A question I have been wondering about as regards this color issue. Were there any B&W pictures taken of the Arizona between her October 1941 repair and December 7, that show her near any of the other BBs? If the Arizona had been in 5-S at that time, the pictures should show a noticably lighter gray than the other BBs still in 5-D (since it has been commented many times that 5-D looked like Flat Black). If the photos show her as the same shade of gray (at the same angles of sunlight), then she was still 5-D. Since nobody has remarked on this sooner, I have presumed that there are no photos from this particular time period that have another BB in them. Is the detail in the Japanese photos good enough to tell shades of gray? Especially from the torpedo planes? I would think the difference between 5-D and 5-S would be very noticable.
Here is a link to an article covering the unveiling of the “new” model in the Memorial visitor center:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/12/07/news/story04.html
If you were to visit, perhaps the National Archives can show you the order from Kimmel referenced here…
Force9, you’re relatively new here. I am not trying to pick on you, but just letting you know a little background history. Tracy White was, I believe, one of the Researchers who helped Don Preul with that model. There isn’t much that he doesn’t know about the Arizona. Check out his website in his signature for some of the vast research he has done. He has already seen that order from Kimmel. Remember, this article was back in December 2006. Also check out the At 'Em Arizona thread in Calling all Ship Fans - Battleships over on ModelWarshipsForum. The color controversy is pretty well covered in there. Hopefully, someone will find some color pictures of the Arizona, especially near some of the other battleships, so a direct comparison of colors can be made. I gotta admit though, that if the guy in charge of the paint locker on the Arizona said it was blue, then I hafta kind of believe him! While most sailors who are still around wouldn’t remember a detail like that, if anyone should remember, it’s the guy who issued the paint to be used! Plus, they had the opportunity while the ship was in dry-dock. The order had already been issued, so it was just a matter of whether or not Stores had enough paint on hand to go ahead and paint her while she was being patched.
Force9, are you thinking of making one of these?
Tucchase -
I am a relative newbie so I will stumble into unknown circumstances from time to time - thanks for giving me the lay of the land… Admittedly I am a bit out of my depth here -I focus on ship models, but mostly those with masts and sails - Victory is my current build (heck - A Measure 0 paint scheme in my world is Nelson’s Checkers [:D]). I have, however, begun to move my stash towards stuff with boilers… An older brother served on USS New Jersey and a Perry class frigate so I’ve added those in the past year. And yes, this new Arizona offering has proved too tempting… I’ve succumbed to the very aggressive pricing at Tower Hobbies and I expect delivery on the 15th instant. That being the case, I have briefly attempted to glean some basic info regarding the ill-fated BB-39 and stumbled on the aforementioned article. Here’s where I think I’ve gotten regarding the facts:
Be careful on some of the gun emplacements - Tubs had been fitted but she was still awaiting the actual armament.
The “dry dock” keels aren’t represented on the model (and the Torpedo bulge seems a bit too smooth)
The big guns didn’t elevate independently - make sure they stay aligned.
Color is controversial despite the findings of Don P. (and Tracy White) and the apparent corroboration by the guy with the paint locker keys. Arizona had recently experienced a bump in the night during war games and ended up in the repair dock which would’ve provided a nice opportunity to execute Kimmel’s recent directive. Unfortunately the logs all went down with the ship and the relevant dockyard records were all destroyed, or otherwise went missing, along about 1944 - forcing good folks like Tracy to go digging deep into dusty archives in hopes of uncovering a hidden truth to definitively settle the issue. Memories of aged survivors are shaky at best and otherwise conflict so that has not been of help.
All that being the case it looks like following Don’s memorial model would track with the best available thinking…
My Victory build will occupy me beyond the next year or so and I will be content to sit back and watch the initial builds hit the forums to provide further insight. It also makes sense to wait and let the various aftermarket providers hit the market with additional PE offerings. I know Trumpeter has a supplemental one and WEM has a placeholder on their site. The three piece deck is a bit of a road bump, but I imagine it is a necessary evil to appease the RC crowd who may appreciate access to the ends of the compartment. Perhaps a wooden deck will also appear on the market.
Your avatar is particularly meaningful - When I eventually do attempt to build the beast I’d like to underscore her apparent tranquil state before all fire and fury raged down by including the awnings exactly as Tom Freeman has depicted. I think that is an important part of the story.
