The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:47 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2442 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
I was just reading one of the articles over on the FB camo board and came across this from Ron posted a year ago... It answers the question of was any of the wreckage painted to preserve it....

Quote:
Ron Smith: One of the most important things to keep in mind, there was a strictly enforced order to do no painting on any of the sunken ships beyond red lead corrosion control. This was due to paint and labor shortages. For the few color photos and the color films if it isn't red and it was on a sunken ship that is the color it was the day of the attack.


So in essence you would know right away if something was painted to preserve it, and being red lead was used you would know it even in B&W photography....

Lots of interesting info there as well.....

It also lends credence to the Life Magazine shot as being accurate at least to it's base colors.... Naturally occurring color shift over time does not change a picture's base colors. It only effects the tint and hue according to the professionals I've been in contact with... (ie.. greens are still greens, reds are reds and blues are still blues, they may be a different shade of green, red or blue, from the original colors but they will still be the same base underlying color)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2020 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Posts: 744
Egilman wrote:

Given the collision damage that opened up a 30 foot split in her hull and a dent that was at least 10 feet deep by 50 feet long and 20 feet high, would necessitate the hulls repainting. and at that point 5D paint was in very short supply as production had been ceased 4 months earlier. Orders in hand mandated that any yard availability involving major repairs to a ship would necessitate a ships repainting which would have been in 5S Sea Blue as those were the orders we know were in hand.... (the orders into 5N Navy Blue weren't issued until after the attack

EG


Wasn’t the damage to the hull below the water line? No need for 5-D or 5-S down there.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10065
Location: EG48
I believe most of the damage was below the waterline due to the shape of Oklahoma's bow, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't distortion and rippling that extended to or above the waterline.

I did some digging and this isn't a great medium for what I was trying to do, so I'm going to create a new page on my site and link to it here with a general synopsis of the damaged areas.

One of the photos I came across is on Arizona's Navsource page and at the time I didn't spend a lot of time trying to determine which area we were looking at, but I'm fairly certain now that it's all below the waterline and the paint we're seeing is anti-fouling. More in a couple of days.....

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:15 pm
Posts: 744
Yeah, that photo definitely shows the damage near the bottom of the hull. We simply can’t speculate yet that there was any damage above the waterline allowing us to jump to any 5-D or 5-S painting conclusions.

The collision happened on Thursday October 23 while at sea. BATDIV 1 then returned to Pearl on Sunday October 26. According to USS Pennsylvania's deck logs USS Arizona stood in at 0548. Pennsylvania vacated her berth B-3 at 0625 so that Arizona could occupy that spot. Arizona moored there at 0700. Pennsylvania then moored alongside Arizona at 0806. At 0910 Arizona began transferring all her fuel to Pennsylvania. Then on Monday October 27 at 1030 the transfer of fuel stopped. She received 800,048,190 gals of fuel from Arizona. At 1325 Pennsylvania left her berth so that Arizona could be moved into the dry dock. At 1350 Arizona was transferred to the dry dock for repairs.
Here are some snippets from Pennsylvania's deck logs.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 12:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10065
Location: EG48
For what it's worth, this damage was roughly centered on the forward half of the platform that extended outboard of the casemate guns. It's possible that the overhang of Oklahoma's bow at the main deck touched this platform, but all of the damage description in the documentation I have is for underwater damage.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
Jeff Sharp wrote:
Yeah, that photo definitely shows the damage near the bottom of the hull. We simply can’t speculate yet that there was any damage above the waterline allowing us to jump to any 5-D or 5-S painting conclusions.
......


Well I'm not speculating, just reading the documents that have been posted and applying what they say....

All pacific fleet ships were ordered to repaint in measure 1, 5S on any yard availability. Arizona's next scheduled yard availability was for December in PSNY. The collision itself probably did not cause a sufficient amount of damage by itself to cause a repaint. What it did do was cause an emergency yard availability. At which point the orders in hand to repaint in measure 1, 5S kicked in...

