RAF PRU Blue & USAAF Haze Blue

[KJ_Lesnick]

I'm pretty sure my view is overly simplistic, though I'm not sure why it is: I'm not trying to ask stupid questions or annoy anybody.  I'm just trying to learn

I'm curious why...

• Fighters that are used as fighter interceptors (almost no air-to-ground use), and escort-fighters (particularly in squadrons where they are frequently used in this role) weren't given paint-jobs like this to make them difficult to see?
  
• Bombers that were used in the high-altitude level-bomber role weren't given these paint-jobs
  

[NARSES2]

Now I don't know any actual answers to this but I would guess that -

RAF - High altitude fighters were given PR Blue undersides to help hide them when attacking from above one presumes.

USAAF - Haze Blue - from my reading it was an incredibly difficult paint to apply (I think there were 2 types and 1 was easier to apply then the other) so the small advantage gained from the camouflage and it was very effective or so I've read was outweighed by the time taken to apply and maintain it.

You also need to remember that if a camouflage scheme is truly effective your own side can't see it as well. Can you imagine the collisions that would have occurred in air to air combat.

As for USAAF bombers ? Initialy they thought they were somewhat invulnerable (as had every other airforce before them) because of their firepower in the defensive box. Once they found they weren't they needed to be able to see each other and their fighters needed to see them.

I know it sounds odd, but once in combat you need to see your friends as well as your enemies. PR work being a solitary activity was different.

[PR19_Kit]

I'd concur with the business about how difficult Haze Blue was to apply.

The USAAF 7th Photo Recce Group flew their Spitfire PRXIs from Mount Farm, 7 miles south east of Oxford, some of which were which were taken from RAF stocks and some aircraft flew the short distance from Benson, another 5 miles to the south east, and were repainted in Haze Blue for their USAAF service. But some remained in their original PRU Blue and stayed that way, subsequently the Haze Blue aircraft were repainted PRU Blue when they needed a re-hash, lots of the latter paint being available just down the road. 

My Dad flew a couple of the transfer flights to Mount Farm and they were PRXIs that had seen service with 541 Sqdn. previously.

While Mount Farm was sold by the MoD after the war you can still see faint traces if the runway and taxiway layout just to the east of the village of Berinsfield on Google Earth.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Now I don't know any actual answers to this but I would guess that -

RAF - High altitude fighters were given PR Blue undersides to help hide them when attacking from above one presumes.

Well spying from above mostly.

USAAF - Haze Blue - from my reading it was an incredibly difficult paint to apply (I think there were 2 types and 1 was easier to apply then the other) so the small advantage gained from the camouflage and it was very effective or so I've read was outweighed by the time taken to apply and maintain it.

The easier one to apply is what I was talking about.  Plus PRU blue is fine enough

You also need to remember that if a camouflage scheme is truly effective your own side can't see it as well. Can you imagine the collisions that would have occurred in air to air combat.

Yeah, I did some research and I read that the haze-blue P-38 was able to get to within 1000 feet of a B-17 before they realized it was there.  I'm not sure if they were told to be on lookout or what admittedly.

How big was a traditional fighter formation in WW2?

I know it sounds odd, but once in combat you need to see your friends as well as your enemies.

True enough: While this might be a complicated question, was the PRU Blue as hard to see?

[NARSES2]

Kendra

I really have no idea as to how effective PR Blue was. Not as effective as Haze I'm sure from what I've read but it probably was quite effective at the altitudes intended especially on a single aircraft. Aircraft climbing to intercept would have probably had a difficult job spotting but once spotted then you have it. Like anything, you can't see it until you see it - sounds daft but think about it and it's true.

This is all speculation by the way

[KJ_Lesnick]

I really have no idea as to how effective PR Blue was. Not as effective as Haze I'm sure from what I've read

That's good enough: You still believe it would be hard to use for formation flying (fighters), and worse for bombers in large combat boxes?

