dickrd

@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.

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

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:

Which of QE's 1943 schemes are you interested in?

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:

I think the problem is with the wording of the title "Admiralty Disruptive Pattern Camouflage". The word 'pattern' is not included like that in any official documentation from the time as far as I can see. In the camouflage context the word 'pattern' is normally associated with the paints. Where have you come across these four words being run together like this|?

Shropshire wore a number of different paint schemes during her WW2 RN service and then more again whilst with the RAN. If you can say when you are interested in we may be able to help. (Or a photo perhaps of the scheme you like the look of? )

Very tricky question given, as you say, how few images there seem to be. I have attached those that I have been able to find. 1 (IWM A29907) almost makes it look like there were three colours, and some of the hull darks look very dark in 1 & 2 (and 2 is a poor quality image) but less so in 3 & 4. But the photos may have been taken many months apart and the scheme may have evolved over time. Given that Mimosa spent all of her short operational life based in Canada effectively part of the RCN as part of the Newfoundland Force, given the possible timeframe of the photos, and given the design of the scheme, I would rule out the use of MS paints on her. I suspect that once she was based in Canada she would have used commercial maritime paints locally produced in Canada for her periodic repaints If you want to keep it simple a two colour pattern of dark grey BS381C #32 and light grey BS381C #31 (which at RF 31% was significantly darker than 507C at RF 45%) would match what can be seen in the photo 4, which was taken at Halifax in December 1941 (and which is of quite good quality). But, given that we are dealing with b&w photos and given that RCN corvettes seem often not to have followed RN practice but to have gone their own way in their choice of colours/tones, all sorts of other colour combinations are of course possible. There is then the question of whether or not the Free French captain of Mimosa had his own ideas! We could speculate endlessly.

Sadly no.

I entirely agree with Jamie's choice of words there. The key words being "widespread" and "extensive". When you look at the Leamington job numbers and their dates it was at most a couple of dozen ships that would have been using MS colours by the summer of 1941. To put it in context, HMS Prince of Wales was Job No.32 applied July 1941 during her post Bismarck repairs. Re "...multi-colored schemes..." my very deliberately chosen words there were "Admiralty disruptive schemes". You could have multi-coloured schemes that were not Admiralty disruptive schemes and so did not use MS paints. An obvious example were the WA schemes of Peter Scott.

Where have you seen the "idea of the MS series being available/used only mid-late 1941"? They were indeed first used in early 1941. They came into use with the Leamington designed Admiralty disruptive schemes the first of which we see being HMS Queen Elizabeth in late January 1941 and the second being HMS Suffolk. And you are correct, someone was indeed thinking about what would become the MS colours as far back as the summer of 1940. But I'm afraid I cannot agree with you re HMS Hood. The MS paints, which were factory produced not mixed by crews, were only issued to ships adopting the Admiralty disruptive schemes.

The photo dates to September 1941. I feel it is too early for the curvaceous style of design to be seen in plate 16 of CB3098R of 1943. I suspect Jasmine has been rolling and this is just water wetting on the very badly weathered dark grey paint on the hull (matt version of 507A). See IWM photos A5713-5717 which include good quality close ups of exactly this area of Jasmine's hull (but starboard side) just a few weeks later and appear to show no sign of patterning in the paint. See also IWM A 6376 (and others in that series) of HMS Zulu Nov 1941 where the same water wetting effect can be seen on her similarly weathered dark grey hull.

