Fisken's Cat

[dewobz]

Alan wrote "DavidD your comment re the P40K's in Dark Green/NZ Sea Blue Grey certainly opens up to a really cool looking P 40, was planning to do an E model in that, but now a K models certainly- many thanks"
I totally agree and will put such a build on my list too.
Wally.

[Damon]

Can someone explain why the P-40K's we received and assembled in early 1943 did not have any British/RAF serials.Why would they have painted them in those colours if they are not intended to be used by the RAF?
Many of the pictures of the NZ P-40K's in the pacific have two colours on upper surfaces .Some even appear to have a mirror image of the colour scheme that was applied to the P-40E model yet some of the patterns do not even remotely conform to the standard usual two tone scheme layout.
Why was there a hand painted wavy line where the upper surfaces were painted and the pale blue underside. I cant find where this is used on other (non RNZAF) P-40K aircraft. The side image of P-40K NZ3060 appears to have the colours in reverse.The light colours where the green should be.And vice versa.

[alanw]

Feb 25, 2013 18:16:30 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

Having said all that, how do you account for the photographic evidence that Kerry and Pete presented that allegedly shows camouflage line demarkation on NZ3072?

Hi Dave

NZ3072 in looking at other photos Pete has on his site, especially the close up with Geoff standing next to his aircraft, the paint scheme has the appearance of Olive Drab/Neutral Grey, note straight demarcation as opposed to wavy as on NZ3060.
If the paint scheme as applied to the E's and K's, was used on the M's, the lower colour should be lighter.

One thing that has to be taken into account, is that the Medium Green applied (especially along spine and Vertical Stabillizer) can be mistaken for camouflage in black and white photos.
The first type of Olive Drab used with USAAF Spec 24114, also faded badly, and can make the medium green stand out more.
Continuing with the Olive Drab, any new paint applied next to faded paint, will also stand out, add medium Green patches, and it all becomes very confusing

The one issue with Black and white photos, and colour picking is that it can be really hard (depending on type of film used also) at times to define (depnding on quality of film too) camouflage. Sunlight making paint appear lighter, or cloud shadow creating a darker apearing colour does not help either.

I wonder if the RNZAF Museum has the M&E manuals, giving the paint colours for the M models?
I received from Nathan at the Museum, the US Dupont colours/numbers for the E Models received in April 1942.

Regards

Alan

[davidd]

This is the second attempt at typing up this message - my first attempt vanished seconds before I actually hit "send" after typing solidly for about ten minutes.

Firstly, I do not believe that consulting American manuals (TO's) for information on the colours applied to aircraft in New Zealand will be a very profitable exercise, although it is nice to know how they looked when they arrived here.

My belief in the previously unsuspected scheme applied to our P-40Ks (probably every last one of them too from what I have seen, but none of the P-40Ms sent overseas), is founded on thin documentary evidence, but it is worth looking at. I was always curious about those 21 P-40Ks with the disruptive scheme and the fancy wavy demarcation between upper and lower surface colours, unlike any others in the RNZAF. The thing that made me really curious, though, was the different degree of finish of the two upper surface colours - one was semi-gloss, the other was quite matt. Board members may have seen some of the very sharp official photographs taken of one of these P-40Ks in New Zealand prior to departure for the Pacific, as well as some of the photos taken at Norfolk Island. Now that is strange, and when I came across the information about the introduction of the blue grey paint (Stores Ref. 33B/N118) in March 1943, I began to speculate.

To review the ADO mentioned above, this introduced the new paint to the stores personnel of the RNZAF (I doubt that anybody else was interested at the time!). The intended purpose of this paint was very specific: replacement of the dark earth colour in the upper surface disruptive camouflage of Hudson and Kittyhawks aircraft, presumably a more suitable combination for use in the forward area as well as in New Zealand. However it should not be taken that all such RNZAF aircraft of these types were rapidly painted to conform to the new scheme, although many were. This paint was later used on Ansons at New Plymouth for the same reason, as this school also had three Hudsons. Conversely some Hudsons were repainted in Fiji in a "solid" upper surface scheme of US Navy Blue grey paint, as used on PBY-5 Catalinas. Also some Hudsons in New Zealand remained in the dark earth/dark green colours, including NZ2080 which I have studied myself (the nose of this aircraft survived until the 1980s at least, and had been used at Wigram by the E&W School as an instructional airframe from about the end of WW2.) Anyway, this bit of solid evidence opened up some possibilities. But to arrive at a more credible answer, more evidence was needed, but did it even exist?

