dickrd

It means that KGV and PoW would have had grey bottoms and the other 3 red bottoms when first entering service. (The actual shade of the greys and the reds of each manufacturer may have differed slightly of course!)

Me too! Take the KGV Class for example: KGV - Vickers Armstrong, Newcastle - Moravia//PoW - Cammell Laird, Birkenhead - MacArthurs//DoY - John Brown, Glasgow - Clarks//Anson - Swan Hunter, Newcastle - British// Howe - Fairfield, Glasgow - Red Hand. There must be a quality issue at play as for signficant ships by the WW2 era the Admiralty was restricting its choice to just 7 of the 17 authorised suppliers. But beyond that, is this variety within a single class of ship a feature of a wartime command economy ie were they just spreading the work between the various manufacturers according to their capacity to supply and deliver?

Since I wrote my original paper (Royal Navy Anti-fouling and Boot Topping Colours– Sovereign Hobbies) in December 2020 I have continued my research to enable an updated version in due course. Now that I have consulted a much wider range of records I can say that my original thought that shipbuilders might have sourced bottom paints from local suppliers has proved unfounded. It now appears that the paint to be used on any given significant ship was dictated centrally by the Admiralty. So when cross-referencing ships’ bottom paints back to a particular shipbuilder the picture that emerges is one of variety, albeit with some significant biases, rather than uniformity. In the specific case of Repulse when built Zocus paint was used on her bottom, so definitely not the same as Hood. In the WW1 era their antifouling came in red, black and grey (but in grey only by WW2). Given AFO 1972/16 she should therefore have had a grey bottom when completed. Unfortunately I have not (so far) found any record of what was used on Repulse at any time after she left John Brown’s but I suspect that at one of Repulse’s major refits interwar she may well have been changed from Zocus. Zocus seems to have gone out of favour with Admiralty sometime after WW1. (And of course if her 1st Lt was accurate in reporting her red bottom when sunk it cannot have been Zocus then.)

Just to be clear for everyone's benefit, I have so far found no information regarding the lower hull colour on HMS Colombo nor made any suggestions as to what it might have been. My research into the anti fouling paint colours worn on RN ships suggests that it would most likely have been a red or a grey, but it could have been black (although this is less/un likely), and even conceivably a green (although this is highly unlikely).

Given PoW's daily movements after completing post-Bismarck repairs and adopting the disruptive camouflage scheme in July 1941, by my calculations the bit of colour film at Gibraltar can only have been filmed on 24th September, 30th September or 1st October. The sun angle/possible shadow of camera ship suggests late in the day so looking at PoW's timings of arrival and departure (crew are lined up on deck in whites) perhaps 30th is most likely? This would tally with a possible identity of the camera ship.

Thank you for sharing these!

As it is me doing the research I can confirm that I have posted nothing anywhere regarding Cornwall's bottom. So far I have found no information re Cornwall. I will not be completing my research into the Counties until late September.

It is never going to be a good time to mention this but for those with an interest in the colour of the lower hull of the KGV Class battleship HMS Prince of Wales, I have consulted the Ships’ Covers for the KGV Class held by the NMM. A note states that MacArthur’s composition was designated to be used on the bottom of HMS Prince of Wales. MacArthur’s anti fouling composition came in black or grey. The lower hull of HMS Prince of Wales is visible in photos of her in drydock after the Bismarck action and when sinking. These show that her lower hull was lighter than (the black of) her boot topping indicating that her bottom was grey. The shades of grey (and red) anti fouling compositions used by the RN in WW2 varied according to the different manufacturers. Photos seem to show that MacArthur’s grey anti fouling might have been very slightly lighter than Home Fleet grey.

As it's a fairly easy fix I will risk mentioning this: Daring was in the Home Fleet's 3rd DF when sunk. They did not wear any funnel flotilla bands then.

Not Wright. Starling wore the pattern scheme in early 1943 - see IWM photo A15582. Raven is semi-right. But Starling was in overall light grey much earlier than he thought, by August 1943 in fact- see IWM photo A18961. She continued to wear this overall light grey scheme scheme through 1944.

Yes, the uppermost photo shows HMS Bramham. It is wrongly identified as HMS Ledbury in many places.

Sorry, I have no documentation re Rodney's anti fouling. Photos show that it was significantly lighter than the boot topping so black can be ruled out.

Just to highlight that the shade of the grey anti fouling (AF) compositions for ships’ bottoms of the different manufacturers was almost certainly different. Hood had Peacock & Buchan’s AF and from the very few photos available their product seems to have had quite a dark tone, probably slightly darker than Home Fleet Grey (HFG). KGV had Moravia and the tone of their grey AF appears to have been slightly lighter than HFG. Jamie @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies has faithfully tried to show this in the illustrations on the Sovereign Hobbies website and has suggestions for possible model paints to use to replicate them. In time I hope to be able to form an opinion re the other manufacturers' greys.

I am that Richard Dennis!

Just checking: you are going to paint that bottom grey (not red) this time I hope!

