Jump to content

All the Wildcat/Martlet questions you wanted to ask


detail is everything

Recommended Posts

Hi Maurice,

 

Impressive resume!  I only butted in here because all the color suppositions ignored the fact that those colors uncovered in the FAA Museum 'restoration' were gloss.  Since they were gloss, that limits the possible colors they could be.  We all have reservations about photo interptetations, but sometimes color photos can be revealing.  

As for Grumman's records, Elliot mentioned gaps, especially regarding EDSG, and I believe Paul Fontenoy as well, if I remember correctly from maybe an IPMS publication many years ago?  But again, the fact that those colors are gloss negates almost everything that has been argued in trying to connect them to any British color.

Hmm, Fontenoy....Maurice, something about your moniker I couldn't put my finger on until now.  Funny, I don't recall you signing off as Maurice until this thread, but now I see it; the great Marechal de Saxe, Moritz von Sachsen, who defeated 'Stinking Billy' Duke of Cumberland at...Fontenoy in 1745!!!  Sad that it took this frustrated historian this long to see that....

Forbear, or hero?

Anyway, again, a most impressive resume.  I hope you'll consider my inferences in the spirit of friendly discussion as I'm hitting way above my knowledgeable 'weight' as they say.

 

Sincerely,

Jim

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paints can be matt or gloss, dependent upon the formulation of the solvents not the desired colour.  That the colours match the desired British colours is more important than ruling this out simply because of the finish.  Perhaps it wasn't clear to Dupont that gloss was not required? 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, expositor said:

Forbear, or hero?

@expositor

 

My family name is Cloete - I'm an Afrikaner but my French mother's family (Foulger) has a legend of familial descent from Maurice de Saxe. Given that he only had illegitimate children, I doubt that anyone will ever be able to confirm its validity. I've always admired him ever since I read his masterpiece on eighteenth-century military matters, Mes Reveries, when I was an undergraduate, so mdesaxe seemed a suitable label.

 

Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/11/2022 at 6:41 PM, mdesaxe said:

However, all the primary source documentation—and the FAA Museum restoration—support my contention that Grumman followed the instructions received from BPC for painting the G-36A aircraft from the ex-French contract.

Thank you for your extensive and very interesting discussion. I have been following the matter of Martlet I colours for years, since the days of the old IPMS USA FAASIG web site, where I saw Lt. Millar's name mentioned for the first time. The Martlet I camouflage scheme has always inspired wild and not-so-wild speculations.

 

As a modeller, I have no doubts about how I would finish a model. However, being also interested in historical background, I also like to try and understand how things were arrived at. So, why this scheme?

 

Among the colours given in the Grumman camouflage diagram, Extra Dark Sea Gray (Grey) is the least controversial in a British camouflage scheme. Next comes "Duck egg blue", a perpetual point of debate on the web, for which interpretation as a light blue is not so upsetting, to me at least. The most unusual is Light Sea Green, which is a British colour, but to my knowledge it has never been combined with EDSG in any official camouflage scheme.

 

I think it unlikely that, when sending Grummans exactly this colour specification, Lt. Millar was acting exclusively on his own judgement. Assuming it as an intended Tropical Sea Scheme seems unconvincing, primarily because war in the Far East was one full year away when Martlet I deliveries were completed. On the other hand, there is little doubt that Grummans were eventually able to produce far better colour matches. Was it just an "official" attempt to match the standard Temperate Sea Scheme with colours that were known to be readily available at Grummans?

 

In an article by Ian Huntley appearing in December 1993 in Model Aircraft Monthly, a camouflage scheme for a folding wing Grumman G-36 was discussed. The letter reproduced there, dated 15 April 1940 and supposedly from the Fairey archives, refers to US substitute colours to produce an equivalent of the earlier FAA S.1E camouflage scheme, using Blue Gray No. 12 for Extra Dark Sea Grey, Olive Drab No. 31 for Dark Slate Grey and Light Gray, M-495 for Sky Grey. The latter is, I believe, the standard USN light grey ("neutrality grey"). I have no idea what colour Blue Gray No. 12 would look like, although it would be tempting to replace 12 Blue Gray for 24 Flag Blue, if one wishes to believe the "US substitute colours" theory.

 

Even so, until somebody finds a convincing "why" to this choice of colours, there is little point in guessing.

 

Claudio

Edited by ClaudioN
pint --> point...!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Paints can be matt or gloss, dependent upon the formulation of the solvents not the desired colour.  That the colours match the desired British colours is more important than ruling this out simply because of the finish.  Perhaps it wasn't clear to Dupont that gloss was not required? 

