The Ship Model Forum

Yeah, some of the ships in the Pacific Fleet never got a chance at a dockyard repaint before they had to go into combat, hence the quarter inch of dried oil paint on the bulkheads, which burns much like lino does.... (except it separates from the surface, fractures, and then floats in the thermals while burning intensely hot on both sides) Perfect igniters for the hot gasses being released by the Lino.... (like waving an open flame torch around the production floor of a gunpowder factory)

It was very expensive getting from a peacetime navy to a wartime navy....

I remember reading some of that, 180 fahrenheit and the paint starts to blister off the surface, 240 it's degassing, 260 it melts and and then it directly burns .... A cordite fire starts out at 500+ degrees...

The pant and what it would do wasn't a real surprise to them, it was the lino that flabbergasted them... they had the burn test on it from the early adoption studies that showed it didn't catch fire very well from an open flame.... And when it did light/ignite it burned slowly like a candle, in the open air drawing fuel and heat from itself..... They didn't count on it being the lining of passageways that contained and concentrated heat like an oven...

This is an excellent example of 5-O, 5-S, 5-D, and black all in one picture.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/hi ... o-29-.html

This is USS Santee as she has nearly completed her transition out of MS-1 into MS-12 in December '41. Notice how very light and how similar in tone 5-S and 5-O are. The biggest complaint about 5-S was that it was too light. Way to close to 5-O in color to be effective.

Although I don't completely disagree Jeff as to the basis for going to a darker color, (5-N) to me what this pic (when reassembled) shows is something even more important to understanding lighting and coloration in B&W photography... Yes you can see little difference in the 5-S and 5-O on the stern but what I also see on the stern is the reflectivity of both in direct sunlight, it is identical.... On the bow where the angle to the sun is not as direct and the reflectivity has lessened you can clearly see the differences in tone of 5-S & 5-O..

This is why it is impossible to tell by the image alone what the color is in B&W photography!!!! Without the data of when the photo was taken and the records of what is happening, showing only the stern portion of the ship, one could make the argument she is being repainted in overall 5-O... There is nothing to say different....

This is why I absolutely agree with many here that the ideal of judging colors on the basis of B&W photography alone is an exercise in futility....

Just a little note, if this is december of '41, ms. 12 was almost a purely atlantic fleet scheme and they were repainting into it using 5-N and had been for several months.... (in fact Ms.12 Mod was the order of the day) The Pac flt was repainting into Ms. 11 overall Sea Blue... (acknowledging that there are issues with which color was being used in the overall scheme, 5-S was the official ordered color)

And, if it was after Dec 16th, all orders, in all fleets, were committed to 5-N and 5-S went away fast. So an accurate full date of when this ship is being repainted is extremely important to deciding what colors are being used....

The colors can't be determined by the pics alone...

Transferring the over from the At 'em Arizona thread...


>That's why the other topic was created Sean, there are still opinions going both ways....

>There's a lot of anecdotal evidence pointing to her being in 5-S that cannot be dismissed....

It certainly can, if a photo taken 2 months after she was sunk - during which time there's no way anyone would have repainted her in 5-D - show her in dark gray.

>And a great deal of photographic evidence that say it as well.... (that a lot of different explanations have been offered to explain why she appears very bright blue in some excellent photography both still and moving rather than black, very dark faded grey or very dark blue)

This is why I find the Hammondsport photo so telling: an actual color comparison comparison within the same photo, where any question of color shifting, contrast, or a multitude of other photo developing issues are pretty much moot. Apples to apples in the same picture, rather than "in this photo she looks like this, but in that other one... and compared against this picture of another ship we knew to be in..." and so on.

>Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I doubt we will ever know the truth at this late date....

>Interesting that the historians at the Pearl Harbor center consider her to have been blue....

>One thing is true, she wasn't blue very long.....

>But we should leave that discussion over in the Camouflage area under the Colors of the ships at Pearl, and not bring it up here...

I didn't start that... someone else did with the reposting of the November 41 drydock photo. But done!

>As far as the USS Hammondsport photo? the Arizona's #3 turret sides clearly photographed as bright blue, coupled with the Life photos in the '50's, more than ten years after the battle, is my smoking gun.... Add to that the survivors testimony that they repainted her in blue?

Looks to my eyes like turret 3 is catching full sun, hence its brightness, and it looks like a much more neutral color tone than Hammondsport's blue.

>My opinion is she was blue brother..... (and as anything in modeling, build her as you envision her to be, Ms.1 5-D or 5-S with 5-L tops there is evidence that points to both as accurate)

Yes... this being why I describe my build as "late '41" rather than specifically December 7. That way, I get to put Kingfishers on her, too!

