USS Arizona Colors Question

Bigb123

I get confused reading all the different posts pertaining to this.   Was she in measure 1?  If so, would that be 5-D, 5-S, 5-N, or standard navy gray,  with the fighting tops 5-L and red turret tops?  Thanks!

I have no special knowledge, but there seems to be a difference of opinion. Hollywood seems to think she was in measure 1 (which given the known inaccuracies in ‘Tora Tora Tora’ and [barf] ‘Pearl Harbor’, would make me take a contrarian position), but there are a slew of Arizona models with red turret tops.

Tom Freeman's painting of the USS Arizona

Trumpeter Arizona 1:200th

Yeah, I knew there was a ton of info on the turret tops, so I'm not questioning that or the lighter color fighting tops.  But, the overall color of the rest of the vertical surfaces is the problem.  Thanks!

Congratulations! You have just opened the proverbial can of worms. Many sources say many things, and everyone believes they are 100% right with those disagreeing to be complete fools. Pick which scheme you like best(dk gray vs sea blue,etc.) have at it and post pics when you're done.

Mike

It is indeed, a can of worms.  I just found an older discussion about this where I asked the same questions.  Had the kit back then, but stuff came up and I didn't get to it.  Now I am actually starting the build.  I said in the other post that I'd go with 5-s, so I guess that'll do.  thanks, guys, for the input!

The Navigator

everyone believes they are 100% right with those disagreeing to be complete fools.

Not everyone; I say anyone stating to know the truth doesn't know what they're talking about!

I'm actually hoping to have serious advancement on the research done this fall though, so hopefully "soon" I'll stir up the blue muck again and we'll see how everyone takes it.

Bad Tracy! Bad, bad Tracy!

P.S. - give me a head's up so I can have the popcorn all ready to go for when the heads start rolling back and forth

I bought tickets out to DC for the last week in October. I'll be researching during the extended hours and the day of my flight back, so I wouldn't expect anything that week, but if I find anything It will probably be shortly thereafter.

I could completely bust and have nothing, of course. But even if I don't, It will mean something.

This will also give you a couple of options.

https://www.whiteensignmodels.com/page/Ship+Camouflage+Schemes+Colours/20/

"I say anyone stating to know the truth doesn't know what they're talking about!"

Tracy, can I borrow that for a quote? 

Looking forward to what you find out. What do you do, spend hours upon end looking over documents, photos, etc.? And, are there any new files left?

AgentG: I was one of the original researchers who was involved in the firestorm about five years ago, and I've kept plugging away at it. This upcoming trip is another attempt. Navigator: There's PLENTY left unread. I've cultivated an interest in USN camouflage in general; while Pearl Harbor was perhaps the largest catalyst and a huge drive still, there are other projects now as well; there is much about the amphibious greens and the dazzle schemes that we don't know. I've hit the two main west coast NARA Archives (San Francisco & Seattle) for a number of years now and think I have most of what could provide answers filtered through, but there are archives on the east coast as well besides the main one in College Park. NARA New York, for instance, I think potentially has some interesting documentation. My wife is somewhat annoyed that other than Hawaii, my idea of interesting cities to visit is largely based on whether or not they have NARA archives nearby!

Wow, never would have thought that. What do you look for specifically? I find the whole idea of this fascinating.

 

agentg

It is fascinating how much we don't know about one of the greatest world wide conflicts in modern history .

Keep at it Tracy, inquiring minds want to know! 

G

True

That sentence, "Finally, bear in mind that there is some evidence that Arizona may have been in the midst of a repaint at the time of the attack, and therefore may have been wearing some of both of the above schemes!" has the ring of truth.

    Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.
        George Santayana, as quoted in Quotations for Our Time

The Navigator

Wow, never would have thought that. What do you look for specifically? I find the whole idea of this fascinating.

