|
It is true that the Army had a lot more nose art than the Navy, but the Navy/Marine Corps had more nose art than is commonly thought. Jim Meehan and myself have documented over a thousand pieces of World War 2 Navy/Marine Corps nose in our book "Paint Locker Magic." The following is an exert from that book:
"The vast amount of nose art carried by the bombers and fighters in the European Theater during World War Two is well documented. The art of the USAAF in the Pacific during World War Two is also well documented. After reviewing the subject’s current resources, we realized that the Navy was not very well represented. In all the sources we researched, we found only a few examples of naval aircraft nose art. We began a search for naval aircraft nose art. We knew from experience there was more artwork out there; however, we also knew that US Navy aircraft nose art is not as prolific as Army/Air Force nose art. We contacted many people while doing our research. Some were knowledgeable aviation historians and others were the veterans who flew and maintained the aircraft. In most cases, they agreed that aircraft artwork in the Navy has not been as plentiful as it has been in the Army/Air Force, but it exists in small amounts. Now, over a period of roughly four years,we compiled a creditable exhibit.
What is the reason for the apparent lack of artwork on the sides of U.S. Navy aircraft? The reasons are numerous, but most sources have suggested that the Navy brass was not as flexible and enforced regulations against the “defacing of government property” or the personalizing of material. It is true, however, that few examples of naval nose art could be found on aircraft that were stationed inside the continental United States and only a few aircraft were painted with names, kill marks, mission symbols or artwork. This was done mostly for public relation purposes. It was thought at the time that the public might be offended by the use of off-color slogans and artwork as found on Air Corps aircraft. Also, we must not forget the sensitivity the mothers, wives and girlfriends of the sailors might have toward the genera of pin up art that adorned many of the World War Two USAAC aircraft.
To understand the reason behind the scarcity of naval aircraft nose art, we must first look at the unique nature of the service. Following a long naval tradition, the Captain, or Skipper, or Commanding Officer had total authority over his command and his men. This applied to all aspects of their welfare both on duty and off. Considering the nature of shipboard duty, which is both isolated and independent, whatever the Skipper said was traditionally obeyed without question. This custom was carried over into the junior elements of the fleet such as Naval Aviation. These formalities applied both to shore based and ship based elements of Naval Aviation. Therefore, if there was ever any question as to whether the sailors could paint artwork on the squadron’s aircraft it was left up to the squadron’s Commanding Officer for approval. The Skipper had to weigh his decision on weather the said artwork would improve morale or offend certain personnel, especially his superiors. First, land based Navy squadrons were more likely to have elaborate artwork as opposed to carrier based squadrons. The squadron COs on carriers had a more difficult time getting approval to paint their aircraft due to the long chain of command on board the ships. The Skipper of a carrier squadron was directly
subordinate to both the ship’s Captain as well as the CAG (Carrier Air Group) Commander. Both of these officers had a lot to say about how the individual squadrons were run. Thus, if a sailor or a pilot wanted artwork on his aircraft he might have to get approval from the squadron C.O., the CAG, and the Captain of the ship. This was not usually the case for land based patrol and fighter squadrons.
Another trend of Naval Aviation nose art which was often a problem was that even if a pilot, aircrewman, or sailor did succeed in having their aircraft decorated it might not last long. Accidents and operational losses certainly took their toll, especially on board the carriers. Few records or pictures remain to document these short-lived effort.
CAG-6 on the Hancock, MCAG-2 on the Gilbert Island, and VF-27 seems to be only a few examples where a carrier-based squadrons made any effort to decorate their aircraft during World War 2. In addition several other Navy and Marine Corps fighter squadrons made an attempt to paint nose art on their aircraft during World War Two, but they were mostly shore-based. The Corsairs of VF-17, and VMF-213 during the Solomon Islands’ campaign are two examples, however their art was not as elaborate as VF-27s. Most other island based Naval Air squadrons (VP, VB, VBP, and VD) were very active in applying nose art to their aircraft. Was it because the land lovers were more gifted artistically? No, the answer to the question lies somewhere between logistics and command approval or disapproval. For instance, the fighter squadrons in the Solomon Islands campaign were at the point of the spear, fighting and dying daily. Squadron esprit de corps may have been the edge that the units needed to overcome Imperial Japan in those early dark days of World War Two. The squadron’s C.O. would not worry with a small question of nose art, especially if his pilots and ground crew were in favor of it. Also, these outfits were in most cases operating on small, isolated island stations. There were rarely any upper echelon commanders or general public present to voice disapproval. These island stations also had engineering and construction units that could have building materials, specifically color paints, and experienced sign painters.
