by Olaf Held » Sat Feb 26, 2011 7:12 am
Hi John ~ The problem is, well, my problem is, that I only can trust the written word, the 1941 and the 1944 paint regulation. What they did after mixing paints was allowed, by mid-1942, is a total mystery to me. Especially the forces tied up in Norway may have used everything they could find in Norwegian paint stores, or maybe the repair ships had enough 'German' paints in the paint locker. I think their knowledge and experience in camouflaging the ships grew in the course of the war, and that exactly led to the revision of the 1941 paint regulation - the result is the 1944 edition which, you know that, distinguishes between coastal and open-sea camouflage. We have colour photos of Scheer (1942) showing a dark grey combined with a light green-grey (named 'Dunkelblaugr�n') and the 'normal' light grey of the upperworks. There is nothing in the 1941 regulations looking like a light green-grey. This means 1944 regulation was a bit 'behind' the actual usage of certain colours. The next problem is the variety of versions for each individual photo, some showing a greenish, some a blue-ish hint. What can we trust? I think the more photos we have, the more we can rule out particular paints for particular time frames. Looking at other ships is also important. If Scheer was dark grey in 1943, other ships (e.g. the Prinz and L�tzow) may have used the very same colour when painted dark grey in that region (Baltic) and time frame. I even believe Scharnhorst carried this paint scheme (plus off-white bow and stern), because b/w photos do show the dark band around the bulwarks darker than this particular dark grey. The band around the base of the superstructure was RAL 7016 (like the waterways, rain gutters, steel decks and boot-topping). So, comparing this or that colour with known colours is essential.
It all falls apart when they really used submarine colours for the surface ships, HA!
Making paints fainter - or less intense ~ The use of burnt sienna, vermillion and/or ultramarine was recommended to tone down the paints. Making Schnellbootwei� out of pure White and things like this. I'm not sure if this effect would be noticable on a small scale model. I believe Dunkelgrau 2, RAL 7024, had a subtle blueish hint, esp. when you tweak it to make it less intense. Maybe that's how the 'Norwegian' colours were born, mixing different amounts of above ingredients which may have resulted in lighter or darker varieties. Too bad, just by looking at them, that they can be divided into 'coastal' and 'open-sea' ... (and too bad, Scheer was in the Baltic, not in Norway, when being dark grey ...)
Happy painting ~ Olaf!
Hi John ~ The problem is, well, [i]my[/i] problem is, that I only can trust the written word, the 1941 and the 1944 paint regulation. What they did after mixing paints was allowed, by mid-1942, is a total mystery to me. Especially the forces tied up in Norway may have used everything they could find in Norwegian paint stores, or maybe the repair ships had enough 'German' paints in the paint locker. I think their knowledge and experience in camouflaging the ships grew in the course of the war, and that exactly led to the revision of the 1941 paint regulation - the result is the 1944 edition which, you know that, distinguishes between coastal and open-sea camouflage. We have colour photos of Scheer (1942) showing a dark grey combined with a light green-grey (named 'Dunkelblaugr�n') and the 'normal' light grey of the upperworks. There is nothing in the 1941 regulations looking like a light green-grey. This means 1944 regulation was a bit 'behind' the actual usage of certain colours. The next problem is the variety of versions for each individual photo, some showing a greenish, some a blue-ish hint. What can we trust? I think the more photos we have, the more we can rule out particular paints for particular time frames. Looking at other ships is also important. If Scheer was dark grey in 1943, other ships (e.g. the Prinz and L�tzow) may have used the very same colour when painted dark grey in that region (Baltic) and time frame. I even believe Scharnhorst carried this paint scheme (plus off-white bow and stern), because b/w photos do show the dark band around the bulwarks darker than this particular dark grey. The band around the base of the superstructure was RAL 7016 (like the waterways, rain gutters, steel decks and boot-topping). So, comparing this or that colour with [i]known[/i] colours is essential.
It all falls apart when they really used submarine colours for the surface ships, HA!
Making paints fainter - or less intense ~ The use of burnt sienna, vermillion and/or ultramarine was recommended to tone down the paints. Making Schnellbootwei� out of pure White and things like this. I'm not sure if this effect would be noticable on a small scale model. I believe Dunkelgrau 2, RAL 7024, had a subtle blueish hint, esp. when you tweak it to make it less intense. Maybe that's how the 'Norwegian' colours were born, mixing different amounts of above ingredients which may have resulted in lighter or darker varieties. Too bad, just by looking at them, that they can be divided into 'coastal' and 'open-sea' ... (and too bad, Scheer was in the Baltic, not in Norway, when being dark grey ...)
Happy painting ~ Olaf!