The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 09, 2016 1:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 14
JCRAY wrote:
I don't see any value to the first book unless it is intended for "wargamers" to paint their toys.

Correct. That's exactly what they are (Mal and I are both wargamers).

I have both both books and they are absolutely chuffing brilliant. Brilliant one-stop volumes to enable us to builld our fleets without spending huge amounts of money on multiple reference books. The 'exact' colours aren't that important in 1:2400, 1:3000 and 1:4800 scale anyway. We have a convention that models this small should be duller than the real life prototypes as they are being viewed on the tabletop at a distance of about 1 m which scales to viewing the real thing at 2.4 km, 3km and 4.8 km respectively.

There are some errors in the descriptions and the diagrams. Don't care- the fact that I can spot them means they are easily corrected.

I also like Mal's TLAR approach which comes from decades of talking to veterans and suspect this method may be of value to those who consider their scale models 'works of art' that can only be painted to the 'official' standards. The problem with this approach means that certain ships will never be modelled as such references simply don't exist. As a wargamer I need to model all the ships involved in a particular historical action. Mal's use of interpretation, interpolation and informed guesswork are all valid historical research tools.

Can't wait for the volume on cruisers !

EDIT: JCRAY is obviously knowledgeable about wargaming. We do indeed refer to our playing pieces as toys. We put them on a playing surface and make shooty noises. It is fun.

We don't take the piss out of other hobbies (except trainspotters, obviously) because that would be elitist and wrong.

_________________
Sod this for a game of soldiers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 9:28 pm
Posts: 5
Location: Adelaide. South Australia.
A problem with 'Official colours' is that there often were none beyond a range of standard paints issued to most ships and shipyards. Camouflages were derived from many of these, but the intensity of tone could be changed by who ever was doing the mixing. In a book it is near impossible to show matt, satin, or full gloss as well. For the modern author trying to reproduce some of the 'official shades' so they look right on paper, is fraught with difficulty. I do use Snyder and Short as my major reference but what my computer interprets as a particular shade can come out different when it reaches the computers used by the publisher, and as we found out to our horror in early testing, quite different again to what the printers computers interpreted and sent back. It was far more difficult than many readers might realise, but I would hope that most would at least credit us that we have tried.
Moutbatten Pink is for example, extremely difficult to reproduce. A set of Printers Proofs, can cost 800 UK pounds, so you can probably understand my horror when one set returned it from the Chinese printers as close to 'Hot Pink' as you could imagine. It was ghastly. Grey's did not always look right either. But I can assure everyone that the publisher stuck with it and despite the costs, we did eventually reach something as close as we could.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE. One of the most important things about my books is that I include the reference. 507C, G45 or what ever. The reason for that was that I assured the publishers that regardless of any shade note appearing correctly in printe, the readers and those using the books for modelling, would have the intelligence to go to their paint suppliers, and chose those numbers. Therefore I put trust in the reader to buy the shades I described if wanting to paint a model. If not modellers but uncertain, they would refer to colour charts for reach their conclusions. Therefore if you dispute how a shade may look in the books, I have no argument against your opinion, but I do anticipate you will check for yourselves.

Some of my observations were based not only on those memories of wartime sailors who of course intensely hated painting ship, but the experiences of two men who actually worked in naval dockyards during WW2. The TLAR references come from them. Many ships were painted exactly to official instructions....kind of! The greatest importance was not necessarily on a shade ordered, but on "getting the ship back to sea". Nobody wanted to have a ship hanging about in dock simply because the right shade was not available. Hence, particularly in the most dark period of WW2 there was a bit of fidling with stocks available. Some dockyard matey had to hang over the side and chalk in the lines of a scheme with the assitance of others taking measurements. But it was not an exact thing. Then on top of that the scheme had to rely on the crew to keep the paints fresh after they left the dockyard. Sometimes this was for a very long time after leaving the dockyard. So if Seaman Jones was feeling a bit bleary after leave, hanging precariously over the side of the ship, waving a paint brush, it was quite normal for him to perhaps slip a pattern a foot or so, thereby changing the previous lines. Or the crew may well have had a very short time in which to get the job done and mistakes happened. That is why when you examine numerous photographs of a particular ship you may see that a previous curve has ended up rather flat, or a zig became a zag. In addition to that was the question of availability. It is unreasonable to expect that if a ship had insufficient of a particular paint to patch up an area, that its officers might not order what they had, to be used. And veterans often spoke of that.

