Jump to content

36 Sqn Vildebeests - Serial/Code Letter Tie-ups


mhaselden

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Nor Nick, but I can add that Light Mediterranean Blue was not a light colour. being (in very approximate terms) close to PRU Blue but bluer (or less grey, whichever you fancy).  I don't believe that the reflectivity is the best way to approach this, for I don't see the colours as being so contrasting.  However, bear in mind that these photos appear to be taken using ortho film, where blues will appear lighter than they appear to the eye.

 

Shock horror gasp - perhaps what we are seeing is what ST2 would look like on ortho film.  But in that case where did Singapore get enough paint from?

 

Hi Graham,

 

What evidence do you have for ortho film being used for the torpedo drop pics?  IIRC, ortho film is typically identifiable by yellow appearing very dark and the red and blue tones of the roundels being reversed (ie red appearing very dark and the blue much lighter).  

 

There's a well-known image of low-contrast Vildebeests of 100 Sqn (one of which is 'NK-K') that clearly shows these features.  We're not seeing that tonal reversal in the roundels in the torpedo drop pics. 

 

Please point me to what you're seeing that I may be missing here. 

 

Cheers,
Mark

Edited by mhaselden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Nick,

 

What you have stated is not correct.

 

The 16th August, 1938 AM letter requested "further camouflage trials" not that they "would be used",  of LT2, LT3 in India, Far East and Iraq. There is a difference between would be used and would be trialled. The same letter stated that a version of C3A with lighter brown was to be trialled in Aden; this scheme was called "C3B" and had  Dark Earth of C3A replaced by Dark Sand.

 

 

 

Yes, I know that. See my earlier post # 45! My point was that the trialling of those land schemes post dated the "standardisation" letter which I believe referred to flying boats.

37 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

 

Secondly: two versions of ST2 were trialled by 100TB in Singapore. In the first set of trials (results given to RAE on the 28th November 1936) the ST2 consisted of the original 1935 colours that I stated above. In the second set of trials (results above) the Sea Greens were replaced with the darker pair of colours. The blues remained unchanged between trials. I know this because I have copies of the dopes sent overseas for these trials. 

 

Notwithstanding that the 26th Feb 1937 letter from Air Ministry to DTD included a diagram for Sea Tropical S.2.T. I incorrectly referenced the colours for S2 (early Temperate Sea). However the S2 schemes were intended for flying boats rather than landplanes - S.2.T  was the same as ST2 and was not L.S.T.2. The S.T.2. diagram attached to the 26/02/37 letter (and described in the letter as S.2.T) shows a flying boat and the scheme is described as such - "Sea Camouflage Doping Scheme S.T.2. (for Flying Boat)".  

 

37 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

 

I would be interested in what you make of the reflectivities between Extra Dark Sea Green and Light Mediterranean Blue? I suspect the contrast is great.

 

Extra Dark Sea Green is 8% and Light Med Blue is 16%. The contrast is not as great as Dark Green to Light Earth (7% vs 30%) but would provide approximately the same contrast as the Day Fighter scheme.

 

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

 

Yes, I know that. See my post # 45! My point was that the trialling of those schemes post dated the "standardisation" letter.

Notwithstanding that the 26th Feb 1937 letter from Air Ministry to DTD included a diagram for Sea Tropical S.2.T. I incorrectly referenced the colours for S2 (early Temperate Sea). However the S2 schemes were intended for flying boats rather than landplanes - S.2.T  was the same as ST2 and was not L.S.T.2. The S.T.2. diagram shows a flying boat and the scheme is described as such - "Sea Camouflage Doping Scheme S.T.2. (for Flying Boat)". 

 

Extra Dark Sea Green is 8% and Light Med Blue is 16%. The contrast is not as great as Dark Green to Light Earth (7% vs 30%) but would provide approximately the same contrast as the Day Fighter scheme.

 

Nick

Nick: I agree on the point regarding trialling .i.e. why trial if something was already accepted. I suspect the later trials were for Land Scheme and not Sea Scheme.

 

Mark: Do you think that Mid-Stone / Dark Earth could be a possibility? 

 

Below is a copy of the 1935 drawing of the earlier, lighter colours. The drawing with darker colours is missing.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

1935.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Mark: Do you think that Mid-Stone / Dark Earth could be a possibility? 