So in respect to the standing orders to repaint, the collision caused the repaint earlier than it would have normally happened cause of the painting orders already in hand...

Besides, if the collision hadn't happened, the 'zona wouldn't have even been in PH when the attack took place, she would have been 4/5ths of the way to PSNS.... (still in Measure 1, 5D)

That's all I'm saying..... so arguments about how much damage was caused by the collision and whether or not it warranted a repaint are moot....

Not looking to cause argument, just laying out the only logical, plausible chain of events given the established events and documents in hand....

My view is the collision caused a yard availability, which caused the orders to repaint to be acted upon...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10065
Location: EG48
Egilman wrote:
Arizona's next scheduled yard availability was for December in PSNY.


Quick note - this is actually untrue. Due to the amount of work at PSNS schedules had been pushed back and Arizona wasn't due to head there until spring at the earliest. That's another document I should post....

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2704
I remember reading that document I think on this site possibly posted by Rick Davis.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3439
EG,

Some of your assumptions were out of date by the Fall of 1941.

First off, yes USS ARIZONA originally in early 1941 was planned for another overhaul to finish up work done in her most recent overhaul completed in January 1941, installing quad 1.1-in mounts, radar, etc. But, as 1941 progressed and additional requirements were added to each battleship's overhaul and upgrading, schedules slipped. The overhaul on USS COLORADO was slipping pretty badly. As war approached BuShips put out a revised Overhaul Schedule for battleships (I assume also for other ships) at PSNY and NorNY that would limit each battleship to only 3-months on 10 November 1941. I found at NARA in USN Weekly Overhaul Reports, a document dated 22 November 1941, in response from PSNY objecting to the new schedule saying that there was no way to get everything done that was on the "To Do" list for overhauls and upgrades on each battleship in 3-months. There list of scheduled arrivals for December 1941 and January 1942, DID NOT list USS ARIZONA.

Then I came across documents in the King Board Air Defense Improvement Program showing monthly progress and planned dates to install the planned updates. USS ARIZONA on the Battleships list was in flux during September-December 1941 reports. As you can see, even as early as the 1 September 1941 report, USS ARIZONA's next Overhaul wasn't scheduled until August-October 1942. Which slipped further on the 1 November 1941 report, to January 1943!!

Image

Image

Image

Image

BuShips during this period, authorized PHNY to do work normally limited to the West Coast yards, PSNY for battleships, spelled out in mid-October 1941 document, that included installing quad 1.1-in mounts and then the motor drives for this mounts (a two step process), radar installations, and other upgrades. Then with the "War Warning" sent out during the last week in (27th) November 1941, everything changed as to what was planned, even if USS ARIZONA was scheduled for a West Coast visit for R&R, it would have been cancelled.

Image

The "official" plans on Battle Fleet camouflage was still in flux. There were official directives from Washington Navy Dept. and BuShips in particular to repaint to what became Ms 11 (with 5-S), but Adm. Kimmel had final say. It is reported that he disliked 5-S as a color to be used on "his" battleships and held out for a darker color. The switch by the Atlantic Fleet from 5-S to 5-N in a 20 October 1941 directive, was well received and in late November 1941, a destroyer ... USS FLUSSER (DD-368) ... was repainted from her evaluation 5-S Ms 11 scheme to the 5-N Ms 11 scheme. See the Speed-o-Gram document dated 21 November 1941 below. The "official" directive to repaint the Pacific Fleet to Ms 11 (with 5-N) was "dated" 16 December 1941. But, both a "draft" and the "official" final versions are both dated on 16 December 1941. I firmly believe in knowing now the bureaucracy worked in peacetime, that the decision for adapting 5-N happened a couple of weeks before that date. Likely after preliminary evaluation of USS FLUSSER painted in 5-N in late November-early December 1941. The generation of the official directive, would have been delayed by the actions on 7 December 1941.

