Jump to content

HMS King George V in 1942


Recommended Posts

A topic I see come up relatively often is HMS King George V's disruptive pattern camouflage scheme. It has been illustrated many times and quoted as using the two blues in use at this time. Unfortunately Tamiya's very popular 1/350 kit includes two paint schemes, and not one but both are significantly incorrect. The later Scheme A for 1945 fit as depicted in the kit shows 2 greys whereas the real scheme consisted of G45 and B20, a light bluish grey and a medium-dark blue-grey. The earlier scheme is not applicable to the fit contained in the box, and is an attempt to follow the the incorrect 2-greys + 2-blues scheme.

 

As it happens though, we have both some excellent quality original colour photographs taken aboard HMS King George V in November 1942 available on the Imperial War Museum's website clearly showing the light-medium neutral grey M.S.4. where all the aforementioned attempts show B.6., which are in turn backed up by reports written by Graham Hall - a name which appears frequently in old Admiralty files in The National Archives on the subject of ship camouflage - written following aerial observations of HMS King George V between 20th July to 3rd August 1942 from an Avro Anson over Scapa Flow. There's no document number per se, but the report is entitled "Camouflage Observation Trials". The report documents several observation runs. Observation No.1 names 507A, as do No's 63 and 65. Observation No. 61 names M.S.4. and 507C. None of the observations state B5 was on KGV, but HMS Anson is noted as having the 507A substituted for MS1, from which the other 3 shades were the same. Furthermore, the summary table of the report lists ships without B5 as "No B5" in that box - for KGV it says "N.K."

 

In conclusion, we can be more confident than usual that in the latter part of 1942, HMS King George V wore a four-colour scheme of 507A, B5, MS4 and 507C.

 

c53b612f62f58085dcf37bbf806928a7.jpg

 

2a3702a0c6805974eb95106a82460938.jpg b06b4e3e458ab8b38ad6ee485615b4a0.jpg The_Commander_in_Chief_Home_Fleet_on_Boa On_Board_a_Battleship,_November_1942_TR3

 

 

As it does crop up every now and again, and there are a fair number of commercialised publications showing 2 blues (albeit it seems they mostly copied one another), and only a handful of non-published individuals (including me), a heap of original colour photographs in the public domain and some 1942 observation reports held in a public archive showing MS4, not B6, I thought it was time for another illustration...

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this time I'd show some working. In academic exams it helps with scoring even if the answer is wrong :D

 

Let's begin with published sources. There is some logic to these so I'm not at all saying the authors' work is poor, and indeed between the two of them they get very close to the 1944 schemes seen on HMS Howe, for example, if the paint names are substituted for the later equivalents. To avoid copyright issues I have coloured in my own sketch according to these authors' books. You'll notice a big "NOT FOR USE" on them in case someone helpfully shares any of these images outwith the context of this thread. Notice also that my company watermark is missing - I present these to demonstrate how we approach this and to invite participation for anyone who wishes to - NOT to perpetuate things which aren't quite right and need some correction.

 

Let's begin with Alan Raven's Warship Perspectives. Overall a very good piece of work, and he had access to a lot of material and people now long gone.

 

bda4b915-44ac-44ba-b007-a3d5b2fad3b3.png

 

Alan Raven's is, in my opinion, the most correct of today's two authors. There are issues with the port side, but in general Raven gets the graduation of tones right on the starboard side and 3 of his colours match the observation reports above. If we grade the tones from darkest to lightest and call those A, B, C and D respectively, Alan got A, B and D correct. In addition on the starboard side, Raven got the placement of Tone C on the B turret barbette and on the lower quarter of the fwd superstructure.

 

Let's move on to Roger Chesneau's from his Shipcraft book King George V Class Battleships. It's stated as being the 1943 scheme, and if we ignore all the colour names stated and just look at the illustration, it's fairly close to the HMS Howe scheme from 1944:

1280px-HMS_Howe_(32)_passing_Suez_Canal_

HMS Howe in Suez Canal in 1944 - IWM photograph TR 2619. Howe appears to be wearing G5, B15, B30 and G45. Note however that all four paints appear on the starboard side of the forward superstructure, and that the starboard side of B turret is also in B30 - Tone C.

 

Chesneau's illustration, ignoring the captions for the colours:

0f1cb0a5-0458-46ab-b155-6298acd747bd.png

 

Note here that Chesneau quotes MS1 as Tone A in lieu of 507A. The text captions on the colour key names Tone C as MS2, but I know that to be a dark grey of 10% Light Reflectance Value, so instead I've coloured it in B6 as the illustration appears to portray.