You're grasping.  The DuPont paint chart colors, posted elsewhere here, are clearly flat/matte, and certainly not gloss.  Again, what gloss colors are they if not those I have mentioned?  Hey, I could be all wrong; just tell us which colors they were. 

Now reflectance doesn't matter?  Funny how many here over the years, just to cite one example, have insisted that the three USN sea blue colors were all different.  Now some color photos seem to show a difference, that one Helldiver photo comes to mind, but one of our premier experts here, if I remember correctly, and one Major Elliott, stated that the standard for all three colors was to be the same, the only difference being reflectance.  The fact that different manufacturers had varying mixes resulting in shade differences doesn't alter that standard, at least until the USN is supposed to have changed those standards after the war with the implementation of the FS system.

I'll agree to respectfully disagree; despite my lack of credibility.

 

Cheerio,

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, expositor said:

but one of our premier experts here, if I remember correctly, and one Major Elliott, stated that the standard for all three colors was to be the same, the only difference being reflectance.

Sorry, no. You have mixed this up.  

The opposite. 

  

On 31/12/2016 at 12:57, Dana Bell said:

The scheme is actually four colors: Insignia White, Nonspecular Intermediate Blue, Semigloss Sea Blue atop the wings and stabilizers, and Nonspecular Sea Blue on the fuselage and wing and stabilizer leading edges.  The N/S Sea Blue was a slightly grayer color and (of course) not as glossy.  The two Sea Blues also faded at different rates, and the differences could be quite pronounced as the aircraft weathered.

 

 

What is often stated is ANA 606/607/623 are replicated by FS34052/25042/15042,  (the first number denoting gloss.) 

 

They are not,  the only FS595  match I believe is post 1947 ANA 623, later incorporated into FS595 as FS15042.

 

There were two ANA 623, the 1944-47 color, which faded too quickly, and was replaced by a new color, but the same name...

  

On 31/12/2016 at 14:42, Dana Bell said:

There are a couple of other reasons the model paint manufacturers have had problems matching the Sea Blues.  Most are working from the FS595 chips, which never accurately matched all three versions of the wartime colors.  The other problem is that the formula for ANA 623 Glossy Sea Blue changed in 1947/48.  The original color faded to quickly and was replaced with more resilient pigments.  When the US Navy gave modelers the old stocks of ANA paint chips in the 1960s/70s, some of us got the 1944 card-stock chip of ANA 623, while others got the 1948 metal replacement chips.  I can well remember the arguments back then, arguments that arose because we were working from different standards!

 I have Major Elliot's book, with the chips., and a FS595 deck.

the 44-47 ANA 623 is a 'deep smoky blue',  more like a very dark grey with a strong purple blue hue.    FS15024 is a very dark blue green. 

 

HTH

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, expositor said:

You're grasping.  The DuPont paint chart colors, posted elsewhere here, are clearly flat/matte, and certainly not gloss.  Again, what gloss colors are they if not those I have mentioned?  Hey, I could be all wrong; just tell us which colors they were. 

The colours are now known:  Grumman quoted them, and we can see them.  I agree that I was grasping for a possible explanation why they were gloss.  

 

Now what I keep looking for is an convincing (to me) explanation why, when I peered closely at the colours on the restored Martlet in the FAA Museum, I saw not EDSG but a very dark green.  Can anyone else who has closely looked that this aircraft think the same - or indeed think otherwise?  Could it have been some peculiarity of the lighting?  The other aircraft with EDSG (and there were many) looked grey.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Sorry, no. You have mixed this up.  

The opposite. 

  

 

 

What is often stated is ANA 606/607/623 are replicated by FS34052/25042/15042,  (the first number denoting gloss.) 

 

They are not,  the only FS595  match I believe is post 1947 ANA 623, later incorporated into FS595 as FS15042.

 

There were two ANA 623, the 1944-47 color, which faded too quickly, and was replaced by a new color, but the same name...

  

 I have Major Elliot's book, with the chips., and a FS595 deck.

the 44-47 ANA 623 is a 'deep smoky blue',  more like a very dark grey with a strong purple blue hue.    FS15024 is a very dark blue green. 

 

HTH

13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

Sorry, no. You have mixed this up.  

The opposite. 

  

What have I mixed up?  The opposite is what exactly?

