Burma Hurricanes in Desert camouflage

[Nick Millman]

Yes, I was a little surprised about the Dark Green too but unfortunately the report does not specify the manufacturer of the paints used in the test or their pigments. Another document, from September 1937, reports similar tests but lists the various manufacturers involved - Titanine, Cerrux/Cellon, Zilak, Belco, Nobels, Rylands and RAE's own paints - showing differences in the way the proprietary camouflage paints matched to the same MAP colour standards deteriorated. Some of the manufacturers even produced two versions of the same colour but there is no explanation for this. Despite the varying levels of deterioration the report concluded that the results were "fairly satisfactory". It is apparent that after the war started and aircraft production increased so did the number of paint suppliers.

The 1943 experiments were really about perfecting the artificial ageing testing methodology for paints, in turn suggesting that there were recognised issues in the way different manufacturers paints aged - and deteriorated - in service. This was still an issue post-war with significant differences between the way that, for example, Titanine and Cellon paints of ostensibly the same colour deteriorated in service.

That different manufacturers used different pigments to match a single MAP paint colour standard is apparent. The shift from green towards olive or brown is usually associated with the use of chrome green (a mix of chrome yellow and Prussian blue) rather than chromium oxide (green) and it is also apparent that the distinction between the two was not always appreciated by officialdom for obvious reasons with 'chrome green' sometimes being used for both. Chromium oxide, the preferred 'green' pigment, was in short supply and eventually restricted to aircraft camouflage use. The bulk of pigmentation in Dark Green was green but it also contained black and brown pigments. The Dark Green also contained less white or grey pigmented extender or filler than either Dark Earth or Sky, the increased proportion of which in the mix tended to increase chalking.

Nick

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:14 PM, Graham Boak said:

The claim that all overseas Hurricanes were delivered to the Far East in DE/MS to the correct pattern is not supported by the evidence. I have made a hypothesis addressing the matter of photographs which show a significant number of Hurricanes in a high contrast scheme with the darker area around the cockpit, in a way that obeys all the known official documentation. The lack of any documentation explaining why most Hurricanes appear in Burma/Ceylon/Java/Singapore with TLS is outstanding.

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[ClaudioN]

Looking at the photo in BS vol.1, I believe the numbers are similar in the two photos, but not the same. Number '2' in Tony's picture seems larger, while '2' in the picture from BS vol.1 (credited to Stone) is about the same size as the roundel.

Also, BS vol.1 reports twice on the arrival at Mingaladon of Z4726, first time on January 23rd as one of the first three Hurricanes there and the second time on January 29th, in this case one among a group of six Hurricanes.

Claudio

I'm self-quoting purely to recall the issue, post #12 earlier in this thread. I'm coming back to this discussion as a kind of sanity check.

I looked more than once at the photos I mentioned in the quote above, there are at least three or four different published ones, I believe. Two pictures of a Hurricane coded '2' are on consecutive pages in the 1992 'Aviation News' feature on 136 Squadron. In spite of being taken from different angles, the pics really appear to me to be showing two different aircraft.

Now, here's the new question: is it me, or Hurricane photos of the alleged Z4726 (e.g., see 'Bloody Shambles' vol.1, p. 262) show a de Havilland propeller?

I know, pictures do play tricks, angle of shot relative to the subject distorts shapes, etc., etc.... BUT the spinner looks too pointed for anything else, and the shape of propeller blades looks definitely de Havilland, not Rotol.

What do you think?

I recall that the arrival at Mingaladon of Z4726 (whatever serial it actually was) is recorded twice in 'Bloody Shambles'. As Cotton expressly mentions the 12 machine guns in the first arrivals, if the Hurricane in the photo really has a dH prop it would more likely be a Mk.I (did any Mk.II ever use a dH prop?). So, maybe the second arrival date (January 29th) could be correct for 'Z4726' and we do not know the identity of the Hurricane arriving on 23rd of January 1942? In his history, Cotton says it was broken up for spares.

Claudio

Edited April 11, 2016 by ClaudioN

[Graham Boak]

I no longer have the Av. News so can't compare. However the aircraft BE171 in BS vol2 p262 has a Rotol prop - look at the lower blade, you will see that it is wide and narrows sharply at the root. DH blades are more slender - the top blade looks more like that but we are seeing it end-on. Also, I don't think that the spinner looks short enough to be a DH. In the end, it is a Mk.II from the serial, and no Mk.IIs had DH props.

Z4726 is a number in a blackout block - neither of the Hurricanes arriving at Mingaladon were Z4726.