 

Swapping the light blue for MS2 as the caption actually says, the scheme is a bit of a dog's dinner actually - I include this for completeness though as this is what the words actually say in the book:

88392c58-c68b-4a52-9132-93dbdcd10501.png

 

 

 

Now, let's make some progress. In post 1 above I shared a number of images which all show a slightly brownish mid-light grey which is notably absent in the previously published schemes above. Chesneau's starboard side conflicts with IWM TR 325 - the sailor with the Bren gun in another way too. Have a look:

 

c53b612f62f58085dcf37bbf806928a7.jpg

TR 325 - On Board a Battleship, November 1942

 

The sailor here is standing in ahead of and on the starboard side of B turret. It has to be B turret as it has two guns. The blue curves up and over that side and the distinctive KGV superstructure is in the background. The turret has been trained to starboard. There is no other way to interpret the orientation of this photograph and furthermore it cannot be reversed as sometimes happens with IWM photos because the Bren gun foresight is offset, and the correct way round. We can see a darker blue on the barbette than the colour above - let's call that Tone B in keeping with previous discussion. The paint on the upper part of the barbette matches the forward face of the turret and also the port face of the turret. This same paint is apparent on the forward face and starboard face of the superstructure behind, and an additional paint, darker than Tone B, is apparent on the top left of the photograph on the starboard face of the superstructure - this must be Tone A. The Tone C (or possibly D) paint dominating the photograph is the same mid-tone as see on the "vertical" portions of the 14" barrel countershading. The lower portions of the barrels are countershaded in white. The white contrasts sharply with the mid-tone. We know from pigmentation, that 507C was a bluish grey, and the paint apparent in TR 325 (and all the others above) is distinctly brown-tinged and mid-light tone. In the absence of the observation report described in Post 1, I'd still state with a high degree of confidence that we are looking at MS4 here.

resized_968120a1-0e3c-44a5-99d0-eaf4adea

 

The observation report makes is highly certain though. We are looking at Tone C here, and that is not B6, a mid-light greyish blue, but MS4. Alan Raven's tone placement in this area of the ship is correct and Chesneau's cannot be - B turret and the lower part of the forward superstructure cannot be 507C. Raven however cannot be correct on the port side of B turret in particular, as TR 325 shows at least the forward end of the port side of B turret to be Tone C / MS4 and not Tone D / 507C. More on that when we get to the port side!

ab58e08e-b756-415d-8686-c00d22294319.png

 

This brings another implication - in order for the disruptive scheme to "flow", it would be very unusual for a streak of MS4 on the top of B turret's barbette and on the forward superstructure to continue into a 507C turret and 507C panel on the hull, and indeed we have B&W images which show the tone remained constant. This means that Chesneau's starboard side is showing a lot of 507C on the hull (Tone D) which was actually Tone C (MS4).

 

 

 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, very interesting indeed. KGV is on my future build list (a few years off yet!) and this updated information is very useful.

 

As Stuart says, keep up the good work indeed!

 

Terry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sticking with starboard side, the following is the IWM's photograph A 12336:

1dc9ec33-2564-4416-8d6b-4c9263780dc1.jpg

On this, one can see the prevalence of "Tone C" on the hull. Forward a darker tone is visible, but aft it's darker still. In addition, the small counter-shading areas of Tone D (507C) are visible below the forecastle, and furthermore the little patch of darker camouflage below and just aft of the catapult is present as per Alan Raven's scheme but absent from Chesneau's.

 

0ab5ec90-bbd7-4412-8e3e-57fc57d7ea84.png

 

Looking at the port side of the hull next, the IWM has a particularly good shot (if only it were higher resolution!) of the ship square on - it's A 12335.

08e7dff5-1206-4941-b0dd-0d67305346fa.jpg

 

Here the shape of the Tone C and Tone D around the bow is clear. Again, the lighter patches on the hull appear consistent (Tone C) and this is supported by the stern end. The darker Tone A panel below the aft funnel is quite dark. The next panel aft of that is a touch lighter - it's Tone B (B5). The lighter paint either side of that Tone B panel under X turret is the same shade - Tone C, and we can see the little triangle of Tone D looking rather light there under the quarter deck. Based on this photograph, I have adjusted the shape of the Tone A hull panel below the P2 5.25" HA mount. The Tone B is clearly shown up on the bridge and up the port side of the forward superstructure, and is the same paint on the forward port side of the forward funnel.

f55c05fd-eb22-4378-afc9-32089d2a9b5f.png

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic work! I enjoy this kind of analysis, serves as inspiration for another project I really don't need right now 😂 Looking forward to seeing the final piece.

 

Is MS4 supposed to have a green or beige hue to it? Not sure if it's just my screen, but it looks different in your drawings compared to the paint chip picture and the colour photos. Looks neutral grey in the colour chip but very beige on your drawings.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vlad said:

Fantastic work! I enjoy this kind of analysis, serves as inspiration for another project I really don't need right now 😂 Looking forward to seeing the final piece.

