The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Post icon:
None
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
Options:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
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 - Calling all RNN Tromp class fans
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
GregoryC wrote:
As I mentioned before, there are plenty of photos as well which show Dutch ships (including the Tromp) where the superstructure appears as the same color as the hull.

My intend was not to write anything, but these statement is really weird!? Obviously, the majority of photos with the pre-war grey will indicate a uniform colour, because it was a uniform colour. I had written myself:
maxim wrote:
Some time invest would likely turn up another 20, 30 photos demonstrating that light conditions can cause the superstructure of Dutch ships of this period to appear lighter, whereas hundreds of photos will prove that these are only light effects.


Plus, you have chosen to ignore several photos, which do not fit to your explanation ;) The best is "terrible photo [...] not fair" :lol_pound: Plus you labelled colours to be identical, which are not identical on the photo, e.g.


Attachments:
Tromp-(same-colour).jpg
Tromp-(same-colour).jpg [ 55.02 KiB | Viewed 302 times ]
Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:46 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
As I mentioned before, there are plenty of photos as well which show Dutch ships (including the Tromp) where the superstructure appears as the same color as the hull. And I have taken into consideration other photos of the Tromp both pre, during, and post war. This is hardly the first series of photos of a ship I have examined. It is a shame that there are only two photos from this time, but given they are all we have to go off of, we have to make hay with what we have for now.

Also, if we are going to say it is an assumption to say Tromp had different paint on the superstructure from the hull (Which is not actually what I have been stating, as I have clearly said all three colors are on the hull, while only two of them are on the superstructure), is it not at least equally the same assumption to presume that Tromp only had two colors (the light and the dark), and to read all of the evidence as if Tromp had to be in two colors?

Again a lot of the argument being made against three colors being present on the Tromp seems to stem from the presumption that Tromp only had two colors to her camouflage and that all evidence to the contrary must be explained away to fit in this lens. This seems to be an unfair presumption, given we know the Dutch used three colors for camouflage on some of their ships during this time



To reiterate where I am coming from: given that the stern photo is pretty unambiguous to me in the existence of a third intermediate (or middle) color, I can only conclude there are three colors at play on the Tromp, just like we see on some (not all) other Dutch ships from the time.

As for the difference in colors, again, if you compare the funnel and hull area in question, it becomes clear in the pre war photos that were posted that color is actually the same, where as in the photos from 1942, the color clearly changes. So again I do think the comparison between the hull and the superstructure on the Tromp can be made, and it shows to me she was in three colors, and I believe the photos that there posted of the Tromp only reinforce this. It makes no sense to me that a color change that drastic is possible without there being three colors in play.

And yes, I am familiar with other photos of the Tromp from this time, please do not insinuate that I am a novice at this. And also, I could have posted more photos to back up my point, but I chose not to, because I did not want to clog up the thread with them.

You are free to disagree with this, and it is unfortunate we only have two photos, but we have to make do with what we have, and I think the direct comparison is completely fair when you compare the funnel and hull area in question of the Tromp with the photos that were posted. And to me that comparison shows three colors. Feel free to say it is only two, but based on all the evidence I have on her as of now, I have to conclude she had three colors.

And as I do not really see anything new being added to this, as I mentioned before I think we will have to agree to disagree at this point, as I think this topic has been sufficiently covered with the regard to the arguments for two or three colors. As I have mentioned several times before, its that that I don't understand where you are coming from, it's just I find the evidence for three colors to be much stronger, especially when you start with that stern photo which shows the third color. Make your Tromp as you see best, but to me the evidence at this point shows three colors.


Attachments:
TrompC2.PNG
TrompC2.PNG [ 150.97 KiB | Viewed 307 times ]
TrompC.PNG
TrompC.PNG [ 73.01 KiB | Viewed 307 times ]
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG [ 333.45 KiB | Viewed 307 times ]
Post Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 9:39 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
The assumption that Tromp had in 1942 different colours on the superstructure are based on only (!!) two (2!) photos made under similar light conditions. Judging from the massive visible shadows and "glowing" of certain parts, there was very strong sunshine.