[ClaudioN]

Graham,

I do not know whether there are different editions of 'Bloody Shambles' or if, by pure chance, there are Hurricane pictures on page 262 of both vols. 1 and 2. You mention vol. 2, which I temporarily do not have at hand, so I can't check the page. If you are talking about the rather well-known picture of YB-B, I agree on the Rotol shape of the lower propeller blade.

The lower prop blade seen on Hurricane '2', page 262 of vol. 1, is perpendicular to the line of view, so it appears extremely thin, and thicker at the root. I can't recognise any shape. The top right blade does not look anything like a Rotol blade, IMHO.

I understand 'Z4726' does not officially exist, that's why I wrote it in quotation marks. Maybe the original photo could allow to establish its true identity?

[Graham Boak]

There are indeed photos of Mingaladon Hurricanes on p262 in both books. Looking in the right volume this time, I agree that the one in Vol1 looks like a Mk.I with a DH prop, but the other point about Mk.Is is that none of them had 12 guns. We can further be sure, despite the caption, that this is not the aircraft described by Stone because it has not been shot up and doesn't have the ferry tanks fitted.

Quite a number of the Mk.Is with Zxx26 seem to be in blackout blocks, and it isn't Z4276 either. The closest appears to be Z4326 which was with 316 Sq at Akyab, but this was when Stone was up at Loiwing. It appears on the scoreboard photo, which I've come to believe was taken shortly after the retreat. I wonder if it was taken by Sutton, and swapped between the two friends? However given the harsh comment about the state of the Akyab Mk.Is, it seems unlikely that a Mk.I at Mingaladon would have gone unnoticed.

[ClaudioN]

However given the harsh comment about the state of the Akyab Mk.Is, it seems unlikely that a Mk.I at Mingaladon would have gone unnoticed.

Unless it wasn't so bad as the ones received at Akyab. Cotton was much critical of the twelve guns. Perhaps, even with less horsepower, an eight-gun Mk.I in good shape might perform acceptably well. Just a hypothesis.

About swapping pictures, those of Z5334 and 'Z4726' in the Aviation News feature are credited to Eldson, while 'Z4726' is BS vol. 1 is credited to Stone. As several pictures were of unit members, I shouldn't be surprised if they were spread among them.

Edited April 12, 2016 by ClaudioN

[Graham Boak]

I still think that it would have been noticed. When thinking performance, bear in mind that we are talking about a tropicalised Mk.I. Stone was so critical of the 12 guns in the Mk.IIB that he had the four extra ones taken out immediately, so that's not relevant. Some of the serials of the Mk.Is at Akyab show a production date close to that of the Mk.IIs at Mingaladon. It isn't that they were old and worn out that drew comment, for they weren't. They were seen as unsuitable because they were Mk.Is. By early 1942, Mk.Is were restricted to OTUs, other than a small number in Ceylon which were used in desperation, much as those at Akyab. Unless you were in the FAA, of course, which took until September 1942 to do that.

(This hostage to fortune is a cue for someone to come up with a list of units still flying Mk.Is in the Middle East - which may well include FR units. But if West Africa was flying Mk.IIs, more active fronts will not have still had Mk.Is in the main fighter units.)

[Graham Boak]

There is a legitimate question which I don't think has been bottomed yet. Would the company act on receipt of an AMO, source Air Ministry, or would they wait for more specific instruction from their superior authority, the Ministry of Aircraft Production? One would reasonably expect the two authorities to act in agreement, but not necessarily simultaneously. However, in other matters concerning a change of colour schemes (eg Sky undersides, Day Fighter Scheme) it has always been assumed that the factories acted on issue (or at least known receipt) of the AMO. I don't see why they should have been any different here.

Ahem. from the blue spaghetti thread. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234922498-hurricane-spaghetti-scheme-i-said-it-was-blue/page-7?hl=%20spaghetti%20%20scheme. See post #126 and in particular

<...para 2 in this second document (SY312/DOR, 3rd August 1941). It states that "...this order defines the policy and is not intended as a technical description. In every case DTD technical circulars relating to camouflage should be taken as the overriding authority for production and maintenance purposes." This makes clear that the AMOs are NOT the final authority on the subject despite what we have often assumed. That's without mentioning local overseas authorities.>

The last sentence may be over-egging it a little, but the previous line does suggest that just because an AMO has been received doesn't necessarily imply that the manufacturers would immediately change the paints in use. The problem here is that the participants at the time may well have known exactly what each other expected from any comment, even if it is is unclear to us now.

