The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:53 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Michael Potter wrote:
My monitors (I have four) display color-flawless photographs that I have taken of actual objects, like people, that I can compare to the object.


So, not calibrated. Natch.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Quote:
So, not calibrated. Natch.

Undocumented and irrelevant to paint of actual ships and models. Natch.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2016 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
We'll see.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:51 am
Posts: 382
Location: S.C.
If I may let me ask this. When the ship is in the yard for a paint job does it get "blasted" and then primed before it is painted? Under normal peace time I believe that it does...but would that be so even during hostilities? Remembering that time is a factor wouldn't the yards just paint over what was there? no sand blast very little primer? Sorta like a quick "Earl Shivs" $99 special so to speak?
If that is true then would it also be true that the color scheme would break down much faster than say a "properly" painted vessel?

Having owned boats and lived right on the southern Carolina beaches most of my life, I'm familiar with environmental effect from the wind sun sea salt and such on coatings and finishes. In days past I have painted (spray) various pieces of equipment, 4wheel drive sand runners...trucks...even a few boats. What amazed me was how quickly the finish broke down due to weathering effects on different types of paint mediums and on how well the job was performed.

Properly applied coatings matched the paint chip usually for 8 to 10 weeks...with little to no "Chalking" or "Fading" if properly top-coated.
Quick/cheap paint jobs (No bead blast no prime/sand) started to break done within a week or so..Also noted was the "Bleed-thru" of the underlying paint as the top coat chalked and faded out rapidly....the noticeable effect was a change in tone and hue of the color..sometimes rather a stark difference to what had been applied on a few weeks earlier.

Could this very same or similar deterioration effect, along with changes in photo film chemicals, and "time of day taken" account for the discrepancies in "eye-witness" reports, testimonials and photo evidence?

I DO NOT have a dog in this fight nor am I attempting to muddy the waters...Just trying to get a more clear and visual understanding of the discussion .

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
To answer your question about application of "a new coat of paint with or without it being a new camo scheme", it depends on where and when the painting was done. If the yard visit was a major/general overhaul, the ship would have the sides "chipped" by hand and a primer and topcoats spray painted on normally while in drydock AFTER all major yard work was done. BUT, if it was a short yard period, a few were done just to change the camo scheme (prior to Operation Torch a large number of USN ships were repainted into Ms 22 from Ms 12R/mod), the paint job may or may not get the full prep treatment. I really don't know if sandblasting was commonly used in Navy Yards during WWII. I have seen no photos of it being done, but I wouldn't rule it out. It was common practice for crews to "touch-up" the paint of ships at every opportunity ... the officers liked to keep crews busy ... so some ships look pretty nice from a distance, but if there are close-up photos, the touch-up areas are visible.

In late 1944, but not really getting to be a major exercise until after Iwo Jima in March and April 1945, the switch away from Dazzle Camo to Ms 21 or Ms 22 was being done pretty hurriedly in the forward areas (the switch started in late 1944 at USN Pacific Coast yards), many times by putting the "crew over the side", to paint over the dazzle. There are many photos showing that these "quick" paint jobs really got beaten on the hull by water action with the old scheme showing through in areas. But, some forward areas had pretty well developed capabilities with floating drydocks and experienced service crews and those paint jobs held up better.

The USN had banned ships from carrying large quantities of paint onboard in 1942 as a fire hazard. With the level of basing the USN had in forward areas (on tenders and shore-basing) to stockpile needed spare parts and things like paint, any ship could have access to paint they needed at almost every layover anchorage.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I don't think I have it posted, but the Navy had regulations for how thick paint could get. I believe it was two coats or X thickness and then a shipyard would remove and repaint. Ship's forces didn't have the gear to do this, so they were limited to chipping and re-painting when the ship was at an anchorage (combat ships weren't allowed to carry paint, essentially, and could only repaint at a major Navy anchorage). I did a quick search for the document that listed it but couldn't find it on my laptop - not sure if I just didn't search enough or if it's only on my home computer.