The posted six photos demonstrate that light conditions can cause the superstructure or parts of it to appear in a lighter colour. This cannot be simply discussed away, e.g. by pointing only at the effect funnel on some (but not all!!) of the photos or claiming that one photo is a "red herring", some strange exception or a different topic. The other photos demonstrate that these effects exist for the complete superstructure including the funnel(s) and have to be considered in any interpretation!

Some time invest would likely turn up another 20, 30 photos demonstrating that light conditions can cause the superstructure of Dutch ships of this period to appear lighter, whereas hundreds of photos will prove that these are only light effects. If we expand that to other navies, it will be thousands of photos demonstrating that is common that the superstructure can appear lighter than it actually was.

The very unfortunate condition that there are only (!!) two (!!) photos of Tromp's 1942 camouflage made under similar conditions has to be considered in any interpretation and require extra care regarding colour interpretation. Colour interpretation has to consider other photos of the same ship (effects on the relatively dark pre-war light grey) and photos of other ships with similar camouflage.

Not every different tone of colour on a photo is a actually caused by a different colour.
Post Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2021 11:37 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
maxim wrote:
Sorry, I posted 5 photos showing superstructures or parts of it appearing clearly lighter than the hull - and you choose to ignore this and claim that the evidence for the 1942 photos (which are poor quality photos!!) would be clear?!?

For sure, you will find plenty of photos demonstrating that pre-war the Dutch cruisers were painted in one colour, because the effect in these 5 photos is only caused by light effects. The majority of pre-war pattern photos demonstrate clearly that in reality only one colour was used.

Please don't make a straw man out of what I posted above, I do not think that is fair at all to the argument I made, as I did not ignore your photos. I specifically addressed the five photos you posted, and why I believe they still support the Tromp being in 3 colors (that the colors in question around the funnel area line up just fine between the hull and superstructure aside from the really poor quality photo scanned from the book, therefore my direct comparison of the funnel and hull of the Tromp is perfectly fine). I understand your reasons for arguing for two colors, but I disagree with them for the reasons I posted in my comment above

Also, the photos of the Tromp from February 1942 are not poor quality. They are not HD photos to be sure, but they record the details on the Tromp fairly well. They're not fantastic, but they are not poor


Quote:
In case of De Ruyter, we have additional photos, demonstrating that the 1942 starboard photo provides a wrong impression that the superstructure was painted in different colours. In case of Tromp, we only have photos, which give the impression that the superstructure is lighter - very similar to the misleading photo of De Ruyter and similar to the misleading pre-war pattern photos of Tromp. That is not strong evidence for lighter colours on the superstructure, but actually no evidence for different colours on the superstructure.

We are not talking about the De Ruyter here though, we are specifically talking about the Tromp (edited to add. I have already mentioned how that photo of the starboard side of the De Ruyter is a red herring in this argument. Different lighting, different camera, different day, there's not a comparison to be made there, its completely unfair). And that photo of the stern clearly shows three different colors on the Tromp. When extrapolated to the other picture from the same time, as I have done before, I think it shows she wore three different colors in the way I outlined.


The stern photo shows three distinct colors. In all the prewar photos (aside from the very poor quality photo scanned from the book) the funnel's color lines up well with the hull. Given that we know the stern area had three colors, and that the funnel area in pretty much every photo has the color on the hull line up with the color on the funnel, and combined with the broadside photo of the Tromp show three colors in that area, I can only conclude there are 3 colors at play as I have maintained this entire time.



Again as I posted above, I could post more prewar photos which reinforce my point of the colors being comparable, however, I don't think there is a point to that at this point. We disagree, and I think that's ok. But please do not ignore part of what I commented, as I do not think that is fair to the point I made. In the end, the argument for three colors is especially valid to me when you take into consideration the stern photo showing off those three distinct colors. You can disagree, however that I why I said that I think this argument has been beaten to death at this point and is not really worth continuing
Post Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 1:15 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
Sorry, I posted 5 photos showing superstructures or parts of it appearing clearly lighter than the hull - and you choose to ignore this and claim that the evidence for the 1942 photos (which are poor quality photos!!) would be clear?!?

