Apearance of USS Saucy Flower Corvette

I don't believe that it is Ms 16 with Thayer Blue.  I think that it is Western Approaches white and blue.    WA Blue is a deeper mid-tone blue.

Also consider the very RN appearance and as you surmise the date,  before she departed English waters for the States.   This is likely a photo taken to document the transfer of the ship to the US Navy.   Where did they obtain US Navy paints? 

Ed,

Thanks very much for your reply. It really makes sense.

I was influenced to render the model in measure 16 by information in the Flower Class web site. http://www.cbrnp.com/RNP/Flower/ARTICLES/USN_Flowers.htm

Bob Pearson's rendering of the vessel in May of 1942 has the paint scheme in measure 16 and cites Lynch's book, Canada's Flowers as the source. But this does not make sense. Ed, your question as to where did they even get the paint is a good one. I'm sure they did not have the special tint required for Thayer blue on hand a month before the measure 16 specifications were even published. http://www.shipcamouflage.com/ships2_6_42_paints.htm#Color.

The photo is the only one I have seen in this time period even though I have heard that there are others out there. I also believe the occasion is the acceptance cruise after the turn over to the US. I think there are civilians aboard, probably from the ship yard. The figure on the foredeck looks to me like a civilian in a trench coat and fedora hat. The men in the carley float look as if they are checking it out.

I also think that this photo may have been the basis for Pearson's rendering and for Revell's instructions. The reason I say that is the location of of the ensign on the flagstaff at the stern.

The ensign is only flown at that position when the vessel is not underway. Once it is underway, the ensign is flown from an inboard location. In this case, the appropriate place would have been the masthead.

So, the display of the ensign at the flagstaff at the stern is a departure from normal custom. It may be that the vessel had just gotten underway or that this was to be a quick turn around the harbour and the crew was to busy with other things to be concerned about the position of the flag. Either way, it seems that both Pearson and Revell have memorialized what amounts to be an error probably by referencing this photo. And I'm not trying to be critical. Both have done so much good to let a little thing like this detract from their works.

Oh well, I'v really departed from my central question. I'v already gone too far with rendering my model in measure 16 to go back now. But, I may do another one.

Ok, is there a MM color or other manufacturer that would come close to WA Blue? What color were the decks on UK Corvette's?

There is another genereal question regarding what I see as a contradiction. The US Flowers were under US Navy operational control but were manned and maintained by the Coast Guard. All of the applicable camouflage measures at that time required that the decks, including wood decks, be painted Deck Blue, 20-B. But now we have a photo of the USS Temptress taken on 9 Oct 1944 and is from NavSource.

Note that the wood foredeck is not painted. My question is why is the deck not painted in accordance with camouflage instructions? Did the Coast Guard have their own manual for painting vessels (and perhaps other things) which differed from the US Navy manual? If that is the case, then one can't impute Navy instructions/manuals to the Coast Guard.

It started out so easily. I found a good photo and a web site that said paint it measure 16. Out to the LHS store for the paint. Good. Job half done. Or so I thought. Then I started asking questions. Now I have more questions than answers.

I would really like to hear comments on this.

Here is another photo of the USS Saucy. It was probably taken the same time as the other photo to document the transfer of the HMS Arabis to the US in May 1942. The person that posted this photo indicated that both of them are from the Imperial War Museum. He also indicated that there was a third photo taken from the stern.

Just thought it might be of interest to some people.

http://[/img]

A. That is most certainly NOT Measure 16 camouflage.

B. Sorry to have to disagree with Ed, but Thayer Blue is a bit darker than Western Approaches Blue; it is, however, lighter than the B.55 Blue that replaced Western Approaches Blue in the 1943 version of Western Approaches camouflage.

C. It is probably one of the Admiralty schemes that used a Western Approaches pattern, but with alternate colors, in this case probably AP 507A Admiralty Dark Grey and AP 507C Admiralty Light Grey.

D. Make sure that you are looking at USS Saucy (PG-85). Here she is in another scheme (again, RN-style and NOT Measure 16):

E. If she stayed in RN camouflage, then undoubted her decks would have stayed that way as well. In that case, the wood deck section would be unpainted, and the rest of the decks would have been painted either AP 507A or MS.2, probably the latter.