 

Is MS4 supposed to have a green or beige hue to it? Not sure if it's just my screen, but it looks different in your drawings compared to the paint chip picture and the colour photos. Looks neutral grey in the colour chip but very beige on your drawings.

 

It's a funny colour - it's almost dead neutral on the CIELAB axis, leaning very slightly towards green under the D65 light source. Depending on the colour of the actual light, as well as the juxtaposition of being posed next to some distinctly bluish paints like 507A, 507C etc then it can look beige / almost like milky coffee. It's a rogue appearance though - it's not really there!

 

This is based on measurement of the duplicate samples at Kew, and the single MS4 sample at Portsmouth. In addition, the report AD.29 prepared by PRS on the merits of moving to the G&B / B&G paints written in late 1942 documented colourspace coordinates of the day using an optical colourometer apparatus, and these were tabulated on 3 tables corresponding to the 3 sources of paint samples provided to PRS. One of the sample sets is documented as G30. This is a paint that was never introduced as a B&G / G&B series paint but like the others, we have an educated suspicion that the paints were actually 507A,C and the MS&B paints. G30 correlates very nicely with MS4, and the colour coordinates work out very close to the Kew samples in particular. This does lend some strength to our suspicions that it was very close to neutral, slightly on the greenish side, and of a nominal 30% light reflectance value in tone (some docs say 32% but close enough).

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to back-pedal a bit here - I've been duped!

 

The apparent dark patch under the catapult which I mentioned above isn't there afterall. It's just shadow from the overhanging part of the catapult. Richard provided me with a crop of a better quality close-up (I can't share that here, sorry) but it does show that there is no paint demarcation there however there is a bit of paint discoloration below the catapult and hull plating seams below the catapult. Maybe rust, or just heavy grease washed down from the rails above. I can see why Alan Raven has the blotch there and it fooled me too - but this is what the starboard side of the hull really looked like (sans weathering!)

 

c877e764-3ebb-4c95-97db-5484159a6ac5.png

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is how I believe HMS King George V looked in the summer / autumn of 1942. Richard (@dickrd) kindly shared some crops of rare photographs he has been given access to. The quality isn't what we'd like to have, but it's what exists. They do consistently give an impression that the starboard side of the forward funnel was a lighter tone than the starboard side of the aft funnel, something not shared with photographs of the port side of the ship. Therefore, we think this part of the ship was 507C.

 

HMS_King_George_V_1942_final.jpg?885

 

I hope some find this useful. I may have a go at the sisters Anson and Howe if there's interest also.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Modelwarships crosspost)

 

I previously posted this (lousy) image from a small KGV album I contracted on Ebay:

 

file.php?id=119091

 

 

It shows a marked contrast in the forward B5 area (next to the turret) just aft of the boarding ramp. I do not have a good pic of KGV herself to compare, but I do wonder what it is and if it shows up on other images. . (edit: pics in Dumas' articles from WI certainly do not show it and also suggests a darker tone on the top of the armoured belt?)

 

mid_000000.jpg?action=e&cat=Photographs THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 15424) IWM Non Commercial License

 

mid_000000.jpg?action=e&cat=Photographs THE ROYAL NAVY DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR. © IWM (A 15425) IWM Non Commercial License

There should be counter shading below the rangefinders of the main turrets and the overhang of the splinter shielding on the boat deck, see, IWM A15424/15425 (These also shows minor outline differences with your current version.).

 

file.php?id=119832

 

 From the same album above, note the contrast difference on the splinter shielding of that 20mm emplacements on either side of the rear DCT.  Seems a lot darker, comparable to S4 turret? These IWM pics I mentioned also shows large contrast differences between each other, so the pic I added may also be far too dark for any firm conclusions if the starboard splinter shield is indeed really that dark. Certainly does not follow from the many IWM pics from the same period (taken on deck).

 

edit: (picture found on the web)

 

KGVatALgeriaSummer43_80G53002.jpg.731198

 

Ah, S3 should be partially darker?

 

Edited by foeth
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Evert Jan,

 

That's a good set of photos you have and unmistakably KGV of course owing to the square portholes on the stern.

 

I shall make some adjustments to my illustration accordingly (and now add E.J. Foeth to the bottom!) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If countershading is to be included then there was quite a bit more under various other projections. I fancy I can see it under the lowest (signal?) of the decks high on the bridge, under the starboard forward pom pom, and under the overhang either side of the boat deck on the aft deck house.  It’s a detail very hard to make out clearly in the available photos but more may have lurked elsewhere.

