On RN WW1 Grey

[George W]

Thanks George for this item

I'm using your recommendations for Humbrol 145 (grey) for my Combrig HMS Canada (1/700) project. I wanted to check to see if horizontal deck surfaces, ie bare metal deck (not counting wood and corticine) and equipment, ie winches, etc. would be done the same colour as the verticals (hull sides). Models on this site appear to be using the same colour for these items.
Thank you
George

[Vlad]

I'm using your recommendations for Humbrol 145 (grey) for my Combrig HMS Canada (1/700) project.

Hi George,

Please excuse me butting in but which colour/time period are you using Humbrol 145 for? I assume the recommendation came in a PM since I can't find it in this thread.

Thanks

[George W]

Vlad

Please do join in. It is in the Feb 4 post above. H145 (WWI beyond Nov 1914) still looks very dark and not unlike H32 (1902 - Nov 1914) which is what I used on it last spring before I stopped for the summer. I'm not sure what "to light" means. I looked at the WWI battleships on this site yesterday and they were all lighter than H32 or H145. Also given Canada's commissioning date the 1902 to Nov 2014 (dark grey) is too early in any case so something in the "grey" time frame, ie 1915-16 would be suitable.

I plan to re-airbrush the hull (verticals) but am not sure what shade to use, Humbrol and Model Master are readily available here. The other question is what colour should I do the horizontals not otherwise covered by corticine or wood and equipment such as winches, skylights, etc.

Thank you
George

[Vlad]

George,

I may have caused some confusion. H145 was my suggestion for the 1914-1916 grey. On his Feb 04 post (I see it as Feb 05), George H is replying to my suggestion, saying H145 is too light for the 1914-1916 shade and stating that H27 would be more appropriate. See comment "to light - try 27".

I actually have HMS Queen Mary painted in overall H32 for pre-war scheme and am very happy with how she looks. I also have two other ships, one in overall H27 and another in overall H145. I can take a picture of them side by side and post it, the comparison would help this discussion.

I've also been experimenting with the Satin colours H123 and H164. I have a piece of cardboard where I painted samples of H 27, 32, 123 and 164 side by side. I will try to include this in the picture.

Finally, the fact that some models on this site look lighter is at least partly due to how much different modellers like to add a scale lightening effect. It might also be the result of lighting in the photos.

[George W]

Thanks Vlad, That would be useful. It would be very interesting to see the two colours side by side. Thank you for taking the time to do that.

I recently purchased David Griffith first book so this will give me the first chance to practice some of his techniques. I will visit the LHS before the weekend.

George

[Vlad]

Hi George,

Apologies for the delay, here are the pictures as promised.

First up, my colour palette, all colours used are labelled in red. This was done to compare the various Humbrol variations of "Sea Grey" with the "Dark Grey" H32. As you can see, the various permutations of "Sea Grey" (H27, H123 and H164) are almost indistinguishable, but they all provide a noticeable contrast to H32.

IMAG0287.jpg

Following are photos of three of my sips. HMS Queen Mary is in overall H32 representing 1901-1914 RN Dark Grey. IJN Tsukuba is in overall H27 and Moskva is in overall H145. I think that, despite the fact H27 looks quite dark in isolation, the contrast between H32 and H27 is very visible. H145 looks quite close to H27, but I think it's a little bit too light. Also, I struggled to capture this effect in the pictures but H145 has a very slightly blue-ish look, which suits a modern Russian ship but I think would look odd on a WWI battleship. H27 is a much more neutral grey.

Finally, take into account that Tsukuba is slightly weathered while the other two are not. This makes the H27 look a little bit lighter than it really does, the H32 and H145 are "pure".

IMAG0290.jpg

IMAG0291.jpg

IMAG0292.jpg

Hope that helped, let me know what you think

[George W]

Vlad
Thanks for posting these photos. You were certainly timely enough for me as I have a long weekend coming up. Depending on the lighting there is not much of a difference between 145 and 27. I will see what the LHS has in either one. Are the steel decks (not corticine or wood covered) the same colour as are the equipment, winches, etc?

