The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:58 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Options:
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
What is the name in the logo in the top left? (hint it's something dot com):
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Thanks Tracy!

Your efforts are very much appreciated. :smallsmile:

GAB
Post Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:38 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
I finally got around to posting some low-priority documents that have a little bearing on this case. The main point is that ships weren't allowed to carry paint in 1945.

The Commander of Battleship Squadron One requests permission to carry paint in June of 1945, referencing "Pacific Fleet Memorandum 5H-43 (Revised)" in the first sentence. I don't have a copy of this memo (yet?) so I don't know the precise date, however the last two digits in the Pacific Fleet memos is always the year it was issued, so the original release date was some time in 1943. The "(revised)" muddles things, but I also have this document from May of 1943 also states "No paint shall be carried in ships of the Pacific Fleet while at sea," in paragraph 5. So, we know this was a long-standing policy for at least two years.

The Fleet Maintenance Officer for the Pacific Fleet forwards the request to CinCPac a month later but does not agree with the request. After the war is over the Commander of Battleship Squadron Two makes the request again and references the same PacFlt Memo 5H-43, indicating it was still in effect.

So, ships wouldn't have been able to repaint while under way. It would have only been done at anchorage or while under availability.
Post Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2019 11:09 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Michael,

This isn't to try and convince you that you are wrong, it is for anyone reading this thread so they don't blindly follow your logic. I have explained why your selection of which ship is painted with #27 Haze Gray is not a scientific process. You use a subjective process based on your assumption of how 5-H Haze Gray and #27 Haze Gray look in B&W images.

First off and the key point is that you base your selection of what ships are painted in #27 Neutral Haze Gray largely on selecting B&W photos seen on-line as lo-rez images that are far removed from the original photos. You cherry picked images whose Haze Gray is slightly darker than other images and declare them to be painted in #27 Haze Gray. NO ONE can determine the specific color shade of a ship from a grayscale image, specifically between two shades ... 5-H Haze Gray and #27 Haze Gray ... that have the same range of contrast possible in B&W photos. B&W photos vary a lot based on the negative film type used, what negative size the image was taken on, what camera was used to take the image, what settings were used to take the image, what filters (if any) was used on the camera's optics, what the weather and lighting conditions existed when the photo was taken, what processing was done to develop the negatives, how the print was processed and paper was used, etc. With well over 99% of original prints/negatives we know next to nothing to all these variables. The range of WWII images of Ms 22 ships taken from 1942 to post-WWII, show a WIDE range of contrasts caused by the factors I listed above. The contrast range for 5-H Haze Gray and #27 Haze Gray overlap to a large extent.

In the past I have posted examples and asked you to decided which paint those ships were painted and you never responded.

Even color transparencies taken during WWII have their limitations. Unfortunately, a large number of the available color transparencies are today rather poor quality. Having either faded, shifted colors, or completely lost ALL color.

You point to images of USS MIAMI, USS MISSOURI, and USS ALASKA taken in March 1945. Of these two are B&W images and only one image, USS MIAMI (CL-89), is in color. This is a crop of the scan of the original transparency at NARA that I made.

Image

The above image was taken by a USN photographer onboard USS WEST VIRGINIA (BB-48) that took several photos at the same time frame leading up to the Okinawa Operation and on D-Day, 1 April 1945. Here are a couple of other images made in the same roughly the same two week time period.

USS BULLARD (DD-660) and USS FRANKLIN (CV-13) are seen shortly after they arrived at the Ulithi anchorage just two days before TF 58 departed on 14 March 1945.

Image

This color image of USS RICHARD P. LEARY (DD-664) was taken off Okinawa beach on 1 April 1945.

Image

It is unusual to find color AND B&W photos taken of the same ship at the same time/day. But, here are a couple of B&W images of USS RICHARD P. LEARY on 1 April 1945, also taken by a USN photographer on USS WEST VIRGINIA.

