The Ship Model Forum

That would be most instructive



Incidentally, did you come across an actual color sample of B6? I'm really like to know what it looked like.

Luddite, I read it and unlike him, I am getting on trying to do something constructive by pointing out basic errors of fact which mislead people into believing items in his books to be true when they are not. Mal states he has 50 years of research but did not know of the existence and work carried out by Professor Dakin who was the RAN’s Technical Director of Camouflage during WW2. I suggested he check it out as it included his work on such classes as cruisers. He obviously did not do this. If he had, he would have found the same treasure trove of information which I am happily posting onto forums for anyone wanting such information. Neither he nor you would have to leave home to do it either as it is all available for download from the National Archives of Australia in various pdfs.

As we are talking of some problems in his latest book and the others, read on for a sample of the anomalies.

Mal says he has taken on board comments from others re colours etc. but still has some colours wrong, even more so now in the case of 507A/G10. If you care to look at other posts on this Forum, you will see that knowledge of the RN’s colours has increased considerably in the last couple of years from more data becoming available from both the British and Australian Archives.

Pattern 507B was actually the Home Fleet colour during most of the inter war period, 507A being introduced in Jan 1939 as a less glossy version of 507B. Also, Admiralty records show that 507B, 507A and G10 are one and the same colour. The only difference being the level of gloss.

The original 507A in existence when WW1 commenced was dropped sometime before 1926. The actual date hasn’t been ascertained yet. However Fleet Orders in 1926 state that 507B is the Home Fleet colour. This was a pure grey. The WW2 colours known as Pattern 507A, B and C all used a blue black paste by the start of WW2 with the one used in 507B/A/G10 being known as Home Fleet blue black paste.

The records also show that G45 & 507C are one and the same colour. The only difference being the level of gloss. Mal’s idea that RN G45 was a light olive green is nonsense. Does he have documentary evidence of the green colour?

There are more colour problems if you would like to hear about them.

HMAS Australia 1945 and 1947. Mal talks of her being in MS2 and MS3. Two colours which were replaced in 1943.

In 1928, he has Australia in MS4A and also Adelaide in 1939. That colour did not exist then. BTW Isn’t this book supposed to be WW2?

In 1942, Australia & Canberra were not in the RAN colour Chicago Blue. There is a note from Dakin that Australia and Canberra were painted in USN paint by the Americans when they joined up with them and Canberra was still in this colour when lost. The RAN introduced Chicago Blue in 1943 after Dakin had carried out trials in 1941 and early 1942 which determined that a dark dirty blue grey was the best colour. The RAN adopted their version of the USN paint in 1943. Prior to then, RAN ships left Australia in RAN camouflage and after joining the Americans were painted with their paint

Adelaide in 1940 in B6 and 1941 in G10 and B6. G10 came into use in 1943 and records show that Australia didn’t receive a sample of B6 until May 1942.

Hobart in 1941, “the main camouflage was altered by the elimination of areas of 507b, leaving the ship in 507C and 507A.” Funny that as 507b and 507a are the same colour!

Stirring up trouble a month after the last reply?

Well, back to counting rivets...

But who is sowing the confusion?

508medway- let it go mate. Did you not read Mal's last comment ? " All my research is my own. If it is in error, than that is my fault and I totally accept any blame. But in the meantime.....I am getting on with trying to do something constructive about filling a big gap in the reference material of our hobby. I leave it to the rivet counters and semi-professional experts, to confuse issues on this site."

Well as there is silence from Mal, I think I should point out some anomalies with the colours he is using and describing.

Are you there Mal? You say you have taken on board comments from others reading colours etc. but still have some colours wrong, even more so now in the case of 507A/G10. If you care to look at other posts on this Forum, you will see that knowledge of the RN’s colours has increased considerably in the last couple of years from more data becoming available from both the British and Australian Archives.

Pattern 507B was actually the Home Fleet colour during most of the inter war period, the Pattern 507A being re-introduced in Jan 1939 as a less glossy version of 507B. Admiralty records show that 507B, 507A and G10 are one and the same colour. The only difference being the level of gloss.

The original 507A in existence when WW1 commenced was dropped in WW1. This was a pure grey. The colours known as Pattern 507A, B and C all used a blue black paste by the start of WW2 with the one used in 507B/A/G10 being known as Home Fleet blue black paste.

The records also show that G45 & 507C are one and the same colour. The only difference being the level of gloss. Your idea that G45 was a light olive green is not supported by any contemporary source. Do you have documentary evidence of the green colour?

Going by these and other colour examples in the book, I can only surmise that you have never sighted the original colour samples held in the archives or the relevant AFO’s and CAFOs giving their mixing instructions.

