Now that I have had a chance to read through this, I'm going to state facts that most individuals whether "Blue Crew" or "Gray Crew" don't seem to understand.
First as someone who 50 years ago use to develop my own B&W film and made B&W prints in a darkroom, I know how variable the same image CAN easily be made to appear in shade either with different paper types or simple with the enlarger. Most grayscale images people use to make arguments about "color" are scanned from prints of unknown origin and how much adjustment in the darkroom or during scanning may have been used to produce that image. Plus, several types of film were used during the 1940's, with one type of film showing some colors vastly differently than another type of film. Even at NARA, the B&W photos made from the same negative/or copy negative made by photographing the print when found in different places will exhibit different shades in grayscale. Also, lighting conditions angle of the sun hitting surfaces all impact the look of a photo.
To keep this short, NO ONE CAN DETERMINE COLORS IN A B&W IMAGE without some other info that in 99%+ images is UNKNOWN. Also, after going through many original color transparencies at NARA and scanning quite a few of them, it is even doubtful that color images can be trusted to represent what can be called "true colors" that the human eye would see when the photo was taken. Film processing, age of the transparency, film type used, and camera settings and filters used impact the transparency "quality" and tone.
How then, about the 13 October 1941 image of USS ARIZONA (a fuller image shows USS NEVADA is tied up aft of ARIZONA) presented above as evidence that she had started to be painted with 5-S by that date. Bare with me since a lot of these images have been posted here before and look at these images as a group and note how the appearance of ships in overlapping images appear.
Here is an image of USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA in a photo dated 3 November 1941. You can clearly see their painted Ms 5 false bows. Most people would agree that they appear to be painted in Ms 1 colors of 5-D and 5-L.
Here is an image of USS ARIZONA taken on 1 November 1941, while in drydock. Doesn't this image look like the above?
During the second half of 1941, the USN took several aerial surveys of the Pearl Harbor anchorage and Navy Yard. An interesting series of photos with generally clear views, but by necessity distant views, were taken on 13 October 1941. One image out of these 13 October 1941 photos is declared in this article as proof that USS ARIZONA had already started to be painted with 5-S. I doubt that, the documentation and correspondence going on at the timeframe says that 5-S paint wasn't available at PHNY. The Battle Fleet was really dragging their feet about using 5-S. From their experiences with the Camouflage Evaluations that took place from June through September 1941, the consolidated report was dated 13 September 1941, and from experiments even earlier in the late 1930's, that even just looking at samples of 5-S, they knew it would be too light for detection from the air. The Evaluation Conclusions said that a color a "little" lighter than 5-D was best.
Here are three of the overall views taken on 13 October 1941, that I scanned at NARA from 80-G collection. (I have had to reduce the file size of these images for posting)
Note that in the second image you can see USS ARIZONA (left) and USS NEVADA (right) with other ships in the background. Note how small these ship images are in the total photo. A crop of this image, fourth image below, is used as evidence that USS ARIZONA has been partially repainted with 5-S. In the third image you can see that USS NEVADA is seen just in the frame, only this time she appears darker. Also, below are cropped views I scanned of the same photo, but a different print found in a different photo collection at NARA. The lighter shade appearance of USS ARIZONA and USS NEVADA is more likely due to the known properties of 5-D to fade and due to salt deposits from being at sea for multiple exercises.
Now then, the GRAY CREW have used other images as proof that ALL of the battleships on 7 December 1941 were painted in only 5-D and 5-L. They have similar faults as evidence.
The textual records show that as PacFlt command dragged their feet about adopting the new camo paints (on 8 September 1941, the PacFlt Command called for evaluations on destroyers of DesDiv 9 of the new camouflage schemes plus an experimental paint prior to selecting a scheme to adopt), but BuShips basically had cut-off the supply chain of 5-D paint and the supplies were running low at PHNY. Some ships, cruisers and destroyers, started to paint in 5-S prior to the attack and which can be detected in photos and documentation, based on their relatively lighter appearance in the presence of 5-D painted ships. 5-D paint was being taken off destroyers so that the battleships could still paint/touchup with 5-D. With the 27 November 1941 notification that war could happen anytime, the PacFlt started to get ready to "potentially" move the fleet to protect the US Forces in the Philippines. I can readily believe that the next week prior to the attack saw meetings for that possibility, including one topic about camouflage paint (ships need a good paint job before going to war), that VERBAL approvals to paint the battle fleet "could have" been made (a very LOW PRIORITY DECISION that could be made and directed in minutes). With a written directive to follow. I'm not sure if those directions weren't to skip 5-S and go to 5-N or use both as stocks were available. On 21 November 1941, it was directed (via speed-o-gram) that a destroyer, selected to be USS FLUSSER (painted with 5-S in September 1941 during an overhaul on the West Coast, and a logical choice since USS PORTER had returned from her overhaul painted with 5-S, they didn't need two ships painted with 5-S for the evaluation and painting FLUSSER with 5-N over 5-S would save time and paint), was directed to be painted with 5-N to allow for evaluation of the paint for scheme Ms 11 (rev with 5-N). Is there textual proof that the battle fleet was directed to repaint with Ms 11 the week prior to the attack, none has surfaced. But, the fact that a directive for PacFlt ships to paint in Ms 11 (5-N) was IN coordination at the time of the attack and issued on 16 December 1941, points to the decision had been made already. There are at least three different versions of the PACIFIC FLEET CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE NO. 21CN-41, that directed that the Pacific Fleet be painted in Ms 11 (with 5-N). One version is a double spaced draft with changes penciled in, one is in the final format but with changes noted, and then the final version issued to the fleet. ALL are dated 16 December 1941. The draft version had to logically have been written prior to 16 December. My guess based on the need to such a directive to be coordinated with multiple parties involved, that the decision was made prior to the attack.
USS FLUSSER was at Pearl Harbor from 26 November to 5 December 1941. Plenty of time to have her painted and for high level individuals, a certain Adm, to look at her and approve 5-N as the color for the Pacific Fleet. In my research of destroyers in BuShips files, many decisions were made verbally at meetings to speed the process and relayed even by phone before the official paperwork was written.
Which battleships, if any actually started the repainting process, I can't say. Some photos point to "lighter" paint used on parts of USS ARIZONA's wreck. But, proof that it is 5-D, 5-S, or 5-N, as I say ISN'T possible from grayscale images.
Login
Register
FAQ
.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds)