The Ship Model Forum

Thanks again for your information. I always wondered why none of the RN 1929 Munsell color references were used.

[quote="Ed R"]Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate the information and clarification with the sources you provided. Also, why weren't any of the 1929 edition Munsell Book of Color references used that were provided by Raven? Were these accurate?

Ed[/quote]

Hi Ed,

There were a few reasons:

Firstly, I hate using Munsell - it is a clumsy system with a large degree if inherent subjectivity

Secondly, a Munsell Book of Color is an absurdly expensive reference book for a system I will avoid if at all possible, particularly given the following. We've literally spent thousands on equipment and reference material but a Munsell book is positively ridiculous money

Lastly, nobody has ever been able to tell me where Alan Raven actually [i]got[/i] his Munsell matches. There are none that I have ever seen recorded in a primary source (i.e. contemporary / official) capacity, and if they are the same ones reflected on Steel Navy here: [url]http://www.steelnavy.com/rnchips.htm[/url] then they appear to fully include all of the errors we discovered looking at that primary source material and more - e.g. they have 507A and 507B as different colours and B30 and B55 are fairly bright greens which they absolutely were not, according to the Royal Navy's official paper trail. Hence, I believe the Munsell references are just what someone (Alan Raven or someone before him) [i]thought[/i] the colours were long after the event and are not based on anything worth taking seriously and certainly should not be valued more than primary source documents which contradict the Munsell references.

Thank you for the quick response. I appreciate the information and clarification with the sources you provided. Also, why weren't any of the 1929 edition Munsell Book of Color references used that were provided by Raven? Were these accurate?

Ed

Hi Ed,

Such a shade did exist, and its use is described here in this reproduction of C.A.F.O.1112/42:

[url]https://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk/pages/royal-navy-colours-of-world-war-two-c-a-f-o-1112-camouflage-of-sea-going-ships-june-1942[/url]

However, I believe Alan Raven is mistaken about the tone of paint applied to capital ships in general in the early war years, as we have primary source documentation reporting that ships in the Home Fleet be in Home Fleet Grey.

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/CB3106_Extract_Memo_dec39.pdf?4195512853471384647[/url]

And:
In August of 1940 the above statements are reiterated in Home Fleet Temporary Memorandum 288.

"PAINTING OF SHIPS. Camouflage painting of ships in patches of green and brown is not considered to be of any value for seagoing ships and is to be discontinued. There is some evidence that in certain conditions of light and background, a form of camouflage or dazzle painting, using light and dark grey, may confuse identification and determination of course by observers, particularly by those in aircraft.

2. Capital ships and aircraft carriers of the Home Fleet when in Home Waters are to be painted Home Fleet Grey. Cruisers, at the discretion of the Flag Officers Commanding Squadrons, may be dazzle painted as in paragraph 1 or painted Home Fleet Grey.

3. The decks of all ships, cruisers and above, are to be of a dark colour. For wooden decks and approximate mixture of Japan Black 6 parts Turpentine 1 part Liquid Dryers 6 parts Applied to a dry deck gives good results.

4. The tops of gun turrets and other horizontal surfaces are to be painted to tone with the decks, using the non-slip deck paint referred to in C.A.F.O. 1446/40. When dazzle painting is adopted these flat surfaces should be included in the colour scheme."

Thank you for the time and research for the POW camo profile. I appreciate you posting it.

As far as the 507A/B, it is possible that Alan Raven was correct about an intermediate color between 507A/B and 507C but got the nomenclature wrong? A dark gray like 507A/B was the worst color for the north Atlantic and made a ship very visible under most conditions. This is why the US Navy discontinued Measure 1 with 5D dark gray quickly for north Atlantic ops. A lighter color than 507A/B would make sense. Remember too, that Alan Raven had contact with the veterans from the RN camo section to consult and many veterans that are no longer around and he said in his Development of Naval Camouflage article that there was not much official documentation of this switch to an intermediate color.

Thanks for any input or thoughts.

Ed

[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/8ca2e2b4-727b-4d4a-88ea-de83574b2fa7.png[/img]

Edit: EJ Foeth added to credits plus tiny tweak to pattern on starboard side superstructure ahead of S1 5.25" mount

[quote="EJFoeth"]Some very, very early shots of HMS Prince of Wales :woo_hoo:

[url]http://ontheslipway.com/?p=3963[/url][/quote]

Real cool, THANKS!

Some very, very early shots of HMS Prince of Wales :woo_hoo:

[url]http://ontheslipway.com/?p=3963[/url]

Hi Darren,

I'm afraid not. We did look for a while for an authoritative definition of the word but its use seems slightly inconsistent. Not withstanding, it does seem that 507B was well on its way out from a wartime practicality perspective by December 1939 as this extract describes matt finish paint. 507B is known to have been glossy - that was afterall the peacetime purpose of the enamel added a decade earlier...

[quote]Memo extract from CB.3016

"Sir, With reference to your letter No.N.C.388/6801 of 8th November, 1939, I am commanded by My Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to inform you that H.M. Ships on foreign stations are painted as follows (vide C.B.3016 (37), paragraph 261, and C.B.3016 (34), paragraph 179):-

Cruisers and larger vessels - light grey all over.

