What colors were radars painted on USN WW2 warships

[Bill Oreto]

So we are back to checking photo references if censors did not block out the radars. It does appear that any ship laid down and launched late 1941-into early-mid 1943 had the lighter varnish. Ships coming out of yards afterwards had the darker varnish. I am guessing all this and merely looking at B/W photos on Navsource. Hard to tell since most photos are at distance and starboard or port view. Then from photos later 1943 it appears SC radars had a dark varnish but not nearly as dark as gun director radars. So I guess I am going to have to create a rule for myself. The model manufacturers made it kind of easy by mostly offering us subjects either early war USN or late war USN.

My rule for painting and I am not saying anybody should follow it: 1942 oxidized aluminum (semi-dark) 1943 radars very dark silver almost black. 1944-1945 depending on location and type of radar, pole radars the very dark silver almost black and dark gray for the gun director radars. We will see on my next builds. If I am wrong and facts come out, ehh! I will paint it out.

[Killerbeans]

Good info. I'm not sure about trying to replicate a varnish over bare metal in 1/350, but a baseline starting point is good.

[Rick E Davis]

Bill,

The FD (Mk4) radar antennas were VARNISHED from the start in September 1941, not bare oxidized aluminum.

The varnish color was always suppose to be close as possible match the camo scheme of the ship (normally 5-H or 5-N depending if Ms22 or Ms21). The problem was that the varnish initially used was too glossy. The USN changed the varnish formula to be DULL not glossy. There never was ANY USE of SILVER paint, dark or otherwise. The bright appearance is strictly a factor of a BRIGHT SUN reflecting off of the glossy surfaces.

If you want to duplicate early war "shinny" appearing antennas, just apply glossy version on the camo paint used on your model.

Because WHEN a particular ship with GLOSSY antennas could (or ever did) get antennas with DULL coatings or have the existing antenna recoated, is completely variable to operational needs and yard or tender availability. Best to reference photos if available.

Very few FLETCHERS would be have had this issue, since they didn't reach operational use until about July 1942. The earlier destroyers and other larger ships operational in early 1942 WITH FD Radars (it took awhile for ALL ships to have their radars installed), likely would show this issue.

I shouldn't, but will add something seldom mentioned. The initial batches of 5-N paint was found to be TOO GLOSSY. Hence, the formula for 5-N was modified to reduce the gloss of 5-N in March 1942!!

Basically, don't get too bothered by the glossy issue.

[El Santo]

The varnish color was always suppose to be close as possible match the camo scheme of the ship (normally 5-H or 5-N depending if Ms22 or Ms21). The problem was that the varnish initially used was too glossy. The USN changed the varnish formula to be DULL not glossy.

Oh wow. I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say this entire time. I thought you were saying that the original varnish was just clear, allowing the natural appearance of the metal to show through, and that the later varnish formula was introduced to match the color of the ships' camo. Whoops!

[Bill Oreto]

Ok so flat aluminum paint for 1942-1943. I choose that pigment though somewhat dark still reflects light when light shine is directly upon it. 1944-1945 dark gray almost a black .

[drdoom1337]

If you're building a mid / later war battleship in a large scale (1/200, 1/350), is it safe to paint the SK radar, MK3 and MK38's flat black? On Indiana in 1942 the radar really does look grey.

[Bill Oreto]

Regular camo paint to follow ships camo scheme. Early war add gloss finish if so desired. Late war follow ships camo scheme and leave flat. Just too small a detail to hit it with gloss in 1/700

[Mr. Church]

https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... 15861.html



Might be of interest. Albeit just post-war.

[BB62vet]

From the looks of it, those antenna could very well be anodized steel which would not require painting. The SG RADAR (center, small solid antenna) certainly looks like that. The MK. 37 Fire Control director's antenna in the foreground looks to be aluminum, one of the two materials RADAR antenna were constructed of (steel, aluminum).

I worked at Western Electric (Winston-Salem, NC) for several years in the early '70s when quite a few field engineers were still employed and met several who had been test personnel to go to the fleet in WWII to install/test new RADAR equipment. Sadly, most of those fellows have now passed on - but, I'm trying to locate any who might be able to correctly answer this evasive question.

