The Ship Model Forum

Raven has her with brown upperworks and top of the hull near the shear line. Lower hull aft is green and lower hull midships and forward is 507C.

I never have seen much on the Rodney�s 1940 scheme of Brown, Green, and 507c. The superstructure was all brown. I assume the colors were Flotta Dark Brown and Flotta Green and what I interpreted as medium grey in pictures from 1940 is brown?

Amen, well said Mr. Duff
Walt Haynes

[quote="GrahamB"]"With that in mind, and in the absence of having thus far personally encountered a document detailing an experimental or trial scheme on HMS Hood, I would [b]have to hold the belief[/b] that the photograph above is HMS Hood in the process of being painted in Home Fleet Grey"

Surely this is dogma/authority obliterating your perception and powers of logic? How is it possible for the colour being painted above the degaussing strip, and present elsewhere at the same level, is so much lighter the the underlying paint that can still be seen? The tone of the funnels and other works above the strip is distinctly darker in tone but matches the main hull colour being repainted - also paler than the messy underlying coat, and possibly still too light to be 507A/B?[/quote]

My powers of logic are working fine, thank you.

Firstly, there are extant pieces of correspondence which remark in passing that HFG tended to darken in situ (the context being a private musing that the paint should be made a touch lighter so that it naturally darkened to the intended colour - but there is no evidence that this was heeded and indeed the pigmentation formulae remain consistent before and after which rather strongly suggests that it was not acted upon).

Secondly, having made many samples now of Admiralty Pattern 507 equivalents using pigments and linseed oil as per the original formulae, I can state that they all have long drying times (a couple of days - so are almost certainly wet for most of the hull visible in shot) and all have shown a marked shift in tone from lighter to darker from initial application to fully dried. Obviously, when wet it's also very glossy.

Thirdly, that's a black and white photograph providing zero colour information. It's just as possible that the slightly darker patchy area being painted over is red lead primer (which may or may not be darkened with black to make it less conspicuous) as it is to be intentionally darker grey topcoat paint.

I chose my words carefully. I did not deny the possibility of it being an experimental medium grey in the process of being applied, but in the absence of anything to document such it strikes me as rather fanciful to claim this B&W photo is evidence of such. The only photographs which do strongly suggest some informal experimentation on Hood prior to her repaint before being sunk are those showing B and X turrets in lighter and darker tones than the rest of the ship respectively. I, personally and representing my business, could not with a straight face make a recommendation that someone paint their model Hood in a medium grey rather than HFG on the basis of this one photograph.

On the contrary, I'd suggest that anyone suggesting that it does prove the use of a medium grey is somewhat out on a limb and the burden of proof is on them. There are variables which I have outlined above which such a claimant cannot adequately disprove, and any such claim is in contradiction of extant written documentation such as standing orders/memos etc giving the Admiralty's official line which [i]are[/i] known about. By all means though, if you do find something in a diary from a crew member or dockyard hand etc which describes mixing up an intermediate grey for Hood we'd all benefit from seeing it.

Who knows what information is hidden away in cupboards and thrown out when people pass away?

"With that in mind, and in the absence of having thus far personally encountered a document detailing an experimental or trial scheme on HMS Hood, I would [b]have to hold the belief[/b] that the photograph above is HMS Hood in the process of being painted in Home Fleet Grey"

Surely this is dogma/authority obliterating your perception and powers of logic? How is it possible for the colour being painted above the degaussing strip, and present elsewhere at the same level, is so much lighter the the underlying paint that can still be seen? The tone of the funnels and other works above the strip is distinctly darker in tone but matches the main hull colour being repainted - also paler than the messy underlying coat, and possibly still too light to be 507A/B?

MS6? :lol_3:

A late addition. It is my understanding that Rodney was actually painting in disruptive in Iceland in November 1941, i.e. six months prior to the May 42 refit. For reference, see: IWM A 6635 and 6636 (attached and acknowledging IWM as the source of these images). I have dated these images Nov-Dec, but when ships service histories are compared, it narrows down to late Nov 41.

Of interest, at this time her Captain was James Rivett-Carnac whose previous post was as head of Admiralty DTSD. It was his staff at DTSD that tasked CDCE with creating disruptive camouflage designs in early 1941, and it was his staff that standardised the camouflage colours (MS1, MS2, MS3, MS4, MS4A, B5 and B6 being selected from a range of MS and B shades that had been under trial) in July 1941. The camouflage design for Rodney was Job 53 and it was prepared around Aug-Sep 41. There is a note on the file that the Captain (Rivett-Carnac) was 'averse' to painting decks. (Reference for all these points is NA UK file HO 186/1333. Five folios are attached, and I acknowledge that they are sourced from NA UK.)

Regards,
Lindsay

Nice piece James, I have gone back and forth about the it doesn�t matter color question, but for me, it does matter. The way something actually looks is important. To me, but no one else has my eyes. Still has to look right to me.