Cheers,

John Snyder, White Ensign Models, http://WhiteEnsignModels.com 

Addendum to above:

F. If you will compare the 2 photos of Saucy above, you will note significant differences. I believe the first photo represents her at the time of transfer to the USN. In the second photo, note the changes to the forward gun mount, placement of Oerlikons on the bridge wings, placement of a USN gun mount on the aft deckhouse, and replacement of the RN radar lantern by what appears to be a searchlight within the lantern framework. 

Cheers,

John 

John,

Thank you for taking your time to add your expertise to this pedantic topic. If you could spare the time again, I would be greatly interested in your views on what I have surmised so far.

The photos entered earlier are of the USS Saucy in early May 1942. She only appeared like this for about 3 weeks because she entered the Boston Navy Yard after being part of a west bound convoy that left on May 16th.

Whatever she was painted, it was not Measure 16. John, you believe it was Admiralty Dark Grey and/or Admiralty Light Grey. Please let me understand what you mean by this. Was it a combination of Dark Grey and Light Grey or were the light areas painted  white with the dark areas either Dark Grey or Light Grey?

It is interesting that the painting instructions for the Revell model show a pattern on the starboard side identical to the photos posted earlier. Revell calls for stone grey (whatever that is) and white for colors. Did they have it right all along?

There were 10 Flower Corvettes transfered in the spring of 1942. Two of them were the USS Saucy (ex HMS Arabis) and the USS Tenacity (ex HMS Candytuft). I have found no other photos of the USS Saucy other than what is posted here. But I did find several of the USS Tenacity undergoing refit at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in June 1942 at the same time the USS Saucy was undergoing her refit at the Boston Navy Yard.

This is a photo of the USS Tenacity dated June 26, 1942.

It is very similar to the undated photo of the USS Saucy. I have adjusted the lightness and contrast to bring out PG 65. (PG 85 was the USS Natchez, the converted yacht Corsair)

I surmise that the above photo represents the USS Saucy after she emerged from the Boston Navy Yard and arrived at Key West on June 29, 1942.

These two photos beg another question: Where is the radar?

Another thing that could influence the way the  Flowers in US service were painted: The Flowers were Coast Guard vessels under US Navy orders. The Coast Guard had their own manual on painting vessels. That being the case, which manual would be followed? Perhaps we will never know.

Have got to go for now.

Regards, Jay

Jayman

The CG does have it's own paint and color manual but only as so far as peacetime operations is concerned. When the 82' patrol boats were sent to Vietnam in 1965 they arrived in their standard peacetime colors, white hull, white deck house, gray deck, spar(buff) appointments and deck gear. Well after a few months of these white boats drawing enemy fire on bright full moon nights it was decided to paint them Navy gray as this was a war zone. And yet the larger cutters employed for off shore interdiction and shore bombardment retained their standard peacetime colors.

If you get a copy of USCG Cutters of WWII by Robert Scheina, you'll note all the CG craft and ships(with a few exceptions) were painted Navy gray and appeared to follow the standard US Navy paint measures of that time. However there is a photo(page 18) of the Cutter Spencer on 29 April 1944 in Navy gray but the wooden decks appear to be unpainted and appear almost white.   Yet on another page(34) the wooden decks of the Cutter Modoc appear to be stained a dark color.

I have a B/W photo(taken from an aircraft) of the cutter Campbell in my personal files and the hull and deck house is painted a dark grayor dark blue and yet the decks are natural(almost white) in appearence. Even more mysterious is the fact that the ship's radio call sign is painted on the flying bridge's deck, probably in orange or red! There is no hull number or ship's name anywhere on the hull, the call sign gave me it's identity.

So I would guess the USCG pretty much followed naval wartime paint instructions but as in all things there are exceptions to every rule.  I'm in the process of building the USS Tenacity and plan on replacing all the Revell "wooden" decks with "steel"  but leaving the wood deck foward a natural wood color. Until a CG wartime directive turns up directing all wooden decks to be stained in the naval practice, my corvette's wood deck will appear natural.

Good luck in your project.

Mike Maynard USCG(Ret) 

Hi Jay,

Sort of working backwards question-wise, it is my understanding that the Flowers were commissioned in the US Navy, but manned by Coast Guard crews--as were a number of the USN's destroyer escorts. Thus, USN painting regulations would have controlled.