One of the two dockyard hands I interviewed spoke of painting out 'fancy colours' his yard did not have and replacing them with something they did have. Again hardly surprising. The importance of the ship was to be available as a fighting unit, the exactitude of its camouflage colours was not. I am of the strong opinion that the reason most of the four, five and six colour schemes were eliminated within a short time of their application, was because they were too hard to maintain. Hence most dropped to three colours, but along the same lines as the orginal layout.

The 'Alexandria' schemes, can be seen through an evolving stype when looking at those first applied and those applied much later. This was an evolutionary process probably influenced by what the men at sea reported back. There was a period around the end of 1941 when you can see ships that were repaired and repainted about then, emerging with an outline around the high contrast colour. One researcher came up with close up photographs of a certain cruiser for example, where the outline was quite clear from images of stores being loaded for Crete and then unloaded. Yet officially the ship never had such a scheme and more distant photographs taken at the same time, do not disclose what the close up's did.

With book 3 nearing publication, (Volume 3, cruisers, minelayers, AMC's) I have again attempted to see if we can get a more accurate print of some colours on the illustrations and the colour chart. But should that still be imperfect, then I rely on the reader to understand what was intended. Its a far more tricky thing than I expected when I set out on this project. Perhaps it is why Snyder and Short provide 'paint chips' in order to get it right. I note that printed material that came with my set of paint chips, did not match them either.

As to exact schemes. I tend to defer to Allen Raven's work if there is a disagreement of sources. However in a few cases I have weighed up the evidence available, compared that with photographs, and provided a different interpretation. Any error is mine and I gladly shoulder any critisizm.

The duty of a researcher and author, is to present the reader with his material to the very best accuracy he can. As I have done. Beyond that it is up to the interpretation of other researches to agree or disagree. Hence my work is of honest intent, and I do not lose any sleep over it if someone disagrees. I simply note and respect their opinions which I expect to have been as deeply searched out.

After book 3, the fourth book will cover European Navies of WW2. I have had a lot of help regard Russian ships and as an example of the diligence of my research, I will be travelling to Russia in a few months to confer with contacts there in order to produce as an excellent cover of that navy as I can. I already have some stunning material from their naval museum sources.

Thanks to all those who have purchased volumes 1 and 2. You have made them THE top sellers for the publishers 2015 and 2016, which in turn has encouraged the Publisher to allow me to write more books of the type. I hope that the finished works will be a standard reference for all the navies of WW2. Getting this series published was not easy. There were doubts about how many would be interested in buying enough books to make it worthwhile. The sales were initially described as 'above average' and recently as 'frankly amazing'. That is ensuring the range will continue for as long as I can keep them coming.

JCRay may not see any value to the first book, but I assure you I had to start somewhere in order to convice a publisher to print the series. It did that and has been an enabler for the rest of the series. Book 2 is more extensive. Because of high sales it has allowed me to go a step further with the artwork. I hope that when you see what I have therefore been able to do with book 3 will be stunning.

Regards
Mal Wright


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 187
I agree, Mal - there is simply no way to be absolutely sure that a painted model is a 100% completely accurate representation of the original, for all the reasons you have documented. At the end of the day, only the most obsessive rivet-counter will lose sleep over what (to the majority of folks) is an arcane topic. If authoritative documentation exists, I say go for it....but I'm not going to drive myself (further) round the bend in search of perfection. Professional modelers have a different mandate...I'm doing this for fun and satisfaction. As you mentioned, you have included the official catalog numbers of the various paints. Good enough for me!

BTW: I'm very keen to see volume 3, and am particularly excited at the prospect of similar volumes on Russian, etc. vessels.

Keep 'em coming!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 179
Location: Australia
Wg Cdr Luddite wrote:
JCRAY wrote:
I don't see any value to the first book unless it is intended for "wargamers" to paint their toys.

Correct. That's exactly what they are (Mal and I are both wargamers).

I have both both books and they are absolutely chuffing brilliant. Brilliant one-stop volumes to enable us to builld our fleets without spending huge amounts of money on multiple reference books. The 'exact' colours aren't that important in 1:2400, 1:3000 and 1:4800 scale anyway. We have a convention that models this small should be duller than the real life prototypes as they are being viewed on the tabletop at a distance of about 1 m which scales to viewing the real thing at 2.4 km, 3km and 4.8 km respectively.

