dickrd

Here is what my photos tell me was the timeline for the various schemes that Valiant wore from the completion of her rebuild in November 1939 until her disposal in 1948. I have numbered the photos as an aid to discussion if needed.

No, Home Fleet grey was 'dark' grey, so she was dark grey at Mers-el-Kebir. She went from Alexandria to Durban in 1942 for repairs and joined the Eastern Fleet in August 1942 still in the Mediterranean two tone scheme. She then repainted to another, quite different, apparant two tone scheme which she wore all the way to her returning to the UK for refit in Feb 1943. I'll dig out some photos and do a montage for you to avoid confusion.

Valiant started her WW2 career in overall Home Fleet grey and was still in this at the time of Mers-el-Kebir. Sometime after that, but in 1940, she adopted a unique two-tone scheme, presumably of Home and Mediterranean grey. This would be what she wore at Matapan.

This can only be speculative but I suggest as the medium tone Canadian Government Purchasing Standards Committee 1-GP-12 No. 31 (the Canadian equivalent of (British Standard) BS 381C No. 31 Light Battleship Grey), as the light grey the RCN's AP507C, and as the dark tone 1-GP-12 No. 4 (the Canadian equivalent of BS 381C No. 4 Azure). There is probably a lot of red lead primer showing through on the hull - the very dark splotches - plus some rust.

Here is a clearer view of that area on Penelope:

Judging by the photos I have, it seems to have taken some time before Kent received her Oerlikons after she emerged from her repairs in September 1941. I have photos up to and including early November 1941 where although the pedestals and shields are present, there seem to be no actual 20mm gun barrels on B & X turrets. There is then a gap in my photos until March 1942. The quality of the March 1942 photo is poor but I think the guns themselves on B&X turrets are fitted at that time, but the tub on the quarterdeck still seems to be used for storage. I have a photo dated 12 April 1942 v

That looks like a very nice project Jamie! I'm still slowly trying to answer your questions re Jamaica. Re your other E), that straight vertical divide amidships near the waterline on the portside with the MS 4 (forward) and the possible 507C (aftwards) just did not feel right to me. Having gone through my photos I think the MS1 panel actually came down to the boot topping there, eliminating the need for the straight line divide. The only explanation I can offer for photos where it appears the MS1 panel does not come down to the boot topping is an effect caused by the (light-toned

Re question E) With four tones in this scheme A-D (darkest to lightest), I think that this photo answers the question re A turret. I'll dig through my photos to see if can see anything to help with the other questions:

It was a common modification to remove Y gun from former fleet destroyers transferred to the anti submarine escort role where the priority was a heavier depth charge load

As you can see from the wide black band at the top of the forward funnel, Firedrake was the senior officer's ship of the 7th EG. Leaders of proper destroyer flotillas did not paint up their pendant numbers, but the senior officers ships of escort groups normally did (as they were not proper destroyer flotilla leaders). I suspect that the CO of Firedrake in these early weeks of her new role may have been affecting the style of a real destroyer leader by not having his pendant numbers painted up. I suspect he will have got a flea in his ear from Capt (D) at Londonderry next time he called there

Firedrake was wearing a disruptive scheme of at least four colours when damaged by a bomb in the Med in July 1941 (your first photo). Although it is not that obvious given the angle of your second photo, the design of the pattern of the paint scheme was altered during her repairs at Boston and I suspect the number of paints was reduced. Your third photo, February 1942 shows this revised scheme. Your interest is later in 1942. In March 1942 she was damaged again, repaired in April and started work again in May: http://www.naval-history.net/xGM-Chrono-10DD-23F-HMS_Firedrake.htm

Is this the scheme/photo?

Ah crossed boards! I have just posted this over on MW: “George, I think that with those particular diagonal stripes running the whole way up her hull, Matane is in another camouflage design. She was built in Canada and it may be a Canadian design. I think this (see below) 1943 Admiralty design for River Class frigates is what Annan’s was based on. Annan was built in the UK and more likely to apply an Admiralty design or variant of it. For some reason some individual ships inverted (reversed) the lights and the darks in WA designs and it looks like this has happened on Annan. It a

(As you say those three paints were not mentioned in the various observation reports/file papers in such a way as to imply they were the only three on Jamaica.) At the time I did not get closely involved in that particular debate. One of our group was very insistent that there were only 3 colours in this scheme whereas I thought there were perhaps four (both sides) but I did not push it at the time. It remains my opinion that there were probably four paint tones port and starboard. I suggest that in 1942 the fourth and lightest paint would have been 507C. The palette of MS1, B5, M

You have presumably found the very good close-ups of Hero at Haifa in May 1942 on the IWM site. This other IWM photo was taken in 15th April 1942. It should answer your general question re layout and armament. Essentially she has 4 x 4.7", 1 x 3", 2 x 0.5"MMG, 4 x 20mm Oerlikon (1 on each bridge wing, 1 either side of the searchlight platform) and 1 set of TTs. She also carried twin Lewis guns at the rear of each bridge wing. (I cannot work out why this photo does not come up when searching the IWM site by ship's name or by the photo number A 8647.)