The Ship Model Forum

Interesting dick, thanks for that. The thought of red lead primer on the funnel did occur to me alright but then I thought maybe not? As there is a flat horizontal divide to a lighter colour on the aft funnel in the later 1943 version of the camouflage.

The straight edge on the aft HACS support structure is very clearly seen here, though the photo is from 1941 so no camouflage evident yet:
[url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205137829[/url]

Great to see so many photos now emerging. The IWM online archive is fantastic in this respect. As is the work done by Sovereign Hobbies and all their associates who assist in drawing up the schemes and paint colours.


Back to Ivan's question about the colours of the anti-aircraft guns. I presume you mean the 40mm Pom-Poms?

There are some colour photos on the IWM Website that show the camouflage scheme being carried through the Pom-Pom shields as seen here:
[url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188330[/url]
[url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188333[/url]
and here:
[url]https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205188327[/url]

Some of the photos are titled 'on board a battleship'. But the Battleship is H.M.S. King George V in November 1942.

I think my photo was taken very late April 1943 (possibly later (until Feb 1944), but certainly not earlier).

This zoomed-in image shows the aft funnel more clearly. The straight horizontal/vertical and angled lines of the edges of the (smallish) dark patches above and below the searchlight platform are to my mind not part of the curvy camouflage pattern with its big panels. I suspect some specific areas of the funnel plus the vertical sides of the platform are in the process of being repainted and we may be looking at red lead. Your area 2 is I think revealed just to be shadow under the platform:[attachment=1]KGV 1943 aft funnel.jpg[/attachment]

I have now found a photo (dated 1st Jan 1943) which does show the angled face of the aft deckhouse and to my eye the diagonal is very much as Jamie has it in his illustration:[attachment=0]KGV 1943 1 1 - Copy.jpg[/attachment]

I think you are right about the effect of the the straight edges on the support to the HACs director.

Thanks Dick. I concur there is no lighter area in the photo you have posted named KGV P3. Do you have a date for this photo by any chance? The camouflage scheme was modified over time, so I suppose the key point is to compare like with like time wise?

It actually raises more questions than it answers because to me it looks like there are three colours on the aft funnel. Also the change to the lighter colour at the funnel top is well above the level of the searchlight platforms. It is level with the searchlight platform in the latest suggested colour scheme drawing for 1943. See annotations below:
[attachment=1]KGV P3 annotated.jpg[/attachment]

Assuming the Imperial War Museum has the correct date listed on the photo, then the photo I posted earlier is from October 1942. I post it again here below for discussion, enlarged as much as I can using the IWM online tool. To further show what I meant as regards the pattern on the forward face of the aft superstructure:
[attachment=0]HMS King George V October 1942.jpg[/attachment]

As regards the lighter vertical section of the aft HACS Director support structure could it simply be a reflection off the edge of the structure? The structure does not seem to be perfectly triangular in plan, seems to have a very short length of straight edge parallel to the ship's side?

Again, we know for a fact that H.M.S. Howe had her camouflage scheme modified. As did KGV herself. So there is clear precedent and evidence for modifications to the scheme. Just seems to be a question of figuring out what was modified and when? And what colours?

:wave_1: Colleagues, good afternoon. Thank you so much, you are constantly helping me out of this situation, I simply do not have the opportunity to have such a rich photo archive, and as we move along the model, new questions arise. Today I raise questions about the "pom-pom" ... I have already noticed that the life rafts did not have their own color but were part of camouflage., But what color did they have antiaircraft guns ??? .. If I am not mistaken, those that were on the gun turrets were MC4 ... but then the side ones should be of different colors depending on the side. Also, do you think you painted the Oerlikon deck mounts or not ... :worship_1:

:wave_1: Colleagues, good afternoon. Thank you so much, you are constantly helping me out of this situation, I simply do not have the opportunity to have such a rich photo archive, and as we move along the model, new questions arise. Today I raise questions about the "pom-pom" ... I have already noticed that the life rafts did not have their own color but were part of camouflage., But what color did they have antiaircraft guns ??? .. If I am not mistaken, those that were on the gun turrets were MC4 ... but then the side ones should be of different colors depending on the side. Also, do you think you painted the Oerlikon deck mounts or not ... :worship_1:

Actually, zooming in even further below the 5.25" director I now think I see two verticals. It's as if the light stripe on the front face of the director itself is repeated below, perhaps as some form of alignment marking for calibration purposes?[attachment=0]KGV director alignment.jpg[/attachment]

I don’t think there was any change in colour in the P3 5.25” area.
[attachment=3]KGV P3.jpg[/attachment]

The diagonal wedge would be the MS4 camouflage panel. I have no really clear pictures of KGV in this area but, allowing for ship to ship variations, see Anson and Howe in this area for roughly what it must have done.

I don’t see anything really light under the 5.25” director in my photo, but a hint of some vertical division perhaps?

