Battleship colors at Pearl 12-07-41

kustommodeler1 wrote:

OK. for ever I grew up looking at pics of the batlewagons at Pearl thinking they were, I believe MS1, dark grey up to the funnel tops, and light grey (some say white) above.   Well, I've been reading that Husband Kimmel ordered the ships painted what is refered to as "Medeteranian Blue" up to the funnel tops, and then haze gray (some still say white) above in the fall of '41. Decks of big ships were still natural wood though, so its not MS11 yet.   My question is, how could this have been missed for 65ish years? And could an area commander overide Navy Department regs?........or did he?   Here's a link to an article I read in the Honolulu Star Bulletin: just copy and paste, I cant get it to be a live clicky link to save my gluteus double-wide maximus.   http://starbulletin.com/2006/12/07/news/story04.html    As almost 80 of you have read, and only one replied, I've got a thead about MiniHobby's Arizona. Should I re-paint the whole thing, or simply add the red turret tops? I know I don't have it quite right anyways.........

The reason no one has replied is probably because this matter has been thrashed about many times in many forums and most just don't want to start it again. To make this as short as possible: you can leave your Arizona in the accepted version of MS1 and it will be accurate for a period in 1941. BTW, it is a light gray abovet the funnel top, I don't know where you are getting white from. There is a possibility that Arizona was painted with 5-S, a blue gray at the time of Pearl Harbor. The new model at Pearl Harbor has been painted in this scheme after acceptance of unpublished research. This research is supposed to eventually published. You could also have painted your Arizona in overall Standard Navy Gray for the earlier part of 1941. The bottom line is, it is your model, paint it the color you want to, just be prepared to defend your choice in the unlikely event someone with period knowledge should show up to look at it. The correct colors for all schemes are made in acrylic by Model Master and in Oils by White Ensign Models. WS

... and you could paint it in the 5-D Dark Gray Measure 1 for the period between April, 1941 and late-fall {November ?} 1941.   It is generally accepted that the Arizona was in 5-D for part of the year.  

The controversy is whether the Arizona - and only the Arizona - was in Measure 1 using 5-D versus 5-S  on December 7th.

"Mediterranean Blue" was a term used by an Aviation Machinist Mate assigned to the Arizona.  There was no naval color called such.  He has come up with the recollection only in the past few years,  not contemporary to the wartime.   Lately some of his recollections have been questioned because he also vividly remembers the ship as being blue during the summer - when photographic and documentary evidence show otherwise.  

You need to take these veteran's rememberances with an appropriately-sized grain of salt.   I showed a group of veteran's from my father's ship photos taken of her, departing Bremerton in a very obvious new coat of 5-N Navy Blue.  I asked what color she was painted - and was told - to a man - that she was in Battleship Gray.

kustommodeler1 wrote:

OK. for ever I grew up looking at pics of the batlewagons at Pearl thinking they were, I believe MS1, dark grey up to the funnel tops, and light grey (some say white) above.   Well, I've been reading that Husband Kimmel ordered the ships painted what is refered to as "Medeteranian Blue" up to the funnel tops, and then haze gray (some still say white) above in the fall of '41. Decks of big ships were still natural wood though, so its not MS11 yet.   My question is, how could this have been missed for 65ish years? And could an area commander overide Navy Department regs?........or did he?

 

I'll provide you with the viewpoint that Arizona was painted in Ms. 1, using 5-D and 5-L.  As of this moment, there is no evidence, other than a model, that 5-S was used as a replacement for 5-D in Ms. 1.  This debate over the color has been going on since sometime in 2001 when an order titled 15-CN 41 was found in the National Archives that was portrayed to allow the replacement of 5-D with 5-S.  However, this was a selective reading of this order, and when the paragraph containing this is read in full, it only authorized the use of 5-S after all supplies of 5-D had been exhausted, and the measure to be used was Measure 1A (which became Measure 11).  There has also been speculation that the color used was 5-N or Sapphire Blue, but the acceptance of 5-N for general use didn't occur until early 1942, and Sapphire Blue was an experimental color.  Both of these colors are also mentioned in 15-CN 41, but only as an experiment to determine which colors should replace Measure 1.  Finally, therehas been statements that motion picture film exists that shows Arizona, and some other battleships, were painted in 5-S, and other schemes such as what has been called "modified Measure 2", but the footage that has been used to show this is the John Ford film of salvage operations that occurred between March and June 1942. 