Honestly I hadn't meant to wade back into this debate, but I found it amusing how you agreed (with most others, myself included obviously) that the November '41 photo shows Arizona in 5-D, while the most vociferous voice I know of on the topic - the aforementioned Ron Smith - thought the same photo was proof she was already in 5-S. Just an observation on my part for how wildly differently photos get interpreted; then I grew it out into the Hammondsport photo as an example of photo comparison within the same original-color picture.

But for another B&W comparison of how 5-D can appear in photos - note how light Arizona's catapult looks in September '41, when no one disputes she was in 5-D: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013938a.jpg
Or Maryland - clearly mid-41 based on the monotone Kingfishers (and note the color change on her turret top!):
http://navsource.org/archives/01/046/014642a.jpg

- Sean F.

You know that is a fact! But some people insist that she was painted blue with Zero evidence because they "say" that she "looked" different in some photo's.
It's a hoax.
The model was painted wrongly And all the stories were just made up to please the people who want some shred of "evidence" that the model was painted correctly.
People love to fool other people!
I grew up on Oahu in the fifties and you could boat around the wreck before they built that mausoleum on her.
There was only a boat platform with a flagpole to hoist the flag. The above water parts of the wreck were painted blue because paint is a preservative. It was a war grave and they tried to preserve her as such!
They used Navy Blue because the post war navy was gray and they had a lot of Navy blue left over. I guess.
The underwater parts looked like a mustard brown.
It looked exactly like my memories in the Life photo.
FWIW

As an update on the USS HAMMONDSPORT and USS ARIZONA image. Based on the previous discussion about when the Tower on Ford Island was completed and painted in camo and known movements of USS HAMMONDSPORT from her War Diaries and deep diving into images and records when USS ARIZONA's mainmast tripod and cranes were removed, the photo was most likely taken in May 1942 (around the 29th), not February 1942. The wrecks were ordered not to be painted until they had been salvaged and repairs started.

I'm 99.9% certain that HAMMONDSPORT is painted with 5-N (whether early formula or post March 1942 alteration to the paint formula was used when the gloss was reduced, is unknown) in this photo.

For me the question is was ARIZONA in the "PROCESS" of being repainted? PH was pretty much out of 5-D paint by the end of November 1941. The #3 turret visible in this transparency is certainly much "bluer" than her tripod mainmast that I believe had yet to be repainted. 5-D didn't have blue tint in the mix. But, is the paint on turret #3 5-D, 5-S, 5-N ... I don't know. According to some survivors, ARIZONA had started to be repainted the weekend before the attack from the bottom up (hull and turrets, etc were done), but had not completed the repaint job. Whether the paint being used was 5-S or 5-N is an unknown. From the documentation at NARA it is pretty clear that a repainting of the Battleships was going to happen and very soon. With the Atlantic Fleet switching from 5-S to 5-N in October-November 1941, the Pacific Fleet could use the new "paint color". A directive for a destroyer (USS FLUSSER) which had been painted in 5-S for evaluation, was ordered late in November to be repainted with 5-N. The 16 December 1942 memo directing the Fleet be repainted in 5-N, rather than 5-S HAD to have been in staff discussion and comments review before the attack a week earlier. There are two copies of that memo, both are dated 16 December, but one is a marked up draft copy with comments hand-written on it and the final version with the changes. The final evaluation report about the series of schemes/colors evaluated on five destroyers was issued in January 1942, delayed by the war. Since the Pacific Fleet and Battle Fleet command were all located at PH and because a WAR WARNING had been issued on 27 November 1941, many decisions and directives can and likely were being made in meetings with no paper trail. Trivial things like paint to use could be decided very quickly in the face of actual fighting. The Battle Fleet was concerned about being sent to the Philippines.

Arizona was at sea the weekend before the attack..