A memorandum dated 13th July 1943 penned by one Squadron Leader G T Giles at No. 1 (Islands) Group at Espiritu Santo, to Air Department in Wellington had this to say. Context was an ongoing discussion about the colour schemes and special markings carried by our Kittyhawks in the forward area, and problems with same. I will repeat his final paragraph:

"A photograph and negative of the markings is also included as these aircraft are sometimes sent straight up to the forward area and the conditions are not always favourable to carry out doping immediately. It is requested that this modification, including the application of American Blue Grey dope be carried out before despatch to this area."

So there it is. What does the Jury make of this? I hasten to add that I believe Giles is somewhat in error calling this an "American" paint, although he was probably thinking of the colour itself rather than the nationality of the manufacturer, and the colour no doubt reminded him of the colours used on US Navy aircraft which he would be seeing every day. And his plea for Air Department to paint this colour on future P-40s sent north fell on deaf ears too, as all the following P-40Ms were flown up in the plain OD and neutral grey colours (with some of that medium green blotching!) However this would seem to be a result of a change in policy, which I am guessing had already taken place by this time, that is to say, that the great task of adding this paint to every Kittyhawk heading north was really just a complete waste of time and material. If the Americans were perfectly happy to operate all their Army aircraft in the theatre in the standard factory colours, then why not us? It was already apparent that it did not pay to paint your aircraft differently to the Americans - there were several instances of our P-40s being mistaken for Japanese aircraft, including F/O I R McKenzie in May 1943, and this continued with another of our P-40s being shot up by a US Navy F4U in November (and a US destroyer, as well as the Japanese!), and one of our Venturas (pilot F/O G S A Stevenson) was shot up by F6Fs at about the same time in this area. There was also talk that we should abandon distinctive national markings altogether at this time, as had the FAA when it operated F4Fs and TBFs (or was that SBDs?) from HMS VICTORIOUS in the Solomons campaign in full American markings to avoid any nasty incidents. We also took to ferrying our new PV-1s along the ferry route from Hawaii to Whenuapai wearing their original US "stars and bars", as they were occasionally challenged by US Navy fighters, even in backwater areas. So all future aircraft used by the RNZAF in the Pacific theatre (all areas) tended to operate in more-or-less US Navy schemes (or USAAF schemes in case of P-40s, C-47s, and C-60s). There were repaints of course, but with the removal of our Hudsons from Guadalcanal in October 1943, and from Espiritu Santo in January 1944 (apart from transport versions) there remained no RNZAF aircraft with disruptive colour schemes on active duty under American command. This tidy state of affairs was disturbed by the arrival of the four Sunderland transports in NZ in December 1944 which operated as transports up to New Caledonia, Espiritu Santo and Fiji for the rest of the war in RAF camouflage. Although the RNZAF had already decided that transport aircraft should operate in bare metal or silver finish in future, this was easier said than done. Four large Sunderlands plus the existing C-47, C-60 and C-63 fleet would require a major effort to strip them all down to bare metal, and nearly 50 additional C-47s were scheduled for delivery through 1945, and for reasons unknown these continued to leave the American factories in the standard OD and neutral gray scheme despite all efforts to stop this madness. All US Army combat types had been leaving the factory in bare metal since early 1944, except for some tactical transports.

David D

[trx850]

Hi to all. David, your comments regarding the use of a blue/grey over the dark earth reinforce my own thoughts exactly on the strange schemes on these 'K's.

As more food for thought, here are the batches of 'K's from Joe Baugers USAAF Serials site:

P-40K-10

Before:

10099/10101 to Brazil

10102/10108 to USSR

10109/10111 to Britain

10112/10118 to USSR

10119 to Brazil

10120 surveyed Rice AAF, CA Mar 30, 1944

10121 surveyed Key AAF Mar 19, 1944

10122/10128 to USSR

10129 wrecked in landing accident at Orlando AAB Jan 9, 1943

10130 surveyed Sep 14, 1943 Salinas AAB

10131/10149 to USSR

10150 diverted from USSR to AAF Jan 11, 1944. To TP-40K Aug 2, 1944,

to RFC Ontario Mar 10, 1945

10151/10152 to USSR


RNZAF batch:

10153 to New Zealand as NZ3045.

10154 to New Zealand as NZ3046.

10155 to New Zealand as NZ3047.

10156 to New Zealand as NZ3048.

10157 to New Zealand as NZ3049.

10158/10160 to USSR

10162 to New Zealand as NZ3050.

10163 to New Zealand as NZ3051.

10164 to New Zealand as NZ3052.

10165 to New Zealand as NZ3053.

10166 to New Zealand as NZ3054.



P-40K-15

10317 to New Zealand as NZ3055.