Thank you again for posting the photos and your time on this.
George

[George Hargreaves]

Hi George W

In 1914 it was ordered 'Hulls and weather-work to be painted light grey'. This does include all horizontal metal surfaces. Corticene decks and wood decks were left there natural colours. In times of war even the captains boat was grey overall on the outside with the inside of lifeboats being white with thwarts being natural wood.

One of the first Figures on page one goes through this in the detail that is known.

Cheers,
George H

[Vlad]

George W,

I would say the difference beteen H27 and H145 is small but is roughly the same as that between AFO.19.11.14 and AFO.7.7.16 as seen in Figure 1 in George H's first post. My humble opinion and personal preference would be to use H27 (or H123) for 1914 to 1916 including Jutland and H145 for mid 1916 onwards.

I've also used H127 for the 1917-1918 Very Light Grey.

[Vlad]

I'm going to go back on my words a little, but I've taken another look at my ships and colour patches and I've got a dilemma. Humbrol 27 looks about right for the 1914 to 1916 grey when viewed in isolation. BUT, for me at least, this research is mainly about building a 1915 HMS Tiger with the dark rectangle on the hull. Although my photos above appear to show sufficient contrast between H32 and H27, in reality they don't look right next to each other. On different ships they look sufficiently distinct, but if they were on the same ship the contrast would be insufficient to make the dark rectangle stand out as much as it does in all the pictures of the real thing. I am currently looking at using Humbrol 165 "Medium Sea Grey" as the base colour for my Tiger, with either H32 or H164 for the dark rectangle.

[George W]

Thank you George H and Vlad

Vlad, I purchased H27 in any case. The other colours were there as well. I will try that and see how it works. Also thank you for the additional details.

George H thanks for the details on the deck details. I missed it as I was going through it.

This is a very good thread. My main area is WWII, RCN destroyers and corvettes. I hope others have benefited from it as much as I have. I will post a photo once I return to the painting. This past week I was cutting the brass rod and preparing the platforms until the paint situation got cleared up.

Thank you again

George W

[Vlad]

I just want to bring something up again. I was reading this from George H's original post. Although he later claims the light colour should be the 1914 grey (see the post with the photo of Princess Royal) I can;t help having a nagging feeling about this statement. Can it really be that shade when the contrast with the dark panel is so great in all the photos?

The Battle of Heligoland Bight, August 28, 1914, had dark panels painted on the sides for RN Battlecruisers. So the panel should have been Dark Grey but what of the other two lighter grey colours in the photos? Grey seams much to dark to match the grey in the photos from the time period. We seem to be missing the Admiralty Fleet Orders to cover this camouflage scheme.

And I managed to dig this up from a very old thread. I would assume John knows what he is talking about but what is his source for this recollection?

My recollection is that the battlecruisers were in a lighter grey than the Battle Line.

from viewtopic.php?f=69&t=97250

I really feel this is something we don't have a conclusive and satisfactory answer to. What do you guys think?

[George Hargreaves]

Hi Vlad,

Please remember that my thoughts on the Heligoland Bight colours are pure speculation; my current guess based on information I have found. This speculation is NOT supported by any Admiralty Fleet orders that I have been able to find.

So as John Wright mentioned in the earlier thread, these are neutral grays/greys and so we should be able to interpret historical photographs. But take into account the remarks Doug C made on March 10. B&W photography was much more complex with the old film.

So yes, there is much that remains lost but as I mentioned at the start of the thread: It's only gray/grey paint. Enjoy your builds.

Cheers,
George

[Vlad]

Hi George,

I'm happy just adding to the speculation. I have a few things on the workbench at the moment and when I finish those I might start some projects where all this discussion would be relevant.

In any case I want to add this to the speculation:

http://collections.rmg.co.uk/mediaLib/3 ... /large.jpg

Now, photographs may be unreliable but what of paintings? Surely an artist that had seen the ships with his own Mk. I eyeball had the means at his disposal to reproduce the colours accurately and vividly in his paintings.

There is on other thing I wanted to bring up, which would certainly shed some light if not solve the issue altogether. It's a shame that the Battlecruisers weren't based in the same place as the Grand Fleet, but are there any photographs of any of Beatty's ships in late 1914, 1915 or early 1916 where one of Jellicoe's Battleships is in the same shot? Maybe from a refit period or some exercises? I've tried to find such a picture but haven't had any luck. It would be nice to see.

