The Ship Model Forum

[quote="Tracy White"]I'm not really interested in supporting my argument; I am curious about what is causing you to deny its validity; what documents have you seen that lead you to believe a purple/blue 5-D?[/quote]


Contact Wiper for the documents that I had/saw/read!
I did NOT keep a document list of those that I passed to Wiper.
Wiper has everything!
He is THE MAN to contact for documents, NOT ME!

I'm not really interested in supporting my argument; I am curious about what is causing you to deny its validity; what documents have you seen that lead you to believe a purple/blue 5-D?

[quote="Tracy White"]I'm not doing your leg work for you. He's got other projects that he's working on right now and you should know that if you're still talking to him. If you want him to finish the book you should contact him instead of trying to get others to pressure him. I say that as someone who has sent him significant amounts of camouflage research as well.

Since my presumption about what materials are in your possession may be incorrect, would you care to educate me as to the materials/statements/reasons behind your belief that the 5-D used on the pacific fleet was not neutral?[/quote]


Wiper may have documents outside of those that came from me that support your claim. I write this not knowing what he has collected, but I am certain that he knows more than I on the subject.
I have NO documents in my possession.

I'm not doing your leg work for you. He's got other projects that he's working on right now and you should know that if you're still talking to him. If you want him to finish the book you should contact him instead of trying to get others to pressure him. I say that as someone who has sent him significant amounts of camouflage research as well.

Since my presumption about what materials are in your possession may be incorrect, would you care to educate me as to the materials/statements/reasons behind your belief that the 5-D used on the pacific fleet was not neutral?

[quote="Tracy White"]Just to be sure, I presume everything that could be used to disprove/counterpoint my theory is in Steve's possession?[/quote]

Your presumption maybe incorrect.
Suggest you contact Wiper as to the c urrent situation in respect as to how his book on USN camouflage is comimg along.

Just to be sure, I presume everything that could be used to disprove/counterpoint my theory is in Steve's possession?

Must be fun.

[quote="Tracy White"]Here's a little more weight.
In July, when the Navy warned [url=http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941JulyBuShipsPotentialPaintChange.html]Norfolk and Mare Island that 5-D was probably going to be discontinued[/url], they referenced the February document that contained the neutral formula:

[quote]Reference (a) authorized the manufacture of alkyd base, low visibility, dark gray paint, formula 5-D and white untinted base paint,[/quote]

I just don't see how that is "weak" evidence.[/quote]

I refer you again, to my first message.

Here's a little more weight.
In July, when the Navy warned [url=http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941JulyBuShipsPotentialPaintChange.html]Norfolk and Mare Island that 5-D was probably going to be discontinued[/url], they referenced the February document that contained the neutral formula:

[quote]Reference (a) authorized the manufacture of alkyd base, low visibility, dark gray paint, formula 5-D and white untinted base paint,[/quote]

I just don't see how that is "weak" evidence.

Still, that verb only applies to paint production, not application.

Just trying to make a more waterproof case, that's all.

[quote="Timmy C"]I guess what AR is saying is that though there is evidence that paint production was "desired", it doesn't necessarily mean that it was actually applied to any ships or that the paint was actually produced.[/quote]

Saying "desired" is the nicer way of saying "do this".

I guess what AR is saying is that though there is evidence that paint production was "desired", it doesn't necessarily mean that it was actually applied to any ships or that the paint was actually produced.

[quote="Tracy White"]On what grounds?[/quote]


Re, my first post.

On what grounds?

[quote="Tracy White"]Mr Raven, do you still state that there is no indication a neutral 5-D was used?[/quote]

Yes.

OK, I don't have the materials yet, but I believe the following is safe enough to answer.

[quote="ar"][quote="Tracy White"]Alan, my statement comes from the fact that there is conflicting documentation concerning 5-D; earlier pieces Del gave you assigned it a munsell purple-blue hue, but a formula that I found that was [url=http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941FebruaryNewPaints.html]sent to Mare Island Navy Yard[/url] is neutral. At this point we don't know which is accurate for the pacific fleet.[/quote]

Not true.
I did have a formula for a neutral 1941 dark grey, but NO indication that it was ever used. That is why I never mentioned it in the articles.
So, for me, the Battleline WAS IN 5D ON DECEMBER 7th 1941.[/quote]

I have not been arguing that the fleet was not in 5-D. We know a couple cruisers were in 5-S, and there is evidence that some of the battleships may have had some 5-O Ocean Gray or 5-S Sea Blue painted on some of their barbettes and turrets, but the main color was 5-S. What I have been referring to in the last 6-9 months is that we do not know WHICH 5-D was used on the fleet.

Neutral, or Purple Blue?

Keep in mind that PB 5-D was very dark and not a lot of blue would have shown anyway.

In the [url=http://www.shipcamouflage.com/pearl_harbor_experiments.htm]ShipCamouflage[/url] special topics section there is a collection of documents detailing USN paint experiments [url=http://www.shipcamouflage.com/pearl_harbor_experiments.htm]here[/url]. Near the bottom is a piece that assigned a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munsell_color_system]Munsell value[/url] (from the 1929 book, which is different than those sold currently) of 5PB. The full explanation and quote is:

[quote]By letter IV-3/Tp/43S-2/41 of October 16, 1941, "Report on the Spectral Apparent Reflectance Relative to MgO, and the Munsell Notation, of Ten Camouflage Paints", the National Bureau of Standards provided BuShips with Munsell data on ten more paint samples:

Dark Gray 5-D, one coat 5PB 2.7/0.8 6.0

Dark Gray 5-D, two coats 5PB 2.8/0.8 6.6[/quote]

So two coats of 5-D has a Purple-Blue Value of 5 (5PB) a chroma (essentially the amount of color, with lower values being more neutral) of .8 (Today's munsell goes up to at least 12 for purple blue, I don't know if the 1929 book was any different in this regard). So to re-iterate, the 5PB paint is almost a neutral color to begin with, and in the end this is a fairly academic discussion that has no bearing on, say, how many sailors had their lives torn from them on December 7th.

That said, [url=http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941FebruaryNewPaints.html]this February 1941 memo[/url] gives a formula for 5-D that is NEUTRAL, and states immediately before it:

[quote]...it is desired that the Paint Manufacturing Yards procure the necessary ingredients and start manufacture of the white base Formula 5-U and the dark gray paint Formula 5-D. Details of these formulas are as follows:[/quote]
(end of Paragraph 3 on the second page)

This memo was addressed to both Norfolk and Mare Island, the Navy Yards responsible for the manufacture of paint for the Atlantic and Pacific fleets respectively (See the "To" at the top).

Mr Raven, do you still state that there is no indication a neutral 5-D was used?

I'm laying low until I have other materials; I do not want another flame war erupting when there is no point. Once the materials arrive and we have documentation that can be used in a [b]useful[/b] debate I will respond.

To T White,
Yes, I read the document, and dissagree with your conclusion as to it's use . You will need more evidence. What you have is weak, not strong.