Nov. 12 - 0858 USS Arizona undocked and moored at Berth B-2
Nov. 13 - 0814 USS Oklahoma moved into Drydock. 1003 USS Arizona underway and stood out.
Nov. 14 - At sea (not sure with which ships if any)
Nov. 15 - At sea (not sure with which ships if any)
Nov. 16 - At sea (not sure with which ships if any)
Nov. 17 - 0920 USS Arizona stood in and moored at 1007. (Not sure which Berth. It was not her normal Berth F-7 because Pennsylvania was there and her log does not indicate that Arizona moored with her.)
Nov. 18 - At Pearl. Berth unknown. 1457 Fire on Arizona. Away Fire and Rescue Party.
Nov. 19 - At Pearl. Berth unknown.
Nov. 20 - At Pearl. Berth unknown.
Nov. 21 - At Pearl. Berth unknown.
Nov. 22 - At Pearl. Berth unknown.
Nov. 23 - Unknown because Pennsylvania was at sea.
Nov. 24 - Unknown because Pennsylvania was at sea.
Nov. 25 - Unknown because Pennsylvania was at sea.
Nov. 26 - Unknown because Pennsylvania was at sea.
Nov. 27 - Unknown because Pennsylvania was at sea.
Nov. 28 - Unknown because Pennsylvania was at sea.
Nov. 29 - At Sea. Also at 0852 USS Oklahoma left Drydock and moored at 1010 dock.
Nov. 30 - At Sea. Also at 0545 USS Oklahoma got underway and stood out.
Dec. 1 - Pennsylvania's deck logs state that BATDIV 1 is in port but there is no log entries of when they supposedly stood in so I'm a bit skeptical of this entry.
Dec. 2 - At sea.
Dec. 3 - At Sea.
Dec. 4 - At Sea.
Dec. 5 - 0920 USS Arizona stood in and moored at Berth F-7.
Dec. 6 - Berth F-7
Dec. 7 - Attack.

My next logical step to filling in some of these holes is to check the logs of USS Nevada and USS Oklahoma (if they exists).
At this point there is a possibility of 10 days between Nov. 18-28 that she could have been painted while at Pearl.

I suspect however that Arizona and Nevada also left Pearl on or around Nov. 23 and didn’t return until Dec.5.

Anecdotal evidence is usually verbal testimony, all of the survivors of the Arizona reported both singly and in groups that she was painted and most of them recalled the color was blue... OR, when asked to point out the color when they didn't remember, they pointed to blue..... There is the one story about the survivor who visited the memorial for the only time in his life and broke down when he looked at that model (Don Pruel's) saying that they finally got it right.....

It is my opinion that the dozens of survivors that were still with us when the color issue hit the big time, wouldn't lie about such a thing, nor would they have conspired to collectively get their stories straight to make sure the all told the same story... All of their stories are remarkable similar and all to a man clearly stated that she was painted right after coming out of drydock in November....

Too many to just simply disregard it IMHO.....

As far judging color from B&W photography? I'm already on record here that without documentary evidence one way or the other, judging color from B&W photography alone is a fool's effort... It can't be done by the photo alone...... I was told that by professional photographers and experienced historical investigators.... And several members of this same forum have sid the same thing multiple times I am in agreement with them....

I generally disregard color opinions based solely on B&W photography....

The AZ in Drydock was in Ms.1 5-D with 5-L tops, how do I know that? There are records that she was painted into it prior to November '41 and no records she painted out of it by November '41

All arguments that she was in some other scheme are not backed up by the documentary record.... And besides, the people who would kow were the crew, and in their anecdotal testimony, they also have stated that they hated the 5-D composite paint they were issued, why? cause it faded and chalked up way too fast and they didn't like having to constantly paint her in what they considered a hideous color...

The history is not just about records, it is also about the experiences and memories of those who were there, it would be foolish to dismiss such.... If I did that it would be like saying that the crewmen who were there don't know and I who was born after the war knows better than the people who actually painted her as part of their duties....

Sadly too many people are way too willing to do just that....

The people who were on her said she was and the documents we have in hand say that such was a very good possibility, and what photo evidence we have say's it as well...

A year ago I was also a believer in the 5-D and only 5-D, until I did my own research and tapped into other resources after learning about the decade old controversy... What I've learned, to my logical mind, comes to one conclusion, she was blue....

No, there is no absolute proof, but there is a preponderance of evidence, a large enough preponderance to convince most people...

Hopefully, we will find the absolute proof, much like the arguments that centered around the turret roof color controversy between those that argued they were and those claiming they weren't despite the preponderance of evidence saying they were.... Turns out the absolute proof was found (fleet orders spelling the color scheme out) and the arguments about them not were put to permanent rest..... Seems like to me that the preponderance of evidence on that argument eventually turned out to be the truth...

And I strongly believe it will eventually win this one....

That is my view on this subject and arguments about what about this and that that may be a factor used to dismiss any portions of the evidence in hand that disagree with a personal point of view, are biased and not really worth much....

The true work is finding the evidence that ties all the disparate information into something that accounts for all of the evidence and makes sense in a complete picture.... Unlike the turret top color issue, we aren't there yet as far as the ships true color the day of the attack... But, all of the evidence combined, not excluding anything, only makes sense if the ship was blue the day of the attack...