Image

Image

Of the three ships above, USS BULLARD (DD-660) was overhauled and repainted into MS 22 at Beth-SF private yard 19-30 January 1945, when neutral paints weren't available. USS RICHARD P. LEARY (DD-664) was dry-docked and repainted in the Philippines during March 1945 just prior to the Okinawa operations. USS MIAMI (CL-89) was repainted out of dazzle to Ms 22 at some point prior to mid-March 1945. Maybe while her typhoon damage was repaired? There was a rush to repaint USN ships out of dazzle to either Ms 21 or Ms 22 after the Iwo Jima operation.

Which of these ships are painted using Neutral Grays??

As for USS MISSOURI (BB-63), there are some B&W photos of her in March-August 1945. I'm not reposting most of these because they have been discussed before. But, the two US Army Signal Corp photos taken at the surrender are useful to compare side by side. Same camera, same photographer, same subject ... only camera settings are different. As I said above, there is no way to determine if she was painted in Neutral or the Blue-Purple paints. What is known that USS MISSOURI was painted (as was USS ALASKA) painted into Ms 22 before the neutral grays were available ... AND EXISTING SUPPLIES HAVE BEEN USED UP. It is possible that someone decided to have the ships repainted with neutrals once in the war zone, but given that NO MENTION is made that she was repainted (touched up for sure) and no period of drydocking to make this large job easier than having the crew go over the ship with paintbrushes.

Image

Image

Below are a series of destroyer images for units repainted to Ms 22 camo scheme at various time frames during 1945 when the neutral paints were being introduced while "existing" supplies of the blue-purple paints were still available. I selected these images out of over 4,000 images of FLETCHER class destroyers to illustrate the wide range of contrasts seen with Haze Gray.

USS SIGSBEE (DD-502) from her at Maston Nav. private yard on 30 December 1944 (when neutral grays were NOT available) to 14 April 1945 after she was hit by kamikazes.

Image

Image

Image

Image

USS MORRISON (DD-560) on 1 February 1945 at HPNY at the end of her overhaul and repainting to Ms 22.

Image

USS WADLEIGH (DD-689) on 10 April 1945 at MINY after she was overhauled/repaired and repainted to Ms 22.

Image

USS CAPERTON (DD-650) and USS COGSWELL (DD-651) in May 1945. These two destroyers were overhauled and repainted in Ms 22 from 16 February to 3 April 1945, at Terminal Island D.D. (became Long Beach NSY) for USS COGSWELL and from Todd-San Pedro for USS CAPERTON.

Image

USS GATLING (DD-671) at MINY in June 1945 when she was overhauled, upgraded to the Anti-Kamikaze Mod, and repainted into Ms 22 camo.

Image

Image

Image

USS MILLER (DD-535) at MINY on 24 August 1945 after her overhaul and repainting into Ms 22.

Image

Image

USS STEPHEN POTTER (DD-538) at MINY in August 1945.

Image

Image

In another case of having a color image of a ship and a B&W image at "about" the same time frame, here is USS COTTEN (DD-669).

The color image is thanks to NHHC and was taken as she was escorting a troop ship convoy to the war zone shortly before the war ended, likely in late July or early August. This image, one of a series, was taken by an officer on one of the troopships with his personal 35-mm camera. The B&W image was taken on 14 June 1945 after completing her overhaul and upgrade at HPNY.

Image

Image

Compare these images to each other and from Mr Potter's criteria, decide which images show 5-H Haze Gray or #27 Haze Gray ... even if two photos taken on the same day show different contrasts.

Let me know, because I sure can't tell when the "transition" from Blue-Purple paints to Neutral grays happened.
Post Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:44 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
The issue concerns ships in measure 22 in 1945. March 1945 photos of USS Miami, USS Missouri, and USS Alaska, readily available at http://www.NavSource.org, consistently show the dark reflectance of #27 neutral haze gray above the dark hull band. Nothing in Tracy White's documents contradicts that.

Any honest person can compare 27%-reflectance #27 neutral haze gray with the much lighter 37%-reflectance 5-H purple gray dated 1941. I have offered Rick Davis new tins of #27 neutral haze gray and #37 neutral ocean gray, and if he wishes a ship model kit, on condition that he first announces that he will build a competent model in measure 22 with those paints and will post photographs for all to see. He declines. Tracy White wrote about himself (2/18/2018 on The SteelNavy.Com Message Board) regarding the demonstrable (to anyone else) accuracy of ColourCoats US28 to represent #27 neutral haze gray, "I haven't looked at it at all. I do not consider myself a good judge of color subtleties." On that, he and I concur, although Tracy White posts that in photographs he sees "color shifts" and "clouds," that others have monitor problems (affecting printed books), and that Steve Wiper was "cherry picking" in printing all known photographs of USS Alaska in March 1945.

