36 Sqn Vildebeests - Serial/Code Letter Tie-ups

[mhaselden]

 

4 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

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 

 

Thanks Mark.  'Fraid we're all just guessing at this stage given the absence of much in the way of documentary evidence for what we're seeing in the photos.  'Tis a puzzlement...but we're all struggling to come up with anything more logical than the current state of the thought on this early Vildebeest camo scheme.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2017 by mhaselden

[mhaselden]

10 hours ago, vildebeest said:

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

 

Hi Paul,

 

'Fraid I can't comment on the experimental schemes because few, if any, ever were applied at squadron strength.  I'm unsure of the association of K4188 with 100 Sqn.  Based on the F540s, by 1940 all of 100 Sqn's airframes were in the K63** series.  K4188 may have served with "the Tatty Ton" prior to 1940 but certainly not after (at least as far as I can ascertain).

 

I can comment about the mode of torpedo carriage, though.  The Vildebeest allowed for 2 methods of carrying a torpedo.  For operational launch the torpedo was fitted to a launch cradle that held the weapon at the correct nose-down angle.  The second carriage mode was with the torpedo fixed directly to the fuselage underside.  This latter mode was for only used for transportation purposes (eg to ferry torpedoes to forward airfields).

 

Cheers,

Mark 

[mhaselden]

At the risk of being perceived as a truly sad case who continually replies to his own posts, I discovered another detail today that may be of interest to those wishing to model an Endau Raid 'Beest. 

 

According to the Vildebeest Erection Manual (no, that's not rude!), when bombs were carried, 2 extra bracing wires were installed on each side, running one each from the top of the front and rear cabane struts down to the corresponding lower wing spars midway between the fuselage and the interplane struts.  These extra wires are just visible on this image (if you zoom in a little):

 

(Source: Wikipedia)

 

This pic shows the additional bracing wires a little better:

 

(Source:  IWM)

 

 

 

The extra bracing wires are also visible in this nice image of a Vincent in flight (sadly the website won't let me post the image...but the link should get you there):

http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p306067835/h51C4D0EA#h51c4d0ea

 

 

Thought this small extra detail might be of interest...or maybe not.

 

I'll go away now....

 

Cheers,
Mark

Edited October 25, 2017 by mhaselden

[stevehnz]

That is a great bit of detail info to have Mark, thanks. I'll save the photo from the link on my home PC with the snipping tool, that'll sort the APC out.

Steve.

[Nick Millman]

6 hours ago, mhaselden said:

At the risk of being perceived as a truly sad case who continually replies to his own posts, I discovered another detail today that may be of interest to those wishing to model an Endau Raid 'Beest. 

 

According to the Vildebeest Erection Manual (no, that's not rude!), when bombs were carried, 2 extra bracing wires were installed on each side, running one each from the top of the front and rear cabane struts down to the corresponding lower wing spars midway between the fuselage and the interplane struts.  These extra wires are just visible on this image (if you zoom in a little):

 

(Source: Wikipedia)

 

This pic shows the additional bracing wires a little better:

 

(Source:  IWM)

 

 

 

The extra bracing wires are also visible in this nice image of a Vincent in flight (sadly the website won't let me post the image...but the link should get you there):

http://www.aviationphotocompany.com/p306067835/h51C4D0EA#h51c4d0ea

 

 

Thought this small extra detail might be of interest...or maybe not.

 

I'll go away now....

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

Looking at those photos I reckon the band of darker colours along the fuselage top in the shadow shaded scheme would have been practically invisible from the side. Or maybe the lack of "top" surface led them to simply paint the whole fuselage in the lighter colours?

 

Nick

 

PS That kind of detail you mentioned is very interesting, thanks. 

[Britman]

You can post as much Vincent /Vildebeest info as you like and just maybe I will get my Azzur kit rigged! I was over the moon to get a really nice kit of this wonderful character from the biplane era.