Image

Specifically, for USS ARIZONA, she left drydock on 12 November 1941. No battleship was mentioned to be painted in 5-N for evaluation as of late November 1941. The only(?) known image of USS ARIZONA taken during her drydock period, see attached, doesn't appear to show her repainted as of the date of the photo on 8 November 1941. But, repainting was the last thing done prior to un-docking, so she could have been repainted ... or maybe just her hull to speed up getting her out of drydock and USS OKLAHOMA in. The crew could have been tasked to finish the job at a future date "as duties allowed".

Image

Compare with a photo of USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA dated 3 November 1941, and a photo of USS RALEIGH taken on 9 December 1941, while she was painted in 5-S.

Image

Image


I can believe that USS ARIZONA and maybe other battleships (but supplies of the new paints were in short supply, but was being applied to cruisers at PHNY), were "verbally" directed in a meeting to repaint the week prior to the attack on 7 December 1941. Now then, was or could USS ARIZONA have been in the process of repainting to 5-S or 5-N (the difference being only the amount of tinting mixed in) may never be known.

Finally, the only "known" USN 80-GK image that shows USS ARIZONA post-attack, likely taken in February 1942, of USS HAMMONDSPORT (APV-2) is this one. Followed by a close-crop view of USS ARIZONA.

Image

Image


Last edited by Rick E Davis on Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 2704
Rick, what is that ship in foreground with the sunken Arizona in the background? also how can the picture of the sunken Arizona be taken in Feb 41 when it was still afloat till Dec 7 41? maybe you mean Feb 1942 instead of 41?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
WOW! in three posts I've learned more than I've been able to find myself searching NARA in the last five years!

About two years ago I started coming to the conclusion that to really understand what was happening you had to figure out how the chain of command worked. It's not the usual wait for orders thing that most think it was.... There were warnings of pending orders sent down by upper echelons that in some cases were acted upon as orders, recommendations that were interpreted as orders, and allowances for individual commanders to use their best judgments in certain situations....

This whole paint thing fits exactly into this paradigm.... Takes a while to sort out how it actually worked... and with the build up to the war they all knew was coming makes it all the more confusing.... Especially when commanders could act based upon what their superiors wanted communicated sometimes by word of mouth only.... I was aware that Adm Kimmel prefered Blue over black ships and passed on information on where the Bureau of ships was heading leaving it somewhat up to his subordinate commanders to get ahead of the coming changes..... as long as they didn't stray too far outside the recommendations... Hence, Commander of the Pacflt cruiser force ordering his ships into Measure 1, 5S and to bring back enough paint from MINY to do the rest of the force at Pearl....

And I've read several crew reports stating that the AZ only spent two weeks in drydock getting the damage to her blisters repaired from the collision. Noted cause standard procedure for a dry-docking of any major ship was to put details over the side once they started pumping the dock out to scrape the hull... (the crew wasn't really appreciative of the way they had to do it from workboats and suspended scaffolding, but then again scraping barnacles is no one's favorite thing to do) None of those sailors reported any painting except for the distasteful task of going into the repaired blisters to paint red lead on the new steel surfaces....

The shipyard did not repaint her, so it had to be the crew, and from the stories reported from the survivors, yes it was the crew who repainted her which didn't need a dockyard to do...

All the information you have supplied Rick fits into that paradigm and makes it a lot clearer... Thank you....

Over the last several years I've been suspecting and slowly coming to the conclusion that a lot of the scheduled ship improvements were being backlogged cause there was just too much to be done and not enough yards to do it all.... A peacetime navy adjusting to the speeds required of a wartime navy. Thank you for the proof as well...
It lends credence to the reports of several senior staff officers that the Navy wouldn't be completely updated and ready for war until at least 1944.....

Currently I'm going through my files of collected information adding this info and seeing where my conclusions as to AZ's situation need adjusting....