BTW, What is the position now with your first two volumes in respect of colours? Despite your 50 plus years of research you have now changed you mind in the short time since Vol 2 as to what certain of the paints’ shades were! Are these books to be reprinted for the needed corrections?

I have that index. PM me if you would like a copy.
HTH

It appears that "was" is the operative word; I for one can longer find it.
Did I print a backup of that very useful index? Why no; that would have made too much sense.

Talking of research. Mal, you might recall I suggested last time that you review the files held by the NAA particularly those of Professor Dakin. I take it you did not refer to these archives.

Your comments on Perth at 1st March 1942 amazes and dismays me. You say you have researched extensively but seem to have no knowledge of the fact that in 1941 Professor Dakin was asked to use Perth as an experiment in camouflage. He handed over a plan, painted model and list of colours to be used. She was then painted in two schemes, one port and one starboard, for trials purposes. Port being a two toned pattern of Blue Grey and Dark Grey. This side is the one you seem to know of and have had some guesses as to the colour. Well it was two colours for a start. The starboard side was a disruptive scheme which you do not mention at all. Nowhere in talking about Perth have you mentioned that Dakin had actually designed her colour scheme.

From November 1941 through to early January 1942, Perth carried out various observation trials off Sydney including one with Australia and Achilles. The trials resulted in a recommendation that she retain her dual scheme for comparison purposes. At the end of January, she departed Sydney carrying this scheme never to return.

Still on Perth, or Amphion as she was, the colour scheme for the South African Station was the same as for the Mediterranean Station, overall 507C. Apart from documentary evidence and the Fleet Orders of the time, there is at least one photo of Amphion to confirm this.

Research ? Sigh...

Glad to hear the new book is out Mal. I'm expecting one in my Christmas stocking !

There is (was) an index to the Raven RN Camo-books, at the SMML site, by John Sutherland and Shane Jenkins.
Hth, Richard

Book 3 has now been released. Book 4 is concentrating on the Battle of the Atlantic, with all nations involved and merchant ships.
I note the various comments made so far.
I am aware of and have consulted many of the official references mentioned.
The problem is that as with you gentlemen who are discussing it, there is considerable disagreement on paint scheme shades and tones. Their availability and how they were applied. Were I to listen to all of them a book would never be written and it would be so full of alternative argument that it would be three times the size of the limits the publisher puts on each one.
Book 3 does adjust some of the contentious shades and after experimentation, they do come out better in print.
But once whilst I understand the rivet counters will find things to complain about, that for them is part of their hobby...finding errors and pointing them out. Hence I allow for that by including descriptions and letting them get on with their disputes and condemnations.
In the meantime I expect the intelligent reader will look at the material supplied and if they dont agree, will make their own judgements on what colours to use on a model. As has been pointed out, on small models the shades are incorrect anyway, because the same paint applied to a real ship, will look different on a small model. Therefore painting models is up to the skill of the modellers and I trust them to judge correctly.
The only area where I am personally disappointed is that these vocal critics seem to totally overlook the vast amount of material accumulated and put into each book. The amount of historical research in itself enormous, and incredibly time consuming, but actually drawing all those illustrations is a long and arduous task that often sees me burning the night lights until dawn in order to assemble such a collection. In the past four years I have produced over 3,000 ship illustrations, plus aircraft, gun mountings etc. Those offering expert advice on a particular shade of colour do not seem to appreciate the huge amount of work involved in putting each book together, and so lightly dismissing them is frankly, rather annoying. I would challenge them to sit down and produce their own works! Lets see them spend six months and more producing a volume! Then several months of editing and passing back and forth, for what in the long run is a rather modest return that does not come close to matching the hours of work done. This is not like writing a novel, where the author can become a wealthy writer. This is work for hobbyists, the returns for such books are financially low, and the greatest reward is hearing from readers of their pleasure in reading the works and using them. Anyone looking to achieve anything other than a contribution to the reading material for naval enthusiasts, modellers and wargamers would have to think again before embarking on something as extensive as I have.
I therefore rely on the providing the information I have researched. I leave it to the intelligent reader to make his/her own interpretation. Many other writers would not even bother to respond on sites like this. I do because I am a hobbyist and want my readers to know that I do not place myself above them just because I have been published. I understand that in all the years I have been one, there are always those who derive great pleasure from a critical analysis of the work of others. That model Greek Phalangite has the wrong shade of dirt under his toe nails! That model ship has the wrong shade of rust streaks! You forgot the smoke stains on the main mast of that model. I have heard it all in my 73 years and pretty much always from experts who themselves dont model, or have not contributed anything to the literature of the hobby world.
I have said repeatedly, that any errors are my own. All my research is my own. If it is in error, than that is my fault and I totally accept any blame. But in the meantime.....I am getting on with trying to do something constructive about filling a big gap in the reference material of our hobby. I leave it to the rivet counters and semi-professional experts, to confuse issues on this site.