[mhaselden]

5 hours ago, Nick Millman said:

 

Looking at those photos I reckon the band of darker colours along the fuselage top in the shadow shaded scheme would have been practically invisible from the side. Or maybe the lack of "top" surface led them to simply paint the whole fuselage in the lighter colours?

 

Hi Nick,

 

'Fraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  The quality of the image of K4167 is so good, with such good tonal differentiation, that I don't think we're seeing any detail hidden in the shadows.  Despite being in bright sunlight, the shadow areas remain very clearly defined with even reflections off the water visible on the underside of the lower wing.  

 

The image I sent you of the 2 airborne 'Beests shows (to my eye at least) continuation of the high-contrast camouflage on the top surface of the wing).  Looking across all the available images (including that of K6402 in 'Bloody Shambles Vol 2'), we have at least 4, and perhaps 6, airframes all showing high tonal contrast between the camouflage colours and the evidence points to it being a 2-colour scheme. 

 

I truly don't believe we're looking at Temperate Land Scheme for these early images.   Irrespective of lighting conditions, the darker shade shows up as being (to my eye) considerably darker than one would expect for Light Green.  For example, in the image of K4156, the dark camouflage shade is tonally somewhere between the blue and red of the roundel...and that tonal relationship is repeated on all the high-quality images that we have available of the high-contrast scheme.  Conversely, on the Ceylon-based machine, the light green of the lower wing looks tonally much closer to the red of the upper wing roundel (and both are under similar lighting conditions)...and, yes, I know none of that's very precise, but I'm applying my image analyst's experience and eye to this question (location, size, shape, shadow, tone, texture and situation).

 

Again, this is just my read of the evidence I'm seeing.  Happy for others to disagree or offer alternate interpretations but it's clear these airframes don't cleanly align with the known camouflage standards of the time, so something's wrong (either they applied the shadow scheme colours over the entire airframe or we are looking at something like Mid Stone/Dark Earth and Dark Green as a locally-applied expedient.  Either way, I still think it's a most attractive scheme and I'm sorely tempted to paint my 'Beest in these markings.

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

[mhaselden]

12 hours ago, stevehnz said:

That is a great bit of detail info to have Mark, thanks. I'll save the photo from the link on my home PC with the snipping tool, that'll sort the APC out.

Steve.

 

Thanks Steve.  As you can see from the couple of images I posted, these extra rigging wires were sometimes fitted even if bombs weren't being carried.  Interestingly, the pic I posted of 'OE-R' carrying a torpedo also shows these extra rigging wires (at least it does on the better-quality version I have - it was originally published in E R 'Bon' Hall's book 'Glory in Chaos').  Providing additional bracing for the wing when carrying bombs makes a lot of sense...it's just not something I'd have thought about because we're long past the time when airframes had to be individually rigged and, as in this case, equipped with mission-specific rigging. 

 

Cheers,
Mark

[Nick Millman]

2 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Hi Nick,

 

'Fraid we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  The quality of the image of K4167 is so good, with such good tonal differentiation, that I don't think we're seeing any detail hidden in the shadows.  Despite being in bright sunlight, the shadow areas remain very clearly defined with even reflections off the water visible on the underside of the lower wing.  

 

The image I sent you of the 2 airborne 'Beests shows (to my eye at least) continuation of the high-contrast camouflage on the top surface of the wing).  Looking across all the available images (including that of K6402 in 'Bloody Shambles Vol 2'), we have at least 4, and perhaps 6, airframes all showing high tonal contrast between the camouflage colours and the evidence points to it being a 2-colour scheme. 

 

I truly don't believe we're looking at Temperate Land Scheme for these early images.   Irrespective of lighting conditions, the darker shade shows up as being (to my eye) considerably darker than one would expect for Light Green.  For example, in the image of K4156, the dark camouflage shade is tonally somewhere between the blue and red of the roundel...and that tonal relationship is repeated on all the high-quality images that we have available of the high-contrast scheme.  Conversely, on the Ceylon-based machine, the light green of the lower wing looks tonally much closer to the red of the upper wing roundel (and both are under similar lighting conditions)...and, yes, I know none of that's very precise, but I'm applying my image analyst's experience and eye to this question (location, size, shape, shadow, tone, texture and situation).

