I think we all agree here that we all want to see the true camouflage colours. I had noted that paint chart above for many years and was suspecting that may be the B6 painted on the ship or a similar shade of it (if it was painted in B6) something lightish grey with a hint of blue would be easy to believe yet not so out there.
I think you are right on the money finding the actual paint mix instructions.
HMS Prince of Wales
Moderators: MartinJQuinn, Timmy C, Gernot, Olaf Held, JWintjes
-
polarisprime
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:29 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
I am in the process of building a Tamiya PoW and just stumbled onto this thread. Very good discussion and one I am sure will never be fully satisfied. Even ships with many good pictures like the North Carolina and Arizona have significant questions concerning colors.
I was leaning toward the blue tones for PoW and like sargentx was not feeling good about it, then I saw that brief color video clip an my faith was restored. Sutho makes some excellent points about old color photographs that I agree with. Unless you get a good lithograph it is hard to trust the colors. But something sargentx asked and was not addressed (I think) is that if the sky is blue, and the sea is blue then any blue in the ship would show up too. There is no way around this. The color in the image (or lack of colors) will be consistent across the whole picture. It will not pick up the blue in the sky and sea and suddenly change for the ship and add green no matter what the light conditions, and in this case the light on the ship is good. I have seen many pictures where the a US Navy ship will look really grey or really blue, but when you look at other elements in the picture (like the sky, sea, trees on the shoreline, blast bags, etc) whose colors we know, they are affected by the same blue, grey or sepia shades in the entire picture. So while its true that you can't definitively pick colors based on a 60 year old picture, you can compare the ship to the other objects in the picture with a known color to get an idea.
People definitely get ideas and stick to them. There is a picture of Yamato or Musashi (I think Yamato) with the #2 turret significantly darker than the other two turrets. Some of the explanations to argue that it was actually the same color are truly fascinating to put it nicely. But I have my own ideas. I want to model USS Massachusetts at the Battle of Casablanca and I am truly despondent that she was not painted in Measure 12 for the engagement. I am going to paint her in Measure 12 and call it the Battle of Casablanca just for spite.
In any event this discussion has really been helpful to know that as long as I stick to RN colors I have a defensible argument no matter how I paint my PoW.
I was leaning toward the blue tones for PoW and like sargentx was not feeling good about it, then I saw that brief color video clip an my faith was restored. Sutho makes some excellent points about old color photographs that I agree with. Unless you get a good lithograph it is hard to trust the colors. But something sargentx asked and was not addressed (I think) is that if the sky is blue, and the sea is blue then any blue in the ship would show up too. There is no way around this. The color in the image (or lack of colors) will be consistent across the whole picture. It will not pick up the blue in the sky and sea and suddenly change for the ship and add green no matter what the light conditions, and in this case the light on the ship is good. I have seen many pictures where the a US Navy ship will look really grey or really blue, but when you look at other elements in the picture (like the sky, sea, trees on the shoreline, blast bags, etc) whose colors we know, they are affected by the same blue, grey or sepia shades in the entire picture. So while its true that you can't definitively pick colors based on a 60 year old picture, you can compare the ship to the other objects in the picture with a known color to get an idea.
People definitely get ideas and stick to them. There is a picture of Yamato or Musashi (I think Yamato) with the #2 turret significantly darker than the other two turrets. Some of the explanations to argue that it was actually the same color are truly fascinating to put it nicely. But I have my own ideas. I want to model USS Massachusetts at the Battle of Casablanca and I am truly despondent that she was not painted in Measure 12 for the engagement. I am going to paint her in Measure 12 and call it the Battle of Casablanca just for spite.
In any event this discussion has really been helpful to know that as long as I stick to RN colors I have a defensible argument no matter how I paint my PoW.
-
EJFoeth
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
I'm not an expert on photography, especially not on older photographs, but I did read a bit on the various ortho- and panchromatic types of files that were used at the time. The panchromatic films in WWII could be sensitive to red, green and overly sensitive to blue( though some sources say some panchromatic films are not sensitive to blues and greens). The orthochromatic films were not sensitive to reds but can also have reduced sensitivity to orange, yellow to greens.