Well, I'm lucky in that I have a regional branch of the archives in my home town (Seattle). I don't have access to the records from other regions unless by pure luck a report was forwarded from another base, but I do have records from Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the 13th Naval District to run through... in the last decade I've cast a wide net and learned a lot about how the Navy transmitted information, so as such I don't really look for things specifically. However, there are a few targeted areas.

First, start off with the Navy Filing Manual from WWII (actually it was for before and after, but the copy online is from 1941). Look through the file code groups near the bottom; they're broken down by subject such as logistics, ship's material, etc., that part should be pretty easy to figure out. Then it gets a bit more arcane. Each subject is broken down by code, and then further subdivided. In this case we're interested in camouflage, which is under "S19" for "Preservative coatings" in the subgroup of S19-7 "Camouflage. We might also be interested in S19-1, which was "Paint."

Pretty easy to follow, right?

At each of the archives will be a group of finding aids; mostly these are paper print-outs that list box contents by file code; if you're lucky the archivist had enough time when processing the records from the Navy to include a textual description here and there of what's in the folder,  An example from my notes in Seattle is:

YC/S19-1    "Coal Barges and similar non-propelled Steel Vessels - Protection of Surfaces"

Don't know what the YC is? We turn back to the finding aid and look for the range that has YC in it and then scroll down a bit and find: YC OPEN LIGHTERS. Hmmm.. OK, paint, but not really a subject that's all that exciting.  I looked at it anyway, but didn't find anything exciting, of course.

Once one knows about the filing manual, reading through Navy documentation gets interesting. I post a lot of documents to my site, and when I do, I post them in their entirety, including file codes. So, let's peruse a couple and see what areas might be of interest here.

Take this April 1941 memo effectively putting the WWII camouflage into effect. The file codes are:

C-S19-1(1)(DYr)(SM)
EN28/A2-11

and

BUSANDA NO.
L4/JJ-52(13)
L8-2/NY6

The top group (which is on the left of the document)  has a relevant string of S19-1 / EN28/A2-11 which translates out to Painting / Bureau of Ships /  Departmental orders.

The bottom group (on the right of the documents, BUSANDA stood for "Bureau of Supplies and Accounts") translates out to Purchasing / Material: Paints / Procurement (Requisitions) / Norfolk Navy Yard. Each Yard had a designation, NY6 was Norfolk, Mare Island was NY9, etc.

As we can see, a good system for it's time to break down and classify materials by subject matter. No, I do not have all of these memorized; I created a cheat sheet of codes that are relevant to my interest and keep a copy of the filing manual on the computer as well to reference when looking through finding aids. This is a lot like combat too, whereas instead of long periods of boredom followed by moments of sheer terror, we have periods of tedium followed by either "hey, that's neat!"

Now, as far as Arizona goes, the yards were ordered to destroy their records on her as she was considered a loss and there was "no reason" for anyone to waste storage space on a ship that the Navy was done with; I mean, who is going to be interested in her now? So we're looking more for fleet directives and then what essentially are echos, such as this memo, which I found a copy of in the Mare Island Navy Yard.

agentg

It is fascinating how much we don't know about one of the greatest world wide conflicts in modern history

There's some fascinating research rebounding through the Information Management field relating to a phenomenon of having so many search engines available.

It seems the pervasiveness of search engines is engendering a belief that all extant information has, in fact, been cataloged for discrete or explicit searches.

Which is just one more thing to make IM types groan.  If plied correctly they will lament that not all known books are cataloged, let alone scanned, or even online.

There is, though, work being done, by way of the cooperative proofreading projects online, where various old tomes have been scanned, and the text optically scanned into online content.  They need volunteers to take and go through and find and correct those scans.  it's a hit or miss proposition, you might read a volume from 1891 on world exploration, then a text on milling machine from 1951, to a history of Baltic peoples from 1910 or the like.

agentg

It is fascinating how much we don't know about one of the greatest world wide conflicts in modern history

There's some fascinating research rebounding through the Information Management field relating to a phenomenon of having so many search engines available.

