Color of USS Arizona - Revisited

Modeling Subjects Ships
21

What I was actually trying to say was that this photo supports Mr. Bruner’s recollection of what he and his shipmates were doing before the attack. Not the other way around. There is no way to tell if his memory is accurate. But this photo matches what statements he made. Yes, it may be just coincidence.

That other document would be nice to find again. Wouldn’t the ship’s Captains still follow the regs on how to repaint according to what measure they were assigned to use? If so, and they were in Measure 1, then the only alternative for 5-D was 5-S Am I correct? If the ship had been assigned Measure 12, then 5-O would have been the appropriate replacement for 5-D above the hull, and 5-N below the main deck. I seriously doubt that any Captain would have been so bold as to use 5-O on a Measure 1 scheme. Or am I mistaken and each Captain really had that kind of latitude?

DOH!!! Brain-strain… I knew that…[whstl]

Tankerbuilder, wouldn’t any computer scan comparison depend on all the pictures scanned to have been on the same type of film, with the same amount of light on the subject? Your third paragraph points to the difficulty that may entail. We can limit the number of possible colors that each shade might be to 1, or 2 at the most, because there is a very limited pool from which to choose. We don’t need a computer for that. Just common sense. After all, I think we can all agree that they were not using modern Haze Grey prior to WWII.

After reviewing again all of Tracy’s memos for 1941 regarding paint and camouflage Measures, it appears to me that only two scenarios fit the evidence in this photo on my OP. Either it is still Measure 1 and the three distinct shades of grey are, from dark to light, 5-D, 5-S, and 5-L, or it is Measure 12 and these three shades of grey are from dark to light, still 5-D, 5-O, and either 5-L or 5-H. Unless Tracy, or one of the other researchers, can come up with a memo ordering the Arizona to convert to Measure 12, or a letter from Admiral Kidd saying he is going to convert to measure 12, or any other memo or letter saying that this is so, we must conclude that Arizona was still in Measure 1, which was known. I have to say that Measure 12 in combination with what was left of Measure 1 would be an interesting paint scheme with the addition of 5-N from the boot-top to the sheer line. Very busy paint job but not nearly as busy as some of the other camo Measures. But I don’t believe that is what happened. I don’t believe the BatDivs could have responded that fast to the changes made to Ships 2. Wasn’t the Pennsylvania still in Measure 1 in drydock?

Anyway, can anyone else come up with a possible reason explaining the evidence in this photo and consistent with the known memos from this period of time? Without assuming any other facts not given by the known memos, or this photo?

22

By the way, those of you who are not interested in the Arizona, and/or are tired of this controversy, but might be interested in one or more of the other Battleships at Pearl at this time (like the new Maryland?); these same arguments, memos, etc… apply to those ships, too. All these ships were under similar orders. How many of these other ships had already started to repaint? Close examination of available photos may reveal much. Was the Arizona the only one? Possible. But these orders had been out for many months. Each of you will have to decide for yourself how much you want to believe, or how deep you want to dig. Of course, if you just build it to 1940 or earlier, then there isn’t much choice of color, so no controversy. Your covered.

23

5-D chalked badly, which did lighten its appearance. There’s a shot of WeeVee’s #3 barbette & turret with her Kingfisher inverted, leaning against the barbette… which looks REALLY light, but examination shows that it’s reflection of light from the water and bright deck shining on things. These are possibilities we must keep in mind so as to not taint the research by looking for “proof” to fit an agenda, as so many do.

With regards to orders and captains’ latitude… it was a complex chain. The Bureau of Ships in Washington created the paints and paint measures, but left the actual decision as to what to use was left up to theater (Commander-In-Chief Pacific, Commander-In-Chief Atlantic) and force (Commander, Battleships, Commander, Destroyers for example). Hence, we have “Commander Cruisers, Battle Force” ordering USS Helena to paint in 5-S (what would later become Measure 11) and CINCPAC ordering camouflage experiments via the Commander of Destroyers, Battle Force.