Tracy White's conjecture that USS Missouri "was not likely in neutrals at all at this time," i.e., when USS Missouri departed Hunters Point Navy Yard in December 1944, means that instead Missouri departed Hunters Point in 37%-reflectance 5-H purple gray on her upperworks. It is the case that USS Miami was repainted in theater to neutral grays by the time of her March 1945 photograph at Ulithi. Paul Stilwell, Battleship Missouri, (U.S. Naval Institute) has nothing consistent with the upper hull band and the entire superstructure and armament of Missouri being completely repainted during this time, an odd omission if that's what it is, since the book cites other instances of repainting. Where is evidence that during in the weeks between Hunters Point and her March 1945 operations, the ship was repainted in #27 neutral haze gray? The actual absence of that evidence substantiates that Tracy White's conjecture that USS Missouri "was not likely in neutrals at all at this time" is imaginary.
Post Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:42 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Great stuff, Tracy. Thanks for all the research you do!
Tracy White wrote:
Even the February 1945 instructions for painting Measure 22 states, "Apply a horizontal band of Navy Blue (5-NB) or #7 Navy Gray (5-N), if blue not available, to the hull."

Interesting that some of the ships would have the combination of the newer neutral gray and the old navy blue. That would look interesting on a model! Probably drive some IPMS judges out of their minds, too. :heh:
Post Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:44 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Michael Potter wrote:
Nothing in Tracy White's research supports that USS Missouri "was not likely in neutrals at all at this time" or that 5-H haze gray was even authorized.


Other than, "use up existing stocks,"

And I think I pretty effectively destroyed your argument that Missouri's Dazzle was neutral. Most of us would be open to the possibility of Missouri being in neutrals at the time the surrender if your methods of determination weren't so ... I'm seriously not trying to insult you here, just can't come up with what feels like a adequate "neutral" (no pun intended) description .... worthless.

I will accept all the criticism for that being a horribly constructed last sentence.
Post Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:43 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
In Measure 22, Navy Blue (5-NB) or #7 Navy Gray (5-N) applied to the hull in a horizontal band below the lowest point of the sheer line. That dark band is all that Tracy White's post addresses.

Above the horizontal band, the ships used #27 neutral haze gray, which for a modeler is available as Colourcoats US28 and M03. Airbrushed samples of ColourCoats US28 and M03 are close to Pantone Uncoated 416U, which < https://www.e-paint.co.uk/ > rates as Light Reflectance Value of "approx. 28", close to the 27% reflectivity of USN #27 neutral haze gray. Those similarities substantiate that Colourcoats paints US28 and M03 are authentic for the actual wartime #27 neutral haze gray of 1945, in USN camouflage measure 22. Any honest person can visit a commercial print shop and verify this with your own eyes.

Snyder-Short USN WW2 Ship Colors Set 1 sample of 1941 5-H haze gray matches Pantone Coated 2162C, which < https://www.e-paint.co.uk/ > rates as Light Reflectance Value of "approx. 37." Any honest person can visit a commercial print shop and verify this with your own eyes.

March 1945 photos of USS Miami and USS Missouri, and USS Alaska consistently show the dark reflectance of #27 neutral haze gray above the dark hull band. Nothing in Tracy White's research contradicts that. Nothing in Tracy White's research supports that USS Missouri "was not likely in neutrals at all at this time" or that 5-H haze gray was even authorized.
Post Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:44 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Rick E Davis wrote:
Michael,USS MISSOURI was painted in her dazzle (USS Missouri (BB-63) used Design 22D in Measure 32 colors of dull black (DK), ocean gray (5-O) and light gray (5-L)) on the East Coast in mid-1944 well before Neutral Paint. Then she was repainted into Ms 22 before heading to the War Zone ... in November-December 1944 ... not enough time for her to have gotten the new paint.