Those last two pic's Rick really tell me that the AZ was in 5S, I discount the scorched Mainmast being black cause it is dead flat, 6 month old 5D would never be dead flat, non-reflective surfaces as shown in that pic.... looking at the turrets beneath them that were not scorched they show as the same color as the repair ship in the foreground known to be 5S.....

So, somewhere between the drydocking and her last sortie, (which I believe shows her in 5S) the crew had to have repainted her....

I love this stuff, when was the AZ painted in 5S is a mystery that has intrigued me for a while....

I hope you guys can put up with my less than knowledgeable conclusions as I narrow down the question....

Thank you all very very much....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
DavidP wrote:
Rick, what is that ship in foreground with the sunken Arizona in the background? also how can the picture of the sunken Arizona be taken in Feb 41 when it was still afloat till Dec 7 41? maybe you mean Feb 1942 instead of 41?


I pretty much assume it is a typo..... And yeah if there is an ID on that auxiliary in the center of the pic I would interested in that answer also...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 11:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3439
Yes the date was a typo. The photo was taken in early 1942, exact date is unknown right now, taken of USS HAMMONDSPORT (APV-2) with USS ARIZONA in the background. Another researcher has been trying to pin down the date based on USS HAMMONDSPORT's movements. Based on the state of ARIZONA's dismantling and what date was on the original transparency sleeve, the conventional belief is that it was taken in late February 1942. He has been trying to get it via Fold3 War Diary entries for HAMMONDSPORT. But, War Diaries weren't required until about March 1942, with some ships generating a "summary" War Diary for service as far back as 7 December 1941 retroactively and he/we can't access Deck Logs at NARA right now to determine her actual movements. (NARA has started scanning Deck Logs and posting online, but that is a huge task and USS HAMMONDSPORT isn't one of them) HAMMONDSPORT had a mission to Australia in January-February 1942. It isn't clear if she stopped at Pearl on her way back. He has found in her War Diary entries, after they started, that she was at Pearl in April 1942, but didn't moor at this location. So a good date or rather date range, isn't likely anytime soon.

In my ten plus years of researching at NARA, and from my work career experience in Engineering, I found that a lot of decisions were made in meetings. Very seldom do the arguments or rather options being considered are saved from those meetings. If a decision is made, a staff member generated a letter and that letter had to be approved ("signed off" on) prior to being issued by all concerned. Peacetime military moved slow at times. Once war was for real, as it was in the Atlantic for the USN in mid-1941, things could be done quicker. In the documents in the pre-7 December 1941 and interestingly enough, immediately AFTER the war ended, work rules at the Navy Yards only allowing ONE SHIFT OPERATIONS, limited how much work could be done within funding appropriations limits.

Pearl Harbor was unique in that the Pacific Fleet was based there, the Command for the whole Pacific Fleet, the Commanders for the Battle Fleet (battleships and aircraft carriers), and what was called the Scout Forces (cruisers) were all in one location. It was possible for those different groups to meet regularly and for decisions to be made. The Battle Fleet Commander was really dragging "his" feet on changing the camo of the battleships. If you look at how QUICKLY the "official" makeup of approved camo schemes, the color of the paints used, what optional paints and schemes were proposed and evaluated over a short timeframe (April - December 1941), you could understand why some commanders wanted to avoid having to REPAINT their ships every couple of months. Which was happening in the Atlantic Fleet. That was REALLY quite understandable, given the disruption to training and preparations for the war everyone was expecting was growing every day.

Because the paints to be used were changing frequently (example for the darkest color; from 5-D, to 5-S, then to 5-N), the production of paint was throw in disarray. BuShips got smart and ended up making the range of paints a simple exercise of mixing various ratios of a base paint and tinting units. So, no matter what the "operators" thought the proper shade should be, it could be provided at the point where the paint was mixed.

