USAF Buildings Colour Scheme

02 Feb 2010 20:36 #1 by Woody78
USAF Buildings Colour Scheme was created by Woody78
Has anybody got any ideas why the USAF (70/80's era) adopted a cream and brown paint scheme on buildings adding bold brown lineage? Good examples are Building 785 at RAF Sculthorpe and the TR2 hangar at RAF Alconbury. Not all buildings on these former installations have these bold brown lines painted on them but what was the significance? Was it experimental camouflage? Any information/suggestions please.

Mark

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

02 Feb 2010 21:15 #2 by carnaby
Replied by carnaby on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme
From a document NP and I wrote:

Many of the larger buildings on USAF airfields were painted in a beige / brown colour scheme. This was christened ‘Creech Brown’ after the originator who wanted to improve morale by making facilities look more pleasing. Apparently the scheme worked well in south-west USA, but was criticised elsewhere as it did nothing for station camouflage.
(General Wilbur L Creech (1927–2003) was the commander of Tactical Air Command in the USA)


Graham

Plan A is always more effective when the problem you are working on understands that Plan B will involve the use of dynamite :twisted:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

02 Feb 2010 21:24 #3 by WJT
Replied by WJT on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme
Creech - isn't it from Creech AFB that the RAF runs it robowars? There was something on Radio 4 last night about UAVs and the impact they are having on modern warfare.

As for the cream and chocolate brown - or whatever it is called - my understanding was that the USAFE painted "non-operational" buildings in these colours to help improve the environs and morale of staff. Basically, these buildings wer off-limits to the Taceval teams. On the other hand, "operational" buildings such as HAS, ops blocks, protected avionics centres, personel shelters were toned down and painted varying shades of grot, and were good game for the Taceval teams.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

02 Feb 2010 22:20 #4 by Paul Francis
Replied by Paul Francis on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme
Paint scheme at Alconbury

In accordance with other US bases in the UK Alconbury's last comprehensive master paint scheme was carried out between 1987/88. A neutral, soft tan colour was chosen to serve as a quite backdrop to blend and complement a dark brown trim colour. Over 100 facilities were 'transformed' to eradicate their formal drab tonedown greens and browns. The new scheme was designed to highlight desired architectural styles, and to blend with existing sheeting, brick colours while allowing creativity and flexibility if changes to the structure such as extensions were to be added in the future.

You can tell a builder from an archaeologist by the size of his trowel. Mine is a small one!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

02 Feb 2010 22:33 #5 by kebecker
Replied by kebecker on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme
Have to say I preferred the drab scheme in place when I worked there, or am I imagining it, black in the case of the T2 where I sweated buckets in 76.

I always found the brown go fast stripes of the new amusing

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

03 Feb 2010 22:11 #6 by Woody78
Replied by Woody78 on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme
Thanks guys for the info. Basically then, nothing more than a tin of paint to spruce these bases up. Makes sense I guess but no doubt a costly operation?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

03 Feb 2010 23:21 #7 by Brothmark
Replied by Brothmark on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme

From a document NP and I wrote:

Graham


You are correct! And for everything outside the Southwestern USA it was a very stupid idea, particularly in Europe. When I left Alconbury in Dec 82 the buildings were mainly dark green, upon my return in 88 they had been Creeched.

8th Air Force Home Page mighty8thaf.preller.us/

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

04 Feb 2010 06:42 #8 by PETERTHEEATER
Replied by PETERTHEEATER on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme
Lets not forget the primary function of paint which is to protect the structure to which it is applied. It was probably not an expensive waste of money as much as poor aesthetic judgment.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

04 Feb 2010 11:11 #9 by carnaby
Replied by carnaby on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme

"non-operational" buildings in these colours to help improve the environs and morale of staff. ...On the other hand, "operational" buildings such as HAS, ops blocks, protected avionics centres, personel shelters were toned down.


Damn good job we didn't adopt this system in 1940. One can imagine a Luftwaffe briefing, "What you're looking for are sky-blue-pink buildings with orange polka dots - the officers' mess, and lemon and and green buildings with magenta stripes - the airmens' dining room. Drop your bombs around that area you can't fail to hit the odd camouflaged hangar'. :-D

Graham

Plan A is always more effective when the problem you are working on understands that Plan B will involve the use of dynamite :twisted:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

04 Feb 2010 15:28 #10 by kebecker
Replied by kebecker on topic USAF Buildings Colour Scheme

Damn good job we didn't adopt this system in 1940. One can imagine a Luftwaffe briefing, "What you're looking for are sky-blue-pink buildings with orange polka dots - the officers' mess, and lemon and and green buildings with maganta stripes - the airmens' dining room. Drop your bombs around that area you can't fail to hit the odd camouflaged hangar'. :-D

Graham


I may sound like a real rivet counter here but dazzle camoflage was used by the Navy at various times and I think to some extent by the Army in the western desert. And in more recent times pink has been quite an in colour for Land Rovers in some parts.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.050 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.

  
EU Cookie Directive Module Information