USS Arizona Colors Question

VERY NICE

For my , I was reading Tracy's website several months ago, on the camoflage pages for Pearl Harbor in 1941, and on one of them (I think it was for the fleet in general) it stated that 5-S was to be used on all ships as per the new Measures, except the Battleships, which were to retain Measure 1 and substitute 5-S for 5-D as soon as was possible.  This was dependent upon the arrival of the new paint stocks and new tinting material stocks.  This could explain why the Helena, and others, were changed to new measures, while the battleships stayed as Measure 1 until after the first of the year 1942.  I may have mis-read the memo as I wasn't looking for that particular piece of information, but it kind of jumped out at me when I read it.  I don't remember the date of the memo, but it should have been second half of 1941, since that was the only time they were discussing the use of 5-S as a replacement for 5-D.  I must have looked at at least 30 memos that day, so I don't have a clue as to which specific section it was in.   But, if anyone is really interested, I am sure if you search all the memos Tracy has for Camoflage for Pearl Harbor in 1941, it should still be there!  

This is one of the advantages to building the "other ships," AKA the auxiliaries, 1) Nobody really cares all that much, and 2) You can't hardly go wrong with "Paint everything gray."

My  

I for one am intrigued with the idea of painting her in transition.  The interview with Arizona veteran, Mr. Bruner, who was on the paint crew said that they were in the process of repainting her, and that the hull and turrets were completed with 5S to me is compelling.  Now there's a run on sentence!  Tracy has gathered a great deal of information indicating orders that the fleet was in the process of color transition.  Finishing the model in the process of transition to 5S tells the story of a surprise attack and the history of the color changes to the fleet.  I hope Tracy can find the smoking gun but I suspect it has been lost to destruction and war.

Leftie

There are quite a few different colors of grays in that photo. I'm really interested in the dark grey on the top of number 3 turret. Most think it had no color other than the  overall grey.  BTW, the Trumpeter is a purist modelers nightmare.

To my eye, from the unpainted wooden decks, and the white working dress the signalmen are in, I'd say this is a pre-war photo of USS Idaho.  So the darker horizontal and lighter vertical paint scheme would be correct.

The use of russet-leather colored linoleum on an all-weather metal deck like the signal platform is striking, too.  have to wonder if that linoleum was painted over in various deck colors per the Measures, as those  came into effect.  Or, if some form of blue-gray linoleum was installed instead.

Ed is correct; I wasn't trying to state that the ship in that photo was Arizona, just that some dark material, most likely linoleum, was used on some of the superstructure decks at least.

Leftie

   Has it been confirmed that this is the Arizona? 

The caption at the Life site for the photo which Tracy linked identifies the ship as the Idaho.

Tracy and others,

 

   Has it been confirmed that this is the Arizona? There are quite a few different colors of grays in that photo. I'm really interested in the dark grey on the top of number 3 turret. Most think it had no color other than the  overall grey.  BTW, the Trumpeter is a purist modelers nightmare. The kit looks great at first blush but it falls apart when the rivet counter like me gets serious. Yes...To most of you guys..."looks like the Arizona to me...".

   I'll be more specific if you guys have the stomach for it. These won't be the only things wrong with this kit, just only the first few pages. Still....I think this is a kit well worth $200. But it also needs a few hundred dollars of aftermarket add-ons and modeler's skill to get it close to being right...not that many will see the flaws. Most will be wowed with the final product.

You wash the decks down before lighting off the large-bore naval rifles, keeps the desk from charring from the flash.  You lower lifelines for similar reasons.

 

That's a fine photo. It's a little interesting that #4 is trained to the side. I guess it's a staged picture because those dudes aren't going to be standing there if the guns are being fired. But it's LIFE after all.

Also notice the pipe railings are painted black. Very sharp. Looks like linoleum deck to me. There's a wear spot at the top of the ladder too.

That's actually turret #4 that you're seeing; the photo is looking aft. The darker deck is just wet. Note that the aircraft are gone and the port side railings have been dropped - standard for when aircraft were being launched.

Thanks again, Tracy.  I've got a couple of the 1/350 kits, so I may do one in std. navy gray.   And, bondoman, good one!!

EdGrune

 

 

 

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.

Sure, I asked my late father-in-law several times to describe the colors of his USAAF Beaufighter (reverse lend-lease).

"I don't know, I was too busy climbing in and out of the damn thing".

For the most part, yes. In 1941 she was in Standard Navy Gray coming out of overhaul in January through about the end of May, so you can do her in this scheme fairly easily (Leave off the radar platform on the forward fighting top and fill in the groove for it). Turret tops 1, 2, & 4 would have been red. We suspect that the superstructure decks were linoleum but have no verification; this suspicion is based on this photo (note the color of the deck the sailors are on). The linoleum may have also been in use at the time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, giving the option of a little more color to models. I went looking for information on this my last trip down but the area on Linoleum in the Pearl Harbor Shipyard files was essentially empty.

When she was painted in overall #5 standard navy gray, was that overall?  And by that I mean does that include the fighting tops too?  Just wanted to know for the heck of it in case I may do one in that scheme sometime in the future.  Thanks!!!!

OKay, thanks!!

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

Okay, thanks!  That helps!

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.

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!

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.