One lead that tone C is a green is that it appears darker on some photographs than others, suspecting the type of film is the cause (green-insensitive panchromatic film) and perhaps the type of black-and-white film causes tone C to be darker on some images (the minority). This is actually really convenient because the difference between tones C and D would otherwise be really difficult to tell apart and now they stand out clearly and where of great help putting the camouflage scheme together.
MR CHURCHILL'S VISIT TO ICELAND. 15 AND 16 AUGUST 1941, ON BOARD HMS PRINCE OF WALES ON THE JOURNEY TO ICELAND AND AT REYKJAVIK, ICELAND. ON THE RETURN JOURNEY FROM HIS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT MISTER CHURCHILL VISITED ICELAND.. � IWM (A 4991)IWM Non Commercial Licence
For instance, this is an image of HMS PoW in camouflage. I initially missed the contrast differences between the funnel and searchlight positions, and the contrast jump over the HACS support structure.
This also means that if you have only a handful of photographs that it will be very difficult to make any statement about a color being darker than another, even when all the other reasons for interpreting contrast are not considered. . Fortunately HMS Prince of Wales was lavishly photographed---if you disagree, try a Japanese subject---and nearly always tone D is darker than tone C.
I'd really like to discuss this with someone who knows about the type of film used in that day. The color film appears to be sensitive to blue, however, with all the manual processing, aging and transfer to the video I cannot comment that it is "overly sensitive" as the blues.
Incidentally, when looking for the IWM image I noticed the IWM has MANY MORE Hms POW images online. Apparently they have completed scanning all remaining HMS PoW images in their database
One lead that tone C is a green is that it appears darker on some photographs than others, suspecting the type of film is the cause (green-insensitive panchromatic film) and perhaps the type of black-and-white film causes tone C to be darker on some images (the minority). This is actually really convenient because the difference between tones C and D would otherwise be really difficult to tell apart and now they stand out clearly and where of great help putting the camouflage scheme together.
MR CHURCHILL'S VISIT TO ICELAND. 15 AND 16 AUGUST 1941, ON BOARD HMS PRINCE OF WALES ON THE JOURNEY TO ICELAND AND AT REYKJAVIK, ICELAND. ON THE RETURN JOURNEY FROM HIS MEETING WITH PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT MISTER CHURCHILL VISITED ICELAND.. � IWM (A 4991)IWM Non Commercial Licence
For instance, this is an image of HMS PoW in camouflage. I initially missed the contrast differences between the funnel and searchlight positions, and the contrast jump over the HACS support structure.
This also means that if you have only a handful of photographs that it will be very difficult to make any statement about a color being darker than another, even when all the other reasons for interpreting contrast are not considered. . Fortunately HMS Prince of Wales was lavishly photographed---if you disagree, try a Japanese subject---and nearly always tone D is darker than tone C.
I'd really like to discuss this with someone who knows about the type of film used in that day. The color film appears to be sensitive to blue, however, with all the manual processing, aging and transfer to the video I cannot comment that it is "overly sensitive" as the blues.
Incidentally, when looking for the IWM image I noticed the IWM has MANY MORE Hms POW images online. Apparently they have completed scanning all remaining HMS PoW images in their database
-
Sutho
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Thanks for putting that photo up and mentioning the IWM. I just did a search and was able to save some stunning photos myself that I had never seen before.
From all I have seen over these pages I have been convinced that with the combined effort we are heading in the right direction with the pattern and A to E shades. The more photos that emerge help a great deal.
Even today photography plays tricks on real colours. If you look at modern digital images you may even be convinced a ships deck is lighter than the hull, yet because of the sun beating down on the deck and reflection a ships deck can look an entirely different colour than what it actually is.
If reflections and sunlight can play tricks on modern digital cameras then we can be 100% certain that WWII era film and cameras were also deceived as to what true colours were.
As far as the blue goes and comparing it to the sea and sky, remember a ships hull is a reflective surface and not only has sunlight but also water reflection and shadows bouncing off it to distort.
From all I have seen over these pages I have been convinced that with the combined effort we are heading in the right direction with the pattern and A to E shades. The more photos that emerge help a great deal.
Even today photography plays tricks on real colours. If you look at modern digital images you may even be convinced a ships deck is lighter than the hull, yet because of the sun beating down on the deck and reflection a ships deck can look an entirely different colour than what it actually is.
