Since we’re on RN carrier colours... Ark 1941

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

As far as I am aware, there are not many photographs of Ark Royal as she was at the time of the Bismarck action.  There are, of course, quite a few taken of her in her death agony 6 months later, such as this well-known one [I only recently noticed the Bunting Tosser doing semaphore].

 

 

...and this, perhaps less widely known, but which the IWM (whose photos they are, obvs) plausibly reckons is on the same Malta Club Run as the sinking:

 

The topic of the apparent darker band close to the waterline has been discussed endlessly in many places (including on here).  My view is that it’s entirely consistent with the ship’s company touching up the paint when they could; this shot [don’t know provenance, and I know he/she can’t spell Gibraltar] appears to back that up - from the quarter deck openings up, she’s mottled & worn, but lower down much less so.  The most worn areas are the ones that are hardest to reach without staging etc.

 

 

Anyway.  I have two questions; I think I know the answer to the first one, but would appreciate any inout from @iang, @Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies and anyone else.

 

The infamous “mottle” looks for all the world to me like Home Fleet Grey (AP507A) worn so that an earlier AP 507C (Mediterranean Grey) scheme is showing through all over the place.  Is that right?  Or it it the other way round (AP 507A showing through worn AP507C)?

 

Second question.  Pre-war and early-war the flight deck would have been AP631 Bronze Grey.  Is it likely that changed before 1941 (other than lots of wear and tear, patching etc.)?

 

It’s going to be a fair while before any paint gets near my Ark, but you can not get ready too early!

 

Thanks - all contributions gratefully received

 

Crisp

 

 

Edited August 12, 2019 by Ex-FAAWAFU

[iang]

I agree with worn 507A over 507C at the time of sinking. In the IWM photo with a fresh coat of paint in a band above the waterline, the port side pom-poms are in place, so it's definitely after the Bismarck chase. The other structural feature that helps with dating is the splinter screen added at the after end of the island at flight-deck level, which was fitted in October 1940. When 800 Squadron Skuas left Ark Royal in April 1941, they were quite extensively photographed, and this might be the best episode that can be dated accurately to give an indication of her appearance a month or so later.  The well-known film of Skuas taking off from Ark Royal, filmed from the port-side looking towards the island, captures 800 Squadron leaving. The full version of this film can be seen at the FAA museum. Alternatively, there are photos of Ark Royal in company with Victorious that provide datable evidence for her appearance in June 1941. If i get a chance after work, I'll scan and post later.

Edited August 13, 2019 by iang

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I concur about 507A topcoat worn away to reveal previous 507C (which may have been better applied in the first place). The paintwork appears to show many large touch-ups. It seems to give the impression of being a floating Forth Bridge in that respect.

 

I also concur with your supposition that the flight deck would have been Admiralty Pattern 631 Bronze Grey pre war.

 

As early as 1940 though, the International Paint Company was supplying the Royal Navy with civvie made non-slip paints in a range of colours. I'm away from my references right now but these included: (with possible additions of black and white - I can't quite remember)

Dark Grey

Home Fleet Grey

Bronze Grey

Light Grey

 

However in Young-Bateman's early design for Illustrious using 4 greys he mentions the flight deck requiring grit paints which would have to be specially mixed, which might imply either that someone had already accepted the grit paints as being suitable for flight deck operations generally leaving merely the matter of colour, or the opposite - that nobody had used them on flight decks yet.

 

I'm fairly happy that a carrier commissioned mid-1941 onwards could have had civilian supplied flight deck paints in any of the standard camouflage colours firmed up in the same year (probably along with the above shades already made and available).

 

I heard a second hand account from a guy who crashed a Skua (I think) that the flight deck was "medium grey" at the time. Without knowing if that gentleman went on to fly more aircraft from later flight decks or not, I can't comment on how possible it is that his mental picture has merged a bit. As you will know, investigators of serious accidents e.g. the AAIB are always cautious of even recent memories. From personal experience, I would have sworn blind that Rob Davies' parachute was orange when he bailed out of Big Beautiful Doll at Duxford in 2011 until I saw photographs clearly showing it was red and white alternating segments.

[dickrd]

An addendum to Jamie's post: it was actually as early as 28 September 1939 (AFO 2859) that civilian-supplied non-slip deck paints for the flight decks of carriers were introduced (non-slip deck paint where necessary for exposed steel decks having previously been introduced in 1938).  The supplying company (at that time) was the International Paint and Composition Company. The colours (then) were as Jamie says but not including white. So it would presumably have been CO Ark Royal's choice whether to continue with the bronze grey colour but using the new paint supplied by the International Paint Company, or to change to one of the other colours.

