At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[CLASSIC WARSHIPS]

The link that Jerry Phillips was trying to show was to;

http://www.historylink101.com

Go to Color Pictures of WWII section, then select Black & White Pictures of WWII, then select Attack on Pearl Harbor.

Look at the 4th. and 5th. images. The blast bags, or bloomers were dyed, or painted dark. Below is a link to that page of images. If the link does not work, just COPY and PASTE it into your URL window. It works that way for sure.

http://historylink101.com/wwII_b-w/pear ... index.html



On the topic of linoleum deck coverings, while at my local hobby shop today, I picked up a few paints for this 1/200 BB-39 project. I bought the Tamiya paint color for linoleum deck, but it looks too brown to me. Testors has a color called RUST in their small square bottles which is closer to the correct color, in my opinion. Bought that too !

Also, as I write this, I just remembered that Testors has had, from the beginning, a color called SEA BLUE in their small square bottles. I do wonder why? Have they always known? Have to go back to that hobby shop and buy a few bottles of that paint !

Steve Wiper

[Tracy White]

Here's something I popped online last month but haven't linked to yet that might be of some help or interest:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... 9Director/

[Tracy White]

another question is, what color should be used on the stell floor of the superstructure? would it be the same as those of the surface of the superstructure?

That's what I'm trying to determine with the linoleum research. Conventional wisdom has been that the metal decks would be 5-D; but it's possible that they were the older Deck Gray (I have a September 1941 memo that references camouflage experiments using Sea Blue on vertical surfaces and the older deck gray on horizontals; this is essentially a draft of an October fleet-wide memo that says the same thing, but says to use deck blue "when available") or perhaps deck blue (It is mentioned in this document from August 1941 but note that it says "when available" and does not give a schedule).

However, when I saw the linoleum on Idaho it got me thinking. Is it possible all of the decks on the superstructure were linoleum? Maybe just some? We don't know that answer yet. I know it's frustrating, but I also think it is kind of neat that there is still unknown data out there on these ships and the possibility of MORE color that can be applied!

[dsk]

Gunship Grey instead (which is very close to 5-D)

I'd disagree with that.. it's definitely lighter. However, with some washing & dirtying up it might serve as a good base for a chalked & weathered 5-D

Good grief, I did my 1/700 HB Arizona in Gunship Grey, and I thought it was really dark! 5-D must be nearly black. Unfortunately I've based my comparisons on other models I've seen, as I don't have the actual paint chips. I used to mix paint at a hardware store, and whenever customers asked me to try to match a sample they brought I was totally lost (this was before computer color matching). I couldn't tell what pigments were in a given color if it were to save my life.

[Tracy White]

When we were doing the initial color research for the Arizona model at the visitor's center, Ron Smith found a piece of the Enterprise that had been broken off. It was freshly painted in 5-D. It was darker than a color chip for #82 black (I think). The formula for 5-D that I found was essentially black. More on that when I'm not posting on a smart phone.

[Tracy White]

OK, home now.

Note that there were two 5-D paints (thus complicating our research.... which one was each ship wearing?)

There was the "original" 5-D, and there was the 5-D that was made of a tinting paste added to the pre-war #5 Standard Navy Gray. The prewar gray had a slight bluish tone to it, so theoretically the conversion paste 5-D SHOULD have a wee bit of a blueish tone to it, but I'm not convinced it would be all that noticeable.

The formula for the "original" 5-D can be found on this document:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... aints.html
on the bottom of page 2, under paragraph 3. Note the "lampblack" 4th item down.
Titanium Dioxide is used as a white pigment, Zinc oxide is as well and for its anti-corrosion protection. Magnesium silicate is talc, which is used as an extender and can help durability and corrosion protection. It is also white in appearance.

This is a neutral paint. So it's somewhat of a mystery to me that 5-D was assigned a Munsell Purple Blue value. Was the Munsell PB taken from a conversion paste sample? Or is there some interaction in that formula that puts it in the purple-blue range?

The conversion paste is mentioned here in January of 1941.

[SeanF]

When we were doing the initial color research for the Arizona model at the visitor's center, Ron Smith found a piece of the Enterprise that had been broken off. It was freshly painted in 5-D. It was darker than a color chip for #82 black (I think). The formula for 5-D that I found was essentially black. More on that when I'm not posting on a smart phone.

I remember that well. That thing was stupidly dark.