While DE/MS is a possibility, it's a very poor fit for the operating environment.  Even the early camouflage discussions indicated that earth tones were appropriate for the Northwest Frontier region of the Indian Subcontinent, but that green was needed for Singapore. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Below is a copy of the 1935 drawing of the earlier, lighter colours. The drawing with darker colours is missing.

 

1935.jpg

 

Thanks for posting this diagram, Mark.  I do love these scheme illustrations.  However, the diagram shows a pattern that's vastly different from the scheme seen on the Vildebeests.  That said, I'd LOVE to see a real airframe finished in this scheme.  I think it would be most striking! :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MarkM:  I don't know which of the photos were or were not photographed using ortho film.  My understanding, however, is that this kind of film was usual for British use prewar and at least early wartime.  I'd also comment that although the red/blue contrast seems to be universal with ortho film, the dark appearance of yellow does not always appear.  Whether this is due to the use of some filter, or variation in the pigmentation of the specific yellow paint being used, I can't say.  Further: there are a number of photos, most famously that of a Skua on Ark Royal, but also one of a Gladiator on Malta, where the bluer colour in TSS appears so light.  This has also been credited to the use of Ortho film.  Therefore given the possibility of a blue colour appearing so light in photographs of Vildebeests brought these cases to mind.

 

Which would also not rule out the use of TSS on these aircraft, as might be expected of their role.  My personal preference (partially on the grounds that it is the simplest and hence most likely) remains faded Dark Earth as seen in photographs from the Middle East (Wellesleys etc), despite MarkH's entirely reasonable objection.  A freshly repainted aircraft would offer low contrast on Ortho film: how this film would react to Light Earth or faded Dark Earth I can't confirm, but suspect that it could well be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Nick: I agree on the point regarding trialling .i.e. why trial if something was already accepted. I suspect the later trials were for Land Scheme and not Sea Scheme.

 

Mark: Do you think that Mid-Stone / Dark Earth could be a possibility? 

 

Below is a copy of the 1935 drawing of the earlier, lighter colours. The drawing with darker colours is missing.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

1935.jpg

 

Thanks. Note that the scheme shown is L.S.T.2 and was evidently not proceeded with as an official scheme, even with the amended darker colours. Other than for trials I remain sceptical that the scheme was ever used on operational Vildebeests. Official Air Ministry camouflage scheme instructions do not reference it and by the end of 1938 had moved on to C3A  (Temperate Land, shadow-shaded). By 1939 AD Memo No.332 (Issue 2) was referencing AD 1162 for single engined biplanes which was the shadow-shaded Temperate Land scheme. The stores listing of paints accompanying that does not include the Sea Greens or Med Blues.  Enclosure 1A of B.8200/39 on Camouflage is referenced in a minute dated 2/9/39 and states clearly that the Temperate Land scheme C3A is to be adopted "universally" for operational land planes overseas. For Far East flying boats it states "No decision yet made". 

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Which would also not rule out the use of TSS on these aircraft, as might be expected of their role. 

All Air Diagrams for "torpedo bombers" in AD memo 322 Issue 2 (1939) and 3 (1940) show Temperate Land scheme. Temperate Sea scheme is only shown for 'four-engined monoplanes - General Reconnaissance (GR) (flying boats)' - AD 1163; 'twin-engined monoplanes - GR (flying boats)' - AD 1164; 'twin-engined biplanes - GT (flying boats)' - AD 1165 and 'twin-engined biplanes (sesquiplane) - GR (flying boats)' - AD 1166.

 

Issue 3 states that the Air Diagrams have been revised to incorporate the "ad hoc" instructions in DTD Technical Circular Letters, AMO(A)'s and postagrams issued prior to 8/11/40.

 

Vildebeests finished in Temperate Sea scheme would have contravened both the requirement for "torpedo bombers" and the requirement for "single-engined biplanes" - both to be in Temperate Land scheme. And would also have gone against the intention of the various "Tropical" schemes. Therefore it seems unlikely if not impossible. 

 

Temperate Sea was a low contrast scheme (10% vs 12%), even lower than Temperate Land (7% vs 13%).

 

Bear in mind also that Vildebeests were not Fleet Air Arm aircraft, the camouflage and markings of which were governed by CAFOs. Even so, naval land planes were also in Temperate Land scheme until CAFO 1719 (M.015951/40 -26/9/40) which required all naval aircraft to be in either S1E or Temperate Sea scheme. On my copy of this CAFO for biplanes S1E (the five-colour scheme) has been crossed out and 'Temperate Sea' hand written in.