So, my last trip to NARA I hit the 1940-41 records for the Commander of Battleships, Battle Force (essentially the Pacific Fleet) in the hopes of finding records. Unfortunately I only found records for 1935 and 1943… I busted. I tried to look through the CINCLANT files, but they were unavailable due to reprocessing. Such is the life of a researcher…

24

I agree with you Tracy. If you want to make any comparison in a single photo, then the surfaces being compared must be a similar angle to the light source, and without any glare or reflections from other surfaces. Otherwise you are trying to compare apples with oranges. But any single photo CAN give you facts once you have eliminated the chaff. Such as on the photo I referenced on my OP. The main fact that stands out is that there are three distinct shades of grey on the vertical, and near vertical surfaces above the hull. It does not tell what these colors are. Just that there are three completely different shades of grey. It is up to each person viewing this photo to decide what colors he/she may be looking at, given the limited number of choices available.

As for the Captain’s latitude, do you really think any Captain (prior to WWII) would defy the Force Commander (much less anyone higher) by painting his ship a different Measure? I could see Admiral Kidd asking his superior if he could try something different for his Division, or ship, but a mere Captain? No… can’t picture that. Yes, the Captains were next to God on their ships. But not to the Commodores and Admirals above them. By all accounts, the Navy was fairly rigid about things like that. Am I wrong?

I can sympathize somewhat with you about researching. I have done quite a bit of reseach with Genealogy and sometimes you just can’t find what you are looking for, only to have it turn up someplace totally unexpected. You just have to keep digging. I am glad, and grateful, that you and others are able to do so. Government files can be particularly stressful with all their sections and sub-sections, and sub-sub-sections, etc. It doesn’t help any that they change the nomenclature now and then. You could probably write a book about How To Reseach Government Files And Archives.

25

My specialty is Navy WWII, so I couldn’t write about other agencies. Hardly stressful, just a grind; you have to remain alert and yet skim for hours on end.

26

Color me ambivalent as well.

Cogito ergo sum. Sum certus ergo
sum falsus. “I think, therefore I am.
I am certain, therefore I am wrong.”

27

I like “Cogito ergo boom!” (I think, therefore I explode).

Another favorite I hold close is (Charles) Kettering’s Law: “Logic is an organised way of going wrong with confidence.”

Logically, we know Arizona MUST have been…

28

[t$t][H] I like that first one! Makes me think about putting cherry bombs in bad models!

29

Two things, one serious and the other a little more tongue-in-cheek.

First- Along the lines of what was suggested, what if accurate paint samples were taken to Pearl Harbor and were positioned on or near BB-39 on the morning of December 7th? The angle from which a given photo is taken is certainly known. And what if the same film was used? Would it be that hard to figure out what that was? Wouldn’t that yield some basis of comparison?

Second- I spent a lot of time obtaining the oral history of my father-in-laws service in WW2. Among other things, he flew USAAF Bristol Beaufighters in North Africa. I have a lot of black and white prints of photos he took. So I was very curious to know what the camouflage scheme was. I had a pretty good idea but was not certain.

“How the hell would I know? I was too busy climbing in and out of the damn thing!”. Point being we all have our focuses on certain life experiences, so I wouldn’t necessarily put a lot of stock in what folks remember.

30

“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.” — Oliver Cromwell, Letter to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland (August 3, 1650)

31

Hi, I’m new here, I realize this is an old post but I have a question. I believe that the picture does show some possible picture evidence that Mr. Bruner’s memory was accurate. I tried to find the image on at em Arizona that shows what the Arizona might have looked like if it were in transition from measure 1 to 1A but not sure how to find it, any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks

32

Interesting stuff. It seems highly probable that the ship was being painted at the time of the attack, as the timing of the Fleet Orders would fit.

But, lack of evidence to the contrary does not prove a point.

Bill

33

Something I keep thinking as I read through this thread; there is no differentiation being noted between those areas exposed to heavy smoke (in addition to some flames) such as the main mast legs, which appear as ‘blackened’, as compared to areas that were actually ‘burnt and blistered’ such as the rear of turret three, which would actually appear lighter in color. This is not a thing where ‘if it got burned it will be the same color or tone as any other area that got burned’ , there are definite variations of ‘burned’ that must be considered.

34

i agree for now thanks

35