The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:56 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:07 am 
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/British- ... II/p/6818/

Book 1 of my series on WW2 naval camouflage has been released.

Book 2 is in the final editing stages.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:46 am 
.

Thanks for the info - I know that there has been a lot of interest in this book on the web (not least from Alan Raven) - I wish you a lot of luck with it (I have had mine ordered for months).

I assume that volume 2 will cover the larger ships ?

Will you cover such things as minor craft (trawlers, drifters, net and mine craft, etc .......), MTBs, Landing ships and craft and merchants ?


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:40 am 
.

I have received my copy (direct from publishers) - very nice.

I hope your book is a success and I look forward to the second volume.

.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 310
"Caveat Emptor" - buyer beware. Whilst nicely presented, there seem to be some flaws in this work, and close study alongside other references is recommended. Some glitches are obvious (eg a drawing captioned "HMS STURDY ... 1942" (she was wrecked on Tiree in November 1940)), others are a little more obscure (eg a drawing entitled "HMS BROKE I83" showing a ship wearing pennant number I84 (which was KEPPEL's) or drawings of War Emergency Destroyers of the "S" class with twin 40mm Bofors on the platform immediately abaft the funnel) and still others are arguable (eg the shape of panels of several ships wearing Western Approaches, and other, schemes varies from that in many photos - although the author rightly states that these shapes sometimes changed when ships were repainted). There are several drawings of ships wearing schemes I've not seen in photographs; hopefully the original illustrations these drawings were based upon may be forthcoming.
Whilst interpretation of colours from black and white photos is very difficult, the colours in some of the drawings differ significantly from the descriptions in other, usually authoritative, works - many of which are quoted in the bibliography.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 29, 2014 1:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 516
Location: England
I’d very much like to ask the author some questions about his sources/references for the hues and tones of the camouflage paints he thinks were used by the RN in WW2 which are revealed in his paint chart on page 12 and would presumably underpin the deductions he has made to create his illustrations and caption their colours. I’d also like to ask him about the time frames he thinks certain colours were available.

Mal, assuming you are reading this, my first question is: why do you think B30 was a dark olive green colour? (Paint chip, page 12, top line no.7; Skate page 14; Quail page 54; Blankney page 68, etc.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2014 9:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:28 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Adelaide. South Australia.
tjstoneman wrote:
"Caveat Emptor" - buyer beware. Whilst nicely presented, there seem to be some flaws in this work,


I have explained in the opening of the book that the research is mine, the conclusions are mine and any mistakes are mine. Across the 740 illustrations it was inevitable that a pennant number or date here and there might be wrong because it was so hard to find anyone able to edit it, with the expert naval knowledge to pick up every such error. I have found such a person for book 2, indeed a team of people. The pennant number errors you picked up were also picked up in the last editing, but somehow seem to have not found their way into the final print.

You are no doubt right about there being a few mistakes, but it does sort of depress me that with 740 illustrations you have been only able to comment on those few errors! Was there nothing positive to say about so many years of research and work assembling all of that mass of work????

I do have paint chips used by the RN, however as I point out at some length, we are dealing with real people fighting a real war. We not only have the frailty of human errors, but the pressure of war and fatigue on crews. Hence the general TLAR (That looks about right) attitude of many. I've had letters since the publication in which some who served in the RN post war have said that TLAR was common right up to this day, and that was not under the pressure the sailors of WW2 were under.

Not only were the men under pressure, so were the dockyards. One illustration shows a hilariously incorrect pennant number applied in a dockyard, and since drawing that one, I've found another similar error in photographs. Many of those working as dock yard matey's (As they were known) had not been involved pre war. The skill level therefore fell. But also the pressure of war meant that many non Royal dockyards had to be used and the had limited experience with naval requirements. Local procurement paints meant purchasing what was available locally, and where possible to something as near as possible to what was supposed to be the right hue. Or alternatively mixing locally available paints to something near the right shades. For this I used anecdotes of veterans from time to time. But it is possible to occasionally come across the odd mention in sources that are not actually about camouflage or painting, but it gets mentioned. The stories included sitting with some retired dockyard matey's over a few beers in Sydney, who related many unofficial things done. Sometimes to avoid work, cut corners and even to steal hard to get paint or materials later sold on the black market.