There are some errors in the descriptions and the diagrams. Don't care- the fact that I can spot them means they are easily corrected.

I also like Mal's TLAR approach which comes from decades of talking to veterans and suspect this method may be of value to those who consider their scale models 'works of art' that can only be painted to the 'official' standards. The problem with this approach means that certain ships will never be modelled as such references simply don't exist. As a wargamer I need to model all the ships involved in a particular historical action. Mal's use of interpretation, interpolation and informed guesswork are all valid historical research tools.

Can't wait for the volume on cruisers !

EDIT: JCRAY is obviously knowledgeable about wargaming. We do indeed refer to our playing pieces as toys. We put them on a playing surface and make shooty noises. It is fun.

We don't take the piss out of other hobbies (except trainspotters, obviously) because that would be elitist and wrong.


Ah but Wing Commander, the book is not sold as for war gamers only. As Mal says “This book is intended as a quick reference source for people wanting to paint model ships as a hobby, for war gaming or art.”

If you look at other forums, you will see reported errors of fact such as ships in a colour scheme never photographed and dated after the ship had been sunk i.e. Maori who was “lost at the end of 1942”. Actually she sunk in Feb 1942 and the photos of her entering Malta the month before her sinking and after she was sunk show her in a two tone scheme. The attached photos are in the public domain via the IWM’s online catalogue.

A lot of his TLAR does not stack up against known facts. He either does not seem to know of AFOs, CAFOs, CBs, or CNOs and the instructions they contain including the mixing formulae for paints. Similarly, the amount of work undertaken by the Royal Navy’s camouflage section and the Australian equivalent, Professor Dakin’s team, is ignored. Most of the work undertaken by Dakin is readily available via the National Archives of Australia or the AWM. Dakin’s files also contain correspondence between the Australian and the UK teams. AFOs and CNOs are available from the RAN’s archives.

EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS

The colour chart:
G45 is described Green and Light Olive when the RN records not only show a mixing formula with blue not green pigment in it but also state that G45 is the same colour as 507C. The only difference being the level of gloss.

MS4a is shown as Home Fleet Grey. No, “Dark Grey Paint, Home Fleet Shade” was 507B until 1939 when 507A was introduced to the same colour as 507B

B30 Described as Dark Olive. B stands for blue. The formula had .5lb of green paste in it compared to .5lb of blue paste, 12lbs of black paste and 20lbs of blue black paste.

507B is shown as a medium grey. 507B was the RN’s inter war Home Station’s Dark Grey and was supplemented in 1939 by 507A which had the same formulae to mix as 507B less the enamel paint to the same colour added to 507B. This would have made 507A a more matt version of 507B which was discontinued in 1941. Early 1930s or 1920s formulae for 507B might have been a more medium grey but 507B was always the Home Stations Grey. Is he aware that the 50/50 mix of 507A to 507C to make 507B is a furphy? The mix is only mentioned in official records as an emergency mix when G20 is not available.

Page 90 has HMS Nith as overall red lead. A simple internet search on this ship will show that the funnel and bridge were painted bright red as were other ships with the same task. Have a look at some of the D Day footage shot in colour by the US Forces and you will see other ships in this scheme.

Page 22 has HMAS Vendetta in 1941 in B15, G45 and 507C. Two problems, the colour shades B15 and G45 did not exist prior to 1943 and G45 & 507C are the same colour.

Page 137 ML 814 dated 1944. Not 1944 but probably based on the attached photo taken 16th February 1943 when the RAN lent Dakin three Fairmile Bs to trial camouflage schemes. The colours are not three shades of blue but Dark Grey, Olive Green and White. Refer to the attached from Dakin’s files.

Page 42 Bataan is stated to be in late war PB10 and 597C as she was to join the British Eastern Fleet. PB10 was a blue only used in the Mediterranean for submarines and there is no record of this colour in the Australian Archives. After commissioning in May 1945, Bataan took passage with HMAS Warramunga to Subic Bay to join Task Force 74 prior to sailing to join ships of 3rd US Fleet deployed off Japan. She still seems to be wearing her launch scheme when she arrived in Subic Bay in July 1945.