It seems the pervasiveness of search engines is engendering a belief that all extant information has, in fact, been cataloged for discrete or explicit searches.

Which is just one more thing to make IM types groan.  If plied correctly they will lament that not all known books are cataloged, let alone scanned, or even online.

There is, though, work being done, by way of the cooperative proofreading projects online, where various old tomes have been scanned, and the text optically scanned into online content.  They need volunteers to take and go through and find and correct those scans.  it's a hit or miss proposition, you might read a volume from 1891 on world exploration, then a text on milling machine from 1951, to a history of Baltic peoples from 1910 or the like.

Not only that, but a lot of people are used to the notion that you can just ask for things and have results like a search engine. Such as "I want plans for X ship!"

Well, OK, what plans? Lower scupper draining socket in compartment A-410-V?

The idea that you have to KNOW what you're looking for when you first start out is also foreign to a lot of people.

Tracy, I just posted a new thread, but, I was looking at images and paint chips on the web, and from what I can tell, 5-D dark gray seems a little bit more like a dark, dark blue.  Are my eyes lying?  Was it actually gray like it says?  Thanks!

pure 5-D was neutral - no blue. I've posted the formula to my website here, and if you scroll to the bottom of the second page you'll see that it's essentially lamp black with a bunch of carriers.... no blue.

However, the Navy had a bunch of pre-war gray that they didn't want to just throw out, so they also created what they called a conversion paste. This would get mixed in with the pre-war gray to make it appear as 5-D. Now, the pre-war gray did have a *touch* of blue to it, but I question if it would really be visible when the conversion paste was used. It's possible, but I haven't tracked down all of the materials to re-create the paint and find out for sure. I tend to believe that other factors such as fading and chalking would have more of an affect on the appearance, as well as film color shifting, monitor calibration, etc.

Okay, thanks!  That helps!

I have to add, I've been debating which of two colors to use on my build..5-S or 5-D.  That's part of the reason I asked.   I'm leaning more toward 5-S, but still haven't made a concrete decision.  But, I do thank you, Tracy, for your time and help.

Here's some more information to help you in your decision.  Photographic evidence shows Arizona was painted in Measure 1.  That's pretty much accepted.  But, consider these facts, from the same documents, that place into question some of the assumptions made.  First, when 5-S was introduced, under SHIPS-2, Sept. 1941, it discontinued the use of 5-D, but also discontinued the use of Measure 1.  So, to use 5-S in Measure 1 would be considered against orders.  Second, whenever the use of 5-S is authorized, that authorization also specifically instructs on how it's to be applied, and that is usually using one of the new measures (Ms. 11 or 12), not Measure 1.  The original document used to claim the use of 5-S in Measure 1 contains this specific instruction (Measure 11). Finally, all the ships that are known to have been painted in 5-S in the Pacific Fleet, and are photographically documented to be in 5-S, are painted in accordance to the instructions for Measure 11, as per orders.

The speculation that 5-S was used in Measure 1 is just that.  The preponderance of available evidence points to the use of 5-D on Arizona on 7 DEC 41.  Also, there are photos of Arizona taken in 1957, one of which is this one:

http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f?q=pearl+harbor+source:life&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpearl%2Bharbor%2Bsource:life%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D622%26tbm%3Disch&imgurl=1e73f48593d7dcb9

The photo has shifted blue, but that's not the point.  Notice how dark the superstructure is, even after 16 years of exposure to the sun.  The superstructure is still darker than any of the three versions of 5-S that could have been used.  Not conclusive evidence, but still it points toward the use of a very dark blue, much darker than 5-S, which the version of 5-D used in the Pacific Fleet was.

Jon

ironship

First, when 5-S was introduced, under SHIPS-2, Sept. 1941, it discontinued the use of 5-D, but also discontinued the use of Measure 1.  So, to use 5-S in Measure 1 would be considered against orders.  Second, whenever the use of 5-S is authorized, that authorization also specifically instructs on how it's to be applied, and that is usually using one of the new measures (Ms. 11 or 12), not Measure 1.