 

Nick

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful about being too dogmatic, and relying too heavily upon 1939/1940 rules and regulations for what was happening in 1941.  Especially late 1941.  Given that land-based Coastal Command aircraft including Blenheims and Beauforts did adopt TSS, at what date did this occur?  For example, Warner's  "Blenheim The Full History" has the shipping strike Blenheims in green and grey from the summer of 1941.  This is confirmed by colour photos, if undated, but the Blenheims were taken off anti-shipping duties in the UK in November 1941 so that does rather restrict the possibilities.  Note that these were not even Coastal Command aircraft, but under  2 Group Bomber Command.   As TSS was being used by land-based anti-shipping units well before the end of 1941, it seems by no means unlikely, and far from impossible, that the same applied to Vildebeests in Singapore.

 

The colours of TSS may well be of low contrast in real life, but express a wide variety of contrasts in b&w photos, dependent presumably on film, filters, weathering and lighting conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

As TSS was being used by land-based anti-shipping units well before the end of 1941, it seems by no means unlikely, and far from impossible, that the same applied to Vildebeests in Singapore.

 

Then what of the Hudsons in Singapore that also had an anti-shipping, or at least maritime reconnaissance, role?  We can't simply look at the Vildebeest in isolation.  Rather, we must place that one airframe type within the context of other things that were happening in Singapore.  The correlation to other activities within Far East Command will be far closer than to activities in the UK.

Edited by mhaselden
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Be careful about being too dogmatic, and relying too heavily upon 1939/1940 rules and regulations for what was happening in 1941.  Especially late 1941.  Given that land-based Coastal Command aircraft including Blenheims and Beauforts did adopt TSS, at what date did this occur?  For example, Warner's  "Blenheim The Full History" has the shipping strike Blenheims in green and grey from the summer of 1941.  This is confirmed by colour photos, if undated, but the Blenheims were taken off anti-shipping duties in the UK in November 1941 so that does rather restrict the possibilities.  Note that these were not even Coastal Command aircraft, but under  2 Group Bomber Command.   As TSS was being used by land-based anti-shipping units well before the end of 1941, it seems by no means unlikely, and far from impossible, that the same applied to Vildebeests in Singapore.

 

The colours of TSS may well be of low contrast in real life, but express a wide variety of contrasts in b&w photos, dependent presumably on film, filters, weathering and lighting conditions.

AMO A.513 of 10 July 1941 gets us back into the ambiguity of "Tropical Land scheme" for operational aircraft for service abroad. That is described as Temperate Land or the apparently incorrect dark green and mid-stone "according to the nature of the country" etc. 

 

The problem is the lack of verifiable dates to photographs. The later, darker (lower contrast) scheme as described by Mark H might well be TSS for the reasons you suggest.The CC TSS was adopted from 10th August 1941 and specifically includes Torpedo Bomber squadrons. Under surfaces were supposed to be 50% (of aircraft) "duck-egg blue" and 50% matt black. But did that apply in the Far East?

 

I thought the discussion was more concerned with the colours of the earlier high contrast scheme shown in photos, from which it is much harder to derive TSS.

 

I don't think that referencing the official instructions is being "dogmatic" but responding with the suggestion that they might not have been complied with always seems weak without additional evidence of that. I think some people misunderstand me and think that when I cite the official documentation I am trying to obviate any other possibilities. I'm not. I'm just sharing them as part of the discussion because so often they get disregarded in favour of the speculation. 

 

Nick 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

MarkM:  I don't know which of the photos were or were not photographed using ortho film.  My understanding, however, is that this kind of film was usual for British use prewar and at least early wartime.  I'd also comment that although the red/blue contrast seems to be universal with ortho film, the dark appearance of yellow does not always appear.  Whether this is due to the use of some filter, or variation in the pigmentation of the specific yellow paint being used, I can't say.  Further: there are a number of photos, most famously that of a Skua on Ark Royal, but also one of a Gladiator on Malta, where the bluer colour in TSS appears so light.  This has also been credited to the use of Ortho film.  Therefore given the possibility of a blue colour appearing so light in photographs of Vildebeests brought these cases to mind.

 

Which would also not rule out the use of TSS on these aircraft, as might be expected of their role.  My personal preference (partially on the grounds that it is the simplest and hence most likely) remains faded Dark Earth as seen in photographs from the Middle East (Wellesleys etc), despite MarkH's entirely reasonable objection.  A freshly repainted aircraft would offer low contrast on Ortho film: how this film would react to Light Earth or faded Dark Earth I can't confirm, but suspect that it could well be different.

