Jump to content

dickrd

Members
  • Posts

    362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dickrd

  1. I think that there is something dodgy about the order of the clips in this colour film (IWM MGH 4574) and its caption referencing Op Pedestal. For example at the 0.44 mark we see HMS Nelson in her disruptive camouflage pattern first worn in April 1942 and with a pom pom on B turret. Yet later, at the 2.28 mark when she is doing gunnery practice, the turrets and gun barrels are all in overall Home Fleet Grey and there is a UP launcher on B turret ie how she was during 1941. Then at the 5.07 mark we see HMS Lightning in overall Home Fleet grey. Lightning wore this during 1941 but by the Spring of 1942 she was in a dark hull/light upperworks scheme and was that way during August 1942 (Pedestal). More likely is that the views of Lightning in the film are during Op Substance July 1941. This photo is said to date to 23 July 1941 and shows Lightning in company with Nelson then:
  2. If it is not too late to fix it, you might like to increase the slope of the mast which was almost (but not quite) parallel to the forward 'edge' of the funnel:
  3. All based on photos. Here is a fairly clear photo of the starboard side. You can see the pattern on the central funnel, the bridge, B turret and the deckhouse below dark. It is interesting how different the tones appear to the original photo: On close examination I have decided that the photo I had which was claimed to show the port side of Dorsetshire in this scheme was misidentified. So this is the best image I have of it: From what very little can be seen it hints at the possibility that the port side's pattern could have been a mirror image of the starboard side after all! (To avoid future visitors to this thread being mislead I have edited my previous post to reflect this.)
  4. I would not take the Kobayakawa painting seriously. He has given Dorsetshire the pre-war full height masts and I suspect the idea of a battle ensign is fanciful. The bridge and the starboard side of B turret was dark-toned. In the original photo you can see that painting is actually in progress on the hull. The aft funnel has been patterned but the the central one not yet. Dark tone has yet to be painted onto the bridge and B turret and the deckhouse below both. The original photo cannot have been taken on 4th April 1942. Dorsetshire was at Colombo that day at that certainly is not Colombo. If the location of the photo can be confirmed that would help to date it. The photo is normally held to have been taken at Trincomalee. Dorsetshire was there 5th March until probably 22nd March and certainly no later that 25th March. (And yes she was wearing this scheme as sunk. Japanese photos show enough to confirm this.)
  5. In some photos you see bits of boot topping at the waterline, especially towards the stern. My interpretation is that they have overpainted the upper boot-topping area with the camouflage paints down as close to the the waterline as they could go, but that if the ship was out of the water you would see that quite a wide band of boot topping was in fact still there underwater extending down to the light load line.
  6. Here is a candidate for the sort of palette we are now considering from CAFO 679/42: But the draught marks on Newark near the bow are dark and they should be light if it was B5 there. But at least the CAFO shows the colour combination MS1/B5/MS3 was potentially possible.
  7. Aiming for a dark disruptive scheme with an overall RF equal to that of the RF of Home Fleet grey/507A would be perfectly in line with their thinking at the time (1941). My interpretation of the 1942 report is that it was an RF 12 scheme at the time they designed it in January 1941. I need to think about the MS3 option and look for examples of the colour combinations we are now considering. What slightly concerns me is that we have no photo of Suffolk in the scheme pre May 1941, ie when it was first and freshly applied.
  8. @Ships docLeamington's understanding of the tones of one or two of the paints they were using in their designs varied a bit over time. But at time of their observations of the Home Fleet in late July and early August 1942 (and earlier) they thought that MS1 had an RF of 4%, MS3 an RF of 20% and MS4 an RF of 32%. Given your above estimated percentages of the amount of the side of the ship covered in each paint, this palette would give an overall average of 19.56% RF. In the Fleet Orders in force at that time, Leamington categorised their disruptive designs for their lay audience as dark, dark-medium, light-medium and light types plus Western Approaches type. However, in-house the Leamington team further categorised their designs in various ways including by their overall RF. According to the Leamington team's Scapa observations report, Suffolk's scheme was a "Type 12 approx". So the question is, is 19.56% close enough to 12% to be covered by "approx" (probably not), or can we get closer to 12% by either by increasing the areas painted the darker tones or do we need to consider darker paints? I feel you have got the way the different areas were painted, and so the proportions, as correct as can be given the available photos. So for consideration: a) If the middle paint was B5 with RF 15% then we get an overall 18.46% scheme (with MS1 & MS4 as the other two). This is still some way from 12%. Does it 'look' like B5? b) Then if in addition the darkest paint was black with RF 2% (rather than MS1) we get to an overall 17.6% scheme which is still some way from 12%. I consider it perfectly possible that black was used in what was one of the very earliest Leamington designs at a time (January 1941), before the final slate of MS&B series paints was selected and codified (by late July 1941). (JD: Black was included in the RE/CAM 30/1/1 list) The Scapa observations were done 18 months after Leamington designed the scheme, and they were not focused on Suffolk in the observations. When you read the report they were clearly not that interested in it and don't dwell on it. They dismissed it as one of their old designs and as too dark and doubtless just looked up what 'Type' it was in their records. My point being I doubt they cared enough about any of the changes that had been made to the original design to realise that their original calculation of the overall RF was perhaps by then slightly out. As a side note, Norfolk's scheme was noted as a "Type 25 approx". This would confirm the impression you felt you were getting from the aerial photo FL 3943 that Norfolk was lighter than Suffolk.