Firstly, I have done nothing single handedly! I've had a tonne of help from various people. All I've tried to do is combine the knowledge of others :)

As to colour scaling, I don't take a dim view of it per se, I only point out that it is simply one [i]perspective[/i], i.e. that the viewer pretends it's a full size object viewed from afar. I shoot down all arguments that that is the [i]only[/i] way to consider a model by asking why worry about detailing or inaccuracies in weapons or radar fit etc - if one's brain is jammed in the singular point of view that the 1/700 vessel is the real deal viewed from a mile away then one can't see any of those things anyway. A scale-faded model is defacto impressionistic art and impressionist art is scant on detail because that's not what impressionism is about.

The [i]other[/i] view point one can hold is that a model is a miniature representation of the real thing; nothing more. This better justifies PE detailing, rigging etc etc but is arguably weaker on giving the [i]impression[/i] of the real thing when viewed generally.

Neither is wrong and neither has a better claim to being more valid or correct. A modeller is perfectly at liberty to go all out of detailing and scale the colours, or do neither.

I take a dim view on some people giving instruction that colours have to be "scaled", particularly so when that scaling usually boils down to arbitrarily pouring white in to everything which is absolutely not observed chroma changes with difference. Lastly, colour scaling is regularly used as a justification for outright guesswork from no known datum whereby the relationships between the resultant colours is contrary to fact (e.g. darker than/lighter than/bluer than, etc). That itself is often justified with "nobody really knows for sure" or "weathering / variations in paint mixes could cause [wild differences not replicated by any credible mechanisms]".

That's all :)

As always, I am fascinated by the rigous work of Mr. James Duff of Sovereign Hobbies, whom has singlehandedly clarified so much of the confusion about Royal Navy colors from WWI to the end of WWII. I trust his judgement calls completely.

As for the matter of Home Fleet Grey seeming to exist in a dark and medium gray, to a painter this anomaly is quite simple. It's the light. This is demonstrated quite well in the photo Mr. Duff took of his definitive HFG mix in bright sunlight on a largish flat surface. In the photograph it looks like medium gray from, maybe, fifteen feet away---it is already "fading." Here we can see how a dark color can be distorted by direct sunlight, and by distance. Imagine what happens when the photographer is five hundred feet away or more?

My favorite example of an old film camera and film being fooled by strong, direct light is a series of photographs I took of HMS Warrior (1861) at the Portsmouth naval base in August of 1995. The sun was low in the sky (a 1800 hours Jutland situation!) and was striking the verticals of the ship directly. I wanted to have some photos of the black sides of the ship. Ha! When I received my film, the ship appeared to have white sides! Yes, the strong light combined with reflection had brained the camera and film. The photos were worthless except as a perfect demonstration of the unreliabiliity of photographic evidence ("I have definitive evidence Warrior was painted with white verticals in 1995"!).

Thus, the variety of greys apparent in 1939-41 Home Fleet ships is simply a factor of distance, intensity of light, and environmental factors (moisture, particles, etc.). The color film taken on board HMS Hood in a 1939 storm demonstrates this. Close up the Hood's vertical look dark. The verticals of Warspite plunging through spray a couple cables away from Hood look medium to light.

I know Mr. Duff takes a dim view of "paint scaling," but this is what artists have done for centuries. Color at one foot distance and 1000 feet away loses intensity of hue (chroma) and depth of shade (value). This is why I would not use the same value of a color for 1:700 and 1:200 scale ship models. In effect, scale is distance from the object. To use a tin of color which is an exact reproduction of the color on, say, a 1:1200 scale ship model results in a model which gives an impression of very dark hues, which fails to account for a view of the ship from, perhaps, one mile away. A USN supercarrier at Norfolk (USA) appears to be light gray from a mile away, and, when you are fifty yards from it, it looks medium gray. This optical illusion can happen as close as 100 yards from a USN warship on a sunny day.

keep up the good work !

[quote="508medway"]If you think they are worried, in Task Force 72 we have 2 x Hoods, a Resolution, Malaya, KGV and a pair of RAN Leanders and quite a few others wearing the wrong colours. They, like me, won't be repainting. My Samsonia was matched to colourcoats 507A and is staying that way.[/quote]

As I said I hope it is done diplomatically. Like you say there are the 72 scale modelers. People have put their blood, sweat and tears into these models as well as endless hours of their devotion and personal time. Time is something that is priceless and you cannot get back. I would imagine news that all the paints are wrong would be devastating to modelers who are keen on accuracy and invested so much time and money into constructing their models.

508medway,Great looking model! Like to see more pics.
John

If you think they are worried, in Task Force 72 we have 2 x Hoods, a Resolution, Malaya, KGV and a pair of RAN Leanders and quite a few others wearing the wrong colours. They, like me, won't be repainting. My Samsonia was matched to colourcoats 507A and is staying that way.