 

Again, this is just my read of the evidence I'm seeing.  Happy for others to disagree or offer alternate interpretations but it's clear these airframes don't cleanly align with the known camouflage standards of the time, so something's wrong (either they applied the shadow scheme colours over the entire airframe or we are looking at something like Mid Stone/Dark Earth and Dark Green as a locally-applied expedient.  Either way, I still think it's a most attractive scheme and I'm sorely tempted to paint my 'Beest in these markings.

 

Cheers,
Mark

 

I don't think we are disagreeing because I simply don't know. I am not making a case for a particular scheme but only expressing uncertainty based on a lack of definitive evidence and sharing what is known FWIW. The only point of disagreement is that you appear to put more store in the tonal characteristics of the various photographs than I would. I also suspect that you are being influenced by what you would like the scheme to be. That's fine because it's your model and in the absence of any hard evidence you are as free to interpret that as anyone.  I have no skin in that game!

 

It would still be interesting to reconcile the photo dates with the known instructions but as mentioned above what we are missing is documentation from the Far East.   Regarding comparisons of those camo tones to the roundel it might be useful to consider actual reflectivity values:-

 

Dull Red = 10%

Dull Blue = 4%

Bright Red = 12%

Bright Blue = 8%

Dark Green = 7%

Light Green = 11%

Dark Earth = 13%

Light Earth = 30%

Mid Stone = 25%

 

Regards

Nick

[mhaselden]

8 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

I also suspect that you are being influenced by what you would like the scheme to be. That's fine because it's your model and in the absence of any hard evidence you are as free to interpret that as anyone.

Not guilty, M'lud! 

 

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other.  I'm just trying to reconcile what I'm seeing with what we have documented about camouflage schemes in the period from Munich to May 1940.  I genuinely cannot see any evidence of the torpedo drop aircraft wearing a 4-colour scheme.  That fact alone is odd for a biplane in this era.  Whether the darker tone is Light Green or Dark Green doesn't really matter, except for those who want to model it.  I truly am not fighting for a particular corner...just articulating my interpretation of the (limited) available evidence.

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

It would still be interesting to reconcile the photo dates with the known instructions but as mentioned above what we are missing is documentation from the Far East. 

I agree.  Sadly, I'm having no joy getting even remotely accurate dates for when the images were taken.  They came from Don MacKenzie who was a Vildebeest pilot on 100 Sqn but he was only at Singapore for a few months from July to October 1941.  My suspicion is that he liked the torpedo drop photos and obtained copies of them.  After all, the torpedo drop pics are of 36 Sqn machines and not Tatty Ton's airframes. 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

Regarding comparisons of those camo tones to the roundel it might be useful to consider actual reflectivity values:-

 

Dull Red = 10%

Dull Blue = 4%

Bright Red = 12%

Bright Blue = 8%

Dark Green = 7%

Light Green = 11%

Dark Earth = 13%

Light Earth = 30%

Mid Stone = 25%

 

Thanks for this listing.  Assuming (yes, I know...bad idea!) that we're dealing with dull-coloured roundels, the reflectance values match pretty closely to my description in Post #57.  Obviously, that's my subjective interpretation and nowhere near a smoking gun...but it is interesting all the same. 

 

Out of interest, do you have the reflectivity value for MSG?

[Dave Fleming]

Pardon my fading memory, but when was the 4-colour scheme shadow compensating scheme for biplanes introduced?

[Nick Millman]

36 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

Thanks for this listing.  Assuming (yes, I know...bad idea!) that we're dealing with dull-coloured roundels, the reflectance values match pretty closely to my description in Post #57.

Yes I thought so too! But the paint colour of roundels is yet a another story . . . 

 

37 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

Out of interest, do you have the reflectivity value for MSG?

 

25-26%. Btw the official importance of reflectivity values in the manufacture and acceptance of paint is apparent in the documentation. 

