The Ship Model Forum

Hi Dick,

I have sent you a PM, wondering if you could email the pictures you have of the Curacoa directly to me to help with the model.

Of the photos you posted, the first two and third show her post mid-1942 refit (most noticable with the bridge Oerlikons) and the last pre mid 42 refit (no bridge Oerlikons). After the refit all she seemed to do was escort the Queen Mary or Queen Elizabeth, whereas before she escorted convoys from the east coast around the top of Scotland to the Clyde. The white front deckhouse may well have been some sort of recognition feature. Alan Raven's WP books implies she was 507A pre 42 refit. It is also states that the shadow panel was grey.

I too would like to think that two shades of MBP were used, plus, perhaps the white streak. I think Kenya was the only cruiser to use a two tone MBP camouflage and Berwick mixed hers with grey.

Thanks again for your input.

All the best
Sandy

Dick, notice that the pictures you've just posted are only 12-18kb in size - our limit here is 150kb, so there's plenty of room to play with. Feel free to send me the original pictures by email (thtchoi @ gmail.com, minus the spaces)and I can post them up for you.

Sorry Sandy but I'm afraid that I dont know where these two came from.

I was struggling against the photo attachment size restrictions of this site and the quality of those two images I posted last night is therefore not as good as I would have liked. I�ve tried again � see attached. To be clear, there is a light band amidships visible in that more broadside-on view. The question is just how light it is.

Having now looked at a few other photos of Curacoa in late 1941 and 1942 she seemed to be playing around with her camo. I have come across her with odd very light patches in other places at times - example attached. I wonder if they were for recognition purposes?

So I'm inclined now to agree with you about that amidships area being extra light.

I dont know much about Mountbatten pinks (and John@WEM can put us right on this), but I understand that there was more than one shade. The account from one on the Queen Mary talks of a cruiser "camouflaged in brilliant colours ". Light grey is not really a brilliant colour. Just to throw out a wild idea, how do we know that Curacoa was not in tones of light and dark MP and that that extra light area amidships was not, say, light yellow (given the time of day MP was aimed at providing max camouflage at)?.

Hi Dick,

Thanks for posting those photos. Small though they are I have not seen them before. Can I ask where they came from?

They do show the lighter area around the pom-pom splinter shield and, I would venture to sugest, the lighter streak across the upper bridge, and the after deckhouse but as you say, the midships 'white' band is missing. If you blow up the lower one, while resolution is lost there does (and this may be wishful thinking) seem to be a lighter band there.

It would be great if those photos had an IWM number so I could get prints.

Thanks again for your interest.

Sandy

P.S. I notice in the Warship Perspectives book that Alan Raven points out that Curacoa was, as far as he can tell, the only RN cruiser to exhibit a pendat number.

Sandy,

I see what you mean about the amidships area in the Friedman book version looking particularly light.

Anyhow here are two more views of that area for you to make of what you will. To my eye it does not stand out particularly there.

Bit of a puzzle.

Best wishes

Has to be 507C.

Many thanks to those who have responded so far.

I have now seen the Warship Perspectives book and Curacoa is featured (along with a list of MBP painted RN ships) and answers many of my questions.

The drawing of Curacoa mentions that the shadow patch on the hull was 'grey' but no mention of which shade. From folk more knowledgable than me, would you reckon the shade is 507C or 507B?

Also, there is no mention of any other shading and I am still convinced that the bridge and rear deckhouse are 'grey' and the mid desckhouse white. The mid deckhouse is too bright and clean, even when theoretically 'shadowed' by overhangs to be anything other..... perhaps.

All the best
Sandy

Ah well... I was just curious :smallsmile:

[quote="EJFoeth"]Getting the correct shade from a single B&W image can be very tricky. Depending on weather conditions (no direct light with heavy clouds), direction of illumination, reflections, exposure time, film type, reproduction quality etc you can get very different impressions from different photographs of the same ship.

Anyway, do you have an example of that image?[/quote]

The best example I have is the two page version of this photo in Norman Friedman's book.

Hi,

The pom-pom splinter shield is steel as there are several (one on the web and one in the book) views down from the ADP and you can tell it is steel plus there are the angled reinforcing plates coming up from the deckhouse.