 

Hi Graham,

 

'Twas I who was asking about the ortho film.  Since the torpedo drop pics don't have any quantifiable yellow content, we can ignore that caveat.  However, your observation that "the red/blue contrast seems to be universal with ortho film" rather makes my case for me.  The red in the torpedo drop pictures is noticeably lighter in tone than the blue...which suggests strongly, to me at least, that these images were not taken using ortho film.  See below...all show paler red centres than the blue outers:

 

img318a.jpg

 

Vilde1.jpg

 

 

I'm not being argumentative...just trying to explore all options and the question of pan/ortho film was worth looking at. 

 

Cheers,
Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

MarkM:  I don't know which of the photos were or were not photographed using ortho film.  My understanding, however, is that this kind of film was usual for British use prewar and at least early wartime.  I'd also comment that although the red/blue contrast seems to be universal with ortho film, the dark appearance of yellow does not always appear.  Whether this is due to the use of some filter, or variation in the pigmentation of the specific yellow paint being used, I can't say.  Further: there are a number of photos, most famously that of a Skua on Ark Royal, but also one of a Gladiator on Malta, where the bluer colour in TSS appears so light.  This has also been credited to the use of Ortho film.  Therefore given the possibility of a blue colour appearing so light in photographs of Vildebeests brought these cases to mind.

 

Which would also not rule out the use of TSS on these aircraft, as might be expected of their role.  My personal preference (partially on the grounds that it is the simplest and hence most likely) remains faded Dark Earth as seen in photographs from the Middle East (Wellesleys etc), despite MarkH's entirely reasonable objection.  A freshly repainted aircraft would offer low contrast on Ortho film: how this film would react to Light Earth or faded Dark Earth I can't confirm, but suspect that it could well be different.

Graham: You're quoting the wrong Mark! I said nothing but I did notice the sky colour was the same tone as the lighter colour disruptive colour on the Beest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick Millman said:

AMO A.513 of 10 July 1941 gets us back into the ambiguity of "Tropical Land scheme" for operational aircraft for service abroad. That is described as Temperate Land or the apparently incorrect dark green and mid-stone "according to the nature of the country" etc. 

 

The problem is the lack of verifiable dates to photographs. The later, darker (lower contrast) scheme as described by Mark H might well be TSS for the reasons you suggest.The CC TSS was adopted from 10th August 1941 and specifically includes Torpedo Bomber squadrons. Under surfaces were supposed to be 50% (of aircraft) "duck-egg blue" and 50% matt black. But did that apply in the Far East?

 

I thought the discussion was more concerned with the colours of the earlier high contrast scheme shown in photos, from which it is much harder to derive TSS.

 

I don't think that referencing the official instructions is being "dogmatic" but responding with the suggestion that they might not have been complied with always seems weak without additional evidence of that. I think some people misunderstand me and think that when I cite the official documentation I am trying to obviate any other possibilities. I'm not. I'm just sharing them as part of the discussion because so often they get disregarded in favour of the speculation. 

 

Nick 

Nick,

 

It is not "apparently", neither is it an ambiguity. It is an acknowledged error. 

 

Yesterday I noticed whilst trawling thru the archives that the "tropical schemes", LT*, were also referred to as the "desert schemes" by RAE, on at least one documented instance. i.e the terms were used interchangeable

 

Cheers,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Nick,

 

It is not "apparently", neither is it an ambiguity. It is an acknowledged error. 

 

Yesterday I noticed whilst trawling thru the archives that the "tropical schemes", LT*, were also referred to as the "desert schemes" by RAE, on at least one documented instance. i.e the terms were used interchangeable

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

Mark,

 

I think we need to examine the timeframes.  Just because a message was sent in error at a particular time for a specific theatre does not necessarily mean that the referenced scheme did not ever exist.  Clearly there were tropical schemes and if there were tropical sea schemes, it would make sense for there to be tropical land schemes.  As best we can tell (with all the usual caveats), the high contrast scheme seen on the torpedo drop 'Beests appears to show Light Earth and Dark Green which has been associated with the Tropical Land Scheme. 

 

Were 'tropical schemes' always also called 'desert schemes' or did the latter name emerge with the commencement of operations in the Western Desert? 

