 of 30/10/41). This error was also made in DTD Technical Circular No.183 which included colour scheme diagrams and that was not instructed to be corrected until 11/12/41. However all that seems too late for your "high contrast" Vildebeest scheme. 

 

There is an RAE letter referring to an unsatisfactory lightness of the Dark Earth paint on Wellesleys but that was in 1937.

 

It would be useful to reconcile dates of photos with the various instructions and communications, if possible.    

 

RAF Stores listings would have been standard and all the colours were available in 5 gallon (overseas) containers with the exception of Deep Sky. No documents I have seen so far refer to any particular shortage of Dark Earth.  

 

I don't disagree that we'd need evidence of paint shortages to substantiate my theory but, I freely admit I'm clutching at straws to explain the photographic evidence.  The Tropical Land Scheme is an interesting proposition and would match what we're seeing in the photos of the high contrast scheme.  The only fly in the ointment is the date that the Tropical Land Scheme was initiated.  If it dates solely from signals in 1941, it's too late for the high contrast scheme we're seeing on Vildebeests because that scheme precedes the addition of yellow surrounds to the fuselage roundels.  If Tropical Land Scheme was promulgated prior to May 1940, then it's the most plausible explanation for the high contrast scheme visible on Vildebeests.  I'll need to go back to the source of the images to see if I can nail down the date(s) with any better precision or accuracy than where we currently stand (ie pre/post May 1940).

[Nick Millman]

7 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

I'm not trying to contradict the camouflage specifications, I'm simply suggesting that the dark shade in the high contrast scheme appears too dark for Light Green.  I'm not basing this on some gut feeling based on the tonality in the pictures but on the fact that the high-quality image I have of K4167 shows no darker version of the light colour anywhere on the fuselage.  I understand that the early shadow compensation scheme called for Light Earth to be applied to the fuselage sides but I'd expect Dark Earth to be visible somewhere on the upper fuselage and it's not.  The lighter colour on the top decking immediately aft of the gunner's cockpit appears to be exactly the same shade as the fuselage sides, as is the area immediately in front of the pilot's cockpit and the area between the cockpits.  There simply doesn't appear to be any Dark Earth anywhere on the fuselage...which suggests that this is an unusual camouflage scheme and not the standard shadow compensation scheme. 

 

It seemed that you were - just a bit! Or at least approaching hypothesis by "what I want my model to look like", making the case on the basis of a preferred outcome. Without seeing that image I can't comment usefully. The extent and angle of illumination plus the degree of sun bleaching of the top deck in that environment might come into it. 

7 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

I don't disagree that we'd need evidence of paint shortages to substantiate my theory but, I freely admit I'm clutching at straws to explain the photographic evidence.  The Tropical Land Scheme is an interesting proposition and would match what we're seeing in the photos of the high contrast scheme.  The only fly in the ointment is the date that the Tropical Land Scheme was initiated.  If it dates solely from signals in 1941, it's too late for the high contrast scheme we're seeing on Vildebeests because that scheme precedes the addition of yellow surrounds to the fuselage roundels.  If Tropical Land Scheme was promulgated prior to May 1940, then it's the most plausible explanation for the high contrast scheme visible on Vildebeests.  I'll need to go back to the source of the images to see if I can nail down the date(s) with any better precision or accuracy than where we currently stand (ie pre/post May 1940).

I don't have a date for DTD Circular No.183 but the error would probably have had heads scratching as to how to shadow shade a scheme which consisted of Dark Green and Light Earth. AMO A.926 of 12/12/40 correctly references Midstone replacing Dark Green but that is specific to Middle East Command. It makes me wonder if the "Tropical Land scheme" originated in the Far East and then made its way back into the subsequent orders with a certain amount of confusion all round. There are various inconsistencies between the AMOs, DTD Circulars and the special instructions such as Aircraft Design Memorandum No.332 issued in September 1939 but still being appended to instructions and referred to in November 1940. The latter cited at Para 2bv that the camouflage scheme of single engined biplanes should be per Air Diagram 1162 consisting of Dark Green, Dark Earth, Light Green and Light Earth over Sky (as also shown in diagram C3A). Various other instructions make it clear that Night could be applied on under surfaces at the discretion of Commands.