Bump to an old thread but with new old documentation! I've recently updated my camouflage page with some new documents I found on a past research trip. A little background to make it easier to follow what I'm about to summarize. Bureau of Ships in Washington DC was in charge of setting policy and direction, but they did not develop or manufacture paint. Paint formulas had been developed and tested by the Philadelphia Navy Yard (PNY) since before the war. They presumably had equipment to manufacture some paint, but they weren't an official paint manufacturing yard for distribution. Mare Island and Norfolk Navy Yards (MINY and NNY respectively) were the exclusive paint paint sources at the start of the war, but by 1943 demand outstripped their ability to fully furnish needed quantities and some of the formulas had been inadvertently leaked to civilian paint manufacturing companies, and the decision was made to simply open it up and let them provide paint as well as MINY and NNY. It was not completely outsourced, however, and the two yards continued to provide significant quantities of paint to the fleets in their respective oceans.

So, in late June BuShips orders PNY to develop new paints using only black and white paints (i.e. neutral and not purple blue-based such as the paints that had been in use since the start of the war). The paints are not named or designated, but a follow-up letter back to BuShips a week later does, and references the initial letter, so we know that they are talking about (among other things) what will eventually be two of the "1945 neutrals." One of them is #17 (Ocean) gray. Note that the date on the first memo is June 22 - Missouri was commissioned in dazzle paint on June 11, before the neutrals were ordered to be created. I guess it is unambiguous that a ship was painted in colors before they were even created.

This response also includes the route slip in the Bureau of Ships camouflage files that was attached to the document. Note that there is an erased note (I tried to make it out but could not) on July 4th, then we jump forward to September where there is discussion of the question of gloss that PNY sent. We don't know that this actually indicates a delay of two months before work started, but I don't find it likely.

However, the next batch of documents is in November and it indicates that the paint formulas have not been finished. Philadelphia Navy Yard proposes a formula for #37 Light Gray on November 15 which is then approved a week later. In between this, Norfolk Navy Yard sends paint samples to PNY and requests paint chips from them. This memo indicates that Norfolk Navy Yard has started manufacturing the new paints, but Missouri had left a couple of days later for the west coast.

It should also be noted that a memo sent to MINY and NNY the same day that #37 Light Gray was approved refers to these formulas "as a temporary measure." I don't know the full ramifications of this statement at this point. Were there multiple neutral formulas in play? I haven't found all of the referenced documents yet.

Now, we go back to a November 21 directive from BuShips to the Pacific Fleet. In it, we see a couple of crucial statements:
* "A new gray paint, designated as Navy gray, will be created" (paragraph 3)
* "The paint manufacturing yards, Mare Island and Norfolk have been authorized to ... continue the manufacture of Navy blue paint as required for Measure 22 only" (paragraph 4)
* Paragraphs 5 (a) and (b) order the issue of old mixtures and deck paint until supplies are exhausted.

Missouri left the west coast for Pearl Harbor on December 18. Between her arrival on November 28 and that day she was repainted into Measure 22. Even the February 1945 instructions for painting Measure 22 states, "Apply a horizontal band of Navy Blue (5-NB) or #7 Navy Gray (5-N), if blue not available, to the hull."

Note the preference for Navy Blue of Navy Gray.

This ends back with my original statement that the later in 1945 and the closer to the US the more likely it is that a ship was painted in the neutrals, but there is a lot we don't know.

We do know that Missouri was not painted in neutrals when she was in dazzle and she was not painted in Navy Gray when she left the west coast... and was not likely in neutrals at all at this time.
Post Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:34 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Michael Potter wrote:
Definitely make more of US32 #27 neutral haze gray, to the WEM formulation of US32. [2016-08-05: Colourcoats product number is corrected to US32]

This is not the same as, nor a substitute for, M03 Modern US Navy Haze Gray. The Snyder-Short chip labelled as "#27 neutral haze gray" erroneously shows Modern US Navy Haze Gray.

Ships in measure 22 in the 1945 USN that wore #27 neutral haze gray include USS Indianapolis on her fatal last cruise and USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. [2016-08-05: My original statement was more categorical but I cannot prove it.]