 

Regards

Nick

[mhaselden]

1 minute ago, Nick Millman said:

Yes I thought so too! But the paint colour of roundels is yet a another story . . . 

Yeah,..I know.  We certainly have a gnarly mess of questions about these airframes.

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Nick Millman said:

25-26%. Btw the official importance of reflectivity values in the manufacture and acceptance of paint is apparent in the documentation. 

 

Interesting that it has a similar reflectivity to Mid Stone...and also that Mid Stone has a rather lower reflectivity than Light Earth.  Based purely on these figures, I'd have to lean towards Light Earth for the torpedo drop pics...but I know it's never that simple.

 

Cheers,
Mark

[Nick Millman]

14 minutes ago, Dave Fleming said:

Pardon my fading memory, but when was the 4-colour scheme shadow compensating scheme for biplanes introduced?

Although they appeared in various RAE drawings from 1935 the official Air Diagrams referenced in Aircraft Design Memorandum No. 332 )Issue 2) - External Colour Schemes of Aircraft were described as "in course of preparation" in a minute dated 2/9/39. AD 1162 illustrated the shadow-shading scheme for biplanes and was exactly similar to scheme illustration C3A dated December 1938 (although there was churn in under surface colouring). 

 

Nick

[Nick Millman]

3 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

Interesting that it has a similar reflectivity to Mid Stone...and also that Mid Stone has a rather lower reflectivity than Light Earth.  Based purely on these figures, I'd have to lean towards Light Earth for the torpedo drop pics...but I know it's never that simple.

 

Cheers,
Mark

Light Earth seems more probable but its high reflectivity in the shadow shaded scheme, literally standing out, is a continuing puzzle! What were they thinking? The answer might lie in Mark M's comment about the Dark Green and Light Earth recommended for vehicles. Perhaps there was a localised standardisation of that scheme which extended to aircraft until Temperate Land was promulgated? 

 

Regards

Nick

[mhaselden]

2 minutes ago, Nick Millman said:

Light Earth seems more probable but its high reflectivity in the shadow shaded scheme, literally standing out, is a continuing puzzle! What were they thinking? The answer might lie in Mark M's comment about the Dark Green and Light Earth recommended for vehicles. Perhaps there was a localised standardisation of that scheme which extended to aircraft until Temperate Land was promulgated? 

 

Regards

Nick

 

Concur.  I find it particularly interesting that RAE would recommend Light Earth and Dark Green for Army vehicles which should indicate that they'd done at least some work to evaluate those colours within a camouflage pattern for use in the Indian sub-continent.  If that's the case, why no promulgated scheme (aka Tropical Land Scheme)?  'Tis a puzzlement.

[Mark Mackenzie]

 

On 10/20/2017 at 8:24 PM, Nick Millman said:

Aircraft Design Memorandum No. 338 (Issue 8) - Cancelling A.D.M. 332 - External Colour Schemes of Aircraft, Enclosure 1A, File B.8200/39 dated 7/7/39 and re-issued by R.D.M on 2/9/39, inter alia:-

 

"Overseas

 

Land Planes, Operational types

 

10. The temperate land scheme camouflage, C.3A, is to be adopted universally (for world wide use) . (Encos. 107A in 503041)"

 

The 1938 C3A diagram illustrates Dark Green and Dark Earth in the shadow shading scheme with Light Green and Light Earth extending to the top fuselage decking. Therefore in the photo above the Dark Green and Dark Earth segments would be hardly seen and in any case are under a different angle of illumination.  The darker segments appear too light for Dark Green and are probably Light Green, conforming closely to the C3A scheme (even in pattern) which shows "Night colour" under surfaces. 

 

One of the peculiarities which I've mentioned here before is the high reflectivity of Light Earth (30%) which produced a greater contrast with Light Green (11%) than the contrast between Dark Green (7%) and Dark Earth (13%).  Therefore and FWIW my conclusion is that the Vildebeests were probably in the biplane shadow shaded scheme on the upper surfaces. 