And yes, the paints faded and chalked.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Where in SoCal? IPMS-San Diego meets Friday 26 August 1830 in Balboa Park. Thank your for joining and for injecting real-world experience with the purpose of this board. I think photographs consistently show exactly what you describe and predict. USS Missouri was painted to camouflage measure 22 at Hunters Point Navy Yard, San Francisco, during November-December 1944. In the WW2 Pacific theater, there were no yards west of Pearl Harbor. Instead, anchorages, chiefly Ulithi atoll, and floating drydocks allowed crews to repaint their ships. During December 1944 - March 1945 Missouri stopped at Pearl Harbor and twice at Ulithi.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/097/0409706.jpg
Here at anchor in Ulithi atoll in March 1945 USS Flint (CL 97) touches up her camouflage. I'd be surprised if a ship of already marginal stability would embark a mass of sand for pre-painting sandblasting in a combat zone, in particular Flint after her sister USS Reno (CL 96) nearly capsized from one torpedo hit in November 1944. Flint's hull paintwork is worn exactly as you predict. The medium gray along her hull at her bow, on her forward superstructure and on her hull below that, exactly match ColourCoats US31 #17 neutral ocean gray. At the stern in the correct location per her camouflage pattern is a sun-bleached patch of paint that is consistent with an original application there too of #17 neutral ocean gray. That patch might also be consistent with 5-H or 5-O blue-gray; although would you expect a blue content to vanish this completely and evenly?

The points are these: first, as you say ships did indeed get repainted in theater; and second, in March 1945 neutral gray paints had already been in fleet use for long enough (maybe not very long, as your experience shows) for USS Flint to achieve her appearance in this photo. I'd guess that the destroyers in this video < US Naval Forces at Iwo Jima in Japan > (at video time 1:30) were painted in their neutral grays before, not during, this assault in February - March 1945. What do you think?

#27 neutral haze gray (ColourCoats US32) was only slightly lighter than #17 neutral ocean gray (ColourCoats US31). This photo (too wide to embed here) shows USS Missouri in April 1945 with a dark gray superstructure that is visually consistent with #27 neutral haze gray: < USS Missouri in April 1945 >. 5-H haze gray and postwar FS36720 haze gray were much closer to #37 neutral light gray (ColourCoats US33) than to #27 neutral haze gray. If Missouri were instead in 5-H haze gray, even if freshly retouched, she would appear very light, like the lighter sections of Flint above. In your nautical experience, does paintwork lighten or darken from tropical exposure?

Have you Paul Stillwell's book Battleship Missouri? Page 41 a photo (National Archives 80-G-469991) from around 18 May 1945 that shows Missouri with worn paint on her hull, again as you describe. Someone (Rick!) with access to the original image and maybe to additional images from a series, maybe can answer whether her original measure 32 camouflage is exposed. The ship was moored in Guam and in June anchored at Leyte, which would afford opportunities for painting. In the next photos, page 43-44, from July 1945, her hull paintwork appears restored.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:51 am
Posts: 382
Location: S.C.
Ok thank you both.

so then could the accelerated effect at that stage of the WAR, and said photo practices, along with plain "human error" in proper paint formulation( not enough of one, too much of the other or substitution)could cause the discrepancies we see....for instance.....make a color look more neutral in tone or more blue-purple...


When I spray the sapphire -blue tones or the purplish greys of either medium.enamels or acrylics...the final product does not look realistic..even after using a "Color Modulation" style of weathering.
However..when taken outside in the brite sunlite...the look is drastically different.

And The more "neutral grey" coatings that look correct inside under fluorescent lighting at 5500 to 7000 kelvin actinic or even "daylite"spectrum looks like washed out same old same old Battleship grey when viewed outside in real sunlight.

It seems to me that a photo of the subject/s are not a good indicator of "correct color".
On occasion I fish the Arther Smith Hatteras Marlin Tournaments of the coast of N.C....the Navy ships leaving the Jacksonville/Cherry point/ Little river yards off the shores near Morehead N.C. run the ICW Waterway channels and pass by the CG buoys out towards "Frying-Pan" station platform and then to the shipping lanes. The ships can be seen as the leave the channel headed out.....they appear as(modern) neutral and or haze grey ...when viewing them 8 to 10 miles past you (you now are between them and the shore line) the sun gives them a pinkish look at distance( say 10 miles) in the afternoon...earlier in the day at that position they appear more white or washed out with little detail...very Hazey ghost like.
A afternoon picture would most indeed anecdotally prove the ship was pink....but we know it is not.

