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.