[Rick E Davis]

Hank and all,

I scanned this original transparency, 80-GK-15861 dated 27 October 1945, at NARA several years back and the image I have looks different in "shades" compared to the NHHC website image, which is an older image I believe made from 35-mm slides which were the only color images "allowed" to be scanned/copied at both NARA and NHHC by researchers. A few years back NARA started to allow researchers to scan the original transparencies (or copy color negatives whichever was available) themselves, but only using NARA supplied Scanners. Whether the original transparency is "truer" to what the actual ships looked like, I won't swear to. I just know that most times scans of the original transparencies look different than the images seen made from the 35-mm slides available earlier. I did NO adjustments to the image when I scanned the transparency or afterwards.

You can see that the image I posted, "which" really had to be downsized from the original 150GB scan, is sharper and the color is shifted.

[drdoom1337]

The radar, especially the Mark 3/8? on Alabama in this photo looks pure untreated steel. In 1/350 and 1/200 scale I guess we should start spaying these silver or gunmetal?

[FFG-7]

if it is untreated then it is not steel as it would be covered in rust especially by the ocean.

[BB62vet]

My comment on "anodized steel" was obviously incorrect as that would certainly increase the likelihood of rust developing on the surfaces & so forth. Varnishing the antenna as R.E.D. has suggested probably was the preferred method for those antenna constructed of steel.

Parkerizing, which chemically treats steel to inhibit rust I guess could have been employed if the manufacturer had a large enough tank to give the antenna parts a hot bath in the solution. This was std. treatment for military small arms, etc. and perhaps still is.

Coloration of those antennas would also be affected by the salt spray, rain, anything weather-wise which would tend to either bleach the darker colors light or in the case of stack gasses, turn the antennas dark or sooty.

[Rick E Davis]

Ok. I found "one" of the references I came across in NARA records (approx. 18 years ago).

This reference I found in USS STANLY's (DD-478) 21 December 1942 Progress Report. It was also posted in the 12 December 1942 Progress Report and shows had yet to be rectified by 21 December!!!

This note says that LEAD PAINT was to be applied to the ANTENNA REFLECTOR and EXPOSED DIPOLES. Not what I recalled in other references that I haven't yet found that varnish was used. There was a brief discussion in another reference (that I likely had not made a copy of, I have this reference because I was tracking the progress of the aircraft-handling gear) as to why this was being directed due to bright reflections. But, in any case, this shows that there was official direction to coat the antenna surfaces in a darker color. The official direction must have been sent out prior to 12 December 1942. I noticed that on destroyers delivered in roughly December 1942, that the antennas no longer were bright. It appears that it wasn't recognized as a problem until reported from the South Pacific combat in the Solomons area.

I don't have a copy of the Departure Report for STANLY's "as completed". Departure Reports would provide a reference for why specific work was being done ... in most cases. However, a lot of Departure Reports are missing. Particularly for USN Yard BUILT destroyers!!! Note that there ISN'T a BuOrd Alt number for this line item. An interesting aspect.

To be clear on WHO provided the Mk 37 and the associated antennas and weapons, BuOrd contracted their manufacturing and provided them to the USN Yards and/or builders. In much of 1942, the USN was responsible for installing this Radar Fire Control equipment (and much of the electronics) because the commercial builders didn't have the expertise to do so. As time progressed in building warships, the builders were tasked with installing this equipment by trained personnel. But, BUILDERS were not responsible for altering this equipment without official direction. The re-coating of the antennas apparently was an authorized task to correct this reflective issue. Also, it is possible that the Mk 37 FD (Mk 4) antennas were coated to match 5-H paint scheme of Ms 22. The darker paint of Ms 21 showed this was an issue.

[Tracy White]

Departure Reports would provide a reference for why specific work was being done ... in most cases.

Also worth noting that often times Departure Reports might only note "painted as per current regulations" but not list what those regulations were, which can lead to questions when work was budgeted and planned for with stocks in advance of a new regulation hitting. Departure reports can be incredibly handy, but also incredibly frustrating.