Anyway..pardon the "noise" to the thread just was looking for verification on what I had already been accustomed to.
Thanks both of you...Tracy and Rick Carry on! :smallsmile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 10:51 am
Posts: 382
Location: S.C.
Ahh Michael no, sorry not in SoCal.....S.C. Coastal Carolina.

By no means an expert on color of photo practices as you guys are... just an observer of actual real world practices.



As before....Carry on! :smallsmile:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Michael,

You don't seem to understand ... it was virtually impossible for ANY USN ship to be painted in the Neutral Colors before February 1945. The paint wasn't an APPROVED paint until late November 1944 and the formula wasn't even available to provide to the manufacturers. It takes time to ramp up production of paint needed for ALL the USN warships. The forward areas would have been the last to get these paints. The Navy Yards would have started stockpiling, then supply ships would have been loaded with paint and slowly sailed for Pearl harbor and beyond. They ALL had already stockpiled earlier paints ... and likely had a lot of excess white paint from the dazzle schemes on hand for mixing more 5N and 5H with paste ... The USN certainly wouldn't have throw away OLD stockpiles of paint only a few months old because they have some "new stuff". I don't credit any of the USN destroyer YARD PHOTOS as showing the use of neutrals until about May-June 1945 STATESIDE. It is questionable that the forward areas would have had the same paints before then.

The IWO JIMA film shows destroyers that were painted in dazzle in early to November 1944 during yard periods, dazzle was a scheme next to impossible for a ship's crew to apply on their own ... and would have been painted in the earlier Blue-Purple paints ... period. I couldn't ID individual ships to document their LAST yard period. After the extended period of operations leading up to IWO JIMA, most ships involved were active from before the Philippines campaign with little downtime, the paints would show fading and maybe a chance for touching-up, but that is about it.

USS MISSOURI was painted in her dazzle (USS Missouri (BB-63) used Design 22D in Measure 32 colors of dull black (DK), ocean gray (5-O) and light gray (5-L)) on the East Coast in mid-1944 well before Neutral Paint. Then she was repainted into Ms 22 before heading to the War Zone ... in November-December 1944 ... not enough time for her to have gotten the new paint.

USS FLINT was painted in her dazzle (Measure 32 would be light gray (5-L), ocean gray (5-O) and dull black (BK)) in mid-1944 as well, well before Neutral Paint. Here is what she looked like (in grayscale) in November 1944 (USS PUTNAM's War Diary puts this as being 6-8 November 1944) while working up with USS PUTNAM (DD-757) (photo courtesy of Eric Hansen who's father George Hansen onboard PUTNAM took the photo), it shows touch-up on her hull already.

Image

Here is another view of USS FLINT as completed. Note some touch-up and an oil leak stain.

Image

Also, you don't seem to realize that EVERY photo you list as PROOF is at least a third generation and more like or a fourth generation reproduction of the images from the original source transparency or negative that are then uploaded online and displayed on a computer screen or printed on paper. The colors you have as proof can not be trusted. You NEED to order scans of the original 4x5 transparencies to have any hope of making an assessment of the "colors" involved. If you are going to start using B&W images, like 80-G-469991, that isn't a valid way to prove COLORS. My main interest has been in USN Destroyers and other rare subjects, there are many photos of the carriers and battleships out there already and I don't take time to scan them unless someone makes a request for a specific subject. For the USN battleships I have had more interest (and scans of) the Dreadnought battleships and the IOWA class post-WWII and have many scans of those ships ... aka I don't have image 80-G-469991. But that image is available on Navsource at a higher res than normal ... http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/016347c.jpg ... as provided to Navsource by Sean Hert. The answer to your question about her dazzle showing through seems to be no. USS MISSOURI "MAY" have been repainted in the neutral colors in May-June 1945. But, you can't prove that from half of the photos taken before then you list as "proof". She had opportunities for repainting prior to the surrender ... to look pretty ... or at Pearl Harbor on her return to the East Coast for the Navy Day events.