It seems there was at one point an odd square of something lighter on the aft face of the main armament's aft director support. There is a very defined vertical in my portside shot above, and in these that show the starboard side's vertical edge to it, so not really part of the curvy camouflage pattern:
[attachment=2]KGV aft tones.jpg[/attachment]

It’s there in some pictures:
[attachment=1]KGV 1943 7ish.jpg[/attachment]

But seemingly not in others:.
[attachment=0]KGV 1943 2.jpg[/attachment]

Strange, but then changes of detail from repaint to repaint, which could be every couple of months or so, are probably to be expected. Could perhaps have been something a bit bigger there that shrank away to nothing over time?

Interesting discussion, I had a Heller 1/400 kit years ago and always wondered about the correct colours for this particular scheme.

Are there possibly some additional areas of 507C on the port side as per below?

[attachment=0]HMS King George V.jpg[/attachment]

There looks to be wedge shaped patch in a lighter colour on the forward face of the aft superstructure. Thin end of the wedge to starboard and getting deeper towards the port side and extending around the structure below the raised 5.25 inch turret. Lighter patches also possibly on the structure supporting the HACS directors and on the aft main battery director.

Granted the 5.25 inch turret and structure below are curved which can distort things and make them look lighter, but the difference seems quite noticeable on the forward face of the aft superstructure?

An example of how one colour, in this case today's Royal Navy's modern Light Weatherwork Grey BS381c No. 676 with RF 39% can appear a range of different tones on two ships in just one photo depending on sunlight, cloud and angles etc:

Hi All

Hi Jamie, just a post to confirm that documents report KGV had 507a in her scheme in July of 42, I've got a copy of that report you mention, ie Adm 212/123, and it does indeed say that the KGV used 507a in place of MS1, it was requested by the CinC Home Fleet and it also notes the reflectance factor difference between the two as 9% confirming the Adm 212/124 document reflection factors (as well as other documents) of MS1 as 4% and HFG as 13% ( DoY is also mentioned in 212/123 as overall HFG with a 13% RF).

We also know that documents give the range of HFG (507a / G10) of between 10% to 13% reflectance factor.

Hi Mister me, sorry I forgot to answer your question, so I've edited here, as Jamie says judging from photography is difficult, a single tone on a ship can sometimes perhaps be skewed a little due to the surrounding paint, especially if its a lighter tone.

Jamie did do a little experiment during the research on RN paints in which a large board was painted in 507a, in different lights it looked darker and lighter, which is replicated in black and white images of ships in overall HFG.

We see this with other paints too, B5 can look dark in one light and much lighter in others, making identification a matter of looking at numerous images.

Hope that helps
Best wishes
Cag.

[quote="mister me"]hello,

one thing that strikes me more and more is that dark parts of camo patterns (supposed to be 507a/b/hfg) appear on many pics as very dark panels, very different than a more "mid-dark" feeling of fully HFG ships !!

it's somewhat hard for me to recognize HFG in those dark panels, as no full HFG ship on pics seem to be as dark/contrasted

shall it be MS1 panels then ?[/quote]

I think not, partly because the appearance depends a great deal on filters and how the photographs were developed. There is an old saying that "the camera doesn't lie". That's not entirely true. With film photography there is a large degree of human influence even after the negative has been exposed. That's not sufficient an argument though.

Here is HMS Howe, a ship we believe to have been painted in the same class scheme but using an identical colour palette to her sister HMS Anson which does use MS1 as the darkest tone:
[url=https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205185809][img]https://media.iwm.org.uk/ciim5/29/478/mid_000000.jpg?action=e&cat=Photographs[/img][/url]
As you can see, it is virtually black.

Furthermore, I hope Richard comments on this thread as he has the actual document to hand. It is recorded in the report "Camouflage Observation Trials, Scapa 20th July - 3rd August 1942" by Graham-Hall (the same person who went by Claude Muncaster also) a comparison of HMS King George V's camouflage versus HMS Anson. I can't remember the exact wording, but the effect of the text was to infer that Anson used MS1 as the darkest paint whilst KGV wore 507A instead.

If I can find a linkable copy of photograph 80-G-81765 taken in Algiers in 1943, it shows HMS King George V moored beside HMS Howe at similar angles. The photograph allows a good comparison of the darkest tone on the starboard side of the bridge structure, and it is obvious in this photograph that HMS Howe's darkest paint is darker than HMS King George V's darkest paint.
EDIT - someone has cropped it but here it is:
[img]https://scontent-lhr8-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/127225904_3409734022467300_1689464633665557285_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=2&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=PHeRn6CUG8sAX8VdVtW&_nc_ht=scontent-lhr8-1.xx&oh=61a4d29dec22d2bb506a3324e36fd654&oe=5FE592E0[/img]

Hope this helps!