Thanks again for the insight and I will be eagerly following everyone’s progress
Nice looking, but a bit too expensive for my tastes!
There have been two “phases” of research. Former Navy employee Don Montgomery, Tom Freeman, Steve Wiper, and Don Preul did some of the initial work. Steve and some others (I wasn’t a part of this group although I know three of the four above) located some color footage that purports to show blue ships, but haven’t had the funding to have it copied from the archives yet.
When Don started the model, Ron Smith and I were asked to help on the research; Ron was researching at NARA II in the DC area, and I research regularly at the regional archives in Seattle, which holds Puget Sound Naval Shipyard’s files, which was Arizona’s home yard in addition to a yard that received paint, painted ships., etc., so it should have received copies of directives. I’m still trying to resolve the issue, Ron’s got a full-time job now and threw his hands up in disgust at some of the responses we got for the initial results and walked away (this was research we did completely voluntarily).
I think Burl confused things a little bit as he wrote that after an unveiling. The Kimmel document I’m aware of was for the colored turret tops only and did not reference color otherwise; I’ve posted that document here for anyone to read; the color turret tops dated back into the 1930s as a fleet-wide system and into the 1920s a little less systemically, everything I have on that has been posted here.
In my mind, there is no proof that Arizona was Sea Blue, nor is there absolute proof she was not. It is a muddy issue. The basic gist is that at the end of July, Dark Gray was ordered discontinued and replaced with Sea Blue. Seems fairly straightforward, but the Navy had an inefficient and confusing system for sending out those orders and updates; ships and yards didn’t know this and the “formula” for Sea Blue for some time (It used a two part white base and tinting materials that ships and yards could mix in specific ratios for different colors). Pearl Harbor’s order to re-request stocks of paint from Mare Island Navy Yard (responsible for paint manufacturing for the entire west coast) in August was lost in the system until October, for example.
There are also different commands that play into this as well. Kimmel wouldn’t have written orders to individual ships; typically he’d write to the commanders of larger groups such as the commander of battleships, etc., who would then flow the orders down. For example, this order from the Commander of Cruisers, Battle Force ordered Helena to paint in Sea Blue with paint picked up directly from Mare Island, bypassing Pearl Harbor.
At this point I’ve gone through records for Mare Island, Pearl Harbor, and Puget Sound Naval Shipyards as well as records for various commands such as the commanders of the 13th and 14th Naval Districts (Pacific Northwest and Hawaii, respectively). The force commanders and Kimmel’s records are back in DC, which is next on the list, but not a trip I have planned any time soon, unfortunately.
Also, there is PLENTY I don’t know about Arizona! Feel free to take anything I say with a grain of salt and question it, as I believe re-evaluation is always a good thing. [:D]
Force9, you’ve made a good start at identifying some of the problems with previous models of this Lady. There are at least three more that I know of, off hand. Fortunately, these are all pretty much addressed in At 'Em Arizona. It has links to nearly every reference out there, as well as most of the online builds that have been already done. This new model appears to have also addressed many of these problems, and corrected them! Especially the Vegetable Bin and the Engineering Hatches. Plus, we have established that this model has split the hull at the correct waterline. Unlike the Banner 1/350. As for the canopies, Trumpeter has included rows of small holes in all the decks. I believe these were for use by the poles that supported the canopies. These holes are visible in many of the pictures in Paul Stillwell’s book “Battleship Arizona, A Pictorial History”. By the way, if you want the best reference to date on the Arizona, this book is probably it. It is also a good read on the daily life and times of the crew over the years. She was a good ship and deserved a far better fate than she received. Although, if she had survived the war, she would likely have had a similar fate as the Pennsylvania, and the rest of the Super Dreadnaughts.
Thanks for posting those pictures, Paul. Looks like an awesome kit.
Can anyone provide any details on the supplemental photoetch for this kit? Pictures on the Internet are too murky to determine what this offers.
DrWind
If you dig down into ACCESSORIES within the Trumpeter-china website you can view the instructions for their supplemental PE kit. In addition to the 5 inch barrels and 5 inch AA barrels it covers the ladders associated with the masts, some of the platform support brackets, and some added detail for the crane among other things…
The Supplemental Set is also supposed to have metal barrels for all the 5" guns, 5"/51s & 5"/25s. Other than that, I haven’t seen anything else.
