SEARCH FINESCALE.COM

Enter keywords or a search phrase below:

BB Washington colors?

1310 views
13 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
BB Washington colors?
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 9:25 AM
I am looking into acquiring one of the Trumpeter 1/350 North Carolina models, which I intend to build as BB Washington, and would like to paint the ship in the colors appropriate at the time of her battle with the Japanese battleship 'Kirishima' in the Solomons campaign.  Seems like these ships changed paint schemes more often than their socks, and I am confused as to whether Washington would have been in Ms 22, or Ms 12.  Anyone have any clues?
  • Member since
    March 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
Posted by MBT70 on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 11:28 AM
Go to usswashington.com and review their photos by dates and actions.  That should be a big help.
Life is tough. Then you die.
  • Member since
    January 2005
Posted by John @ WEM on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 11:53 AM

Have a look here:

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/camouflage_database.htm

Cheers,

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

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Mansfield, TX
Posted by EdGrune on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 12:11 PM

USNHC Photo

Photo from the US Naval Historical Center, caption date indicates 21-August-1942

Other photos on the web show the Washington in Measure 12(R) in June, 1942 while she was attached to the RN's Home Fleet at Scapa Flow.

The information which John ar WEM references doesn't really give date breakdowns inside of calendar years.   You really need to consult secondary references, photos, logs, or yard availability.   

It looks like the Washington returned from England and underwent a yard period, emerging in Ms22 before deploying to the Pacific

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 2:06 PM
Looks like either MS 22, or a MS 12 (mod), but which?  I have a photo of North Caroline in the MS 12 (Mod), so perhaps MS 22 is best?
  • Member since
    October 2007
  • From: Inland Northwest
Posted by Summit on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 3:32 PM
I just spent an hour on the phone with my Dad who is 91 and spent most of WWII on BB56. He told me and looked through many many photos of the ship and said it never had the fancy camo paint scheme like the sister BB55. Just two part gray. He told me "rust" was their camoflage. As he laughed telling me the ship was nicknamed the "Big Rusty W" !
Sean "I've reached nearly fifty years of age with my system." Weekend GB 2008
  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 4:46 PM

 EdGrune wrote:
The information which John ar WEM references doesn't really give date breakdowns inside of calendar years.   You really need to consult secondary references, photos, logs, or yard availability.

We're working on fixing that, but it's a tall order. I've modified the CV pages for ships I have confirmable dates on. 

Tracy White Researcher@Large

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: Mansfield, TX
Posted by EdGrune on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 6:35 AM
Tracy,  what is the status of the shipcamouflage message board.   Is it permenantly dead?
  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Thursday, April 10, 2008 12:40 PM

 Summit wrote:
I just spent an hour on the phone with my Dad who is 91 and spent most of WWII on BB56. He told me and looked through many many photos of the ship and said it never had the fancy camo paint scheme like the sister BB55. Just two part gray. He told me "rust" was their camoflage. As he laughed telling me the ship was nicknamed the "Big Rusty W" !

 

Sounds like MS 22, with a heavy dose of rust then!

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: EG48
Posted by Tracy White on Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:42 PM

 EdGrune wrote:
Tracy,  what is the status of the shipcamouflage message board.   Is it permenantly dead?

No, I  just need the time at the home computer to redo it. This weekend is a good possibility as my wife's out of town...

Tracy White Researcher@Large

JPH
  • Member since
    October 2007
Posted by JPH on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:51 PM
 searat12 wrote:

 Summit wrote:
I just spent an hour on the phone with my Dad who is 91 and spent most of WWII on BB56. He told me and looked through many many photos of the ship and said it never had the fancy camo paint scheme like the sister BB55. Just two part gray. He told me "rust" was their camoflage. As he laughed telling me the ship was nicknamed the "Big Rusty W" !

 

Sounds like MS 22, with a heavy dose of rust then!

Yep, i'd would be doing MS22, although i'd be going a little light on the rust. Wink [;)]

 

  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by Paul Budzik on Sunday, April 20, 2008 10:51 AM

I'm in the process of doing the same conversion.  At the time of the battle with Kirishima, Washinton wore measure 22 (http://www.shipcamouflage.com/measure_22.htm) which she wore during her entire time in the Pacific.

You might look at this thread http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=7215 for a discussion of some of the issues with the kit.  If you are going to do the conversion, you will have a number of modifications to make.  First and foremost, at that time Washington carried no 40mm.  She had six 1.1 quad mounts.  In her original fit she had four, but two stern tubs were added at her refit in NY after returning from here Atlantic duty.  I highly recommend the 1.1's from Paper Labs (can be obtained through Pacific Front Hobbies), they have to be seen to be believed.  There are a host of other changes as well as dealing with flaws in the kit.  Right now I'm in the process of working up a master to replace the horribly oversized Mk 37, early mod. Directors.  There is also a prominent anchor washout cut in the port bow.

Here are a couple of photos of where I'm at:

 

 

Paul 

Paul

  • Member since
    March 2007
  • From: Portsmouth, RI
Posted by searat12 on Sunday, April 20, 2008 7:06 PM
Looks more like a scratch-build!
  • Member since
    January 2006
Posted by Paul Budzik on Sunday, April 20, 2008 8:05 PM
That's because the kit is "crap-build"  I'm sorry, the kit has problems.

Paul

JOIN OUR COMMUNITY!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

SEARCH FORUMS
FREE NEWSLETTER
By signing up you may also receive reader surveys and occasional special offers. We do not sell, rent or trade our email lists. View our Privacy Policy.