 

Cheers,
Mark

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Nick,

 

It is not "apparently", neither is it an ambiguity. It is an acknowledged error. 

 

Yesterday I noticed whilst trawling thru the archives that the "tropical schemes", LT*, were also referred to as the "desert schemes" by RAE, on at least one documented instance. i.e the terms were used interchangeable

 

Cheers,

Mark

We've been round the houses on this one before. It cannot be proven (yet) that no aircraft ever had Dark Green and Mid-Stone incorrectly applied in the belief that it was an authorised Tropical Land scheme suitable to the nature of the country, etc. The error was also included in addendum No.3 to DTD Technical Circular No.183 Para 6 (2). The fact remains that it had already been communicated as an official scheme in both AMOs and a DTD Technical Circular before it was corrected.

 

And IIRC an informant of Ian Huntley who was there was quoted as confirming its use in the Nile Delta region before the warfare in the Western Desert began. That and the appearance of the high contrast Vildebeests in the photographs create the ambiguity.

 

I used "apparently" to mean that the issue of subsequent corrections make it apparent that it was an error, not to cast doubt on that fact. Poor choice of word on my part. 

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

Clearly there were tropical schemes and if there were tropical sea schemes, it would make sense for there to be tropical land schemes. 

Hi Mark

 

The earlier Tropical Land schemes trialled were LT3 'Tropical Camouflage Doping Scheme (for Landplane) consisting of Dark Earth and Dark Red Sand on the upper wing, top of fuselage and tailplane surfaces with Dark Sand and Red Sand on the lower wing and fuselage sides and LT4 'Tropical Camouflage Doping Scheme (for Landplane)' consisting of six colours with Dark Earth, Dark Red Sand and Dark Sea Green on the upper surfaces and Dark Sand, Red Sand and Light Sea Green on the lower wing and lower fuselage sides. The schematics for LT3 were sent to Aden and the Middle East whilst LT4 was sent to the Middle East.

 

In September 1938 the LT3 schematic was prepared for India, Far East and Iraq together with LT2 which consisted of upper surfaces of Dark Sand and Light Earth with lower wings and fuselage sides in Light Earth and Light Sand.

 

This was pretty quickly overtaken by events with the official adoption of C3A in 1939 (the schematics for which are dated December 1938).

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nick Millman said:

Hi Mark

 

The earlier Tropical Land schemes trialled were LT3 'Tropical Camouflage Doping Scheme (for Landplane) consisting of Dark Earth and Dark Red Sand on the upper wing, top of fuselage and tailplane surfaces with Dark Sand and Red Sand on the lower wing and fuselage sides and LT4 'Tropical Camouflage Doping Scheme (for Landplane)' consisting of six colours with Dark Earth, Dark Red Sand and Dark Sea Green on the upper surfaces and Dark Sand, Red Sand and Light Sea Green on the lower wing and lower fuselage sides. The schematics for LT3 were sent to Aden and the Middle East whilst LT4 was sent to the Middle East.

 

In September 1938 the LT3 schematic was prepared for India, Far East and Iraq together with LT2 which consisted of upper surfaces of Dark Sand and Light Earth with lower wings and fuselage sides in Light Earth and Light Sand.

 

This was pretty quickly overtaken by events with the official adoption of C3A in 1939 (the schematics for which are dated December 1938).

 

Nick

 

Thanks Nick.  Sadly, and ironically similar to the Mark MacKenzie's LST2 sketch, none of those align with what we're seeing on these 'Beests. :(

 

I'm really beginning to think there's missing documentation in the middle of all this swirl.  The rather complex schemes proposed and approved in 1937-1938 clearly were rationalized into the simpler TLS and similar patterns...but it seems like there's an interim phase for "tropical schemes" that's missing from the archive material. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mhaselden said:

 

Mark,

 

I think we need to examine the timeframes.  Just because a message was sent in error at a particular time for a specific theatre does not necessarily mean that the referenced scheme did not ever exist.  Clearly there were tropical schemes and if there were tropical sea schemes, it would make sense for there to be tropical land schemes.  As best we can tell (with all the usual caveats), the high contrast scheme seen on the torpedo drop 'Beests appears to show Light Earth and Dark Green which has been associated with the Tropical Land Scheme. 

 

Were 'tropical schemes' always also called 'desert schemes' or did the latter name emerge with the commencement of operations in the Western Desert? 