Thanks for these details. Supplemental PE includes the metal barrels, as you describe.
Several sets of this selling on Ebay in the $17.00 range.
Paul, thanks for the pics, that’s one big kit!
Your website is wonderful BTW, I bookmarked it so I can come back and browse at my leisure.
This Upgrade Set is now in stock at some vendors. I should be receiving mine in about 4 days from ScaleHobbyist.com ($15 & change + Shipping).
Here’s a link to an interesting article on the correct colors of the Arizona. I’ll be using and going by it when I build mine…if I can ever get it out of layaway [:D] It sure is expensive for me, a full-time grad student living off a university stipend. But, had to get ti…even if it is putting me in debt up to my ears!
http://mikeashey.com/SHIP%20ARTICLE%20PDF%20FILES/ARTICLE-BATTLESHIP-COLORS-AT-PEARL-HARBOR.pdf
An interesting theory by Mike Ashey, but he is missing a few facts. The only colors authorized to be painted on the vertical surfaces of the battleships at the time of December 7, 1941, were 5-D (Dark Gray), and 5-S (Sea Blue), which was a medium blue. The pictures he shows first are all of the other battleships at Pearl that day, and the consensus of opinion is that they were all still in their 5-D colors, which is why they were so dark. Many of the sailors at the time thought that 5-D looked almost black. There was no Dark Blue at that time. Shortly thereafter, 5-N (Navy Blue) was implemented. This is the color that was used on the Pennsylvania after its re-fit. The picture Mr. Ashey uses of the Pennsylvania is after it’s re-fit and conversion to its dual 5" turrets. Probably around 1943-44. By then 5-D was, I believe, no longer used. Here is a good picture of the remaining portion of the Arizona that was still above water after the attack. It appears to be a cloudy day, which should make all the colors look slightly darker. The Fighting Top of the Mainmast is still 5-L (Light Gray), while the lower portion of the Mainmast has been burnt black. The Foremast Fighting Top has also been burnt black, so we know what black looks like in this picture. Now notice the much lighter color of the rear Main Turrets. Neither was involved in the fire which engulfed the remaining boats on the Boat Deck. Yet they are much lighter than any other area except the Mainmast Fighting Top, which we know was Light Gray. The Splinter Shields on the edge of the Boat Deck also appear to be this same lighter gray as the rear turrets. From this picture, I can only conclude that these rear turrets were 5-S (Sea Blue).
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013916b.jpg
Also, the Arizona was the only battleship at Pearl, following the issue of the 5-S Order, that was in & out of dry-dock before Dec 7 (Pennsylvania was in on Dec 7, but hadn’t been finished yet.). This was in October after a minor collision during manuevers. This would have been a perfect time to have it repainted, since they were going to have to re-paint the damaged area anyway. Whether they actually did or not, no one really knows. Nobody has found the smoking gun as yet giving the order to do so. So with pictures like the above, and other evidence of a similar nature, and lack of any pictures between Oct 1941 and Dec 1941 showing her as 5-D, I will paint mine as 5-S. Hopefully, someone will find some color pics of this time frame and we can put this controversy to rest.
Tracy is absolutely correct. I have changed my descriptions of 5-S above. I was confused by a recent reference to Mediterreanian Blue. My bad.
-
Mike really doesn’t present anything useful and in fact presents a lot of misleading arguments. The methods a digital program strips out colors with presents a completely different representation than orthochromatic or panchromatic film. The life photos he mention are blue-shifted.
-
5-S was Sea Blue and NOT mediterranean blue; the Navy NEVER used that term and it should be excised from use in this discussion.[:P]
-
Pennsy was repainted in 5-S at Mare, not 5-N
-
5-N did exist before the time of the attack, as this speedletter demonstrates. Note that it references an October 20th BuShips letter about 5-N. The question is, how quickly was this sent out and its use in the general fleet ordered? DO NOT SPECULATE PLEASE.
-
There is a large misunderstanding about ship painting I’m seeing all over the web. Ships were painted by more than just shipyards, and WHAT they painted into was usually NOT dictated by the shipyard. Not that in this memo, the Commander of Cruisers, US Navy Battle Force, orders Helena to pick up materials for 5-S Sea Blue and to paint herself in 5-S before any specific orders, such as the SHIPS-2 Revision 1 that officially codified the new measures, were issues by the Navy. Pearl Harbor Navy Yard didn’t even have the mixing formula for 5-S until late October due to lost correspondence, but by that time Mare Island had been ordered to send out direct replacements.