If reflections and sunlight can play tricks on modern digital cameras then we can be 100% certain that WWII era film and cameras were also deceived as to what true colours were.
As far as the blue goes and comparing it to the sea and sky, remember a ships hull is a reflective surface and not only has sunlight but also water reflection and shadows bouncing off it to distort.
-
Sutho
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
If I can continue on with how colours can change dramatically depending on sunlight, I want to use these examples of photos I have personally taken and am 100% sure what colours were where.
In 2013 the RAN had the International Fleet Review in Sydney. I attended and was also in the Navy for many years.
The ship below is HMAS Tobruk. The first photo you can clearly see the hull paint to have a greenish tint to it. This is the real colour. It is known as "Storm Grey", the decks you can see is a darker colour known as "Pewter". quite clearly you can see how the colours are. The greenish tint is unmistakable. I know for a fact that the entire ship was painted in this colour scheme and there are no different colours at all. I also know that the entire ship was painted prior to this event to look its best for the International Fleet Review.
Now take the second photo below. The exact same ship with the camera pointed in another direction. The greenish tint has almost entirely vanished and the much darker decks are now a bright colour looking a lot lighter than they actually are.
As I said if modern digital photography can be fooled as to what true colours are then it is 100% possible WWII era photos have been fooled to as to what true colours are.
I only put this up as an example of how sunlight can drastically change how a ships colour looks and to prove that sunlight can bleach out true colours.
In 2013 the RAN had the International Fleet Review in Sydney. I attended and was also in the Navy for many years.
The ship below is HMAS Tobruk. The first photo you can clearly see the hull paint to have a greenish tint to it. This is the real colour. It is known as "Storm Grey", the decks you can see is a darker colour known as "Pewter". quite clearly you can see how the colours are. The greenish tint is unmistakable. I know for a fact that the entire ship was painted in this colour scheme and there are no different colours at all. I also know that the entire ship was painted prior to this event to look its best for the International Fleet Review.
Now take the second photo below. The exact same ship with the camera pointed in another direction. The greenish tint has almost entirely vanished and the much darker decks are now a bright colour looking a lot lighter than they actually are.
As I said if modern digital photography can be fooled as to what true colours are then it is 100% possible WWII era photos have been fooled to as to what true colours are.
I only put this up as an example of how sunlight can drastically change how a ships colour looks and to prove that sunlight can bleach out true colours.
-
loganTLR
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:42 pm
- Location: Kingston Ont via Ottawa, North Bay, Ottawa, Lahr, Esquimalt, Coquitlam, Montreal and Calgary
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Hi
I hope this is the correct forum.
I am working on the Tamiya 1/350 kit of HMS Prince Of Wales. I am building her as she appeared upon her arrival in Singapore, which I believe is correct for the kit.
There are some well known photos of her coming alongside, battered and bruised. These photos show, what appears to be, several large areas where the camo has been worn away resulting in very bright areas.
In order to try and replicate these areas, I am thinking of using a very light grey.
I figured these areas wouldn't be bare metal nor would they be a white primer. This leads me to believe the recently applied paint has worn away to reveal the lighter grey she wore earlier that year.
Appreciate all the insights offered here, they've been a great help.
Tom
I hope this is the correct forum.
I am working on the Tamiya 1/350 kit of HMS Prince Of Wales. I am building her as she appeared upon her arrival in Singapore, which I believe is correct for the kit.
There are some well known photos of her coming alongside, battered and bruised. These photos show, what appears to be, several large areas where the camo has been worn away resulting in very bright areas.
In order to try and replicate these areas, I am thinking of using a very light grey.
I figured these areas wouldn't be bare metal nor would they be a white primer. This leads me to believe the recently applied paint has worn away to reveal the lighter grey she wore earlier that year.
Appreciate all the insights offered here, they've been a great help.
