The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:24 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 695 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 5:34 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
I've had a few messages from various individuals querying white and I fear people are getting the wrong end of the stick. I am not suggesting an off-white model paint here.

Pure white does not exist in reality. Human eyes are wrong 100% of the time. They receive light and your brain tries to assemble it all into an image.

Pure white and pure black are theoretical. Pure white being 255, 255, 255 in the RGB model and L100 a0 b0 in CIELAB, whilst pure black is 0, 0, 0 and L0 a0 b0 respectively. They simply do not exist in reality. You may think you see them, but you don't. It's all juxta position and reflection of ambient light. I realise it's an uncomfortable notion to consider that absolutely everything you have perceived and relied upon from your eyes is distorted, but it is. There are many well understood biological reasons for this. I am not a biologist though but a degree educated Engineer. I understand the optical measurement aspects, but will kindly direct the reader to Wikipedia et al for the biology lesson on why your eyes are not to be trusted as being more accurate than calibrated scientific instruments.

Here is but one example. RAL 9010 Pure White. It's as white as any real-life white paint tends to be. Is it actually white? Of course not. Rendered on a screen it looks deceptively creamy and no doubt your eyes are not telling your brain the screen is wrong. It probably is, but so are your eyes. Using a calibrated light source and peer reviewed and validated scientific measurement, RAL 9010 has published colourspace values as follows:

RGB: 240, 237, 225
CIELAB: L93.61 a-0.48 b6.08
Light Reflectance Value: 84%

Look it up for yourself here complete with rendered swatch - infact I implore the reader to do so: http://www.e-paint.co.uk/Lab_values.asp?cRange=RAL%20Classic&cRef=RAL%209010&cDescription=Pure%20white

Here's another which you may think is a computer generated image. This is a pair of identical 3D face masks. One is coloured gold, the other coated in a rather extraordinary substance called Vantablack - which I believe is the least reflective colour and coating known to mankind at present:

Attachment:
vantablack.jpg


It's close to theoretical black but still falls slightly short. I am sure we can all picture this mask in regular black paint and immediately appreciate that normal black paint isn't black at all in the measurable sense.

Why is all this relevant? It's relevant because if we cannot get the idea of pure white actually not being pure white, particularly when comparing to images and photographs, whether on screen or off screen into our heads, we will never reach the correct answer. The subjects of the photographs those of us who build model ships look at are taken outdoors in natural environments. The lighting conditions change continuously and the colour perceived, whether by observer, artist or camera, is coloured (pun intended) by the ambient light. That is precisely why instrumented colour measurement requires the exclusion of ambient light and exclusive use of calibrated light sources.

If we cannot get the idea of black or white not actually being black or white into our minds and accepted as simple fact then we will forever be seeking contrast levels in photographs which simply aren't there. That does not mean we should use off-white on a model - that is to miss the point entirely - "pure white" paint IS off-white. That is the point.

As the risk of labouring the point, the following is the colour image of Prince of Wales with a rectangle of theoretical black and theoretical white added on top, straddling the black fore-funnel top and aft white upper funnel respectively. The "problem" and reason for my suggesting "realistic white" with LRV in the 75-80% range becomes obvious. The black paint recorded on the image measures out at 19% LRV - that's almost as light as the Snyder & Short AP507B paint. The brightest pixel on the white funnel top appears to be glaring and still measures out at 4% duller than pure theoretical white, whereas a darker pixel sampled from the white area measures at 65% LRV.

Attachment:
HMS Prince of Wales1.jpg


Again, that does not mean that a model should be painted in off-white. I say this because when we sample the shades on these images looking to prove or disprove relationships based on contrast, we absolutely must get it in to our heads that we are not actually looking for pure white or pure black in any of them. The percentage wrongness is large. Having understood that white paint in real life measured out at 75-80% LRV in 1942 (as written down at the time) which to be generous we will call 80%, and that MS4A (for example) measured 55% LRV, we are looking for a 25% contrast. If we cannot accept that white isn't actually white, we will be looking for a 45% contrast and that will never be found. Worse, looking for such a huge contrast will lead to spectacularly wrong assumptions to base interpretation from - e.g. by assuming the lightest shade was 20% darker than it really was to try to prise open the gap between white and anything else. You'll come a cropper at the dark end of course when one runs out of graduated shades and/or overlaps with real-life black - but that's how discussions end up going round in circles forever without ever reaching a conclusion.