The terms Ms 1, Ms 1A, Ms 1B, and Ms 1C were only "temporary" designations used. The use of 5-S over the whole ship was officially called Ms 11. The USN confused things by changing the paint to 5-N in late October 1941. For most USN ships, 5-S was "orphaned" before most ships had a chance to paint into it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10065
Location: EG48
Egilman wrote:
Commander of the Pacflt cruiser force ordering his ships into Measure 1, 5S and to bring back enough paint from MINY to do the rest of the force at Pearl....


Rick E Davis wrote:
The use of 5-S over the whole ship was officially called Ms 11. The USN confused things by changing the paint to 5-N in late October 1941. For most USN ships, 5-S was "orphaned" before most ships had a chance to paint into it.


A little bit of clarification. COMCRUBATFOR didn't order his ships into Measure 1, 5S or Measure 11. Measure 1 called for Light Gray masts above the tops of the funnels, and Measure 11 wasn't codified until September of 1941 or distributed as such until October. What COMCRUBATFOR ordered in August of 1941 was "HELENA completely painted "sea blue" including masts and superstructure."

This eventually was Measure 11 but wasn't at the time. COMCRUBATFOR again references this in September and still does not reference a designated measure by name.

5-N was ordered for the Atlantic Fleet in November 1941 and for the Pacific Fleet in December, after the attack.

This does not preclude separate orders of a more interim nature, as we saw with the CRUDIV NINE orders above.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
Rick E Davis wrote:
Yes the date was a typo. The photo was taken in early 1942, exact date is unknown right now, taken of USS HAMMONDSPORT (APV-2) with USS ARIZONA in the background.


Thank you for that.... The USS Hammondsport AVP-2 Airplane ferry, formerly the SS Seatrain Havana.....

Earlier today I was reading my copy of Bullets, Beans & Black Oil, It goes into great detail on the very bureaucratic prewar naval supply system and how they built the highly efficient wartime system from nothing, (without a clue how to go about it) into the organization it was at the end of the war... Especially the problems associated with getting supplies out to the fleet in the run up to the war....

Fascinating reading.... (although not directly about the specific paint issue we are discussing, it does help explain some of the confusions experienced and their resolutions)

I understand that measures 1A,B & C were temporary experiments, Ms-1 was official though being ordered in the first edition of Ships-2..... (at least that was my understanding) Ms. 11 being ordered in Ships-2 rev. 1 which allowed 5-N to be used in lieu of 5-S for the Atlantic Fleet at the request of Admiral King cause he thought 5-S was too light.

I don't think the Battleship commanders were dragging their feet so much, there was a real issue with supply of sufficient paint and clear orders certainly. And it is absolutely understandable that a ship captain will not want to have his ship repainted on a monthly basis.... (which it seems like was about to happen) The bombing of Pearl Harbor put an end to all that confusion. A final decision was made and away they went...

Thank you for even more clarifying and pointing out pertinent issues to what was going on....


Last edited by Egilman on Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
Tracy White wrote:
This does not preclude separate orders of a more interim nature, as we saw with the CRUDIV NINE orders above.


There is always this, and yes it does fit with the idea that they knew what was coming even if it wasn't directly official yet....

It all became moot when ordered on the 16th to repaint into Ms. 11 Navy Blue..... Who was painting what and in what color became a very small issue when confronted with the enormity of getting the fleet back together and on a war footing at least two years before anyone thought they would be ready.....

Thank you for the clarifications.....


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10065
Location: EG48
Egilman wrote:
Ms-1 was official though being ordered in the first edition of Ships-2..... (at least that was my understanding) Ms. 11 being ordered in Ships-2 rev. 1 which allowed 5-N to be used in lieu of 5-S for the Atlantic Fleet at the request of Admiral King cause he thought 5-S was too light.