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

Mark: Yes there were "Tropical Land Schemes" which I have quoted frequently before. NONE of these referred to a scheme of "Mid Stone/Dark Green" except in error. Nick has quoted some of these schemes in some of his posts. I have also pointed out that the term Tropical Scheme and Desert Scheme were used on one occasion interchangeably by RAE. Up until recently, the term "Tropical Land Scheme" referred to a colour scheme of Dark Earth and Mid Stone. That's the way it has always been verbally described by the RAF, whether or not it was documented.  

 

Nick: You are confusing the trials schemes with the adopted schemes, particularly with the "Tropical Schemes". To make it clear: RAE did the research and the Air Ministry did the orders. You have intertwined the two. I suspect you don't have access to the full set of documents, so what you have posted is distorted somewhat. 

 

Regards,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

We've been round the houses on this one before. It cannot be proven (yet) that no aircraft ever had Dark Green and Mid-Stone incorrectly applied in the belief that it was an authorised Tropical Land scheme suitable to the nature of the country, etc. The error was also included in addendum No.3 to DTD Technical Circular No.183 Para 6 (2). The fact remains that it had already been communicated as an official scheme in both AMOs and a DTD Technical Circular before it was corrected.

 

And IIRC an informant of Ian Huntley who was there was quoted as confirming its use in the Nile Delta region before the warfare in the Western Desert began. That and the appearance of the high contrast Vildebeests in the photographs create the ambiguity.

 

I used "apparently" to mean that the issue of subsequent corrections make it apparent that it was an error, not to cast doubt on that fact. Poor choice of word on my part. 

 

Nick

Nick,

 

Yes it can. It's called common sense.

 

Cheers,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

 

Mark: Yes there were "Tropical Land Schemes" which I have quoted frequently before. NONE of these referred to a scheme of "Mid Stone/Dark Green" except in error. Nick has quoted some of these schemes in some of his posts. I have also pointed out that the term Tropical Scheme and Desert Scheme were used on one occasion interchangeably by RAE. Up until recently, the term "Tropical Land Scheme" referred to a colour scheme of Dark Earth and Mid Stone. That's the way it has always been verbally described by the RAF, whether or not it was documented.  

 

Nick: You are confusing the trials schemes with the adopted schemes, particularly with the "Tropical Schemes". To make it clear: RAE did the research and the Air Ministry did the orders. You have intertwined the two. I suspect you don't have access to the full set of documents, so what you have posted is distorted somewhat. 

 

Regards,

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

 

Unfortunately, none of that moves us forward regarding the scheme applied to these Vildebeests.  It doesn't match ANY of the defined camouflage patterns...which suggests either some missing directives/correspondence or Far East Command making a local decision on how to camouflage the airframes.

 

I remain confused that RAE would recommend Light Earth and Dark Green for Army vehicles when no such scheme seems to have been trialled or directed.  Surely they must have had some basis for making the recommendation?  If so, where is the documentation of those trials/activities? 

 

Kind regards,
Mark

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding dates of the torpedo drop photos, the Aviation Safety Network lists an accident for K4156, one of the aircraft pictured:

 

img318a.jpg

 

The full accident info is available via this weblink:  https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=192676

 

The salient info is as follows:

 

"On 9 January 1940 the Vildebeest III K4156 of 273 Sqn RAF took off from China Bay airfield, near Trincomalee, Ceylon, at 0555 hrs for a routine patrol off Colombo to control shipping. It crashed 18 miles off Colombo at 0620 hrs while circling an unidentified ship at 50 to 100 feet. K4156’s starboard wing apparently stalled, causing the Vildebeest to spin into the sea and sink. The pilot, Sgt D B Ross, survived, injured, but the other two crew, Plt Off John Denys Williams and AC2 Verdun Bishop, were unable to struggle free of the wreckage before it sank and are commemorated on the Singapore Memorial. The vessel was the cargo ship ’Demodocus’, whose lifeboat rescued the slightly injured Ross.  Williams was a New Zealander serving in the RAF on a short service commission. Although a pilot, he was acting as observer on this flight."

 

Clearly, if K4156 was in Ceylon with 273 Sqn on 6 Jan 40, then these torpedo drop images must date from well inside 1939.  I'll have another trawl through the Sqn records to see if there's any indication of when the aircraft left for Ceylon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/10/2017 at 2:23 AM, mhaselden said:

Hi Kari,

Given the above photo, I'm pretty convinced it's not simply overpainting of dark green straight ontop of silver dope.  Photos of Vildebeests in Singapore prior to the application of camouflage show a definite sheen to the fabric areas that's not present on this image or any other high contrast image that I've seen.