Mal talks of speaking to dockyard mates etc. and getting their responses. Basically they would be told what to paint and where and wouldn’t know or care what the colour was called. For years many of us believed that the RAN had used Storm Grey as its colour from the Korean War. One Lieutenant I know who was there swore his ship was painted that colour and friends who worked at Cockatoo reported painting ships that colour in the 1960s. One problem, the colour did not exist until 1985. So much for people’s recollections. Stores records in the archives show what colours were available, CNOs were issued stating the colours to use as were BR19s, the Painting Manual, which laid down all colours to be used on a ship including internal ones, pipes etc. Not very TLAR was it?

Is Mal aware that from the early 1920s, the RAN Dockyards issued pre mixed paint to all ships of a destroyer size or below to save them mixing it or that some of this paint was purchased from commercial sources? The RN was using and buying pre mixed. This continued during the war.

Is he aware that the Australian Camouflage Section designed many Bathurst Class schemes and provided 1/48th (yes 1/48th) drawings to the dockyards for their use?

To me the book has too many problems and assumptions. If there is photographic proof a ship carried a specific scheme, not a problem. However, you can’t just assume that a ship wore a certain scheme because it happens to be in a certain war zone especially in cases such as such as Bataan where there is documentary proof to the opposite. If you are going to quote colours, get them and their timeline right. Also get the relative tones right as, if you don’t, and, if you are guessing colours from black and white photos, your suggestions will be off. There is plenty of documentary evidence showing what colours were used, their formulae etc. You would be surprised of how much is contained in the Australian Archives on the RN’s colours as well as the RAN’s.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 179
Location: Australia
malwright wrote:
A problem with 'Official colours' is that there often were none beyond a range of standard paints issued to most ships and shipyards. Camouflages were derived from many of these, but the intensity of tone could be changed by who ever was doing the mixing. In a book it is near impossible to show matt, satin, or full gloss as well. For the modern author trying to reproduce some of the 'official shades' so they look right on paper, is fraught with difficulty. I do use Snyder and Short as my major reference but what my computer interprets as a particular shade can come out different when it reaches the computers used by the publisher, and as we found out to our horror in early testing, quite different again to what the printers computers interpreted and sent back. It was far more difficult than many readers might realise, but I would hope that most would at least credit us that we have tried.
Moutbatten Pink is for example, extremely difficult to reproduce. A set of Printers Proofs, can cost 800 UK pounds, so you can probably understand my horror when one set returned it from the Chinese printers as close to 'Hot Pink' as you could imagine. It was ghastly. Grey's did not always look right either. But I can assure everyone that the publisher stuck with it and despite the costs, we did eventually reach something as close as we could.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE. One of the most important things about my books is that I include the reference. 507C, G45 or what ever. The reason for that was that I assured the publishers that regardless of any shade note appearing correctly in printe, the readers and those using the books for modelling, would have the intelligence to go to their paint suppliers, and chose those numbers. Therefore I put trust in the reader to buy the shades I described if wanting to paint a model. If not modellers but uncertain, they would refer to colour charts for reach their conclusions. Therefore if you dispute how a shade may look in the books, I have no argument against your opinion, but I do anticipate you will check for yourselves.

Some of my observations were based not only on those memories of wartime sailors who of course intensely hated painting ship, but the experiences of two men who actually worked in naval dockyards during WW2. The TLAR references come from them. Many ships were painted exactly to official instructions....kind of! The greatest importance was not necessarily on a shade ordered, but on "getting the ship back to sea". Nobody wanted to have a ship hanging about in dock simply because the right shade was not available. Hence, particularly in the most dark period of WW2 there was a bit of fidling with stocks available. Some dockyard matey had to hang over the side and chalk in the lines of a scheme with the assitance of others taking measurements. But it was not an exact thing. Then on top of that the scheme had to rely on the crew to keep the paints fresh after they left the dockyard. Sometimes this was for a very long time after leaving the dockyard. So if Seaman Jones was feeling a bit bleary after leave, hanging precariously over the side of the ship, waving a paint brush, it was quite normal for him to perhaps slip a pattern a foot or so, thereby changing the previous lines. Or the crew may well have had a very short time in which to get the job done and mistakes happened. That is why when you examine numerous photographs of a particular ship you may see that a previous curve has ended up rather flat, or a zig became a zag. In addition to that was the question of availability. It is unreasonable to expect that if a ship had insufficient of a particular paint to patch up an area, that its officers might not order what they had, to be used. And veterans often spoke of that.