10318 to New Zealand as NZ3056.

10319 to New Zealand as NZ3057.

10320 to New Zealand as NZ3090. Was To have been shipped with the aircraft that became NZ3045/3065, but had to be sent with
a later shipment.

10321 to New Zealand as NZ3058.

10322 to New Zealand as NZ3059.

10323 to New Zealand as NZ3060.

10324 to New Zealand as NZ3061

10325 to New Zealand as NZ3062.

10326 to New Zealand as NZ3063

10327 to New Zealand as NZ3064

10328 to New Zealand as NZ3065



After these –

10329 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR472. SOC May 31, 1944

10330 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR473. SOC Mar 29, 1945

10331 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR474. SOC Mar 29, 1945

10332 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR475. SOC Mar 8, 1944

10333 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR476. SOC Feb 22, 1945

10334 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR477. Crashed after being abandoned off Hammamet Apr 23, 1943 when engine lost power.

10335 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR478. SOC Mar 8, 1944

10336 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR479. SOC Mar 29, 1945

10337 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR480. SOC Mar 8, 1944

10338 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR481. SOC Mar 8, 1944

10339 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR482. Crashed near Salerno Sep 10, 1943 after pilot bailed out after engine failed.

10340 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR483. SOC Feb 22, 1945

10341 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR484. SOC May 31, 1944

10342 to RAF as Kittyhawk III FR485. Hit barrel while taxying at Berka Jun 28, 1943, presumably SOC.

Now we need to know what colour those sent to the USSR were!

The last batch obviously went to the Middle East and to Italy, and presumably would have been in the 'desert' scheme ....

Cheers,
Pete M.

[davidd]

Damon,
This does not really answer your underlying question, but the basic reason that our P-40Ks, Ms and Ns did not have RAF serials is that they were specifically allocated to the NZ government by the Munitions Assignment Committee in Washington and were merely diversions from normal USAAF contracts, and would thus be delivered in the normal factory colour scheme. However, in the case of our P-40Es-1s (including those second-hand aircraft taken over in Tonga) these were specifically built to meet RAF Lend-Lease contracts and were finished in appropriate markings and colours. Thus these appeared in quite different schemes to those aircraft delivered under the later conditions and arrangements. However the supply of US-built aircraft in WW2 could be fraught with all sorts of complications and unexpected results.

For instance our allocated A-24s (120 in all) were very late in coming forward to equip our new dive bomber squadrons, so the local (that is US Navy) theatre commander, under whose control they would eventually operate, arranged for the loan of some well-used (read obsolescent) SBD-3s and -4s as in interim measure so that these squadrons would be available to his subordinate commanders more-or-less on time. A major change of policy (in mid-January 1944) saw all the A-24s cancelled anyway, along with all but one of the squadrons that were to operate them. However the original SBDs continued to operate in NZ for some time in US Navy/Marine markings and serials, and further (later) models were issued on loan at Espiritu Santo for the remaining squadron so that it could complete its one and only operational tour. These aircraft all were painted up with NZ insignia and serial numbers, and their maintenance and recod keeping was the responsibility of the RNZAF, but thye were all still fully owne dby the US givernment, as indeed were all Lend-Lease aircraft. Everything else was held in abeyance until the war was over.

Some of the shipments if TBFs allocated to NZ were found on arrival at Hobsonville to be wearing British type markings ("C" type roundels, etc) when they were unboxed, and several of our earlier PBY-5 Catalinas proved on delivery to be wearling RAF serial numbers, being diversions from some of the British Lend-Lease allocations. Also the last three Catalinas deleiverd under these allocations were found to be somewhat "used" examples. You are probably also aware that the USAAF (and US Navy in some cases) reclaimed considerable numbers of aircraft built to RAF specifications under Lend Lease (and finished in RAF/FAA schemes and serial numbers), and issued them to their own units (including those P-40Es which ended up in Tonga), while others were shipped off to Soviet Russia, or other Allies to meet "urgent operational requirements". The latter included considerable numbers of B-34s (Ventura IIAs, which were falling from favour in the RAF), and after updating, ended up serving in the RAAF and RNZAF in the SWPA and SPOA.
Because so many American-built aircraft were to be delived to the RAF or FAA, which had to operate under British conditions at the end of their own supply lines, or operate from British carriers in case of FAA, were frequently quite extensively modified, either on receipt in the UK or more commonly (later) were post-production modifed by special modification centres in the USA. However many of the later aircraft for the RAF were delivered more-or-less fully equipped with standard US military equipment fit simply because British industry was already overstretched in fitting out its home-produced aircraft, and the RAF got very used to operating US-manufactured radio, radar and armament equipment.
David D

[davidd]

As an addendum to my post (reply #43) it should be noted that when Giles wrote his note to Wellington in mid-July 1943 he had just seen the first (and probably the second) reinforcement group of six P-40Ms which arrived at E/Santo (first six ex NZ 29/6/43, pilots from 17 Sqdn, 18 Sqdn and one from 2 OTU, duly sent to Guadalcanal on 9/7) he must have noted that they were all in the OD and neutral gray factory colours, the same in fact as the few earlier P-40Ms. Presumably fearing he would be made responsible for painting these up in the official new colours he must have presumed that this work could be carried out more easily in NZ before departure (as had been the case with the P-40Ks) so tried to catch the second and third reinforcing groups of P-40Ms which he must have known were either about to depart or were due later in the month. In fact the second group of six departed NZ on 7/7 (flown by 16 Sqdn pilots) and arrived at E/Santo on 11/7. The third group departed NZ on 13/7 (with 15 Sqdn pilot), arrived Santo 18/7. As mentioned, his message to Wellington apparently fell on deaf ears, and no more was heard of this colour scheme being required in the forward area. However the photo he sent to NZ showed the P-40Ms with the diagonal stripes, etc, which were probably painted on by Giles' staff at E/Santo, to show the staff officers in Wellington what they looked like. I had always imagined that these stripes were always applied in NZ prior to departure, but this was probably not true for the first ones so painted, as this was a new American operational theatre requirement designed to save lives. However the blue-grey colour in disruptive pattern was not required by the Americans. This would be the only reason for Giles to send the photos to Wellington, to show the diagonal stripes, etc, and to complain about the difficullties of changing the general camouflage scheme of the P-40Ms - the arrival of three goups of six of these aircraft must have seemed like a minor nightmare to an engineer officer when he had more important things to supervise.
David D
David D

[noooby]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if I should jump in here or not as I don't have any photographic evidence to support one theory on camo colours over the other.

When I sat down with Geoff one day in 1998 to ask him questions about his career, he did show me a few photos of 3072.

He apologised for the lack of photos as many had not been returned to him and he was at that point not lending photos to anybody anymore.

We talked about Buffaloes in Singapore and 3072, but I'm afraid we didn't talk about any other P-40's he flew. At that time I was unaware of the kills in 3060 (?). Opportunity lost I'm afraid.

The white outline to the cat is not apparent in all photos, as it was only chalk, it was never paint. Only the words were paint. the chalk was added for some photos so that the cat would stand out better against the paint.

Speaking of which, Geoff did say that 3072 was a hodge podge of many different shades of Olive Drab. One day he even noticed that the whole tailplane had been replaced due to holes in the old one!

Parts were often robbed from aircraft on heavy maintenance to service those still fighting. With the propensity of the Olive Drab to fade, this led to some very sorry looking aircraft!

I do not know about the underside I'm afraid, only the blotchy top side.

I very much enjoyed talking to Geoff. amazing what can happen when you look through the phone book and call someone on the telephone asking to come speak to them.

They tell you to call in next time you're in Rotorua and have a cup of tea

A pleasure to talk to. Very quiet. Loved his children, missed his wife, and still did not like how he was treated by the Air Force over his discharge (he maintained he was still fit to serve, but had P@#$%^&ed off a few too many people higher up!

So Olive Drab is pretty much correct. Blotchy as all hell probably. White around the cat or not? Depends on the day. White strip on the aileron or not? Again, depends on the day. The day after that photo was taken with that replacement aileron, it could very well have had the white stripe added. Who knows. They are probably all correct for one day in the history of NZ3072.

Cheers
Graham (now living in Canada)

[dewobz]

Excellent input Graham. Thanks very much.
Wally.

[sputnik767]

Love the posting Graham.
Very similar experience to, picked up the phone book and got talking.
Next trip to Rotorua I visited with my family and absolutely love children as my daughter left with a packet of Barley sugars and a packet of biscuits.
He said the same about people 'borrowing' photo's etc for research but not returning them.
I still look back at the 2 pics I have of him and can think of many more questions I would love to have asked but time waits for no man....

[Dave Homewood]

Yes, when I visited him he was a very hospitable and welcoming chap. he clearly had a deep interest in all things aviation, his DVD shelf had almost all the same war films that I have and a few more. He was an enthusiast like us from a kid, learning to fly in his home town of Gisborne when he was 14.

Geoff actually had hoped to attend our 2011 Forum Meet when we had the veterans with us, but shortly before the event he had to cancel due to being unwell. I am sure he'd have enjoyed that though.