by wefalck » Thu May 07, 2026 1:00 pm
I think this needs a more systematic treatment, rather than discussing backwards and forwards in history.
The original question concerned the colours of ships that were part of the Hochseeflotte as per designation between 1907 and 1919.
To make the discussion more systematic, one should distinguish between:
a) What verifiable information exists, such as ordinances, execution orders etc. ?
b) What evidence (photographs, surviving artefacts, etc.) exists, including an assessment of reliable it is ?
c) What conclusions can be drawn and has been drawn and by whom on what basis?
d) What secondary references in what languages and from which periods exists, including an assessment of the reliability?
Ad a) We have the ordinances, offcially published in the Marine-Verordnungs-Blatt and its successors. These ordinances say what had to be painted in which colour. However, I am not aware of any official receipes for mixing paints. These may not have survived.
Ad b) There are numerous b/w photographs, but photographs are not very reliable evidence for 'absolute' values of colours. From a photograph one can only conclude, whether certain parts of a ship may have been painted darker or lighter than others, but even that can vary as a function of viewing angle, weather, and other variables. Artefacts, of which few survive, are only reliable evidence, when they have not been 'restored' at some time during preservation - larger artefacts in particular often are repainted by well-meaning museums and the likes in colours they think would be appropriate, but they are confronted with the same issue we are discussing right now.
Ad c) That depends on many factors. Often anecdotical evidence (such as witness accounts recorded many years later) are mixed with studies of the source material available at the time. Conclusions get written up as secondary references (see below) and their value depends on the scholarly thoroughness (and honesty) of the writer.
Ad d) I think Gröner (1930ff) still is the base reference, as he in principle had access to material that subsequently has been lost during and after WW2. As this was originally a one-man undertaking, there are naturally limitations in breadth and depth, which was subsequently enlarged in breadth by co-authors for the editions in the 1960s. Hildebrandt et al. (1999) contains little technical information. The work of the 'Gröner'-Gruppe that continued after his death is being now successfully published, but also focuses on the ships' histories and less on technical details. However, this group has access to the surviving official material that had been returned to Germany from Russia in the early 1990s.
Some English-speaking authors seem to have access to original material that somehow ended up in the USA or the UK after WW2, but in many cases is not readily available for inspection by others, as it is in private hands. Hence, it is difficult to contextualise conclusions that they may have drawn on the basis of this material.
I would also group paintings into category (d), because a painting is a personal interpretation of what the painter may have seen or imagined based on anecdotical evidence by eye-witnesses or source material to which they have accesses at the time. In most cases, a painter does not produce a technical drawing, but intends to convey a certain atmosphere or image of an event. Hence, body colours are varied according to the circumstances portrayed, varied according to the light of the day, the weather, and other conditions. Only a naive painter may attempt to produce a ship image in body colours.
So my conclusions are, that it is futile to argue about absolute values and tints of colours before the introduction of RAL codes in 1927. Even after that time, different batches of paint may have slight variations in colour, but these may only be noticeable, when painted next to each other on the same surface.
I know, the 'right' colour is a pre-occupation of many military modellers. However, they are in a slightly better position, because (unrestored) artefacts may have survived and would be accessible.
I think this needs a more systematic treatment, rather than discussing backwards and forwards in history.
The original question concerned the colours of ships that were part of the Hochseeflotte as per designation between 1907 and 1919.
To make the discussion more systematic, one should distinguish between:
a) What verifiable information exists, such as ordinances, execution orders etc. ?
b) What evidence (photographs, surviving artefacts, etc.) exists, including an assessment of reliable it is ?
c) What conclusions can be drawn and has been drawn and by whom on what basis?
d) What secondary references in what languages and from which periods exists, including an assessment of the reliability?
Ad a) We have the ordinances, offcially published in the Marine-Verordnungs-Blatt and its successors. These ordinances say what had to be painted in which colour. However, I am not aware of any official receipes for mixing paints. These may not have survived.
Ad b) There are numerous b/w photographs, but photographs are not very reliable evidence for 'absolute' values of colours. From a photograph one can only conclude, whether certain parts of a ship may have been painted darker or lighter than others, but even that can vary as a function of viewing angle, weather, and other variables. Artefacts, of which few survive, are only reliable evidence, when they have not been 'restored' at some time during preservation - larger artefacts in particular often are repainted by well-meaning museums and the likes in colours they think would be appropriate, but they are confronted with the same issue we are discussing right now.
Ad c) That depends on many factors. Often anecdotical evidence (such as witness accounts recorded many years later) are mixed with studies of the source material available at the time. Conclusions get written up as secondary references (see below) and their value depends on the scholarly thoroughness (and honesty) of the writer.
Ad d) I think Gröner (1930ff) still is the base reference, as he in principle had access to material that subsequently has been lost during and after WW2. As this was originally a one-man undertaking, there are naturally limitations in breadth and depth, which was subsequently enlarged in breadth by co-authors for the editions in the 1960s. Hildebrandt et al. (1999) contains little technical information. The work of the 'Gröner'-Gruppe that continued after his death is being now successfully published, but also focuses on the ships' histories and less on technical details. However, this group has access to the surviving official material that had been returned to Germany from Russia in the early 1990s.
Some English-speaking authors seem to have access to original material that somehow ended up in the USA or the UK after WW2, but in many cases is not readily available for inspection by others, as it is in private hands. Hence, it is difficult to contextualise conclusions that they may have drawn on the basis of this material.
I would also group paintings into category (d), because a painting is a personal interpretation of what the painter may have seen or imagined based on anecdotical evidence by eye-witnesses or source material to which they have accesses at the time. In most cases, a painter does not produce a technical drawing, but intends to convey a certain atmosphere or image of an event. Hence, body colours are varied according to the circumstances portrayed, varied according to the light of the day, the weather, and other conditions. Only a naive painter may attempt to produce a ship image in body colours.
So my conclusions are, that it is futile to argue about absolute values and tints of colours before the introduction of RAL codes in 1927. Even after that time, different batches of paint may have slight variations in colour, but these may only be noticeable, when painted next to each other on the same surface.
I know, the 'right' colour is a pre-occupation of many military modellers. However, they are in a slightly better position, because (unrestored) artefacts may have survived and would be accessible.