The Ship Model Forum

Another thing to consider with these images is that a lot of them are not photographs at all but stills taken from motion picture film. The pics you posted showing the aft 2 turrets with USS Navajo next to her can be seen in this film. It is very interesting to compare Arizona's turret colors to both USS Navajo and at the end of the film to USS Argonne which is VERY dark by comparison.
https://www.gettyimages.com/videos/6389 ... al#license

I have run into prints that were quite likely made from movie stills (notably a batch of about 140 images of which many were likely made from movie stills at the Battle of Santa Cruz from aboard USS NORTHAMPTON in the official action report). But, the images I posted may or make not have been made from movie stills. From the quality of the prints I scanned, I doubt they were made from movie stills. At the least, it looks like the camera that took the photos was on the same small boat as was the movie camera. Which makes sense as they are documenting the damage and having multiple cameras/cameramen capturing everything (and as back-ups in case some film was damaged or not exposed properly). Prints made from movie film have less resolution because the negative/transparency size is much smaller than most cameras used. I have noticed that some of the available photos of ships at the Battle of Santa Cruz look similar to films available, but were taken from a different location on USS NORTHAMPTON. I suspect one movie was cut up for making prints, or there were multiple still cameras in use.

Also, this movie highlights what I have said about digital videos found on-line. They are copies of an unknown generation of movie film copies. Each copy made from one generation to another, results in increased contrast. Remember, we are dealing with analog film and copies then were made by taking another photo of prints or of the raw film (movie or still). I'm not at all sure how many, if any, of the films at NARA are actually ORIGINAL first generation films. Odds are quite high that most are copies made from ONE original film that may no longer exist anywhere. Copies were made to allow for distribution of multiple copies.

The movies available on-line (and at NARA) are interesting historically, but beware trying to derive detailed information on "colors" from grayscale film copies, scanned at an unknown dpi. I have seen the equipment used by vendors to make digital copies of films at NARA and it isn't the same as using a scanner or by making slow frame by frame images. As such, it isn't exactly going to be possible to get an accurate "guess" of colors, even if one can judge the various shades of gray to different colors.

There's a lot of background info you're missing - there's a ton I don't even know as I wasn't part of the core blue crew.

Daniel Martinez, who was the head Ranger and lead publicity hound for the Arizona Memorial at the time, wanted the new model that Don was commissioned to build to be blue. From what I know, Tom Freeman (painter of The Last Mooring) was one of the first to decide that Arizona was blue along with Don Montgomery, who worked in the Naval Photographic Center. I'm fairly certain there was discussion between the three and that's how Martinez decided he wanted the NPS Arizona model to be 5-S instead of 5-D. This was more Martinez' decision than Don Preul's. I'm not saying he didn't agree with it, just that the customer contracted him to build to a certain appearance.

I was a researcher with access to Navy Yard Puget Sound (Arizona's "Home Yard") records through Seattle NARA and Ron Smith was researching for fun and profit at NARA II in College park and we were asked to look for records as acquaintances of Don Preul (in my case no compensation and I'm 90% sure that was the case for Ron as well). Don for sure had a deadline on the model as it was to be unveiled on December 7th, 2006, which was the 65th anniversary of the attack in which Arizona was lost.

So, we looked. I found a little bit of camouflage information but nothing specific to Arizona in the NYPS records. Ron found a lot, but also nothing in textual records that 100% proved anything. What was the deciding factor as far as Martinez was concerned was a piece of CV-6 Enterprise that Ron Smith found in an envelope. It had broken off during repainting and was included in a report. The paint was a fresh coat of 5-D, and he was able to photograph it in natural light with a Calibrated color checker (the brand was X-Rite but the model he and I had were earlier ones).

The fresh 5-D was darker than black.

So, the theory was that Arizona in drydock would be darker than she appeared if it was 5-D. Ergo, she was in 5-S (which itself was darker than "regular" appearance when fresh as it faded somewhat quickly). Daniel Martinez and the Blue Crew agreed on this conclusion and Don Preul finished painting his build in Sea Blue.

