HMS Prince of Wales

[dick]

Are Raven's 1929 Munsell values for Admiralty paints also in question? http://www.shipcamouflage.com/3_11.htm

Thank you for drawing attention to this table. If you mean �values� in the Munsell terminology then this is how it seems to me to be.

We know from the archives the official reflection factor (RF) of most of the real paints.

My understanding is that the change of the Munsell scale that Raven refers to occurred in the �Renotation� of 1943.

If so, using a pre-Renotation table of Munsell value versus RF, and concentrating on the paints that might concern us on HMS Prince of Wales:

MS1 had RF 4%-6% and so should have had a Munsell value of 2.4-3 so 2.5 is in the range.
MS2 had RF 9%-10% and so should have had a Munsell value of 3.7-3.8 not 4.5 (which would give RF 14%)
MS3 had RF 20% and so should have had a Munsell value of 5.3 not 5.5 (which would give RF 22%)
MS4 had RF 32%-34% and so should have had a Munsell value of 6.5-6.6 not 6 (which would give RF 27%)
MS4a had RF 55% and so should have had a Munsell value of 8.1 not 7.5 (which would give RF 46%)
507A had RF factor of 10%-13% and so should have had a Munsell value of 3.8-4.3 not 3.5 (which would give RF 8%)
507C had RF 45% and so should have had a Munsell value of 7.5 not 7 (which would give an RF 39%)
B5 had RF 15% and so should have had a Munsell value of 4.6 not 5 (which would give an RF of 18%)
B6 had RF 30% and so should have had a Munsell value of 6.3 not 6.2 (which would give an RF of 29%)

It is the case that in the 1941-42 period there was a certain degree of variation from the official standard intended RF according to paint supplier etc. Also one assumes that judging the value was pretty subjective Mk 1 eyeball stuff by Raven and a late 1942 study at the Admiralty Laboratory Teddington of the RF of RN paints concluded that �differences of up to 9% are given for samples accepted by visual examination as a practical match�. Allowing for that the significant variances in this table from the official RF seem to me to be MS2 (too light), MS4 and MS4a (too dark), 507A (too dark, and darker than MS2 when it was the other way around), 507C (slightly too dark) and B5 (too light).

Here is the RF table I was working from so you can check my workings and indeed continue the exercise into the 1943 onwards paints where similar issues arise.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136806092@N02/

But the real issue for me is the suggestions for hue where I have a number of questions. In a few cases these can be quickly illustrated: the suggestion that B30 lies in the GY-G region of the colour circle when it was a grey blue, that B55 was a GY-G when it was a light blue and that G45 was a Y when it was a very slightly blue light grey (and indeed we know that G45 was the same colour as 507C and so should have the same notation as 507C). I wonder what he was looking at when creating these notations?

However it is the 1941 era paints that concern us here and, although I have access to the pre-1943 hue circle and this suggests some questions to me, I don�t (yet) have access to the pre-1943 Munsell colour planes so cannot take this any further for now.

[Cag]

Hi All,

Thank you very much for that research Dick, these kind of insights are of great use. Could it be that in certain schemes where the 507a designation is used when attributed to very dark shades this could be in fact MS2? I have seen CAFO's with colour shades on them (Printed I realise) that show MS2 as a deep dark shade.

Do the paint shades in the Admiralty document Classification of Colour show what MS2 looked like compared to 507a?

Just a thought,
Thanks again
Best wishes
Cag.

[elcejay]

Thank you for that very thorough response on Raven's Munsell values, Dick. It will take some time to digest, but it at least explains why my late war KGV, painted to an equivalent of Raven's Munsell value for G45, has always looked completely wrong to me. The G45 matched to Raven's values ends up looking brown against the B20 panel. That one factor - my brown KGV that to me should be a blue-grey - threw my confidence in what I was being told by the best reference I could find. (That was the catalyst for my interest in this thread - I want to do the PoW more justice than I have to her older sister. I don't mind if the paint combination I choose is an educated guess, but I would like the hues to be a reasonable match for what was available in '41.)

In case some readers are unaware, the table below (sourced from a website - I will chase the address and post it) gives electronic colour swatches as per the Munsell values given by Raven. I have put G45 just after 507C to show how far apart they are in Raven's stated data. Again, I know the limitations of showing colours via a monitor, etc, and reflection values can't be presented via a monitor, to my limited knowledge. (The full suite of Admiralty paints is in the original file, I have just shown those likely to be available in '41, plus G45 for comparison against 507C as it demonstrates Dick's point.)