 

Regards

Nick   

[mhaselden]

Hi Nick,

 

I'd have hoped you'd know me well enough by now that I try to describe what I'm seeing in images, not what I want to see ('cos I'd REALLY like to build my Contrail kit in the Trop Sea Scheme...but that isn't happening ).  Google finds the image of K4167 for me but the link to it just gives the Photobucket "you can't see this image" message.  Try googling images for "Vickers Vildebeest RNZAF Proboards" and one of the results should show K4167 airborne (actually conducting a practice torpedo drop) with the starboard side facing the camera (it's only wearing the sqn code 'OE' with no individual letter).  Sadly, I can't post the image I have to the internet because it's not mine to post...and I don't break promises made to those who own the image.

 

The more I look at this, the more I think that an early adoption of Tropical Land Scheme is the more viable rationale for the early scheme we're seeing on the Vildebeests.  Going back to Graham's comment, why anyone would think that Mid Stone (or even Light Earth) was a good camouflage for conditions in Malaya/Singapore is beyond me but the photographic evidence is compelling absent any documentary proof.

 

Kind regards,
Mark

[Nick Millman]

Hi Mark

 

Hee hee! For a moment there I thought you might be doing a "Lucas"! 

 

Thanks for the images. I now see what you mean. The domed top of the forward fuselage makes it difficult to see where the demarcation might have been applied and the flat part of the rear cannot be seen. The upended Ceylon 'Beest appears to comply with the later biplane shadow shading scheme, with only the upper surfaces of the lower wing in the lighter colours. Unfortunately I don't know when that change was made.    

 

Regarding the Tropical Sea scheme LST2, although trial paints* (5 gallons of each) were despatched to Singapore in February 1937 and there is some confusing churn between then and September 1938 the September 1939 instructions superceded all that and required scheme C3A (Temperate Land, shadow shaded) on Far East biplanes.  

 

* One change to the original LST2 diagram was from Dark Sea Green and Light Sea Green to Extra Dark Sea Green and Dark Sea Green. 

 

Regards

Nick

[stevehnz]

My google fu is obviously failing me as I can't bring up any starboard side torpedo drop photos, any chance of a link if its on Rnzaf.proboards Mark?

Steve.

[mhaselden]

Hi Steve,

 

The original postings on RNZAF Proboards went to Photobucket hell but I've asked the originator to rehost them so I can provide links that work.

 

Kind regards,
Mark

[mhaselden]

13 hours ago, stevehnz said:

My google fu is obviously failing me as I can't bring up any starboard side torpedo drop photos, any chance of a link if its on Rnzaf.proboards Mark?

Steve.

 

Steve,

 

Good news.  The original poster of the images on the Wings Over New Zealand forum has reinstated them.  So, here they are for all to enjoy:

 

1.  Vildebeest 'R' (which we now know is K4188):

 

 

2.  Vildebeest K4156 'OE-T':

 

 

3.  Close-up of K4156 'OE-T':

 

 

4.  K4167 just wearing the 36 Sqn code letters 'OE':

 

 

5.  Close-up of K4167.  Note the apparent lack of any Dark Earth on the upper forward fuselage from just aft of the gunner's cockpit (where we can just see a glimpse of the top fuselage decking near the camouflage demarcation) all the way forward to the engine.  Also note black underside with Type A roundels under the wing.