The moral of the story? Eyes are not to be trusted. Trust instruments instead. :thumbs_up_1:



EDIT! There is now a blacker Vantablack that seems to be unmeasurable. Here's a link to a clip showing how something that's virtually theoretical black behaves under laser light.
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/heres-what-happens-when-you-shine-a-laser-on-the-blackest-material-ever-made/


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

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 6:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 76
Hi All,

Again I'm sorry if this comes across as negative as honestly it is not I believe we can get this very close. However we do have to be careful and practical, I'm sure we've all seen images of a ship we say is in 507c that you'd swear was HFG or something and images of ships in HFG you'd swear were 507c!

I've seen images of HMAS Sydney in 1941 where 507c looks dark just like images of HFG, and images of KGV in the same year where HFG looks really light like a 507c! It's all to do with lighting conditions and wear and tear and obviously what paint was used!

Even ship comparison is fraught with problems, for example the image of Mauritius and PoW, Richard makes a really good point but we have to ask ourselves questions such as when was Mauritius last painted? With what, the matt Foreign stations grey or pattern 507c? When was PoW last painted (according to her log she was touched up prior to sailing)? With what, 507c or matt FSG? How can we compare with no positive info on what was used? Apples with apples comparisons becomes apples with..........bananas?!

I can say PoW faced pretty rough weather on her journey out as can be seen by her camo condition in Singapore so any comparison is hard due to different wear and tear patterns on the ships.

I think we just need to be careful in what we see and what we say, for example we say categorically that PoWs after funnel top was white. In the colour image it's in sunlight. Now crop her funnel and place it alongside a cropped image of her aft hull stripe which we say is 507c.

Her hull here would be in some shadow yet place her 'white' funnel alongside her 507c stern stripe and....oh dear! It turns out they are both very close indeed, especially in comparison with the sailors on deck in their 'whites'! That's really my point, image comparison and tone recognition is very difficult for so many reasons, but to be optimistic its not impossible, we just have to take care as one single assumption may lead to all kinds of trouble down the line!

Best wishes
Cag.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:40 am
Posts: 304
Location: Vincennes, FRANCE
I would like to precise that a pure "0.0.0" black is practically to consider as a"black hole" : absorbing 100 percent of light (0 percent reflectance) and so being in fact "unvisible" : we only can see reflected light. No reflectance = not seeable = unvisible...

however, please do NOT misunderstand unvisible : unvisible does NOT mean "transparent" but just unseeable....

Clear enough ?? :cool_1: :cool_1: :cool_1:

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:51 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
mister me wrote:
I would like to precise that a pure "0.0.0" black is practically to consider as a"black hole" : absorbing 100 percent of light (0 percent reflectance) and so being in fact "unvisible" : we only can see reflected light. No reflectance = not seeable = unvisible...

however, please do NOT misunderstand unvisible : unvisible does NOT mean "transparent" but just unseeable....

Clear enough ?? :cool_1: :cool_1: :cool_1:


That is correct. Pure black means zero visible light reflected back to you. Not like a night sky, not like "black paint" - but like being trapped in a coal mine underground with no lamp. Pure white is just as extreme, although finding a practical example is not easy because nothing is 100% reflective that I can think of.

The important thing when assessing images though is to recognise this and not to look for contrasts between what is there and pure white or pure black. Cameras do not capture the colours painted on an object, they approximately capture the frequencies and some of amplitude data of some of the visible spectrum reflected light. Panchromatic film was better than orthochromatic film, and colour film is better than panchromatic film - but none are accurate records of colour on an object. They are at best a guide. The wavelength of visible spectrum electromagnetic radiation that bounces off a painted surface and enters eyes or a camera aperture is (fairly obviously) a function of the wavelength of the light that first struck the painted object. That is why a car might look pearlescent dark blue on a sunny day, but black on a day with heavy overcast, and why we cannot tell colours apart at night time or under orange street lighting.

It is necessary to know what colour of light hit an object before bouncing off to tell what colour the object truly is.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:40 am
Posts: 304
Location: Vincennes, FRANCE
[/quote]Pure white is just as extreme, although finding a practical example is not easy because nothing is 100% reflective that I can think of.[/quote]

Something as shiny as sun in a mirror with just no mirrored image of surroundings ??

