Color of Battleships at Pearl Harbor

[Jeff Sharp]

A couple of comments.

Or what about Oklahoma in MS-12? Where is the evidence for that?

This is not me going all in but devil's advocate. Why are the turrets and the armored conning tower in this photo so light?

NASPH #119148.jpg

I truly hope the decision to label her as wearing MS-12 wasn't based off of photos of her salvage. She was under salt water for a year and a half. These closeups shows better detail.






Based off of these photos it appears that the turrets had been "cleaned off" in the photo you posted. Your photo is clearly much later in the salvage process.

[Egilman]

This debate is never going to end is it?

[Tracy White]

This debate is never going to end is it?

That's why I largely stay out of it these days. Too many people with strong opinions and not enough "well, we don't know for sure..."

I don't even subscribe to this thread.

Jeff - it's possible that the lighter color is dried out sea growth as well. Being underwater is otherwise a bit more gentle on paint than being above it.

[Jeff Sharp]

Jeff - it's possible that the lighter color is dried out sea growth as well. Being underwater is otherwise a bit more gentle on paint than being above it.

It's a tough call to make any judgements based on B&W post attack photos. I was hoping that there was some pre-attack evidence but I fear his conclusion was based off of post attack photos like this one which suggest 5-D on her hull with no false bow wave and 5-O above the hull.


I'm not denying the possibility. I'm just hoping to see what evidence he has.

As far as no false bow wave in this pic, if you look at Nevada's refloating photos, her false bow wave was no longer visible either.

[Jeff Sharp]

I just realized that Rick's post above showing Oklahoma and Nevada at Pearl on 11/3/41 was taken post Ariz/Okla collision which occurred on 10/22/41. There is no visible damage to Oklahoma in the pic and she is clearly not in MS-12 at that time. I decided to try to track Oklahoma's movements from the collision until the attack.

After the collision, BATDIV 1 returned to Pearl on 10/26/41. Arizona moored at the 1010 dock, Oklahoma at F-7, and Nevada at F-8. The next day Arizona would enter the drydock.
On 10/30/41 a few overhead photographs were taken of Pearl confirming the locations of the three ships.




On 11/1/41 a large taskforce known as Taskforce 1 left Pearl for exercises. Most of the battleships, cruisers, and destroyers left that morning and would be out for 10 days. BATDIV 1 stayed behind for at least a couple of days.

On 11/3/41 the photo that Rick posted was taken.


Shortly after this photo was taken Oklahoma and Nevada left Pearl as well, leaving Arizona still in dry dock. This tells me that the damage to Oklahoma during the collision was very minimal.
While at sea, footage of the two ships was filmed showing both in MS-1 still.


On 11/8/41 this photo of Arizona was taken while in drydock.


On 11/12/41 Oklahoma would separate from Nevada and return to Pearl. Arizona would exit the drydock and on 11/13/41 Oklahoma would enter the drydock. That same day Arizona left Pearl.

On 11/17/41 Arizona returned to Pearl. Nevada returned on 11/19/41.

Sometime after 11/22/41 both Arizona and Nevada left Pearl again and would be out until 12/5/41.

On 11/26/41 this photo was taken showing Oklahoma still in drydock.


On 11/29/41 Oklahoma left the drydock and on 11/30/41 she left Pearl and joined up with Arizona and Nevada at sea until 12/5/41.

On 12/5/41 Dr. Eric Haakenson aboard USS Solace captured film footage of Nevada returning to Pearl still in MS-1/5.


There is one photo during the attack that could possibly answer the question if Oklahoma still had her false bow wave. Unfortunately the one I have is suggestive of one there but still a bit inconclusive.


If Oklahoma did repaint into MS-12 then the only time it could have happened is while she was drydocked for 16 days in November.

[Egilman]

I think Rick posted the best evidence I've ever seen on how you CANNOT rely on greyscale B&W images to judge colors....

80-G-411193-13Oct41.lr.jpg

Notice the submarines at the Sub base? They are officially in Ms. 9 overall formula 82 Black You can particularly see the one coming along side it's division mates for mooring... All of them are black...

Now take a gander at the two heavy cruisers at anchor in the upper right of the pic.... Are they also in Ms. 9???

They have exactly the same tone as the submarines..... Now I know that there were no Heavy Cruisers painted in Ms. 9 as Ms. 9 was expressly appointed for submarines... If anything they are in Ms 1.... And we also know at this point in time that both battleships in the image were if not fully painted in Ms 1, were predominantly 5D dark grey Ms 1....

That is an extremely wide tonal variation for ships that supposedly were painted in the same colors....

A perfect example of why you cannot judge colors from B&W greyscale photos... Just in case anyone doesn't understand....