 

 

 

6.  Ceylon-based Vildebeest in late 1941, part of a detachment of airframes from Singapore.  Camouflage appears to be Temperate Land Scheme with shadow compensation on the upper surfaces of the lower wings only.  Note Type B roundels on upper wings and large fin flash.  This scheme looks very similar to that shown in the pic of airborne Vildebeest 'OE-R' at Post #24 in this thread: 

 

 

 

One final comment on the early scheme.  In re-looking at my Vildebeest file, I found a picture which I believe was published in SAM several decades ago of 2 airborne 36 Sqn Vildebeests carrying torpedoes.  Both aircraft appear to be in the early high contrast scheme (which I'm tentatively calling Tropical Land Scheme because, frankly, it matches what we're seeing in the photos) but with Type A1 fuselage roundels and the large fin flash, as well as Type B roundels on the upper surface of the top wing.  Both aircraft have a battered and worn appearance, with the wing leading edge of the nearest airframe looking considerably patched.  This pushes the date of any repaint to traditional Temperate Land Scheme (with shadow compensation on the lower wings only) until after May 1940. 

 

Anyhoo...hope these photos help explain my thoughts on the topic.  Short of getting any more images, I think that's about all we can say.

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

Source of Images:  http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/13068

Edited October 23, 2017 by mhaselden

[Dave Fleming]

On 18/10/2017 at 4:23 AM, mhaselden said:

K4599/D

 

 

 

 

Not hugely relevant, but K4599 was 'J' when the unit used the VU codes preWar (Combat Codes/RAFM Photo)

[stevehnz]

Thanks mark, now you've put it up, I had seen those photos of K4167, possibly even got them saved on a hard drive somewhere.  I shall ruminate upon them, I reckon I'll have time.

Steve.

[mhaselden]

2 hours ago, stevehnz said:

Thanks mark, now you've put it up, I had seen those photos of K4167, possibly even got them saved on a hard drive somewhere.  I shall ruminate upon them, I reckon I'll have time.

Steve.

 

Hi Steve,

 

Not sure how much rumination is needed, other than the decision to build a pre-hostilities machine or one that actually engaged Japanese forces.  If you want to build an Endau Raid machine, then go for the Temperate Land Scheme as depicted by the Ceylon-based machine and add the serial/codes of your choice.  If you want to build a pre-hostilities machine, I'd go for Tropical Land with Mid Stone and Dark Green over Black.  I think that would be very attractive...just not what was worn on operations.

 

Cheers,
Mark

[stevehnz]

Thanks Mark, that distills it quite nicely I think & therein lies the rumination, though a tribute build to the Endau operation has always been my intention, that high definition scheme would look very attractive as you say.

Steve.

[mhaselden]

4 minutes ago, stevehnz said:

Thanks Mark, that distills it quite nicely I think & therein lies the rumination, though a tribute build to the Endau operation has always been my intention, that high definition scheme would look very attractive as you say.

Steve.

 

Concur.  The thing that held me back from the Trop Land Scheme for my 1/48 Contrail kit was sourcing the 36 Sqn crest for the fin...but finding that pic of 36 Sqn machines still in Trop Land Scheme with the big fin flash and Type A fuselage roundels makes it a lot more viable.  That said, I'm still leaning towards an Endau machine for my build, just as a tribute to the bravery of the crews. 

[mhaselden]

Just found this first-hand account of the Endau raid by one of the Vildebeest air gunners.  Ironically, he flew K4167 which is one of the airframes pictured in Post #35.  The account includes a poor-quality image of a Vildebeest on Sembawang airfield, although it's of interest because it appears to show the Temperate Land Scheme with large fin flash present.  This story, and others of Australians during the Malayan Campaign, were found here:  http://beaufighter30squadronraaf.com.au/invasion malaya.html

 

****UPDATE:  I've amended Post #1 to reflect the info contained in this first-hand account regarding Vildebeest K4173 participating in the Endau Raid and in which Phil Hay lost his life.****

 

 

Ivor Jones
Photo - Ivor Jones

Ivor Jones - Wireless/Air Gunner - 36 Squadron RAF (Vildebeest)

The prototype Vildebeest flew in 1929 and was a typical biplane of the period. During November 1933 the first Mk I Vildebeest entered service with the RAF. By late 1934 the Mk III replaced earlier models then in service with both 36 and 100 Squadrons. It had been intended to replace the Vildebeests with Beauforts in early 1941, but due to the war in Europe no new aircraft were available for the Far East.

