badgeguy17 Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Gentlemen, May I be forgiven for this title,which is not a reference to a last billed forgotten Z grade drive- in movie, but is about an almost equally forgotten subject, that of the Vildebeest in Coastal Command service with 22 and 42 sqns based during the war from Thorney Island as pertains to camouflage and markings. Much has been discussed of the two far eastern sqns but ironically next to nothing but a bare mention of the units serving on the home front. This of course can be understood since there appears to be scant photographic evidence of these, camouflaged. The only photo that I've seen is from "Combat Codes" , the livery which can only be described as dark. The only other reference that I know of is the SAM Camouflage and Markings article of 22 sqn by Andrew Thomas who mentions that sometime after the Munich crisis the aircraft were camouflaged dark green and dark earth. I think it can be assumed that at some time during their service the Ministry must have issued camouflage drawings to these units. Does anyone have an opinion of what Air Diagram would pertain to Single Engined Biplane Torpedo Bomber? Perhaps there is also someone on the forum who has some photos or other info that they would wish to share? Thank you in advance. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 If you search for (and find) the older thread dealing with the Far Eastern Vildebeests, you'll find a number of photos showing the pattern. It will also be found in the Guideline/Scale Aircraft Modelling book dealing with the actions early in the Pacific War, although Paul Lucas's suggestions regarding the Tropical Sea Scheme does not appear to be supported by the b&w evidence. Other than that, I'd suggest that the Large Biplane pattern would apply, as to the Swordfish and the Shark. I must to admit not comparing this with the Vildebeest photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Not sure what timeframe you mean but the 1939 AD (Aircraft Design) memo 332 - External Colour Schemes of Aircraft - specifies AD.1162 for single engined biplanes and for bombers the Temperate Land scheme known as C.3A (the shadow-shading one involving Light Green and Light Earth) with Night under surfaces. Roundels should be plain blue and red. However there is some ambiguity in the way the orders are worded (of course!) so the actual role of those squadrons would probably be relevant. I can well imagine Vildebeest Sqn CO's reading them and thinking "Does this mean us? Or does that?" Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 You'll need to go to the IWM to get the image but this http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205077615 is, presumably, an ex squdron machine. and another http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205184808 and maybe http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030005643 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeguy17 Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 Thank you for the replies gents. Unfortunately the IWM photos as referred are not available on line to be viewed, but if someone could give a description of these that would be most helpful, as it possibly may make clear, if these aircraft wore the shadow compensation scheme or just the two colours DG/DE as described in the SAM Andrew Thomas article. The timeline of interest is post Munich crisis until April 1940 after which they were retired from these sqns. When you mentioned AD.1162, Nick, were you referring to the Shadow Compensation Gladiator forms with a V shape in the middle of the top wing or something else? Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 When you mentioned AD.1162, Nick, were you referring to the Shadow Compensation Gladiator forms with a V shape in the middle of the top wing or something else? Wayne Yes, but bear in mind the ambiguity referred to. In both Issue 2 and 3 (November 1940) of AD.332 the AD 1161 category ostensibly for four engined monoplanes includes torpedo bombers! The Vildebeest was both a single engined biplane and a torpedo bomber. The AD 1162 category can be read as applying to Army Co-Op aircraft and fighters only. This is possibly where the confusion over a 2 colour or 4 colour Temperate Land scheme originates. FWIW the copy of Issue 3 that I have has been annotated in pencil with "DE, DG, N/S" (presumably Night or Sky according to role) against AD 1161 and "DE, DG, LG, LE, S" against AD 1162. Nick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeguy17 Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 Thanks for that Nick, but wouldn't it seem that in practice the above recommendation was changed to a more appropriate AD.1159 as for Twin Engined Mono plane Bombers as used on the Beaufort and Botha. Even though it was a Single Engined Biplane all those extra demarcations on a much smaller frame seems illogical and the Beaufort and Bothas also torpedo bombers did not appear in AD.1161. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Yes, you could be correct because Issue 3 also qualifies AD 1159 as applying to aircraft with a wingspan of less than 75' which I missed. The caveat though is that a twin engined monoplane is not a single engined biplane (with a continuous top wing) and the 4-colour scheme was designed for biplanes. FWIW there is a photograph of a Vincent where the camo pattern appears to match C3a. AD 1159 also cites Sky as the under surface colour for torpedo bombers. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeguy17 Posted January 16, 2016 Author Share Posted January 16, 2016 Is it not true Nick, that many biplanes, for example: Furies, Gauntlets and Gladiators were camouflaged during or just before the Munich crisis with disregard of the shadow compensation scheme of four colours, appearing in only the basic DG/DE, mostly due to time restraints. If this was the case, would this omission of the two extra shades also apply equally to the biplane Vildebeest or am I missing something? Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the long form of FWIW. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRK4m Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the long form of FWIW. "For What It's Worth" IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Is it not true Nick, that many biplanes, for example: Furies, Gauntlets and Gladiators were camouflaged during or just before the Munich crisis with disregard of the shadow compensation scheme of four colours, appearing in only the basic DG/DE, mostly due to time restraints. If this was the case, would this omission of the two extra shades also apply equally to the biplane Vildebeest or am I missing something? Please excuse my ignorance, but what is the long form of FWIW. Wayne Several writers refer to hasty camouflaging during the Munich crisis circa September 1938 but the patterns and colours were established before that and the official instructions, both before and after, were unequivocal. Even if there were hasty camouflaging using only two colours could that expediency be expected to have continued without being rectified in the following years? I don't know. The scheme for biplane bombers was issued by RAE in March 1936, then referred to as Land Temperate 2 and consisting of four colours with the note that "schemes for biplanes normally require 4 colours, two dark colours on the upper surface of the top planes and fuselage, and two light colours on the upper surface of bottom planes and on vertical surfaces." Bowyer* records that the order to camouflage all older home-based biplane fighters came around the time of the first Hurricane deliveries which were at the end of 1937. He doesn't identify the 4-colour scheme at all and illustrates a Demon of 23 Sqn in just "Dark Brown and Dark Green" in early 1939. He refers to the camouflaging as "a lengthy process embracing hosts of anomalies, judging from the aircraft that I observed". The bomber colours books (Robertson and Bowyer) don't seem to mention Vildebeests at all. I haven't checked to see if Huntley or Goulding say anything about it but will do so if no-one offers anything better in the meantime. * Bowyer, Michael J F, 'Fighting Colours', PSL 1969 & 1975 'FWIW'? What KRK4m says! Nick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 Repeating what I put in another thread - Looking at MJF Bowyer's feature 'Coastal Colours' in Airfix Magazine Annual 7 I found... "Prior to 1939 aircraft of RAF Coastal Command were silver overall, with planing bottoms of flying boats grey. In the months leading to the outbreak of war maritime aircraft began to be camouflaged on their upper surfaces Dark Green and Dark Earth, incongruous colours for seaplanes for which some experiments were being conducted making use of green and grey shades." The next paragraph goes on... "September 1939 found Coastal Command flying landplanes and flying boats in the immediate pre-war colours with silver undersurfaces usual, although some Sunderlands, Vildebeestes and most Hudsons were already wearing black." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeguy17 Posted January 17, 2016 Author Share Posted January 17, 2016 Thank you Gentlemen one and all, the more information the better. It would appear that although orders to camouflage these biplanes in the shadow compensation scheme was very clear, so far, on the home front, photographic evidence and witness testimonies seem to not support this in general, although it would appear that Gladiators definitely did use the four upper surface colours during the war. The above is just my own personal observations, anything to the contrary is most welcome. The fore mentioned Vincent photo in four colours top side sounds very interesting. Is there a possibility of it being posted Nick, if this photo is relevant to the European theatre? Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 The photo you refer to in Combat Codes also appears in Chris Ashworth's book on CC (page 21) where it looks darker still. The Combat Codes caption states the date on the negative is 29.8.39 by which time 42Sqdn were at Bircham Newton although it is reasonable to suppose the camouflage was applied earlier. Trying to guess colours from this is just that - a guess - you couldn't even hold me to the underside colour being silver or black from the Ashworth print but the Combat Codes print seems clearer that it is silver with a Type A underwing roundel (and no underwing serial). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeguy17 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Share Posted January 23, 2016 Thanks for that Ross, but don't you think it would be a safe bet that the colours were temperate land, either DG/DE or the complementary shadow compensation scheme derived from these colours, remembering that the Beauforts that followed were also delivered and served for a considerable time in the Temperate Land Scheme. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rossm Posted January 24, 2016 Share Posted January 24, 2016 Thanks for that Ross, but don't you think it would be a safe bet that the colours were temperate land, either DG/DE or the complementary shadow compensation scheme derived from these colours, remembering that the Beauforts that followed were also delivered and served for a considerable time in the Temperate Land Scheme. Wayne I agree, that would be my bet - and I would favour the two colour option on the grounds that camouflage is said to have been applied hastily after Munich and if I was responsible for doing it I would use two colours as being easier and quicker to apply. Also the photo shows a high contrast between codes and camouflage which is another slight push in that direction. As Nick Millman says it is impossible to be sure some pedant didn't apply the lighter colours at some time but given the Beaufort was supposed to be coming into service it might have been considered unnecessary. The RAF Museum guide does not contain anything definitive before AMO A.926/40 of 12/12/40 which states upper surfaces of the lower wing of biplanes are to be treated as upper surfaces so the four colour scheme was (officially at least) dead by then. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgeguy17 Posted January 24, 2016 Author Share Posted January 24, 2016 That sounds perfectly logical to me also Ross. As I mentioned that I could not find any biplane photos after the Munich crisis such as Furies, Gauntlets, Hectors and even Gladiators in the Shadow Compensation Scheme. With the exception of the Gladiator the extra painting may have been regarded as unnecessary on these obsolete types. Nick's point is also valid to consider, since like the Gladiator the Vildebeest served in the first line for eight months of the war and maximum concealment for such a vulnerable type would seem to be the order of the day at that time. Perhaps these like the Gladiators were later painted in the SCS. If we only had more than just one photo to guide us in the right direction. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Mike Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 Just digging up an old thread rather than starting a new one. Tthanks for the info on here, it has helped me decide what the undersides of this Stranraer would possibly be. RMS Empress of Britain escorted by three Supermarine Stranraers by Mike, on Flickr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now