Now, back to the question at hand. Looking again at the early photo, I'm inclined to revise my conclusion. I think now that the colors are Western Approaches White and B.55 Blue. Here is the reason for my revision: When I first looked at the photos, the dark color appeared far to dark to have been B.55, particularly when this photo would have been made on orthochromatic film which, being blue-sensitive, renders blues (or anything with blue in it) as very light in the final print (the reason that the sky almost always appears nearly white in old photos). HOWEVER, in looking at the broadside photo, I noted that the blue field on the US flag is very, very dark while the red stripes--which should be nearly black on ortho film--are a mid-gray; also, the sky is comparitively dark. Therefore it is likely that the photographer used a red or orange filter on the lens, which would account for what we see in the final print.

The broadside view of her after repaint shows a pattern very much like a RN pattern, rather than the more typical horizontal chevrons typically associated with Measure 16

seen here on USCG Northland. This shot also shows how pale Thayer Blue was, and how low the contrast was against the white.

I'm inclined to think that this was a USN unofficial attempt at a Western Approaches-style camo, probably using 5-U White and probably--and I emphasize "probably--5-S Sea Blue or 5-O Ocean Gray. Note that the canvas covers on the guns, which were to be the same shade as 20-B Deck Blue, are considerably darker than the dark color on the hull. Since 20-B and 5-N Navy Blue were very close, we can assume that the darker color in the pattern is not 5-N.

The shot of TENACITY shows her in Measure 12R camouflage, the so-called "splotch" camo, using 5-N Navy Blue and 5-O Ocean Gray on the hull, and 5-O and 5-H Haze Gray on the superstructure.

Finally, as noted elsewhere, wartime censore probably removed the radars.

Cheers,

John 

Thanks to everyone for weighing in on this trivial subject.

It seems like a very simple question: What color was the vessel painted? But then, most of the questions and subjects in this forum seem to be about the appearance of a vessel at a point in time.

On one hand it seems to be trivial. On the other hand, many modelers want to leave not just a generally accurate model but a historically exact representations for the future generations. I appreciate this point of view and urge readers of this forum to review the remarks of Dr. Tilley regarding veterans leaving an oral history. (I must admit that I am guilty of not having left one. I would be a volunteer for his project.)

So, we are left with two published and one unpublished photo of the USS Saucy. John's remarks about the film and filters are well taken. There is one other color reference in the photo: The code flag representing the letter "P" is dark blue with a white square. It is quite dark in the photo but lighter than the hull.

Would it be logical to say that both the US Navy and Harland & Wolff viewed the paint job as a very temporary measure just enough to get the vessel in US colors to get it to it's appointment at the Boston Navy Yard for refit?

(The reason I say Harland & Wolff is that secondary sources I have read state that the vessel was built at that yard and that it was commissioned in US service in Belfast. Harland &  Wolff is in Belfast. Therefore, I conclude Harland & Wolff. But, as we know, Harland & Wolff was far from being the only yard in Belfast. It well could have been some other yard.)

John's view that the paint was probably blue or gray is most logical. Would it also seem logical that the decks were painted as they had been as the HMS Arabis? If they were, it would cut down time & cost. And how much effort would be put into a temporary paint job?

Mike's evaluation of the painting of the decks seem to be right on. The Navy camo measures called for the wood decks to be painted. The 1935 USCG painting manual called for wood decks to be left natural. All the photos of USCG Flowers that I have seen show the wood decks left unpainted. It seems that the USCG traditrions prevailed. I wonder just how far down the chain of command a decision to paint oir not paint could be made?

Dr. Tilley probably has this one right, as always. The photo of the USS Saucy seems to be retouched. Notice that the mast seems to be too short for Flower Class vessels and the stays go to the very top of the mast. But, the series of 8 photos taken by the Brooklyn Navy Yard of the USS Tenacity show many details but nothing relating to a radar. The site is: http://www.steelnavy.com/images/USCG/  Perhaps the radar was reinstalled after the photos were taken. I just thought it was interesting in that the USS Saucy photo is I the only photo that I have seen where they have tried to eliminate the radar.

Mike, good luck on you USS Tenacity. I would like to see some photos if you have any and would care to share them.

Meanwhile, it is getting late. Enough for now.

Regards, Jay

 A few shots of the progress so far. I know, many errors. This has been and still is a real learning experience.

Regards, Jay