Each Vildebeest had a crew of three: a pilot, an observer and a wireless/air gunner. Most of the pilots from both squadrons were RAF or RNZAF personnel, while the observers and wireless/air gunners were from the RAF or RAAF.

On January 26, 1942, 36 and 100 Squadrons were informed that a large Japanese invasion force, consisting of an aircraft carrier, four cruisers, six destroyers, two transports and 13 smaller vessels, had been sighted at Endau. All crews would be required to attack this force, carrying 250-lb and 500-lb bombs. The first strike was to be carried out by nine Vildebeests of 100 Squadron and three Vildebeests of 36 Squadron.

The 12 Vildebeests took off at 1.30 p.m. and when they emerged from broken cloud over Endau, flying at 2000 feet, they were fired on by the Japanese ships. They pressed home their attack on the ships as best they could, however five aircraft involved were shot down, including Sqn Ldr T. Rowlands, the CO of 100 Squadron.

RAF Vildebeest at Sembawang Drome, Singapore late 1941.
Photo - George Sharp

I was with 36 Squadron RAF and aged 27 and flew in the second strike, which consisted of seven Vildebeests and three Albacores of 36 Squadron and two Vildebeests from 100 Squadron. My aircraft was K4167; flown by Sgt Doug Buchanan, RNZAF, with Plt Off Stew Bengsston our observer and me as wireless/air gunner. Our CO was Sqn Ldr Markham.

At 4.15 p.m. we were on our way. As we took off in Vildebeest Mk III, K4167 I waved to Phil Hay, who was wireless/air gunner in K4173; it was the last time I saw him.

The cloud that had provided cover for the first strike had vanished when we reached Endau about an hour later. I looked over the side of the aircraft, and could see the destroyers milling around the transports, which were close into shore. We seemed to be moving very slowly and I would have liked some cloud to hide in.

We had just dropped a bomb on one of the transports when I looked up and saw a fighter approaching. It opened fire and bullets hit the port fuel tank; Doug was hit in the calf of his left leg and Stew was wounded in the left forearm. While I was not hit, a bullet did miss my neck by a few centimetres.

I got my parachute and put it on; there were fumes coming out of the fuel tank and the aircraft appeared to be on fire. Stew gave me a nudge to bailout, so I dived over the side of the aircraft, only to find myself immediately back in the cockpit looking up at the sky. I had forgotten to unclip my 'monkey' strap, which is there to prevent one from falling out of the aircraft. If I had baled out I would have landed among the Japanese troops.

Seeing what I had been up to, Doug yelled to me to stay where I was as he felt he could get us back, so I took off my parachute and stowed it away. Stew had blood spurting from the wound in his arm so I put a tourniquet on above the wound. We were now flying very low over the treetops and I asked Doug if I could get out onto the wing and try to plug the hole in the fuel tank. He said it was not possible to stop the leak and then we turned inland, so I put my monkey strap on again.

I saw a fighter approaching and told Doug, who immediately dived steeply, which in turn, launched me straight up into the air. Once again I was saved by the monkey strap. The fighter was a 232 Squadron Hurricane.

We thought of landing at Kluang but were not sure if the Japanese had taken it, so we continued on to Seletar, flying at 500 feet. When we reached Seletar I flashed an SOS, using the Aldis lamp, and after landing we found a 500-lb bomb still jammed on the bomb rack.

Ours was one of five aircraft to return, the other seven having been shot down. I then escaped to Java where I was captured and spend 3 ½ years as a POW and was part of the ‘Dunlop 1000’ working on the Burma Railway under Sir Edward ‘Weary’ Dunlop.

Some of the travels of Ivor Jones in Malaya.