 

In August 1940 an Appendix to Air Ministry S.5506 specified either "matt black or duck-egg blue" under surfaces at the discretion of Commands to meet operational requirements but stated that torpedo bombers would be produced with duck-egg blue under surfaces. There was clearly an issue with the availability of Sky paint in the Far East because an Air Ministry to Air HQ India telegram of 21/6/40 referred to a delay in supply and approval for the use of "old markings" if and when 27 Squadron became a fighter squadron.   

 

Nick

Attached is another photo and drawing from Geoffrey Thomas' article on Far East Camouflage in SAM Feb 1994. The photo is said to be taken several months before the war and so the scheme may pre-date this order of July/Sept 1939.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Mark Mackenzie

[mhaselden]

1 hour ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

 

Attached is another photo and drawing from Geoffrey Thomas' article on Far East Camouflage in SAM Feb 1994. The photo is said to be taken several months before the war and so the scheme may pre-date this order of July/Sept 1939.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for posting this info.  The photo is the one I referred to in Post #57 of the 2 airborne 'Beests.  The nearest airframe is clearly in the high-contrast scheme as evidenced by the 'OE' code letters appearing darker than the base camouflage.  The port upper wing leading edge looks, to my eyes, exactly the same as the lower wing and the camouflage around the cockpit, which is why I'm suggesting this is a 2-colour camouflage pattern.  That photo was clearly taken after May 1940 given the yellow surrounds to the fuselage roundels.  The "torpedo drop' pics were probably taken before May 1940, and the text to the profile of K4602 'OE-J' seems to confirm that theory.  Also note the Type B roundels on the upper wings.

 

There are a couple of problems with the profile.  Firstly, Dark Earth typically does not show as lighter than MSG so I think that colour callout is wrong.  Also, based on the photo of K4167, we know that the undersides were black. 

 

One other note.  Look at the general appearance of the 2 aircraft in the photo.  They are incredibly tatty, notably along the upper wing leading edge.  Compare them with the 'torpedo drop' images where the airframes look virtually pristine, particularly K4167.

 

Thanks again for posting...I didn't have the ability but sharing the photo helps us all understand what I'm describing.

 

Cheers,

Mark

[Mark Mackenzie]

12 hours ago, mhaselden said:

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for posting this info.  The photo is the one I referred to in Post #57 of the 2 airborne 'Beests.  The nearest airframe is clearly in the high-contrast scheme as evidenced by the 'OE' code letters appearing darker than the base camouflage.  The port upper wing leading edge looks, to my eyes, exactly the same as the lower wing and the camouflage around the cockpit, which is why I'm suggesting this is a 2-colour camouflage pattern.  That photo was clearly taken after May 1940 given the yellow surrounds to the fuselage roundels.  The "torpedo drop' pics were probably taken before May 1940, and the text to the profile of K4602 'OE-J' seems to confirm that theory.  Also note the Type B roundels on the upper wings.

 

There are a couple of problems with the profile.  Firstly, Dark Earth typically does not show as lighter than MSG so I think that colour callout is wrong.  Also, based on the photo of K4167, we know that the undersides were black. 

 

One other note.  Look at the general appearance of the 2 aircraft in the photo.  They are incredibly tatty, notably along the upper wing leading edge.  Compare them with the 'torpedo drop' images where the airframes look virtually pristine, particularly K4167.

 

Thanks again for posting...I didn't have the ability but sharing the photo helps us all understand what I'm describing.

 

Cheers,

Mark

Mark,

 

I spent the last couple of hours going thru the Archive files. The results are:

 

In February 1937, RAE dispatched camouflage dopes for Tropical Scheme, ST2 (dark) to Singapore for evaluation against an earlier scheme called Tropical Scheme ST2. The evaluation was done by 100TB Squadron. This was a repeat of trials conducted the previous year of ST2 against the Temperate Sea Scheme, S2. The colours were:

 

Tropical Scheme ST2 (dark): Extra Dark Sea Green, Dark Sea Green, Dark Mediterranean Blue and Light Mediterranean Blue;

 

Tropical Scheme ST2: Dark Sea Green, Light Sea Green, Dark Mediterranean Blue and Light Mediterranean Blue;

 

Temperate Scheme S2:  Dark Sea Grey, Dark Sea Green, Light Sea Grey and Light Sea Green.