Jon makes some good points, but he also missed a few as well.

5-S was not introduced in SHIPS-2, and the version of SHIPS-2 he's referring to (revision 1) was not sent out to the fleet until the middle of October (I have the cover letter posted here). 5-S was introduced to the paint manufacturing yards in the middle of July and units of the Navy starting in August (note the recipient of that letter). However, in the case of the later, they didn't say what to actually do with it (It's not strictly listed as a replacement for 5-D). The Cruiser Helena was ordered to paint in Sea Blue at the end of August, far before SHIPS-2 Revision 1 was finalized.

There is precedent, of a sorts, for using a different paint as a replacement while yet datedposted keeping the same Measure. Sea Blue 5-S did not actually last that long; it wasn't dark enough for Pacific Service and I have a document I haven't posted yet dated August 11th of 1941 (referencing an earlier document I don't have dated July 24) requesting authorization to test what later became 5-N Navy Blue. The Atlantic Fleet ordered Sea Blue's replacement by the beginning of November of 1941. But note that they still call what essentially was Measure 21 later Measure 12. They continued to refer to it as Measure 12 until June of 1942, when the next revision of SHIPS-2 was released; that means that there is a seven month period where "Measure 12" meant "measure 12, using Navy Blue, 5-N paint, in lieu of Sea Blue, 5-S paint."

We have the big documents like SHIPS-2 Rev 1, what has been missing is all the smaller ones, like I linked to here, that help fill in some of the cracks and can change assumptions. At this time, they're not really doing anything more than making things more confusing, but in time I'm confident we'll know better, even if it's to say "we know we'll never know for sure." But what if there's one missing document out there that says "Paint Arizona Measure 1, substituting 5-S for 5-D" All it takes is that one (theoretically) missing document and what we knew is changed forever.

As a final statement, I want to assure everyone that I am not tied to any one theory. I have a completely open mind and am just trying to get to the bottom of this. If I find something that proves Arizona was in straight-up Measure 1 you bet I'm going to post it just as quickly so that people know for sure and we can move on to other things.

Tracy White

5-S was not introduced in SHIPS-2, and the version of SHIPS-2 he's referring to (revision 1) was not sent out to the fleet until the middle of October (I have the cover letter posted here). 5-S was introduced to the paint manufacturing yards in the middle of July and units of the Navy starting in August (note the recipient of that letter). However, in the case of the later, they didn't say what to actually do with it (It's not strictly listed as a replacement for 5-D). The Cruiser Helena was ordered to paint in Sea Blue at the end of August, far before SHIPS-2 Revision 1 was finalized.

There is precedent, of a sorts, for using a different paint as a replacement while yet datedposted keeping the same Measure. Sea Blue 5-S did not actually last that long; it wasn't dark enough for Pacific Service and I have a document I haven't posted yet dated August 11th of 1941 (referencing an earlier document I don't have dated July 24) requesting authorization to test what later became 5-N Navy Blue. The Atlantic Fleet ordered Sea Blue's replacement by the beginning of November of 1941. But note that they still call what essentially was Measure 21 later Measure 12. They continued to refer to it as Measure 12 until June of 1942, when the next revision of SHIPS-2 was released; that means that there is a seven month period where "Measure 12" meant "measure 12, using Navy Blue, 5-N paint, in lieu of Sea Blue, 5-S paint."

However, if you look at paragraph 3 of the Helena letter Tracy references, it states how 5-S is to be applied, and this is a common factor in ALL of the orders for the use of 5-S that are in the public domain.  But, as can be seen in Tracy's reply, there is a sort of "Six Degrees of 5-S" argument always made in order to state that Arizona's measure "may" have used 5-S.  There will be citations of this order or that order, usually a reference to the Atlantic Fleet and it's practices (ADM King was very involved in camouflage development), the Arizona cancellation order, and the statement that all the document haven't been found yet, so we may never know.  I'm not faulting Tracy here, since he has done the majority of the work in uncovering a lot of this stuff, rather it's been a too broad interpretation of the documents and photographs that has led us to here.