Edited October 24, 2017 by mhaselden

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 23/10/2017 at 1:07 AM, mhaselden said:

Hi Nick,

 

I'd have hoped you'd know me well enough by now that I try to describe what I'm seeing in images, not what I want to see ('cos I'd REALLY like to build my Contrail kit in the Trop Sea Scheme...but that isn't happening ).  Google finds the image of K4167 for me but the link to it just gives the Photobucket "you can't see this image" message.  Try googling images for "Vickers Vildebeest RNZAF Proboards" and one of the results should show K4167 airborne (actually conducting a practice torpedo drop) with the starboard side facing the camera (it's only wearing the sqn code 'OE' with no individual letter).  Sadly, I can't post the image I have to the internet because it's not mine to post...and I don't break promises made to those who own the image.

 

The more I look at this, the more I think that an early adoption of Tropical Land Scheme is the more viable rationale for the early scheme we're seeing on the Vildebeests.  Going back to Graham's comment, why anyone would think that Mid Stone (or even Light Earth) was a good camouflage for conditions in Malaya/Singapore is beyond me but the photographic evidence is compelling absent any documentary proof.

 

Kind regards,
Mark

Mark,

 

Two photographs of a Swordfish known to have been in the Tropical Sea Scheme of Dark Mediterranean Blue/Dark Sea Green are in Stuart LLoyd's book on Fleet Air Arm Camouflage. But I can not say for sure whether they match the photo of the Vildebeest. 

 

As you are aware of, this is not the first time I have replied on "Tropical Land Scheme" .  I have copies of ALL the RAE documents on camouflage held at the National Archive dating from 1935 until 1941 (and also most of the AIR documents relating to camouflage and markings). These describe in great detail, an extensive series of trials conducted by RAE on camouflage schemes for the RAF both locally and at overseas commands. The majority of these schemes were trialled on bi-planes. Of the colour schemes referred to as "Tropical Scheme", NONE were Light Earth and Dark Green or anything of similar colours. However one of these schemes, called "Tropical Scheme" LT2, consisted of the colours Dark Sand, Mid-Sand and Light Sand for bi-planes. This is VERY likely a predecessor of the Dark Earth, Mid Stone used from the summer of 1940 onwards.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Mark Mackenzie

[mhaselden]

53 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Mark,

 

Two photographs of a Swordfish known to have been in the Tropical Sea Scheme of Dark Mediterranean Blue/Dark Sea Green are in Stuart LLoyd's book on Fleet Air Arm Camouflage. But I can not say for sure whether they match the photo of the Vildebeest. 

 

As you are aware of, this is not the first time I have replied on "Tropical Land Scheme" .  I have copies of ALL the RAE documents on camouflage held at the National Archive dating from 1935 until 1941 (and also most of the AIR documents relating to camouflage and markings). These describe in great detail, an extensive series of trials conducted by RAE on camouflage schemes for the RAF both locally and at overseas commands. The majority of these schemes were trialled on bi-planes. Of the colour schemes referred to as "Tropical Scheme", NONE were Light Earth and Dark Green or anything of similar colours. However one of these schemes, called "Tropical Scheme" LT2, consisted of the colours Dark Sand, Mid-Sand and Light Sand for bi-planes. This is VERY likely a predecessor of the Dark Earth, Mid Stone used from the summer of 1940 onwards.

 

Regards,

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for the pointer to the Tropical Sea Scheme Swordfish photos in Stuart Lloyd's book.  Sadly, it's hard to draw any solid conclusions from the 2 photos because neither shows the scheme particularly well.  From what is visible, the scheme appears to be extremely low contrast on monochrome imagery...but we don't know the type of film which may impact our perception.

 

To be honest, I don't really care what we call the scheme.  I'm more interested in what the constituent colours might be.  From the available photos, it seems pretty clear that it's a 2-colour scheme with the lighter colour showing brighter than the code letters.  If we assume MSG or, at a considerable stretch, even red code letters, then we're really limited to something in the Mid Stone/Light Earth range for the lighter of the 2 colours.  Outside of Mid Stone/Dark Earth, we're heading off into thoroughly uncharted territory in terms of a grey or blue shade that isn't seen in any camouflage scheme (experimental or otherwise) that I'm aware of.

 

Do you have any thoughts on what the colours might be on these Vildebeests if they're not Mid Stone (or Light Earth) and Dark Green?

 

Cheers,
Mark

[vildebeest]

Looking for Vildebeests on my hard drive, I found some profiles from what appears to be an Airlife publication, which is interesting because I have no recollection of having seen this before or where I found it.

 

Anyway, there are profiles for 3 Vildebeest. One is OE T K4176 in shadow TLS, one is NK F K4188 is tropical sea scheme (or, as the commentary says, a contrasting upper surface scheme that may have been tropical sea scheme) but most interestingly, OE R, which is said to be K4168 but from this thread is more probably K4188. This is I think based on the photo in #24, since it shows the torpedo with the front in the raised position which is fairly uncommon (like, I haven't seen it anywhere else.) I quote "Another experimental scheme which is thought to have been applied to Vildebeests was a variation of the temperate land scheme using "tropical" colours in a shadow compensating scheme comprising extra dark sea green and either dark red sand or red sand on the upper surfaces of the top mainplanes, fuselage spine and tailplanes with a shadow compensating light sea green and dark sand on the fuselage sides and the upper surfaces of the lower mainplanes. The under surfaces appear to be a "medium" shade, and may have been a shade like sky blue. Several photos that were consulted in research for this book appear to indicate that at least a few of the Vildebeests were painted n this scheme. " I make no comment on how likely this is, but thought I would share.

 

Paul

[Nick Millman]

LT 2 of January 1935 was Dark Sand, Medium Sand and Light Sand. On the diagram of the scheme "Light Earth" is written above Medium Sand. 

 

A 16.08.38 letter from the Director of Technical Development to the RAE states that LT2 and LT3 will be used on biplanes in India, the Far East and Iraq for further camouflage trials. No mention of the sea schemes for land planes. However, the schematic for C3A (shadow shaded Temperate Land) is dated December 1938 and was followed in 1939 by the firm instructions referred to in my various comments above which also referenced the C3A scheme (and Air Diagram 1162) - shadow shaded Temperate Land - as a universal scheme for biplanes in the Far East.

 

The RAE Tropical Sea scheme for landplanes was LST2. LT2 and LST2 are difficult to differentiate from monochrome photos as despite 3 colours vs 4 colours they had the same camouflage pattern. However LT2 had a demarcation on the fuselage side forward of the wing leading edge whereas LST2 had a single colour from the leading edge to the spinner.

 

The records provide only one side of the story, that from the UK/RAE/Air Ministry. The Far East side of the experimental camouflage trials is unclear, especially as to whether other locally devised schemes were trialled or even implemented. 

 

Nick

 

 

[Nick Millman]

It might just be worth mentioning in this thread that in September 1937 RAE reported the testing of proprietary Temperate Land scheme camouflage paints manufactured by different companies with widely varying results. The paints were exposed on a roof for 8 months and it is apparent that not only did the greens and browns weather in different ways but the same colours from different manufacturers also varied.   

 

For example Cellon's Dark Green had a chalky surface and "colour gone" whilst Cellon Dark Earth was chalky and badly faded. Cerrux Light Earth was "satisfactory". The Titanine-Emaillate Dark Greens and Dark Earths were slightly darker in colour.

 

In the harsher Far East environment I think all bets are off when assessing tonal variations in paint schemes, even before the angle and type of illumination and film exposure, etc., factors are considered.

 

Nick  

[mhaselden]

7 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

It might just be worth mentioning in this thread that in September 1937 RAE reported the testing of proprietary Temperate Land scheme camouflage paints manufactured by different companies with widely varying results. The paints were exposed on a roof for 8 months and it is apparent that not only did the greens and browns weather in different ways but the same colours from different manufacturers also varied.   