The arguments against such either try to dismiss portions of the evidence (as above, we can dismiss the survivors testimony about paint altogether) or explain portions away with theories that no one can validate (greytone shading is a valid judge of color all on it's own)

I'm an amature historian, and one thing I've learned in investigating history, things are usually what the evidence, ALL the evidence shows them to be.....

Right now the preponderance of ALL the evidence points squarely to the Arizona being primarily blue on the day of the attack... (there is still an unanswered question on how far they got in painting her out of 5-D, the fact that they were repainting her out of 5-D is no longer a question)

And pretty much anyone who has a solid stake in this issue (historians, archivists and model companies have decided to go with that preponderance and color her blue....

Considering myself a historian, that is what I believe....

EG

And I believe there is a B&W photo of her returning on the 5th, (touted as the last known pic of her before the attack) inbound in the harbor channel showing her in much lighter greytones than the November pic of her in drydock... If you believe the people that feel they can judge colors by the various greytones in B&W imagery you would think they would latch onto that pic as plain evidence of a color change....

But no, they tend to ignore that pic or dismiss it using the same arguments as those who refuse to judge on B&W photos, different light, different angles etc etc...

And since her deck logs that cover the period in question went up in the fire, the only way to really know is hope another ship recorded something about her appearance in their deck logs.....

I agree with Jeff here, it's a hail mary in research, but appears given the situation Rick describes in how things were getting done the only way we have any hope of finding even a bit of what we all really want....

Absolute proof....

But we will either eventually find it, or we won't, what is true is that the preponderance points heavily to one possible ending of the story, and over time it will become accepted as the truth unless someone comes out with a smoking gun proving the opposite..... (a lot less likely to happen but seeking absolute proof works both ways)

I hope we do find it....

Instead of lumping all of the survivors in one general claim, how about you present each survivors words here if they exist in some form. Surely there must be some documented evidence from each survivor for you to make this claim and speak for them.

We all have to face the fact that If I handed over an order, an absolutely verified document, from Admiral Kidd to Capt. Van Valkenberg ordering him to have his ship painted blue, there are still people that would not believe it and argue otherwise.....

Unfortunately, we will always be dealing with those types....

I've done my investigation and have come to my conclusions, I will now bow out and allow the discussion to continue... Absent any new information it has become boring and pointless...

EG

Why don't you re-read the thread on the Arizona right on this forum, the sources are all there....I'm not asking you to believe me, investigate and find out for yourself....

And I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking of them from others who have related this publicly available info.... (supplemented with some of my own research)

And I've been doing this long enough to know that when it eventually comes down to attacking the reporters reporting, (and it always does) there is no further point to the discussion, basically it is a sign that the accuser is unwilling to do the work to find out for themselves and has an opinion not open to change.... (no matter what evidence is brought forth or pointed to)

I've read the forum for years as a lurker..... I opened up cause I had some questions and received sufficient answers for myself...

I'll go back to my cubby now, if I have more questions I'll ask them but in private to those who most likely will have an answer without an opinion....

Thank you everyone who has offered researchable accurate info, and I appreciate those with nothing but opinions, that good as well, it forces one to question...

Signing off...

Wait! Before you go, can you tell me where you have seen the photo of her you claim is on December 5th? I find it very odd that nobody else on this forum or any other has ever spoken of it. I would truly like to see it.

Reminder: "Johnny Tyler" posts will be deleted. See first post on Page 1 for rules.

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby

Hi Steve,
What scenario is there to protect the rest of us from a poster just throwing out claim after claim with no evidence at all to back up those claims? When asked to present any evidence to support those claims they simply won’t (or can’t) do it. Instead they pull out the “you’re bullying me! Find it yourself” card.
All posters must be able to back up their claims if questioned. If they refuse to present any evidence then they are simply trolling.
So, which clientele is more valuable to you?

Reminder for all: to post here, meet these guidelines:

1. Presentation of documentary, photographic and video capture evidence is welcome and invited. If you know the photos or video captures are colorized, state so.
2. Posts inviting analysis, interpretation and thoughtful, respectful discussion of presented evidence are welcome and invited.
3. Keep an open mind and be respectful of persons with different opinions and viewpoints. Act like an adult.
4. Accept that different photographic and reproduction processes can yield different results.
5. Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Please, everyone, take a "discuss the evidence, but don't attack the person" approach. Healthy, lively but respectful discussions are welcome.

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby

Jeff, essentially I'm just parroting things form Ron, Jeff Herne, Steve himself, and a few others, Tracy et. al. I do not know as much nor have done the extensive amounts of research they have... I've done some but I would rather discuss with those that have and learn where they have been so when I continue my research I can try to go where they haven't.... why duplicate the efforts of those that came before? isn't it better to build upon them?