Contrary to these claims, the painting of the turret tops, as instructed in the order USL-1, does have photographic evidence to support it.  If you look at photos taken during the attack by Japanese aircrew, you can see that the turret tops of certain ships is consistent with this order, and these colorations of the turrets cannot be explained by reflection of light.  It's probably a fact that the tops were painted according to this order at the time of the attack, but it's highly doubtful that Arizona was painted in Measure 1 using 5-S, since this would not only be inconsistant with the photographic evidence, but it would also be inconsistant with the orders being issued by CinCPac, the preferences of the Battle Fleet (5-S had already been found to be a less effective color than 5-D), and that 15-CN 41 specifically forbade the the replacement of 5-D with 5-S until all stocks of 5-D had been exhausted.  There is plenty of  photographic evidence that yard craft at Pearl Harbor were still using 5-D up to June 1942.

Now, here's another piece of evidence that may disprove the use of 5-S.  One destroyer squadron was designated for the experiments contained in 15-CN 41.  They were not painted in Pearl Harbor, but rather at Mare Island, and were to return to the Hawaiian area in October.  The question that's raised by this is this.  Why did these destroyed have to be sent to the West Coast for painting?  Was there no supplies of 5-S materials at Pearl Harbor at that time?  Arizona is supposed to have been painted in 5-S during repairs from her collision with Oklahoma around the 1st of November, but all the ships in 5-S during the attack had all been in refit on the West Coast just prior to the attack.  There may not have been any supplies of 5-S materials at Pearl Harbor, so the use of 5-S would have been very difficult at that point.

Here is a link to a copy of order 15-CN 41:

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

Jon

                  

 

                                http://www.starbulletin.com/2006/12/07/news/story04.html 

 

 

Ray

ironship wrote:

This debate over the color has been going on since sometime in 2001 when an order titled 15-CN 41 was found in the National Archives that was portrayed to allow the replacement of 5-D with 5-S.

This is a little off; 15-CN 41 was known about for a while, but another piece had been found, supposedly a handwritten note from Kimmel, ordering *one* BB to be painted in 5-S. The researcher that found it turned it over to someone else and never published or reproduced it, so we don't have the exact text, naturally. Just a repeated statement that he saw it.

As an additional comment; some of the ships had painted decks, some of them still had natural Teak. It is accepted that Arizona's decks were still teak.

Tracy White wrote:

This is a little off; 15-CN 41 was known about for a while, but another piece had been found, supposedly a handwritten note from Kimmel, ordering *one* BB to be painted in 5-S. The researcher that found it turned it over to someone else and never published or reproduced it, so we don't have the exact text, naturally. Just a repeated statement that he saw it. As an additional comment; some of the ships had painted decks, some of them still had natural Teak. It is accepted that Arizona's decks were still teak.

Well, this is a little off also.  The researcher who found the handwritten note was Alan Raven, who supplied this note to Bill Giordano, who then included it in the information he lent to Steve Wiper for a book on Battleship Row.  This note has never been references to by the people who made the model before, and this is the first reference associating it with the model that's been made publically.  As for the ship this note probably references, it would have been Colorado, which was undergoing refit at Puget Sound during the attack.  

Interestingly, another handwritten letter, signed by VADM Pye and said to have been written on 6 DEC 41, refers to the "dark gray battle line" entering Pearl Harbor that Friday before the attack.  This is another piece that was supplied to Steve Wiper by Bill Giordano, and has also not been published or reproduced.  For a fuller understanding on the origins of this, you can reference the following message string:

 http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?s=0e452719fea9b3d4b50cbe62ad4ae9f3;act=ST;f=13;t=364

As for painted decks, Nevada and Tennessee can be documented to have had their decks painted.  The order was that one ship in each division was to have painted thier decks, so the third BB to have had painted decks may have, once again, been Colorado.

 

Jon 

ironship wrote:

This note has never been references to by the people who made the model before, and this is the first reference associating it with the model that's been made publically.

It's not associated with the model. As I've said before, it was a completely different group of people who did the research for the model than were expousing a blue Arizona before. Ron Smith got some pointers from Steve, but never saw any of the material Steve has in his possesion. Ron would not want to talk to Alan regarding his research at all, maybe the only member of the old crew he'd really be interested in talking to was Don Montgomery.

