Color of BB-38, Penn. on 7/12/41.

Steve H. wrote:

Hi Ok, if the Arizona was "blue/med gray, was her sister{Pennsy} also the same sceem? And as "Fleet Flagship" what would her turret tops colors be? Any ideas? ? ? ? ? ? ?   SteveH

Well, on July 12, 1941 (7/12/41 in the usual USA practice) the color would have been an MS1 scheme of Dark gray/ Light gray with deck blue steel decks and teak colored wood decks. However, if you mean on December 7, 1941 (12/7/41, in the USA), the jury is still out. I wouldn't let it bother me as whatever color it was on either specific date isn't that important to me as I prefer the earlier standard Navy Gray scheme which was a light gray that looked very attractive on those ships of the Pacific Fleet. Having painted a number of ships in that horrible looking MS1 scheme I would rather use any camo measure but that. WS

http://home.att.net/~shipmodelfaq/smf-q046.html

Is this accurate?

ps1scw wrote:

http://home.att.net/~shipmodelfaq/smf-q046.html Is this accurate?

It is accurate. The ship was in MS1. The questions have arisen over new evidence that some of the Pearl Harbor ships may have had the MS1 colors changed, specifically, the dark gray may have been changed to a very dark blue. The Pearl Harbor memorial has accepted a model of Arizona with the blue scheme. I don't know at this point where the research stands on the Pennsylvania.

If it is that important to you to be absolutely correct than paint it in the dark gray scheme because that is accurate for most of 1941. WS

Dreadnought52 wrote:

ps1scw wrote: http://home.att.net/~shipmodelfaq/smf-q046.html Is this accurate? It is accurate. The ship was in MS1. The questions have arisen over new evidence that some of the Pearl Harbor ships may have had the MS1 colors changed, specifically, the dark gray may have been changed to a very dark blue. The Pearl Harbor memorial has accepted a model of Arizona with the blue scheme. I don't know at this point where the research stands on the Pennsylvania. If it is that important to you to be absolutely correct than paint it in the dark gray scheme because that is accurate for most of 1941. WS

 

While this is a truly great photo from WW2 from the point of view of the historic record of damage it doesn't help resolve color questions. In a black and white photo like this there is no way to tell if the dark part of the Pennsylvania is 5D dark gray or 5N or 5S dark blue. All of them are VERY dark colors.

As I said earlier I don't like any of those color schemes and will be painting the rest of my pre-war battleship models in the earlier overall standard navy gray scheme. It isn't worth quibbling over because you can use the 5D dark gray scheme and be perfectly accurate for most of 1941 and probably for December 7 as well. You may NEVER get a definitive answer, to me it just doesn't matter. WS

The discussion on whether or not Arizona was painted with 5-D or 5-S (5-N was not used in the Pacific Fleet until 16 Dec 41 on one destroyer) is based on a paragraph contained in an order issued 6 Oct 41 named Confidential Notice No. 15 CN-41.  The Paragraph, number 9, stated the following:

"Pending receipt of comprehensive instructions from the Bureau of Ships, no change is contemplated in the present directive providing for the general application of Measure 1 to ships in the U. S. Pacific Fleet. However, inasmuch as the manufacture of Formula 5-D has been discontinued, painting will of necessity be limited to touching up with available supplies of this paint, until general issue of the new formulas, 5-S, 5-0 and 5-H has been initiated. Ships having exhausted supplies of formula 5-D, will requisition sufficient Formula 5-S, to apply Measure 1A of paragraph 2 above, and will report application of this measure to Type Commanders."

The persons saying that Arizona was painted using 5-S have used this paragraph to justify their statements about the color.  But, these same people usually stop citing this paragraph once they get to the statement about requisitioning sufficient Formula 5-S.  They don't  mention that this paragraph specificaly states how the use of 5-S is to be applied, which is Measure 1A.  Measure 1A, as described in this notice, is:

"Apply Formula 5-S to all vertical and horizontal surfaces except decks."