[ClaudioN]

I still think that it would have been noticed.

Indeed. In the 'Aviation News' article the original caption for the picture of 'Z4726' coded '2' reads: "After being forced out of Rangoon the RAF formed 'AKWING' at Akyab where Z5334 is seen in March 1942 shortly before the Japanese bombing. (Gp. Capt. T.A.F. Elsdon)".

I didn't take notice of this caption before.

That Huricane is not Z5334, as it has a different style of number '2' and a different propeller from Z5334, seen (with serial clear enough) in another picture included in the article. If the location is correctly identified as Akyab (hope so, I'm not familiar at all with those places!) the dilemma could be solved in favour of Z4326.

This leaves Cotton's first Hurricane in Burma unknown. However, it might be tempting to build Z5334 in MS/DE with long-range tanks fitted.

Claudio

[Graham Boak]

So the 2 may not be a ferry number but an OTU number? It rather depends upon when the Mk.Is arrived: were they always intended for an OTU at around the same time, or were they a last desperate scraping of aircraft that could be sent to Burma? I suspect the former.

Akyab is near the Indian border. It was used to reform 136 Sq from 17's B Flight and the collection of Mk.Is. However most of the B Flight aircraft were either judged unsuitable for combat and transferred to India, or destroyed on the ground.

[ClaudioN]

Number '2' does not appear to be painted to any specific pattern. I'd expect an OTU would have had the time to apply somewhat tidier number codes?

'Z4726' is also listed a second time among the arrivals in Burma, on 29 January, which might perhaps be the actual arrival date of Z4326.

At about the time that reserves in the Middle East were raided to support the RAF in Burma, the British offensive in Libya (Operation Crusader) was about to come to a halt. The term 'desperate scraping' might be appropriate. As you mentioned above, there were still a few operational Mk.I squadrons in the Middle East.

Claudio

[Graham Boak]

Another suggestion is that as part of Akwing, 136 Sq simply started using numbers. Perhaps it does seem a little ornate for that. The ferry numbers used on the Takoradi route were much simpler.

PS In the background of one of the pictures of "2" there is another Hurricane, with possibly a large number 1? It is too poor a view to be definite, but the aircraft is a Mk.II, or a late Mk.I with a Rotol bullet spinner.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Graham Boak

[ClaudioN]

Perhaps it does seem a little ornate for that. The ferry numbers used on the Takoradi route were much simpler.

Egyptian fashion, maybe?

In the background of one of the pictures of "2" there is another Hurricane, with possibly a large number 1? It is too poor a view to be definite, but the aircraft is a Mk.II, or a late Mk.I with a Rotol bullet spinner.

That's in the picture of "the other '2'", Z5334.

In "Fighter Pilots over Burma", the book by Norman Franks in the Images of War series, there is another photo of a Hurricane Mk.IIb with underwing tanks, that might be either '3' or '5'.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ClaudioN

[Mark Mackenzie]

On 4/6/2016 at 7:14 PM, Graham Boak said:

The claim that all overseas Hurricanes were delivered to the Far East in DE/MS to the correct pattern is not supported by the evidence. I have made a hypothesis addressing the matter of photographs which show a significant number of Hurricanes in a high contrast scheme with the darker area around the cockpit, in a way that obeys all the known official documentation. The lack of any documentation explaining why most Hurricanes appear in Burma/Ceylon/Java/Singapore with TLS is outstanding.

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Mark Mackenzie

[ClaudioN]

More thoughts on this. ME-HQ-Army allowed for a substitute colour for the darker disruptive colour on AFV if the preferred colour was not available. With this in mind, I think that it is possible that some aircraft arriving in the Middle-East, in the Day-Fighter-Scheme, had only the grey or green over-painted with Middle-Stone without the dark brown added. Kevin Mason in his Hawker Hurricane book states that three aircraft of RAAF 451 squadron were in grey/sand. A pity he does not quote the source.

One thing I do not recall seeing on Middle East Hurricanes (I'd be happy to be proved wrong) is the Dark Green background to the serial number on airframes in MS/DE. This appears to have been rather common on Tomahawks/Kittyhawks when MS superseded DG. I've seen it on a Beaufighter too, but I cannot think of a Hurricane picture showing it.

[Jagan]

For whats it worth

 

Z5334 is in the history books as the first Hurricane to land in India 18-Jan-42, Plt Offr J S Lamplough put this aircraft down at Karachi as part of a formation of five aircraft. 