Sorry but that is the long and short of it... You couldn't possibly bully me, typing doesn't carry that type of weight and none of this carries the emotional baggage that it does for some...

As far as find it yourself, Ron quit these discussions cause of people that wish to argue that haven't done a lick of research.... At least I've done some....

Your asking me to repost things that have already been posted and I just don't see the need to being forced to repost all that others have already done... Tell me why I should waste my time?

Since I refuse to waste my time like you want I will no longer post in this thread... I'm sorry, I guess that means you will have to find it yourself....

Trolling? (giggle} that's funny.....

I apologise if I've offended you... Sincerely...

All I can now say is that the info you want is out there and readily available, If you care to look....
Since I was able to find it, the task should be easy for you...
I'm sorry you feel you need to be "Protected" from lil ol' me... But since you do I'm done.... I won't scare anyone anymore with my paltry postings....

I'm not leaving the forum just this thread, I never intended to start a fight and if my presence upsets some then it's best to bow out....
It's just not worth it.... whats good gets lost in the chaff...

Hard to argue with yourself...

Having spoken to Don - the person who built the model - in person about this just last year, he explained his reasons for going with that paint scheme. I certainly never felt, based on our discussion, that he "made things up". Were his conclusions right? I don't know, and I'm not here to defend them. But I do think saying he "made it up" is a bit over the top.

Personal attacks like these are what throw the whole discussion off the track. They are pointless and make everyone defensive, feeling that they have to defend their turf.

Let's keep the discussion civil and on track, and together, maybe we can uncover the facts, regardless of whichever color camp the truth lies in.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

This is the conversation Tracy and Ron had back on 12/7/2006 which can be found on the Arizona page. Don was involved with the initial research but his main contribution was the directive about the turret tops. Ron Smith and Daniel Martinez played a major roll in the decision to paint the model blue. They also put VERY heavy stock in Glenn Lane's memory. He stated that "To the best of my recollection the USS Arizona was Mediterranean Blue from the waterline to the searchlight platform the mainmast and from the bridge on the foremast. Above that she was painted Battleship Gray." This quote can be found in Don Preul's Nautical Research Journal article summer 2008. In that same article when asked if the ship was dark gray Don Stratton stated that "No, it was more like a medium gray".
Daniel Martinez went on record and said ""We had it wrong for 65 years," said Martinez. "Today, we have made it right." This quote can be found in the 12/7/2006 Star Bulletin article.

"Tracy White wrote:
Camouflage

Common Wisdom has been that the battleships at Pearl Harbor were in mostly Measure 2,


Actually that would be Measure 1 not Measure 2 but no biggie as it turns out a few wore Measure 2 modified.

Quote:
Ron Smith of AA Military Research has uncovered primary, textual documents that strongly suggests she was in a modified Measure 1 using 5-S. You will hear more about this from Ron.


As soon as Tim resets my FTP I'll be sending him a piece on 1941 camouflage with some photos. Be prepared to actually read from beginning to end and for a few shocks. I will caution people not to argue on screen colors, especially those of the S&S paint chips, they look right on *my* system but by the time they get to your system can look wildly different depending on your system settings and hardware. In fact the JPEG's look slightly different from the TIFF and RAW formats on my system.

I will not post it on Steelnavy because of the attitudes and complete lack of moderation over there, I will also strongly object if anyone links it to Steelnavy. The full scope of the material will be published sometime this year with full cites, consider this a preview and remember it is legally copyrighted.

Also remember there is a lot of overlapping research by a number of people. We have mutually agreed not to steal each other's thunder and that nothing would be released until today, December 7th, 2006. I know the answers to a lot of things but since somebody else found them I will refer to them so be patient. Don Preul is currently in Hawaii for the ceremonies so he may take a little while to add what he's found.

Don Montgomery initially found the color films over 20 years ago. Steve Wiper did some research a few years ago and assisted from Tucson by providing some record numbers for further work this year and a good bit of advice. Don Preul of course built the new model for the Memorial, found some oral and written documents and was there to help me sort through some of my finds. Norman Freidman was at the table next to us the first day when Don and I discovered that I had found the motherlode of 1941 camouflage records with items in color and paint chips that have never been found before and the fate of Arizona's 1941 records; camouflage isn't Norman's "thing" but he was quite impressed with what I found. Mike Wenger and Danny Martinez were also active this fall in the hunt for information at NARA. The staffs of the Still Photos, Motion Pictures and Textual research rooms at NARA were of great assistance and many times bent over backwards to helps us ferret out the records.

What I will be sending Tim later today is literally just the tip of the iceberg and represents a condensation of maybe 2% of the records to go through for WWII USN camouflage."