For sure, you will find plenty of photos demonstrating that pre-war the Dutch cruisers were painted in one colour, because the effect in these 5 photos is only caused by light effects. The majority of pre-war pattern photos demonstrate clearly that in reality only one colour was used.

In case of De Ruyter, we have additional photos, demonstrating that the 1942 starboard photo provides a wrong impression that the superstructure was painted in different colours. In case of Tromp, we only have photos, which give the impression that the superstructure is lighter - very similar to the misleading photo of De Ruyter and similar to the misleading pre-war pattern photos of Tromp. That is not strong evidence for lighter colours on the superstructure, but actually no evidence for different colours on the superstructure.
Post Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:24 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
I do apologize about my delay in my response, I have been very busy with my job in the last week and my hobbies come second to that.

Anyway, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this at this point. Yes sometimes the hull of a ship can look different than the superstructure even when they are in the same paint. However more often than not, this is not the case in photos in my experience. In the photos posted above it is still clear that only one color is in use aside from possibly the first one.

This is not the case in the photos from Feb 1942, which seem very clear to me to be in three distinct colors, especially when we take into account the stern photo.




Also the above photos actually reinforce my point as far as I am concerned. They all show the part of the hull on the immediately below the funnel on the Tromp still lines up well as the color on the funnel (aside from that really poor picture copied from a book, which clearly has problems with shadows which are not present in any of the other photos. I don't consider that obviously poor photograph good evidence at all). Given that the 1942 photos show the funnel as being in the intermediate and light colors, and the hull below it being the dark color, to me those photos show all the more that Tromp was definitely in 3 colors given the evidence we have at hand.




To summarize my case the stern photo clearly shows to me three colors at play on the Tromp's hull, with the super structure being in the light grey, with some intermediate color on the funnel. When you combine that stern photo with the broadside photo, it is more than clear enough to me that there are three distinct colors on the Tromp. Yes it is possible that somehow the stars lined up just perfectly that it is all an illusion and there were only two real colors, but I find this line of argument severely wanting given the evidence at hand.

For my part, given the evidence from the stern photo, combined with the broadside photo, I can only conclude the Tromp had three colors (which we know the Dutch did do on some of their ships). You are free to conclude otherwise, but I find that argument lacking at this point, especially as there are plenty of photographs which exist in which the hull and superstructure colors line up perfectly well.

Here are a few photos in which the colors do line up well on the Tromp. I could post more, but I think this is becoming a very circular argument which is starting to beat a very dead horse. For those modeling the Tromp from this time, look at the evidence and make your own conclusion.


Attachments:
Tromp_berthing.jpg
Tromp_berthing.jpg [ 79.22 KiB | Viewed 1103 times ]
Tromp_sea.jpg
Tromp_sea.jpg [ 65.85 KiB | Viewed 1103 times ]
Post Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2021 10:43 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
In addition, two photos of Sumatra in pre-war grey, also given the impression that the superstructure is painted lighter - again, in reality not different colours, but the same one:


Attachments:
Sumatatra (1930er)kl.jpg
Sumatatra (1930er)kl.jpg [ 85.9 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
Sumatra (1938)kl.jpg
Sumatra (1938)kl.jpg [ 130.16 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
Post Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:46 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
Here some additional photos of Tromp in her pre-war grey, in some of which also the superstructure appears lighter because of the light. It is not unusual, but for sure there are plenty of photos demonstrating that this is only a false impression, not really different colours, e.g. visible on the last photo.


