Pacific 1946

[Librarian]

Was wondering about a Pacific/SEA/Burma whiff with the RAF. I noticed that many RAF aircraft were losing camo colours by the end of the war (USAAF NM, USN Sea Blue, Japanese either/or) but was this trend with the RAF due to air superiority over and beyond their bases? If the Japanese were still strong in '46 would the RAF have maintained full camo colours?

Got this idea of combat between a Hornet and a Ki-83.

[Old Wombat]

With the Allies it was mostly due to nearly complete air superiority.

With the Japanese, either they were trying to get a few more mph out of the planes or they were suffering shortages of suitable paints (which were never that great to begin with).


Oops! Forgot!


Given a more evenly contested air-space I'd say;

Allies, I'm pretty sure yes.

Japanese, would depend on their paint supplies.

[jcf]

With the Allies it was mostly due to nearly complete air superiority.

With the Japanese, either they were trying to get a few more mph out of the planes or they were suffering shortages of suitable paints (which were never that great to begin with).


Oops! Forgot!


Given a more evenly contested air-space I'd say;

Allies, I'm pretty sure yes.

Japanese, would depend on their paint supplies.

In terms of chemistry and quality Japanese paints were on par with those of the Allies, and
some of their phenolic lacquers were actually superior in terms of adhesion and durability.
Not surprising as the Japanese were centuries old masters of using traditonal plant based lacquers
on metal, and they continued that capability with the synthetic lacquers developed in the first
few decades of the 20th century.

The IJAAF and IJNAF had different requirements and standards, and the IJNAF had different standards for
ship-based versus land-based aircraft. As Guy states, as the war wore on supplies became erratic and
as camouflage became necessary it was often applied directly over bare metal or existing paint without
any priming etc. This is particularly true of the IJAAF. The other factor is maintenance, they had neither
the time nor materiel to maintain paint jobs in the manner that was standard on the Allied side.

Ki-83 would probably be in typical later IJAAF colours, bare-metal underside and a dark green topside, or perhaps
one of the brown shades used on some Ki-84, Ki-100 etc. Also unless the aircraft had been in service for a
few months, the paintjob would probably look fairly clean with limited chipping etc. By the end days what new
aircraft did make it into the field generally didn't survive long enough for the paint to get screwed up. 

Hornet I could see in aluminum lacquer underside and a single middle green topside.

Basically the two would probably look pretty much alike. 

So big yellow IFF stripes on the Ki-83 and perhaps some sort of ID stripes on the Hornet ala the RAF Thunderbolts.

[Librarian]

Hornet I could see in aluminum lacquer underside and a single middle green topside.

Basically the two would probably look pretty much alike. 

Fantastic info...many thanks. Is there any basis for the single middle green topside. I'd like to use the earlier green/brown scheme if possible.

[The Wooksta!]

RAF and FAA would stay with camo, as painted in factory.  Anything delivered from US lease-lend would be left in US colours.

DH Hornet would have been overall Aluminium Dope, the same as the Mosquitos operating in the far east at that time.

RAF ID stripes are White over anything camo with Roundel Blue stripes over anything in Aluminium Dope.

Any RAF (Tiger Force) aircraft operating from Iwo Jima were to have had the Bristish Pacific Fleet style markings.  Everything else would have retained the SEAC roundels.