Michael Potter wrote:
Answer my questions. They're in bold in my posts here. Either "yes" or "no".
Ah, I see. You won't answer our questions but demand we answer yours. They're not not yes or no questions and are more like
Attachment:
Microphone.jpg
But I'll give you an answer since I know you're going to try and hold this "line of defense."
Michael Potter wrote:
For models of USN ships in measures 22 or 31 in 1944-45, is a paint correct if that paint matches these photographs above?
In the context of accuracy you have to first determine if the photograph is correct. Whether the paint matches is immaterial until that has been established.
So, please tell us what steps you have taken to certify to acceptable standards that the colors I pulled out of that top link are correct. Did you go and have
80-G-K-15394 re-scanned as Rick Davis suggested? I'm tempted to do so if you haven't.
Folks, let's step back for a second and look at that second photo Michael linked to.
80-G-K-15394does show a fairly cool gray, but is it neutral? Once again, I took a sample in photoshop - this one is from the barbette near the pipes:
Attachment:
ColorPicker.jpg
The very left of the scale is neutral and as we move to the right the
chroma increases and we move away from neutral. As you can see, we're not talking about a neutral color. Moreover, Michael has never commented on as requested on US Army Signal Corps image
C-2719 (111-SC-2719 would be the full number similar to the 80-G-K number cited above) or
this video, which shows pretty strongly what appears to be deck blue decks (and a pretty nifty ball court as well that I'm pretty sure was painted out for the ceremonies, but I digress). Please keep in mind that I am not claiming that these two sources are color correct. They do, however, contradict Michael's evidence and unless Michael can show how his are proven to be correct they cancel his out and we are left with no proof either way. That's all I'm trying to assert here.
Michael Potter wrote:
For models of USN ships in measures 31, 32, and 33 in 1944-45, is a paint correct if (for ocean gray) that paint matches these photographs above of USS Missouri in camouflage measure 32? Colourcoats US31 #17 neutral gray matches the photographs. 5-O ocean gray does not match the photographs.
See my above response - are these photos correct? The color picker is less blue, but it ain't neutral:
Attachment:
ColorPicker2.jpg
The left half is your top link, the right is the bottom one, where the ship is much further away. Notice that we're closer to neutral the further away we go, but still in the blue range. Almost as if there's something to that "scale effect" thing I hear all the kids talking about these days....
There's all sorts of color issues with those photos and I'm not even talking about dazzle schemes here because to me it's off the table. Give me a text record that says when Norfolk Navy Yard started manufacturing neutral paints or was even ordered to and I may consider it. She painted in Dazzle in the middle of the year and we don't have any evidence that the Navy made any serious movements to change formulas until the end of the year.
Your photographs are not proof and you must provide source textual documents as an acceptable response.
Back to the point of Missouri and the fleet in 1945. A document I forgot to mention in my initial response (it was a couple of hours past my bed time) is
this January 1945 document which says that the Navy's paint manufacturing yards had switched production to the new paints but that the commercial companies had not received the new paint specifications and would not "for a couple of months." In the Pacific fleet, that was Mare Island. When the Navy switched from pre-war gray to Measure #1 in 1941, the order to start production of the new paint went out in January, and yet at the beginning of June we still see battleships in the prewar gray (to be clear, not all of them were - I photo I have on June 2 shows about 2/3 in Measure 1 and 1/3 in prewar gray still). Six months later. So we're to believe that a Navy that exploded in the number of ships (how many carriers were we operating in 1945 again?) is going to magically change and repaint everything in a month or two?
Michael ignores the realities of supply chains in his beliefs. Pearl Harbor would have received new stocks before Ulithi, which would have received stocks before Guam or Leyte. Paints are not something the Navy was shipping by air in the Second World War. If the commercial paint yards were not given the new formulas until the end of February (just as a wild guess based on the orders and memos we have), how long would it take them to get the supplies necessary in quantities necessary to start manufacturing the new paints, how long would it take initial shipments to be delivered to the Navy for shipping, for the Navy to then find space on a cargo ship, said ship to transit to Pearl Harbor or beyond, and how many "hops" were there with any sort of associated delays before the new formulas were delivered? Once delivered, how much paint stock for the old paints were on hand that the base would need to use up before using the new stock. No one that I know of has been able to find any such information. There are records for the various bases, but so far all I've seen that they turned over are administrative commands for things like which ships were in port, which sailors or officers were attached or detached, and not down to minutia of supply shipments. Not saying they don't exist somewhere, just not in the records seen so far.
So, to reiterate my last question to Michael, since you are sure that the above photograph shows Missouri in Neutral paints, is "what day and year did the east coast start manufacturing neutral paints either from Norfolk Navy Yard or the Philly Navy Yard (which was the yard responsible for formulation and testing of new paints)?" The documents I've linked to all have the source from the National Archives, so naturally I'd expect you to respond with a like source.
_________________
Tracy White -
Researcher@Large"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-
Barbara Tuchman