Attachments:
Tromp (1938, Solent)2kl.jpg
Tromp (1938, Solent)2kl.jpg [ 68.85 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
Tromp (Soerabaja).jpg
Tromp (Soerabaja).jpg [ 97.26 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
Tromp02kl.jpg
Tromp02kl.jpg [ 115.48 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
Tromp01kl.jpg
Tromp01kl.jpg [ 83.64 KiB | Viewed 1187 times ]
Post Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2021 9:41 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
The effect regarding the colour impression on the hull and superstructures is not specific for a certain camera, but on the light. In bright sun light some colours appear much lighter than they actually are - whereas in cloudy conditions or shadow, they appear darker. That is normal. I have seen that on my own photos (and with my own eyes) hundreds of times. That effect can be stronger depended on the angles of the surface, therefore often the hull colour appears to be darker.

Java is obviously not photographed in bright sun light, therefore she appears in total darker (similar to the port pictures of De Ruyter).

Therefore, the comparison of the different photos of the three cruisers do make sense and have to be considered for the interpretation.

To argue, that in case of De Ruyter the colour match on hull and superstructure, whereas in case of Tromp they do not, does not make any sense. In case of the photos made in comparable light conditions, the impression is actually very similar. In case of De Ruyter, we have additional photos, which show that the colours are actually identical and the starboard photo is misleading. In case of Tromp, we lack such photos.
Post Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:57 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
maxim wrote:
In my opinion are the photos of De Ruyter typical examples how colours could be recorded by camera to be different on hull and superstructure, but actually are not different. There are likely at least very similar colours to Tromp's, indicating that on Tromp there are similar effects. And that casts severe doubts on different colours on hull and superstructure in case of Tromp. The much more simple interpretation for Tromp is that one darker colour were added on top of the pre-war grey.

If we compare the "intermediate" and "light" colour on Tromp with the starboard photo of De Ruyter the colour impression is actually very similar - indicating these are actually the same colours, i.e actually only one colour.

That starboard side photo of the De Ruyter is a red herring in this discussion. It was taken with a different camera, on a different day, with different lighting, which changes about everything about the colors in it. As I said before, while occasionally, the upperworks of a ship are lighter than the hull, this is an exception, not the rule. If we truly wanted to find out if the camera is doing that, we should compare to another photo of a different ship that we know the camouflage of 100% to find out if that is happening. Fortunately such a photo does exist, as David Goodwin also took a photo of the Java on the same day, at the same time, with the same camera. And in that photo the colors on the hull clearly match the colors on the superstructure showing Java to be in the two tone camouflage we know her to be in. Thus I don't think that comparison with the starboard side of the De Ruyter can be fairly included in this discussion whatsoever. The colors also match up between the central hull on the port picture on the De Ruyter and the upperworks, once again showing that in that photo of the Tromp, the hull paint can be compared fairly with the upper work painting.

Quote:
Therefore, I wrote that the three colour interpretation is based on several assumptions.

Tromp having only two tones is based off of several assumptions as well. The first is that the camera has to tricking us in the colors it shows, in spite of it accurately showing the Java's colors being the same on the hull and superstructure the same day, and in spite of pictures usually correctly showing the same colors between hull and superstructure in general. This again seems to be an argument being made solely from a conclusion looking for premises (Tromp had to be in two tones, thus this must be a rare case where the camera tricked us)

The next being that color on the stern being not caused by paint, despite it having every indication of being an intentional paint job.

The last assumption is that even if there are three apparent colors, this can just be explained by there being 'bad paint' on the Tromp. This is disproven by the fact that the Java photo clearly shows that we can compare the hull and superstructure photos (as they were both taken with the same camera on the same day) we have of the Tromp, and when we do that, it is clear that the funnel is painted in that intermediate and light color, which would make both clearly intentional colors, rather than random deterioration of the same one color.

And I would hardly call my arguments in favor of three tones to be assumptions at this point, they are pretty logical conclusions based off the evidence we have.
My argument is pretty simple
1.) The pictures can be taken at face value in that they show the proper contrast between the hull and the upperworks (which I believe we have every indication to believe at this point)
2.) These two pictures show every indication of Tromp having three distinct colors
3.) Tromp was in a three tone camouflage
While this argument could end up being incorrect if we find more photos in the future, based off the pictures we currently have, an argument for three tones is at the least logically solid, even if you disagree with it.