Interestingly, both the bridge 20mm Oerlikons and the Oerlikons abaft the funnels do look as though they have canvas dodgers and not splinter shields, as do the strange unoccupied sponson(s) which are seen just below the searchlight. The twin 4inch equipped 'C' class cruisers when originally converted featured staggered searchlights on either beam, the port one being slightly forward of the starboard one. These were mounted in circular tubs with circular uprights off the main deck. It appears when Curacoa had her 1942 refit that the two searchlights were replaced by a single high mounted searchlight in front of her after director tower (as seen in the photo) and the original circular tubs and their supports removed. When Carlisle, her nominal sister ship, had her (later) 1942 refit her twin searchlights were replaced by one but mounted lower and forward of the after HA director tower. Carlisle retained the original searchlight tubs but these were fitted with twin powered 20mm Oelikons. Comparing photo(s) of Curacoa and Carlisle post 1942 reveals quite a few differences including camouflage and the number of Carley floats carried, with Carlisle, maybe as result of the loss of the Curacoa, having many more. In fact, from teh photo, Curacoa is worryingly bereft of floats.

The second surviving officer was one of the ADO's and his station was on the ADP. The IWM bridge photo is from 1940 during the Norwegian campaign and Holmes's photo is from later. There are one or two noticeable differences inside the bridge that show up too.

In as much as HMS Berwick appears to have had her Mountbatten Pink overall colour broken up by 507A there could be a mix and match, although in her case the MBP would show as the lighter shade and the 507A as the darker one.

In Curacoa's case, the MBP may be the dark version and, as pointed out, the shadow shading is 507C. Based on the well printed version of the net photo in Friedman's book I am pretty sure that the slash along the deckhouses and under 'Q' mounting is white.

I am not sure if it is worth starting a fans of 'C' class thread and repeat some of these posts there.

I am still keen to try and model this ship. I am still convinced that Curacoa was MBP(perhaps dark MBP), but had, as helpfully sugested, the hull (and possibly bridge and after deckhouse) shading are 507C, plus the extra white slash amidships. It would make for an interesting and possibly unique colour scheme, and a worthy model.

Regarding back to MBP, were there any ships painted overall dark MBP?

All the best
Sandy

I guess the 2nd colour is light grey at the bow, round the pom-pom and the bridge. Is white a 3rd colour amidships or is this a trick of the light? i think Dick is right when comparing the pennant number to the amidships colour.

There are several copies of the same photo on the internet with varying tones, but none of them conclusive. the reproduction quality of them varies enormously.

Unfortunately, think you've got a difficult job, unless you can find other photos to compare with this one.

Are you sure that is splinter shielding round the pom-pom and not a dodger as the texture looks a bit different to me?

Rob

Getting the correct shade from a single B&W image can be very tricky. Depending on weather conditions (no direct light with heavy clouds), direction of illumination, reflections, exposure time, film type, reproduction quality etc you can get very different impressions from different photographs of the same ship.

Anyway, do you have an example of that image?

I see what you mean. Thanks.

However, in the real photo in the Friedman book the horizontal band along the midships deckhouses under 'Q' mounting is as bright (white) as the pendant numbers on the hull. Also, the shading of the angled part of the pom-pom splinter shielding is quite a bit lighter, again possibly white, than the vertical surface of the deckhouse immediately below it.

I rather doubt that any of the hull/superstructure/splinter shielding in your photo of Curacoa was painted white. The things that probably were white would have been be the pendant numbers and depth marks painted on the hull, and the white of the Ensign. The lighter areas of the two tone camouflage are significantly darker than these.

I have ordered the Alan raven camouflage books and may, if the card through the door is as I suspect, be able to collect them from the Post Office tomorrow.

So, major warships in MBP would be:- Berwick, Manchester, Kenya, Aurora and Curacoa.

Destroyers:- many of the 'K' class, Campbeltown for the St Nazaire raid, some of the other lend lease flush deckers (Broadway being one).

Flower class corvettes:- Aubretia, Hollyhock and Nigella.

Please add if you know of any other definites, or if I am wrong with the above.