Volume III is apparently coming this fall.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1848324200/re ... 5IYOTYQGUN

It's now on my wish list!

I think this is a very interesting discussion. Over the course of about nine years I have come upon many, many such "discussions" about historical colors for ships and aircraft. The aircraft guys are especially "intense." As a wargame miniature "toy" painter I am also very interested in the camouflage patterns as much as the colors. It is very helpful for individual ships to have unique paint features to help with recognition. That said, it is also extremely nice to see general color consistency across a whole fleet on the table. I have both of Mr. Wright's books and I love the huge catalog of specific camouflage patterns. I have used Alan Raven's four books for a long time and they are obviously a goldmine. However, I bow down and kiss Mr. Wright's feet for including an index in his books! My copies of Mr. Raven's books have very worn spines from all the page flipping required to find a specific ship and year.

All of these books are a treasure trove. I think David William's book on Naval Camouflage is also a "must have" to understand the structure and place for all of these schemes.

I also quickly noticed the discrepancies in some of the paint chips between Mr. Wright's books and the Snyder & Short paint chips. I am not in any position to know which are correct. Almost everything I have read (and experienced) is paint does vary from batch to batch, and it was certainly often in short supply during wartime. For now I am enjoying having such a wealth of information on the patterns, and I am sticking with the S & S colors as my baseline. I have also written a couple of graphics intensive books (on weeds) and I am well aware that maintaining color fidelity in print is very difficult, and rarely completely achieved. The colors on the backs of Alan Raven's books are a good example of "close, but no cigar" print ink color. The S & S chips are actual paint chips and are much more likely to be a good color match to the original samples. Whether all of those samples were complete I don't know. I will leave that up to those with the resources and time to follow such things.

I am thrilled to hear there are more books coming. I will definitely add them to my library - and use them!

@ Mr. Wright. Thank you very much for these incredible labors of love!

Hi Mal
One of your previous posts mentions volumes 3 & 4: is there an ETA for these next books?
Steve

Fair comment Shingen. I failed to engage brain before using that photo!

I do not think that is a good example. In the photos I have, it is obvious that the darkest color in the hull camouflage photographed lighter than the boot topping. There are three areas where this is clearly visible in the photo of HMS Jupiter passing in the foreground of HMS Kashmir where there are three patches on the hull of the darkest color at bow, under the funnel, and at the stern, with only the stern requiring a close look.

To me this indicates that there was some form of dark, intermediate, and light 'grey' used in the camouflage -- the photo is, I believe, from the late-1940 period. I do not know if the three colors are all in the blue-grey range of AP507 colors or if there was some early form of something similar to what would become the MS series colors, but it does not appear that the darkest color is black.

I hope the image makes it, I'm new at this.

Thanks, the RAN command was very much involved with the camouflage schemes. Admiral Crace, Rear Admiral Commanding Anzac Squadron, actually wrote to the CO of HMAS Sydney wanting to know what colours she was in, by whose orders etc. He then forwarded the reply to the Navy Board and Dakin. He also obtained the colour scheme for Achilles and forwarded that to the Navy Board and Dakin.

Although under the RN’s command, the RAN did think for itself. It was May 1942 when they finally received samples of the MS colours. Sorry Mal but if you have included MS colours in Australian based ships’ schemes prior to that, the scheme is wrong. They simply had no idea what the MS colours were until samples arrived in May 1942.

Having examined the colours, they decided that MS3 was not suitable for local use as it was too light, so they came up with MS3b. The only description we have of that colour is that it was greenish khaki. Dakin’s notes in late May 1942 include this comment “Survey ship to be MS2 for hull & decks and MS3b for deckhouse. MS3b indicates a darker tone of the original English MS3.” When the RAN finally promulgated its colours in 1943, MS3b was included as was “Shade Chicago Blue” and “Shade Sky Blue for Masts”.

The RAN was not inflexible as the archives show requests from Captains for their ship to be painted in a non standard scheme. One example is a frigate captain requesting his ship be painted “green” as it was to operate close inshore up in the islands and small vessels operating up there had been painted that colour. Chicago Blue overall was the standard scheme at that time in 1945. Finally the FOIC Sydney approved the request with copies going to the Navy Board etc. The only colour available in the RAN at that point which would seem to match that colour was MS3b.

However, I haven’t been able to find the specific painting instructions for that ship. I have seen a model of a frigate in the RAN’s collection made in 1946 in what was described as the “Islands Scheme”. It was two tone with a lower dark blue band (B15?) and the upper half of the hull and superstructure in a medium olive green which might be MS3b. No details of the ship as no pendant number painted on and no provenance to say it was still painted in the original paint.