Quote:
The only hard fact is that line near the stern, for which there at least three alternative explanations. Different paint jobs or the use of paint of different quality and/or colour on different parts of the ships can explain such lines. Hull buckling which can cause visible colour effects is not visible itself on such poor quality photographs. We do not talk about massive bending of the plates, but rather subtle changes, which are only visible from certain angles and close distance - but can cause light effects.

Again the photo of the stern is a actually a fairly decent photo and the stern shows 0 indications of buckling, and also shows every indication of being the result of a different paint color, to say it was buckling would require the buckling to follow a perfectly vertical line, but also then have horizontal bucking which does not follow a vertical line, but rather perfectly imitates wear from the ocean, which interestingly enough is also present on the dark part of the camouflage directly in front of it. Again, buckling only seems to be a part of this this conversation if one starts with a conclusion (the hull has to have two tones), and then tries to find premises for it (any third color must be explained some other way), rather than from moving from data we have (there are three distinct colors, all of which show distinct signs of being intentional paint work) to a conclusion (Tromp is in three tones).


Attachments:
Java Camouflage.PNG
Java Camouflage.PNG [ 171.86 KiB | Viewed 1215 times ]
Post Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2021 5:23 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
In my opinion are the photos of De Ruyter typical examples how colours could be recorded by camera to be different on hull and superstructure, but actually are not different. There are likely at least very similar colours to Tromp's, indicating that on Tromp there are similar effects. And that casts severe doubts on different colours on hull and superstructure in case of Tromp. The much more simple interpretation for Tromp is that one darker colour were added on top of the pre-war grey.

If we compare the "intermediate" and "light" colour on Tromp with the starboard photo of De Ruyter the colour impression is actually very similar - indicating these are actually the same colours, i.e actually only one colour.

Therefore, I wrote that the three colour interpretation is based on several assumptions.

The only hard fact is that line near the stern, for which there at least three alternative explanations. Different paint jobs or the use of paint of different quality and/or colour on different parts of the ships can explain such lines. Hull buckling which can cause visible colour effects is not visible itself on such poor quality photographs. We do not talk about massive bending of the plates, but rather subtle changes, which are only visible from certain angles and close distance - but can cause light effects.

If a model aims at depicted the exact state shown in the photos, it make sense to paint the stern slightly lighter than the normal pre-war grey - as it would make sense to try to replicate the wear on the paint on the hull's side.
Post Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:46 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
maxim wrote:
E.g. here on De Ruyter, on the starboard photo, the colours on the superstructure appear lighter than on the hull, whereas the port-side photo does not give that impression (similar to the port-side photo linked by GregoryC). Do we have to interpret that the starboard and port side were painted differently? The starboard side with the lightest colour on the superstructure and the port side with the intermediate one? I would think no (note in which bad shape De Ruyter' camouflage was, similar to Tromp's).

Yes sometimes due to lighting glitches the superstructure can come off as a slightly different color than the hull, as you can see in the starboard picture. However, this is usually not the case in the pictures I have seen in genera and importantly, that picture from the stern of the Tromp clearly shows that there are three colors involved on the Tromp, a light color (on a bit of the hull, but mostly the superstructure), an intermediate color, and a dark color. The picture is pretty unambiguous in that regard. As for what is going on in the De Ruyter photos with her camouflage, I think that would be a discussion for the De Ruyter thread
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:50 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
maxim wrote:
Another point to think about: independent of how many colours were used:

the lighter colour on the hull of De Ruyter and Java corresponds relatively well to lighter of the two colours on the hull of Tromp (if we ignore the question of the even lighter colour at the stern!). It is not a very light grey, similar to the pre-war grey, which is also not very light (in strong contrast to today's Dutch navy's light grey, which is very, very light).

If a third colour was added, which is lighter (see e.g. at the top of De Ruyter), then it could be the lightest colour, which was also added to Tromp - not the intermediate.