 

What is often stated is ANA 606/607/623 are replicated by FS34052/25042/15042,  (the first number denoting gloss.) 

We all know this; what is the relevance?

 

13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

They are not,  the only FS595  match I believe is post 1947 ANA 623, later incorporated into FS595 as FS15042.

What does this mean?  Are you using the later colors to refute my points on the ANA colors?  

13 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

 

There were two ANA 623, the 1944-47 color, which faded too quickly, and was replaced by a new color, but the same name...

  

 I have Major Elliot's book, with the chips., and a FS595 deck.

the 44-47 ANA 623 is a 'deep smoky blue',  more like a very dark grey with a strong purple blue hue.    FS15024 is a very dark blue green. 

 

HTH

I have only referred to the colors in Elliot vol.2; you're using color cards in vol.3 which are the later FS colors.  I don't think such warrants a response.

 

You also added a quote from Dana Bell whose expertise I greatly respect.  But I have reservations when even an expert makes unequivocal statements about these or those colors when numerous manufacturers are producing colors to the same "standard."

I remember a past contentious interchange between two experts about USN aircraft colors; my own opinion, for what that's worth, is that they were both right; for some planes, not all.

 

As for the color cards in vol.2, the three colors are too close to see a difference.  So I advise you to check the relevant volume; you know apples, oranges, blueberries....

12 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The colours are now known:  Grumman quoted them, and we can see them.  I agree that I was grasping for a possible explanation why they were gloss.  

 

Now what I keep looking for is an convincing (to me) explanation why, when I peered closely at the colours on the restored Martlet in the FAA Museum, I saw not EDSG but a very dark green.  Can anyone else who has closely looked that this aircraft think the same - or indeed think otherwise?  Could it have been some peculiarity of the lighting?  The other aircraft with EDSG (and there were many) looked grey.

What colors are now known?  You mean those colors cited in the camouflage scheme drawings?  We knew that already.  I agree, the museum lighting is insufficient.  But as you and I have discussed in another thread already, Grumman had not yet gotten hold of the requested colors and used the markings colors so as not to impede USN production for planes preassigned to USS Ranger, which used tail color Willow Green, a gloss color as seen on the plane in question.   Again, if Grumman didn't have the requisite colors, what colors did they have available?

You blokes have taken the fun out of this....

 

Cheers!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, expositor said:

As for the color cards in vol.2, the three colors are too close to see a difference. 

They are not. I have very good color vision,  and you need to see them in bright daylight.   All 3 are different colors, not very different,  but they are.

 

It's not just my eyeballs either,  the owner of Colourcoats, @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies who has the Elliot Vol.2 book, and a colorimeter, and is advised by Dana Bell,  says they are 3 different colours, and sells 3 different colours, ANA 606/607/623 plus FS15042.

 

 

16 minutes ago, expositor said:

What is often stated is ANA 606/607/623 are replicated by FS34052/25042/15042,  (the first number denoting gloss.) 

We all know this; what is the relevance?

I said often stated.   To be clear  ANA 606/607/623 are NOT replicated by FS34052/25042/15042.

 

THis is what @Dana Bell says.  I quoted him above.  to be clear

 

"There are a couple of other reasons the model paint manufacturers have had problems matching the Sea Blues.  Most are working from the FS595 chips, which never accurately matched all three versions of the wartime colors.  The other problem is that the formula for ANA 623 Glossy Sea Blue changed in 1947/48.  The original color faded to quickly and was replaced with more resilient pigments.  When the US Navy gave modelers the old stocks of ANA paint chips in the 1960s/70s, some of us got the 1944 card-stock chip of ANA 623, while others got the 1948 metal replacement chips.  I can well remember the arguments back then, arguments that arose because we were working from different standards!"

 

 

 

19 minutes ago, expositor said:

What does this mean?  Are you using the later colors to refute my points on the ANA colors?  

No.

Many ANA colors are not in the FS 595 system. 

 

As far as I under it, The Post 1947 version of ANA 623  did carry over into in FS595, as FS15042.  

again from Dana Bell.

"The other problem is that the formula for ANA 623 Glossy Sea Blue changed in 1947/48.  The original color faded to quickly and was replaced with more resilient pigments.  When the US Navy gave modelers the old stocks of ANA paint chips in the 1960s/70s, some of us got the 1944 card-stock chip of ANA 623, while others got the 1948 metal replacement chips.  I can well remember the arguments back then, arguments that arose because we were working from different standards!"