One of the two dockyard hands I interviewed spoke of painting out 'fancy colours' his yard did not have and replacing them with something they did have. Again hardly surprising. The importance of the ship was to be available as a fighting unit, the exactitude of its camouflage colours was not. I am of the strong opinion that the reason most of the four, five and six colour schemes were eliminated within a short time of their application, was because they were too hard to maintain. Hence most dropped to three colours, but along the same lines as the orginal layout.

The 'Alexandria' schemes, can be seen through an evolving stype when looking at those first applied and those applied much later. This was an evolutionary process probably influenced by what the men at sea reported back. There was a period around the end of 1941 when you can see ships that were repaired and repainted about then, emerging with an outline around the high contrast colour. One researcher came up with close up photographs of a certain cruiser for example, where the outline was quite clear from images of stores being loaded for Crete and then unloaded. Yet officially the ship never had such a scheme and more distant photographs taken at the same time, do not disclose what the close up's did.

With book 3 nearing publication, (Volume 3, cruisers, minelayers, AMC's) I have again attempted to see if we can get a more accurate print of some colours on the illustrations and the colour chart. But should that still be imperfect, then I rely on the reader to understand what was intended. Its a far more tricky thing than I expected when I set out on this project. Perhaps it is why Snyder and Short provide 'paint chips' in order to get it right. I note that printed material that came with my set of paint chips, did not match them either.

As to exact schemes. I tend to defer to Allen Raven's work if there is a disagreement of sources. However in a few cases I have weighed up the evidence available, compared that with photographs, and provided a different interpretation. Any error is mine and I gladly shoulder any critisizm.

The duty of a researcher and author, is to present the reader with his material to the very best accuracy he can. As I have done. Beyond that it is up to the interpretation of other researches to agree or disagree. Hence my work is of honest intent, and I do not lose any sleep over it if someone disagrees. I simply note and respect their opinions which I expect to have been as deeply searched out.

After book 3, the fourth book will cover European Navies of WW2. I have had a lot of help regard Russian ships and as an example of the diligence of my research, I will be travelling to Russia in a few months to confer with contacts there in order to produce as an excellent cover of that navy as I can. I already have some stunning material from their naval museum sources.

Thanks to all those who have purchased volumes 1 and 2. You have made them THE top sellers for the publishers 2015 and 2016, which in turn has encouraged the Publisher to allow me to write more books of the type. I hope that the finished works will be a standard reference for all the navies of WW2. Getting this series published was not easy. There were doubts about how many would be interested in buying enough books to make it worthwhile. The sales were initially described as 'above average' and recently as 'frankly amazing'. That is ensuring the range will continue for as long as I can keep them coming.

JCRay may not see any value to the first book, but I assure you I had to start somewhere in order to convice a publisher to print the series. It did that and has been an enabler for the rest of the series. Book 2 is more extensive. Because of high sales it has allowed me to go a step further with the artwork. I hope that when you see what I have therefore been able to do with book 3 will be stunning.

Regards
Mal Wright


Mal in your response you say “AN IMPORTANT NOTE. One of the most important things about my books is that I include the reference. 507C, G45 or what ever.” Why then do you call G45 a green not grey when there is no evidence to this and plenty to show the opposite especially the Admiralty’s own comment that it is the same shade as 507C? Similarly B30 is not a dark olive.

“The greatest importance was not necessarily on a shade ordered, but on "getting the ship back to sea". Nobody wanted to have a ship hanging about in dock simply because the right shade was not available. Hence, particularly in the most dark period of WW2 there was a bit of fidling with stocks available.” Sorry but this is an assumption on your part. Try reading the documentation held in the Australian Archives on the matter. The RN & RAN exerted more control that you believe especially when it came to major fleet vessels. Touching up of schemes whilst at sea might have blurred the camouflage lines but the originals were strictly controlled. Look at the attached drawings supplied for the Bathurst Class by Dakin’s team.

One of the two dockyard hands I interviewed spoke of painting out 'fancy colours' his yard did not have and replacing them with something they did have. Again hardly surprising. Not at all surprising. If you read the Admiralty’s instructions on the matter you will see that they had thought of this situation and actually specified alternate colours if a certain colour was not available.

