HMS Warspite & HMS Valiant camo circa 1941

[thekz]

Gentlemen!
I came across information on the web (not confirmed by a photo and links to any documents) that Warspite received the well-known camouflage not during the modernization at the shipyard in Phuket, but much earlier - even before the battle of Matapan. Has anyone seen the confirmation of this version of the photo?
As for HMS Valiant - I will be grateful for any legible photos of him in this camouflage.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

Without having checked the details of the shape of the pattern, the general appearance is broadly correct although they are portrayed using the same incorrect understanding of what the paints actually were that has plagued almost all Royal Navy paint topics for decades. 507B was discontinued in 1940 - I can guarantee it was not present on any battleship in 1942. It was also identical in its colour to 507A. Both have historically been portrayed wrongly since a bit of a logical leap taken some decades ago that if 507A = Dark Grey and 507C = Light Grey then logically 507B must be medium grey half way between them. This was, however, an assumption too far and one proven to be false.

 

 

In practise, therefore, the tones of paint shown on HMS Warspite and HMS Valiant were the same. Whilst the subject of paints themselves may seem semantic, I firmly believe that wherever a clear demonstration of lack of understanding of the paints themselves is apparent, then the reader should question everything derived from this essential core knowledge. If one doesn't understand the paints, they've either got more wrong about the camouflage overall and the paints used on it or if they did get something right it was by accident. Afterall, how can someone correctly identify a paint if they don't already know what the paints were?

[Richard502]

How about the planked decks? Wood or painted?

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

From the aerial photographs I have of both Warspite and Valiant in 1942 as compared to my photographs of Malaya in 1942, the latter is clearly darkened as per orders in effect whereas the former two appear to have left their decks bare - although the tone of the wood isn't light and bright. The tone of the wood is clearly much darker than the 507C, but slightly lighter than the 507A including and much lighter than the very dark paint used on the steel decks.

[iang]

On 11/03/2021 at 05:35, thekz said:

 

Gentlemen!
I came across information on the web (not confirmed by a photo and links to any documents) that Warspite received the well-known camouflage not during the modernization at the shipyard in Phuket, but much earlier - even before the battle of Matapan. Has anyone seen the confirmation of this version of the photo?
 

 

This is a photo of Illustrious wearing her Alexandria disruptive pattern, launching Swordfish, with Warspite in company. The camouflage on Illustrious dates the photo to no later than Operation Excess in January 1941. This photo is usually described as Formidable, but the camouflage pattern does not match Formidable's Alexandria pattern. In addition, while Illustrious only embarked Swordfish and never Albacores, the reverse was generally true of Formidable, though the exception being around the time of Matapan where shortages of Albacores forced some Swordfish replacements.

[dickrd]

There is AWM film dated 29 Sept 1940 of Warspite from HMAS Stuart showing Warspite in this patterned scheme at that time. There is an AWM photo dated 31 July 1940 taken from HMAS Sydney showing Warspite not in the patterned scheme (still in overall 507C). So she doubtless repainted into the pattern during August 1940 like most of the rest of the Med Fleet.

[thekz]

39 minutes ago, dickrd said:

There is AWM film dated 29 Sept 1940 of Warspite from HMAS Stuart showing Warspite in this patterned scheme at that time. There is an AWM photo dated 31 July 1940 taken from HMAS Sydney showing Warspite not in the patterned scheme (still in overall 507C). So she doubtless repainted into the pattern during August 1940 like most of the rest of the Med Fleet.

Thank you Dick
You are knowledgeable as always 
Is there any reason to consider the 1940-1941 camouflage scheme identical to the 1942 scheme? Or they were different?

[dickrd]

1 hour ago, thekz said:

Is there any reason to consider the 1940-1941 camouflage scheme identical to the 1942 scheme? Or they were different?

 

Although superficially similar, there were significant differences between the 1940 pattern and the 1942 pattern on the starboard side. I don't have a clear enough image of Warspite's port side in late 1940 to say if this was also true for the port side.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2021 by dickrd

[thekz]

And when do you think the first scheme changed the second? In a Phucket?

[iang]

31 minutes ago, dickrd said:

 

 I don't have a clear enough image of Warspite's port side in late 1940 to say if this was also true for the port side.

 

This one might help. Taken from Eagle, with Illustrious behind Warspite. This is before Illustrious received her disruptive scheme, so probably early September 1940.

 

 

 

[thekz]

4 minutes ago, iang said:

This one might help. Taken from Eagle, with Illustrious behind Warspite. This is before Illustrious received her disruptive scheme, so probably early September 1940.

 

 

 

But Warspite`s pattern seems later variant, isn`t it?

[iang]

I don't think there is any doubt about the date (and in any case the ship is clearly pre-Bremerton 1941/2 refit). I've also got a crystal clear photo of the port side in the 1942 scheme, which I'll dig out.

[dickrd]

1 hour ago, iang said:

This one might help. Taken from Eagle, with Illustrious behind Warspite. This is before Illustrious received her disruptive scheme, so probably early September 1940.

 

That helps greatly Ian, thank you!

 

From what can be seen it appears that the portside remained the same:

 

 

 

(kz, I think you mean Puget Sound, Bremerton, USA not Phuket, Thailand) 

 

[thekz]

36 minutes ago, dickrd said:

(kz, I think you mean Puget Sound, Bremerton, USA not Phuket, Thailand) 

of course

[thekz]

Thanks to Dick and Ian. Warspite is more or less sorted out
Gentlemen, please enlighten me how Valiant looked at the time of the battle at Matapan

[iang]

I have a photo of Valiant in the scheme illustrated in your first post. I'll need to scan it.

[iang]

Scanner is U/S, so here's a phone photo :

 

I think the location is Suda Bay, December 1940 - but I'm not certain of that. Others may know more.

Edited May 21, 2021 by iang