This is all speculation by the way

Of course

[sandiego89]

• Bombers that were used in the high-altitude level-bomber role weren't given these paint-jobs
  
  

Regarding high altitude bombers paint was extra weight.  Perhaps a few hundred pounds of it for a large bomber. Even a few hundred pounds reduces ceiling.  Altitude, range  and speed were deemed essential for late WWII and early cold war bombers especially in the USAF, so many flew in natural metal.  Some like the B-52 only got paint when they were re-tasked with lower altitude profiles. 

[KJ_Lesnick]

Regarding high altitude bombers paint was extra weight.  Perhaps a few hundred pounds of it for a large bomber. Even a few hundred pounds reduces ceiling.

Understood

Some like the B-52 only got paint when they were re-tasked with lower altitude profiles.

Uh, the B-52's were often painted white

[sandiego89]

Regarding high altitude bombers paint was extra weight.  Perhaps a few hundred pounds of it for a large bomber. Even a few hundred pounds reduces ceiling.

Understood

Some like the B-52 only got paint when they were re-tasked with lower altitude profiles.

Uh, the B-52's were often painted white

Yes I am well aware of the anti-flash white on the undersides of most early B-52s.  I was talking about overall camouflage.

[kitnut617]

Kendra

I really have no idea as to how effective PR Blue was. Not as effective as Haze I'm sure from what I've read but it probably was quite effective at the altitudes intended especially on a single aircraft. Aircraft climbing to intercept would have probably had a difficult job spotting but once spotted then you have it. Like anything, you can't see it until you see it - sounds daft but think about it and it's true.

This is all speculation by the way

There's quite a good account of how effective PRU Blue was in the book Nightfighter (about Cunningham & Rawlnsey's days during WWII). They were doing some tests with a Mosquito for interceptions of the Ju.86's that were coming across at high altitude, they were using a pair of Mosquitos painted PRU Blue and they would take turns at radar intercepting each other. Rawlnsey describes that they were at high altitude and sat right behind the other one in daylight and that even though they were about a couple of hundred yards behind it, they couldn't see it  --- it was completely blended in with the sky colour around them ----

[KJ_Lesnick]

It's ironic that in the 1940's if we could produce camo that good why we didn't carry that over into the jet age J/K

[kitnut617]

The greys of today are pretty effective, for instance -- I work at YYC, and I can get right up to the RAF's new Voyagers which frequently visit.  They are militarized A330's with a particular shade of grey for camouflage  ----

When any of the regular A330's from various airlines take off (and they have to be at a 1000 feet before they leave the airport property line [noise regulations]) I can watch them for miles as they head off in whatever direction they're heading, not so with the Voyagers -- even on a clear day they only stay visible for about half the distance. On a cloudy day they're gone within a few miles, they just blend in with the surrounding colours of the clouds ---

[sandiego89]

It's ironic that in the 1940's if we could produce camo that good why we didn't carry that over into the jet age J/K

I wonder if part of it is due to multi-mission, day/night requirments of later aircraft.  Picking a color for say a high altitude recce bird or a nightfighter is easy, picking a camoflage for a multi mission aircraft is tougher, and do you want to blend in with the sky or to the ground or sea?  What do you fear being shot down by? 

Black or dark colors work great at night and were a natural choice for some nightfighters, but are highly visible during the day at lower altitudes.     

I recall some studies for Have Blue/F-117 suggested that pastel blue (perhaps not so far from PR blue) was the optimal color to hide in the night sky.

Agree it did take same time to figure out gray was the way to go.  Effective, but boring for us modellers.     

[PR19_Kit]

The early F-15s were pale blue, but not for long.

[KJ_Lesnick]

sandiego89

I wonder if part of it is due to multi-mission, day/night requirments of later aircraft.  Picking a color for say a high altitude recce bird or a nightfighter is easy, picking a camoflage for a multi mission aircraft is tougher, and do you want to blend in with the sky or to the ground or sea?

Depends where I'm operating...

What do you fear being shot down by?

SAMs and fighter planes with advanced radars...

I recall some studies for Have Blue/F-117 suggested that pastel blue (perhaps not so far from PR blue) was the optimal color to hide in the night sky.

And it seems like it'd work close enough at high altitude in day as well.

Agree it did take same time to figure out gray was the way to go.

Why gray out of curiosity if it's not classified?