The 'Alexandria' schemes, The only mention I have ever seen of Alexandria scheme is an Alan Raven book. Do you mean the various cruiser schemes which came about circa August 1940? It could be a coincidence but I found a Home Fleet Temporary Memorandum dated August 1940 in the files relating to HMAS Australia which has a two tone scheme light and dark grey introduced in a dazzle pattern for cruisers which would fit the same description. The memo is attached to an earlier posting in this forum topic. No pattern is laid down. It also states that the use of green and brown camouflage is to be discontinued.

Hopefully whilst preparing the Cruiser edition you have reviewed the documentation held by the National Archives of Australia and the AWM. If so, you will be aware that the RAN held Dakin in such high esteem that they not only lent him cruisers to investigate camouflage schemes but that he was also responsible for several cruiser schemes and the colours are noted in the files. He was also asked to comment on the schemes and their usefulness for any visiting cruisers of the RN and RNZN as well as returning Australian Cruisers.

BTW. If you haven’t found them yet, the AWM has many films of the RAN etc. during WW2 including colour footage taken by RAN ships in the Mediterranean.

https://www.awm.gov.au/search/all/?quer ... ollections

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/awm78/

PS I couldn't add the photos to the other reply, so they are attached here for you to see the bright red bridges etc.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Palm Beach, Fla
Thank you! Most excellent post.
John


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 179
Location: Australia
Thanks, the RAN command was very much involved with the camouflage schemes. Admiral Crace, Rear Admiral Commanding Anzac Squadron, actually wrote to the CO of HMAS Sydney wanting to know what colours she was in, by whose orders etc. He then forwarded the reply to the Navy Board and Dakin. He also obtained the colour scheme for Achilles and forwarded that to the Navy Board and Dakin.

Although under the RN’s command, the RAN did think for itself. It was May 1942 when they finally received samples of the MS colours. Sorry Mal but if you have included MS colours in Australian based ships’ schemes prior to that, the scheme is wrong. They simply had no idea what the MS colours were until samples arrived in May 1942.

Having examined the colours, they decided that MS3 was not suitable for local use as it was too light, so they came up with MS3b. The only description we have of that colour is that it was greenish khaki. Dakin’s notes in late May 1942 include this comment “Survey ship to be MS2 for hull & decks and MS3b for deckhouse. MS3b indicates a darker tone of the original English MS3.” When the RAN finally promulgated its colours in 1943, MS3b was included as was “Shade Chicago Blue” and “Shade Sky Blue for Masts”.

The RAN was not inflexible as the archives show requests from Captains for their ship to be painted in a non standard scheme. One example is a frigate captain requesting his ship be painted “green” as it was to operate close inshore up in the islands and small vessels operating up there had been painted that colour. Chicago Blue overall was the standard scheme at that time in 1945. Finally the FOIC Sydney approved the request with copies going to the Navy Board etc. The only colour available in the RAN at that point which would seem to match that colour was MS3b.

However, I haven’t been able to find the specific painting instructions for that ship. I have seen a model of a frigate in the RAN’s collection made in 1946 in what was described as the “Islands Scheme”. It was two tone with a lower dark blue band (B15?) and the upper half of the hull and superstructure in a medium olive green which might be MS3b. No details of the ship as no pendant number painted on and no provenance to say it was still painted in the original paint.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:26 pm 
dick wrote:
Graham,

I think a case by case re-evaluation may be needed as some of what was identified as 507A may in fact have been black as for example in this scheme on Jupiter.

Best wishes


I do not think that is a good example. In the photos I have, it is obvious that the darkest color in the hull camouflage photographed lighter than the boot topping. There are three areas where this is clearly visible in the photo of HMS Jupiter passing in the foreground of HMS Kashmir where there are three patches on the hull of the darkest color at bow, under the funnel, and at the stern, with only the stern requiring a close look.

To me this indicates that there was some form of dark, intermediate, and light 'grey' used in the camouflage -- the photo is, I believe, from the late-1940 period. I do not know if the three colors are all in the blue-grey range of AP507 colors or if there was some early form of something similar to what would become the MS series colors, but it does not appear that the darkest color is black.

I hope the image makes it, I'm new at this.

Image


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
shingen wrote:
I do not think that is a good example.