As for differing armaments. The War Emergency Destroyers had a designated armament and then there was the 'actually fitted' armament. I carried out extensive research so that when showing individual ships I showed what they actually carried, rather than the intended armament. Not all sister ships were the same! With so many ships under construction in the last half of the war it was inevitable that shipyards were faced with the choice of holding ships up until a designated armament was available, or fitting what was actually available. In some case ships 'won' by getting more or better than intended. (Twin 40 mm and even single 40 mm were a win) In some cases they 'lost' by getting less or older weapons than intended (2pdrs). Therefore I made a great effort to show what was actually fitted to each individual ship rather than use a standard drawing for them all. (It was a lot of work to do that!!!!)

As well as the War Emergency classes, there were sometimes quite big differences in the 'actual' armament of other ships too. My Uncle served on HMAS Waterhen in the Med and later on HMAS Nestor and others. He told me how the number of light AA guns could vary on his ships according to how many Bren Guns (Even a Vickers) the army carelessly left laying around unguarded! How they unbolted Italian 20 mm Breda guns from ships that had been 'bottomed' in various ports. Other veterans were full of stories of 'The accidental finding' of "useful stuff". One one occasion some Army gunners were away playing cricket and only the alertness of one of them who had remained behind, prevented their 40 mm Bofors being 'found' by a naval scavenger group. (Who had commenced dismantling it!!) On entering one of the front line places it was a regular thing for a 'search party' to go ashore looking for spare ammunition for these unofficial weapons. One of the Mediterranean Admirals stated that the actual armament of a ship often depended on how many skilled kleptomaniacs a Bosun could find among the crew.

Some however, were semi-official. Taken from a sinking ship, or one damaged beyond repair. This level of semi organised theft of what they could not otherwise get in their stores and equipment list, also extended to paint. HMS Terror for example used British Army stone as part of an unofficial camouflage. (See book 2) This sort of thing was of course not exclusive to the British and Commonwealth navies. All navies seem to have people with the right Piratical thieving skill to ensure that one way or another, they got what was needed.

I listed a 'select' list of sources because to have listed them all would have meant exceeding the number of allocated pages, or leaving some drawings out to accommodate that. In other instances the 'source' is my own research, which again, I made clear in the opening of the book. The source is therefore sometimes 'me'.

If one wants to know what really went on, it is necessary to not only do the research, but also place oneself in the same situation. MY background is Police. I went about much of it like an investigation and in an investigation one always finds that the witnesses disagree and what was meant to be is not necessarily always so. Official records can be wrong. Therefore I put this series of books together keeping in mind that over the years I have read many, many, sources in which the authors seemed completely stuck on the 'official' versions and what was supposed to be. My research told me that it was simply not always the case and not always possible to follow the official version. Over the years I have seen far too many 'official records' that were quite wrong.

The research was also carried out over my lifetime (I am now almost 71) and yes, I did lose notes and could no longer remember some names and sources across the fifty years or so I took a particular interest. (My actual interest started as a small child) But I think the opening adequately explains that.

Therefore I present the series of books as they are, with mention of TLAR etc. As a result I offer no apologies, only the assurance that I did everything I could to get it right.

_________________
Mal Wright


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 761
Location: Adelaide,SouthOZ
G'day Mal,

I have just picked up a 1/72 King George V class that I intend building as HMS Duke of York in the camo scheme of around 1942 will your Vol II have an pic's/ camo drawings ??

Cheers Bruce

_________________
building:
1/72 RC USS LONG BEACH CGN9
1/72 RC USS CALIFORNIA CGN36
1/72 RC USS SAIPAN LHA2
1/72 RC USS JOHN PAUL JONES DDG53
1/72 RC USS SHARK SSN591
1/72 RC USS ALBANY CG10


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2014 10:49 pm 
Yes Bruce. It has every scheme worn by each ship of the class. The same applies to all the ships in the second volume. There are less illustrations (only about 560) than book 1, but they are larger and more detailed.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 3:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 516
Location: England
malwright wrote:


I do have paint chips used by the RN, however as I point out at some length, we are dealing with real people fighting a real war. We not only have the frailty of human errors, but the pressure of war and fatigue on crews. Hence the general TLAR (That looks about right) attitude of many. I've had letters since the publication in which some who served in the RN post war have said that TLAR was common right up to this day, and that was not under the pressure the sailors of WW2 were under.



"TLAR" might account for a small % variation from the official hue/tone of a paint and official publications at the time recognised that there would be such variations - but only so much. I cannot see TLAR turning B30 into a dark olive green, or G45 into a darkish green, or MS4 into a darkish brown olive for example.