[George Hargreaves]

Hi Vlad,

Nice painting of Lion by William Lionel Wyllie. I am of the thought that Subject + Mk1 eye ball + artistic licence = painting. In this case licence has lightened the colours in the distance but not in the fore front; notice how dark the steam cutters are. Looking at a number of Wyllie's works he tends to use the same shade for ships no matter the time period or the type of ship. His Southampton seams to be very light indeed but it does blend artfully with the mist. Charles Pears though may indeed put more into colour as based on his Courageous and Ramillies. Could it also be said: Subject + Mk1 eye ball + artistic licence = Ship Model?

Cheers,
George

[Vlad]

I agree with that last statement, I'm no stranger to injecting some artistic license into my builds. I guess the reason I keep asking questions, if you don't mind, is mostly since I'm thinking out lout. It feels like we've reached a stage where we should differentiate between what "looks right" and what "is right" and how important the latter is. I feel that our perceptions of how these ships looked has been skewed by those photographs that appear very light, even if this is just a trick of photography or age of the pictures. But, as you say, with all the missing information it might be correct, or at least correct for some of the ships some of the time. I think in the end I'll just go for what feels right at the time I start.

[dick]

During the course of my researches into WW2 RN paint mixes I have been tracing back the origins of some of the colours. The following may be relevant to your discussion. The earliest printed record I have noted is 1913. At that time there were two RN greys listed: Pattern No.507 and Pattern No. 507A. In 1915 a Pattern No. 507B starts to be listed but may have existed earlier as the listing seems to me (in relation to later years nearer WW2) to lag behind fleet use. In 1917 a further grey Pattern No. 507C starts to be listed (and this shade certainly existed by 14 July 1916).

The ingredients for making 1 cwt of each of these in the WW1 era was as follows:

No. 507 � �Grey� � White Lead 73 lbs; Black Ordinary 8 5/16 lbs; Turpentine substitute 6 pts; Oil, linseed, raw 16 pts; Dryers, marine 7lbs

No. 507A � �Grey, Dark shade� � White Lead 61 lbs; Black Ordinary 20 1/4 lbs; Turpentine substitute 6 pts; Oil, linseed, raw 17 pts; Dryers, marine 7lbs

No. 507B � �Grey, Light shade� � White Lead 80 lbs; Black Ordinary 4 lbs; Turpentine substitute 6 pts; Oil, linseed, raw 15 pts; Dryers, marine 6lbs

No. 507C � �Grey, Light shade, for upper works and boats of T.B.D.�s and T.B.D. Leaders� � White Lead 77 5/8 lbs; Black Ordinary 3 3/8 lbs; Turpentine substitute 6 pts; Oil, linseed, raw 17 pts; Dryers, marine 7lbs

Hope it helps.

(Strange that WEM do not use this nomenclature for their WW1 paints.)

[Vlad]

Very interesting Dick, thank you for that.

Grey 507 mix matches the 11oz black to 6lb white ratio that George terms AFO.5.8.02 therefore this is the pre-war dark shade.

Grey 507B matches the 1:20 ratio of black to white and is therefore the early war grey that was then used for hulls throughout the war, George's AFO 19.11.14

Grey 507C matches the 1:23 ratio, AFO.7.7.16.

The odd one out is the 507A which does not match anything discussed in this thread so far. It sounds very dark indeed (approx 3 white to 1 black). Could this be the near-black used for turret tops and metal decks? I've seen references to "Brunswick Green" in this context also but I find a very dark grey more plausible, although Brunswick Green itself is described as "nearly black".

Finally, if these are indeed the origins of the WWII colours with the same naming system then they changed quite a lot between the wars. The AP507A, AP507B and AP507C of WWII had a bluish tint in them if I recall correctly.

[George Hargreaves]

Hi Dick,

You are the first to reference Pattern 507, 507A, 507B and 507C. Thanks very much for this addition of the correct colour names. I am very curious on the source of your information. Could there be more colour information to be uncovered?

I am of the opinion that the Great War greys that WEM has may be special greys created by Wilkinson for his dazzle paint schemes as they do not match the greys I made. But I've been wrong before... Hopefully someday Ron Smith will have the time to fill us in.

Cheers,
George

[dick]

George,

Please see my pm to you.

Best wishes.