Missouri deck question.

Well, there may be some disagreement about this, but I'll take it on.

The day there's a "right color" for any part of any model will be the day that, after fifty-two years in the hobby, I'll get out of it.  Color research is a fascinating topic, but the best that can come out of it is a conclusion about what the color of the prototype object (ship, airplane, tank, whatever) was supposed to be painted.  Even if we assume that the color applied to the ship matched the official specification (which, in this case, I guess it probably did), all sorts of other considerations affected what it actually looked like - and what it "ought to" look like on a model.  Paints fade in sunlight and weather.  They change color when several thousand people stomp on them on a daily basis.  In the case of a color applied to wood (like the wood areas of the Missouri's decks), the paint is affected by the color of the material underneath. 

Then there's the so-called "scale effect."  Various people have tried to quantify this over the years.  I personally don't think that can be done, but there does seem to be a general consensus - with which I agree - that, in order to look "right" to the human eye, the colors on a model need to be changed slightly from those of the prototype.

The bottom line is that you, the modeler, need to decide what looks right to you.  If we ever get to the point where some over-arching group of "plastic police" are pronouncing colors (or any other aspects of the hobby) "right" and "wrong," heaven help us.  

Whenever painting a modern (steel or iron) ship, it's best to go on the lighter side of a color than what is called out in the instructions, for scale and for fading considerations if for nothing else. You can go down the piers at Norfolk Naval Station and you will see thirty or so ships all painted the same shade of gray, but if you really look, they are all different because of the various times they were painted and how much sun they've been exposed to and where they have been overpainted in spots.

 Some have their hull numbers painted a bright white while others have them painted a subdued light gray. Why some are like this and others aren't, I'm not sure. I suspect that it is for ceremonial purposes, like dressing up the ship for a change of command ceremony or something. I've also noticed that some of the stacks are painted gray on some gas turbine powered ships and black on others. I'm going to throw this question out in another topic. Maybe surfaceline will know.

Well put, Subfixer. And Ed's photo emphasizes another aspect of the situation: the varying ways that colors show up on film. On my monitor, at least, the forward part of that gun turret (i.e., the part toward the barrels) is a ravishing medium blue, and the rear section is much darker. We all know such was not, in reality, the case; the combination of the characteristics of (I assume) Kodachrome film, the flash bulb that the photographer apparently used, the effects of aging on the original transparency, and the limitations of reproduction have distorted the colors to the point that, though the picture is extremely useful (and one of the better, clearer records of the scene that I've run across), it only gives an approximation of the actual colors. 

That sort of limitation is built into the process of photographyAnybody who used the shots I took at the Langley AFB airshow last Sunday, for instance, as a guide to painting a model would be an idiot.  Even without any post-processing, the colors on the B-52 look very different from shot to shot, depending on where I was standing relative to the sun when I pushed the shutter button. 

Any time printing enters into the process, another set of variables is introduced.  When I print pictures that I've taken with my DSLR, I usually work them over with Photoshop Elements.  A single click on the "Auto Levels" command in that program can make a huge difference to the colors in the print.  Photographers in 1945 didn't have computer programs, but they had all sorts of ways of changing how colors looked in prints - and the people making prints today from 1945 slides have more.  I strongly suspect that, for instance, if we'd been there we'd have seen that deck blue as considerably less bright, and more greyish, than it looks in the photo.

Subfixer's suggestion that it's best to err on the light side is, I think, as good as any. The bottom line: study all the information you can find and, on the basis of what you've learned, use the colors that look right to you. And if anybody else tells you the colors are "wrong," ignore him.  He's living in a world that has little to do with reality.

I served 24 years in the US Navy, serving on six different submarines and one surface ship. I have seen many different ships tied up alongside.  I have also toured several ships from foreign navies.  My father served for another 24 years, during which time I have seen many other ships.  Weatherdeck Blue is a dark blue but, as others have said, no two ships seem to carry precisely the same color.  The interval between application and observation needs to be considered, as do such variables as the weather conditions that the ship has been subjected to, the amount of sunlight, the effects of salt water, etc.  The same applies to the basic "Haze gray", "Hull Red", or even the black that submarines are painted.  In other words, paint the ship in a shade that seems appropriate to you.

Bill Morrison