How Hard Should Hard Camo Be?

In field operations I suspect it was all with a paint brush.  Airbrushing a full size plane would take forever. I doubt if line ground crew would have had access to spray brush and compressors.  I have seen pics of crew painting "victory markings" with brushes.  Don't remember seeing pictures of crews making bigger markings, but suspect it was still usually brushed.  Even in piecetime civil aviation in early postwar days I remember seeing lots of folks brushing dope to refinish civil aircraft.

Here's an interesting article concerning the painting practices and weathering of Japanese aircraft in World War Two.

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/weathering_question.htm

I think it's always best to refer to period photos, and decide from there.

From these photos, I'd say the G.55 splinter scheme was airbrushed freehand, with just the insignias masked. 

http://stormomagazine.com/ would be your best source if you are interested in Italian aircraft.

----------------------------------------------

I would tend to think most aircraft paint work was done at the factory, which provided a clean work area, and assuming the air ministries of various countries were well aware of how important a smooth finish was to the performance of aircraft.  Of course, there will always be exceptions, such as the painting of D-Day stripes, winter white washes, and the prevailing theories of the Malta blue Spitfires.

regards,

Jack

Having started in the painting trade before airless sprayers became common, I'd say the planes were sprayed with commercial spray guns, probably deVilbiss or Binks or similar, connected to a large pressure-pot connected by air hoses and paint lines.  I've seen period photos of British crewman spraying camo patterns using large rubber templates.

Gary

I've read several times that in WWll the standard order for painting in the field was, "use what you have." Jgeratic has it right, lot's of A/C left the factory with the appropriate camo applied, but if the situation was desperate in theatre, they might just get test flown and head out bare, painting to be applied however possible on arrival. Small repairs or minute unit markings were often applied with brush, in some cases the unit might have a compressor and portable tank, then paint was sprayed either free hand or using the pre made masks if available.

In the field I'm fairly sure the camo work was done freehand for the U.S. A/C, I believe the "splinter" camo on German A/C might well be done with pre made masks.

The objection noted about brushing, it applied much more paint than did spraying and that was a minor weight penalty, plus field contamination and minimal cleaning equipment on hand left a surface that didn't retain paint all that well, often large sheets of it would tear away at high speeds. The spray guns were indeed commercial types as mentioned, some were full size and some were smaller, called "detail guns," but still much larger than an airbrush.

Those were tough conditions to work in, dirty, oily, combat repairs galore, it's a wonder they were able to do as well as they did. Many years ago I saw a B-26 in desert storage, left as it was on return from the war, it just never got broken up for scrap yet. The condition was horrible,many huge dents on the fuselage sides adjacent to the props, I suppose from ice leaving the blades and slamming into the sides. Massive areas of paint flaking away all over, and the entire airframe looked as filthy as any truck or jeep that I've ever seen after combat field service.

Those were tough conditions for crews to work in, it took genuine dedication to get the job done and the airplanes really took a daily beating, it was combat after all.  

Think airguns were far more commonly used than any other method for mass production aircraft camouflage from WWII on. While some aircraft such as the P-40 for lend lease used rubber template matts. I think more often than  not, most patterns were applied freehand following a pattern of some sort. If one looks at close up photos of many aircraft, more often than not the color demarcation lines are feathered, indicating the colors being sprayed. Often hard edges between colors are along panel lines indicating the panel or part was painted seperately off of the airframe.

pattern templates

We seem to be combining factory finishing techniques and field painting in combat areas.  They wouldn't be the same.  In many areas, especially Pacific islands, there wouldn't be that many generators to go around- much maintainence work was without electricity.  I'd bet even in Europe the forward fields didn't have that much juice until the field had been occupied quite a while.

Switching to land vehicles, here is a very good wartime video of a workshop in Egypt, late 1940.  It shows spray guns in use, as workers apply the three tone Caunter scheme to various vehicles.  Note that it appears only the base colour is sprayed on, while the other two are brush painted, with the resultant hard lines.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060033073

regards,

Jack

Don Stauffer

We seem to be combining factory finishing techniques and field painting in combat areas.  They wouldn't be the same.  In many areas, especially Pacific islands, there wouldn't be that many generators to go around- much maintainence work was without electricity.  I'd bet even in Europe the forward fields didn't have that much juice until the field had been occupied quite a while.