 

If the aim is to depict KGV in her 1942 disruptive scheme then care must be taken not to introduce elements from 1943 and 1944 photos. I have various photos of KGV at intervals dating from July 1942 to February 1943 showing the portside B5 hull panel under X turret and there is no dark stripe on it. Given the box-like office at the extreme aft end of the quarterdeck, EJ’s ebay photo is an April 1943 onwards photo.  The strange low protective screen around the floaternets on the roof of X turret may date EJ’s e-bay photo to the period very late Nov 1943-Feb 1944 as this feature is not present in any of the photos I have of KGV May-October 1943 (or indeed earlier). (This screening re-appears intermittently in photos of KGV in the Pacific in 1945). Is it known when (Nov 1943 or Feb 1944) the aft portion of her de-gaussing cable, visible in EJ’s ebay photo, was finally internalized?

Edited by dickrd
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • I received Jamie's AI file with the latest version of the scheme; I have an older bug-invested version of Illustrator that makes editing even worse than the typical soul-crushing counter-intuitive experience of working with any Adobe product. Shuffling fills and colors to dedicated layers and such makes life a bit easier than the current drawing (unless if was layered already and this was lost upon conversion).
  • I will work in full colour-blind mode using the results of the existing research wrt to colours and existing reference material (that I do not have, or so I assume).
  • If the aim is KGV 1942 I'll try to be extra careful. So far I foresee only minor changes in the pattern though, plus the aforementioned countershading. I already noticed it under the overhang of the rangefinders, boat deck, aft 20mm positions and the bridge superstructure. There are quite a few images on the IWM site to rely on. I noticed that the decks were darkened and all horizontal surfaces  have been painted in a very dark colour as well. Even the canvas covers of the hawsers and such have been painted very dark on top. This comment is currently missing in the drawing (top view should ideally be present).
  • The last picture I posted is not mine; I found it on some ship modeling website. A google image research netted zero hits and it is not at the IWM, AWM, or NMM online archives. The original poster cannot recall where he found the image. I have not gone through all material I have and may find a bit more, but expect nothing out of the ordinary. Incidentally, the file title says Summer 43.
  • I already noticed that the vague pictures I posted above are not very conclusive and also have several lighter tones underexposed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi EJ,

 

I usually have 3 main layers.

 

Top layer should be the line drawing

Second layer is camouflage panels (other than a base colour)

Third layer is a base camouflage colour. On KGV that was an overall in-fill of 507A.

 

My PoW one wasn't that well thought through (inexperience) and I was drawing all camouflage demarcations twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought so; the file I have now has 1 layer of only one pattern; the rest AI won't show. No matter, I could quickly move each one to a new layer. Now onto corrections! I'll track changes in a document as well, pointing out on pics what needs adjustments.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KGV_2dnu.jpg

Version 1, work in progress. Minor patch movement based on IWM A12235 & A13962, a great side view from Dumas' article (source should be NMM but is not found in their online database)

IWM A12330/1 do not suggest 507C on the STB stern with 507C clearly on the port stern? I also have difficulty spotting 507C ont he STB fwd superstruture but left it as is.

STB bow patch in flux, exact pattern near S4/P4 turrets also difficult to outline, aft std bridge, top position needs more work.

Edited by foeth
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, foeth said:

Take your time, I have a flight to Glasgow in a few hours for a meeting... (automated propeller optimization project!)...

A shame you are not slightly further north and east. I'd love to have a beer some day!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or whiskey :) This will be a Blitz meeting... sometimes I try coupling these meetings with small vacations but there is an anchor arrangement that needs further work and there new kittens that require attention...

 

I'll probably continue in the weekend and I have little doubt Richard will point out the finer flaws in the first version. The main spots on the hull should be a bit more accurate (used the IWM pics in the AI drawing for referencing). The 507C is clearly visible on Anson/Howe but not so much on KGV... but I have to admit I need to look much more carefully .

Edited by foeth
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already noticed that one but it should still be added (admittedly, I forgot to add it). I also noticed countershading on the rear of the pompom platforms on top of the hangars (but that is not visible in the side view). Also, need to check if white or 507C is more likely.

 

The image you attached does show the side of the rear superstructure quite clearly (scanned from a book by the looks of the pixelation?). I still need to dredge Tarrant from my library. Raven (& Roberts) / Burt do not show any new images of the 42/43 scheme.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Good morning everyone. Those following @Ex-FAAWAFU's superb HMS Ark Royal thread may have noted that @dickrd has been back to The National Archives again digging through what Ship's Books survive there. Richard informed me yesterday that HMS King George V has Moravia anti-fouling paint recorded in her files. Hence, I've updated these:

 

50a1c28e-1dad-4279-b902-6c07f3001446.jpg

 

14f16495-ed09-4fca-b518-5719303dcc27.jpg

 

5603eb6c-6763-4702-9115-f522b88f4ce0.jpg

 

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...