[Troy Smith]

On 26/03/2016 at 15:03, ClaudioN said:

From pictures, I have the following definitely showing 'A-type' overwing roundels:

BE171:YB-B

BE19?:YB-D

EDIT - Z5628 YB-L 

2 IAF, Engine cut when switching  tanks, bellylanded, Thana, 5.8.88 NFT (No further trace)

(Z5626 was written off the middle east) 

 

 

the white stains are from the Takoradi route markings removal I presume. (discussed in thread) 

[mhaselden]

It's an interesting question as to why these airframes have Type A upper wing roundels.  There was certainly no prior marking scheme like that, the closest being the use of Type A1 roundels March 1939.  

 

I wonder if the white ring was added to aid identification/visibility from above while transiting  the Takoradi route?  

[ClaudioN]

1 hour ago, mhaselden said:

I wonder if the white ring was added to aid identification/visibility from above while transiting  the Takoradi route?  

I shouldn't think so, recognition along the Takoradi route was aided by painting the rear fuselage white.

It seems it was used as an early form of recognition aid when US units operated alongside British/Commonwealth ones.

Maybe it was improvised, maybe not, as roundels with the white ring were carried both by RAF Hurricanes operating out of Rangoon alongside the AVG and by fighters in RCAF Western Command, that operated alongside the Americans in Alaska.

[mhaselden]

59 minutes ago, ClaudioN said:

I shouldn't think so, recognition along the Takoradi route was aided by painting the rear fuselage white.

It seems it was used as an early form of recognition aid when US units operated alongside British/Commonwealth ones.

Maybe it was improvised, maybe not, as roundels with the white ring were carried both by RAF Hurricanes operating out of Rangoon alongside the AVG and by fighters in RCAF Western Command, that operated alongside the Americans in Alaska.

 

Yeah, I realise the Takoradi route markings involved painting white distemper to the rear fuselage and so a Type A1 roundel on the upper wing probably doesn't add much from a recognition perspective.  However, the idea of it being a recognition aid for operations alongside U.S. units doesn't make sense, either.  The RAF Buffalos in Rangoon didn't have their upper wing roundels modified, and they were likely more easily confused with Japanese fighters than the Hurricane would be.  Also, it should be borne in mind that the AVG wasn't an American unit.  It was part of the Chinese air force and so the actions in RCAF's Western Command can't possibly be linked to the AVG.    

 

We may never know the reason, but it's certainly an odd thing given the well-established marking schemes in place by early 1942.  

Edited June 22, 2020 by mhaselden

[ClaudioN]

On 6/22/2020 at 10:52 PM, mhaselden said:

Also, it should be borne in mind that the AVG wasn't an American unit. 

Being fired at by an American flying in a Chinese air force unit does not make all that difference from being fired at by an American flying in a proper USAAF unit, I suppose?

Anyway, I agree we may never know whether the white circle was about recognition. I had thought of the Buffaloes myself and you are right they do not fit into the hypothesis. 

[mhaselden]

9 hours ago, ClaudioN said:

Being fired at by an American flying in a Chinese air force unit does not make all that difference from being fired at by an American flying in a proper USAAF unit, I suppose?

 

Agree entirely, but the question is whether the same recognition markings on a RAF Hurricane would be demanded by Chinese Air Force and USAAF organizations that were operating on different sides of the globe.  My hunch is that it wouldn't happen except, perhaps, by fluke, and even then I'd like to see evidence that either the CAF or the USAAF requested the change to RAF marking procedures.  

[ClaudioN]

4 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Agree entirely, but the question is whether the same recognition markings on a RAF Hurricane would be demanded by Chinese Air Force and USAAF organizations that were operating on different sides of the globe.  My hunch is that it wouldn't happen except, perhaps, by fluke, and even then I'd like to see evidence that either the CAF or the USAAF requested the change to RAF marking procedures.  

You made me think about Coastal Command in late 1939. Even then, the answer to a perceived danger of "firendly fire" incidents was reverting to 'A type' roundels above wings. My point is: there was a (possibly little known) precedent from two years earlier. In that case there were orders and I assume this was also true of RCAF Western Command.

What happened in Rangoon appears to have been on a more informal basis, maybe. And Buffaloes were not involved.

 

I had not though about the possibility that "either the CAF or the USAAF requested the change to RAF marking procedures". At that early stage of the war I'd think it might be more a case of the RAF doing the change first, then possibly inform the allies.

[Graham Boak]

The question remains whether it happened in Rangoon, or on the aircraft's way there.  More views of other upper wings might help.  Had it been in Rangoon I'd have expected to see them on Buffalos too.