Ah, I did not get the impression from Bob's website that he felt the majority of RCN corvettes had black lower hulls. Anyhow, re corvettes in general, some were black, some were red, some were grey depending on which manufacturers' product was used and whether Admiralty or merchantile quality. To know which for a particular ship you would need to see her docking reports. I think there were something like 294 Flower Class corvettes built and I have been able to track down the records of 37 of these. For the remainder it is a question of whether anything can be gleaned from photos, film or perhaps artwork and after that statistical probability. Given that Admiralty policy should have resulted increasingly in the use of merchantile quality anti fouling on corvettes (the RN ones at least), and given that this overwhelming only came in red, red bottoms should have become increasingly common on corvettes as the war wore on. I should say though that something I have not been able to confirm is whether the Canadian subsidiaries of the UK paint manufacturers produced their anti fouling paints for the RCN in the same colours as their UK parent companies did in the UK for supply to the RN. Frustratingly, whilst recording the name of the manufacturer, not one of the Canadian corvette D495s I have seen recorded the colour of the anti fouling paint. But I think one has to say that it seems unlikely that a Canadian subsidiary would manufacture the same product in a different colour to the UK parent company's product. Bottoms of Coastal Forces craft is an area I have not really looked into. But in the course of my research re (metal) ships' bottoms I have taken copies of anything I have come across. So I do know that special anti fouling products were used on the wooden bottoms of MTBs and similar craft. But they were made by Moravia, Clarks, International, MacArthurs, Red Hand, British, and Algicide ie some of the very same companies that made the RN's anti fouling paints for metal bottomed ships. Unfortunately I don’t recall coming across these paints for wooden bottoms being listed in the Rate Books or I am sure I would have taken copies of them. So I cannot confirm whether or not all their colours varied in the same way as for metal ships. However one wartime AFO happens to mention that an International anti fouling coating for wooden bottoms was red so variation of colour does seem likely. Combining all that with this contemporary wartime colour image of MTB 486 in Ramsgate harbour I think we can safely say that not "all" Coastal Forces craft bottoms were black. Re a book, it progresses - but slowly!

Rob, This is not true I'm afraid. A majority were probably red. But I would be very interested to know where "all the evidence" that you have seen is as it needs correcting. Richard

The records show that the Moravia brand of anti fouling paint was used on KGV at that time. Moravia anti fouling was only supplied in black or grey. There are photos* of KGV's lower hull in dry dock at Liverpool after ramming Punjabi and it is clear that her bottom was not black which means it must have been grey. * See IWM A9950 for example

Lots of good observations. Re 4, the black rectangle. I think this is an open doorway. The effect is caused by the bottom half being behind a canvas dodger along the lines seen here: Re 5, something similar on Barrie, Begamot, Bucktouche and Chicotimix also. I did not go any further than C in the alphabet. A sort of protective dado in an area of the paintwork that must have received quite a lot of mechanical abuse from people and depth charges? Re 6, if your boat got smashed up in a storm I think you got a fresh one issued in generic dark grey and it stayed that way until you had time to paint it. One other detail. I think the angle of the lower edge of the WA blue panel at the aft end of the deckhouse is shallower than in the Pearson illustration

Great! I have a different take on 3 of your IDs: 11.54 (& 11.46): Revenge (greater horizontal distance between aft director and pom pom centrally mounted on X turret roof, and likewise between B turret’s centrally mounted pom pom and the forward director) rather than Royal Sovereign (where pom pom is at ‘rear’ of B & X turret roofs and equivalent gaps are distinctly smaller, especially in the case of X turret). 12.06: Resolution (Walrus on catapult on X turret) rather than Ramillies (no catapult on X turret) 18.38: Quickmatch (G92 and flat-topped single 4.7” mountings) rather than Nizam (G38 and curved-topped twin 4.7” mountings).

Are you and TJStoneman one and the same?

Yes, there from pre-war. See IWM photos A5741 & 5742 for that location in September 1941 (showing Oerlikon mounted just aft of the quad 0.5").

At the time you are modelling (Sept 1941) Type 284 on the 6" DCT and Type 285 on both the two bridge HACS but no Type 285 on the aft HACS. I have a number of private photos of Sheffield taken immediately after her July/August 1941 refit that clearly show this. However there are also some publically available images from your timeframe that show this including IWM A6854 and IWM A5766.

Er, no, I think you have misunderstood. I said I would let you research the overseas ones!

Not sure what paint scheme you are planning for your model, but if you want to match B30 go to the Sovereign Hobbies range or try to match this LCT. Those LCAs at Weymouth in June 1944 in the colour photos may well not be in B30.

I think I will let you do the research for some photos

Your first photo was taken on the Clyde. The tug Strongbow was owned by the Glasgow tug company Steel & Bennie Ltd. She would have been painted in their livery:

I have over 700 photos of RN Tribal Class destroyers. Of these over 650 are from the WW2 years and in not one of them is the roof or its frame fitted. Come war it was rather important to be able to see the sky. The only photos I have showing the roof fitted are pre war in the Med where it must have been a pleasant sunshade for those on the bridge. Photos with frame only fitted are again peacetime and tend to be delivery photos fresh from the builders.