I just re-read that thread; I hadn't remembered that David had quoted parts of 15 CN-41 in his original relay (He wasn't the researcher that found it originally). My recollection had been that the 15 CN-41 was important, but it was the handwritten note that lead to the possibility of Arizona being blue while not following the standards set out in 15 CN-41. Keep in mind that we might have one directive for a fleet, but might not have another creating an exception.  That kind of leads us to trying to prove a negative, however.

The only thing I've ever tried to demonstrate with 15 CN-41 is that Sea Blue was in the supply chain to some extent and KNOWN before SHIPS-2 Rev 2 hit; people in the past claimed that since the distribution letter for SHIPS-2 Rev 2 was dated Oct 15, and it takes time for mail to cross the ocean to Hawaii, there's no way the Pacific Fleet would have known about the new measures until very late October. Clearly, that's not the case.

Tracy, 

Tracy White wrote:

15-CN 41 was known about for a while, but another piece had been found, supposedly a handwritten note from Kimmel, ordering *one* BB to be painted in 5-S.

Tracy White wrote:

It's not associated with the model. As I've said before, it was a completely different group of people who did the research for the model than were expousing a blue Arizona before.

First, since you made this first statement in response to my statement that 15-CN 41 has been the basis for this assertion since 2001, it's clear that you're inferring that this note found by Alan Raven has superceded 15-CN 41 as the basis for the decision to paint the model 5-S.  This is the first time this assertion has been made.  Second, you state that the researchers for the blue color is different than the original proponents of the blue battleship.  I refer you to Burl Burlingame's article.  The three people mentioned as being responsible for the research were Dan Martinez, Don Preul, and Tom Freeman.  Now, if you go to the Pearl Harbor message board, you'll find that Dan Martinez and Don Preul were involved in this back in 2001.  Further, as you have stated, Ron Smith's research was directed by Steve Wiper, who was also involved in 2001.  In other words, all of the players from 2001 seem to have been involved in this decision.

Tracy White wrote:

The only thing I've ever tried to demonstrate with 15 CN-41 is that Sea Blue was in the supply chain to some extent and KNOWN before SHIPS-2 Rev 2 hit;

 There's always been evidence of this, but this point has not been part of the discussion.  The discussion has always centered around if Arizona was painted in 5-S, not that 5-S was in the system.  The simple fact is this.  A group of researchers assert that 5-S was used as a replacement for 5-D within the application of Measure1 on the Arizona.  This same group of researchers built and placed on dispaly a large scale model of this ship at Pearl Harbor.  However, this same group of researchers, who made this assertion in 2001, has not provided any evidence of this since their initial assertion in 2001.  But, these same researchers immediately provided proof of the turret top colors.  So, the question all this raises is what is the evidence that 5-S was used?  If the turret top evidence was so freely released, without concern for renumeration, why not some of the evidence of the use of 5-S?  That has always been the point of the discussion.

 

Jon

 

Thanks forthe discussion folks, sorry to stir up things, but I'm a dummy when it comes to military modeling in earnest. I've learned a lot from y'all.

 

First, the Kingfishers are getting redone. Second, although what I gather from the discussion, reaading the links, and dredging up some stuff on the net of my own, there's no hard evidence Arizona was in 5-S 12-07.

 

But, being the stubborn guy I am, I'm repainting her in the 5-S blue. With red turret tops.

 

Again, thanks for the info!! 

Not 5D Measure 1?

5D Gray and 5S Blue probably look very close in B/W pictures. 

ironship wrote:

it's clear that you're inferring that this note found by Alan Raven has superceded 15-CN 41 as the basis for the decision to paint the model 5-S.

 And here you go taking things out of context and putting words in peoples mouth again.

The handwritten note told people that ONE battleship was supposed to be painted in blue.

Folks, the decision by Don to paint his model in 5-S was made on the basis of a piece of CV-6 Enterprise that Ron Smith found at NARA. It was in an envelope and had broken off her mast a couple of weeks after she had been painted in 5-D. It's munsell value *fresh* was darker than the black used for boot topping. So, the logic goes that if the ship was in paint roughly a month old at the time of the attack, it would be much darker if it was 5-D and not 5-S.

It had nothing to do with 15CN-41 or the handwritten note. Steve gave Ron some suggestions, but he *did not* direct. You said Don was involved in the past, yes, but note that he was thinking she was 5-N and not the 5-S that he later painted the ship. Don (and I believe Dan, but I'm not sure) made the presentation to Tom regarding color to get his take on it. Tom contributed nothing else. You consistantly demonstrate either zero understanding on what happened or a patent desire to spread misinformation.

