Modeling Airfield Camouflage

A couple of converts . . .
First example is the Airfix kit with the bottom section cut back to the balconey and then a nother section added in a similar vein as Tibbenham (?) if i remember.

Second is a case of joining TWO Airfix kits together and adding rooms each end . .

[IMG]/community/64344=3660-Airfix Extn. 005.jpg[/img]

[IMG]/community/64344=3659-Twin towers 034aa.jpg[/img]

norwichpaul;64346 wrote:

Abel, your modelling skills are quite remarkable, I wish mine were anything like yours but sadly not. However, you seriously need to think again about the camouflage schemes as I fear this is incorrect.

NorwichPaul

I would be interested in your intepretation of the camouflage scheme dated around 1943/44.??

I remember at places like Swinderby, Binbrook and Manby that the early colour patterns on there were dark earth and black and were still evident into the 70's.

I have seen early schemes at such places like Goxhill where most buildings were in two colours whereas the hangars three, possibly four.

Aerial photos i have often show a disruptive pattern merely over buildings and this i take to be the camouflage undertaken on the majority of sites

I know you have scheme of direct camouflage of RAF buildings into houses and barns etc but i dont think this applies to bomber stations.

Having looked thro numerous books, such disruptive pattern show to be the more common.

As to colour, well en-masse i think you have to imagine earthy colours rather than local at each site(s)

Any pointers would be appreciated ....

(Mod: Feel free to move to a more appropriate topic site if needed rather than 'spoil' the original discusion).

Interesting discussion, were many towers actually camoflaged? It seems hard to find pictures of them in anything but a dull, or cement render finish?
Buildings that I have seen with original camo on seem to have gentle hues and be very washed out in effect, ie not stark disruptive camo (like aircraft and vehicles) or is this an effect of age?

I would certainly agree that most late builds CT's were not camouflaged.

If you look thro 'Bases of Bomber Command' then you will see examples of early CT camouflaged, Binbrook comes to mind as welll as camouflaged hangars at Hemswell, Swanton etc

However, the aerials i have show that buildings were camouflaged early on and i also believe that as the war progressed the need for camouflage declined to such that a lot of buildings were either left in their natural cement render finnish or one colour although Nissen were painted to 'hide' the natural metal.

Are you suggesting then that the majority of buildings were finnished in Earth and black ?? this seems to be the colours i could run with . . .

I also believe that with the passing of the war-years that it did fade and was not renewed and if it is the case that photographs became more available of the later wartime period images, did/do show faded patterns.

I really would like to resolve this before i place my buildings permanantly on the diorama boards

I entirely agree with the need to conceal Expansion period sites for the very reasons you describe. . .

Likewise 'duration only' site were dispersed more so.

I am talking here about Grimsby (Watham) whose technical area was not widely dispersed and the aerials i have from English Heritage NMR dated 1941/42 does show overall camouflage on buildings. Even the photo of the Waltham Tech site (Sid Finn - Lincolnshire Air War) you can see camouflage existing on the buildings; 1943.

The point really Norwichpaul is .. . . what colours would you suggest ???