Tom
-
Guest
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Hi all,
Great to find this thread and congratulations to all distinguished contributors for a highly interesting read! My uncle served on the PoW from January to December 1941 and took part in the Bismarck/Atlantic Meeting/Halberd/Singapore missions. I have been researching the ship for a while and have various documents from Cammell Laird, her National Archives log books and NMM plans etc. One of the most difficult subjects to research is her camouflage, and it goes without saying the work done on this subject by all on this forum is outstanding! I have seen a CAFO (Royal Navy Museum) from October of 1941 that lists all the Royal Navy ships that were known to be wearing camouflage at that time. The list includes ships wearing all camo types e.g. Mountbatten Pink, Western Approaches, ships staff (Patterns developed by the ships officers themselves) and Admiralty Disruptive. Any ship that had been painted up in a scheme and was not on the list had to send details to the Secretary of the Admiralty for the DTSD including shade boards of the colours used. The list of large ships with Admiralty Disruptive camo includes Neptune, Norfolk and Suffolk, Sheffield, London, Furious, Indomitable, Erebus and Queen Elizabeth. Also there under ships staff designs were the Revenge and Repulse. One ship that is missing is the Prince of Wales, I know any details of the KG V class were highly restricted during wartime but with this being a CAFO secrecy is not really neccessary. Therefore maybe DTSD, Secretary to the Admiralty is a way to go but I fear with the amount of items destroyed/lost by the Admiralty in the 50's it may not be fruitfull . Hope this helps,
Cag.
Great to find this thread and congratulations to all distinguished contributors for a highly interesting read! My uncle served on the PoW from January to December 1941 and took part in the Bismarck/Atlantic Meeting/Halberd/Singapore missions. I have been researching the ship for a while and have various documents from Cammell Laird, her National Archives log books and NMM plans etc. One of the most difficult subjects to research is her camouflage, and it goes without saying the work done on this subject by all on this forum is outstanding! I have seen a CAFO (Royal Navy Museum) from October of 1941 that lists all the Royal Navy ships that were known to be wearing camouflage at that time. The list includes ships wearing all camo types e.g. Mountbatten Pink, Western Approaches, ships staff (Patterns developed by the ships officers themselves) and Admiralty Disruptive. Any ship that had been painted up in a scheme and was not on the list had to send details to the Secretary of the Admiralty for the DTSD including shade boards of the colours used. The list of large ships with Admiralty Disruptive camo includes Neptune, Norfolk and Suffolk, Sheffield, London, Furious, Indomitable, Erebus and Queen Elizabeth. Also there under ships staff designs were the Revenge and Repulse. One ship that is missing is the Prince of Wales, I know any details of the KG V class were highly restricted during wartime but with this being a CAFO secrecy is not really neccessary. Therefore maybe DTSD, Secretary to the Admiralty is a way to go but I fear with the amount of items destroyed/lost by the Admiralty in the 50's it may not be fruitfull . Hope this helps,
Cag.
-
Aop Aur
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:06 am
- Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
I detected this thing on the hull in the Tamiya box art painting. It is absent on the model.
Aop.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
On the way:
--1/350 Tamiya DKM Tirpitz Nov 1944
--1/350 scratch-build HMS Lion never built battleship (1938)
And our artworks!
--1/350 Tamiya DKM Tirpitz Nov 1944
--1/350 scratch-build HMS Lion never built battleship (1938)
And our artworks!
-
Cag
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Hi All,
Finally found some time to register and join this excellent forum! Dear Aop Aur the image shows what is known in the Royal Navy as a 'Gash Chute' which is basically a refuse chute to dump rubbish over the side of the ship. I think there are some close up images on the critical past site of HMS Prince of Wales at the Atlantic Meeting that show its exact structure more clearly, hope this helps. My uncle served aboard her during WW2 and when it was his turn to throw out the mess rubbish this is where he would head for!
Cag.
Finally found some time to register and join this excellent forum! Dear Aop Aur the image shows what is known in the Royal Navy as a 'Gash Chute' which is basically a refuse chute to dump rubbish over the side of the ship. I think there are some close up images on the critical past site of HMS Prince of Wales at the Atlantic Meeting that show its exact structure more clearly, hope this helps. My uncle served aboard her during WW2 and when it was his turn to throw out the mess rubbish this is where he would head for!
Cag.
-
Aop Aur
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:06 am
- Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Thank you Cag! That must be one of the ship's nastiest places! BTW, I am afraid to ask, but is your uncle still alive? There may be some chances that he remembers the camouflage colours!!! That's what EJ and others had been discussing about!!Cag wrote:Hi All,
Finally found some time to register and join this excellent forum! Dear Aop Aur the image shows what is known in the Royal Navy as a 'Gash Chute' which is basically a refuse chute to dump rubbish over the side of the ship. I think there are some close up images on the critical past site of HMS Prince of Wales at the Atlantic Meeting that show its exact structure more clearly, hope this helps. My uncle served aboard her during WW2 and when it was his turn to throw out the mess rubbish this is where he would head for!