The problem with the 5-S theory is that you have to accept two contrary assumptions.  First, that the order recalling 5-D was strictly enforced, but that the orders as to how 5-S was applied was not.  That's how we get to the "Six Degrees of 5-S" in it's usage.  Basically, it goes like this:

1.  5-D was recalled

2.  5-S was it's replacement

3.  Mare Island (Pacific Fleet's paint factory) stopped making 5-D

4.  Ships in the Pacific Fleet started using 5-S

5.  Arizona was in drydock late October-early November 1941

6.  Arizona was painted in Measure 1 using 5-S

The "Six Degrees of 5-S"

 

Jon

agentg

Oh now I'm crosseyed, so she was blue?

G

Technically, yes, she was blue.  It depends on which blue you choose to accept.  5-D Dark Gray was a blue color with a Munsell code of 5PB 2.7/0.8, and 5-S Sea Blue was a blue color with a Munsell code of 5PB 4/4.  The lower the Munsell code, the darker the color.

Jon

agentg

Oh now I'm crosseyed, so she was blue?

G

And to add one more layer of confusion to the anecdotal evidence ...

I was told of a visit of a USS Maryland veteran of Pearl Harbor to a hobby shop.    The owner asked the vet, what color was your ship on December 7?    The old gentleman walked over to the ModelMaster paint rack and picked up a bottle of Aircraft Interior Black.   As I'm sure you know,  interior black is a very very dark neutral gray.    Charcoal Gray would be another good description for it.

It is pretty well documented that the Maryland was in Ms 1 with 5D and 5L above the funnel tops.

If you choose to do your model in 5D  you can't wander too far afield with a choice of a dark neutral gray.   Who is to prove you wrong?

I'd written a bit on how Jon wasn't describing Munsell correctly, but this forum mis-interpreted a backspace on my keyboard as me wanting to go back a page and it wiped it out... I don' t have the heart or time at this point to redo it all, so I'll just tell people to ignore Jon's use of the word "code" and just read the wikipedia entry for Munsell if you care enough.

Back to an earlier post I had thankfully started replying to in Microsoft Notepad:

ironship

The problem with the 5-S theory is that you have to accept two contrary assumptions.  First, that the order recalling 5-D was strictly enforced, but that the orders as to how 5-S was applied was not. 

That might not be as contradictory as you think though; we're talking about different entities here; the paint manufacturing yards and then "the fleet" in it's amorphorus form. There's a lot of control at different levels and a lot of chains of communication that need to be examined. Supporting Jon's statement somewhat is This document I found, internal to Pearl Harbor Navy Yard, in which the shipyard supply officer essentially complains to the mail distribution group about a memo that was lost for six weeks; that memo was the notice to Pearl Harbor Navy yard that 5-D was discontinued and to requisition supplies for 5-S. That means that Pearl Harbor didn't "officially" know about 5-S until October, at least as far as we can guess from this.

Now, this might not mean anything; the ships got their paint from Mare Island Navy Yard, not Pearl Harbor stocks. Questions with regards to Arizona's repairs following collision are when were plans for the repair (including what paint to use) finalized, would the paint stock have come from Arizona's paint stocks or Pearl Harbors, and it the later, how quickly did they react to orders from the outside to change how things were performed.

To be clear, my position on this is not that 5-S was used, but that there is so much contradictory information that no concrete arguments in either way can be made. Which is not what most builders want to hear, I know, but history ain't always as neat and tidy as we want it to be. Anyone who says that they know how Arizona was painted either has not read and comprehended all of the documentation or has an agenda. Measure 1 in 5D/5L is the safest as we know that she was painted that way from about June to at least her repair following collision.

Any suggestions on how to paint the small boats (lifeboats?) ?

Same color as the superstructure, whichever way you go.. Black below the waterline.