[66misos]

At the photo the crew paints the hull firstly, then follows everything above the deck. This reminds me interview with Mr. Bruner. I apologize I do not remember site/link to the original, I have copied it in my PC. Here is a part of that interview:

Brunner: ...lighter paint was being craned aboard in cargo nets and then passed down to all hands while they were finishing their drydock time following the collision with the Okie.
Brunner: Oh, yeah, a lot lighter. The older stuff from the summer, the gunmetal paint (5-D) was so dark. and the new stuff was so damned transparent it was tough.
So, the masts were never finished?
Brunner: No, didn't get to them. We started at the bottom and worked our way up.
So you did the hull and the turrets and the bridge area, then?
Brunner: No, not even the bridge. That was next. That was my area, and I know we didn't get that far.
Brunner: Just hull and turrets.

Please, do not stop this discussion. I understand the approach "we don't know for sure" over "I know what was!", but as a modeler I have to decide for only one option. I know it (probably) never will be 100:0 either for "grey" or "blue" team, but even 51:49 evidence/indications resulting from this discussion can help.

[Egilman]

At the photo the crew paints the hull firstly, then follows everything above the deck. This reminds me interview with Mr. Bruner. I apologize I do not remember site/link to the original, I have copied it in my PC. Here is a part of that interview:

Brunner: ...lighter paint was being craned aboard in cargo nets and then passed down to all hands while they were finishing their drydock time following the collision with the Okie.
Brunner: Oh, yeah, a lot lighter. The older stuff from the summer, the gunmetal paint (5-D) was so dark. and the new stuff was so damned transparent it was tough.
So, the masts were never finished?
Brunner: No, didn't get to them. We started at the bottom and worked our way up.
So you did the hull and the turrets and the bridge area, then?
Brunner: No, not even the bridge. That was next. That was my area, and I know we didn't get that far.
Brunner: Just hull and turrets.

Please, do not stop this discussion. I understand the approach "we don't know for sure" over "I know what was!", but as a modeler I have to decide for only one option. I know it (probably) never will be 100:0 either for "grey" or "blue" team, but even 51:49 evidence/indications resulting from this discussion can help.

Problem is several years after that interview, in a group of survivors, he was asked what parts of the ship were done in this new paint his answer was that he didn't know about other parts of the ship all he knew about was the area he was responsible for and it was done.... So which answer do we go with?

That's the problem with witness testimony is it can change over time or on some occasions doesn't match known facts... Loren Bruner's testimony and statements changed over time... Not saying he was lying, just saying that the more time goes by the less reliable the witness statements become... and a LOT of time has gone by before this became a subject of particular interest... All we have is the recorded record, and sometimes it contradicts itself...

[MartinJQuinn]

Now take a gander at the two heavy cruisers at anchor in the upper right of the pic.... Are they also in Ms. 9???

No, but they do appear to be under cloud cover and not full sun, so that may be making them appear darker. The transports behind the battleships look to be in fairly fresh 5D.

[Rick E Davis]

Egilman,

I already made comments about the difference in the 80-G-411193 tone level from left to right getting darker. Which could be the result of a cloud layer or a negative exposure/processing issue. Also, if you notice there are two "lighter" bands, with one going from top to bottom, that aren't the result of the scene. If you compare the two cruisers at the right, which are USS PENSACOLA w/Ms 5 bow wave and USS MINNEAPOLIS, with their images in 80-G-451125 (see post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=305334&start=180#p951774 ), the two cruisers images are lighter. The whole tone image of 80-G-451125 is very "even" across" the whole scene with USS NEVADA and the two cruisers looking nearly the same "darkness".

Here is an example of what can be done with a B&W negative to adjust contrast and "darkness", much as was done in darkrooms. When I was going through destroyer photos in 19-LCM for the SIMS class, I couldn't find the print for a well known image of USS HAMMANN (DD-412) on 5 January 1942 at ChNY. NHHC has had this image for years as "NH 96828". I really wanted to scan an original print to get more details since USS HAMMANN photos are rare. Here is that image at NHC.



So I went through a microfilm collection known as "19-Z" that has every(?) BuShips 19-N numbered photo that were taken on over 100 microfilm rolls. The 19-N (or BS numbers, for BuShips) photo/negatives are what the PRINTS, if available, are found in the 19-LCM collection. Even if the prints are missing in 19-LCM, you can request to pull the negatives if available. When I found this image in 19-Z, I found that there was a whole series of photos taken of the SIMS class destroyers at ChNY and that weren't available in 19-LCM. So I had all of them pulled and scanned these 8x10 negatives. The scans are very detailed, but they are also quite light as scanned. Here is what the "as scanned" B&W negative of USS HAMMANN looks like.



I didn't go to great effort to match the NHHC image, but here is the same image after I adjusted the image, much as would have been done in a darkroom. This is why I say you can't assume the color from grayscale images just by the darkness of the various areas of the image. You can note, that by making the image "darker", some areas of the image, like at the back of the bridge, makes seeing details harder, compared to the scan of the original negative.

[Egilman]

Egilman,

I already made comments about the difference in the 80-G-411193 tone level from left to right getting darker. Which could be the result of a cloud layer or a negative exposure/processing issue. Also, if you notice there are two "lighter" bands, with one going from top to bottom, that aren't the result of the scene. If you compare the two cruisers at the right, which are USS PENSACOLA w/Ms 5 bow wave and USS MINNEAPOLIS, with their images in 80-G-451125 (see post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=305334&start=180#p951774 ), the two cruisers images are lighter. The whole tone image of 80-G-451125 is very "even" across" the whole scene with USS NEVADA and the two cruisers looking nearly the same "darkness".

