The Ship Model Forum

Hi Sutho,

All new and out of stock Sovereign Colourcoats will be coming to us in a June shipment. We are taking preorders on all colours.

Hello again,

I have been silent for a long time, and purposefully so. The more I started digging, the more I questioned the established thoughts on what these RN WW2 shades looked like. All I wanted to do was to paint my 1/350 PoW in reasonable colours. What a journey this has been. I now know what the possible shades looked like, and many look nothing like people have led us to believe. Dick sent me the AD29 data for PRS's analysis of the paint samples sent to them by Admiralty (PRS AD29 15 Oct 42, on NA 212/124) . He challenged me to convert them, and with Bruce Lindbloom's assistance, I did that. Jamie took that information onboard in revising Colourcoats, and what we have now is much better than what we had before.

We put a lot of work into the PoW scheme that Jamie put forward (MS1, 507A, MS3, MS4, 507C). It looks a lot like the colours in EJ's wonderful graphic, though the paint designators are different. Is it right? Who can say. Until we find the design sheet for PoW, we can't have any level of certainty; and to be frank, even if you know the intended shades, you still don't know exactly what went on the ship because administrative commanders had some leeway in adjusting designs, and until the standardisation of paint in 2106/43 and CB3098(R), variances in the quality of what was applied (in terms of tone and colour) may have been significant. The MS&B paint was mixed to match colour cards, there were no formulae issued, and devices like photometers to measure tone were relatively new devices and not readily available to ships staff. There is other evidence to show that there were problems mixing paint to match the desired shade before 2106/43, but I realise I am heading off topic, so won't bore you with that now.

The main reason for me posting is that I still see doubt in some that 507B was the same shade as 507A. The first thing that needs to be understood is that the designations '507A', '507B' and '507C' refer to a pattern, i.e. formulation, of paint, not to a shade (shade = colour + tone) of paint. 'Dark grey, Home Fleet shade' was a shade of paint, and it came in a number of formulae, two of which were 507B and 507A, as very clearly explained in AFO 211/39.

[attachment=3]1939 1 19 AFO 211 507A 507B.jpg[/attachment]

As far back as AFO 1658/27 we are told that enamel is made to the shade of the paint, so if 507A is 'dark grey home fleet shade' without enamel, it is the same shade as 507B which is 'dark grey home fleet shade' with enamel that is the same shade as the paint. I can understand why people without the benefits of the www and with records still locked away would think that a 'B' paint was halfway between and 'A' and a 'C' paint, but that is quite simply the wrong assumption.

[attachment=0]AFO 1658 27.png[/attachment]

I also noted a comment by Jamie re the perils of relying on imagery, and a quote from Schuil (optical scientist engaged by DTSD and seconded to Naval Section, CDCE, Leamington) that I had pointed him to. The document is RE CAM 30 1 1, and this is what Mr Schuil says...

[attachment=2]re cam 30 1 1.png[/attachment]

I think it quite obvious from reading this that, if this is the quality of photograph needed for Leamington to make reasonable analysis of comparative tone, then our/my attempts to get meaning from the images that we have access to is a very hit and miss affair. There are many posts on this thread explaining the many, many variables that apply to image quality. I know that I fell into the trap of arguing the toss based on what I saw in images, and I apologise for that - I have come a long way since my amateur attempts at ship camouflage analyses two years ago. There is absolutely no way of saying with certainty that 'this must be that' from ANY image, colour or B&W, modern or historical, unless you have some scientific reference point, and even then, it will only be relevant for single point analysis as no one reference point can apply to every part of an image - too many variables. We took two years of comparing images, making allowances for colour balance problems in colour footage, et, etc to come up with the most likely shades on PoW, and even then, it is best guess.

I will end with a word of caution re WW2 paint samples. There still seems to be some reliance on analysing the colour of sample cards or physical paint samples from WW2. I can understand that - you get something physical like that in your hand and you think 'so this is really it!". But it isn't! Paints deteriorate. Oil paints darken and yellow unless kept under UV. Ultramarine pigment fades, whatever medium it is in. You only have to look at the formulae in 2106/43 to see that the proportions of thinners, oil, etc in each paint was different, so they would not age in proportion to each other. You are seeing how it looks now, not how it looked then. Here is what the Paint Research Station at Teddington had to say about how samples appeared after only a few weeks in dark storage - it is not hard to imagine what 70 years of storage might do...

[attachment=1]212 124.png[/attachment]

Regards,
Lindsay

Hello all,

I agree with Sutho that the barrels of the 5.25s are camouflaged. My take on it is that they are painted to fit the shade of the overall pattern of the ship when the turrets are trained in their stowed (fore/aft) position. I.e. they are not disrupted as the 14" barrels are, but painted to be hidden in the overall scheme. The best image that I know of to display this is...https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205170702.

You will see in this and other images that some barrels are in a single shade, others are in two shades because in the stowed condition, they 'cross' the boundary between two camouflage panels on the superstructure. Please don't be deceived by images of elevated/trained barrels looking lighter or darker than my advice suggests - this can readily be attributed to lighting conditions.

Regards,
Lindsay

Hi All,

As far as I can remember there are images of Churchill leaving PoW on a destroyer showing some form of camo on P1 5.25 barrels plus I think the Pathe News reel film of the Halberd convoy shows P1 firing with some form of camo upon them?

Best wishes
Cag.

This is one here where I think there are different tones of colour on the barrel of one of the secondarys.

Also the one looking aft where you can just glimpse some barrels there is what appears to be distinct patterns on them. You can see the forward most secondary barrels are not in pattern but all of the ones aft of it that have been cut off and not quite in the image appear to have a pattern.