I should take a step back and qualify this - I didn't intend to imply that those paints represent real-life, freshly applied 5-D. My comments on Acryl's 5-D and the near-matching Schwartzgrau are based on two theories. First, scale effect (The acryl maritime colors seem to me to be pretty consistently lighter than full-strength color chips of the same designations); second, real-life fading - I can't imagine any paint staying that dark for very long out in the open, unless it's a high-gloss finish, which 5-D wasn't (though it might've had a little gloss, if they were mixing leftover Standard Gray for some batches)
Speaking of... if the following photo is correctly dated and identified, showing the recovery of Arisona's kingfisher in September of 1941, shouldn't the catapult and crane be in 5-D, and don't they look way too light for that? (No, I don't know how much the photo was been lightened or anything - it's just one that I've been wondering about for a while)
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013938a.jpg
And on the subject of photos, does anyone know of any good shots of a ship that is undisputedly in true, 5-D, Measure 1? I always thought the Washington was in her May 1941 commissioning photos, but the captions in the Classic Warships book imply that there are some conflicting opinions out there.

- Sean F.

[Tracy White]

Speaking of... if the following photo is correctly dated and identified, showing the recovery of Arisona's kingfisher in September of 1941, shouldn't the catapult and crane be in 5-D, and don't they look way too light for that? (No, I don't know how much the photo was been lightened or anything - it's just one that I've been wondering about for a while)

Now you're starting to see why we have to be so careful about stating what color a ship might have been. There's just a lot of contradictory evidence out there for almost any position. One other thing I've noticed is that the bright holystoned or wood deck would reflect a LOT of light; there's a picture of an inverted OS2U on Maryland post-attack that looks like it's in a single color; only with close examination do we see that it is indeed two-toned, and the top is just washed out due to all of the sunlight reflected on it from the bright decks.

[BBC_KT]

Cmpang raises a good point.

Wouldn't the overhead be painted according to the type of space it occupies? For example, on the bridge the overhead was painted flat black. (At least in the 80's). But it would make sense that an interior space that could been seen from outside be painted as to not draw attention to itself? Also, the bulkheads painted a different color such as some light greenish color. I know that was how "Gunplot" was painted that way.

Has anyone been able to find a NavReg as to interior shipboard painting? I sure there was back in the 40's. Maybe?

[Tracy White]

Painting and Cementing guide. It was a lot different then than in your time.
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/painting_ ... ng_toc.htm
Look to chapter 5

[dsk]

BTW did anyone catch the NOVA documentary on PBS about the midget subs at Pearl Harbor? Apparently they've found the fifth and last midget that was launched, and it was discovered with the torpedo tubes empty. They mentioned the Japanese claimed to have hit the Arizona with a torpedo fired from a midget, and Don Stratton was interviewed saying he saw a torpedo streaking towards the Arizona. However the Park Service dived on the Arizona again and couldn't find any evidence of a torpedo hit, meaning either it didn't or it was a dud.

Anyway, I believe you can still watch the video on PBS's website for a short time.

[Tracy White]

Yes, that was a rebroadcast of a show that aired about a year ago.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding THAT too!

The gentleman who has largely driven the 5th midget is Parks Stephenson, and his page on the subject is http://i-16tou.com/

He and I disagree, to be up front. He believes that the 5th Midget (I-16 Tou from here on out) fired on Oklahoma and/or Maryland. I believe there's no way to prove either due to the amount of damage those ships soaked up from the 9-10 torpedos they each took. One area he did change my mind on is how easily it is to disprove that Midget A made it in the harbor. Previously, it was fairly easy to say "St Louis reported being fired upon and multiple people saw a torpedo impact on a coral reef short of her, thus with that and no eye-witnesses seeing any midget other than Monaghan's midget B in harbor, it is far more likely that the 5th midget fired on St Louis."

However, Parks brought up some discrepancies in the reports from St. Louis PLUS (More importantly in my mind) the fact that there was probably still anti-aircraft fire going on at the time St. Louis made her exit from the harbor and it's just as likely that the explosion witnessed from St. Louis was a falling 5" shell as a torpedo.

What would really help would be if we could find where the midget was located before it was dumped outside the harbor. Even with that we might never know the true story, but until then, there's really nothing other than wild speculation going on with both sides of the argument.

[Steve Sobieralski]

I also think Tracy mentioned a few pages back in this very thread that Texas has an "open" casemate area, while it was closed on Pennsy and Arizona. In other words, holystoning teak inside the casemate area would've been difficult due to having nowhere for the water to drain out.