US forces are quite support/tail heavy and are usually provided with ample supplies of generators, compressors and other related equipment. I would argue that it would be days, if not a week or two at most that forward airfields did not have the power sources and equipment needed for spraying paint. Logistics was really an area where US forces excelled from 1943 onwards. Not to mention that field applied aircraft camouflage schemes were not too common for US forces. Aircraft were usually camouflage painted at the factory or forward air depots. The most well known field applied schemes were in Europe with the 56th Fighter Group on their P-47s and in North Africa and some Central Pacific islands with locally applied camo to better match the local terrain when the aircraft was on the ground (locally mixed sand "pink" P-39s & P-40s, or mud camo'd A-20s) Now Axis forces on the other hand never had those luxuries...

I believe Stik (above) has it, the conditions were tough and isolated, but the real essentials were in place ASAP. Among them would be generators, compressors and tanks. Of prime importance for field ops is a generator for night lights, bench tools, compressors and even just keeping tires inflated. Solvents were regularly used for cleaning engine compartments, landing gear and hydraulic systems, keeping them clean was critical, the solvents were either brushed or sprayed on, then air blown dry.

Painting was really a requirement for low vis purposes, I'd bet the support gear needed for that was made available quite quickly if possible. Glad I didn't have to go through all of that.

some examples of Axis paint jobs. I dont know if the the "smoke ring" scheme on this Italian fighter was factory or field applied, but the green pattern is certainly sprayed

and the sand pattern over the green factory scheme on this HS 129 is certainly field applied and sprayed

Here's a picture of camo to ponder. The tail of a Me-323 Gigant, factory camouflaged in the standard splinter pattern of (I presume) RLM 70/71 over RLM 65. Obviously the 65 has a sprayed demarcation line, but the upper color scheme appear to have a very tightly feathered edge as well.. What do you think?

hi Stik,

Neat photo of the Gigant, was this burned out during the Tunisian campaign?  There seems to be strong violet hue to one of the camou colours - Grauviolet?   My guess would be then 74/75 with RLM 76 undersides.

I think you are correct that all colours were airbrushed.  It seems some parts might have been painted before assembly.  Note the trim (tab?)on the rudder end, about half way down.   The splinter just does not quite line up.  

regards,

Jack

Do appreciate the feedback here. I've been looking through a lot of photos of Axis aircraft. What I have not been able to find are examples of a very "hard" splinter camo - but it's common enough on models. Brit fighters - at least those built for European service - appear to have very crisp lines. I think their camo patterns were more standardized and everything done in factory. (Bet our naval aircraft were too - industrial technique was our specialty in WWII.)

I suppose this should encourage modellers to follow good photos. A while back I spent a good bit of time getting a very hard splinter scheme on a JU-52 (not that anyone could see it after winterization) - maybe I should have been looking for a little less precision.

This may be heresy and I don't want to speak above my humble station in the modelling world, but I've wondered for some time if a lot of fine models - especially aircraft (ships are in their own world) are too crisp and clean. Even weathering can be pretty orderly. I wonder if this isn't the style judges like at shows and the kind of example favored by the good people at FSM among magazines and big sites. (I've spent a lot of time looking at WWII aircraft from 50 feet, and I don't see crisp minor panel lines - they're quite indistinct to my eyes. The major lines, natch, are very obvious.) Armor guru Mig Jimenez wrote not long ago that there's no such thing as a "realistic" model. True no doubt. But it's still great fun to give it a try.

Eric

This has been the subject of many, many discussions.  It occurs in the model ship world too.

I think you must give some thought to what you are trying to depict. I have seen aircraft models with lots of victory symbols near the cockpit, indicating this plane has been flown a lot, yet no weathering.  That would seem strange.

All vehicles were once new, so you have a choice of depicting a new or used vehicle, but be consistant in the details.

Personally, I like a weathered model. I still maintain that during wartime there is less labor available to clean planes, armor, ships, etc. than during peacetime.  Cold war subjects are less likely to have heavy weathering and battle damage than subjects in wartime use.