I have been following this discussion with great interest, and duly saved most of the mails. This evening I had a look at the picture of K6402:OE-J on page 18 of "Bloody Shambles", vol. 2 and instantly recalled Kari's mail. 

OE-J has a large dark-coloured area on the centre fuselage, that stops just short of the struts supporting the upper wing. It clearly gives the impression that the painter purposely stopped there. Another dark area is around the pilot's cockpit. The picture shows rather clearly that wing undersides are not black and dark areas are just in shade. 

 

I also found in "Combat Codes" a picture of K4599:VU-J, also of No. 36 Sqn., in pre-war silver with 'B' type fuselage roundels and the squadron emplem on the fin. I think this is very interesting, as it shows that also on Vildebeestes in Singapore codes appeared well before camouflage (as in RAF Audaxes in India and Palestine, for instance). It is also possible to determine a comparatively narrow time bracket, since 'J' was K4599 possibly until September 1939 and the change of squadron codes on the outbreak of war. K6402 became the next 'J' and the fact that it has neither fin flash, nor yellow concentric to the roundel means the picture was taken before May 1940. Finally, this also shows that some reshuffling of individual letters took place after the change of squadron code, since K4599 took part in the Endau raid as 'D'.

 

The 36 Sqn pictures we have been discussing appear to come from the recording of a torpedo training session, the backdrop being virtually the same for OE-J, OE-R and OE-T, so I would suggest they were all actually taken in one day in late 1939-early 1940.

 

It was noted in a few mails in this thread that the light areas are well finished, with little sign of weathering, which would be consistent with the assumption that those areas were still uncamouflaged, with some loss of surface sheen due to (peacetime) usage. IMHO there also appears to be some unbalance between dark and light areas, which might be explained by a partially applied camouflage.

 

I am further inclined to see things this way after taking a new look at a seemingly unrelated photo in "Bloody Shambles" vol. 1. A rather well-known picture of two 4 AACU Swordfish, P4016 and P4027, is reproduced on page 359. No fin flash and seemingly no yellow concentric to the fuselage roundel, suggesting a timing close to that of the Vildebeest pictures. Indeed, those Swordfish were at Seletar from October 1939 to February-March 1940 (Sturtivant) and were naval aircraft on charge to an RAF unit. I often wondered about the odd camouflage, but if partial camouflaging is assumed, the pattern of the dark fuselage and fin band is strikingly similar to that of the Vildebeestes. In this case, the new camouflage colour appears to be applied over the pre-existing S.1.E naval camouflage.

 

Just a slightly different idea and one more attempt at guessing a reasonable finish. In the meantime, I must get a Vildebeest model.

 

Claudio

 

Edited by ClaudioN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

 

 

Nick: You are confusing the trials schemes with the adopted schemes, particularly with the "Tropical Schemes". To make it clear: RAE did the research and the Air Ministry did the orders. You have intertwined the two. I suspect you don't have access to the full set of documents, so what you have posted is distorted somewhat. 

 

Regards,

Mark

I don't know what exactly you are referring to here but really I'm not. I know perfectly well what the difference between the RAE research and Air Ministry orders are.

 

Please spell out exactly where I have distorted them by quoting what I have written.

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Nick,

 

Yes it can. It's called common sense.

 

Cheers,

Mark

You mean that recipients of the incorrect orders in AMOs and the DTD Technical Circular somehow knew they were incorrect from common sense even before they were corrected and therefore ignored or queried them? Seems a bit unlikely. Do you have any evidence for that?

 

Or maybe you mean that I have no common sense?

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

I have been following this discussion with great interest, and duly saved most of the mails. This evening I had a look at the picture of K6402:OE-J on page 18 of "Bloody Shambles", vol. 2 and instantly recalled Kari's mail. 

OE-J has a large dark-coloured area on the centre fuselage, that stops just short of the struts supporting the upper wing. It clearly gives the impression that the painter purposely stopped there. Another dark area is around the pilot's cockpit. The picture shows rather clearly that wing undersides are not black and dark areas are just in shade. 