Quibble: Measure 11 was defined in SHIPS-2 Rev. 1, but the 5-N change was later and not part of the original Ms 11 specification.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3439
In late Summer and the Fall of 1941, the published evaluation results of the series of experiments done on virtually all major types of the USN during the Spring and Summer of 1941, the consolidated report was dated 13 September 1941 - but interim reports had been out there in August, were digested by the various commanders differently. However, since the parameters of the new paints (and camo schemes) were announced, many commands wanted additional testing of these paints and schemes that had NOT been evaluated in the summer. New evaluations were ordered in late September 1941, timeframe. However, this time, the only units to be painted in the new paints and schemes, were to be destroyers. Even then, there were variations to the "official" schemes applied to observe their effectiveness. Also, an experimental paint "Sapphire Blue" proposed by NRL was added to the evaluation mix. The only exception to "destroyers only" was the painting of decks, which designated a couple of each; battleships, cruisers, and destroyers, to paint their decks to evaluate how well that would reduce aerial detections. (Talk about push-back by ship commanders, painting of their pretty wood decks was resisted mightily) Also, some of the newly painted evaluation units painted the entire destroyer including the mast, while others painted most of the destroyer with the new paint, except for the mast.

Bottomline, there was a lot of confusion in the Fall of 1941 as to where this all would lead to, and as I said a lot of resistance to making wholesale repainting of the Battle Fleet until the dust settled. BuShips was pushing for the PacFlt to fall in line and repaint on the new paints. The Scouting Force opted to go ahead with painting with 5-S since 5-D and nothing else was available. By the end of November 1941, evaluations however and the facts of life that there was very little 5-D paint left to apply, AND with the replacement "officially" of 5-N for 5-S in Ms 11, which satisfied those who thought 5-S was too light, there was an obvious path forward.

I'm not sure that the image of USS HAMMONDSPORT shows her painted in 5-S. She was completed and commissioned on 11 December 1941, at NYNY, after the change from 5-S to 5-N paint had been directed for Atlantic Fleet units. She was remarkably quickly tasked with a mission to Australia in January 1942.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:47 pm
Posts: 83
Well I know that in July Admiral King ordered the Atlantic Fleet into Ms 12 and canceled all other camo schemes ordered in his jurisdiction.....
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941JulyAtlanticFleetCamo.html

This was in accordance as he saw it with the previous Ships - 2 orders in January.. https://www.shipcamouflage.com/ships2_1_41_table_of_contents.htm

But obviously there was no Ms. 12 in the original Ships - 2 so between January and July there had to be info going to the fleets of the changes coming eventually released in the September Ships - 2 Rev.1

Late July, BuShips sends orders to cease production of 5-D Dark Gray and start 5-S Sea Blue production to Mare Island, Norfolk & Cavite.http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941JulyBuShipsPaintManufacture.html

We are now officially in the Sea Blue era..... (With notification of the impending revision to Ships - 2, although experimentation on destroyers was still going on in both fleets)
This notice was received by both Adm. King and Adm. Kimmel.....

In August, Mare Island rejected numerous requisitions for 5-D Dark Grey as they had been directly ordered to mfg Sea Blue and Hase Grey and discontinue Dark Grey....
At this point, almost immediately upon receipt of this knowledge, conforming to orders in hand, Commander Cruisers, Battle Force, Pac Fleet ordered the Helena while at Mare Island to repaint in Ms. 1 Sea Blue, on his own authority. (I guess he was seeing the handwriting on the wall) and to grab enough paint for a complete repaint if needed... http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941AugustComCruBatForCL50Camo.html

At the same time BuShips sent an advisory to all commands that painted Blue decks were forthcoming for everyone except Aircraft Carriers and recommended that they repaint their decks at earliest convenience as soon as sufficient materials were available....

In September the larger ships of the fleet were requesting clarification of all the memos and orders being thrown around as far as painting their ships and clearing the confusion.... the Pac Fleet Destroyer experiments continue....

Late September, BuShips clarifies the confusion by issuing a directive for the paint production yards to issue Haze Grey and Sea Blue as direct replacements for Light Grey and Dark Grey... this should have clarified most questions as far as current paint schemes except for the destroyers assigned to experiment... It was communicated to all senior fleet commanders and naval district commandants..... http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941SeptBuShipsPaintSubstitution.html

At this point there should be no confusion, the original Ships-2 substituting 5-S Sea Blue for 5-D Dark Grey was the orders in hand at the end of September in all naval jurisdictions.... Measure 1 was the overall dark scheme chosen for the Pac Fleet by Adm. Kimmel, and Sea Blue was the official dark color...