Destroyers - dark grey hulls and light grey upper works.

Submarines - royal blue on Mediterranean Station, and dark olive colour on China Station.

2. All ships of the Home Fleet, including submarines, are painted Home Fleet grey, and a matt surface paint is employed both at home and on foreign stations.

3. Armed Merchant Cruisers are painted in their normal peacetime colours."[/quote]

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/CB3106_Extract_Memo_dec39.pdf?4195512853471384647[/url]

James, could you provide a definition of "for other than weather work"? I thought weatherworks was any surface exposed to the elements (weather), but now I'm doubting myself and can't find it anywhere.

[quote="Richard Durham"]The original Snyder and Short paint chips have 507A and 507B as distinctly different colors with 507B much lighter than 507A and 507B was supposedly was as a mix of 507A and 507C. Regardless of what I have read recently, I subscribe to the mix theory and that 507B was Home Fleet Grey.
With scale effects and flat coating thrown in, 507B is close enough to FS36320, Dark Ghost Gray, or TAMIYA XF66. I used Model Master Acryl Dark Ghost Gray to paint my 1/350 HOOD build in 2007. Dark Ghost Gray looks even darker against the wood decks and is quite convincing.

Rich[/quote]

Each to his own but with the very document available introducing 507A alongside a pre-existing 507B, explicitly giving them the same name and explicitly stating they were made using exactly the same formulae except 507A didn't get the 10 pints of enamel, I fail to see how anyone could still think 507B was a mix of a cheaper, less glossy version of itself plus a lighter grey. It defies all logic.

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/AFO_211-39.pdf?4195512853471384647[/url]

In order for Alan Raven's 50/50 mix theory to sound credible, one must not be aware that Pattern 507, 507A, 507B and 507C had all existed before in WW1 and only 507B and 507C had been retained and had evolved interwar.

Having the relevant documents now makes it plain as day. The 50/50 mix did NOT equal 507B. It was an emergency mix paint without a name for use in situations where camouflage was needed quickly but there was no time to obtain the correct MS & B (and later the B & G series) paints and apply a proper disruptive pattern scheme.

One such document describing that paint (and which incidently name-drops 507A as "Home Fleet Grey") is CAFO 1112/42. If equal parts 507A and 507C made 507B then one would assume this would say so.

[url]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0730/0927/files/CAFO1112_Camouflage_of_Sea_Going_Ships_Policy_June_1942.pdf?11210309288652758831[/url]

If 507B was made from 507A and 507C mixed in equal parts, nobody in the Admiralty was aware otf that.

The original Snyder and Short paint chips have 507A and 507B as distinctly different colors with 507B much lighter than 507A and 507B was supposedly was as a mix of 507A and 507C. Regardless of what I have read recently, I subscribe to the mix theory and that 507B was Home Fleet Grey.
With scale effects and flat coating thrown in, 507B is close enough to FS36320, Dark Ghost Gray, or TAMIYA XF66. I used Model Master Acryl Dark Ghost Gray to paint my 1/350 HOOD build in 2007. Dark Ghost Gray looks even darker against the wood decks and is quite convincing.

Rich

[quote="Guest"]Hi

I recently purchased the Tamiya Prince Of Wales 1/350
And im wondering, is there any tamiya TS spray paints that look good for the hull and superstructure? Im not sure i want that overkill camo pattern
I like the color when she was commisioned,(gray, medium gray and maybe light gray?) and in the instructions there is not listed side hull color, only different camo paints

Regards Daniel[/quote]

Prince of Wales was commissioned in Home Fleet Grey, a dark bluish grey. I know of no suitable Tamiya paints.

Hi

I recently purchased the Tamiya Prince Of Wales 1/350
And im wondering, is there any tamiya TS spray paints that look good for the hull and superstructure? Im not sure i want that overkill camo pattern
I like the color when she was commisioned,(gray, medium gray and maybe light gray?) and in the instructions there is not listed side hull color, only different camo paints

Regards Daniel

I’m thinking this is the case as there are images of a destroyer being fueled from her in her 1943 livery and the cables are running along the top of the side armour belt. Other shots of her in the same 1943 colour show no cables forward of the belt.

A series of shots from October 1942 show the rear cable (the bow shots are not really clear), late 1944 shows no rear cable. According to Dumas the cable was removed in the early 1944 refit at Liverpool. The front cable may have removed after the Punjabi incident (but I have no clear bow shots from late 42 to 44).

I want to do a KGV in later 1943, it appears the degaussig cable is gone from the front of the ship but the rear is still attached. Roger Chesneau's book on the KGV class says they were removed mid '42, but was it just the rear bit?

Question on Carley Floats on Duke of York:

How many it had?
What size were they? - 14ft X 9ft or 12ft X 7ft ?

Anyone know this? :wave_1:

[b]EDIT: I guess noone knows. Well, 29. And they are 10x5 as per my findings, so if someone looks in future... here you go.[/b]

If you meand the catheads, then no; thesecare used for anchor handling. (as seen here
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=162889&start=60#p697647)

Talking of paravanes - the small-ish projections overboard near the anchors, with what appears to be a sheave - were they used when handling the paravanes? I've never been able to find a clear photo of them and don't think I've ever seen one where they are being used for anything.