Fair comment Shingen. I failed to engage brain before using that photo!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 4:46 pm
Posts: 187
Hi Mal
One of your previous posts mentions volumes 3 & 4: is there an ETA for these next books?
Steve


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:45 am
Posts: 24
I think this is a very interesting discussion. Over the course of about nine years I have come upon many, many such "discussions" about historical colors for ships and aircraft. The aircraft guys are especially "intense." ;) As a wargame miniature "toy" painter I am also very interested in the camouflage patterns as much as the colors. It is very helpful for individual ships to have unique paint features to help with recognition. That said, it is also extremely nice to see general color consistency across a whole fleet on the table. I have both of Mr. Wright's books and I love the huge catalog of specific camouflage patterns. I have used Alan Raven's four books for a long time and they are obviously a goldmine. However, I bow down and kiss Mr. Wright's feet for including an index in his books! My copies of Mr. Raven's books have very worn spines from all the page flipping required to find a specific ship and year.

All of these books are a treasure trove. I think David William's book on Naval Camouflage is also a "must have" to understand the structure and place for all of these schemes.

I also quickly noticed the discrepancies in some of the paint chips between Mr. Wright's books and the Snyder & Short paint chips. I am not in any position to know which are correct. Almost everything I have read (and experienced) is paint does vary from batch to batch, and it was certainly often in short supply during wartime. For now I am enjoying having such a wealth of information on the patterns, and I am sticking with the S & S colors as my baseline. I have also written a couple of graphics intensive books (on weeds) and I am well aware that maintaining color fidelity in print is very difficult, and rarely completely achieved. The colors on the backs of Alan Raven's books are a good example of "close, but no cigar" print ink color. The S & S chips are actual paint chips and are much more likely to be a good color match to the original samples. Whether all of those samples were complete I don't know. I will leave that up to those with the resources and time to follow such things.

I am thrilled to hear there are more books coming. I will definitely add them to my library - and use them!

@ Mr. Wright. Thank you very much for these incredible labors of love!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:45 am
Posts: 24
Volume III is apparently coming this fall.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1848324200/re ... 5IYOTYQGUN

It's now on my wish list!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:40 pm 
Book 3 has now been released. Book 4 is concentrating on the Battle of the Atlantic, with all nations involved and merchant ships.
I note the various comments made so far.
I am aware of and have consulted many of the official references mentioned.
The problem is that as with you gentlemen who are discussing it, there is considerable disagreement on paint scheme shades and tones. Their availability and how they were applied. Were I to listen to all of them a book would never be written and it would be so full of alternative argument that it would be three times the size of the limits the publisher puts on each one.
Book 3 does adjust some of the contentious shades and after experimentation, they do come out better in print.
But once whilst I understand the rivet counters will find things to complain about, that for them is part of their hobby...finding errors and pointing them out. Hence I allow for that by including descriptions and letting them get on with their disputes and condemnations.
In the meantime I expect the intelligent reader will look at the material supplied and if they dont agree, will make their own judgements on what colours to use on a model. As has been pointed out, on small models the shades are incorrect anyway, because the same paint applied to a real ship, will look different on a small model. Therefore painting models is up to the skill of the modellers and I trust them to judge correctly.
The only area where I am personally disappointed is that these vocal critics seem to totally overlook the vast amount of material accumulated and put into each book. The amount of historical research in itself enormous, and incredibly time consuming, but actually drawing all those illustrations is a long and arduous task that often sees me burning the night lights until dawn in order to assemble such a collection. In the past four years I have produced over 3,000 ship illustrations, plus aircraft, gun mountings etc. Those offering expert advice on a particular shade of colour do not seem to appreciate the huge amount of work involved in putting each book together, and so lightly dismissing them is frankly, rather annoying. I would challenge them to sit down and produce their own works! Lets see them spend six months and more producing a volume! Then several months of editing and passing back and forth, for what in the long run is a rather modest return that does not come close to matching the hours of work done. This is not like writing a novel, where the author can become a wealthy writer. This is work for hobbyists, the returns for such books are financially low, and the greatest reward is hearing from readers of their pleasure in reading the works and using them. Anyone looking to achieve anything other than a contribution to the reading material for naval enthusiasts, modellers and wargamers would have to think again before embarking on something as extensive as I have.
I therefore rely on the providing the information I have researched. I leave it to the intelligent reader to make his/her own interpretation. Many other writers would not even bother to respond on sites like this. I do because I am a hobbyist and want my readers to know that I do not place myself above them just because I have been published. I understand that in all the years I have been one, there are always those who derive great pleasure from a critical analysis of the work of others. That model Greek Phalangite has the wrong shade of dirt under his toe nails! That model ship has the wrong shade of rust streaks! You forgot the smoke stains on the main mast of that model. I have heard it all in my 73 years and pretty much always from experts who themselves dont model, or have not contributed anything to the literature of the hobby world.
I have said repeatedly, that any errors are my own. All my research is my own. If it is in error, than that is my fault and I totally accept any blame. But in the meantime.....I am getting on with trying to do something constructive about filling a big gap in the reference material of our hobby. I leave it to the rivet counters and semi-professional experts, to confuse issues on this site.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:50 pm 
There is (was) an index to the Raven RN Camo-books, at the SMML site, by John Sutherland and Shane Jenkins.
Hth, Richard