Ron kept digging though. There's a lot of interesting side notes and lessons in the Bureau of Ships and we didn't have a firm answer either way or directives for the rest of the fleet. He read a memo he had photographed to me off the phone, one that he said he later sent to me; unfortunately, Ron had shipped two boxes to me and we didn't realize for a bit that only one had arrived. I've gone back looking for this memo but haven't been able to re-locate it yet, so this is NOT fact and is an apocryphal story at this time. However, it does "explain" certain things if true, so I do want to mention it as a possibility.

Admiral Kimmel noted that stocks of 5-D were dwindling but that there was still a shortage of the new paints. So, he ordered that battleships were to keep enough 5-D for one complete repainting of the hull (waterline to main deck) of 5-D and turn the rest in. They were then ordered to paint *as needed* in either 5-O Ocean Gray or 5-S Sea Blue. This means that a ship could have painted just the one bulkhead section or the one turret and left the rest of the area in 5-D. As there was specifically no requirement to inform either CINCPAC or the type commanders (Commander Battleships in this case) of this repainting, we as modelers would be left with photo interpretation of ships the day of and after the attack as our only clue as to the true appearance. Personally, I believe if there actually was a shortage of the new paints (which were made from a tinting paste mixed with white) then 5-O would have been more likely as 5-O was simply the same paint as 5-S but with less tinting paste. This could certainly explain the #3 and #4 turret and barbette appearance.

One last note that isn't really ever discussed. I am reasonably sure that the Pacific fleet never painted in "pure" 5-D. The initial plan was to take existing stocks of the pre-war #5 Standard Navy Gray, and mix them with a conversion paste (paragraph 2) to come up with an equivilient to 5-D Dark Gray that would be issued and used until the new paint formulas came online. One of the necessary ingredients could not be delivered before July 20, 1941, and production of 5-D was ordered halted ten days after that projected date. Even if they had produced 5-D in the 10-20 days between (mailed correspondence took about a week in transit based on the receipts I've seen) there would not have been very much produced to ship out to the fleet. Adding a bunch of black and changing the formula could be one reason why Lexington's paint looks so nasty in October.

One correction for Rick - Arizona's Bureau of Ships records weren't destroyed; at least not completely. General Correspondence files still have some folders for Arizona, but it's essentially requisitions for lost or broken pieces of equipment (she lost at least two paravanes in September/October, from what I remember).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Tracy,

Your information explains why we see differences even between the sister ships USS Arizona and USS Pennsylvania. In the attached photo USS Pennsylvania shows the light gray all the way down to the gun director level of the bridge. I'm assuming USS Arizona only had the light gray from the fortop up.

Thanks for the great background information you've provided. My degree is in history so I really appreciate all the primary source information you have been able to find and to point out what you don't have.

Franz

I don't believe the difference in the 5-L Light Gray are due to any of the memos I posted. The original SHIPS-2 gave some leeway in the specific instructions, and we see this before the transition to camouflage beyond Measure 1.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

I probably shouldn't have said "purged" files. I thought in previous discussions that there wasn't much in USS ARIZONA's BuShip files at NARA. I have never looked in her files, so I really don't know how much is there. In my research into destroyers, I noticed that most files for units lost are rather thin, very "NEAT" and in a couple of cases completely gone. Contract related paperwork and sometimes the initial Fitting-Out Departure Report may be there, but little else. Once the ship was lost, most paperwork in the pipe-line wasn't filed away. I'm certain that it was more than likely that any documents on USS ARIZONA where BuShips was the receiver or was copied for the record and received after 7 December 1941, would have just ended up in the trashcan as OBE.

The "interim" 5-D in use and whether any "real" 5-D was used is another mystery. Mixing a flat black paste with a glossy peacetime gray would was noted as being too glossy in appearance, in correspondence. Also, an interesting note is that by early December 1941, the Atlantic Fleet had already rejected 5-S and was already applying 5-N.

Tracy, if I may grab a quote from your website:
"In service, there were actually two slightly different 5-Ds that were authorized; the initial application consisted of a black tinting paste mixed with old stock of the pre-war gray versus the "official" 5-D that was completely neutral. The converted 5-D was first used on the Pacific fleet in late May of 1941 and may have stil been in use on many of the ships as the Navy decided soon after its first use to discontinue 5-D. It had been decided fairly quickly on the east coast that 5-D was unsuitable, and a new color, 5-S Sea Blue was created. 5-D was ordered discontinued at the end of July, 1941, and the Navy paint manufacturing yards switched to 5-S in its place."