[quote="EJFoeth"]I don't see camouflage on the barrels of the secondaries in any of the IWM shots (or any other). Can you post the image?[/quote]

I will have to go through the images again and try and find it.

D'ja ever think when you asked the question seven years ago that it would spawn a discussion that lasted this long and changed what we know about history?

Thanks EJ. I've made another tweak. The barrels will have to wait a while!

I don't see camouflage on the barrels of the secondaries in any of the IWM shots (or any other). Can you post the image?

[quote="mister me"]Steel decks in NARN23 I presume ?

Also shall you give a better pic resolution for barrel camo ?

Thanks for all this work and waiting for EU continental stockists concerning new NARN range ![/quote]

To make matters harder, I believe the secondary turrets gun barrels had camouflage on them in the same manner as the main turrets. I have glimpsed photos on IWM website that caught evidence of this but it was too little of just one secondary turret to get a pattern.

It would have been far easier to slap your logo on that drawing :big_grin:

Not all zones on the barrels are correct; it's very difficult to make out the contrast differences between MS3 and MS4.. some regions may require changes.


Also, there's also one error on Y-turret in that last one (colour filling error...) , use this one for reference

[attachment=0]POW-playingarounds.jpg[/attachment]

I forgot you had that version Evert-Jan. That saves me a lot of work redrawing. The gun barrels were not my idea of fun :big_grin:

That data is all given in the original camouflage scheme.

[attachment=0]camo_ms3ms4ms4a.jpg[/attachment]

(MS4a --> AP507C)

Hi,

We didn't really look at decks much but the steel decks appear to all be dark. I think it will be very difficult for anyone to tell you a dark grey is wrong.

I could make a second page showing extra details like the gun barrels, front of bridge, back of hangar bulkheads and tops of turrets (which had some camouflage carried over the top). Would people like that?

Lastly, Michiel at Naval Models from The Netherlands is making an order now for handover at Telford, so I hope to get NARNs to Europe with him.

:smallsmile:

Steel decks in NARN23 I presume ?

Also shall you give a better pic resolution for barrel camo ?

Thanks for all this work and waiting for EU continental stockists concerning new NARN range !

Hi folks, and EJ especially.

Apologies for my blunder, and thank you to dick for covering for me. I have been in London on a business trip (day-job stuff) and didn't have access to my home computer, software or the drawing file.

I have corrected my camouflage blunder on "Panel 20" near the stern on the port side, corrected my erroneous lines atop the bridge and changed the aftmost Oerlikon to a dark colour (I chose 507A to be consistent with the one next to it).

[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/8ca2e2b4-727b-4d4a-88ea-de83574b2fa7.png[/img]

I think this is probably as far as we can / are going to take this one, but it will be good to see the occassional model of Prince of Wales from now on painted in something that better resembles the colour cinefilm clip that survives rather than, for instance, the Tamiya instructions.

Yes, re your first and second points.

Re the third observation, the third area of 507C on portside, yes: there was an error transposing from our drawing to his which Jamie will sort out when he gets home tomorrow.

Some comments:

There are three spots of 507C on the starboard side of the bridge; the top spot should be white as there is no ship there

[attachment=0]pow1.jpg[/attachment]

I have no evidence of the after most 20mm gun tub being 507C; pics I have do show 507A on all tubs (well, something dark). There are lighter areas but those are the covers near the stairs?

[attachment=1]pow2.jpg[/attachment]

On the aft port side hull there are now three 507C areas. I think the most forward one (below the main mast) should be MS4 as well. Note that on some pictures the contrast difference between MS3 and MS4 is negligible but both show quite well against 507C. This contrast difference is not observed for the most forward region?

(I agree with the additional spot of MS3 on B-barbette, port site)

[quote="Sutho"]It is quite some time. I have been to Japan twice in the amount of times I have posted here.

Here is my take. It is credible and having not seen what the new MS4 tin looks like I have not had the ability to see it how you see it.

Either way it is not too much effort to change an already painted model by leaving the darker shades in place and altering the lighter two.

What I would like to know is how does your MS4 differ from the WEM variety, is it coming to Creative Models in Australia? and also is there a temporary mixing fix I could undertake with WEM MS4 to make it more like your current mix.

I admit that I had been weighing more towards a lighter tone for the lightest two colours but depending how you look at it the two colours seem similar anyway.[/quote]

Hi Tony,

The new one is darker. The old product was approximately the tone 507C should have been:
[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/f7098a69-078f-4e43-bb37-d157b55c4b9c.png[/img]

We've had no re-orders from Creative Models since the first. If you're not too fussy then a touch of black into the old RN12 or 13 or whatever it was (I've forgotten already!) will approximate the tone required. The new shade is closer to neutral grey than the old one which was bit more towards yellow and red, but addition of black or white will result in desaturation to a greater or lesser degree. If you have any old RN02 spare, a bit of that might be a good way to desaturate the old MS4 whilst desaturating as the blue in RN02 will offset the "warmth" in the WEM-era MS4.

It is quite some time. I have been to Japan twice in the amount of times I have posted here.

Here is my take. It is credible and having not seen what the new MS4 tin looks like I have not had the ability to see it how you see it.

Either way it is not too much effort to change an already painted model by leaving the darker shades in place and altering the lighter two.

What I would like to know is how does your MS4 differ from the WEM variety, is it coming to Creative Models in Australia? and also is there a temporary mixing fix I could undertake with WEM MS4 to make it more like your current mix.

I admit that I had been weighing more towards a lighter tone for the lightest two colours but depending how you look at it the two colours seem similar anyway.