HMS Prince of Wales

[dick]

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?

PB 10 was not introduced until 1944. As Michael has hinted, scheme was not experimental.

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.)

Please can you give the reference/link to what you are referring to here.

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.)

Dumas: 507C NIS4 (sic: no idea what he meant by this) PB10 (see above) B20 (B20 also not created until 1944) MS3 MS2
Raven:MS1 B5 B6 507c

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.

Malcolm Wright is best ignored.

[JCRAY]

Hi Dick. I have the Dumas colors in Warship Vol. III. He cites 507C, MS4, PB10, B20.(actually B5 as B20 was not introduced until 1943-editor) MS3 and MS2. This type of camouflage was not very successful as the pattern was too complex and insufficiently bold to effectively break up the outline of the ship.
john

[elcejay]

Thank you all for the responses, very helpful.

Dick and JC, thank you for the Dumas and Raven colours.

I should have checked the date of introduction of PB10 - the error is obvious now.

My question on the Force Z recollections relates to Sutho's comment posted Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:35 pm (page 1 of thread) 'The information from the Force Z survivors on the painting is completely wrong.'

Michael, I will chase my reference for the 'experimental scheme' comment. I agree with you on the problems associated with recollections, particularly of colours, and thank you for the solid examples. I hope to fill an empty space in the evidence matrix by finding out what the survivors have reported.

Here is the plan from the Force Z survivor's web page, in case some readers have not seen it.

Prince of Wales from Force Z Survivors page.jpg

Regards,
Lindsay

[JCRAY]

Good luck! I think Dumas might have misnamed the MS 1 & called it PB 10.
John

[elcejay]

Thanks for the reply, John.

Please bear with me, dear readers, I need to open up the PB10 issue again.

PB10 was available as an option for Prince of Wales according to Raven and to Snyder & Short chip RN Chip set 1. They state it as being introduced in 1940.
On this web page, http://www.shipcamouflage.com/3_6.htm, Raven explains that 'PB10 was a special dark blue that Mediterranean station submarines had started to use in 1940 and by mid 1942 the camouflage section had formally incorporated it into the color range.'

To tie this in with my previous use of the word 'experimental' - that word is my (over?)simplification of Raven's explanation of the pre-1942 situation with RN camouflage. From http://www.shipcamouflage.com/3_5.htm :

'...The general state of the navy as regards camouflage at the end of 1941 was a seemingly unfathomable mix of unofficial designs, Western Approaches ASW camouflage, official multi-colored disruptive types, and threaded throughout, the random use of overall one color designs using Mountbatten Pink, Dark Gray, or Medium Gray..In addition to all of the above styles was the interest and influence of the individual ship captains, group Admirals, and area commanders. Some took a great interest in anything to do with camouflage while some had a completely opposite view. Some had very definite ideas as to what worked and what did not, while others had no opinion either way. Then there were a few who were definitely anti-camouflage believing it to be a complete waste of time.'

So we have a ship described as one of the most colourful in the fleet, it was painted during a time of much experimentation with both colour and panel designs, and PB10 was available at that time.

I agree that PB10 was primarily used for submarines, but in the absence of other evidence (and in all seriousness, please enlighten me if there is), that does not appear to rule it out for use on other ships. PB10 was one of the most distinct colours in the Admiralty range. It is conceivable that it was seen as having potential for breaking up more subtly or neutrally-toned colours/shades at a time when that outcome was being actively sought. Why not try it on a capital ship?

It also fits with the darkest colour on the Force Z survivors� website scheme (computer imaging colour consistency aside, the darkest colour in that scheme is more obviously PB10 than MS1 or 507a), and with Dumas. I can forgive Dumas the B20 reference � there were other �B�s on the palette at the time and B5 is similar in colour and shade, but there is only one �PB� and it is so distinct a colour that the act of stating its use would seem to be foolish without considerable substantiation.

This is in no way a definitive argument that PB10 was on the ship, and my reference material is somewhat limited, but I find myself in what is probably a lonely camp of those suspecting that PB10 is actually the darkest shade on vertical surfaces of the Prince of Wales.

I have asked (well, rather �paid�) the National Archive (UK) for scans of the PoW logs Aug-Oct 41. They will take a month or so to respond. I am hoping that something there might shed some light on this. Has anyone else read them? Am I (an ignorant ex tankie with a love of ships) wasting my time looking for record of painting in a ships log?

