Tiger Force

[The Wooksta!]

Possibly because the Japanese ones were normal size, so if ours were smaller, then there's even less likelihood of being shot at by our own side.

[kitnut617]

I think the reason you'll only find photos of Tiger Force Lancs like in Logan' pic is because they were deployed after the war ended.  My Dad who served in 617 Sqn. told me they got as far as India before the de-mob started but went out in about October 1945

[Logan Hartke]

I got my info from Tony O'Toole, who I know does a fair bit of research, so I'd say it was on the level.  I did a Tiger Force Lanc some years back.  Looked good in SEAC markings.

Any pics of the Lancaster?

I think the reason you'll only find photos of Tiger Force Lancs like in Logan' pic is because they were deployed after the war ended.  My Dad who served in 617 Sqn. told me they got as far as India before the de-mob started but went out in about October 1945

Very neat, kitnut.  I assumed as much about the markings, which is why I asked the question.  Do you where they were headed?  Iwo Jima, Okinawa, India, or other?

Cheers,

Logan

[sequoiaranger]

I suppose it is in the realm of conjecture rather than fact, since Tiger Force was not deployed during the war, but unless someone can PROVE that markings would be different, I would have to say that *ANY* Allied aircraft in the Far East would follow American protocol for markings. I would think commonality would be critical.

That is, Royal Blue circular field with white "wing bars" outlined in Royal Blue, and EITHER an American white star in the middle of the circular blue field, or a white disc for Commonwealth aircraft. New Zealand's distinctive light-blue "bulls-eye" was a BACKWATER marking (no New Zealand forces anywhere near the "front lines") and could thus "afford" to be more individualistic.

I suppose, as American planes did later in the war, on dark-camouflaged aircraft one could delete the blue entirely and just use white---in the Commonwealth's case that would be just the white wing bars and a white disc. Especially if one is making a Tiger Force night aircraft, "merely white" would be a distinctive marking. Maybe even "merely light-gray" to reduce contrast.

[kitnut617]

I think the reason you'll only find photos of Tiger Force Lancs like in Logan' pic is because they were deployed after the war ended.  My Dad who served in 617 Sqn. told me they got as far as India before the de-mob started but went out in about October 1945

Very neat, kitnut.  I assumed as much about the markings, which is why I asked the question.  Do you where they were headed?  Iwo Jima, Okinawa, India, or other?

Cheers,

Logan

My Dad said he was at Digri when he was sent home, but they didn't go there because of the war, it was to oversee the Indian Independance.  The Lanc in your pic is a No.9 Sqn one I think.  I've got a book on 617 Sqn. and there's a note in it saying that all aircraft assigned to Tiger Force were painted white over black.  I don't know if that was just bombers although there's some photos of Beaufighters and Brigands in the same scheme.

[Taiidantomcat]

I honestly thought that since the Tigers would (Probably   ) be bombing at night and it wouldn't matter. As I think about this more though, I think modified roundels would be a must. Blue on Blue at the very least and maybe bars as well. see below

Possibly because the Japanese ones were normal size, so if ours were smaller, then there's even less likelihood of being shot at by our own side.

I agree with this completely. Although distance is hard to tell-- is it a small roundel or just a big Japanese plane? are the japanese shrinking their roundels to help avoid detection? The smaller SEAC blue on blue is much safer and will confirm the machines identity upon closer inspection. 

In General, I just think you don't want "meatballs" on your aircraft period. no matter the size, it would just seem fool hardy to have your opponents symbol surrounded by a blue circle that may or may not be seen in area swarming with aircraft that want to kill anything Japanese. Pilots and AA crews (on ship and onshore) have various levels of experience and I know it would seem really dumb in retrospect to confuse a Lanc for a Japanese plane but crazier friendly fire incidents have happened and not just with something as simple as roundels, whole aircraft have been mistaken. F-8s were often confused for MiG-21s in Vietnam. In Iraq in the 90s US F-15s shot down two Blackhawks they confused for Hind-Ds...after "visual confirmation."

I personally wouldn't bet my life on my blue and red roundels. After all they created those blue on blue roundels for a reason in the first place right?

