At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[dsk]

I guess the race is on now to see who finishes their model first. Since there seems to be disagreement over whether Arizona was painted in 5-D or 5-S I may have to wait to build mine. I don't want to end up with it in the wrong color.

BTW Tracy thanks for answering my question.

[Tracy White]

Pre-war gray and 5-D aren't wrong for 1941 for sure. We just don't know Pearl Harbor. It's a question that might take another five years to answer as well, so I'm a little uncomfortable telling people they should wait.

[SeanF]

Pre-war gray and 5-D aren't wrong for 1941 for sure. We just don't know Pearl Harbor. It's a question that might take another five years to answer as well, so I'm a little uncomfortable telling people they should wait.

Looking at the fleet orders from late March, 1941, where it says aircraft tail colors are being (not already have been) discontinued, it looks as though there is a brief window in 1941 in which the Arizona was in Standard Gray, with Kingfishers in full-color and only turrets #2 and 4 colored (up to the end of March); and following that, a brief window of Standard Gray with Kingfishers in blue and gray and turrets #1, 2, and 4 colored (until the repainting into the original Ms. 1 with 5-D paint). Would this be a reasonable interpretation, or do we know the Kingfishers to have been in blue prior to this?

(I still intend to backdate mine to 1930s fit; but for my fellow club members who are not primarily ship builders and want to stay closer to out-of-the-box, I'd like to fill them in on all the options)

- Sean F.

[Tracy White]

No, she didn't get the two-tone kingfishers until September. Where are you getting only turrets #2 & 4 in red?

[SeanF]

No, she didn't get the two-tone kingfishers until September. Where are you getting only turrets #2 & 4 in red?

The 1940 photos in the Classic Warships "USN Battleships in Color" book proves that turrets #2 and 4 were already color-coded on all the battleships before March 1941; given that, my take is that the March 1941 document expands the already existing forward coding from just turret #2 to all forward turrets.

So if the two-tone Kingfishers show up in September, then there's the option of 5-D with full color OS2Us? That'd be interesting...

- Sean F.

[Tracy White]

The turret tops were painted well before 1940; there were experiments in the 1920s and a formalized system started in the early 1930s. The earliest I personally have posted is an August 1938 memo that ordered "forward turrets" painted:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... 4L-38.html

Kingfishers went from yellow wings into all-over non-specular light gray some time in early 1941; there is mention of an order on the following NHHC page:
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/avchr5.htm

DECEMBER 30--The Bureau of Aeronautics directed that fleet aircraft be painted in non-specular colors. Ship-based aircraft were to be light gray all over; patrol planes were to be light gray except for surfaces seen from above which were to be blue gray.

Keep in mind that the battleships were assigned VOs and not VPs.

[Mike Lowe]

If the kingfishers are in camo in Sept., would the turret top camo still bein effect or would they paint it out?

[Jerry Phillips]

What you are missing is that after the colorful "yellow wing" schemes, there was the overall Light Gray schemes. Id have to look it up, but this USN paint scheme was authorized circa Feb/Mar 1941. So during the ealy Spring 1941, you would see aircraft most, if not all, repainted. The Blue Gray/Light Gray scheme began replacing the earlier overall Light Gray in the Fall 1941. As always it took time to repaint the aircraft. There were still frontline USN/USMC aircraft in overall Light Gray as late as Dec 1941. Regardless, there would be no way that a camouflaged BB Arizona would have the colorful pre-war scheme. There are many photos of US PacFlt BB's...Summer 1941, MS-1, carrying overall Light Gray OS2U's...not prewar schemes.

Jerry Phillips

[SeanF]

From the USN Battleships in Color book, the side views of Arizona and Nevada on page 4 and New Mexico on page 5 look like the #1 turret top is not painted the color that turret #2 is (Knowing of the color coding, see also these black-and-white shots of West Virginia and Colorado for example: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014805.jpg and http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014561.jpg ); however, in the picture of the Idaho on page 7 it looks as though both #1 and #2 are painted. Maybe it was inconsistent from ship to ship in that regard in those days? (Much like how, in the early 30s when they were painting hull numbers on top of turrets, you can see all sorts of different fonts and sizes)

In regard to the Kingfishers, I had forgotten about the overall light gray scheme being between the silver/yellow days and the two-tone. Or, to be more accurate, I thought it was an Atlantic-only thing and didn't associate it with the Pacific Fleet.

Still... there's a short window (February-March 1941) where the 200 scale kit can be used almost OOB with Standard Gray on the ship, and bright colored Kingfishers. I think the only modifications required would be to delete the radar platform on the foretop, and add the range clocks.

- Sean F.

[Tracy White]

I disagree, but it's your model.