All ships had orders in hand..... (to be fulfilled at commanders discretion as supplies and time permitted)

Ms. 1 overall 5-S Sea Blue, with haze grey tops and, at this time, bare wood decks.... pending the first revision to Ships - 2 which they were being told was coming shortly.... (notwithstanding what ComCruBatFor ordered which he informed Adm. Kimmel of)

At the end of September, Chief of BuShips issues instructions for all naval commands and districts as to what the new paint measures would be for all new construction... included were Adm. Kimmel's preference for what would be called Ms. 11 and Adm. King's preference for what would be called Ms. 12 with specific instruction on how they are applied to the ships including deck paint orders..... using 5-S Sea Blue, no mention of 5-N navy Blue at this point http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/1941SeptemberBuShipsNewConstPainting.html Existing ships would have to wait for the revised Ships-2 coming forth shortly.....

October, the September Revision of Ships-2 is issued to all commands to the fleet... establishing Deck Blue 20B as the color to paint all horizontal surfaces except for Aircraft Carriers....

It is clearly stated that Ms. 11 is a direct exchange for Ms. 1 except for the added deck paint... Ms. 12 is a slightly modified replacement for Ms.2 where the Sea Blue will cover the entire hull rather than from the lowest sheer line and the bottom of the hanger deck would be the hull line for Carriers...

These are now the orders in hand, which ship commanders had to repaint in given paint availability and time..... (and paint was now available at most naval yards as the production/distribution has been running for almost 4 months, 5-D dark grey was no longer manufactured, available nor in stock)

A week later, on maneuvers, the Oklahoma collides with the Arizona, crushing it's port torpedo blister and fracturing a few side armor plates....

November sees Arizona moving into DryDock for repair of those blisters and hull plates, this takes two weeks.....

At this time, Adm. King issues new orders to the Atlantic fleet on painting their ships this is the first mention of Ms. 12 (mod) using a darker blue called Navy Blue created by adding 50% more tinting paste to the standard base paint and painting the ship in "Splotches" he superseded all previous orders to the Atlantic fleet substituting Ms.12 (mod) for all units.http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/13CL-41.html

Overall, Arizona was in Pearl for the better part of November while being repaired. While in dry dock, there is the photo of her clearly in Ms.1 Dark Grey paint scheme.... and there is anecdotal crew testimony that she wasn't painted in blue while in dry dock...

The last days of November she sortied with the fleet for gunnery practice returning December 5th of which there are pictures that have been interpreted as Blue in Ms. 11 pattern there is also anecdotal testimony of the ship's attack survivors that clearly state the crew repainted her in bright blue in November.....

There is no evidence either documentary or anecdotal that 5-N Navy Blue paint was ever considered for the Pacific Fleet at this point in time.....

December 7th the attack....

December 13th 5-S sea blue was discarded and all naval ships were ordered to substitute 5-N Navy Blue for the Atlantic fleet and on the 16th the same orders were issued to the Pacific Fleet... All confusion is now gone, no major supply issues cause both colors are made from the same base and tint....

So in my mind it was the last 10 days of November when the AZ was repainted in Sea Blue....

Is my logic sound here?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3439
EG,

There is something you are not considering or factoring in to your timeline.

First off, Tracy hasn't yet uploaded ALL the camo documents from the 1941 period. Dana Bell, supplied me with the 600+ pages of 1941 camo documents he had scanned at NARA, so I have contributed only a little additional documentation beyond what he found. Tracy has found additional documentation in his research. Terefore, there are a lot of fill-ins prior to the major documented instructions that Tracy has had a chance to post. Plus, photos taken during this whole period shows a lot more variation and "experimentation" was going on in the summer of 1941 in the Atlantic, and not noted in the Pacific Fleet Evaluations.