All material on board ship was critical and rationed right down to drinking water, so material and personnel might be in short supply while at sea. Thus, land based air units might have the advantage over their sea going mates as far as aircraft nose art was concerned.This advantage is best illustrated when looking at the example set by the shore based patrol squadrons of World War Two. Just a glance at the PB4Y-1/2s Appendices in Alan Carey's series of books on World War 2 Patrol Squadrons will illustrate how prolific nose art was on this patrol type aircraft, especially on Tinian by 1945. The remoteness of these island stations, a more sympathetic command structure, and the availability of materials are just some reasons why the Navy patrol bombing community was more able to apply nose art. There is still another reason for this community’s wealth in artwork. Throughout the war in the Pacific the Navy’s long range patrol squadrons either operated with or in close proximity to the Army’s B-24 and B-29 Bomb Wings. In fact they often shared maintenance facilities. An excellent example of this is when VPB-115 in May 1944 operated a detachment with the Fifth Air Force’s 310th Bomb Wing on Wakde Island. So, it is obvious how ridiculous an order not to paint nose art on the PB4Ys would have seemed, especially since the sailors could see Army B-24s just across the ramp exhibiting a cornucopia of color and design. However, when VPB-104 came to the Southwest Pacific in November 1944 to relieve VPB-115 this squadron’s C.O. discouraged the use of nose art. It was justifiably felt that the use of kill marks and provocative artwork might subject captured crewmen to harsher treatment. Particularly, in this theater of operation the enemy for the most part took no prisoners or ate them. Most of the patrol bombing squadrons in FAW-10 and FAW-17 all followed this axiom with the exception of VPB-111 and VPB-117. The similarity of prolific nose art also existed within the PV-1 Ventura community. However, one unique difference applies to the PV-1. The PV-1s may have come from the factory with artwork already on their sides. Since the Lockheed Vega plant was near Walt Disney’s Burbank Studio, it is no surprise that many of the PV-1s awaiting assignment to operational units were found with Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck on their fuselage. In fact the Disney Studio had a special team assigned just to create art for insignias, as well as other demands for military art. Walt Disney probably realized the morale boost his creations provided for the U.S. Navy, even if the command structure may not have.
We have seen how locale or duty station can be factors working in favor of a unit utilizing artwork on its aircraft, but location can also have a negative effect. Dick Shoden acknowledged that VPB-122, while stationed in Attu, Alaska, found the weather too severe to create an interest in nose art. None of their PB4Y-2s carried nose art, which is unusual for a Privateer squadron. VPB-122 had been formed from the decommissioned VPB-115. Many of the officers and men of the former squadron, which was stationed in the Southwest Pacific now, found themselves in the arctic. The Liberators of VPB-115 had been liberally decorated during their first tour, but the romantic idea of painting the new Privateers lost all appeal in the cold, hostile surroundings of Alaska. This was also the case for VPB-131, a PV-1 Ventura unit, stationed at Attu. VPB-131 had come to Alaska in October 1944 with late model Venturas; although they never painted the aircraft itself, they did paint parts of it. Robert Warnock’s crew took the main mount wheel covers off and painted artwork on them. Not all of the Alaskan based patrol squadrons went without artwork. VPB-136 had been operating from the Casco Bay airfield since August 1943. Their early model PV-1s had come from the Burbank factory with the Disney artwork on the aircraft’s sides.
While Ventura and Privateer works of art were abundant, not all of the patrol bombing community endorsed this concept. Apparently the PBY and PBM nose art is not as plentiful. The only explanation we have come up with is that in most cases these squadrons operated from seaplane tenders in the Southwest and Central Pacific. They had all the logistic and material shortages of a carrier based unit, and they shared the long chain of command for approval. If approval were granted, the artist would have difficulty painting a shapely beauty on the side of a Catalina while bouncing around in a six-foot rubber raft or small boat.
What would be the reason that a pilot or his crew would want to have their aircraft decorated with some form of art
when so many obstacles stood in their way? If, for instances, the enhancing of morale and the building of esprit de corps helped to accomplish the unit’s goal then it’s Commanding Officer would not be against the use of nose art. Late in World War Two many of the squadron Commanding Officers were reservist and draftees planning to return to civilian life, and they were less concerned with career gains, either short term or post war. Therefore, they had little to fear by promoting nose art, short of a chewing out from higher authority. These lower echelon officers were concerned with only one thing, getting the job done. Some of these junior officers also felt that nose art on the squadron’s aircraft promoted a sense of unity and team pride. It gave their men, pilots, plane captains, and flight crews a closer identity with the aircraft. This kind of “man–and-machine” bond improved individual performance and gave the team an edge over the enemy. By personalizing their aircraft they were given something tangible in which they could take pride. This boost of morale was sorely needed during those days at the front, while sailors were on constant alert, having little sleep or recreation, surviving off field rations and living in tents. Aircraft nose art improved morale and inspired the sailors, which in turn increased personal performance and peak efficiency. One could look at the pin-up on the nose of a Privateer as a symbolic cheerleader cheering her team on to victory."
_________________
The Breaks of Naval Air-Skid Marks in the Sky
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Rut Ro.. 
...there is a crack in the limb...I think nose art was much more prevalent in Air Corp/USAAF yes no