 

On 21st August 1937,  the results of these trials were received by RAE.  The conclusion was that ST2(dark) was recommended for "introduction to the service" by the commanding officer 100TB Squadron.

 

On the 16th May 1938, the Air Ministry decided that the tropical scheme would be standardised for Singapore.

 

Copies of all this communication are reproduced below.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Mark Mackenzie
incorrect copying

[Nick Millman]

1 hour ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

 

On the 16th May 1938, the Air Ministry decided that the tropical scheme would be standardised for Singapore.

And on 16th August 1938 Air Ministry directed that LT2 and LT3 ('Land, Tropical') schemes would be used on biplanes in India, Far East and Iraq. But by December 1938 the scheme C3A had been devised. In 1939 C3A became AD 1162 shadow-shaded Temperate Land.

 

However, "S.2.T" ('Sea, Tropical') as referenced in that May 1938 letter is not the L.S.T.2 "Sea Camouflage Doping Scheme (for Landplane)" of Jan 1935 with those lovely Med blues but a reiteration of the 1935 scheme for flying boats only, a shadow-shading scheme of Extra Dark Sea Green and Extra Dark Sea Grey over Dark Sea Green and Dark Sea Grey. That was clarified in RAE to Air Ministry letter and schematics in March 1936.   

 

Nick

[mhaselden]

1 hour ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Mark,

 

I spent the last couple of hours going thru the Archive files. The results are:

 

In February 1937, RAE dispatched camouflage dopes for Tropical Scheme, ST2 (dark) to Singapore for evaluation against an earlier scheme called Tropical Scheme ST2. The evaluation was done by 100TB Squadron. This was a repeat of trials conducted the previous year of ST2 against the Temperate Sea Scheme, S2. The colours were:

 

Tropical Scheme ST2 (dark): Extra Dark Sea Green, Dark Sea Green, Dark Mediterranean Blue and Light Mediterranean Blue;

 

Tropical Scheme ST2: Dark Sea Green, Light Sea Green, Dark Mediterranean Blue and Light Mediterranean Blue;

 

Temperate Scheme S2:  Dark Sea Grey, Dark Sea Green, Light Sea Grey and Light Sea Green.

 

On 21st August 1937,  the results of these trials were received by RAE.  The conclusion was that ST2(dark) was recommended for "introduction to the service" by the commanding officer 100TB Squadron.

 

On the 16th May 1938, the Air Ministry decided that the tropical scheme would be standardised for Singapore.

 

Copies of all this communication are reproduced below.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for posting those documents.  Fascinating info.  The 21 Aug 37 document is particularly interesting because it mentions comparison of ST2 against an existing camouflage scheme, and that over mixed-use land environments, the yellow surrounds to the upper wing roundels were the biggest give-away relative to that existing camouflage scheme.

 

Using solely the documents as references, it would be logical to assume that S2T was implemented for Singapore.  Unfortunately, there's simply no photographic evidence that the decision stated in the 16 May 38 letter was ever implemented, unless the Short Singapores of 205 Sqn were so painted.  Certainly the torpedo drop images of Vildebeests do not match ST2 as described - there's no way Dark or Extra Dark shades of blue or green would have higher reflectivity than MSG.  The possibility remains that the low contrast scheme we're identifying as Temperate Land Scheme could be S2T but one has to ask why go to the bother of applying this unique camouflage on an obsolete aircraft recognized that's slated to be replaced soon?  Also, why would S2T be applied in mid/late 1941 as a replacement for the high-contrast scheme that was applied in 1939/1940, particularly when a decision had apparently been made  in 1938 to use S2T?  The decision timeline just doesn't add up.