Michael,

I need to politely ask that you do not take it upon yourself reassign our product codes to different names.

I have read your argument but can't change Colourcoats based upon it without conducting a a proper research programme of my own with clear references and repeatable methodologies.

I have however had a few confused potential customers now contact me, the latest one pointing me to this thread - wanting to know why they are reading about US28's name reassigned to US32.

As others will attest to, I am quite open to challenge, but arguments like these may confuse my customers reading back for years to come because they are drawn out and usually inconclusive or misunderstood by readers. As such, I would kindly ask that that argument does not involve Colourcoats product codes or naming on a public forum.

For the avoidance of any doubt from wider readership, as of December 2017 Colourcoats US Navy paints are all matched to Snyder & Short.

I hope you understand my reasons for distancing our products from the unofficial "reassignments" you've suggested for them on this forum.

Best regards,

James
Post Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:45 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
I tell you what - I'll be back at archives in a bit and if I have time I'll go looking for her departure reports pre-shakedown to see what they say. I have a bunch of CVL work I want to do and promised Battleship Alabama some work, so I can't guarantee I'll have time, but I'm still trying to find examples we can start to use to figure out when and where (I went looking at BB-60 Alabama and BB-61 Iowa records last week and busted there).
Post Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:43 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
What got me thinking about it was the November 21, 1944 document, paragraph 5(e) referenced a little ways back in this thread:
"Apply the respective new neutral gray paints, when available, in accordance with the camouflage design details; light gray, haze gray and ocean gray where 5-L, 5-H and 5-0 respectively are indicated on the plan. Apply Navy gray paint, where symbol 5-N is indicated, except in Measure 22 where Navy Blue paint (formula designation 5-NB) shall be continued for the area now indicated for 5-N."

So, I'm thinking it possible, even likely, that the neutral gray paints would be "available" to the east coast yards in time for a post-shakedown re-paint in March or April 1945; and it does say to just substitute them directly for what is indicated on the camouflage plan, so it doesn't look like dazzle patterns were to be an exception to the new directive like Measure 22 was...
Of course, the yard could still have been burning through their back-stock of old paint, per Paragraph 5(a): "Continue the issue and use of white base and blue-black tinting material to produce the specified paints, until stocks are exhausted."

- Sean F.
Post Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:42 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
I have far less on Atlantic fleet documentation than Pacific fleet (not for lack of interest) but I don't remember seeing anything with regards to using neutrals in Dazzle. Atlantic Fleet did use dazzle longer than Pacific Fleet, bit I have not seen anything to suggest it either way. The design sheets did specify specific colors so it is theoretically possible they would have simply swapped out 5-N Navy Blue for 5-N Navy Gray but I tend to think that they would not have repainted her in neutrals.

For what it's worth, Lee doesn't mention anything to this effect for Antietam on his Design 17A2 page.
Post Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:30 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Given the timing, it sounds like the neutral grays would be appropriate for USS Antietam CV-36 during her March-April 1945 shakedown cruise, having commissioned at the end of January 1945. A rare opportunity for a full neutral dazzle pattern?

- Sean F.
Post Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:17 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
mister me wrote:
I here understand that MS22 was NOT planned at all to be considered impacted by new neutral color concerning 5-N ?


From the original instructions:

Quote:
MEASURE 22.

Apply a horizontal band of Navy Blue (5-NB) or #7 Navy Gray (5-N), if blue not available, to the hull for its entire length and extending from the boottopping to the height of the main deck at its lowest point (on carriers to the level of the hangar deck). Apply Haze Gray (5-H) to all vertical surfaces above that level. In absence of boottopping, extend lower band from light load line.