The photo is on the web, and it is also in the Friedman book on an excellent two page spread. It is amazing how much better the quality of the photo is and shows up quite a fair bit of detail.

The downside is that there are so few photos of the Curacoa, as with all the converted 'C' class ships. The photo I mentoned above was taken after its last refit and, in comaprison with the one taken in 1940/41 shows qite a few differences. In fact, there seem to be quite a lot of differences (apart from the trawler bow) with her half sister HMS Carlisle. The bridge is totally different having a peaked front, the splinter shields around 'A' and 'Y' guns are different, the blast shield protecting 'A' gun from the overhead firing quadruple pom-pom is different, as is the corresponding one aft which was removed to allow depression for the two single pom=poms, and yet a huge vertical blast shield was erected between 'X' gun and the single pom-poms to protect their crews, meaning 'X' gun could not fire at low angle across a proportion of the stern.

I have spent quite a long time comparing photos and Curacoa does seem unique.

In the book, co-written by one of the two surviving officers it categorically states that when she arrived to escort the Queen Mary Curacoa was painted Mountbatten Pink. One account by a US serviceman onboard QM also states that the cruiser was brightly camouflaged or coloured or words to that effect. Close scrutiny of the photo shows the quite distinctive lighter coloured sweep under the flare of the bow, but also that, while there is a similar coloured (shaded in black and white) horizontal swathe along the fore part of the deck housing abaft 'A' gun, the angled part of the blast shield is much lighter, maybe white. Also, the swathe along the after deckhouse under 'Q' mount is also white and there appears to be medium shaded horizontal shades along the upper bridge and upper part of the aft deckhouse. All in all quite an unusual scheme.

It will be quite interesing making a 1/72 scale model of a ship that many folk have 'heard' of from one photograph. Fingers crossed.

[img]http://www.naval-history.net/Photo06clCuracoaSP.JPG[/img]

The other unique feature to Curacoa is the very tall tripod main mast with no cross braces. None of her sisters had anything quite so tall, or unbraced.

If the book is correct, and there is no reason to hugely doubt it, some of the 'stories' of eyewitnesses on the web are wildly inaccurate. One claims that the cruiser was zig-zagging wildly when in actual fact the Curacoa, once she fell in with the Queen Mary, steamed a dead constant course while it was the Queen Mary that was zig-zagging. The simple reason was that the Queen Mary was faster than the Curacoa and the only way the cruiser could keep station with the liner long enough to provide protection was for her to go just about flat out (25 or so knots) while the liner overhauled her. The captain of the cruiser had ordered the escorting destryoers to turn off and head back towards Ireland before meeting the liner so that as the liner passed out of the protection of the cruiser she would enter the AA protection of the Hunt class destroyers ahead. The collision seems to have resulted from the two captains interpreting the rules of the sea differently. The cruiser captain, the only other officer to survive, was relying on the rule that overtaking vessel at sea should always keep clear of the vessel being overtaken. the captain of the liner was working to the de facto convoy rule (and in this case despite being a single ship the Queen Mary was regarded as a convoy) that the convoy always took precedence and the escort should keep out of the way. The snag to this argument was that while it was common for escorts be able to outmanouvre ships in convoy, in this case the convoy was actually far faster than the escort travelling as she was a 28 knots as opposed to Curacoa's 25.

It is also worth pointing out, if you are interested, that almost everything on the internet regarding the collision refers to the cruiser as the Curacao, whereas, in actual fact, she was called the Curacoa.

Apologies for the waffle.

Could be AP507c rather than white for the contrast colour?

Closest I can think of a list is Alan Raven's book.

In the meantime, you can add Aurora to your list of cruisers.

Where did you find the photo of Curacoa? i'd be curious to see it as i don't know much about her.

Cheers,

Rob

Thanks, I found the thread. Various US destroyers were named as being MBP, and there was talk of a 'list' of MBP ships, but I cannot find the list.

Any help appreciated.

This was a topic of discussion here on ModelWarships.com a year or two ago--should still be somewhere in the Forum.

Do you have the WR-press Warship Perspectives: Camouflage Volume I:IV ? They mention the camouflage patterns of a wide array of ships.

[url]http://www.shipcamouflage.com/wr_press.htm[/url]