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2018 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 400
Not sure if many of you have facebook but here is a link to some recent news regarding this ship - https://www.facebook.com/NavyNewsUK/pos ... 9321185404

Quote:
THE Navy has lost one of the last links with its darkest hour in World War 2 with the death of HMS Prince of Wales veteran Christopher Peacey.
The 94-year-old from Alverstoke, near Gosport, was one of only a handful of men still with us from the loss of the battleship and her accompanying battle-cruiser HMS Repulse in December 1941.
The former boy sailor and torpedoman was one of the guests of honour at the naming ceremony for the new HMS Prince of Wales, which was unveiled at Rosyth last year by the Duchess of Rothesay.
The new carrier’s growing ship’s company formed a bond with the dwindling band of survivors of the earlier vessel and will be represented at the veteran’s funeral later this month.
Born in 1924, Christopher Peacey spent his early years on his family’s farm in Bulley, Gloucestershire, before joining the Royal Navy as a 14 ye1ar old ‘Boy Sailor’ via HMS Ganges; he was inspired to join while serving as a choir boy when he saw a sailor in uniform receiving lots of attention from the village’s female population.
Upon completing his training he joined then brand-new battleship Prince of Wales and served throughout her brief, but memorable, active life. He was aboard for her clash with the Bismarck when HMS Hood blew up – and his own ship was badly damaged – and, once repaired, for the mid-Atlantic meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt in the summer of 1941.
It was the ship’s role as flagship of Force Z, dispatched to the Far East in a bid to deter Japanese aggression, which remained fixed in Mr Peacey’s memories for the next 76 years.
When the presence of two capital ships failed to stop Japanese attacks, Prince of Wales were ordered to sail from Singapore and intervene.
Instead, the duo were pounced upon by Japanese bomber on December 10 1941. Mr Peacey remembered that very early in the battle his anti-aircraft gun’s power was knocked out and he was plunged into pitch black.
He and his fellow sailors continued to do their job as best they could but as the ship took on more water, her list increased and they decided to check with the turret commander if they were still required to stay at their station.
Much to Mr Peacey’s surprise, when he opened the hatch to the upper level of the turret he discovered the commander and gunners had already left – a signal for the remaining men to abandon ship.
The 17-year-old was subsequently rescued from the South China Sea by one of the escorting destroyers, and was landed safely in Singapore a few days later.
He met his future wife Beryl, also from rural Gloucestershire on ‘survivors’ leave, and spent the rest of the war in assault ship LST 163, taking part in the invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy and Malaysia, responsible for the bow ramp.
As a trained mechanic, he ensured the ramp never failed once – allowing the ship to land its tanks safely on hostile shores.
Hoping for a quieter life post-war, he was instead drafted to submarines for eight years, serving in HMS Tactician and the ill-fated HMS Affray – the last RN boat to be lost.
He joined the latter on Friday April 13 1951, broke his arm in a motorcycle accident that weekend, and missed her sailing on Monday April 16. She disappeared that day, lost with all hands – and with Mr Peacey’s kit bag and hammock aboard. He often subsequently referred to himself as the “luckiest sailor in the Royal Navy”.
He left the Navy as a chief petty officer in the mid-60s and spent the next 25 years working as a civilian responsible for pensions at HMS Centurion in Gosport.
In retirement, he was an active member of his local Royal Naval Association Branch and played squash into his late 80s.
He recorded some of his naval experiences for the Imperial War Museum in the 1980s and, at the end of his life, revisited them with ex-submariner and author Bob Clarke who was compiling Mr Peacey’s memoirs – War and Peacey – to be published on April 23, now the date of the funeral.
“He was a lovely man, excellent sailor and although HMS Prince of Wales came to define his life, he loved his time in landing ships and was extremely proud of his accomplishments.
“He was always a very spritely character, absolutely immaculately turned out and he maintained a great sense of humour. And like any good sailor, he enjoyed a tot.”
Lt Peter Gow from today’s HMS Prince of Wales said the veteran had been “particularly thrilled to be able to attend the naming ceremony in Rosyth last year.
“He was a quiet but charming man who was well liked by those that met him.”
With few family ties left – Mr Peacey’s daughter died aged 19 in a road accident – friends are hoping the wider Naval family will turn out in force to give him a fitting send off.
His funeral takes place at Portchester Crematorium on April 23 at 1pm.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 400
Cag wrote:
Hi All,

Again I'm sorry if this comes across as negative as honestly it is not I believe we can get this very close. However we do have to be careful and practical, I'm sure we've all seen images of a ship we say is in 507c that you'd swear was HFG or something and images of ships in HFG you'd swear were 507c!

I've seen images of HMAS Sydney in 1941 where 507c looks dark just like images of HFG, and images of KGV in the same year where HFG looks really light like a 507c! It's all to do with lighting conditions and wear and tear and obviously what paint was used!