This may surprise you Jon, but I'm on the fence regarding Arizona's color. You've been disingenuous enough, however, that I'm not going to give you any slack. I don't appreciate the attacks and the slander. Ron Smith is a good researcher, and I seem to remember that his research blew the doors off of yours in the North Carolina paint debates. You put two "hatches" on the top of your Arizona model kit turret #2 based only on the holes they had to cut in the real ship during salvage. How much should we trust your research?

ps1scw wrote:

5D Gray and 5S Blue probably look very close in B/W pictures.

You have to be aware of a couple of things, such as film type used, and the generation of the reproduction.

If a negative or picture is reproduced, you want to keep it crisp and clear; you want to detail to remain. But in a reproduction, that usually means that your contrast goes up, so things that are dark get darker, and things that are light get lighter. So if you have a photo that is a couple of generations old, the medium or dark paint might look much darker. That's why, if you're trying to use B&W photos, you *HAVE* to know the film used and the generation of the reproduction if you want anything that can be considered remotely useful.

I do not profess to be an expert in this at all. 

Tracy, 

Tracy White wrote:

And here you go taking things out of context and putting words in peoples mouth again. The handwritten note told people that ONE battleship was supposed to be painted in blue.

My quote was in response to this statement by you:

 

Tracy White wrote:

This is a little off; 15-CN 41 was known about for a while, but another piece had been found, supposedly a handwritten note from Kimmel, ordering *one* BB to be painted in 5-S.

First, in 2001, 15-CN 41 was used to justify this supposition. Second, the note found by Alan Raven had nothing to do with the discussion until 2004 when it was mentioned by Alan Raven, and confirmed to have been supplied to him by Bill Giordano.  If this note exists, it has no relevance to this discussion because is has no time frame context, it doesn't say which ship is to be painted, it doesn't say what color is to be used, etc.  Further, this note can be associated with Colorado, which was in refit at the time, was at a stateside naval base, and can be photographically shown to have come out of that refit in Measure 11.  However, to infer that it was relevant, because of the way this note was used to try and deflect the focus on the origins of this discussion and it's claims, should be pointed out to be the deflection that it was.   

 

Tracy White wrote:

Folks, the decision by Don to paint his model in 5-S was made on the basis of a piece of CV-6 Enterprise that Ron Smith found at NARA. It was in an envelope and had broken off her mast a couple of weeks after she had been painted in 5-D. It's munsell value *fresh* was darker than the black used for boot topping. So, the logic goes that if the ship was in paint roughly a month old at the time of the attack, it would be much darker if it was 5-D and not 5-S.

That's a really big if.  The assumption is that Arizona was repainted in 5-S in November after her collision with Oklahoma.  There is no documentary evidence that this occurred, and the photo showing her in drydock demonstrates that she was painted in Measure 1.  There's no evidence that 5-S was ever used in Measure 1.  DesRon 5 was sent to mare Island to be painted into the experimental colors of 15-CN 41.  Why did this occur?  Did Pearl Harbor have no stocks of 5-S materials?  Also, ships documented to have been in Measure 11 at the time of the attack had recently been refitted at stateside navy yards, returning to Pearl harbor in new schemes.  Although some veterans state that this blue color was used on the battleships, other veterans state that this blue was only used on cruisers.  Further, this logic contradicts the existing orders (15-CN 41) that any ship being painted with 5-S is to use Measure 1A (Measure 11) to paint the ship, which is overall 5-S on all vertical surfaces.  In addition, the order discontinuing production of 5-D, also discontinued the use of Measure 1, so there's another explaination that needs to be  made;  Why was 5-S used in a discontinued measure?  You have to question a decision to paint a model based solely on someone else finding a paint chip in an archive.

 

Tracy White wrote:

It had nothing to do with 15CN-41 or the handwritten note. Steve gave Ron some suggestions, but he *did not* direct. You said Don was involved in the past, yes, but note that he was thinking she was 5-N and not the 5-S that he later painted the ship. Don (and I believe Dan, but I'm not sure) made the presentation to Tom regarding color to get his take on it. Tom contributed nothing else. You consistantly demonstrate either zero understanding on what happened or a patent desire to spread misinformation.