[quote="SovereignHobbies"]I've made a start at laying out how to communicate all of this, but there are other forum members involved who need to be involved. I will not pretend to have figured all this out on my own and everyone who has helped/is helping needs to be properly acknowledged, so I won't say any more until they/we are all in consensus and happy to put our names on something!

We'll be as comprehensive as possible and will address what we can making clear where our information comes from, what is documented fact and what is our interpretation of this.

This will all take some time to do to a high standard that doesn't introduce any new confusion or misunderstandings.

We're not going to be able to reproduce new colour call-outs for many ships, although we may try a few as part of our work. Our scope will be to explain the colours used, comment on their purpose and usage, show what they looked like and lay them out chronologically.

The latter part should help clarify things and allow modellers to spot dubious colour schemes involving colours either before they existed, or in periods some time after fleet orders were issued instructing ceasation of their use. E.g. B20 suggested for a ship in 1942 is a year before it that notation was developed and communicated, and it simply didn't exist. Likewise, use of enamel was ordered to be ceased very early on so no ship would have been painted in "507B" by 1942.

Hopefully it will clear some things up and whilst there will no doubt be new questions raised, I hope that it allows for better research and analysis of colours used on specific ships in the future.[/quote]

Please let us all know your findings as soon as you can. I am particularly keen to know about colours B6, B5 most of all.

I am seen comments regarding 507B not being a match or accurate to HMS Hood.

Please be delicate when raising this major colour as it is likely to infuriate several people who have modeled really expensive kits in 1/350 like HMS Hood, HMS Ark Royal to name a few, not to mention the 1/200 scale that people are getting now. Having a colour like 507B not accurate is likely to P--- these people off who bought it for these expensive kits thinking it was accurate.

Also I would suggest not relying on colour video footage as I have made comments above. I am an advanced hobby photographer and often take video as well and know enough about photography to be 100% sure that any colour footage of RN ships in WWII is not to be trusted in any way shape or form. It is just a too unreliable medium to take seriously.

I myself certainly will not invest any of my money at all purchasing paints that are based on WWII video footage. That is something I will never do.

I've made a start at laying out how to communicate all of this, but there are other forum members involved who need to be involved. I will not pretend to have figured all this out on my own and everyone who has helped/is helping needs to be properly acknowledged, so I won't say any more until they/we are all in consensus and happy to put our names on something!

We'll be as comprehensive as possible and will address what we can making clear where our information comes from, what is documented fact and what is our interpretation of this.

This will all take some time to do to a high standard that doesn't introduce any new confusion or misunderstandings.

We're not going to be able to reproduce new colour call-outs for many ships, although we may try a few as part of our work. Our scope will be to explain the colours used, comment on their purpose and usage, show what they looked like and lay them out chronologically.

The latter part should help clarify things and allow modellers to spot dubious colour schemes involving colours either before they existed, or in periods some time after fleet orders were issued instructing ceasation of their use. E.g. B20 suggested for a ship in 1942 is a year before it that notation was developed and communicated, and it simply didn't exist. Likewise, use of enamel was ordered to be ceased very early on so no ship would have been painted in "507B" by 1942.

Hopefully it will clear some things up and whilst there will no doubt be new questions raised, I hope that it allows for better research and analysis of colours used on specific ships in the future.

what troubles me a lot is that homefleet 507a/b grey is truly dark. especially when used in camo : it practically looks like black. and when a ship is supposed to be fully painted in HFG, it appears not sooo dark on pictures.
or is the dark pattern not 507a/b as thought before, but a darker grey ?

I'm wondering what Raven might have had in mind when he called for three shades of grey. Is it possible that the RN added a darker grey to it's camouflage in the early war period? Although it was unauthorised?
Keep up the good work!
John

[quote="EJFoeth"][quote="Sutho"]Can I ask if you know for sure if they are true colour images or videos and not colorised by some studio? That would explain why the colours do not look as they are supposed to.[/quote]

No idea other than the claim from the original poster who I would consider credible (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAthCvk5Gro).[/quote]

I have looked at the video and it is totally useless for colour matching. It does not have a wide colour range and is lacking in tones and true to life colour. It is useless and of no help to any modeler whatsoever. Colour video in 1939 was in its extreme infancy so needless to say that it can not provide anything for us. I would put absolutely no weight on any colour evidence I see in this video at all.

To further explain at 4:24 to 4:40 the collar of the RN sailors is a navy blue colour. In this video you can see the colour changing from navy blue to black where the video simply is not picking up the blue tones at all. At 4:41 onward we have a really miserable display of colours with the flags being raised. At 2:29 there is that rather miserable footage where the red in the RN ensign does not show up as red at all. Then other parts of the video are either underexposed or overexposed which leaves a lot to be desired for colour matching.

[quote="EJFoeth"]You need to write a very nice white paper about your findings when you are done. Tie all the sources together.

And where I said white, well, white, right?[/quote]

:-):-):-)