  9. Gosh, this must be more than a decade ago now and before I mentioned the correct RN WW2 camouflage colours to the new owner of the Colourcoats paint range @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies! As @foeth mentions, there is a very clear overhead photo of Euryalus on 8th August 1941 in the IWM collection showing her wearing the deck pattern as drawn above. Sadly it is not available to view on-line
  10. Yes. I have compiled this over the last four years from the surviving records. I know what was on the bottom of over 600 of the RN's WW2 era hulls plus a number of RCN, RAN and indeed a handful of Dutch and FFN ships, an overall total of 645. From clear patterns in certain classes of ships I can predict a number more.
  11. I'm afraid that I have nothing in my records that can help on this one. I too would suspect a repaint and adjustment between the first two photos (June 1943 at Portsmouth) and the 17th October one taken from USS Ranger. Given what we have I too would lean to 3 colours G5 or G10, B15 and G45 with the slight possibility of some B55 on the funnels and perhaps up high elsewhere. The light 8" turrets I put down to the slightly upward facing angle of their sides.
  12. For those interested I have updated my short paper on RN ships' bottoms and boot-topping and Jamie is kindly hosting it on the Sovereign Hobbies website: https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/Revised_bottoms_for_SH_website_V2.pdf?v=1704796589 (I am told that the link works if you paste it into your browser.)
  13. Jon, Thank you for recommending it. Although WW1 is not my prime interest I ordered it and my copy arrived yesterday. It is fascinating. The one thing I think needs to be nailed down though is the correct 'colour' of the colours esp Blue 3. I am not sure what Aryeh has done ie has he simply reproduced the design sheets as he found them in their current colour-faded/detriorated state? In any case the designs sheets make it clear that the "colors on the plan are for measurement only. Actual colors as per color chart" I will prod someone on that FB page.
  14. Samples of some of these colours were printed into the old 1922 Encyclopedia Britannica but have of course badly deteriorated with age. No. 3 blue is particularly bad! Note how as the number counts up the tone gets darker, the reverse to how the WW2 RN MS series paint numbers worked: There are lots of coloured original design sheets held by various museums and archives in the UK and USA that can be viewed on-line. Some show the colours you are interested in. I am not sure whether the guidance was or was not to match colours to any accompanying shade cards, but the design sheets should at least put you in the ballpark. Try "WW1 dazzle plans" in a Google images search for things like this for example (again a bit faded): These and their colours then can be compared with the colours on the extensive IWM collection of contemporary models used by Norman Wilkinson to test his dazzle designs, again visible on-line. (This is just an example. You would need to work your way through to match design sheets to models): Or you could wait until you get Aryeh's book. I would be very interested indeed to see any sample colour reference charts that he may have of the colours. He may have researched in the US archives which I know hold sample chips of these colours (but again doubtless degraded to a greater or lesser extent with age for which allowance must be made).
  15. Although I don't have a copy, I think that this might be the book you need: The Easter Egg Fleet: American Ship Camouflage in WWI by Aryeh Wetherhorn But if you want to avoid spending any money then the Facebook group "Warship Camouflage Research Group" is the place to go. The author of that book plus others that have researched USN WW1 paints and schemes are members and will share their wisdom for free.