Cag.
Best,
Aop.
On the way:
--1/350 Tamiya DKM Tirpitz Nov 1944
--1/350 scratch-build HMS Lion never built battleship (1938)
And our artworks!
--1/350 Tamiya DKM Tirpitz Nov 1944
--1/350 scratch-build HMS Lion never built battleship (1938)
And our artworks!
-
Cag
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Hi All,
Dear Aop Aur yes I think it was one of his least enjoyable duties! I'm affraid my uncle passed away a while ago now and didn't speak too much about PoW, he was very proud of serving aboard her (He appears in IWM image A 3903 in a duffle coat at the rear of S1 pom pom)but was injured in the sinking and only talked about the funny things that occurred, like the time he was hauled in front of the First Lieutenant (Jimmy the one) as he had been observed from the bridge climbing up the anchor chain and out of the hause hole in the bow to beat his shipmates painting the ships side to get his 'tot' of rum at eleven o clock! (Which most probably resulted in more of the refuse tipping down those gash chutes!). I have followed the excellent work done in this thread by all and have done a little searching myself regarding her camouflage which seems a little more intricate and complicated than it first appears. There is another film (Black and white I'm affraid) available from the IWM with snippets of PoW on/after operation Halberd (ADM 499 I think) that shows the crew re-painting her camouflage in some cases using brushes on the end of broom sticks seated on planks (Forward HACS tower). I did previously post as a guest regarding CAFO's (Confidential Admiralty Fleet Orders) earlier in this thread and if I can find anything else I will contribute if it helps! The staff at the National Archives, Royal Navy Museum, National Maritime Museum etc are really helpful but unfortunately if the relevant documents are missing or lost then it becomes more difficult, but not impossible, as has been said before detective work will find something either in Training and Staff duties files Naval Stores files or such like, I've had a quick look in the Rosyth Dockyard files (As this is where the scheme was first painted) which may be another avenue of research?
Cag.
Dear Aop Aur yes I think it was one of his least enjoyable duties! I'm affraid my uncle passed away a while ago now and didn't speak too much about PoW, he was very proud of serving aboard her (He appears in IWM image A 3903 in a duffle coat at the rear of S1 pom pom)but was injured in the sinking and only talked about the funny things that occurred, like the time he was hauled in front of the First Lieutenant (Jimmy the one) as he had been observed from the bridge climbing up the anchor chain and out of the hause hole in the bow to beat his shipmates painting the ships side to get his 'tot' of rum at eleven o clock! (Which most probably resulted in more of the refuse tipping down those gash chutes!). I have followed the excellent work done in this thread by all and have done a little searching myself regarding her camouflage which seems a little more intricate and complicated than it first appears. There is another film (Black and white I'm affraid) available from the IWM with snippets of PoW on/after operation Halberd (ADM 499 I think) that shows the crew re-painting her camouflage in some cases using brushes on the end of broom sticks seated on planks (Forward HACS tower). I did previously post as a guest regarding CAFO's (Confidential Admiralty Fleet Orders) earlier in this thread and if I can find anything else I will contribute if it helps! The staff at the National Archives, Royal Navy Museum, National Maritime Museum etc are really helpful but unfortunately if the relevant documents are missing or lost then it becomes more difficult, but not impossible, as has been said before detective work will find something either in Training and Staff duties files Naval Stores files or such like, I've had a quick look in the Rosyth Dockyard files (As this is where the scheme was first painted) which may be another avenue of research?
Cag.