Apply Deck Gray (20) to decks and all other horizontal surfaces exposed to the weather.
Post Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:02 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
I here understand that MS22 was NOT planned at all to be considered impacted by new neutral color concerning 5-N ? right ?

then, indianapolis in its final MS22 shall have a "blue" hull and neutral haze superstructure ?
Post Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:33 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
OK, in October of last year I made a trip to NARA (regular thing) and grabbed the 1945 Bureau of Ships Correspondence files for camouflage. I just finally got around to posting this document I found and scanned in from November 21, 1944. This was a week before Missouri started availability at Hunter's Point, where she was painted in Measure 22. Excerpts from the memo:

* Navy blue paint will continue in effect for use in Measure 22 only. (Paragraph 3)
*The paint manufacturing yards, Mare Island and Norfolk have been authorized to stop the manufacture of blue-black tinting material, Formula 5-TM; to begin the manufacture and issue of the new light gray, haze gray, ocean gray, and Navy gray paints in ready-mixed form ... and to continue the manufacture of Navy blue paint as required for Measure 22 only (Paragraph 4)
*Continue the issue and use of white base and blue-black tinting material to produce the specified paints, until stocks are exhausted. (Paragraph 5(a))
*If dependent upon the output of the paint manufacturing yards for the maintenance of camouflage paint stocks to meet the needs of ships in commission and new construction, begin to order the several paints in ready-mixed form as the situation demands in anticipation of the later non-availability of the blue-black tinting material (Paragraph 5(c), emphasis mine)
*Apply the respective new neutral gray paints, when available, in accordance with the camouflage design details; light gray, haze gray and ocean gray where 5-L, 5-H and 5-0 respectively are indicated on the plan. Apply Navy gray paint, where symbol 5-N is indicated, except in Measure 22 where Navy Blue paint (formula designation 5-NB) shall be continued for the area now indicated for 5-N. (Paragraph 5(e), emphasis mine)
Post Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:02 am
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
A scan of a grayscale printed booklet as evidence, really. My older copy of this book from the 1970s at least had a color cover.

From ... http://www.usndazzle.com/design.php?cat ... for_num=51 ...

Lee Johnson has definitely more updated research than the older Shipcamouflage website. He has been going to NARA pretty much every week for sometime. He has for USS SAN DIEGO;

Light cruiser USS San Diego (CL-53) also wore Design 24D using the Measure 32 colors dull black (BK) and light gray (5-L), beginning in April 1944, until the end of the war.

So your cover photo scan shows us Light Gray (5-L) on USS SAN DIEGO and Haze Gray (5-H) on USS MISSOURI.

OK, here is one for your evaluation two ships side by side, not a half mile apart, in freshly applied paint; USS MISSOURI (BB-63) with USS RENSHAW (DD-499) on 27 October 1945 in New York City Harbor for the 1945 Navy Davy events. USS MISSOURI has been or should be painted in the "new Ms 12" sometime/somewhere between the surrender (when MISSOURI was in Ms 22) and departure from Pearl Harbor for New York City. The just REPAIRED and updated USS RENSHAW at Todd Shipyard in Tacoma, Oregon after being torpedoed in February 1945, is or should be painted in the "new Ms 22". The hull paints more or less match. But note that the "Haze Gray" don't. Which paints did the USN use on these two ships???

Image

The large format version of this image is available at ... http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collect ... -6545.html ... and remember that the NHHC color images were scanned from "PRINTS" made from the original transparencies. How much different the original transparency would look, I don't know. But at least the contrasts between the two ships is evident. I cropped this view down to get the max size of the subjects possible for posting here.
Post Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:39 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Funny that the ship in the foreground, which is in Navy Blue, is darker than the black portions of San Diego. Could it be that because the ships are so far apart, oh, I don't know, there could be some variation in light due to clouds etc. and San Diego could be in the sun while the others are more shaded?
Post Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:10 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
True thanks for the replies. In this following booklet cover photo from April 1945, USS San Diego (CL 53) in the center, according to < http://shipcamouflage.com/usn_cl.htm >, is in 5-H haze gray, plus black. That is credible because she was so painted in early 1944.

USS Missouri in the background by the left edge has, according to some correspondents here but not me, a superstructure also in 5-H haze gray (sic). I believe this photo was taken around the same time as < USS Missouri in April 1945 >.

Any modelers who are viewing this: Do these alleged instances of "5-H haze gray" in the same photograph appear to be one and the same shade of gray; or different? If different, then reject any advice to paint models of 1945 USS Missouri and USS Indianapolis in 5-H haze gray. Instead PM me your postal address for a free swatch of the paint you need and for a cheap method to acquire a supply.