The argument against that would be that a lighter colour is visible below the intermediate and dark one in the parts with heavy wear (caused by wave action?). But here we see clearly damaged painting - and it is therefore not clear, what kind of colour we can see here. It would be an assumption (not a fact) that this is the pre-war colour (instead of e.g. the primer).

It is the three colour pattern, which is based on several assumptions - instead of the most simple interpretation.

Both two or three tones are based off of interpretations/assumptions. Based off of the evidence at hand, I do believe three tones make much more sense given the evidence at hand, and presents a much more simple solution to the riddle of these pictures, with two tones needing several things to fall into place to make two be the answer, while three tones is a pretty straight forward interpretation of these photos, and fits well into what we know about the Dutch ships from this time.

As for what colors were added? Based off the wear on the intermediate looking paint on the stern, I would say the intermediate and dark paints are more likely. However, the lighter color could have been the paint added along with the dark color. I'm more inclined to say it was the intermediate color based on the wear on the stern, but the lighter color being added is certainly a possibility.

As to what colors those three shades are? I don't think we have anything definitive, and I would go off what one thinks is best. There is some circumstantial evidence which points towards green being involved, but it is not definitive, and I can totally see it being three shades of grey even though I went with some green in my model.
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:29 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
maxim wrote:
@ GregoryC: you label a colour clearly caused by wear - below that diagonal "line" aft - as to be a colour identical to other parts. Why?

That means your interpretation is now the same, I had proposed earlier? Two colours on the hull (plus a small part of a third colour at the stern) and two colours on the superstructure; the intermediate and the light one used on the superstructure?

Ok, now I'm starting to get confused. I thought I was pretty clear since the start of this discussion on like page 3 that I thought most of the hull of the Tromp was in the intermediate and dark colors (The amidships section is a question mark, as I have admitted before) with a bit of the stern and possible amidships being light grey, and with the upper works are the intermediate color and the light color. This would make a three tone camouflage, are we now in agreement about this?

Quote:
This interpretation is based on two assumptions:
a) the impression of the colours at the hull and superstructure on the photos is identical, from the observed differences we can conclude which colours are identical.
b) the line at the stern was done intentionally, i.e. is not caused by different paint batches, paint jobs or light effects.

To a) colours appear often to be different on hull and superstructure on photos, even if clearly the same colour was used. It is difficult to make clear conclusions

To b) I consider it to be very interesting that a lot of argumentation is used against one of my three arguments, but not regarding the other two - especially considering the very bad quality of her painting and the very inconsistent colour as shown on the photos.

As to a.) I think that is a fair assumption to make at this point. One look at the measure 12 modified camouflages of the USN from 1942 shows pretty clearly that it is an exception, not the rule, that the hull and superstructure paints are usually identical or at least extremely similar, just like how we see on the Tromp here. Thus I think a direct comparison between the hull and the superstructure is completely fair

As to b.) I don't think it is possible that this is just a matter of different paint batches, as the line on both the stern and the funnel, which I believe both are a change from the intermediate to the light color, seem far too intentional to be simply a botched version of the paint color. Rather I think based on the evidence at hand, that there were two different camouflage colors applied over the prewar coloring. The intermediate color seems to have been made from some pretty poor paint and is fading pretty rapidly, especially in that stern photo

Quote:
I had referred to the part below the upper range finder of De Ruyter to be an indication for a third colour earlier.

P.S. the buckling I had referred to is common to hulls and is usually not problematic, i.e. is not necessary to report it.

True, but there is no indication in that photo that buckling is actually occurring, especially considering the lower half of that area is consistent with salt water wear, but it also has that perfectly edged vertical line at the same time. It bears every indication of paint, bad paint which we know the Dutch were using, but paint never the less (see picture below).