Admiralty paints.jpg

Apologies for any blinding glimpse of the obvious here, but you can get an idea if what you see here is what I am seeing if you take the RGB values for any of the paints and enter them into this site.

http://scalemodeldb.com/paint

You can also take the hex/HTML value from that website and enter it into this one (via the search field at top right) as a further check. (Of interest, when the colour comes up, it gives you the shades 25% lighter/darker, and more- or less-saturated, as well as greyscale.) (In caution: the site lists Munsell values, but these are not compatible with 1929 Munsell values.)

http://encycolorpedia.com/64707d

For me, the colours in the table match those for the same values on the two websites. (To check that, I print each screen, paste to MS Paint, then crop to the colour swatch and overlap them. Not exactly a scientific approach, but it is adequate for my needs.)

Regards,
Lindsay

[Cag]

Hi All,

Just going through old images and came accross the old Royal Navy in colour DVD> On this there is a view of the County Class cruiser HMS Devonshire I think, which seems to be painted 507b with darker coloured dazzle patches. This is around the same time as the views of Queen Elizabeth appear in her 1st Admiralty design. The darker shade appears similar to that used on PoW shade B, if we could narrow down this colour maybe that could help narrow down the others?

Best wishes,
Cag.

[dick]

... but it at least explains why my late war KGV, painted to an equivalent of Raven's Munsell value for G45, has always looked completely wrong to me. The G45 matched to Raven's values ends up looking brown against the B20 panel. That one factor - my brown KGV that to me should be a blue-grey - threw my confidence in what I was being told by the best reference I could find....

Dear Lindsay,

Even with all the usual caveats re PC monitor settings etc, I suspect that you will still be interested in this photo which puts a genuine WW2 G45 colour chip from CB 3098 (on the left) beside the WEM G45 (on the right).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136806092 ... ed-public/

Best wishes.

[elcejay]

Thank you very much, Dick. That looks so much more like what I expected.

Regards,
Lindsay

[elcejay]

Hello Dick, Cag and Michael,

Accepting MS3 as a likely candidate for PoW, can you shed any light on what MS3 looked like? Computer imaging caveats apply in abundance here, but this is what I am faced with.

MS3.jpg

Regards,
Lindsay

[JCRAY]

I use the colorcoat paints, they seem to match the S&S chips. I suspect they are a little dark in 350sc. Some of them are the subject of discussion as is everthing else when it comes to paint. We all see a little different....
It's up to you. hth! John

[dick]

That is an interesting question Lindsay and I am still working on it.

(I assume that you are aware of the link between the S&S chips and the WEM Colourcoats? They share the same creator. Any S&S chip should therefore be identical to its WEM equivalent. There is no added significance to them being the same.)

Given the samples I have seen in the archives, my current thinking is that the WEM MS3 probably gets the hue correct. The question is the value.

The currently available written evidence suggests that MS3 and its successor G20 may have been more or less the same paint. Importantly both had the same reflection factor: 20.

The puzzle is therefore the very significant difference in value between WEM MS3 and WEM G20, with WEM MS3 much lighter than WEM G20. The real samples of MS3 that I have seen are darker than the WEM MS3. The real G20 I have seen is very slightly lighter than WEM G20 (but spot on for hue and chroma).

[dick]

I should add this photo into the mix as it presumably shows (the green-grey) MS3:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136806092 ... ed-public/

It is this photo that seemed to confirm to me that there was MS3 on PoW as to my eye this is the same green that I see in the colour still EJ posted on page 1 of this thread on 29 Jan 2012.

[EJFoeth]

Looks like MS3/MS4/B5 on HMS Forth? I found a few variants of the same pic in B&W but I presume it is an original colour image. The colour match with the image of HMS PoW on page 1 is really good.

[Cag]

Hi All,

Hi Evert-Jan/Dick could the darker colour be MS2? Would B5 be a little lighter and more blue?

Best wishes
Cag.

[dick]

I agree with Cag that the darkest colour is a dark grey rather than B5 which was indeed very distinctly blue rather than grey.

The photo I posted perhaps did not show the darkest colour too clearly but here is another from that series:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136806092 ... ed-public/

(I have given both photos a 1942 date but they could well be early 1943.)

[Sutho]

That is an interesting question Lindsay and I am still working on it.

(I assume that you are aware of the link between the S&S chips and the WEM Colourcoats? They share the same creator. Any S&S chip should therefore be identical to its WEM equivalent. There is no added significance to them being the same.)

Given the samples I have seen in the archives, my current thinking is that the WEM MS3 probably gets the hue correct. The question is the value.

The currently available written evidence suggests that MS3 and its successor G20 may have been more or less the same paint. Importantly both had the same reflection factor: 20.

The puzzle is therefore the very significant difference in value between WEM MS3 and WEM G20, with WEM MS3 much lighter than WEM G20. The real samples of MS3 that I have seen are darker than the WEM MS3. The real G20 I have seen is very slightly lighter than WEM G20 (but spot on for hue and chroma).