Good afternoon. Well, thanks to your advice, so far it turns out like this ... I hope I was not mistaken
http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=191026

P.S.Now I am correcting minor errors in the color of the case and finishing a bunch of little things

hello,

one thing that strikes me more and more is that dark parts of camo patterns (supposed to be 507a/b/hfg) appear on many pics as very dark panels, very different than a more "mid-dark" feeling of fully HFG ships !!

it's somewhat hard for me to recognize HFG in those dark panels, as no full HFG ship on pics seem to be as dark/contrasted

shall it be MS1 panels then ?

Richard and I did some work on the camouflage pattern for the ship overall. Colours aside, you will notice that most of the profiles available have some big areas coloured in the wrong tone of paint - i.e. they all show lots of 507C on the port side of the hull amidships. This doesn't reconcile with photographic evidence.

[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/bda4b915-44ac-44ba-b007-a3d5b2fad3b3.png[/img]

Notice the tone of the paint on the hull below the bridge superstructure and funnels is the same tone as the second lightest tone forward and aft.
[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/08e7dff5-1206-4941-b0dd-0d67305346fa.jpg[/img]

Also refer to IWM TR325 again - the sailor with the Bren gun. B turret is trained to starboard and you can see the port face of the gunhouse. According to the profiles you shared, it should be 507C but it's very clearly painted in MS4. After some study and iterations, Richard and I arrived at this illustration.
[img]http://village.photos/images/user/483a5850-3d62-4900-8176-6062170ac842/resized_47d006a9-c64e-4b5b-a5b1-a8d433ecabef.jpg[/img]

As for the boats overall, I cannot be sure from the photos I have. It looks like the boats located on the furthest outboard cradles (i.e. the ones you can clearly see from outside the ship) are painted dark - either 507A or B5.

but then I had a lot of questions about painting the whole pile of boats and boats. colors? the sides and the underwater part ..what color are the boats inside?.also the underwater part of two types of boats?.... I will be grateful for any photos and tips.With respect Ivan

507A (around 11 RF)
B5 (around 15 RF)
MS4 (around 30 RF) and
507C (around 40 RF in reality, though generally described as 45 RF - that difference is not worthy of concern on a model).

Good afternoon.After almost a year break due to their failures and banal laziness... I continued working on my king George 42...After reviewing the new works and materials for painting, I decided to move from 43 years to 42..on convoy wars. Sacrificing some of the anti-aircraft weapons in exchange for a cheerful gray-green MS-4 and additional boat weapons.

Hello Ivan,

Working with Richard, Sean, Michael and James, I did a considerable amount of analysis of the Nov 1942 colour photos to try and determine the shades of paint on this ship. I used tools such as the mkweb color summariser http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/colorsummarizer/. It is not an exact science, but a reasonable indicator of relative colour and tone. An example is attached using IWM TR 325 (reduced in size, sorry - the original is way too large) showing what I believe to be white countershading on the barrels, along with MS4 on the turret, barrel and upper barbette, and B5 on the lower barbette. Sampling on the starboard bridge face (B turret is trained to starboard, as is probably well realised) shows a 507A band with MS4 beneath it.

Someone may be hoarding information and not sharing it with the public, but I know of no record that gives us exact information as to what the scheme was. All I can say is that I have little doubt that there are four paints on the ship in Nov 42, and they were probably still in use in Mar 43 when at Oran.

In short, I agree with Richard. The shades, in my view, are:

507A (around 11 RF)
B5 (around 15 RF)
MS4 (around 30 RF) and
507C (around 40 RF in reality, though generally described as 45 RF - that difference is not worthy of concern on a model).

Regards,
Lindsay

The mid-tone on the gun barrels you see there is MS4; the photograph is dated 1942 as per Richard's post above.[/quote]
:doh_1: my big mistake .... this is tower "A" and not "B" :worship_1:
thank you so much ... figured out a little with three shades of color...left to deal with the B6-B30



also the question arises with the coloring of the upper parts of the mast .. so as it can be seen that they differ significantly from the primary color, but also among themselves too

The original formula for G45 was the same as for 507C (albeit the proportions of the two different whites was reversed and there was no Pattern 12 light grey enamel added).

A1/G.45
Pattern 409 White lead oil paste ... 50lb
Pattern 371 Blue black paste ... 7lb
Pattern 104 Zinc oxide white ... 28lb
Raw linseed oil ... 11 pints
White spirit ... 10 pints
Pattern 773 Liquid dryers ... 3 pints

Warm / khaki coloured shades are not G45

Admiralty Fleet Order 2106/43 tells us
[quote]Paints of the A.1 and A.2 type have not yet been established under Admiralty pattern numbers. Since, however, the A.2 type paints have the same gloss as Admiralty Pattern 507 paints, A.2/G.10 and A.2/G45 paints are in fact the same as Admiralty Pattern 507A and 507C paints respectively.[/quote]


The mid-tone on the gun barrels you see there is MS4; the photograph is dated 1942 as per Richard's post above.

so, as I plan to make it around August-September of the 43rd year .. then your second variant of coloring and who, judging by the photos, is the color of the G45 more reliable