Also, just in general when it comes to these Dutch ships, I think it is useful to remember that they are consistently inconsistent. Van Ghent and Evertsen both had the same design, but Van Ghent had a false bow wave that no other ship had. Meanwhile either the Van Nes or Witte de With had a different design which featured bridge camouflage lacking on the other two. Java and Sumatra both had the same dark color design, but Sumatra seems to have that intermediate color, and clearly their funnels designs are completely different. Some of them have only two colors, others seem to have 3, one has a false bow wake. There seems to be a general idea of an angular camouflage, but it is always applied differently from ship to ship. Thus I think one of the tricky things in this whole conversation, is that the Dutch appear to be tinkering around with their designs and changing stuff up to the point of even adding face shields to the Bofors on the De Ruyter and Java


Attachments:
Tromp wear.PNG
Tromp wear.PNG [ 271.01 KiB | Viewed 1268 times ]
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:25 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
port side is in the shade & further away then starboard side.
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:23 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
E.g. here on De Ruyter, on the starboard photo, the colours on the superstructure appear lighter than on the hull, whereas the port-side photo does not give that impression (similar to the port-side photo linked by GregoryC). Do we have to interpret that the starboard and port side were painted differently? The starboard side with the lightest colour on the superstructure and the port side with the intermediate one? I would think no (note in which bad shape De Ruyter' camouflage was, similar to Tromp's).


Attachments:
De Ruyter (194202)01.jpg
De Ruyter (194202)01.jpg [ 88.05 KiB | Viewed 1308 times ]
De Ruyter (194202)02.jpg
De Ruyter (194202)02.jpg [ 125.63 KiB | Viewed 1308 times ]
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:05 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
Another point to think about: independent of how many colours were used:

the lighter colour on the hull of De Ruyter and Java corresponds relatively well to lighter of the two colours on the hull of Tromp (if we ignore the question of the even lighter colour at the stern!). It is not a very light grey, similar to the pre-war grey, which is also not very light (in strong contrast to today's Dutch navy's light grey, which is very, very light).

If a third colour was added, which is lighter (see e.g. at the top of De Ruyter), then it could be the lightest colour, which was also added to Tromp - not the intermediate.

The argument against that would be that a lighter colour is visible below the intermediate and dark one in the parts with heavy wear (caused by wave action?). But here we see clearly damaged painting - and it is therefore not clear, what kind of colour we can see here. It would be an assumption (not a fact) that this is the pre-war colour (instead of e.g. the primer).

It is the three colour pattern, which is based on several assumptions - instead of the most simple interpretation.
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 3:51 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
@ GregoryC: you label a colour clearly caused by wear - below that diagonal "line" aft - as to be a colour identical to other parts. Why?

That means your interpretation is now the same, I had proposed earlier? Two colours on the hull (plus a small part of a third colour at the stern) and two colours on the superstructure; the intermediate and the light one used on the superstructure?

This interpretation is based on two assumptions:
a) the impression of the colours at the hull and superstructure on the photos is identical, from the observed differences we can conclude which colours are identical.
b) the line at the stern was done intentionally, i.e. is not caused by different paint batches, paint jobs or light effects.

To a) colours appear often to be different on hull and superstructure on photos, even if clearly the same colour was used. It is difficult to make clear conclusions

To b) I consider it to be very interesting that a lot of argumentation is used against one of my three arguments, but not regarding the other two - especially considering the very bad quality of her painting and the very inconsistent colour as shown on the photos.

I had referred to the part below the upper range finder of De Ruyter to be an indication for a third colour earlier.

P.S. the buckling I had referred to is common to hulls and is usually not problematic, i.e. is not necessary to report it.
Post Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 12:43 am
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
Trump. 1938-1968 66 sheets https://www.nationaalarchief.nl/onderzo ... ~3566-3631
Post Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:06 pm
  Post subject:  Re: Calling all RNN Tromp class fans  Reply with quote
Also, I forgot to mention this earlier, how is it that the Tromp has to be two colors when we know for a fact that the De Ruyter who was operating with her during this time period had at least a three tone fairly complex camouflage?


Attachments:
De Ruyter.jpg
De Ruyter.jpg [ 94.87 KiB | Viewed 1333 times ]
Post Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 6:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


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