-
Cag
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Dear All,
I would like if I may ask a question to all more experienced/knowledgeable contributors, is the camouflage on PoW a little more complex than at first thought? I realise that it is very difficult to resolve the small scheme variations from images taken at the time due to differing light conditions at the time of taking the images, differing paint conditions, shadows, and the angle of the surface being viewed ect. However for example if one looks at the image Dick posted on page 6 (The PoW%20fwd) and look closely at the port side B turret barbette and bridge structure there seems to be more pattern than meets the eye, this of course could be due to the image, shadows from close by objects, or even wishful thinking, but the patterns do seem to flow and match from one structure to corresponding structures. A number of close match tones that were placed together may also account somewhat for the 'blotchy' appearance in the colour image of PoW as part of the idea of the scheme was to create tones that would, at varying distances, blend with background sea/sky with use of light tones and contrasting dark tones seen in varying direct/diffuse lighting conditions (As with the pattern on the starboard side of B turret as well as other areas). I've asked my uncle's family about this and they say that the only thing he ever mentioned about camouflage was that he was told that the ship was painted to look like a Mediterranean cruiser which unfortunately seems unlikely (According to CB 3098 due to more direct lighting conditions in the Medierranean the scheme would have had more darks i think whereas in home waters more diffuse lighting occurred meaning lighter tones but a ship sailing in more than one area of operation would have a compromise scheme).
Cag.
I would like if I may ask a question to all more experienced/knowledgeable contributors, is the camouflage on PoW a little more complex than at first thought? I realise that it is very difficult to resolve the small scheme variations from images taken at the time due to differing light conditions at the time of taking the images, differing paint conditions, shadows, and the angle of the surface being viewed ect. However for example if one looks at the image Dick posted on page 6 (The PoW%20fwd) and look closely at the port side B turret barbette and bridge structure there seems to be more pattern than meets the eye, this of course could be due to the image, shadows from close by objects, or even wishful thinking, but the patterns do seem to flow and match from one structure to corresponding structures. A number of close match tones that were placed together may also account somewhat for the 'blotchy' appearance in the colour image of PoW as part of the idea of the scheme was to create tones that would, at varying distances, blend with background sea/sky with use of light tones and contrasting dark tones seen in varying direct/diffuse lighting conditions (As with the pattern on the starboard side of B turret as well as other areas). I've asked my uncle's family about this and they say that the only thing he ever mentioned about camouflage was that he was told that the ship was painted to look like a Mediterranean cruiser which unfortunately seems unlikely (According to CB 3098 due to more direct lighting conditions in the Medierranean the scheme would have had more darks i think whereas in home waters more diffuse lighting occurred meaning lighter tones but a ship sailing in more than one area of operation would have a compromise scheme).
Cag.
-
Sutho
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
It was quite fun being part of this topic 3 years ago when I was modelling my ship. I think all the pages have covered the topic very well and you should find all the information you need. That being said some photos and links have vanished.Cag wrote:Dear All,
I would like if I may ask a question to all more experienced/knowledgeable contributors, is the camouflage on PoW a little more complex than at first thought? I realise that it is very difficult to resolve the small scheme variations from images taken at the time due to differing light conditions at the time of taking the images, differing paint conditions, shadows, and the angle of the surface being viewed ect. However for example if one looks at the image Dick posted on page 6 (The PoW%20fwd) and look closely at the port side B turret barbette and bridge structure there seems to be more pattern than meets the eye, this of course could be due to the image, shadows from close by objects, or even wishful thinking, but the patterns do seem to flow and match from one structure to corresponding structures. A number of close match tones that were placed together may also account somewhat for the 'blotchy' appearance in the colour image of PoW as part of the idea of the scheme was to create tones that would, at varying distances, blend with background sea/sky with use of light tones and contrasting dark tones seen in varying direct/diffuse lighting conditions (As with the pattern on the starboard side of B turret as well as other areas). I've asked my uncle's family about this and they say that the only thing he ever mentioned about camouflage was that he was told that the ship was painted to look like a Mediterranean cruiser which unfortunately seems unlikely (According to CB 3098 due to more direct lighting conditions in the Medierranean the scheme would have had more darks i think whereas in home waters more diffuse lighting occurred meaning lighter tones but a ship sailing in more than one area of operation would have a compromise scheme).
Cag.
Just stick to the A to E shades from dark to light. Be very careful of photos particularly of shadows. Shadows can turn up and make it look like a camouflage pattern.
You referred to the Singapore photo of POW coming alongside. If you can find the larger version of that photo you will see Repulse already alongside and that ship was painted in 507C which gives a good indication that the POW probably did not have this colour 507C (RN Light grey) over the majority of the ship.