Regards,
Lindsay

[EJFoeth]

It also fits with the darkest colour on the Force Z survivors� website scheme ...

That scheme should not be used for anything else than a pretty picture for a webpage. Also, when people are applying colors to ships that did not exist at the time you know one thing for sure: they have no references and are making it up as they go. So did we (and everybody else), so that's fine, but I believe we have been slightly more thorough in our approach. That Wright only lists four colours while they have in fact been five only shows you should be very careful when reconstructing a camouflage pattern from photographs and that this interpretation can be dismissed. What is interesting is if B6 was ever applied to HMS Prince of Wales and what was the actual colour? I do not believe the B6 (and MS4 / MS4a) on the colourcharts to be correct.

[Cag]

Hi All,
Hi elcejay I too thought that there may be some mention of paint in the ships logs of HMS Prince of Wales, as there is, but only to say 'when' the ship was being painted not 'what' they were painting her with! The logs are a good read for anyone interested in what happened day to day aboard the ship and during certain battles that took place and go into detail as to what was done but not I'm affraid 'what with'.

The IWM has a film I believe in black and white that has some close up snippet views of the ship being painted either prior to or post Operation Halberd which is availble from them (ADM 499 IIRC) but again is in black and white.

I agree and thank Dick, Mr Foeth and Sutho who have worked hard and have achieved a representative pattern/colours for PoW but the shame is that unfortunately the RN or Admiralty didn't think of saving any information for future generations as regards patterns/colours used. Maybe there is reference somewhere buried deep in the archives in old paint stores files or the like which we can all hope surface in the near future!

Best wishes
Cag.

[Guest]

Thank you for the information and wise words, Cag. I actually am looking forward to reading the logs. Now that I have found that resource, I will be chasing other ships' logs and action reports.

I will happily accept that it is the considered opinion of this forum that though PB10 was introduced in 1940, it is highly unlikely to have been used on HMS Prince of Wales.

EJ, thank you again for your excellent PoW graphic (and for your Hood build site - your 1/350 Carley floats could win a competition on their own). May I just make a point regarding the Force Z graphic, perhaps biased by the sentimentality of an ex-serviceman towards veterans.

The location of the panels is more true to the photographs than any scheme drawing that I have seen other than yours. Some effort has gone into producing the image, and the nature of the site tells me that it was likely done with care and pride (not that you are saying otherwise). That in itself suggests an intent to convey the ship as the survivors remembered it. If any survivor saw it, or even the hard-copy in the Association's records that it was drawn from (if there was/is such), they would have spoken their mind on its accuracy in their eyes. So I suspect that the effort included a reasonable attempt to get the colours in order within the limitations of the software, the record of the survivors' recollections and knowledge of the original colours themselves (i.e. the �what shade was each colour in actuality� question). Yes, these are big assumptions. There may have been no input from survivors to the graphic either directly or indirectly, and if there was, the survivor�s recollections might be off. At the very least, though, we can see that the Force Z Survivors� Association represents the ship to us as blue-grey, not green-grey (though I prefer the look of the latter!).


Regards,
Lindsay

[Sutho]

I still love checking in on this thread!

Regarding PB10 I believe I may have mentioned it before. It is depicted on the back of Warship Perspectives volume 1 by Alan Raven as a colour being available between 1939 and 1941. I think when I posted on one of the threads that John Snyder may have replied and said that it was an experimental colour only used on submarines in the Mediterranean. My theory was trying to put MS1 followed by PB10 to explain the dark shade in B&W photos for B5. That theory was blown out of the water fast.

I would love to see some real colour photos of the RN during WWII. I wonder if there are any archives still classified waiting for a release date in the near future.

Many instruction sets are wrong including the Force Z website which depicts different colours across the stern despite photos proving otherwise like I have attached.

I am certain we have a pattern by now and it is just a process of elimination in regards to colours. Difficulty is if the photographer used a filter in which case a lighter colour can appear dark. The best chance we have is compiling an extensive collection of B&W photos of known schemes and 100% certain colours that were used and comparing them all.

The biggest thing to remember is that cameras lie. Digital cameras this present day lie. If you want to play around with photos do a google search for cruise ships like Oasis of the Seas, Ovation of the Seas, Allure of the Seas. They are a few Royal Caribbean ships with hulls painted in turquoise blue. If you do a google image search and look at how different you see that blue colour in different conditions then that just proves that identifying colours from B&W film with possible filters will be an almost impossible task. If you look at photos of those ships in direct sunlight they can appear yellow then in shade they can appear extremely blue.