I didn't go to great effort to match the NHHC image, but here is the same image after I adjusted the image, much as would have been done in a darkroom. This is why I say you can't assume the color from grayscale images just by the darkness of the various areas of the image. You can note, that by making the image "darker", some areas of the image, like at the back of the bridge, makes seeing details harder, compared to the scan of the original negative.

I think you know I agree with you Rick, and you all have perused my manipulation of decent images to pull out detail that is sometimes hidden...

Just the fact that who did the developing and how much skill he had in the darkroom speaks to not relying on Greyscale B&W to judge colors without specific historical recorded color info to back it up... If you know what the pattern should be then you can judge the pattern by light and dark patches, other than that, without any specific info your guess is as good as mine, which means any guess is worthless... You and I know from our research that all those colors in that pic are primarily 5D... but there are those, many of which had a lot of research under their belts as well, that are still willing to make that leap into the great beyond of opinions based upon two colors and a lot of grey area....

I'm not one of them.... {chuckle}

[Jeff Sharp]

..

[Dan K]

Back to Tennessee. Is there any actual evidence for her being painted into modifed MS-1? Or is it all conjecture and photo interpolation?

[Dan K]

And regarding NV and OK: why only these two BBs in Measure 5 at the end of 1941?

[Rick E Davis]

The Pacific Fleet evaluated the "new camo" measures during the summer of 1941. Battle Fleet ships of various types were selected and various schemes from the original "officially" designated schemes were applied. USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA were among the few battleships designated to have the false bow waves applied. In a 19 April 1941 memo, the Battle Force commander selected besides USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA, USS COLORADO and USS MISSISSIPPI to be so painted. USS NEW MEXICO was substituted for MISSISSIPPI to have Ms 5 applied and was observed for evaluation on 19 May 1941. Only these battleships were painted with Ms 5. USS NEW MEXICO and her sisters were soon (departed on 20 May 1941) reassigned to the Atlantic Fleet and was repainted to "Atlantic Fleet" standards. USS COLORADO went to PSNY for overhaul (departing on 25 June 1941) and her Ms 5 was eventually overpainted.

At the end of the evaluations, the conclusion was that Ms 5 was not effective and ordered that it be removed/overpainted when opportunity was available. In any result, both USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA still had Ms 5 at least into November 1941.

[Dan K]

Thank you, Rick. Much appreciated.


Anybody on the Tennessee question?

[Jeff Sharp]

Hi Dan,
Unfortunately, the group that made the claim that Tennessee was in modified MS-1 has not to this date supplied ANY evidence to support that claim.
I really like this photo that shows the stern of USS Phoenix as she sails past Battleship Row. This photo really shows how light 5-S photographs. Arizona's aft turrets are also visible for comparison.


There are numerous photos of Tennessee before, during, and after the attack. None of them ever show her photographing that light.

[Dan K]

5-D was my assessment as well; I just needed to know if I had missed something.

Thx for responding, Jeff. I've not seen the second pic before, the one marked with mooring Berth F5 in the foreground. Cool.

[Iceman 29]

What's color for Hoga tugboat? 5D, 5S, 5O ?

Tks!

Here is a fun detail about USS Hoga.


Her decks were painted in the linoleum brown color commonly seen on ships. You can see her lower deck color through the rope access hole on the side of her hull here and a bit of it on her upper deck.


From overhead, it would look similar to these tugs.

[Jeff Sharp]

The Pacific Fleet evaluated the "new camo" measures during the summer of 1941. Battle Fleet ships of various types were selected and various schemes from the original "officially" designated schemes were applied. USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA were among the few battleships designated to have the false bow waves applied. In a 19 April 1941 memo, the Battle Force commander selected besides USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA, USS COLORADO and USS MISSISSIPPI to be so painted. USS NEW MEXICO was substituted for MISSISSIPPI to have Ms 5 applied and was observed for evaluation on 19 May 1941. Only these battleships were painted with Ms 5. USS NEW MEXICO and her sisters were soon (departed on 20 May 1941) reassigned to the Atlantic Fleet and was repainted to "Atlantic Fleet" standards. USS COLORADO went to PSNY for overhaul (departing on 25 June 1941) and her Ms 5 was eventually overpainted.

At the end of the evaluations, the conclusion was that Ms 5 was not effective and ordered that it be removed/overpainted when opportunity was available. In any result, both USS NEVADA and USS OKLAHOMA still had Ms 5 at least into November 1941.

To add a little more detail to this selection, each of the original battleships to be selected for the bow wave was at the time the second ship within their respective BATDIV. We know that Mississippi did not get the bow wave because she was photographed in June '41 still in Standard Navy Gray after she transferred to the Atlantic Fleet. It's still a mystery why New Mexico was selected in her stead. No photos of New Mexico have surfaced yet showing her with a bow wave.