 

Hi Claudio,

The general camouflage pattern seems to be pretty similar across all these high-contrast Vildebeests.  There are certainly differences but in broad terms they all wear generally the same camouflage pattern.  To be honest, I've not used the 'Bloody Shambles' pic of K6402 very much simply because the quality is so much lower than those posted on the Wings Over New Zealand website.  The underside of the wings might be light-toned but, equally, it could be a defect in the image.  It's hard to be certain but the blurriness, particularly near the slat hinges on the port wing, suggest it could be an image defect that's causing the lighter tone.  The underwing bulges for the upper wing fuel tanks, for example, show up very darkly.  You could be right and K6402 could have a light-toned underside but it's not something I'd bet on given the quality of the image. 

 

 

2 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

I also found in "Combat Codes" a picture of K4599:VU-J, also of No. 36 Sqn., in pre-war silver with 'B' type fuselage roundels and the squadron emplem on the fin. I think this is very interesting, as it shows that also on Vildebeestes in Singapore codes appeared well before camouflage (as in RAF Audaxes in India and Palestine, for instance). It is also possible to determine a comparatively narrow time bracket, since 'J' was K4599 possibly until September 1939 and the change of squadron codes on the outbreak of war. K6402 became the next 'J' and the fact that it has neither fin flash, nor yellow concentric to the roundel means the picture was taken before May 1940. Finally, this also shows that some reshuffling of individual letters took place after the change of squadron code, since K4599 took part in the Endau raid as 'D'.

 

Much to my eternal shame, I don't have "Combat Codes" in my home library, which is a shame because I'd really like to see that image of K4599 'VU-J'. 

 

 

2 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

The 36 Sqn pictures we have been discussing appear to come from the recording of a torpedo training session, the backdrop being virtually the same for OE-J, OE-R and OE-T, so I would suggest they were all actually taken in one day in late 1939-early 1940.

 

Not necessarily.  I suspect AHQFE established a defined "bombing range" for practice torpedo drops, hence these images could be taken on different days, perhaps months apart.  Given that the approaches to the range would be clearly defined, either physically or procedurally, it would make sense that the photographs of different aircraft show a very similar backdrop even when taken on different days.

 

 

2 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

It was noted in a few mails in this thread that the light areas are well finished, with little sign of weathering, which would be consistent with the assumption that those areas were still uncamouflaged, with some loss of surface sheen due to (peacetime) usage. IMHO there also appears to be some unbalance between dark and light areas, which might be explained by a partially applied camouflage.

It's certainly possible, although even with some "loss of surface sheen due to (peacetime) usage", I'd still expect some degree of sheen to be visible under the strong illumination conditions present for the K4167 photo. 

 

Additionally, it's not clear to me whether the pre-war Vildebeests in Singapore were ever painted overall aluminium.  There are a couple of photos which show metal areas to be a pale grey shade as shown below, although I freely admit that the grey and aluminium dope areas sometimes look incredibly similar...even if the metal areas weren't later repainted in a metallic silver shade.

 

Vildebeest_Mk_III.png

 

FA_11192s.jpg

(And, yes, I realize this is a RNZAF airframe but note K4188 in the background...I suspect both had the same general appearance.  I suspect this photo was taken at the factory at Woodbridge in 1935).

 

 

2 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

I am further inclined to see things this way after taking a new look at a seemingly unrelated photo in "Bloody Shambles" vol. 1. A rather well-known picture of two 4 AACU Swordfish, P4016 and P4027, is reproduced on page 359. No fin flash and seemingly no yellow concentric to the fuselage roundel, suggesting a timing close to that of the Vildebeest pictures. Indeed, those Swordfish were at Seletar from October 1939 to February-March 1940 (Sturtivant) and were naval aircraft on charge to an RAF unit. I often wondered about the odd camouflage, but if partial camouflaging is assumed, the pattern of the dark fuselage and fin band is strikingly similar to that of the Vildebeestes. In this case, the new camouflage colour appears to be applied over the pre-existing S.1.E naval camouflage.

 

That's an interesting correlation, indeed the 4 AACU Swordfishes do appear to have a similar approach to their camouflage as was applied to the Vildebeests, although I can't see any pre-existing S1E (again, the quality of the photo isn't the greatest). 

 

 

2 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Just a slightly different idea and one more attempt at guessing a reasonable finish. In the meantime, I must get a Vildebeest model.

 

Guessing is all any of us is doing, Claudio.  It's all good food for thought...but I fear we'll never reach any definitive conclusions.

 

Cheers,
Mark

Edited by mhaselden
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...