Building an Airfix 1/72 C47 for a GB on Finescale: going to do a PTO transport. Can't interpret what the USAAF did with the plane's windows. Service aircraft certainly don't look clear, but are they painted? Some kind of shade? Been told the holes in the middle were for para small arms (can't confirm that). Here are 2 pics:
Tsili by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
Post-War by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
Help appreciated.
Eric

They're clear plexiglass. The "interesting" effects visible in those photos are reflections and light shining through the opposite side windows in the first photo. The holes were there to allow the self-loading cargo to stick their rifles out and shoot back in case of attack. There were persistent rumours that a Zero was once shot down that way, but that may only have been propaganda.

I dug through my "Gooney" references and one of them referred to them as "grommets" and sure enough there was an image with all the embarked troops aiming/holding their rifles through those "grommets."
The closer I looked at other photos in the books, those "grommets" look like holes in all the windows. Of course once the books progress past WWII that style of window completely disappears from the C-47s. I couldn't even find a modern restoration or flying warbird with those windows.

Once upon a time there were clear press-fit inserts in the "grommets" to keep the breezes out until it was necessary to shoot through them but like all things not nailed down in the military, they easily got lost.

After the war, pilots and passengers weren't too fond of the cold and wind coming in, so the wartime windows were quickly replaced.

Thankee Jessie, not the first time you've helped out.

In general, it's clear you're correct. There's a short clip on YT showing a WWII C-47 landing on a new strip and you can clearly see the darkened windows clear as the plane passes. "An airstrip being constructed and a C-47 aircraft lands in New Guinea during Worl...HD Stock Footage".
If there was an occasional exception to your observation (I remember seeing one pic that seemed to show a window half covered) it might be this:
windows3 by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
Pics of transport C-47 interiors are hard to come by, but they sure wouldn't have had people manning gun ports - the crew was as small as three (more people, less cargo). But from a modeling point of view, I'm wondering if the plexiglass on those windows wasn't pretty badly scratched - the SWPAC theater in particular pounded aircraft (and people). Check this one - judging from the insignia and apparent lack of astdrome, and the Aussie by the door, I'd guess early war- maybe Kokoda-Buna where C47s made a campaign possible. Anyway, it really does appear that the windows are almost translucent: good dose of New Guinea mud would help that too. Very different from a neat pic of a postwar DC-3 where the windows were clear enough to see the curtins. (Pic also emphasizes why it's hard to over-weather WWII multi-engined radial powered planes that were in service - those things burnt oil like crazy.
NG44 by Eric Bergerud, on Flickr
Thanks again
Eric

Eric,
You clearly know your subject, but I think you may have missed Jessie's point. By "self-loading cargo" she refers to passengers--the C-47 was, among other things, a troop carrier. So, yes, you're right; the crew would have been far too small to man the gun ports, but if they're carrying a load of nervous infantry I imagine the crew might have been hard-pressed to keep their cargo and their rifles away from the windows. I guy could dine out for years on stories about being a grunt with an air-to-air kill...

The windows very definitely got dirty, dusty and scratched after use but they started out perfectly crystal clear. This being the case, it's completely up to you how you portray your model and you can dare the judges to mark it down.

I do get the idea of self loading passengers - I wrote a book about the campaign. In the 42 NG campaign C47s hauled cargo and dropped supplies (without parachutes - if they dropped high enough - there was little damage - it actually makes sense)until November: no landing fields. IJ and Aussie troops were on foot during Kokoda. In November, the allies opened the Dobodura air strip about ten miles from Buna (a place covered by Kunai grass MacArthur's engineers had found in June and the Japanese never did: IJ most surprised - shocked really - after the US took back the area, mowed the lawn, and opened what became a huge air base). Once Dobodura opened, almost everything was flown in - some barge traffic along the coast, including a regiment of the US 32d Division which was almost sunk by Zeros, but no ships till December, and those were ancient luggers. (USN and RAN refused to put ships in area.) So, yes, I suppose Aussie and US infantry might have had their Enfields or M1s poked out of holes - but by November 5th AF had something close to superiority. From then on, balancing the C47 cargo/troop carrier missions became staff duty #1. At lest inbound - they always knew they'd be carrying casualties back to Moresby. Buna would have been a nightmare no matter what - but supplying a major campaign with a few C47s meant everything was on a shoestring and the blood tax sky rocketed. No artillery support for one thing. Luckily the Japanese were worse off. No allied campaign relied on C47s more than that one.

I interviewed a lot of participants, including two C47 pilots (five hours face to face even - a rare opportunity) who were there for Buna and Wau (very weird). We just never got around to talking about windows. Both had Zeros make passes on them, but the ground cover was so dense, and the Gooneys flew so low (often brought back branches) the Japanese had real difficulty finding them or setting up for a shot and allied escorts usually got IJ attention. The big deal was Guadalcanal which soaked up 95% of the IJNAF effort so Zeros usually only harassed Buna - coming in by pairs, or even solo, and no Bettys. Probably the biggest danger to our planes was the combination of mountains and clouds - Owen Stanleys were extremely treacherous especially with bad maps and old instruments. Saying in the theater: "Behind every cloud is a rock." True for about 350 allied planes lost.(See Susan Sheehan, "A Missing Plane", one of the great books about the Pacific War, for details.)

I'm going to try to think about how to handle clear parts the next time I do a fighter: maybe start a thread when the time comes. How to avoid making a shinny canopy without having it looks like you simply botched it. Good Question. But no judge is ever going to see one of my models. We don't have active clubs around Berkeley that I know of, although there is one in St. Paul. So I see my models, my wife and son see them and a few poor souls on GBs see them. But that's ok: still the best hobby I know of to do with Bach playing in the background. And a lot cheaper than a dinner for two in San Francisco.
Eric

Although there is an account of CAPT Wally Gayda sticking a BAR out of the cockpit window of his C-46 and unloading a 20-round magazine at a Ki-43 while flying 'The Hump', shooting it down. Not as much of a Hail Mary shot as Owen Baggett got, after bailing out of a burning B-24 over Burma, used his .45 pistol to shoot a Zero pilot who'd come in slowly to look over the descending parachutes and pulled his canopy back for a better view. But still a significantly asymmetrical victory.