All I know for certain is that I cannot trust photos as 100% true to colour.

My personal thoughts I think WEM has accurate paint but that is just my opinion and am happy that others have their own. I am not going to argue the point on that one. Besides I have to feel more secure that my models are accurate!!

One day I hope new photos will pop up from private collections giving us the answers we want. I often wondered when people do surveys of the wrecks if it were possible to get close to parts of the hull buried in the sand and clear enough away to see if any paint still exists.

[508medway]

Colour photos of KGV November 1942 from the IWM's archives by an RN photographer

[Cag]

Hi All,
IIRC I have read in Admiralty camouflage reports of viewings by G. Hall etc in Scapa Flow early in 1942 that the scheme applied to KG V had the MS1 used in the Anson/Howe schemes replaced by 507a, and that specifically in the comments of viewings of Anson the terms MS1, B5 507c and MS4 being used (Maybe Dick /Mr Foeth could confirm this?) in the scheme.

Is it possible that in the image of B turret, kindly posted by medway 508, there is a shade similar to MS4 shown meaning KG V also had this in the scheme? It does look dark, but as Sutho suggests due to all kinds of reasons images can be decieving, however could this affect how we percieve the colour PoW film meaning some of the MS3 could be MS4?

Just a thought,
Best wishes
Cag.

[Sutho]

Hi All,
IIRC I have read in Admiralty camouflage reports of viewings by G. Hall etc in Scapa Flow early in 1942 that the scheme applied to KG V had the MS1 used in the Anson/Howe schemes replaced by 507a, and that specifically in the comments of viewings of Anson the terms MS1, B5 507c and MS4 being used (Maybe Dick /Mr Foeth could confirm this?) in the scheme.

Is it possible that in the image of B turret, kindly posted by medway 508, there is a shade similar to MS4 shown meaning KG V also had this in the scheme? It does look dark, but as Sutho suggests due to all kinds of reasons images can be decieving, however could this affect how we percieve the colour PoW film meaning some of the MS3 could be MS4?

Just a thought,
Best wishes
Cag.

It is exactly what I want to know. What colours are they in the picture above. To me some look like a good candidate for B6.

Note the third photo down. To the right of the frame is a bright flare from the sun reflecting on the paint. What a photographer would do is either use a polarizing filter or neutral density filter or the equivalent of what was available at the time. This would have darkened the image if we are talking about B&W which explains why it is hard to interpret B&W images.

[dick]

,

My personal thoughts I think WEM has accurate paint.....

v

,

It is exactly what I want to know. What colours are they in the picture above. To me some look like a good candidate for B6.

Note the third photo down. To the right of the frame is a bright flare from the sun reflecting on the paint. What a photographer would do is either use a polarizing filter or neutral density filter or the equivalent of what was available at the time. This would have darkened the image if we are talking about B&W which explains why it is hard to interpret B&W images.

You cannot have it both ways! There are no colours like those blues in the WEM range.

The third photo down is taken at the base of B turret barbette with the turret traversed 90 degrees to starboard. The blue colour there is the second darkest tone in KGV's colour scheme and is identified by Raven in his WP series as B5.

WEM B5 is scarcely different to their 507B and is quite different to what you see in the photo. However the examples of B5 that I have found in UK archives have been distinctly blue and one of them a good match to that photo (given that it is taken in strong sunlight).

[elcejay]

At the risk of dabbling in the KGV thread on this forum...

Options for KGV (dark to light) for the period '42-'44 to my knowledge are given as:

507A, B5, B6 and 507C by Roberts and WEM
MS1 , MS2, B5 and 507C by Chesneau
Dick might share the Raven scheme (same as Roberts' ?) please?

WEM notes white countershading to underside 1/3 of barrels, which I think is quite plain in the 1st and 3rd photos (though I wouldn't put money on it!).

That gives us five colours, and all of them showing in the shot of B turret, I think.

Barrels:

- Darkest on the upper face of the barrels (so 507a or MS1, depending on the above scheme chosen).

- Second-darkest is below that (so B5 or MS2, but it doesn't seem blue enough for B5, and looks far too light for MS2).

- And white on underside.

Turret and barbette:

That leaves us with the two lightest shades (excluding white) on the barbette and much of the turret face (unless the light is tricking me, the grey on the port face of the turret looks to wrap around to the front and angles up to the barrel, though the delineation between that and the lighter grey is indistinct).