Notice that this is not what photographs of both Arizona and Pennsylvania show them to have been painted, since this measure requires that the fighting tops are also to have been painted in 5-S, not 5-L Light Gray as photographs show.  This order, 15 CN-41, is an order to begin experimenting with different camouflage schemes in order to replace Measure 1, and only addresses the replacement of 5-D in light of the fact that the production of 5-D paint had been discontinued.  The full text of 15 CN-41 can be seen here:

http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/S19-7/15-CN-41.html

Now, since the model of the Arizona was placed on display, a few veterans have commented on the color of the model.  These are anecdotal observations, but they are telling.  There has been disagreement on this color (5-S) being correct by these veterans.  Most have said that the battleships were painted "black".  One vet stated that the color of the model as incorrect, since that was the color that cruiser were painted.  Also, the reference to "Mediterranean Blue", which was first mentioned when the model was presented, was quickly backed away from since this color was an RAF color, and there were at least three distinct shades of this color.  Since the presentation of the model for display, no solid documentary evidence has been provided to support the use of 5-S in a Measure 1 scheme, nor has any evidence been provided that any specific battleship used 5-S in its paint scheme at that time.  All the evidence, including some newly found letters and orders, all point to one conclusion.  5-S was not in use for the Battle Line on 7 Dec 41.  All the battleships present that day were painted in Measure 1, using 5-D and 5-L.

Jon

:sigh:

Hi Jon. Let's ignore you for a bit and start at the beginning.

Answering the original question, Pennsylvania was probably still in 5-D at the time of the attack but would have been repainting into 5-S... either at the time of the attack or when her yard work would have been finishing. No photographs or documentation's been found that mentions it however.

Dreadnought 52: Measure1 DID NOT call out for Deck Blue. Also, 5-S (Sea Blue) is not a dark blue. 5-N Navy Blue was, however.

PS1SCW and Dreadnought 52: No, that page is not accurate. The paints used in the original Ships-2 were NOT based on white and black, the 5-D Dark Gray is actually a very, very dark shade of blue and the only difference between 5-D Dark Gray, 5-O Ocean Gray, and 5-L Light Gray was the amount of tinting material used. 5-O has a blue tint to it. I would suggest using the list and description of Measures at ShipCamouflage.com instead of the link posted.

Now, on to Jon's missive. It's really quite disingenuous. I would suggest those that are interested read MORE than just one paragraph of one document. I've been posting USN WWII camouflage documents here; in fact the one Jon linked to is one I posted. In addition to the aforementioned 15 CN-41, you will see such things as an early August memo referring to Measure 12, about a month and a half before it was officially released in the first rev of SHIPS2, and a suggestion that two ships in the 13th Naval District be painted that way.

You might also notice a mid September memo ordering new construction on the East Coast to be painted in Sea Blue. Sure, it's not Pearl, but that's two months before Arizona's last yard period and almost three months before the actual attack.. nearly a quarter of the year. You really think the west coast is going to lag that much?

I'd really encourage everyone to read through the documentation posted on shipcamouflage and my site and make up your own mind. I'll be posting more as I find it too.

First, I'd like to say that Tracy is correct in that the original colors of the July 1941 SHIPS-2 were not developed from black and white.  All of those colors are various shades of blue.  When I wrote that back in 1995, I must have incorrectly wrote that.  5-D is a very dark blue color, which came pre-mixed from the paint facilities of the Navy.

Tracy White wrote:

Now, on to Jon's missive. It's really quite disingenuous. I would suggest those that are interested read MORE than just one paragraph of one document. I've been posting USN WWII camouflage documents here; in fact the one Jon linked to is one I posted. In addition to the aforementioned 15 CN-41, you will see such things as an early August memo referring to Measure 12, about a month and a half before it was officially released in the first rev of SHIPS2, and a suggestion that two ships in the 13th Naval District be painted that way.

 The original theory of this replacement of 5-D with 5-S was originally proposed back in 1999-2000, and was based, as stated at that time, on this one paragraph in this confidential notice.  Further, this theory ignored the last part of this paragraph, which designated specifically what measure was to have been used if 5-S was used in place of 5-D.  That is what has been the original basis for this claim. 

As for disingeniousness, let's look at the August memo Tracy references.  This memo is a discussion of how Measure 1 is to be applied, in accordance with the instruction set forth in SHIPS-2.  Yes, it does mention that two ships are not painted in Measure 1, but this is what it says:

"It is noted that the BARNEGAT and PLATTE are not carrying out Measure One in that they are using no light gray on surfaces above the top of the stack level. Several of the District Craft which have arrived in the Navy Yard from conversion yards are also completely painted in dark gray. Steps will be taken to correct this type of paint."