Even ship comparison is fraught with problems, for example the image of Mauritius and PoW, Richard makes a really good point but we have to ask ourselves questions such as when was Mauritius last painted? With what, the matt Foreign stations grey or pattern 507c? When was PoW last painted (according to her log she was touched up prior to sailing)? With what, 507c or matt FSG? How can we compare with no positive info on what was used? Apples with apples comparisons becomes apples with..........bananas?!

I can say PoW faced pretty rough weather on her journey out as can be seen by her camo condition in Singapore so any comparison is hard due to different wear and tear patterns on the ships.

I think we just need to be careful in what we see and what we say, for example we say categorically that PoWs after funnel top was white. In the colour image it's in sunlight. Now crop her funnel and place it alongside a cropped image of her aft hull stripe which we say is 507c.

Her hull here would be in some shadow yet place her 'white' funnel alongside her 507c stern stripe and....oh dear! It turns out they are both very close indeed, especially in comparison with the sailors on deck in their 'whites'! That's really my point, image comparison and tone recognition is very difficult for so many reasons, but to be optimistic its not impossible, we just have to take care as one single assumption may lead to all kinds of trouble down the line!

Best wishes
Cag.



It does not come across as negative, it is helpful. In fact after 30 pages of discussing this on the forum we came to the conclusion that WEM/Snyder/Short paint was incorrect and it caused such a stir that it forced Sovereign to do some investigating which resulted in all the formulas being changed for RN paint. If it was not for this thread I dare say Sovereign would have been none the wiser and we would not have seen the changes we did.

Having said that we have also established that the references are wrong and that colours like B5 were not painted on Prince of Wales at all. This changes the whole scheme.

The problem we now face here is do we accept as gospel that the references on what paint was on every RN ship during WWII is correct? Assuming you are suggesting that HMS Mauritius is in the photo with Prince of Wales in Singapore and the references say that it had 507C painted on it, are we to accept the references if they were not correct for Prince of Wales what makes you think they must be correct for HMS Mauritius?

HMS Hood and HMS Ark Royal is another example. Often thought to be painted in 507B it is now being pushed that they were painted in Home Fleet Grey which could have been 507A entirely for those ships.

HMS Belfast is another rare example. We have a few seconds of colour footage of that ship that prove B5/B15 was painted on it. However here is the problem with HMS Belfast. Going off photos of HMS Belfast it appears that from 1942 to the D-Day landings the camouflage pattern of HMS Belfast had switched places (not referring to the popular incorrect negative flipped photo on the internet), what it appears with Belfast is that the places where it once had the darkest colour painted possibly 507A had been switched with B5. Note the port side from early on in its career to the D-Day photos. You can tell on the bow section that an area has been painted with a dark grey applied and that the same dark grey that was previously midships is no longer that same dark grey but the lighter shade.

Just saying it is not just Prince of Wales we are going to have problems with. We are going to have problems with all the RN ships and we are going to have to identify the time period they had such patterns, if the patterns were changed, if colours were mislabelled on references. B5 is one example. Perhaps people thought the 507B looked blue and called in B5 by mistake, I am not sure but that is the problem we now all have. The paints have been changed, Sovereign has done a good job and if it were not for this thread it would never have happened. If we are going to talk comparisons to other ships we better make sure that all the other ships have the correct paints we assume them to be otherwise we will get nowhere in coming to a consensus as to what Prince of Wales was painted in.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 400
Getting back on regarding the colour white on RN ships.

Take HMS Janus for example. References say it was painted in a dark/light scheme with RN White as the division lines and false bow wave. Later in its career before sinking the division lines were removed. Most people model the ship with 507C as the lightest grey and there is no clear reference saying if the darkest colour is 507A or 507B, although previously when WEM sold the model it was instructed as to be painted 507B, 507C and RN white.

Not sure if the colours are correct but the ship makes for an interesting comparison if we were to suggest that the lightest shade on Prince of Wales is a RN white or off-white type of paint.


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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 495
I have a question regarding deck fittings, vents etc. Would these have been painted the base colour of the camouflage or would they have been painted the same as any adjacent camouflage. For example if said fittings were above an area of hull that was painted say ms1, would they also be ms1?

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2223
As far as I can tell: all deck fittings on the forecastle are in a light colour (so probably AP507C) and all deck fittings on the quarterdeck are a dark colour (so probably AP507B). Items near the superstructure would be integrated into the pattern; items near barbettes were not.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2018 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 495
:thumbs_up_1:

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 400
I am wondering how everyone is feeling about Prince of Wales now that Sovereign has updated their "periodic paint chart" Do we feel a scheme has been established.