- One of those colours we could say with some confidence (but again, no money on it) is 507c.
- The blue seems way too light for B5, which seems to leave us with B6.

That means the middle colour on the barrels and the darker grey on the turret is: B5 under Roberts' scheme, and that doesn't seem to match the photos at all; or MS2 under Chesneau, which seems more likely, but again, no example of MS2 I have seen looks as light as that, or the same tone.

If I was to choose colours from the 1929 Munsell matches from Raven, I see the photos as being closest to MS1, MS3, B6 and 507C. Not saying that's right by any means, and I well acknowledge all the issues with electronic portrayal of colour.

Are the photos/scans so wrong in colour that we are being deceived; or (as Dick and EJ have argued), are the blues in our paint chips/paint options wrong (I could accept Chesneau if what we are seeing is actually B5); or are all our go-to references wrong? Perhaps a mixture of all three?

Round and round we go.

As a complete aside before I go insane, there is a B&W photo showing the barrels of Y turret with the three-hue scheme from Sep 42 (two months before the colour photos) on wikimedia, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... A11552.jpg
.

[Cag]

Hi All,
I am not confident but would suggest that the barrel tops are painted whatever the turret tops are painted, which as far as I can remember would be either be the special grippy deck paint which I believe was dark grey or could be MS1? The countershading is usually a white of some kind, and the middle section I would suggest is MS4 as it is similar to what is seen on B turret face but darker in appearance due to lighting conditions and the proximity to a white?.

I would agree with Dick that the main blue is B5 as any B6 would be similar in reflectance to MS4 (Therefore lighter). I would say KG V would be, in July 1942 at least, 507a, B5 and 507c as definites as they are mentioned in Admiralty Camouflage reports, with MS4 and B6 a possibility (i.e a 5 colour scheme). Anson and Howe MS1, B5 and 507c as definites, and again MS4 and B6 as possibles, both with white countershading.

But this is just an opinion and I admit it's a best guess! (Sorry!) The great thing about this forum is that there is always a more informed person willing to advise and point one in the right direction!

Best wishes
Cag.

[elcejay]

Thanks for the suggestion re the barrel upper surface, Cag. WEM gives the following for KGV in disruptive scheme as:

Steel decks & walkways�AP 507A Admiralty Dark Grey

Perhaps that means we have not seen the darkest shade for vertical surfaces in the colour photos!

I shall butt out of the discussion now - I am just confusing matters. Thank you for your patience.

Cheers,
Lindsay

[508medway]

Hi All,
I am not confident but would suggest that the barrel tops are painted whatever the turret tops are painted, which as far as I can remember would be either be the special grippy deck paint which I believe was dark grey or could be MS1? The countershading is usually a white of some kind, and the middle section I would suggest is MS4 as it is similar to what is seen on B turret face but darker in appearance due to lighting conditions and the proximity to a white?.

I would agree with Dick that the main blue is B5 as any B6 would be similar in reflectance to MS4 (Therefore lighter). I would say KG V would be, in July 1942 at least, 507a, B5 and 507c as definites as they are mentioned in Admiralty Camouflage reports, with MS4 and B6 a possibility (i.e a 5 colour scheme). Anson and Howe MS1, B5 and 507c as definites, and again MS4 and B6 as possibles, both with white countershading.

But this is just an opinion and I admit it's a best guess! (Sorry!) The great thing about this forum is that there is always a more informed person willing to advise and point one in the right direction!

Best wishes
Cag.

Non slip paint came in several colours. In 1940, the attached AFO was issued.

[Sutho]

,

My personal thoughts I think WEM has accurate paint.....

v

,

It is exactly what I want to know. What colours are they in the picture above. To me some look like a good candidate for B6.

Note the third photo down. To the right of the frame is a bright flare from the sun reflecting on the paint. What a photographer would do is either use a polarizing filter or neutral density filter or the equivalent of what was available at the time. This would have darkened the image if we are talking about B&W which explains why it is hard to interpret B&W images.

You cannot have it both ways! There are no colours like those blues in the WEM range.

The third photo down is taken at the base of B turret barbette with the turret traversed 90 degrees to starboard. The blue colour there is the second darkest tone in KGV's colour scheme and is identified by Raven in his WP series as B5.