But this doesn't suggest that Measure 12 be used in their schemes.  Rather, this paragraph states that these ships are to have their schemes corrected to comply with the instructions of Measure 1.  Then this memo goes into the understood use of Measure 12 in the Atlantic Fleet, then the suggestion that these two ships comform to Measure 12, and then closes with instructions that all ships conform to the style of painting prescribed by CinCPac.  Since the style of painting prescribed by CinCPac at this time was Measure 1, it can be assumed that any other design authorized would have used the colors of Measure 1.

 

Tracy White wrote:

You might also notice a mid September memo ordering new construction on the East Coast to be painted in Sea Blue. Sure, it's not Pearl, but that's two months before Arizona's last yard period and almost three months before the actual attack.. nearly a quarter of the year. You really think the west coast is going to lag that much?

 

One thing that must be understood when interpreting this information is to remember that Pacific Fleet and Atlantic Fleet orders were mutually exclusive of the other fleet.  In other words, what the Atlantic Fleet was doing with camouflage did not apply to what the Pacific Fleet was doing with camouflage.  This is where most of the confusion is occurring.  Much of the justification that has recently appeared is based on Atlantic Fleet camouflage orders, and not on Pacific Fleet orders.  This statement is a prime example.  Look at the first paragraph of this memo:

"Paragraph 3(c) of reference (a) stated that camouflage measures would be designated about three months before the probable date of delivery of the vessel after reference to Forces Afloat."

Reference (a) is dated 10 Sep 41.  Therefore, the earliest use of the measure designated in this memo for use by Pacific Fleet (Measure 11, which is described in this memo) would have been 10 Nov 41, on new ships or conversions.  This memo does not apply to active units.  Further, the measure to be used by these new ships and conversions is specifically described in this memo, and it is not what photographs show to have been in use during the attack.

Now, lets look at SHIPS-2, which was revised to include the color 5-S, in September 1941.  Included in the cover letter included with these new instructions is this statement:

"References (a) and (b) authorized Paint Manufacturing Yards to provide the products required by the measures of the revision and to cease the production of those materials required only by the measures in the first edition which are now rendered obsolete. The measures of the revision will become effective for all ships in commission when directed by the Commanders-in-Chief.  New construction and conversions will be painted as directed in reference (c)."

This statement is very instructive.  First, reference (c) is the memo discussed above about new ships.  Notice that this letter specifically authorizes the individual Commanders in Chief to decide when these new measures are to be used.  This is where Confidential Notice No. 15 CN-41 becomes relevant.  This notice is an order to begin experimenting with the different measures under the new edition of SHIPS-2.  It designated specifically what colors are to be used, and how they are to be applied.  It also addresses the fact that production of 5-D has ceased, and what measure is to be used in case existing stocks of 5-D are exhausted.  At no point is 5-S authorised to be used in place of 5-D using Measure 1 as the design.  There are examples of ships painted with 5-S in photographs taken during the attack (Phoenix being the best) which show that these ships were painted in accordance with Paragraph 9, using Measure 1A (which became Measure 11). 

So to address the question about Pennsylvania.  She was in drydock to fix her shafts.  She was painted in Measure 1, in accordance with Pacific Fleet directives.  The colors used were 5-L and 5-D.  The speculation that 5-S was used is just that, speculation.  There is no documentary evidence that 5-S was used in a Measure 1 scheme for a Pacific Fleet unit. 

Jon

 

ironship wrote:

Yes, it does mention that two ships are not painted in Measure 1, but this is what it says: "It is noted that the BARNEGAT and PLATTE are not carrying out Measure One ... ::snip::  But this doesn't suggest that Measure 12 be used in their schemes.  Rather, this paragraph states that these ships are to have their schemes corrected to comply with the instructions of Measure 1.  Then this memo goes into the understood use of Measure 12 in the Atlantic Fleet, then the suggestion that these two ships comform to Measure 12, and then closes with instructions that all ships conform to the style of painting prescribed by CinCPac.  Since the style of painting prescribed by CinCPac at this time was Measure 1, it can be assumed that any other design authorized would have used the colors of Measure 1.

If you read the memo in its entirity it's clear that Com13 (Commandant of the 13th Naval District) says that these two ships and District craft (tugs, etc.) have been seen in an incorrect application of Ms1. He calls for these mistakes to be corrected, but on these ships in general and not specifically Barnegat and Platte. He then SUGGESTS later that these two ships be painted in Measure 12 (page 2). He's not saying that they have been inadvertantly painted in Ms 12; Ms 1 and 12 are totally different. He's saying they're not in Ms 1 proper, but let's paint them in Ms 12. 