The simple fact of the matter is this.  You stated the the original proponents had nothing to do with the research that led to the painting of the model.  But, if you go back to the origins of this theory, and then come forward to who gets credit for the "discovery" of this new information, they are the same people.  So they hired someone who was in closer proximity to the National Archives to do their research.  Ron has stated that he was approached by them to specifically look for this information.  How does that make the original proponents unassociated with Ron's work?  He found a paint chip.  Why doesn't he get credit in the press releases?  As you said, Ron was told where to look for information by one of the proponents.  Ron himself has said he worked in the archives with the original proponents to find this stuff.  To say that this "new" information was arrived at independently is a stretch.

Tracy White wrote:

This may surprise you Jon, but I'm on the fence regarding Arizona's color. You've been disingenuous enough, however, that I'm not going to give you any slack.

I quote you from a Dec. 20, 2006 posting on Armorama:

"As to WHY *I* am saying this now, before we "have" proof is that there are people out there who want to build an Arizona NOW and not wait. If you read Ron's North Carolina article in the Nautical Research Journal you know the type of research he does and the results he gets. For some people that's good enough to get started now. Others may want to wait, and I have no problem with that.

Admiral King was responsible for camouflage and the orders came from him and the Bureau of Ships. But at the same time Kimmel was responsible for the Pacific Fleet and had some say in things. Just because an Admiral says "paint XX as soon as possible" doesn't mean that they're going tot ake everything out of the line up to do it, so there's a duality in that regard.

As far as the survivor's recollection, that is not the only evidence; consider it a "clincher" as it were. Textual records STRONGLY point to Arizona being 5-S instead of 5-D. And then you have the survivor, who was a trained observer and in charge of the paint locker calling the ship Med Blue.... he was describing an RAF aircraft color that is a VERY close match to 5-S."

According to this, you were convinced that 5-S was the correct color.  Since you now back on that fence, what caused you to get back on that fence?  Also, since you were inthe know on Dec. 20, 2006, what textual records strongly point to 5-S?  Love to see them.

 

Tracy White wrote:

I don't appreciate the attacks and the slander. Ron Smith is a good researcher, and I seem to remember that his research blew the doors off of yours in the North Carolina paint debates. You put two "hatches" on the top of your Arizona model kit turret #2 based only on the holes they had to cut in the real ship during salvage. How much should we trust your research?

If you've talked with Ron, you'll also know that we've come to a conclusion on the North Carolina color.  Suffice it to say, both of us were correct in our positions.  I'll let you discover how.  As for our kit of the 1941 Arizona, the only details I added to the old Tom's Modelworks kit received were the engine access hatches on either side of the #3 turret.  Tom had already had the pattern reworked by a friend at ILM before we received it.  I added metal hatches on the quarterdeck because the Chesney plans showed them to have been metal.  They were probably wood covered, but that's the way it goes.  And, as for my research, you have no idea what I put into my research.  You don't know what I have access to, and what I don't.  I've never questioned the quality of Ron's research, because I've never seen it.  Nobody except the original proponents have.  Even you haven't seen it, yet you seem to think you know what's there.  I've questioned the conclusions that have been arrived at because of that research.  Simply put, so far there's no there there.

Finally, you mention slander.  The definition of slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.  Please tell me who I've slandered.  Please state the untruthful statement I've made about the conclusions of this research.  If questioning the conclusions that have been made based on unreleased research is now considered slander, please say so.  Why is it that questioning the conclusions of the proponenets of this theory considered slander in your view, but questioning my abiliy to do research on my company's kits perfectly fine?  It seems that both situations are the same.  You have no evidence of what I used to come to my conclusions, just as I have no evidence of what they used to evaluate their conclusions.  However, there is one big difference.  If asked, I will provide my sources and methods (as I have above).  If I have make a mistake, I'll admit it in public.  Where is the evidence from the other side?

 

Jon 

Was the "1" battleship in 5-S(A), (B), or (C)?

ps1scw wrote:

Was the "1" battleship in 5-S(A), (B), or (C)?

 That's not known.   All the note says, according to Alan Raven, is that a battleship is to be painted blue.  We don't know which battleship is to be painted blue, nor do we know which color of blue is to be used. 

 

Jon 

http://www.pastfoundation.org/Arizona/ArizonaHistory_3.htm

 

.... And of course, there is the OTHER color scheme that ALL of the BB's at Pearl Harbor were wearing on 7 Dec, 1941..... Black!  Soot black, oil black, burnt paint black, oily water black, etc, etc, etc......... The varieties are endless!

don't forget reddish brown too.

Just a note, everyone, I'm going to take my response to Jon offline as it's probably going to take a long time for me to answer all of his posts and it's a bit off-topic.

great stuff