WEM B5 is scarcely different to their 507B and is quite different to what you see in the photo. However the examples of B5 that I have found in UK archives have been distinctly blue and one of them a good match to that photo (given that it is taken in strong sunlight).

I am aware of the Raven book guides as I have them. All I am saying is that the colour there is how I imagine B6 would have looked in sunlight and at least period colour photos. But that is just my guess and clearly with the information we have many will come to different conclusions. I can accept that.

The last two photos in the post above there are two different shades of blue altogether.

I wish there was more to go on but until we get more colour photos and evidence come up there will be many different guesses, opinions and thoughts as to what is correct.

I just wish it was easy as the USS Missouri in its camo scheme. At least there is ample information there.

[Cag]

Hi All,
Looking at the image of HMS Howe it seems that the darkest blue that appears on the KG V image of B turret matches the lightest blue of the Howe scheme? If, as Dick suggests, and I think he is correct, this is B5 then there must also be a darker blue on the Howe scheme (The renamed Home Fleet Grey, becoming 507a?) as well as MS1 and 507c with the possible inclusion of MS4, this would give a MS1, 507a, B5, MS4 and 507c scheme?

I find this difficult to explain, was HF Grey (Old 507b) so much darker and deeper than B5? I still think the Colourcoats paints are the best we have to go on at the moment, the difficulty being that the Colourcoats 507a is very different to Colourcoats 507b which if they were essentially the same colour, except for the deletion of enamel which seems to be the case, they should be the same shade?

As far as the PoW is concerned the pattern done by Dick and Mr Foeth, with perhaps more tweeks when new information is found, is as close as possible with the information we have at present, the colours are still open to debate and personal opinion, I agree with Sutho that hopefully in the future, thanks to the efforts of Dick and 508 Medway, these colours will be confirmed.

Best wishes
Cag.

[dick]

I suggest that this thread will continue to go round in circles on the question of WW2 RN paint schemes if 21st century modelling paints, poorly-researched writings, hearsay and un-referenced assertions are regarded as the more authoritative reference sources when they conflict with what can be found in the archives in the UK and Australia.

On the question of dates accuracy and the PB10 issue:

�I will happily accept that it is the considered opinion of this forum that though PB10 was introduced in 1940, it is highly unlikely to have been used on HMS Prince of Wales�.

The Snyder and Short Royal Navy World War II Ship Colours Set 1 card features eleven paints with the following dates: 507A (1920) 507B (1940) 507C (1920) B5 (1941) B6 (1941) PB10 (1940) WA Blue (1941) WA Green (1941) Pink (1941) Mountbatten Pink Light (1940) and Mountbatten Pink Dark (1940).

Avid followers of this board and Steelnavy will know that Michael (508medway in Australia) and myself have conclusively shown that the WW2 507A was introduced by AFO 211 of 19 Jan 1939 and that the early WW2 shades of 507B and 507C were introduced by AFO 2680 of 5 Nov 1936; I agree that the names B5 and B6 are probably 1941 introductions; WA Blue, WA Green and Pink were creations of Peter Scott in the late summer of 1940 (ref: �The Eye of the Wind� by Peter Scott published in 1961) but, to save a trip to the library, it is easy to access evidence for this in the form of photos of ex-USN Town class destroyers emerging from Plymouth dockyard painted in Peter Scott schemes in late 1940 (see Arnold Hague "The Towns"); I agree that Mountbatten pink was a 1940 creation.

So overall not a very good strike rate. What are the odds of the 1940 date for PB 10 being correct?

I propose that PB10 was introduced with CAFO 2269 of 12 Oct 1944. I have found no reference to PB10 in any earlier camouflage or paint related AFO, CAFO or ADM file in the National Archives. I suggest that one is unlikely to find such a reference earlier than AFO 2106 of 13 May 1943 as that is the AFO that introduced the letter/number naming system referring to a paint�s colour and reflection factor. Two authors of books on RN WW2 camouflage that are worth reading (Peter Hodges in �Royal Navy Warship Camouflage 1939-45� published 1973 and David Williams with �Naval Camouflage 1914-1945� published in 2001) also happen to give 1944 as the date of PB10. So for me the ball is in the court of those who suggest an earlier date to produce some actual referenced evidence. (As an aside, the blue used on RN submarines in the Mediterranean early in WW2 was Royal Blue (ref: Admiralty M.013934/39 dated 18 Dec 1939 to the Official Secretary, Australia House, London).)