  16. CB3098(R)/45 is a bit contradictory. On page 43 where it details the painting of Scheme C, and which colours to be used where, it says "no special deck painting is required for camouflage purposes" and does not specify any colour for the decks. But on page 51 "recommends" B15 as part of a theoretical discussion on deck tones. CB3098(R)/45 was published in October 1945, after the war ended. In fact it was published after Scheme C had been discontinued (CAFO 1575 of 13 September 1945). Whilst CB3098R/45 perhaps represents the culmination of Leamington's wartime theoretical work on ship camouflage, a counsel of perfection in many ways, by October 1945 Leamington had become something of an irrelevance and was being run down. One suspects that they were not being kept in the loop. The guidance on the painting of the Standard Scheme C that would have been available to anyone painting HMS Rupert during the war would have been the wartime Fleet Orders CAFO 2269 of 12 October 1944 and CAFO 558 of 22 March 1945. These both state "no special deck painting is required for camouflage purposes" and no colour was recommended or even mentioned. (But the consistent general RN thinking on decks from the outbreak of WW2 was that they should be dark.) Assuming we are dealing with non-slip deck paints then the situation with regards to what was available to someone painting Rupert would have been as specified in AFO 5263/43. (G10 was Home Fleet Grey). As no special colour was required for camouflage I don't see a request for another colour being entertained. I think it is understandable why the decks of the models you have seen are painted a dark grey:
  17. I'm afraid that I discount the reliability of the model of Fencer posted above (which looks to be the same FAAM model as linked to earlier) as any form of accurate reference. Although the pattern on the starboard side is similar to that worn by Fencer, it shows only three colours not four and the green is 'wrong'. What we can now see of the port side pattern is hopelessly wrong. And (according to documentation) the all black hull bottom is wrong for Fencer too. We also have the one oblique aerial photo of the flight deck (see my first post above) at the time of Tungsten. I do have a (private) good quality version of it. It shows that the centre line was dashed, but so also were the lines at the edge of the flight deck, not solid as on the model. These dashes were not as frequent as on the centreline. In fact the painting of the lines seems unchanged from how they were on delivery in this photo of Fencer a year earlier (the squiggle is a fire hose): As far as I can see in the Tungsten photo the flight deck appears dark. Given that this Fleet Order was in force at the time I suspect that, if not painted before, it was painted by Spring 1944. You can see the choice of colours. The special request camouflage colours would apply if there was a camouflage pattern on the flight deck (which there was not):
  18. @k7rkx There is no contemporary documentation that I am aware of to tell us what the colours were on QE in either of her 1943 schemes. Like everyone else who has attempted to decode them we are therefore interpreting b&w photos. I struggle with the June-August 1943 scheme. We have lots of photos of it taken in the USA as QE emerged from her repairs but they are somewhat contradictory. In some of the photos it looks like there were four different tones of paint, in others three. If we are looking at RN paints then the lightest never looks to me darker than MS4 presents in photos. But the darkest appears as dark as MS1 in some but only as dark as MS2/507A in others. So my guess would be MS1, MS2 or B5, MS3 & MS4 if four colours and MS2 or 507A, B5 and MS4 if three colours*. But I am suspicious. Maybe I am imagining things, expecting too much of b&w photos, but some of the ‘tones’ do not look quite right to me. Also there is a photo of QE tied up ahead of a USN ship and the two lightest tones on QE are a pretty good match with the two lightest tones on the USN ship. Then we have to ask why this scheme was only worn for the voyage back to the UK and then immediately painted out? Part of me wonders if we are looking at USN paints. So if I were modelling QE I’d dodge the question and do the August 1943 – early 1944 scheme which is much more straightforward! I would use G10 for the darkest toned areas, B15 for the middle toned areas and G45 for the light toned areas. *Despite the late May introduction of the B&G series paints I have assumed a slight delay in transmission to the USA and selected from the 1941-1943 MS&B palette.
  19. WA green was a light 'pepperminty' sort of green (see link below). It was discontinued in May 1943 so we can rule it out on Fencer during Tungsten in 1944. That model appears to be painted up in the 1944 disruptive scheme pattern but I suspect, given the model's age, the paint selection is based on a dated/flawed understanding of which RN paints were in use when, and what their correct colours and tones were. (If anything that 'green' is perhaps closest to MS3, another paint that was discontinued in May 1943). In the few b&w photos available you get different impressions of the tones of the paints on Fencer. Some of the photos are of poor quality and maybe the paints are weathered/faded in one or two of them. However I'm fairly confident that the scheme on Fencer at the time of Tungsten was a four colour affair, dark to light: G5, B15, G45, and B55. You may find this a useful guide: https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-periodic-table-of-paints
  20. I doubt that Fencer ever wore Western Approaches type camouflage. If she did I have no photos showing it. At the time of Tungsten she was wearing a disruptive type scheme. This photo dates to 6 March 1944: A poor quality view of the port side of this scheme said to have been taken 31st March 1944 ie during Tungsten:
  21. Which of QE's 1943 schemes are you interested in?
  22. Well you choose an interesting time! From the start of the year until June she was in ‘Chicago Blue’, an RAN take on the USN’s blue. June 1944 she then repainted to something called ‘Task Force Blue (Special Hull)’ which was described as greyer and darker than Chicago Blue, and ‘Chicago Blue (New Colour)’ described as slightly more blue than Task Force Blue (Special Hull) and as not holding its blue colour for more than a few days. I doubt that anyone really knows what these short-lived Australian paints were exactly. She then repainted in August 1944 to another paint called simply called ‘T.F.B. (Task Force Blue)’ and described as a very dark grey (too dark, and darker than the RN's G10). This photo would show it:
×
×
  • Create New...