I like your research, and I also like WEM paints. It is a touchy subject as they are reputed to be accurate. I personally find many of them a great product and all of my model warships (over 20 of them) are painted entirely in colour coats.

What concerns me is that there are some colours that do not match or look anything like the photos from history.

Take this launch photo of Tirpitz.

Now compare it to the WEM colour coat variety. To me they look totally different and the sample here is a match to the WEM paints which I have purchased.

[JCRAY]

I plan to abandon the Raven call outs & try using the MS series to see what happens.
Those 5 colors might be interesting.
John

[elcejay]

Just throwing this out there for discussion, and I am happy to be told I have overlooked or confused something somewhere...

If MS3 is on the greener side of grey, I am against it covering any significant area of the ship. As an 'intelligent ignorant' on this topic, in balancing the now questionable references and the problems associated with determining colours from wartime footage and photographs against Tufnell's contemporaneous artwork, I fall on the side of the artist. I know that the painting has only about three 'colours' in the camouflage scheme, but there is certainly no green - the ship is in greys and dark blue-greys. Backing this is the Force Z survivor's graphic. Yes, the stern panel is wrong, but again, there is no green.

If MS3, MS4 or MS4A are all distinctly green-greys, to be on the ship they must cover insufficient area to have been significant to the observer.

I realise that adding weight of evidence to a piece of art may seem far fetched. Please hear me out.

Tufnell was a RN Commander who was posted as Single Observer Forecasting Officer on staff of Commander-in-Chief, East Indies Station (Colombo) when PoW passed through. He was a trained observer, rated as having '...a sound knowledge of observer subjects'. He had been painting since the 1920s, and Saville Row naval outfitters, Gieves and Hawkes, had commissioned Tufnell to paint 'meticulously accurate water colours' of the ships on which their customers had served.

Information on Tufnell, including the information I have given above, can be found in these links. If any of the contributors to this thread would comment on the accuracy of the paintings these links include, I would be grateful.

http://www.unithistories.com/officers/R ... ufnell_EEC
http://www.holywellhousepublishing.co.uk/Tufnell.html

To me, in the absence of official records to tell us the paints used, a contemporary watercolour of the ship painted by a RN officer who was a trained observer, who was in Colombo when PoW passed through, and who is known to paint 'meticulously accurate paintings' of ships holds a lot more weight than any unsubstantiated reference, particularly if written years after the life of the ship.

So, on balance of the evidence I have seen to-date:

a. MS3, MS4, MS4A if they are greener-greys, can be ruled out other than in so small a surface area as to be insignificant to the observer
b. PB10 has not yet been ruled out, but in expert opinion is unlikely to be on the ship
c. MS1, MS2, 507A, 507B, 507C and B5 cannot be ruled out and remain equally likely to be on the ship
d. Any WW2 admiralty paint other than those listed above (a to c) can be categorically ruled out because they were not available until 1942 or afterwards
e. The photos of PoW from her time in Newfoundland to her time in Singapore show there to be at least five colours in the camouflage scheme

Going out on the PB10 limb again...if PB10 were on the ship, could its reflectance value answer the problem of why the panels of the paint scheme that appear darkest in some photos show as being lighter in others?

Regards,
Lindsay

[Olaf Held]

[OT]
@ Sutho ~ What you see on the hull of Tirpitz is not the final coat of paint. The paint regulation state that this paint (S.B. I 22a) was used for the time between launching and commissioning (need to look it up). Shortly before the latter the final coat of paint (S.B. III 22b ==> RAL 8013) should have been applied. S.B. III 22b contained protective ingredients against both marine growth AND corrosion, S.B. I 22a again corrosion only (if I remember correctly).
[/OT]

Happy painting ~ Olaf!

[Aur]

I like your research, and I also like WEM paints. It is a touchy subject as they are reputed to be accurate. I personally find many of them a great product and all of my model warships (over 20 of them) are painted entirely in colour coats.

What concerns me is that there are some colours that do not match or look anything like the photos from history.

Take this launch photo of Tirpitz.

Now compare it to the WEM colour coat variety. To me they look totally different and the sample here is a match to the WEM paints which I have purchased.

I hope this is not too off topic
I am no expert on camouflages and colors, but I may say that the appearance of colors depends on many factors.
As you can see in that Tirpitz photo, the anti fouling red in direct sunlight appears light pinkish red-brown, which seems to be different from WEM. However, the darker shades in the shadow look very close. It is possible that the actual color is somewhere in the middle of the two shades, but as a colorized photo it may not be a very good reference after all.