That would explain a lot with what we are seeing in photos like this one where Zona photographs much lighter than USS Dobbin in the background.


Clearly the Battleships were amongst the first to convert to MS-1 with all of them but Maryland already in MS-1 by the end of May. So we must assume that all of them except Maryland used the interm 5-D for their initial application. Interesting that 5-D was discontinued at the end of July but Maryland left Puget Sound (of all places) in the middle of August with a fresh coat of 5-D?

Jeff, that is not the only possible reason for the tonal difference in the photos. 5-D faded quickly and was prone to "chalking", which were some of the reasons why it fell out of favor. It didn't take long to see a noticeable difference, so the fleet's negative reaction to the paint was almost immediately after its introduction. As you pointed out, the BBs were among the first to get painted in 5-D and so, without frequent refreshing of paint, would be the most faded. Or it could be a combination of factors like the one Tracy mentioned about different formulas. That is another reason why claiming to know color from B&W photos is a pointless exercise, even comparing ships in the same photo.

I think it is important to acknowledge there is no evidence only speculation...
Hang it on Martinez or Pruel or the NRG but it always was BS. When Martinez returns from chasing aliens on the faux history channel perhaps he will chime in.

Martinez wasn't very forth coming with info on the model the last time I spoke to him through email.

Park Ranger from hell. Self-promoting a hole. Like that clown with the British warship books. He claims to be able to tell colors from black & white photos.
Too bad for us.

I have no desire to bad talk the guy. Quite frankly I have no idea what kind of person he is. I was surprised however how non interested he was to discuss all the inaccuracies of the model. You would think that the "head guy" at the memorial would be very interested in getting things right. Personally I believe it is very important that we get all the little details of her appearance right so that they don't get lost to history. I don't mean just her color. There are numerous things on Don's model that are inaccurate.

Stocks of existing paint would largely be used up before switching to a new material, unless there was some gross failure that hadn't been discovered in testing.

Oh, one other points I meant to add and forgot. Steve Wiper is one of the ones that had the viewing session of the color footage mentioned above. He hasn't really been able to go back since (ask yourself how many books he's published in the last ten years). I have some rough notes from Ron Smith. However, it's in the motion pictures section of archives, which I have no real experience with. It would take time, and for what purpose? It won't make Steve money so it's low on his list at this point, and I'm behind on other things I need to research, so it's more of a "if all of my research plans for this trip bust and I need something to do" project.

The cost of the trips and time it takes is what's killed that project so far.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Jeff, where and when was this photo taken of the Arizona?

I went ahead and colorized it. I did it to see how the program would interpert the colors all in the same picture (again not for any hope of accuracy). The thing I really notice in the colorized version and is apparent in the B&W when you look at it is that the bridge structure and lower half of the main mast are much darker than the hull. Unless the Arizona had the bridge area Re-painted again in 5-D later than the hull, fading would not account for the difference in color.

Could she already have had her hull and barbetts and turrets repainted in the new 5-S in this photo?

Note: On closer inspection of the photo I would say the turrets are lighter and the barbetts under turret 2 and 3 are darker.


Franz

Those areas also correspond to places with significant overhangs that would cast darkening shadows.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The date is Oct.13, 1941. It is pretty cool to see it in color.

Jeff was that in Pearl Harbor? If it was would that have been to soon to see any S-5 on her hull? I don't buy the difference being overhangs. It's to stark of a difference for that.

Franz

Yeah, it was at Pearl. It is a crop of a much larger photo that shows many ships. I can't seem to find the full pic in my files but here is a version that Rick posted. It's still not the entire pic but it gives you a look at Nevada as well. Notice that all the combat ships are photographing lighter than the service ships. Arizona and Nevada look identical in tone. I do not believe we are looking at 5-S.\

The areas above the main deck received more repainting as it was easier than lowering a team down over the sides to do the hull.

The photo in question was shot by an airplane.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Tracy, based on what Dick said about 5-D fading fast your explanation makes the most sense about the upper decks being painted more often.

Thanks

Franz