Hmm. Re IWM A8536, if there had been an Oerlikon immediately aft of that hatch at the time that photo was taken then I think that despite the "people" we would still have seen its barrel pointing vertically upwards like the others and also bits of its curved safety firing rail: Do we know when Rear Admiral Brind left KGV ie can we date A 8536 within April? I see now that KGV was at Rosyth 3-5 April so that is another occasion when the extra tub could have been removed after the March 1942 USN aerial photos at Scapa. But I'm beginning to wonder now if the second of the March 1942 USN images I originally posted (80-G-464698, the angle you had not seen before) has misled me and there were only ever 6 Oerlikons on the quarterdeck:

Yes, I think that there was plenty of room for a third tub there, nuzzled between the hatch and the pair of side-by-side tubs. This is the same location on DoY: Obviously by the time of your 1943 picture it had been removed: Looking at my photos I think it was gone by the summer of 1942 and so was perhaps removed during the May 1942 repairs/refit. And checking the October 1942 Admiralty armament return seems to confirm this reduction as KGV is recorded then as having only 17 Oerlikons!

507A. Also, and with all due respect to the Airfix Magazine, there were quite a number of differences between a D Class bridge and an H Class bridge, most notably the height:

If when sunk, overall Home Fleet grey most likely.

Although a few years later, the essential colours of the shipyard buildings and surfaces near the fitting out basin (at the bottom of the photos) will not have changed much: See also: John Brown Shipyard on the Clyde, Glasgow, Scotland (1926) - YouTube Visit to a Shipbuilding Yard (1951) | BFI National Archive - YouTube John Brown's Shipyard (1971) - YouTube

The contemporary Admiralty armament return lists 18 Oerlikons in April 1942. I think you will be able to reach that number with 7 (not 5) on the quarterdeck. The aft-most one seems to have been in the old semi-circular zareba where the UP rocket launcher used to be.

The patterned scheme was applied to DoY about mid-June 1941. The scheme lasted until it was painted out with an overall coat of Home Fleet Grey at Rosyth whilst completing later that year. No colour records of this camouflage have survived. The colours were bespoke, agreed on site by the Directorate of Camouflage’s expert and John Brown’s foreman of painters. Given that the scheme was designed to disguise the ship against air attack whilst in John Brown’s fitting out basin it is more than likely that colours were matched to the immediate shipyard surroundings and buildings with consideration of how the shipyard might look from the air. This implies grey and grey-brown colours with the addition of black or a very dark shade of grey-brown. Have a look at colour aerial photos or film of the John Brown yard for the sort of colours. The pattern itself suggests industrial buildings, with saw-tooth roof lines, and shares some characteristics with the scheme applied to King George V when fitting-out on the Tyne in 1940.

For those interested (eg @Dmitriy1967 & @Adm Lord De Univers), I received the following from the museum re the model of HMS Ajax: HMS Ajax 1st March 2022 Уважаемый господин Деннис! Модель британского крейсера «Аякс» была взята войсками Красной Армии в качестве боевого трофея в Берлине в мае 1945 года. Затем эта модель находилась в одном из научно-исследовательских институтов, после чего была передана в Центральный военно-морской музей. Сведениями о том, как эта модель попала из Великобритании в Берлин, мы не располагаем. С уважением научно-информационный отдел Центрального военно-морского музея имени императора Петра Великого Dear Mr. Dennis! A model of the British cruiser Ajax was taken by the Red Army as a battle trophy in Berlin in May 1945. Then this model was in one of the research institutes, after which it was transferred to the Central Naval Museum. We have no information about how this model got from the UK to Berlin. Sincerely scientific information department Central Naval Museum named after Emperor Peter the Great

I would agree with virtually all your suggestions re the likely colours on Onslow at the time you are interested in. Re the ‘Admiralty grey’ of the Semtex, my interpretation of things is that this meant the shade of the then BS381C No. 32 Dark Battleship Grey now BS381C No. 632 Dark Admiralty Grey. Re the boot topping, there is a photo (Ensign 6, page 5) of Onslow as she neared completion in the fitting-out basin at John Brown’s that shows a very dark (black?) boot topping and, significantly, that this was darker than the lower hull further below. The same can just be seen under the pendant number in this poor quality image of her departing John Brown’s in overall Home Fleet grey (HFG): Judging by the draught marks at the bow, the lower edge of the HFG/upper edge of the black boot topping on the lower hull remained in the same position at the time of the photos you have linked to taken some months later when she was in the dark hull/light upperworks scheme. This says to me that the boot topping was not over-painted. I’m inclined to discount the illustration on the cover of “Artic Destroyers” suggesting no boot topping and a red bottom colour coming up to meet the HFG at the time of the Vaagso Raid. No Admiralty Fleet Order in force at that time would explain/sanction that on a Fleet destroyer. Also, apart from the photographic evidence (above) that there was a boot topping, the artist has erroneously depicted Onslow in overall HFG whereas she was in dark hull/light upperworks at that time and he has omitted the flotilla markings on Onslow’s funnel. I suspect that the illustration was based on this bit of film: Re the colour of the lower hull below the boot topping, I’m afraid that DoY’s bottom colour has no bearing on Onslow’s despite them both being built in the same shipyard. Which of the various potential manufacturers was used to supply the bottom paint for Onslow is what matters. Ships being built in the same shipyard at the same time could and did have different bottom paint and this came in different colours. We need to know whose paint was used for Onslow’s bottom. Unfortunately I don’t think any record re Onslow has survived. Based on the Ensign photo we can rule out black so I’m afraid that probably leaves it as a 50/50 toss-up between red or grey. (I suspect that 25ft boat just remained dark grey when they painted the upperworks light grey.)