Turret top colors were still in effect at the time of Pearl Harbor; they are visible in the pictures from the high level bombers and torpedo bomber that shot footage as it pulled out...

[Mike Lowe]

So a possible paint scheme would be 5-S and 5-L. Or would it be Standard navy gray?

[Tracy White]

Standard Navy Gray until May/June
5D/5L from then until October.
Possibly 5D/5L after that.
POSSIBLY 5-S/5L
POSSIBLY 5-D/5-L with 5-O Ocean Gray patches above the main deck as touch up to the 5-D was needed.

[Tracy White]

Tracy, the split on this hull looks higher than the 1/350. Did they get this close enough so we can just paint the lower hull seperately without having to mask the upper hull?

I started checking on that last night for the review (forecasted posting on December 7th for some odd reason) but didn't get a chance to finish until this evening. It appears near spot-on on the bow and about one millimeter too low on the stern. I used the freeboard characteristics listed on P 360 in Stillwell's "Battleship Arizona" and measured down from the decks. The conversion from 'Merican measurements into metric is posted below:

[Steve Sobieralski]

Does anyone know what these things are?

These are photos of Pennsylvania, but Arizona also had them and I have seen similar fittings near the bow and stern of other US battleship hulls, including pre-dreadnoughts. My best guess would be they were for tieing off boats, but I was wondering if anyone knows for sure.

[Sten Ekedahl]

There are several interesting details along the edge of the deck in those two Pensylvania photos that will help my Arizona build! Thank you!
Regarding that detail you are asking about (no, I don't know what it is), if I haven't interpreted the photos in Stillwell's book completely wrong, I think that this detail was also fitted midships under the catwalk. Another thing worth noting is that the aviation fuel pipe running along the side of the hull from the bow to the stern, is fitted on the starboard side on Pensy, but on the port side on Arizona. BTW, that is one of the few errors I have found on the drawings in Stillwell's book. The side view drawing shows the fuel pipe on the starboard side, but several photos in the book clearly shows it on the port side. There are also slight differences between the two ships regarding the routing of the pipe.

[dsk]

Just remember to be careful with vintage photos. I've seen far too many where the negatives had been reversed. For example I've got three books showing the same color photo of Pennsylvania in drydock during the war, and one is reversed with the #38 on her hull backwards. And we've all watched the explosion of Arizona "from both sides" before.

[Sten Ekedahl]

Just remember to be careful with vintage photos. I've seen far too many where the negatives had been reversed. For example I've got three books showing the same color photo of Pennsylvania in drydock during the war, and one is reversed with the #38 on her hull backwards. And we've all watched the explosion of Arizona "from both sides" before.

Good point!

[Steve Sobieralski]

Regarding that detail you are asking about (no, I dont know what it is), if I haven't interpreted the photos in Stilwell's book completely wrong, I think that this detail was also fitted midships under the catwalk. Another thing worth noting is that the aviation fuel pipe running along the side of the hull from the bow to the stern, is fitted on the starboard side on Pensy, but on the port side on Arizona. BTW, that is one of the few errors I have found on the drawings in Stilwell's book. The side view drawing shows the fuel pipe on the starboard side, but several photos in the book clearly shows it on the port side. There are also slight differences between the two ships regarding the routing of the pipe.

I believe you are correct about there being another fitting below the catwalk.

Interesting that Chesley's drawing in the Stillwell book of the ship as in 1936 does not show the fuel pipe on the starboard side, but the 1941 drawing does. The photos show the pipe present, on the port side, after Norfolk refit in 1931.

[BFR4570]

Regarding that detail you are asking about (no, I dont know what it is), if I haven't interpreted the photos in Stilwell's book completely wrong, I think that this detail was also fitted midships under the catwalk. Another thing worth noting is that the aviation fuel pipe running along the side of the hull from the bow to the stern, is fitted on the starboard side on Pensy, but on the port side on Arizona. BTW, that is one of the few errors I have found on the drawings in Stilwell's book. The side view drawing shows the fuel pipe on the starboard side, but several photos in the book clearly shows it on the port side. There are also slight differences between the two ships regarding the routing of the pipe.

I believe you are correct about there being another fitting below the catwalk.

Interesting that Chesley's drawing in the Stillwell book of the ship as in 1936 does not show the fuel pipe on the starboard side, but the 1941 drawing does. The photos show the pipe present, on the port side, after Norfolk refit in 1931.

I don't know either, but they are molded on the sides of the hull of the new Trumpeter. All three, each side. From the picture on the previous page, they should have made them as separate parts instead of molded on. It would have been simpler for them, too.

[Tracy White]

I went through the bible tonight and could not find a single photo that showed them "in use."

They are near the three locations the boat booms are used, but the booms were used to get the boats away from the hull and these cleats were way too substantial for boat tying off.