 

ANA 606/607/623, (the 1994-47 version of ANA 623 that is)  are NOT carried over into FS595, and so are NOT replicated by FS34052/25042/15042.

 

 

22 minutes ago, expositor said:

I have only referred to the colors in Elliot vol.2; you're using color cards in vol.3 which are the later FS colors.  I don't think such warrants a response.

No, I am not. 

I have the Volume 2  Elliot book.   I have a 1989 FS 595 deck.

I don't not have Elliot Volume 3.

 

I hope this clarifies my initial post.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hope it clarifies?  Pointless, as you continue to harp about the later colors which have no bearing on anything I asserted.  I only referred to the cards in Elliot of the original 1943 blues, which under a perpendicular light source are too close to call them different colors.  Lighting at an angle, especially of the matte and semi blue, makes them look dark bluegrey, just like that Helldiver photo.  Your quotes of Dana Bell would be germain if we were discussing the weathering of those colors and their need for reformulation, which we all have read and have no cause to dispute.  I only mentioned the blues because it was stated that now reflectance doesn't matter; unless or until it helps one argument or detracts from another...much like "science" these days.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, expositor said:

You hope it clarifies?  Pointless, as you continue to harp about the later colors which have no bearing on anything I asserted.

The point is if you are making incorrect statements about the later colors, it calls in question the veracity of your statements about other colors. 

 

7 hours ago, expositor said:

  I only referred to the cards in Elliot of the original 1943 blues, which under a perpendicular light source are too close to call them different colors.

They are different colors. The difference is subtle but is there.  

The chips in Elliot Vol.2  show this

Dana Bell says so, and he has seen the original chips which Elliot used.

The only paint company I respect with a colorimter makes 3 different colors as a result.

This is their take on them

  

On 15/08/2018 at 10:15, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I usually ignore FS recommendations as FS595 is an absolutely tiny colour palette once duplications of finish are removed. In addition, it's dangerous to trust aging males in particular who have high occurances of colour perception defects particularly when FS "matches" are unqualified. The "nearest FS match" and an actual match are frequently a long way from each other for people with non-defective colour perception. FS595 only helps spread misinformation in the modelling world.

 

For WW2 USN it's only the ANA numbers that matter.

 

The tricolor scheme used the following four colours:

ANA601 Insignia White

ANA606 Semi Gloss Sea Blue on wings and tailplanes

ANA607 Non Specular Sea Blue on the fuselage top and sometimes on leading edges of flying surfaces

ANA608 Intermediate Blue

 

The overall blue scheme used ANA623 Glossy Sea Blue. ANA623 changed colour at some point post-war before the US Goverment decided to get their Federal Standard collection going. FS15042 replaced their REVISED ANA623.

 

ANA606, 607, wartime 623 and FS15042 are all different COLOURS as well as finishes, and when I saw them all together they were sufficiently different to warrant four different products.

 

The ANA606 and 607 don't really look alike to me - I can tell them apart from unlabelled swatches. They are very close in tone such that in greyscale they look the same, but the colour saturation is very distinct. I've seen some Avenger photographs where the difference is pretty obvious too.

 

Note comment on color vision.

If you can't see the difference under sunlight I suggest the problem is your vision, 1 in 12 males have defective color vision

here's a test

https://www.xrite.com/hue-test

when the test was harder I needed a decent monitor to score 0,  and this is not meant in a derogatory manner. 

Even mild defect in color vision will make all 3 look the same, as the difference is subtle. 

 

On 13/12/2022 at 01:54, expositor said:

Now reflectance doesn't matter?  Funny how many here over the years, just to cite one example, have insisted that the three USN sea blue colors were all different.  Now some color photos seem to show a difference, that one Helldiver photo comes to mind, but one of our premier experts here, if I remember correctly, and one Major Elliott, stated that the standard for all three colors was to be the same, the only difference being reflectance. 

My replies started because you made a statement that according to the authorities on the colors referenced is incorrect.  

 

I pointed this out with corrections, using quotes from the premier expert. (The quotes will take you to the threads in question) 

 

You have mis-read my replies, dismissed my answers (which were quotes)  and still say that it's now irrelevant as  I am talking about later colors. 


It's not a competition, I only know the information I quoted on here from reading on here, and being lucky enough to then get a copy of the Elliot book.   If someone corrects a statement I have made on with authoritative references,  I say thank you,  acknowledge the new information and file away the correction. 