I would say from this photo from inside the Texas' secondary battery that it looks pretty enclosed and very similar to what the situation was probably like in the Arizona:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/atvance/36 ... otostream/

One thing that makes me think that Arizona may have had wood decks in this area is the drawing made as part of the USPS survey in 1984. This drawing shows three places where silt has apparently been removed to expose wood deck in the midships area near the stack. It is my understanding that the entire boat deck was completely removed, which would make this the upper deck where the secondary battery was located. If this is the case, then these areas of wood deck appear to be well within what would have been the enclosed superstructure where the secondary guns were located.

That's because you need to know the purpose of the space other than a casemate, many also doubled as JO's staterooms and thus would have had dark green decks be it paint or linoleum.

Plans I have seen of Arizona indicate the secondary battery area was "Crew Space" and show hammock storage, so probably no officer accomodations. FWIW, in "Battleship Sailor" Theodore Mason describes California's crew spaces as being painted white with red linoleum decks.

[Tracy White]

I would say from this photo from inside the Texas' secondary battery that it looks pretty enclosed and very similar to what the situation was probably like in the Arizona:

No, not really. The Pennsylvania class BBs had enclosed spaces for each gun, whereas the Texas (and possibly New York, but I don't have plans for her) had one, large, open space on each side for three guns, with open air to the rear of the structure, as this plan shows:

Note the lack of bulkhead on the left side of the image where the boat crane is.

Full plans available at http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb35.pdf

Bleah, just noticed plans for New York here:
http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/bb34.pdf
It is, however, missing the main deck level present on the Texas plans.

[dsk]

It's starting to sound like the only things everyone agrees on is that Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese navy, and that the Arizona exploded and sank. Everything else is either contradicted by survivors and historians alike, or simply not known. I re-read both of Gordon W. Prange's books recently as well as Walter Lord's, and I was surprised by how so many of the things they wrote (usually sourced by survivor accounts, fairly fresh at the time) have later been proven false or at least highly debatable, while others may be true but contradict what I've read elsewhere. Like another member here said, any traffic cop can tell you a story of how three witnesses saw the accident, yet they will each give a different account of it.

[SeanF]

To my knowledge, this is the only known example of 5-D in a color photograph. I think that when this color was applied and allowed to weather for 30 days, lightened fairly quick, as seen in the above mentioned photograph. That would mean it was not as dark as some would believe.
Steve Wiper

There is the photo of the 5 DD's nested at San Diego as posted on the other site (80-GK-14467, you have a copy on that drive in higher res). The DD in foreground is USS Clark; she, the third and the fifth are MS-1. The second and fourth appear to be in MS-3. Clark shows the typical poor adhesion of paints over #5 gray.

That's a good shot. It does seem to lighten up in direct sunlight, but once in even the slightest shadow it goes *really* dark.
Just to be thorough, we're sure it's not MS-4, the black scheme?

- Sean F.

[Jerry Phillips]

I too saw the NOVA show...very well done. The most interesting thing about the documentary was a brief snipet of a document from/to (?) Nimitz of the recovery of a unexploded torpedo in the harbor, that had a warhead of aprx. 1000lbs. The aerial torpedos used by the IJN had a warhead aprx. 1/2 of that, 500lbs. There was no explanation of where in the harbor the torpedo was recovered. Also, what was interesting was the wreck of the "mystery" midget. At some point, it appeared to have been scuttled while submerged, later raised, and disassembled. It was apparently dumped in the exact same location as where the West Loch LST wreckage was dumped in 1944, w/ the logical conclusion that the sub had been recovered from the West Loch bottom. BTW, this midget sub had the exact same net cutter and rudder arrangement that was only used (supposedly) by the PH midget subs. I believe it is one of those mysteries that will never be 100% resolved....just like Arizona's final paint scheme!

Jerry Phillips

[Tracy White]

There was no explanation of where in the harbor the torpedo was recovered

I believe that the Nimitz report mention of the torpedo is currently worthless to their cause. Midget B fired both of her torpedoes before being rammed by Monaghan; one is reported as having exploded on shore but there is no mention of the other, so until we know where the torpedo was recovered there's a very real possibility that the one the mentioned was from midget B and not any that could have fired on Arizona or the rest of Battleship Row.

[Guest]

That's a good shot. It does seem to lighten up in direct sunlight, but once in even the slightest shadow it goes *really* dark.
Just to be thorough, we're sure it's not MS-4, the black scheme?

- Sean F.

Pretty sure, note the black stack tops are markedly darker than the stacks themselves on the foremost DD, USS Clarke.

[Steve Sobieralski]

Note the lack of bulkhead on the left side of the image where the boat crane is.

And note the apparent presence of the bulkhead in the same location on the starboard side:

I am not quite sure what it is about the absence (or presence) of a small section of bulkhead at the aft side of the compartment that would make the situation on Texas so different from that on Arizona.