I am also pretty sure that eyes at a distance see shape before they see color. In other words a pilot would close in seeing the roundel and recognize it as a circle but would have to get closer to tell the color. You are then hoping he sees the blue along with the red, because if he sees just red, bad things are coming.

PS Welcome back Wooksta!  

[kitbasher]

Leading on from an earlier posting of mine on this thread, as seems to have been the style used by at least some British Pacific Fleet a/c I'd suggest a/c would be delivered to somewhere like India in regular European red/white/blue roundels - fuselage with the outer yellow ring - the red overpainted in white and white bars added (outlined in blue perhaps against light backgrounds, eg Tiger Force bomber upper surfaces.  
I guess the suggestion of white stars isn't as outlandish as it may initially seem, consider the Op Torch marking used by the Brits.
It would be fascinating to see conclusive proof as tp what the markings were planned to be - I guess now Model Aaircraft Monthly has decided to plough its current burrow the likeliest vehicle for an article based on actual records is possibly lost.  

[The Wooksta!]

Op. Torch markings had stars on British aircraft so the treacherous Vichy collaborators would think they were American (which they weren't at war with) and would be less likely to fire.

[NARSES2]

Some interesting and very logical comments in this thread, thanks chaps, some will find there way onto models soon. After I finish my current 3 projects (in the paint shop) then I'll be increasing my RAF SEAC forces and starting on my RAF/FAA Operation Downfall types. The Downfall types will be both 1946 for Telford and 1948/49 for my own scenario 

In General, I just think you don't want "meatballs" on your aircraft period. no matter the size, it would just seem fool hardy to have your opponents symbol surrounded by a blue circle that may or may not be seen in area swarming with aircraft that want to kill anything Japanese. Pilots and AA crews (on ship and onshore) have various levels of experience

My Dad's experience as a RN AAA gunner in all theatres was basically "in an attack if an aircraft came into the "arc of fire" then it got shot at period". This was based on the RN's experience in the first few years of the war when any aircraft was almost certainly German or Italian. If it was FAA then it knew not to follow it's target into the AAA belt (although many pilots did) and accepted the consequences of that action. When he reached the Indian Ocean/Pacific quite early on in that conflict they simply applied the same rules for the same reasons. He said that they were still doing this right up until the end of the war and quite happily admited that his aircraft recognition skills were virtually non existence and that the compulsory lessons in the subject were only just preferable to painting the ship  He was on Illustrious by this time by the way. When I asked him about markings he simply said "at the range and speeds involved you just couldn't see them even if you had the time to look". He also said that the background at sea, usualy a very light grey sky made this recognition especially difficult.

He did say that bold tactical markings like D-Day stripes and the SEAC white bands were quite helpfull. Although as far as SEAC stripes were concerned from a AAA gunners point of view they probably helped you recognise the target  after you'd hit the trigger, but this did mean you'd stop firing !

All the above probably only refers to ground to air fire at fairly low levels, Dad was on pom-pom's, 20mm and 40mm and the air to air scenario is something different altogether.

[SPINNERS]

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Tiger Force B-52K's. I think I prefer the three-colour markings.

[GTX]

Some hypothetical schemes recently published in Flightpath magazine (apologies for the poor scan quality - might be time to look into a new scanner):



My favourite is the third from the top - bare metal belly and light blues(?) camo and the bottom - green/brown top with bare metal.

Regards,

Greg

[PR19_Kit]

My favourite is the third from the top - bare metal belly and light blues(?) camo and the bottom - green/brown top with bare metal.

I'm with you there Greg, the Lincoln 'bay window' mose grafted on gives it that something extra. But don't the saddle-tank versions look just plain UGLY? 

[The Wooksta!]

They would never have been used - the crews HATED them and they flew like bricks.

[GTX]

They would never have been used - the crews HATED them and they flew like bricks.

Never is a strong word - wartime conditions can weaken it.

[The Wooksta!]

The Lincolns ARE Lincolns, not Lancs.  The drawings have been scaled down to fit.  Boo!