I recently got the bag of 1/300th 'Battle of Britain ' planes from the Plastic Soldier company.
so of course started researching paint schemes.
found an interesting piece of information that i had never heard before so thought id ask hive mind.
"the first Spitfires to reach the RAF were painted in a camouflage scheme of brown (dark earth) and dark green. (knew this already)
the undersides were painted with one half black and one half white with the dividing line running from nose to tail, sometimes only the underside of one wing was painted black leaving the fuselage underside painted white. :o :-
Apparently this was to aid the identification of the RAF fighters at height by the Royal Observer Corps and AAA spotters through Binoculars .
I've never heard of this fact. I'm more a ground wars Eastern Front person. But have watched a lot of documentaries about early war.
so is this true or just a one off reference.
Regards
Sean
I heard it before, not sure if it's true :-\
TRUE!
Good discussion hre: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-black-and-white-undersides-why.22071/ (https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-black-and-white-undersides-why.22071/)
Designed for recognition over home territory before the radar and comms network was complete.
Dates according to this post:
QuoteRAF fighters were painted in this way as an aid to recognition . First suggested by Dowding in 1937, and continued until June 6 1940 Making a brief comeback between Nov 27 1940 to April 7 1941
Suggest it wasn't in use for the Battle of Britain.
You may form your own opinions on whether every squadron receiving and applying sky-blue paint by June 6th.
In doctrine terms, I see it as comparable with the invasion stripes of 1944.
If the vast majority of aircraft are going to be friendlies, you can afford to be visible as a "don't shoot me" signal.
I've not researched enough to know whether RAF squadrons in France used the scheme, or whether it was for home based aircraft only.
Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 25 June 2021, 09:11:52 AM
TRUE!
Good discussion hre: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-black-and-white-undersides-why.22071/ (https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raf-black-and-white-undersides-why.22071/)
Designed for recognition over home territory before the radar and comms network was complete.
Dates according to this post:
Suggest it wasn't in use for the Battle of Britain.
You may form your own opinions on whether every squadron receiving and applying sky-blue paint by June 6th.
thank you for the link very informative.
Regards
Sean
In doctrine terms, I see it as comparable with the invasion stripes of 1944.
If the vast majority of aircraft are going to be friendlies, you can afford to be visible as a "don't shoot me" signal.
I've not researched enough to know whether RAF squadrons in France used the scheme, or whether it was for home based aircraft only.
It's ceratinly true. Was changed in mid 1940 as it made the aircraft rather too visible. BEF Hurricanes were similar.
Good 'find' Steve.
I 'had' thought that it was an attempt to 'throw off' combat gunnery, similar to asymetric patterns experimented with in WW1...But NOT the case!
Typical RAF wanting ID nos. to catch 'low fliers'! lol. ;D
Later change to overall colour for offensive ops is plausible, too.
The two-tone underside was certainly in use during the early war period. When the change to Sky type S was completed is unclear.
(https://i.imgur.com/XInBVDc.jpg)
The lengthy post on the linked discussion implied that anything blue-ish might have been used.
This certainly matches my Airfix experience with a merry mix of "duck egg blue" and "duck egg green" on painting guides.
It all seems a bit official/unofficial, and I've no first-hand evidence to support it.
"Difficult to tell form those old black and white photos".
And little way to tell whether the "wrong blues" were available in S finish.
Yup it's true
This should clear up any confusion. ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/xNB1Lf4.jpg)
Quote from: Heedless Horseman on 25 June 2021, 11:19:41 AM
Good 'find' Steve.
I 'had' thought that it was an attempt to 'throw off' combat gunnery, similar to asymetric patterns experimented with in WW1...But NOT the case!
Typical RAF wanting ID nos. to catch 'low fliers'! lol. ;D
Later change to overall colour for offensive ops is plausible, too.
I wonder whether any air force tried dazzle camouflage during WW2.
My spidey senses suggest that conditions in the air would make it far less effective.
Long range spotting is radar.
Gunnery range is fairly close visual, where outlines are fairly evident.
Difficult to guarantee a background (sky, cloud, ground)...
Quote from: John Cook on 26 June 2021, 02:27:58 AM
This should clear up any confusion. ;D
(https://i.imgur.com/xNB1Lf4.jpg)
Shakes fist at Airfix:
That's 2 pots of matt enamel I bought when one would have done.
13 pence I'll never get back.
Both the Italians and Germans had very effective camo for the Western desert, but that was for top surfaces.
Steve the German cammo in N africa comes close, with basic sand with brown blotches comes close, can be very difficult to make out the aircraft above.
Quote from: Lord Speedy of Leighton on 26 June 2021, 09:46:40 AM
Both the Italians and Germans had very effective camo for the Western desert, but that was for top surfaces.
SNAP !!
Small minds think together...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSGNtzD342FgYcGnpCA_Mvjhp-WSKLTOUxrQ&usqp=CAU)
This photo has stuck with me since I first saw it 50 years ago - how effective the camouflage is.
Quote from: fsn on 26 June 2021, 10:13:07 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSGNtzD342FgYcGnpCA_Mvjhp-WSKLTOUxrQ&usqp=CAU)
This photo has stuck with me since I first saw it 50 years ago - how effective the camouflage is.
I wonder just how effective it was when moving against a still background.
Quote from: Lord Speedy of Leighton on 26 June 2021, 09:48:49 AM
Small minds think together...
Squek for your self.
Probably not that effective if the 109 was moving - movement draws the eye..
Quote from: John Cook on 26 June 2021, 10:36:31 AM
I wonder just how effective it was when moving against a still background.
I suspect that it 'may' have, at least contributed' so some 'blurring'... esp. in angles with less shadow.
At much greater distances, height difference and altitude, the aircraft would 'appear' to move more slowly, relative to the ground.
Pretty good camo! In 'rhe right circumstances' may have helped... and one right circumstance may mean the difference between survival and not.
Form VERY LIMITED experience in a civvy light aircraft, (An Uncle used to take us to Airshows in his, back in the 70s!), even 'brightly coloured' light planes can 'blur' passing against against an appropriate background momentarily. Hot,
UK, summer 'haze' had an effect too... 'diluting' the image to the eye.
Quote from: fsn on 26 June 2021, 10:13:07 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQSGNtzD342FgYcGnpCA_Mvjhp-WSKLTOUxrQ&usqp=CAU)
This photo has stuck with me since I first saw it 50 years ago - how effective the camouflage is.
That's the badger! Thanks FSN. 🦡
Quote from: Lord Speedy of Leighton on 26 June 2021, 11:28:45 AM
That's the badger! Thanks FSN. 🦡
Probably not as effective when the attackers are a bunch of beardy fellows at night in jeeps shooting twin Vicker's Ks.
Long range spotting is radar.
Gunnery range is fairly close visual, where outlines are fairly evident.
Difficult to guarantee a background (sky, cloud, ground)...
It was Downing himself who promoted this two tone scheme.
Firstly because the Radar wAs mostly placed at the cost. So once In land it was the Observer Corps
With Binoculars as the only Aid to the Mk1 eyeball. Same for most AAA emplacements. The idea was the black and white
Helped distinguish British Aircraft.
Regards
Sean
[/quote]