Also, BRIGHT SUN washes out, makes colors look lighter unless a photographer has adjusted his settings to change the tones.

And as has been pointed out to you by gott_cha below, a model in original colors looks every dark INDOORS, and lighter outdoors and the further away you look at it. I have tried this experiment myself. If you want the "lighter" look inside ... lighten the colors, but don't try to justify that was how the original ship looked when painted. The people who put the Paint Charts together have done years of research and found original samples and/or formulas of the colors used ... not looking at photos to derive colors ... to develop those paints.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
True thanks for the replies. In this following booklet cover photo from April 1945, USS San Diego (CL 53) in the center, according to < http://shipcamouflage.com/usn_cl.htm >, is in 5-H haze gray, plus black. That is credible because she was so painted in early 1944.

USS Missouri in the background by the left edge has, according to some correspondents here but not me, a superstructure also in 5-H haze gray (sic). I believe this photo was taken around the same time as < USS Missouri in April 1945 >.

Any modelers who are viewing this: Do these alleged instances of "5-H haze gray" in the same photograph appear to be one and the same shade of gray; or different? If different, then reject any advice to paint models of 1945 USS Missouri and USS Indianapolis in 5-H haze gray. Instead PM me your postal address for a free swatch of the paint you need and for a cheap method to acquire a supply.

Image

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Last edited by Michael Potter on Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Funny that the ship in the foreground, which is in Navy Blue, is darker than the black portions of San Diego. Could it be that because the ships are so far apart, oh, I don't know, there could be some variation in light due to clouds etc. and San Diego could be in the sun while the others are more shaded?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
A scan of a grayscale printed booklet as evidence, really. My older copy of this book from the 1970s at least had a color cover.

From ... http://www.usndazzle.com/design.php?cat ... for_num=51 ...

Lee Johnson has definitely more updated research than the older Shipcamouflage website. He has been going to NARA pretty much every week for sometime. He has for USS SAN DIEGO;

Light cruiser USS San Diego (CL-53) also wore Design 24D using the Measure 32 colors dull black (BK) and light gray (5-L), beginning in April 1944, until the end of the war.

So your cover photo scan shows us Light Gray (5-L) on USS SAN DIEGO and Haze Gray (5-H) on USS MISSOURI.

OK, here is one for your evaluation two ships side by side, not a half mile apart, in freshly applied paint; USS MISSOURI (BB-63) with USS RENSHAW (DD-499) on 27 October 1945 in New York City Harbor for the 1945 Navy Davy events. USS MISSOURI has been or should be painted in the "new Ms 12" sometime/somewhere between the surrender (when MISSOURI was in Ms 22) and departure from Pearl Harbor for New York City. The just REPAIRED and updated USS RENSHAW at Todd Shipyard in Tacoma, Oregon after being torpedoed in February 1945, is or should be painted in the "new Ms 22". The hull paints more or less match. But note that the "Haze Gray" don't. Which paints did the USN use on these two ships???

Image

The large format version of this image is available at ... http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collect ... -6545.html ... and remember that the NHHC color images were scanned from "PRINTS" made from the original transparencies. How much different the original transparency would look, I don't know. But at least the contrasts between the two ships is evident. I cropped this view down to get the max size of the subjects possible for posting here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
OK, in October of last year I made a trip to NARA (regular thing) and grabbed the 1945 Bureau of Ships Correspondence files for camouflage. I just finally got around to posting this document I found and scanned in from November 21, 1944. This was a week before Missouri started availability at Hunter's Point, where she was painted in Measure 22. Excerpts from the memo:

* Navy blue paint will continue in effect for use in Measure 22 only. (Paragraph 3)
*The paint manufacturing yards, Mare Island and Norfolk have been authorized to stop the manufacture of blue-black tinting material, Formula 5-TM; to begin the manufacture and issue of the new light gray, haze gray, ocean gray, and Navy gray paints in ready-mixed form ... and to continue the manufacture of Navy blue paint as required for Measure 22 only (Paragraph 4)
*Continue the issue and use of white base and blue-black tinting material to produce the specified paints, until stocks are exhausted. (Paragraph 5(a))
*If dependent upon the output of the paint manufacturing yards for the maintenance of camouflage paint stocks to meet the needs of ships in commission and new construction, begin to order the several paints in ready-mixed form as the situation demands in anticipation of the later non-availability of the blue-black tinting material (Paragraph 5(c), emphasis mine)
*Apply the respective new neutral gray paints, when available, in accordance with the camouflage design details; light gray, haze gray and ocean gray where 5-L, 5-H and 5-0 respectively are indicated on the plan. Apply Navy gray paint, where symbol 5-N is indicated, except in Measure 22 where Navy Blue paint (formula designation 5-NB) shall be continued for the area now indicated for 5-N. (Paragraph 5(e), emphasis mine)

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:40 am
Posts: 583
Location: Vincennes, FRANCE
I here understand that MS22 was NOT planned at all to be considered impacted by new neutral color concerning 5-N ? right ?

then, indianapolis in its final MS22 shall have a "blue" hull and neutral haze superstructure ?

_________________
Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! - David Glasgow Farragut


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
mister me wrote:
I here understand that MS22 was NOT planned at all to be considered impacted by new neutral color concerning 5-N ?


From the original instructions:

Quote:
MEASURE 22.

Apply a horizontal band of Navy Blue (5-NB) or #7 Navy Gray (5-N), if blue not available, to the hull for its entire length and extending from the boottopping to the height of the main deck at its lowest point (on carriers to the level of the hangar deck). Apply Haze Gray (5-H) to all vertical surfaces above that level. In absence of boottopping, extend lower band from light load line.

Apply Deck Gray (20) to decks and all other horizontal surfaces exposed to the weather.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 748
Location: Downey, California
Given the timing, it sounds like the neutral grays would be appropriate for USS Antietam CV-36 during her March-April 1945 shakedown cruise, having commissioned at the end of January 1945. A rare opportunity for a full neutral dazzle pattern?

- Sean F.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I have far less on Atlantic fleet documentation than Pacific fleet (not for lack of interest) but I don't remember seeing anything with regards to using neutrals in Dazzle. Atlantic Fleet did use dazzle longer than Pacific Fleet, bit I have not seen anything to suggest it either way. The design sheets did specify specific colors so it is theoretically possible they would have simply swapped out 5-N Navy Blue for 5-N Navy Gray but I tend to think that they would not have repainted her in neutrals.

For what it's worth, Lee doesn't mention anything to this effect for Antietam on his Design 17A2 page.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:28 pm
Posts: 748
Location: Downey, California
What got me thinking about it was the November 21, 1944 document, paragraph 5(e) referenced a little ways back in this thread:
"Apply the respective new neutral gray paints, when available, in accordance with the camouflage design details; light gray, haze gray and ocean gray where 5-L, 5-H and 5-0 respectively are indicated on the plan. Apply Navy gray paint, where symbol 5-N is indicated, except in Measure 22 where Navy Blue paint (formula designation 5-NB) shall be continued for the area now indicated for 5-N."

So, I'm thinking it possible, even likely, that the neutral gray paints would be "available" to the east coast yards in time for a post-shakedown re-paint in March or April 1945; and it does say to just substitute them directly for what is indicated on the camouflage plan, so it doesn't look like dazzle patterns were to be an exception to the new directive like Measure 22 was...
Of course, the yard could still have been burning through their back-stock of old paint, per Paragraph 5(a): "Continue the issue and use of white base and blue-black tinting material to produce the specified paints, until stocks are exhausted."

- Sean F.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I tell you what - I'll be back at archives in a bit and if I have time I'll go looking for her departure reports pre-shakedown to see what they say. I have a bunch of CVL work I want to do and promised Battleship Alabama some work, so I can't guarantee I'll have time, but I'm still trying to find examples we can start to use to figure out when and where (I went looking at BB-60 Alabama and BB-61 Iowa records last week and busted there).

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 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