 

I know none of us have positive answers to these questions.  It seems pretty clear to me that we're either missing some correspondence or a local decision was made by AHQFE to camouflage the Vildebeests differently from S2T.  I doubt we'll ever find the smoking gun that answers all our questions so much will remain supposition based on the existing evidence.

 

Once again, thanks for posting the documents.  Really fascinating info!

Cheers,

(T'other) Mark

[Mark Mackenzie]

1 hour ago, Nick Millman said:

And on 16th August 1938 Air Ministry directed that LT2 and LT3 ('Land, Tropical') schemes would be used on biplanes in India, Far East and Iraq. But by December 1938 the scheme C3A had been devised. In 1939 C3A became AD 1162 shadow-shaded Temperate Land.

 

However, "S.2.T" ('Sea, Tropical') as referenced in that May 1938 letter is not the L.S.T.2 "Sea Camouflage Doping Scheme (for Landplane)" of Jan 1935 with those lovely Med blues but a reiteration of the 1935 scheme for flying boats only, a shadow-shading scheme of Extra Dark Sea Green and Extra Dark Sea Grey over Dark Sea Green and Dark Sea Grey. That was clarified in RAE to Air Ministry letter and schematics in March 1936.   

 

Nick

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.

 

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. 

 

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

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Mark Mackenzie
typo of 38 for 36; extra deleted

[Mark Mackenzie]

15 minutes ago, mhaselden said:

 

 

Hi Mark,

 

Thanks for posting those documents.  Fascinating info.  The 21 Aug 37 document is particularly interesting because it mentions comparison of ST2 against an existing camouflage scheme, and that over mixed-use land environments, the yellow surrounds to the upper wing roundels were the biggest give-away relative to that existing camouflage scheme.

 

Using solely the documents as references, it would be logical to assume that S2T was implemented for Singapore.  Unfortunately, there's simply no photographic evidence that the decision stated in the 16 May 38 letter was ever implemented, unless the Short Singapores of 205 Sqn were so painted.  Certainly the torpedo drop images of Vildebeests do not match ST2 as described - there's no way Dark or Extra Dark shades of blue or green would have higher reflectivity than MSG.  The possibility remains that the low contrast scheme we're identifying as Temperate Land Scheme could be S2T but one has to ask why go to the bother of applying this unique camouflage on an obsolete aircraft recognized that's slated to be replaced soon?  Also, why would S2T be applied in mid/late 1941 as a replacement for the high-contrast scheme that was applied in 1939/1940, particularly when a decision had apparently been made  in 1938 to use S2T?  The decision timeline just doesn't add up.

 

I know none of us have positive answers to these questions.  It seems pretty clear to me that we're either missing some correspondence or a local decision was made by AHQFE to camouflage the Vildebeests differently from S2T.  I doubt we'll ever find the smoking gun that answers all our questions so much will remain supposition based on the existing evidence.

 

Once again, thanks for posting the documents.  Really fascinating info!

Cheers,

(T'other) Mark

Mark,

 

The ST2 (dark) scheme had Light Mediterranean Blue on the side contrasting with Dark Sea Green. I suspect this is a strong contrast. I have asked Nick about the contrast of these below, so would be interested as well to see the results.

 

Cheers,

Mark

[mhaselden]

2 minutes ago, Mark Mackenzie said:

Mark,

 

The ST2 (dark) scheme had Light Mediterranean Blue on the side contrasting with Dark Sea Green. I suspect this is a strong contrast. I have asked Nick about the contrast of these below, so would be interested as well to see the results.

 

Cheers,

Mark

 

I, too, would be interested to learn the reflectivity values for those shades.  However, that doesn't explain why the high contrast scheme appears to be a 2-colour scheme, not a 4-colour scheme.  The high degree of contrast is visible everywhere on the airframe that we can see in the photos, including the upper fuselage in the cockpit area, the slope down from the gunner's cockpit and on the upper wings.  If this was S2T (or TLS, for that matter), surely we should see darker, low-contrast tones somewhere on the airframe on at least one of the photos? 

[Graham Boak]

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?