As Olaf said, it is not the final color. Also, being colorized, the colors are in no way exact. It somewhat gives the idea, but looks unnatural, because it is simply some transparent coats of colors over the black and white, and, as a result, gives a dull appearance, especially the sky color.
Camera angles can also create different colors. Usually, photos taken from lower angle (looking up) appear darker than those looking down from higher angle, as a result of the directions of light. Even very small angle difference can make considerable color changes in some cameras.

In fact, no color at all matches the actual paint. Even if you get the paints used on the ship, when painted on the model it will probably look too dark or bright. This is because the paints were whethered and faded. And even if the ship is newly painted, being such a big object the colors are blended by the atmosphere.
Same case as the teak deck colors... Some people may think that aftermarket wooden decks colors look incorrect, which may be true, but if one were to copy the teak color from the real ship, it will not look right either, because the teak is old and weathered, and again, the light and atmosphere always create different colors of the very same deck. Wood also gets darker when wet. It really depends on the modeler's liking...

Regards,
Aur

[dick]

Lindsay,

MS4 and MS4a were not "green". They remain very much in the list of possibles .

We have to keep B6 in the list of possibles but we would be talking of a more grey blue not the vibrant sky blue that many think of it as (and that EJ and I disagree with).

I thought I had pretty conclusively demonstrated that "PB10" did not exist in 1941. B5 would be the dark blue in any 1941 scheme.

Re Tufnell, whilst 'meticulously accurate paintings' may or may not be correct in terms of structural details it is I am afraid not the case as far as the colours in some of his WW2 camouflage schemes is concerned. Many of his paintings seem to be his post-war re-interpretations of black and white photos. He seems unaware of (or unwilling to accept) the range of colours actually used and his depictions of disruptive schemes that I have seen are just shades of grey when blues and greens were actually used. Please can you provide a link to this particular painting of his of PoW that you are referring to. Unless it is a view of PoW at Colombo and one that he actually painted there in 1941 I'm afraid I would regard it as useless as a reference in this research.

I see no evidence of the involvement of a Force Z survivor in the schemes depicted on that site which seems more of a tribute site relatively recently created by the descendants of one of those involved. The Oerlikons and Bofors are omitted. The design is inaccurate and it depicts 4 colours when there were 5. Those hues, well would you paint your Walrus that green? For me it is not a reference.

[elcejay]

Thank you Dick,

I do recall your earlier response that PB10 was a post-1941 paint, but when I checked Raven and Snyder & Short, they give it a 1940 date of availability. Apologies if I have missed a post, but is that incorrect?

I appreciate the information on B6. If it is not the pastel shade that I see in some places, then I count it as a possibility as well.

MS4 and MS4a still confuse me. The electronic images (so the usual caveats...) that I have seen give them a green tinge, though Raven's Munsell value for MS4a, converted to RGB, looks more blue-grey. Here is what I 'see':

ms4 and MS4a.jpg

Tufnell's painting of PoW is owned by Kevin Denlay, leader of the 2007-2008 dives for forensic analysis of the wreck. It is shown at page 40 of this report: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/hms/ ... update.pdf

HMS PoW Tufnell a.jpg

I readily concede that placing weight in artists' representations is stepping onto shaky ground. (I have Ivan Berryman's HMS Repulse in Malayan waters hanging over the desk in front of me. HMS PoW steams along behind her, starboard quarter towards us, but Berryman has painted the starboard side in the port-side scheme!) That said, if the artwork is contemporaneous, I give it more weight than otherwise. There are a lot of things at play in determining how well Tufnell's painting depicts the colours of PoW, but if I can give another example, here is a contemporary painting of HMS Rodney in war-paint by official war artist Stephen Bone (I found this today when planning my 1/200 Rodney build). Even though this is a highly impressionistic painting, the artist shows me what I expected to see - his depictions of what Raven and Roberts in Man o'War 3, and Konstam in British Battleships 1939-45 (2), tell me is well-known to be on the ship: MS1, MS2, MS3, B5 and 507c. (Here is a link to it as well http://collections.rmg.co.uk/collection ... 15060.html )

rodney detail stephen bone.jpg

I only use the Force Z survivor site graphic as indicative. I do not know it's origins (the website must be infrequently manned, as no response yet received) but nor do I think it can be cast aside until we have found that out and weighed it. The graphic does have five colours in it. I have shown them in the image below.

force z survivors five colours.jpg

As for the Walrus - I have to say that I have no knowledge at all of what colours were used on the PoW aircraft. I assume that the graphic represents a RAF grey and green, but which ones, I am not sure. I have seen many Walruses presented in RAF greys and greens with 'sky' underneath, but never checked the validity - is it incorrect?

force z survivor Walrus.jpg

I will continue my chase with regard to Tufnell's painting methodology and whether or not he saw PoW in late '41. I will also await a response from the Force Z Survivor's association, though I note a few posts about slow-or-no response from there.

Regards,
Lindsay