Unglued Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 What was the reasoning for the SEA camo used on many of the USAF aircraft in Vietnam? I have a couple of theories, but haven't found much to support them. Someone, somewhere must have had a good reason or reasons. Anyone? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kurt H. Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 My understanding is that when viewed from above the 3 color camouflage blends in with the color of the terrain in South East Asia, lush green jungle and the tan was the color of the soil. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
airmechaja Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 And the light grey undercarriage blended from underneath even though the J-79 engines smoked like smudge pots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 I always found photos like this interesting: You can see how easy the ADC grey F-4's standout compared to the SEA camouflaged Phantom. Happy modeling all! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Unglued Posted November 9, 2019 Author Share Posted November 9, 2019 Thanks for the comments and photos, guys. To me, this is an interesting subject. Camouflaging aircraft goes back to WW-I, so I know I'm not the first one to be curious about it. I can see the advantage of the SEA camo scheme on aircraft that would be in an area where attack from above was a possibility, but what about the B-52s and other high flyers? In SE Asia, weren't they usually "seen" from below by radar? A SAM site's radar wouldn't know or care what color a B-52 was. Was there a period of time on their missions when the SEA camo made them less vulnerable? Here's another question: Why did the B-52s get the SEA paint job while the KC-135s went without? Painting aircraft differently to avoid misidentification is yet another factor, but I don't think this factor applied to the BUFFs or Stratotankers in SE Asia. Or did it? Another reason supporting the SEA scheme might've been the possibility of attack by enemy aircraft while on the ground. Quarterbacking after the game, the odds were against that, but it might've seemed like a possibility at the time. I haven't found anything that would support this idea. Having airbrushed 30-some aircraft in the SEA camo scheme, I've wondered more than once if we got our money's worth on all those SEA-scheme paint jobs on the real things. I'm still wondering. How many aircraft were lost in the Vietnam War because they weren't wearing the right camouflage? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 KC-135's and other refueling tankers were kept away from the combat area, orbiting out of the range of enemy fighters or at least in areas where any enemy aircraft could be intercepted before they reached the unarmed tankers areas of operation. So there was no reason to camouflage them. BUFF's originally kept their aluminum over anti-flash white scheme. But this proved to be pretty visible. Initially the white was removed and replaced with black (on 'F's') so they were harder to see from below, especially at night. The B-52D, which was the most numerous variant of the B-52 used in Vietnam was given the complete underside black (for night ops) under the SEA greens and brown for daytime ops. As you can see the SEA camouflage was still effective on the 52's when viewed from above. Happy modeling! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Unglued Posted November 9, 2019 Author Share Posted November 9, 2019 Great photos and explanations, Don. Thank you! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vince Maddux Posted November 9, 2019 Share Posted November 9, 2019 Did anyone notice the refueling doors open in the second B-52 photo? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 On 11/8/2019 at 11:52 PM, Unglued said: What was the reasoning for the SEA camo used on many of the USAF aircraft in Vietnam? I have a couple of theories, but haven't found much to support them. Someone, somewhere must have had a good reason or reasons. Anyone? NVA liked to work the valleys, and often followed streams and rivers. Where as we worked above them, often dropping in ontop of them. Yet the NVA like everybody else setup their aniti aircraft on high ground looking down and across. Did the camo make a lot of difference? I doubt it, but it did make some folks feel better. When an air strike occurred in the west, it usually took you thru a valley or two. The lower you got the better your chances. Opposite to the above was the Navy who flew gull grey aircraft. All my strikes but a handful were Marine flown. I saw no aid in camo! Yet the Army flew OV1's all they way into Laos. The ones I saw were a very faded O.D. green. All FAC's up north were grey, and it seemed to work OK for them (yes a FAC did get very low at times to see how much more the other guy needed). I figure some general had a bunch of stock in Dupont! Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChesshireCat Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 On 11/9/2019 at 9:30 AM, Don said: I always found photos like this interesting: You can see how easy the ADC grey F-4's standout compared to the SEA camouflaged Phantom. Happy modeling all! Those are late period photos! The F100 could fly very deep in the valleys and appear out of nowhere in the plains. Never saw an OV10, but we heard about them. OV1's were all we saw out west with O1's and , O2's guiding strikes. Often wondered if it was a range thing. In the photo, you learn to follow the river just like the yellow brick road, as it'll bring you Joy. Glt Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted November 11, 2019 Share Posted November 11, 2019 On 11/9/2019 at 8:48 AM, Unglued said: Thanks for the comments and photos, guys. To me, this is an interesting subject. Camouflaging aircraft goes back to WW-I, so I know I'm not the first one to be curious about it. I can see the advantage of the SEA camo scheme on aircraft that would be in an area where attack from above was a possibility, but what about the B-52s and other high flyers? In SE Asia, weren't they usually "seen" from below by radar? A SAM site's radar wouldn't know or care what color a B-52 was. Was there a period of time on their missions when the SEA camo made them less vulnerable? Here's another question: Why did the B-52s get the SEA paint job while the KC-135s went without? Painting aircraft differently to avoid misidentification is yet another factor, but I don't think this factor applied to the BUFFs or Stratotankers in SE Asia. Or did it? Another reason supporting the SEA scheme might've been the possibility of attack by enemy aircraft while on the ground. Quarterbacking after the game, the odds were against that, but it might've seemed like a possibility at the time. I haven't found anything that would support this idea. Having airbrushed 30-some aircraft in the SEA camo scheme, I've wondered more than once if we got our money's worth on all those SEA-scheme paint jobs on the real things. I'm still wondering. How many aircraft were lost in the Vietnam War because they weren't wearing the right camouflage? with Camoflauge you never can tell because you can't ask if anyone didn't see anything. following the war you'll notice a lot of transports and other big wing airplane also got camoflauge compared to the big white MAC scheme. A lot of that was evaluation from the very new at the time Red Flag exercises. just like nature if youre not a predator you'd better be able to hide from them. Paint may seemingly make no difference, but its one of the few defenses some attack aircraft have, and its not fool proof but it hopefully makes life just hard enough or distracting or confusing or disorienting (false canopy meme thread!) to the "predator" for the "prey" to escape. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikar Posted November 14, 2019 Share Posted November 14, 2019 Something you didn't see very often: Then there's this, a grey AC-130, while the others were either cammo top over black or all black. Just because I like the B.U.F.F.: WE had a lot of them and eventua;;y gpt spme "G" models in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whiskey Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 It's post-Vietnam, but the photo is of an F-4 Phantom in SEA camo and I believe it truly illustrates the intended purpose of it. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/viewtopic.php?p=2686815#p2686815 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
airmechaja Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) That's a perfect pic to show the point. Good job Whiskey! Edited November 15, 2019 by airmechaja Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Not SEA nor USAF but I've always thought this pic also helped illustrate the effectiveness camouflage can have in breaking up an aircrafts silhouette: And for something a little older: Good stuff folks. Happy modeling all! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whiskey Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 The only problem with any vehicle, be it air or ground, is camo does nothing to if if the clear horizon is in the background. Then it's just a silhouette plain as day. I cannot speak wholly from a fighter pilots perspective as I was just a dumb grunt/scout. Anyway there's been plenty of books and discussions on the various camouflage schemes devised for aircraft since the beginning of aviation and it continues to this day as every Air Force once to try and ensure that their aircraft are hidden from the enemy's mk.1 eyeball. Note: Maybe we should move this to the Research Forum? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Whiskey said: The only problem with any vehicle, be it air or ground, is camo does nothing to if if the clear horizon is in the background. Then it's just a silhouette plain as day. I believe the US did some experimental stuff in WW2 to address this (at least from a frontal perspective). They used lights within engine cowlings and leading edges to eliminate the aircraft’s silhouette against the sky. By all accounts, it was extremely effective but was scrapped due to being too difficult to implement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dnl42 Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 21 hours ago, Whiskey said: It's post-Vietnam, but the photo is of an F-4 Phantom in SEA camo and I believe it truly illustrates the intended purpose of it. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/viewtopic.php?p=2686815#p2686815 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 23 hours ago, Whiskey said: It's post-Vietnam, but the photo is of an F-4 Phantom in SEA camo and I believe it truly illustrates the intended purpose of it. https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/hyperscale/viewtopic.php?p=2686815#p2686815 That's the one that someone photoshopped a "pilot" into. Look at page one of that thread for the original. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Whiskey Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 3 hours ago, Mstor said: That's the one that someone photoshopped a "pilot" into. Look at page one of that thread for the original. What? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 13 hours ago, Whiskey said: What? It may be because I visited that thread previously and was taken automatically to the last page. Tapatalk forum software is really strange (messed up in my book). Go to the last page in the thread. There is another copy of the photo at the top of the page. Look very closely at the cockpit of the F-4 in photo. See Waldo? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 On 11/15/2019 at 1:34 PM, 11bee said: I believe the US did some experimental stuff in WW2 to address this (at least from a frontal perspective). They used lights within engine cowlings and leading edges to eliminate the aircraft’s silhouette against the sky. By all accounts, it was extremely effective but was scrapped due to being too difficult to implement. Look at the various schemes the U. S. Navy used on ships. Surface ships had "dazzle schemes" while subs went from black to dark gray. And the lozenge patterns on German WWI aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 Different camo schemes have different purposes. SEA was used to blend the colors of the aircraft with the background when viewed from above. Some camo schemes, especially the "digital" ones, purpose is to break up edge recognition. Some of the digital schemes are so good at that, it is difficult to make them out when looking directly at them. The F-18F in the pic here is a good example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/5047318492 When looking at it, it is difficult to discern the edges of many parts of the aircraft. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 9 hours ago, Mstor said: Different camo schemes have different purposes. SEA was used to blend the colors of the aircraft with the background when viewed from above. Some camo schemes, especially the "digital" ones, purpose is to break up edge recognition. Some of the digital schemes are so good at that, it is difficult to make them out when looking directly at them. The F-18F in the pic here is a good example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/18842924@N03/5047318492 When looking at it, it is difficult to discern the edges of many parts of the aircraft. Cute but does it serve any tactical purpose? Once you get a bit further out, the aircraft would simply appear as a uniform color against the sky / ground. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mstor Posted November 17, 2019 Share Posted November 17, 2019 6 hours ago, 11bee said: Cute but does it serve any tactical purpose? Once you get a bit further out, the aircraft would simply appear as a uniform color against the sky / ground. "Tis true, a valid question. The US digital camouflage examples appear to all be one offs for display purposes, or as part of aggressor/adversary programs. I don't think we've adopted any as a standard. Russia, Ukraine and other countries have various levels of digital camo, usually just digital versions of already existing camo patterns. I would question whether they are any better than the non-digital versions because they don't really take advantage of the strengths of digital camo. In various navies, particularly in WW1, disruptive schemes were used to break up edge recognition when viewed by submarines or other ships when viewing with various telescopic equipment. It made it more difficult to determine what kind of ship one was viewing from a distance. In essence fooling the enemy into thinking you were not a desirable target. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.