I have also started a thread about the Belfast that I have spend time doing a close to scale drawing of the cruiser as I could, I was hoping others would join in that like this one to work out a camo scheme.

Lastly this ship we have taken over 30 pages to discuss re its camo scheme, today marks a very important day in Naval history that involves Prince of Wales in a big way.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 5:39 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
I think we need to work some possibilities which include 507C as the lightest colour (besides white).

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 2:38 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
These are the theoretical combinations of 5 standard colours plus white (6 total) with the lightest shade being 507C:

Image

If we agree that the darkest must be M.S.1, then we can eliminate numbers 6 through 9 inclusive from here. If we are convinced that M.S.3 is present, we can further eliminate numbers 3 and 5.

It then comes down to asking ourselves if there is a blue present. If the answer is no, then the combination must be number 4. If a blue is present, then it's 1 or 2. All of the above must be true to reach that conclusion though.

I'm not quite convinced the lightest shade on the bow is not MS4A though. The draft marks in white do contrast and are visible, but the gap between that paint and the next lightest tone on the hull is considerable. If the lightest camouflage colour is 507C, then most of the ship is painted in something darker.

_________________
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


Last edited by SovereignHobbies on Thu May 31, 2018 3:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 2:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2223
Why did you not include ms4a?
(viewtopic.php?f=69&t=87307&start=600#p736496)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 2:57 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
EJFoeth wrote:
Why did you not include ms4a?


Ah - good catch! I've an assumption built in there. I believe there has been suggestion that the lightest shade apart from white is 507C based upon contrasts with known white parts such as the draft marks on the hull etc, so I excluded MS4A. I should really have included all those again with MS4A for completeness. Obviously the number of options goes up a lot adding MS4A in.

I didn't explicitly write that above although I was thinking it, so I've just sneaked in and added a subtle edit :big_grin:

To make this work without MS4A as the lightest shade, we have to introduce either the khaki hued MS4 or one of the two blues. For completeness, there could be a 50/50 emergency mix grey in the middle of the range but this would have equal tone to MS3.

This is just to test our logic. I'd like to collectively agree on what that lightest camouflage colour on the bow is, just under the white draft marks. Does MS4A work? If not, is must be 507C or we've little other options really.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 3:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Posts: 400
I really like your option number 1 and I had discussed that option with EJ via PM while we were awaiting your revision of B6. We also discussed the option of 507C with either white or MS4A as EJ suggested as the lightest.

The more I look at the colour slide I keep thinking bluish colour.

If that is the case then I was thinking something similar to your option 4 except remove MS4 and replace with 507C and include MS4A as the lightest. That combination does seem to exist in the Raven books when I look up patterns of other RN ships in 1941.

We must not forget that the written accounts (be true or not) even by Raven suggest B6 which was blue. If people at the time confused what they thought was B6 with another colour paint it could well be 507C and not MS4.

Your option 5 is similar to what is reported to be HMS Trinidad pattern except remove 507C and replace with MS4A
Image

HMS Cleopatra is reported to be in MS1, B5, B6 and MS4a.
Image

This is all assuming the Raven books are correct. There are a lot of B6 and MS4A combinations as are MS4 and 507C combinations so if repetitive pattern is anything to go off then MS4 and 507C is a good combination for the lightest.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:29 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
Sutho wrote:
If that is the case then I was thinking something similar to your option 4 except remove MS4 and replace with 507C and include MS4A as the lightest. That combination does seem to exist in the Raven books when I look up patterns of other RN ships in 1941.


That would get us here:
Image

...which is this one
Attachment:
PoWMS4A.jpg


Hence the key question - do white draft marks on the hull work on MS4A?


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

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 4:54 am 
Offline
SovereignHobbies
SovereignHobbies

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2015 9:09 am
Posts: 703
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland, UK
Apologies in advance - I am no digital artist :sorry:

The particular image which gave Richard trouble with the recent proposals was this one showing white draft marks contrasting with the background paint. So, he's right, the lightest colour on the bow is not white. It might be MS4A, or perhaps 507C. If it's darker than that, we're in trouble I think.

This is (not really) how this photograph might have looked in colour IF the lightest paint on the bow is MS4A.

Image

Compared like this, perhaps it isn't MS4A but 507C there and the next colour darker, but, that clashes somewhat with the subjective impression from the colour cine film which doesn't seem like a 'dark' ship overall.

_________________
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


Last edited by SovereignHobbies on Thu May 31, 2018 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: HMS Prince of Wales
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2223
nt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 695 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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

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