Second, the USN didn't start painting the new camo schemes directed in Ships-2 in January 1941. Ships didn't start painting until roughly May 1941, and some ships were still being painted in June and July.

When 5-D paint production was "officially" cancelled on 30 July 1941, the USN had barely started making that paint. Prior to getting new specifically made 5-D paint, the USN was converting existing stocks of the "peacetime" #5 Gray paint by adding black tint. A 14 May 1941 memo noted that the new camo paints; 5-L, 5-O, and 5-D, were just being manufactured (the formulas for the new paint wasn't sent to the Navy Yards, MINY and NorNY, making the paint until 21 March 1941) and that the interim 5-D using #5 paint stocks was to be used. It wasn't a perfect match to the desired paint, being on the glossy side and faded very rapidly. In an 11 July 1941 memo from the Navy Dept., MINY and NorNY were warned not to stockpile large quantities of 5-D and 5-L paint because there was a change coming. This was part of the reason they ran out of 5-D paint by the end of the year.

What became Ms 12, was experimentally applied earlier than 26 June 1941, when mentioned in a memo signed by Adm. King.

Even though the newer July 1941 paints; 5-H, 5-O, and 5-S, were authorized to start manufacturing in that month using the two components method of 5-U white base plus tinting paste, they didn't start making it then. There was a time lag as they "tweaked" the formulas to meet all the requirements for adhesion and durability. The quantity of 5-S paint was in short supply into November 1941. Just as 5-S was also being cancelled and ordered replaced by 5-N paint. The EXACT supply amount of 5-S paint on hand at PHNY is still an unknown. There wasn't enough to repaint everything and the stories that cruisers after West Coast Overhauls were bringing qualities to PHNY to paint other cruisers highlight that situation. Memo after memo would state "as soon as adequate supplies of the new 5-S paint is available it will be applied". The Battle Force adamantly stated that Ms 1 with 5-D was the standard for their battleships. The Commander didn't like 5-S and wanted a darker color, which appeared as 5-N.

Policy may have been clear to paint with 5-S in September through November 1941, but if a ship couldn't get the paint from the supply chain, what is to be used? Memos also stated that if the new paint wasn't available, use of existing stocks of old paint was to be used. Navy yards on the West Coast (and East Coast) were applying 5-S before PHNY. They were on the tail end of the supply chain. The only Navy Yard in worse shape was Cavite in the Philippines. They never did get even 5-D paint and invented their own paint using local materials.

The new 20B Deck Blue paint may have been directed, but a note on the cover sheet for the 17 September 1941 Navy Dept. memo states that "CinPac states NO BATTLESHIP will have their decks painted except experimentally". A 7 November 1941 memo, clearly states that the new 20B paint wasn't available and the "interim" mix was to be used.

Actually Adm. King ordered that 5-N replace 5-S in a memo dated 4 November 1941. The Pacific Fleet Command was aware of the 5-N paint change to Ms 11 almost immediately. The only hang up to switching to it sooner, was the need to SEE IT ON AN ACTUAL SHIP to get CinPac approval. Because the new paints; 5-H, 5-O, 5-S, and 5-N, were ALL using the same base 5-U white paint and adding the same tinting paste, only in different ratios, it was only a matter of adding paste to 5-S to make 5-N. That is why the switch to 5-N was relatively short.

There was a history of the manufacturing and distribution of camo paints lagging by weeks and in some cases months behind directives. On top of that issue, because the USN was for all intents in a war in the Atlantic starting in the summer of 1941, the Atlantic Fleet got priority on all needs. With Adm. King's keen interest in camo, hands on in many cases, he drove what paints got made and what schemes would be used. With the Japanese attack, that all changed. Manufacturing went on around the clock and logistics was pressed to be timely.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2442 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BB63Missouri and 16 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group