I am interested that you have paint chips used by the RN. Where are they from and what do they say about those colours' hues and tones?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2553
I flipped through the volume at the Heiden Fine Scale Model Contest and also noticed the paint chips of some colours do not match existing paint charts or samples in the archives. So, same question as dick.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:56 am 
Getting colours to come out right is easier than it sounds. I did the illustrations and sent them to the publisher. His computer sees the colours but produces its own interpretation. The publisher sent the material to the printer and he sent back a proof copy. In the proof ships that were pale Mountbatten Pink, came out a lurid 'Hot Pink'. Greens as blues and blues as greens. It costs 800 UK pounds for each time a proof copy is done. I tried things like sending a colour several shades lighter and finding it came out correct on one and totally wrong on another. This went on for shade after shade.

Getting true colours reproduced in print is not an easy task at all. Note that even the RN paint chip set comes with a printed example of a British County class cruiser. Yet...even with the paint chips at hand, even they could not get the printer to get it right on the example!

In fairness to our efforts, take a look at all the previously existing resources for colour guides and ship illustrations. It is difficult to find many that are exact in shade, and very easy to find lots that are wildly wrong.

We persevered and got the colours to as near as possible. But it was time consuming and expensive. One thing I did rely on in the end, was that by putting down the actual code of each colour, if we did not get any right, the modeller would have the intelligence to use what ever their interpretation of that colour is. So please....give us a break. We did everything possible to get the colour right and then added the caveat of giving the code and description for the reader to interpret.

As for reaching an opinion after 'leafing through' a copy at a shop....I'm speechless as to that one!!!! :-(


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 516
Location: England
gallopingjack wrote:
One thing I did rely on in the end, was that by putting down the actual code of each colour, if we did not get any right, the modeller would have the intelligence to use what ever their interpretation of that colour is.


That still does not help when one reads for example in a caption of a 1942 scheme "The hull was MS4a grey. The upperworks were much lighter in 507c pale grey."

(MS4a was lighter than 507C!)


Last edited by dick on Wed Jan 07, 2015 4:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2553
gallopingjack wrote:
As for reaching an opinion after 'leafing through' a copy at a shop....I'm speechless as to that one!!!! :-(


I merely stated the colors in your book are different from other publications and as as far as that matter is concerned that is a fact, not an opinion. Actually, flipping through the book is what prevented me from forming an opinion.

In a book about color where getting the color right matters, I'd have a series of single pages printed until the colors were as near correct as you could get them and perform a press check. Blaming the printers for colors going wildly wrong isn't very convincing. The Snyder & Short color charts certainly do not include a note that their colors differ from exactly what they intended them to be (yes, these are not prints). Yet, if you scan them and view them on color-calibrated monitors and print them using professional equipment, they are a close match.

In any case, you have evaded the question put to you by Dick.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:33 am
Posts: 310
Having studied Volume 2, I have a few observations and questions. The book is of considerable value to modellers, and is clearly the result of much detailed research (although in many cases an indication of the sources of information would be useful, the number of illustrations precludes that). I hasten to add that I couldn't do any better myself - and probably much worse!

There are three illustrations of aircraft carriers drawn with unusual patterns interrupting the late-war dark panel up to hangar deck level; I believe these are in error – apparent "gaps" in dark panel, and dark patches above that, are likely to be due to shadow effects on one photo. These are HMS GLORY (Imperial War Museum photo FL9455 - http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205017044), HMS CHASER (http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0301004.jpg) and HMS ATHELING (http://www.navsource.org/archives/03/0303301.jpg).

Drawings of Attacker class ships show six twin 40mm Bofors mountings. Most photos (except of SEARCHER) only show four such mountings. Is there evidence that six were fitted?

Drawings of RODNEY on Pages 72 and 74 show the crane mounted abreast the HA.DCT – it should be abreast the armoured director ahead of the bridge, otherwise it would not be able to plumb the catapult on "X" turret.

The font used on many of the deck letters shown on aircraft carriers is one with serifs on the letters; I'm not sure if this is correct. Also, whilst deck letters did change on occasions, many of those shown seem to differ from other references (eg HERMES wore "HR" at some point, GLORIOUS "GL", ARK ROYAL's deck letter was "A", ILLUSTRIOUS' deck letter in 1940 was "L").