 

For example Cellon's Dark Green had a chalky surface and "colour gone" whilst Cellon Dark Earth was chalky and badly faded. Cerrux Light Earth was "satisfactory". The Titanine-Emaillate Dark Greens and Dark Earths were slightly darker in colour.

 

In the harsher Far East environment I think all bets are off when assessing tonal variations in paint schemes, even before the angle and type of illumination and film exposure, etc., factors are considered.

 

Nick  

 

Don't disagree that the Far East was a much harsher environment but, equally, I'd expect there to be variation in the fading on an actual airframe where different components are exposed to different extents.  Also, if we were looking at a paint scheme that had been in use for several months, I'd expect there to be additional weathering visible, particularly given the harsh climate.  In the case of K4167, the colours appear very uniform in nature, despite the shadow from the upper wing etc., and there is hardly any weathering at all on any part of the airframe.  To me, this suggests a relatively recent repaint. 

 

I'm not trying to be awkward...honest.

[Nick Millman]

6 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

Don't disagree that the Far East was a much harsher environment but, equally, I'd expect there to be variation in the fading on an actual airframe where different components are exposed to different extents.  Also, if we were looking at a paint scheme that had been in use for several months, I'd expect there to be additional weathering visible, particularly given the harsh climate.  In the case of K4167, the colours appear very uniform in nature, despite the shadow from the upper wing etc., and there is hardly any weathering at all on any part of the airframe.  To me, this suggests a relatively recent repaint. 

 

I'm not trying to be awkward...honest.

 

Yes, agreed, the more exposed Dark Green and Dark Earth on the top of the fuselage might weather to resemble the less exposed Light Green and Light Earth on the fuselage sides!  

 

But also bear in mind that you are looking at photographs and not the real thing.

 

Regards

Nick

[mhaselden]

3 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

Yes, agreed, the more exposed Dark Green and Dark Earth on the top of the fuselage might weather to resemble the less exposed Light Green and Light Earth on the fuselage sides!  

 

AAARRGGHHHHH!!!!  I'm starting to feel like I'm on a merry-go-round....and it's making me queasy! 

Edited October 24, 2017 by mhaselden

[Mark Mackenzie]

5 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for the pointer to the Tropical Sea Scheme Swordfish photos in Stuart Lloyd's book.  Sadly, it's hard to draw any solid conclusions from the 2 photos because neither shows the scheme particularly well.  From what is visible, the scheme appears to be extremely low contrast on monochrome imagery...but we don't know the type of film which may impact our perception.

 

To be honest, I don't really care what we call the scheme.  I'm more interested in what the constituent colours might be.  From the available photos, it seems pretty clear that it's a 2-colour scheme with the lighter colour showing brighter than the code letters.  If we assume MSG or, at a considerable stretch, even red code letters, then we're really limited to something in the Mid Stone/Light Earth range for the lighter of the 2 colours.  Outside of Mid Stone/Dark Earth, we're heading off into thoroughly uncharted territory in terms of a grey or blue shade that isn't seen in any camouflage scheme (experimental or otherwise) that I'm aware of.

 

Do you have any thoughts on what the colours might be on these Vildebeests if they're not Mid Stone (or Light Earth) and Dark Green?

 

Cheers,
Mark

Mark,

 

I could only guess what the colours were but on the 15th September 1939 the RAE were asked by Army Headquarters, India, to suggest colour schemes for vehicles and tentage.  They responded with a letter containing colour diagrams of lorries and tents showing two different colour schemes. These were:

 

Light Sand and Dark Earth scheme for use on the North West Frontier.  

 

Dark Green and Light Earth scheme for use in districts containing  much vegetation and in brackets,' grass, jungle, shrub or forest'.

 

So as late as September 1939, a colour scheme of Light Earth and Dark Green was suggested for Army Vehicles in the jungles of India. The same two colour schemes (with lighter shades for lower wings) were also proposed by RAE for aircraft operating on the NWF in February 1936 at a conference held by AM on camouflage. 

 

Cheers,

Mark 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Mark Mackenzie