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been digging in my stash and have got a Hobbyboss FM2 which i am building as a FAA Wildcat VI. I seem  to remember that the underwing oil coolers were removed on the FM2 but the kit wing has them. Can anyone confirm the oil coolers were deleted?

 

Selwyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a photo of a Martlet Mk. I I had never seen before. Anybody can recognize the pilot?

spacer.png

Credit: Cradle of Aviation Museum, Garden City, NY

 

Markings-wise, this photo is interesting as it shows the AL- serial in mid position on the fuselage, whereas the FAAM Martlet serial AL246 has it in the usual position employed by Grumman for Martlets, that is, on the fuselage spine.

At some time, then, the position must have changed. Martlet serials do not reflect the order of delivery, which is actually:

  • AX824-829, then BJ507-BJ527, BJ554-BJ570, all of which had serials applied in the mid-fuselage position, reportedly in Britain;
  • BT447-BT456, lost at sea
  • AL236-AL262

The AL-serialled batch was delivered last and, at least from AL246, the serial was positioned high on the fuselage spine. Delivery records show the first 6 Martlets from this batch were received in October, Sturtivant reporting AL236-AL238 and AL240-AL242. It woud then seem that the one in the picture could be one of those six, serial possibly still applied in the UK.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One basic fact seems to be overlooked about the first Martlets: when Britain took over the French contract for 81 G-36A machines and placed its own order for 100 G-36B aircraft, the combined total was not far short of the total orders Grumman had received to that date from the US Navy for F4F-3/3A aircraft. Grumman therefore was not seeking to place an order with Dupont for paint for a few prototypes but for 181 aircraft , a number that represented almost 45 percent of all the firm’s contracts for Wildcats, so there was a strong incentive to follow British instructions. Whether or not Grumman had received the correct information from the British Purchasing Commission is a moot point, the BPC orders actually represented 30 percent of the total orders the company had ever received for single-seat fighters since the firm’s formation. I cannot document this, but the very idea that Grumman would consider “sliding something by” the British, given the importance to the company of their orders, is inconceivable.

 

May I also suggest an explanation for the gloss finish? It was not until December 1940 that instructions were issued for all US Navy aircraft to be finished using non-specular paints, prior to that time all were finished with gloss paints. Since virtually all Grumman aircraft were supplied to the Navy, it would be a simple enough oversight for whoever sent instructions to Dupont for the paint to omit mentioning that they needed to be matte and, given that all paints Dupont sent to Grumman at that time were gloss, it would not be strange for no-one there to check back.

 

I must admit that I have not looked through Fairey records, mainly because the firm was not involved in working on American aircraft for the Royal Navy. I think I need to hunt down the letter Ian Huntley noted (mentioned by @ClaudioN in his December 12 post) and see if there are more similar communications to be found. The letter is quite fascinating from another perspective. It sounds like Richard Fairey trying to “stick his oar in” to see if he could pick up some extra Royal Navy work, something that apparently was rather characteristic of him.

 

Maurice

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mdesaxe said:

May I also suggest an explanation for the gloss finish?

 

Or, just off the workbench, insignia applied, haven't done the final pass with dullcoat!

 

More seriously, I just stumbled across this page while checking something:

https://www.southampton.ac.uk/history/research/projects/life_of_richard_fairey.page

 

Fairey was a MAP representative in the US (though exactly when I don't remember) so he had every reason to be involved.  Conflict of interest? Maybe, but things were a bit different then. Or were they?

 

bob

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accidentally came across the fascinating and exquisite Martlet III build by @Dunny (I have not built models of aircraft for years, so I very rarely look at that part of the BM forum). It’s a beautifully-executed model but I seriously question the camouflage scheme, especially as the supporting photographs of AX736 in the thread (most from the Flickr album “Pat Chilton’s WW2”) were all taken after 805 Squadron transferred to East Africa subsequent to the application of the “over water” scheme noted below.

 

This is a timeline for the camouflage schemes applied to Martlet III aircraft of 805 Squadron.

 

i.                    The aircraft as delivered were finished overall in light grey paint, the then standard finish for US Navy carrier aircraft.

ii.                   Until at least January 1942 they still operated in light grey.

 

The evidence for this includes the following, cited by Steven Eisenman in a BM post on May 6, 2011:

 

Posted By: Justin Walsh <[email protected]>

Date: Friday, 15 June 2001, at 4:49 p.m.