Now, just so I don't get accused later of missing this, note that when he calls for Measure 12 he changes the color to 5-D from the Atlantic's 5-S. My point is not the color, but the fact that there were ships painted in non-standard measures. 

ironship wrote:

Much of the justification that has recently appeared is based on Atlantic Fleet camouflage orders, and not on Pacific Fleet orders.  ::snip::  Now, lets look at SHIPS-2, which was revised to include the color 5-S, in September 1941.  Included in the cover letter included with these new instructions is this statement: ::snip:: There is no documentary evidence that 5-S was used in a Measure 1 scheme for a Pacific Fleet unit.

The Atlantic orders are mentioned for those that insist that there is NO WAY any ship could have been 5-S at Pearl. It's clear that the Navy *IN GENERAL* had moved beyond Measures 1-5 and 5-D before the attack on Pearl. Also, the Navy did warn units that new camouflage instructions were to be released and you would see temporary orders issued that stated, to effect, "do this until these orders hit."

Regarding your comment on SHIPS-2 and 5-S, while the September revision included 5-S for the first time, the paint had been in manufacture for at least a month and a half at that point and two and a half months by the time SHIPS-2 Rev 1 was distributed. 

I do not have access to all of the documents yet so there are significant gaps to what I have been able to post, and I agree with the last point of yours, but I am working to fix that.

Tracy White wrote:

Now, just so I don't get accused later of missing this, note that when he calls for Measure 12 he changes the color to 5-D from the Atlantic's 5-S. My point is not the color, but the fact that there were ships painted in non-standard measures.

 We agree that this is what's contained in the memo.  However, your original use of this memo was not meant to conclude this.  Your original use was to say that since Measure 12 is mentioned in this memo, you infer that Measure 12 must have been used on these two ships, and therefore 5-S was being used in Pacific Fleet.  There is no basis for this conclusion based on this memo.  In fact, the first paragraph of this memo is very instructive when compared to this inference:

"1.     The Commandant has no desire to interpret the directives issued by the responsible Unit Commanders of Forces Afloat. It is desirable, however, to bring to the attention of all who may be concerned the wide variation in the procedure being followed by various ships in respect to camouflage painting."

Further, since this memo was issued to a very specific group of units ("MEMORANDUM for Ships Present and Yard Activities Concerned"), the relevance of the fact that Measure 12 is suggested for use is contrary to the first paragraph.  Since BARNEGAT and BISCAYNE would not have been subject to his suggestions, the mere fact that Measure 12 is mentioned as a suggestion holds no relevance as to what other ships were painted three months in the future.

Tracy White wrote:

The Atlantic orders are mentioned for those that insist that there is NO WAY any ship could have been 5-S at Pearl. It's clear that the Navy *IN GENERAL* had moved beyond Measures 1-5 and 5-D before the attack on Pearl. Also, the Navy did warn units that new camouflage instructions were to be released and you would see temporary orders issued that stated, to effect, "do this until these orders hit."

The only person I'm aware of that has suggested that 5-S was not in use at the time of the attack is you, and you made that claim in order to provide yourself with a point of contention.  Nobody who has disagreed with this theory of 5-D/5-S replacement has stated that 5-S was not in use during the attack.  In fact, there are numerous examples of 5-S in use on Phoenix, and these examples show she has followed the instructions of 15 CN-41 and painted into a Measure 1A scheme (overall Sea Blue).  It is true that command had notified ships of future changes (once again, read paragraph 9 of 15 CN-41), but the experiments that were being conducted under 15 CN-41 had not been concluded at the time of the attack.  In fact, a new color (5-N) is added to this program on 22 NOV 41, and one of the first evaluations of these new colors isn't submitted until 6 DEC 41.

 

Tracy White wrote:

Regarding your comment on SHIPS-2 and 5-S, while the September revision included 5-S for the first time, the paint had been in manufacture for at least a month and a half at that point and two and a half months by the time SHIPS-2 Rev 1 was distributed.

 

And the experimental program was initiated three and a half months after production of the 5-S components began, and the first reports of these colors effectiveness weren't submitted until five and a half months after production of the 5-S components began.  The point you're attempting to make is irrlevant simply by what the documentation says.  There is no evidence that 5-S was used as a replacement for 5-D in Measure 1. 

You're practicing selective history and miss-interpretation again Jon, and I'm through wasting time.