Image
Post Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:02 pm
  Post subject:  Re: USN 1945 Neutral Greys vs. Purple-Blues  Reply with quote
Michael,

You don't seem to understand ... it was virtually impossible for ANY USN ship to be painted in the Neutral Colors before February 1945. The paint wasn't an APPROVED paint until late November 1944 and the formula wasn't even available to provide to the manufacturers. It takes time to ramp up production of paint needed for ALL the USN warships. The forward areas would have been the last to get these paints. The Navy Yards would have started stockpiling, then supply ships would have been loaded with paint and slowly sailed for Pearl harbor and beyond. They ALL had already stockpiled earlier paints ... and likely had a lot of excess white paint from the dazzle schemes on hand for mixing more 5N and 5H with paste ... The USN certainly wouldn't have throw away OLD stockpiles of paint only a few months old because they have some "new stuff". I don't credit any of the USN destroyer YARD PHOTOS as showing the use of neutrals until about May-June 1945 STATESIDE. It is questionable that the forward areas would have had the same paints before then.

The IWO JIMA film shows destroyers that were painted in dazzle in early to November 1944 during yard periods, dazzle was a scheme next to impossible for a ship's crew to apply on their own ... and would have been painted in the earlier Blue-Purple paints ... period. I couldn't ID individual ships to document their LAST yard period. After the extended period of operations leading up to IWO JIMA, most ships involved were active from before the Philippines campaign with little downtime, the paints would show fading and maybe a chance for touching-up, but that is about it.

USS MISSOURI was painted in her dazzle (USS Missouri (BB-63) used Design 22D in Measure 32 colors of dull black (DK), ocean gray (5-O) and light gray (5-L)) on the East Coast in mid-1944 well before Neutral Paint. Then she was repainted into Ms 22 before heading to the War Zone ... in November-December 1944 ... not enough time for her to have gotten the new paint.

USS FLINT was painted in her dazzle (Measure 32 would be light gray (5-L), ocean gray (5-O) and dull black (BK)) in mid-1944 as well, well before Neutral Paint. Here is what she looked like (in grayscale) in November 1944 (USS PUTNAM's War Diary puts this as being 6-8 November 1944) while working up with USS PUTNAM (DD-757) (photo courtesy of Eric Hansen who's father George Hansen onboard PUTNAM took the photo), it shows touch-up on her hull already.

Image

Here is another view of USS FLINT as completed. Note some touch-up and an oil leak stain.

Image

Also, you don't seem to realize that EVERY photo you list as PROOF is at least a third generation and more like or a fourth generation reproduction of the images from the original source transparency or negative that are then uploaded online and displayed on a computer screen or printed on paper. The colors you have as proof can not be trusted. You NEED to order scans of the original 4x5 transparencies to have any hope of making an assessment of the "colors" involved. If you are going to start using B&W images, like 80-G-469991, that isn't a valid way to prove COLORS. My main interest has been in USN Destroyers and other rare subjects, there are many photos of the carriers and battleships out there already and I don't take time to scan them unless someone makes a request for a specific subject. For the USN battleships I have had more interest (and scans of) the Dreadnought battleships and the IOWA class post-WWII and have many scans of those ships ... aka I don't have image 80-G-469991. But that image is available on Navsource at a higher res than normal ... http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016347c.jpg ... as provided to Navsource by Sean Hert. The answer to your question about her dazzle showing through seems to be no. USS MISSOURI "MAY" have been repainted in the neutral colors in May-June 1945. But, you can't prove that from half of the photos taken before then you list as "proof". She had opportunities for repainting prior to the surrender ... to look pretty ... or at Pearl Harbor on her return to the East Coast for the Navy Day events.

Also, BRIGHT SUN washes out, makes colors look lighter unless a photographer has adjusted his settings to change the tones.

And as has been pointed out to you by gott_cha below, a model in original colors looks every dark INDOORS, and lighter outdoors and the further away you look at it. I have tried this experiment myself. If you want the "lighter" look inside ... lighten the colors, but don't try to justify that was how the original ship looked when painted. The people who put the Paint Charts together have done years of research and found original samples and/or formulas of the colors used ... not looking at photos to derive colors ... to develop those paints.
Post Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:20 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group