 

September 1939 is therefore the date for the availability and use of grit paints on flight decks of carriers (by cancelling AFO 1949 of 1933, AFO 2859 of 1939 discontinued AP631). Yunge Bateman's comment (August 1940) makes sense in that context. The flight deck shades he was proposing were slightly different to the International Paint Company's standard shades (supplied to him as samples) and so would have needed to be specially mixed. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by dickrd

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

Thank you all.  In view of your responses I am confident enough to go with worn 507A over 507C for the sides; I think it’s reasonable to assume that the wear & tear would already have been there (and there seem to be photos to support this assertion), but not as advanced as it was by the time she was sunk 6 months later.  That gives me plenty of scope.  

 

Jamie, even modern warships are “Forth Bridges”; whenever the opportunity presents itself they’ll have someone over the side with a paintbrush touching things up.  [Actually, I’m showing my age here; I no longer think this is true because of modern specialist paints.  But it was definitely the case in the RN of my era (78 - 97)].  This is partly because of the Naval mania for looking ‘tiddly’, but mostly because the battle against corrosion is never ending.  With the loss of Glorious & Courageous early on, Ark et al were worked really hard, so it’s not surprising that the paintwork looked a bit shoddy.

 

@iang I’ll seek out that Skua footage - I’ve seen it before but for some reason (i.e. without a shred of evidence!) assumed it was  earlier than April 41; thanks.  And thanks for the Victorious / Ark pics offer; yes please!

 

As for the flight deck, it seems it could have been almost any (grey-ish) colour, which also leaves pleasing scope for creativity.  You can clearly see traces of the pre-war yellow “landing circle” and centre-line stripe in phots taken well after it was painted over - and no carrier deck looks authentic painted a single, uniform shade; they’re always being patched.

 

Thanks again, all.

 

[Modelholic]

Why was 507A Home Fleet Grey being painted over 507C Mediterranean Grey? when she was still in the Mediterranean?

Was she due to leave the Med. and go to Home Fleet, or was it just 'available paint'?

Tom

[Graham Boak]

I understand it as 507A being painted over peeling 507A which had long ago been painted over 507C.  It being better to patch up the existing scheme than undergo a full repaint at the time.  However, being based a Gibraltar would imply use in the Atlantic as well as the Med, so perhaps it wasn't seen as being undesirable anyway.

[iang]

Victorious, Ark Royal and Renown during Operation Tracer (9.6.41 -15.6.41). I don't see any Hurricanes on either Victorious or Ark Royal, so I think it pretty safe to assume that this photo was taken after they were flown off for Malta, narrowing the window to 14.6.41 - 15.6.41.

 

 

 

 

And an enlargement of Ark Royal

 

 

 

 

I also don't see any evidence of the darker band of 507A at the waterline.  

 

Her logs (at TNA)  will give details of when she was painted at Gibraltar. I have copies of some of them for 1939-40, but only late May 1941

[dickrd]

Nice photos as ever Ian!

 

Sorry all, I have obviously come late to the game re the history of Ark Royal's paint scheme. What are the dates from-to that it is suggested that she had a deliberate camouflage scheme of 507C/Mediterranean grey on her hull above a band of darker grey 507A lower down ("at the waterline")?

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by dickrd

[Terry1954]

Another great thread. I can't help with any of the colour questions but could I just clarify something for my own benefit please?

 

In the picture (reproduced below) is the area of the really pale area outside hull between the two openings (blue arrow), the paler 507C grey that you refer to? If so does that mean that those internal areas adjacent (within the red) are the same 507C grey?

Iim sure I've seen some pictures that originally convinced me they would have been white......

 

 

 

 

Thanks

 

Terry

[Ex-FAAWAFU]

The bulkheads inside were indeed white.  I’m not completely sure what’s going in inside the red on the hull side, but comparison with the 507C / 507A area above and to the left suggests it’s the same.  Let’s face it; this is a reproduction of a reproduction of a scan of a blown-up version of the original, and who knows how often it’s been tinkered with, “enhanced” etc. in the process?

 

@dickrd, I was deliberately trying to steer away from that can of worms, since it’s been discussed to death on here and elsewhere, and my questions were about May 41 and the Bismarck action, not the scheme she wore when she was sunk 6 months later.  But my understanding is that it is at best highly controversial to suggest that she was ever “deliberately camouflaged”.  I think ( I stress think, having read a number of other posters on here and elsewhere who have done a lot more research than me) that it’s not a camouflage scheme; it’s an incomplete repaint by her ship’s company, where the harder to reach areas have not been redone.  The photo immediately above (with Terry’s red & blue additions!) shows that fairly clearly.  Put it this way; do you know of any other RN major warship which had a new camouflage scheme applied... but only up to about 20’ from the waterline?  The rest was simply left with wide expanses of peeling and worn paint?  She was due a refit in the USA a few weeks after she was sunk; I suspect she’d have been camouflaged then, just as her Illustrious class cousins were.

 

However, I also know that such discussions will invariably generate people who get hot under the collar and swear blind that they know different.