-
508medway
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
- Location: Australia
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
I'm not sure if they have been posted before but these are some grainy colour screen grabs from a video available from the AWM containing colour footage shot from HMS Kanimbla and HMAS Hobart.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
EJFoeth
- Posts: 2930
- Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F03343/, from 01:00:40 to 01:01:03. Nice find!
-
508medway
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
- Location: Australia
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Try these too, there are other colour films including in the Med. Many can be downloaded as mp4 files.
https://www.awm.gov.au/search/all/?quer ... ollections
https://www.awm.gov.au/search/all/?quer ... ollections
-
Cag
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Hi All,
Thanks Sutho for your reply, your models of Repulse and PoW are truly excellent with great camouflage! I read the whole thread and in particular your shots of how different paint can appear in differing light conditions. I did think of shadow etc in the camouflage patterns (Even considering if that area had become wet and caused darkening) but the pattern seemed to be in areas where cast shadow didn't seem to match any shadow casting object but I have been wrong before! (Many times!) I think the other ship in the photograph you refer to was HMS Mauritius as Repulse was moored in the stream, causing a bit of a problem when added to the fact that PoW was mentioned by name in the press and Repulse was classified as 'other heavy units'. Thank you 508medway for the heads up for the film too (And for your work on the AP paints!) I have seen a couple of still black and white images of PoW and Repulse which seem to match the film prospective and will hopefully be sending off for the DVD soon!
Cag.
Thanks Sutho for your reply, your models of Repulse and PoW are truly excellent with great camouflage! I read the whole thread and in particular your shots of how different paint can appear in differing light conditions. I did think of shadow etc in the camouflage patterns (Even considering if that area had become wet and caused darkening) but the pattern seemed to be in areas where cast shadow didn't seem to match any shadow casting object but I have been wrong before! (Many times!) I think the other ship in the photograph you refer to was HMS Mauritius as Repulse was moored in the stream, causing a bit of a problem when added to the fact that PoW was mentioned by name in the press and Repulse was classified as 'other heavy units'. Thank you 508medway for the heads up for the film too (And for your work on the AP paints!) I have seen a couple of still black and white images of PoW and Repulse which seem to match the film prospective and will hopefully be sending off for the DVD soon!
Cag.
-
Sutho
- Posts: 449
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:53 pm
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Found another photo of Prince of Wales today floating the internet I did not see on this thread. Thought I would share it.
While I am on the subject I am after large good quality photos of the ship without markings so I can save to my computer for reference and date them. If anyone knows or has large scale files please pm me.
While I am on the subject I am after large good quality photos of the ship without markings so I can save to my computer for reference and date them. If anyone knows or has large scale files please pm me.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
elcejay
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:33 am
- Location: Brisbane. Australia
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
Like many other members, I have read this thread over and over again with considerable interest.
I would particularly like to thank: Dick for debunking the myth of the pattern on A turret (windswept water - who'd have thought!); EJ for the excellent graphic scheme (I spent quite a few hours working through the Tamiya scheme download, the Force Z web site's plan and the many photographs trying to create a graphic that I was comfortable with, but dropped my efforts - every change I wanted to make was there in EJ's plan); Sutho for the many and informative demonstrations of the model in different colours and photo shades; and the three of you for persevering with tying down the shades of the panels with regard to each other - I cannot find fault in your conclusions. Other contributors have certainly educated me on the diversities of shade and colour in photographs and film footage. I am grateful to you all for the intelligent discussion.
After your efforts, I accept that we may now have some confidence in PoW's final paint 'template', but what the paints were we will likely never know. In some respects, I am happy for the range of options that this allows us, but I have a few questions that I hope could be answered to clarify some of the points made on paint options during the thread (I lack some of the references discussed, sorry):
1. I have no argument that PB10 was intended for submarines, but can it be definitively ruled out, particularly given that this was (as I understand it) an experimental scheme?
2. What is the Force Z consensus on the colours? (I have seen the scheme on their website (http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk), but I can't find a reference to the colours that it intends to depict, and have not yet received a response from them to my query on same.)
3. Why is the the Force Z survivors' recollection of the paints believed to be wrong? (Acknowledging that this might become obvious once I know the colours.)