In Response To: Re: 805 Sqn Martlets in the Desert (Justin Walsh)

Further to my earlier message, I,ve been in touch with my Grandfather who flew with 805 from April 41 to January 42 and he state categorically that the Martlets were uncamoflaged . They wore , so to speak, a light almost metallic grey finish , which was how they came out of the crate from the US. Apparently the RAF pilots used to give them lots of stick for this saying they would get shot out of the sky in such unsubtle colours . They would reply that the enemy realizing they must be nice chaps would leave them alone .

 

iii.                 Between January and mid-March 1942 (see evidence below) was the only window within which desert camouflage could have been applied to Martlet III aircraft of 805 Squadron. From data in Sturtivant & Burrows, The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, the squadron was based at Maaten Bagush, 50 km east of Mersa Matruh and 250 km west of Alexandria, from 7 January 1942 until 14 March, when the squadron moved to Dekheila for major overhauls of its aircraft. In other words, it was continuously deployed on operations during this entire period, so it seems improbable there were opportunities to undertake wholesale repainting of its aircraft.

iv.                 In mid-March 1942, 805 Squadron's aircraft underwent major overhauls at Dekheila (HMS Grebe), the Fleet Air Arm’s shore base outside Alexandria, during which, amongst other items, they received new engines and improved self-sealing fuel lines (that had to be removed subsequently because they caused fuel flow problems). The evidence for this includes Don Nairn’s autobiography, Gold Wings and Webbed Feet (Invercargill, New Zealand: 1996). Nairn served with 805 Squadron from December 1941 to April 1943 in North Africa and then in East Africa. His recollection of the overhaul date is confirmed by Sturtivant & Burrow, Fleet Air Arm Aircraft 1939-1945. Nairn said of the refurbished aircraft that: “the maintenance boys had also spruced up the sandblasted paintwork with a new over-water camouflage design—a mixture of sea green and blue patterns.” The "over water" camouflage was appropriate, since 805 Squadron was then assigned to convoy protection duties.

 

One point from Nairn’s statement is worth highlighting; he describes the paintwork as “sandblasted”, an indication that the previous finish, whatever it was, was not recently applied.

 

We cannot definitively ascertain what Nairn meant by “sea green and blue” camouflage but a reasonable interpretation would be the standard Fleet Air Arm finish of Dark Slate Grey and Extra Dark Sea Grey, since the work was carried out at Dekheila, where there were ample stocks of such paints for use on the other fleet aircraft maintained there. Whatever it was, it certainly was not a desert scheme.

 

Where does this leave us? Any assertion that 805 Squadron’s Martlets wore a desert scheme, either overall Middle Stone upper surfaces or disruptive Middle Stone and Dark Earth upper surfaces (or both, according to some people) or any other variation of colours, needs to be supported by evidence that it was applied during the unit's busy two-month window between January and March 1942. I know of no such evidence, and the narrow time window makes it most unlikely that any desert scheme ever was applied to these aircraft.

 

Maurice

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2022 at 7:13 PM, mdesaxe said:

iii.                 Between January and mid-March 1942 (see evidence below) was the only window within which desert camouflage could have been applied to Martlet III aircraft of 805 Squadron. From data in Sturtivant & Burrows, The Squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, the squadron was based at Maaten Bagush, 50 km east of Mersa Matruh and 250 km west of Alexandria, from 7 January 1942 until 14 March, when the squadron moved to Dekheila for major overhauls of its aircraft. In other words, it was continuously deployed on operations during this entire period, so it seems improbable there were opportunities to undertake wholesale repainting of its aircraft.

 

It may perhaps be useful to consider what 805 Squadron had been doing in that period.

 

Until January 1942 a large part of the naval fighter squadrons work "in the desert" was convoy patrol over the ships resupplying Tobruk. The task was not really calling for a desert camouflage, and recent discussions on the camoiuflage of Beaufighters operating on coastal work in the same area suggest that TSS was not so uncommon on those aircraft.

After the Tobruk siege was broken in early 1942 the front line moved as far West as Benghazi. Maaten Bagush remained well at the back (almost exactly mid-way between Alexandria and Tobruk), but the Royal Naval Fighter Squadron did not move forward like other fighter squadrons. It seems likely they continued to provide convoy patrols, in which case desert camouflage was not really necessary.

 

Horrible mistake on my part, I confused the early 1941 front line with that for early 1942, that was not so far West. Anyway, RNFS remained based at Maaten Bagush, with Sidi Barrani often used as a forward airfield, in particular for refuelling the shorter-ranged Hurricanes of 803 and 806 Sqns.

 

Edited by ClaudioN
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...