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 516
Location: England
I’m not sure that I agree with you there Tim. It seems to me that if you are going to try to deduce the likely colours in RN WW2 camouflage schemes one necessary basic first step is to research what colour the colours actually were, what their relative tones were (ie which were lighter and darker than each other) and when they actually existed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 142
Is this series without mistakes? I doubt it. Is it an exhaustive and valuable resource that collates a vast amount of information into a single, easy-for-amateurs-like-me to digest. Absolutely! As someone accustomed to seeing B&W pics of British warships (and assuming they were generally grey-ish....I know....), it was a true revelation to see the amazing range of schemes applied. Like many no doubt, I was aware of the general tones of WA camo, or mountbatten pink, but the widespread use of olive/green tones was surprising....my models are going to be a lot more colourful :-)

Well done indeed Mal. As previously mentioned, the references to the official codes will help with matching paint colours.

I picked up volume 1 after getting the second book...and am looking forward to the cruiser volume ....hint, hint


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 22, 2015 4:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 516
Location: England
Models will certainly be more colourful/amazing/surprising but will they be more accurate I wonder?

To take just one example, you refer to “...the widespread use of olives/greens...”. There can be absolutely no doubt that Mal Wright thinks G45 was a green/olive colour. You have both volumes. G45 is described in the paint charts of both (Vol 1 page 12/Vol 2 page14) as being “green Light Olive”.

In Vol 1 on page 43 describing his vision for Nubian’s 1944-5 scheme he refers to “…a G45 green panel…” and, in the drawing, green is the colour of the dark hull panel; so also Milne page 52 “…G45 green panel” and Zealous page 64 “…G45 dark green hull panel…”. (See also the green G45 in the drawing of Vendetta 1941 on page 22 (incidentally, imagined to be wearing G45 and B15 two years before those colours were introduced!).)

In Vol 2 on page 103 describing his vision for Furious in 1943 he refers to “G45 Light Olive” in the text. In the drawing of Howe on page 88, G45 referred to in the text is represented by a green/olive colour in the drawing; likewise for Venerable on page 142.

This is nonsense. G45 was in fact a light grey with a hint of blue. Here are the mixing instructions from a 1944 AFO:

Attachment:
1944 3113 c - Copy.jpg


What colour do you think B30 was…..a dark olive/green?


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:55 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 1031
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
A copy of this book appeared at last month's club night and was passed around the table.

Obviously being a seller of WW2 Royal Navy paint colours I was rather wide-eyed at some of the descriptions and illustrations of certain colours. I then decided to contact John Snyder to verify what I thought I knew about some of the significant divergences in our range compared to Wright's book. I am satisfied that Colourcoats is robust - the WW2 RN paints in particular being matched to samples provided by Alan Raven to John Snyder.

Whilst nicely presented, I would back up the suggestion that the subject heading book should not be used as sole reference for model making purposes.

_________________
James Duff
Sovereign Hobbies Ltd
http://www.sovereignhobbies.co.uk

Current build:
HMS Imperial D09 1/350
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=167151


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2015 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 600
I don't see any value to the first book unless it is intended for "wargamers" to paint their toys. I could never really guess colors from black & white photos unless they seemed in accordance with generally accepted opinions of colors in use at the period of the war. Seems to me that the designation for the same paints was often what was changed not necessary the paints so much themselves. There was a never ending struggle to reduce reflectance not necessary the color so much. Depending on the lighting MS3 (green-gray) looks a lot like 507C in photos. I think the same applies to MS1 & 507A. I can't tell the difference between MS4a and 507C. So I like Light gray, Mid gray, Dark gray, Dark blue gray, Mid blue, Light blue gray, Light greenish gray, early war brown ,WA blue & WA green. I feel the WEM paints are close enough, with a few exceptions as have been noted.
my 2 cents.
John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 142
I think it's fair to say that anyone who is looking to reproduce as accurately as possible a given ship in a specific scheme will most definitely need to refer to the relevant paint chips, I still absolutely see a TON of value in this book - and volume 1. The sheer number of vessels and camouflage schemes gathered together in one place at a decent price make this a really great resource, as fas as I am concerned. In truth, no-one can authoritatively say exactly what shade a colour was when painted 70-odd years ago. Between the possible variations in tone due to mixing discrepancies; uneven application; poor preparation of the surfaces to be painted; deterioration and wear after application; undocumented touch-ups using whatever was at hand; reproduction/printing issues, etc. it is literally impossible to say that a model is exactly, 100% spot-on. Not to mention the scale effects.

So i will continue to use these books and look forward very much to volume 3. If my models are off, well I can live with that :-)

Cheers, all!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group