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 14
Glad to hear the new book is out Mal. I'm expecting one in my Christmas stocking !

_________________
Sod this for a game of soldiers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Palm Beach, Fla
Research ? Sigh...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 03, 2016 2:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 179
Location: Australia
JCRAY wrote:
Research ? Sigh...



Talking of research. Mal, you might recall I suggested last time that you review the files held by the NAA particularly those of Professor Dakin. I take it you did not refer to these archives.

Your comments on Perth at 1st March 1942 amazes and dismays me. You say you have researched extensively but seem to have no knowledge of the fact that in 1941 Professor Dakin was asked to use Perth as an experiment in camouflage. He handed over a plan, painted model and list of colours to be used. She was then painted in two schemes, one port and one starboard, for trials purposes. Port being a two toned pattern of Blue Grey and Dark Grey. This side is the one you seem to know of and have had some guesses as to the colour. Well it was two colours for a start. The starboard side was a disruptive scheme which you do not mention at all. Nowhere in talking about Perth have you mentioned that Dakin had actually designed her colour scheme.

From November 1941 through to early January 1942, Perth carried out various observation trials off Sydney including one with Australia and Achilles. The trials resulted in a recommendation that she retain her dual scheme for comparison purposes. At the end of January, she departed Sydney carrying this scheme never to return.

Still on Perth, or Amphion as she was, the colour scheme for the South African Station was the same as for the Mediterranean Station, overall 507C. Apart from documentary evidence and the Fleet Orders of the time, there is at least one photo of Amphion to confirm this.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:41 am
Posts: 1267
Location: CT, US of A
Richard Aigner wrote:
There is (was) an index to the Raven RN Camo-books, at the SMML site, by John Sutherland and Shane Jenkins.
Hth, Richard


It appears that "was" is the operative word; I for one can longer find it.
Did I print a backup of that very useful index? Why no; that would have made too much sense.

_________________
Harold


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 26, 2016 7:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:18 pm
Posts: 624
Location: Palm Beach, Fla
I have that index. PM me if you would like a copy.
HTH


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
Posts: 179
Location: Australia
Well as there is silence from Mal, I think I should point out some anomalies with the colours he is using and describing.

Are you there Mal? You say you have taken on board comments from others reading colours etc. but still have some colours wrong, even more so now in the case of 507A/G10. If you care to look at other posts on this Forum, you will see that knowledge of the RN’s colours has increased considerably in the last couple of years from more data becoming available from both the British and Australian Archives.

Pattern 507B was actually the Home Fleet colour during most of the inter war period, the Pattern 507A being re-introduced in Jan 1939 as a less glossy version of 507B. Admiralty records show that 507B, 507A and G10 are one and the same colour. The only difference being the level of gloss.

The original 507A in existence when WW1 commenced was dropped in WW1. This was a pure grey. The colours known as Pattern 507A, B and C all used a blue black paste by the start of WW2 with the one used in 507B/A/G10 being known as Home Fleet blue black paste.

The records also show that G45 & 507C are one and the same colour. The only difference being the level of gloss. Your idea that G45 was a light olive green is not supported by any contemporary source. Do you have documentary evidence of the green colour?

Going by these and other colour examples in the book, I can only surmise that you have never sighted the original colour samples held in the archives or the relevant AFO’s and CAFOs giving their mixing instructions.

BTW, What is the position now with your first two volumes in respect of colours? Despite your 50 plus years of research you have now changed you mind in the short time since Vol 2 as to what certain of the paints’ shades were! Are these books to be reprinted for the needed corrections?


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

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 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