4. Could you advise me of the colours proposed by Messrs Dumas and Raven? (I don't have the references, and though I have seen the colours listed elsewhere on the net, I didn't record them and hours of internet searching over the past few days have proved fruitless.)
Of news, perhaps, is the scheme proposed in Malcolm Wright's recent book British and Commonwealth Warship Camouflage of WWII, Vol 2: MS1, B5, B6 and 507C (the four colours that I believe are given in W'ship Perspectives 4). The scheme that is depicted (ignoring the colours) is, unfortunately, not a good match for the photographic evidence.
Thanks in advance for any assistance with these questions.
Regards,
LCJ
I would particularly like to thank: Dick for debunking the myth of the pattern on A turret (windswept water - who'd have thought!); EJ for the excellent graphic scheme (I spent quite a few hours working through the Tamiya scheme download, the Force Z web site's plan and the many photographs trying to create a graphic that I was comfortable with, but dropped my efforts - every change I wanted to make was there in EJ's plan); Sutho for the many and informative demonstrations of the model in different colours and photo shades; and the three of you for persevering with tying down the shades of the panels with regard to each other - I cannot find fault in your conclusions. Other contributors have certainly educated me on the diversities of shade and colour in photographs and film footage. I am grateful to you all for the intelligent discussion.
After your efforts, I accept that we may now have some confidence in PoW's final paint 'template', but what the paints were we will likely never know. In some respects, I am happy for the range of options that this allows us, but I have a few questions that I hope could be answered to clarify some of the points made on paint options during the thread (I lack some of the references discussed, sorry):
1. I have no argument that PB10 was intended for submarines, but can it be definitively ruled out, particularly given that this was (as I understand it) an experimental scheme?
2. What is the Force Z consensus on the colours? (I have seen the scheme on their website (http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk), but I can't find a reference to the colours that it intends to depict, and have not yet received a response from them to my query on same.)
3. Why is the the Force Z survivors' recollection of the paints believed to be wrong? (Acknowledging that this might become obvious once I know the colours.)
4. Could you advise me of the colours proposed by Messrs Dumas and Raven? (I don't have the references, and though I have seen the colours listed elsewhere on the net, I didn't record them and hours of internet searching over the past few days have proved fruitless.)
Of news, perhaps, is the scheme proposed in Malcolm Wright's recent book British and Commonwealth Warship Camouflage of WWII, Vol 2: MS1, B5, B6 and 507C (the four colours that I believe are given in W'ship Perspectives 4). The scheme that is depicted (ignoring the colours) is, unfortunately, not a good match for the photographic evidence.
Thanks in advance for any assistance with these questions.
Regards,
LCJ
-
508medway
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:10 am
- Location: Australia
Re: HMS Prince of Wales
I have no argument that PB10 was intended for submarines, but can it be definitively ruled out, particularly given that this was (as I understand it) an experimental scheme?
Why do you call it an experimental scheme? If you mean because it was a one off, in the early part of the war the RN produced individual schemes for each capital ship. So in a way, each one could be called experimental.
Why is the Force Z survivors' recollection of the paints believed to be wrong?
I pointed out on another topic an example of people�s memories. For years many of us believed that the RAN had used Storm Grey as its colour from the Korean War. One Lieutenant I know who was there swore his ship was painted that colour and friends who worked at Cockatoo reported painting ships that colour in the 1960s. One problem, the colour did not exist until 1985. The paint company who supply the RAN provided the date in 1985 it came into use on their stock records. Even after I pointed this out to some ex RAN friends, they were still convinced that they had painted that colour on board in the 1970s.
Why do you call it an experimental scheme? If you mean because it was a one off, in the early part of the war the RN produced individual schemes for each capital ship. So in a way, each one could be called experimental.
Why is the Force Z survivors' recollection of the paints believed to be wrong?
I pointed out on another topic an example of people�s memories. For years many of us believed that the RAN had used Storm Grey as its colour from the Korean War. One Lieutenant I know who was there swore his ship was painted that colour and friends who worked at Cockatoo reported painting ships that colour in the 1960s. One problem, the colour did not exist until 1985. The paint company who supply the RAN provided the date in 1985 it came into use on their stock records. Even after I pointed this out to some ex RAN friends, they were still convinced that they had painted that colour on board in the 1970s.