This DOES seem like a pretty big attack on Cbax…I don’t think he needed such a HARSH correction as this to begin with. Some correction, sure, but two extremely long paragraphs?? Same goes for the very next post…that’s you Tracy btw…A numbered list??? Mercy!! Yeah, I get a numbered list from a one-line comment, I’d sure take it as someone criticizing me! (And poor Mike, too) And tucchese, you did say "Tracy is absolutely correct. " (See above)…that sure sounds to me like you’re saying YOU and TRACY have the CORRECT opinion…I mean isn’t that what you mean when you said Tracy is ABSOLUTELY …CORRECT…? Those were the EXACT words you used, right? Absolute and correct are two words, to me, that leave NO gray areas. But, I’m sure, like Cbax and nbaxt000, you’ll both jump all over me, too. Because we know how you two work, now. I’ll just sit back and wait for it.
Rivet counters… just about as useful as a judge with a pen-light in my book
I don’t know if any of you guys are correct. There is plenty of room to debate from all three interpretations. As for me, I’m going with the instructions paint guide. Or, do you two think Trumpeter got it wrong, too? All this has me quite thoroughly confused, to tell the truth!
It’s not likely they got it correct with regard to the main color, but there is a chance.
First off, no one has absolute proof for December 7th… it’s a very muddy issue. It gets tension charged because of some past events as well as frustration from guys who just want to know how to paint their model and really don’t like finding out there’s this whole argument back and forth.
There were a bunch of posts that were removed from this thread earlier today; I had nothing to do with that; I neither reported of complained about what was said… I just wanted to get that out there to stave off another round of angry PMs from CBAX and NBXAT.
OK, short, short version of 1941 US Navy Camouflage… still many questions, but you can see what I’ve found in three different US National Archives branches here. Is it definitive? Far from it.
Essentially, The Navy transitioned from the camouflage they had been using for 20 years in 1941, and did it poorly. In January, they released SHIPS-2, which defined new colors, including 5-D Dark Gray, 5-0 Ocean Gray, and 5-L Light Gray. Camouflage Measure 1, which the majority of the fleet was to be painted in, consisted of 5-D on vertical surfaces from the waterline up to the top of the smoke stack, and then 5-L above that. In order to save paint, they came up with a conversion paste that could be mixed to the pre-war gray to color it to an equivalent of 5-D. They had production problems though, and we don’t see evidence of ships at Pearl Harbor painted into Measure 1 until June of that year.
By this time, the Bureau of Ships had become unhappy with 5-D (adhesion problems and it “chalked” quickly) and had started working on a replacement. On the last day of July, they ordered 5-D discontinued and replaced with 5-S, referred to as Sea Blue. Keep in mind this is four months before the attack on Pearl Harbor. In August the one yard responsible for paint on the West Coast (Mare Island Navy Yard) starts sending letters to ships and other yards canceling their requests for 5-D and telling them to resend requests for 5-S. Pearl Harbor Navy Yard managed to lose their copy of this memo for six weeks, finding it in mid October. However, other commands at Pearl Harbor such as the Commander of Cruisers, Battle Force, and individual ships such Arizona herself, receive their copies.
So, what we don’t have in the documentation is an order for Arizona to paint in 5-S. We don’t have any correspondence the shows she received any from Mare Island. We do know she was repainted in late October/early November following a collision with another ship, but did she use her own stocks or Pearl Harbor’s? Did she repaint based on orders Pearl Harbor had for how to paint ships, or specific orders to her or her BatDiv that have not been located (and might not exist?)
There is plenty that can point in either direction. I’ve made three trips to the records of Pearl Harbor and Mare Island Navy Yards and am planning a trip to go through records of other commands… it is something I am “actively” pursuing, but by active, I mean one or two trips per year as my HOBBY dollars allow.
The Trumpeter paint guide calls for Navy Blue and white… the white is definitely wrong. we have no evidence that Navy Blue reached Pearl Harbor before the attack, but we do know they knew about it, having had a camouflage experiment using it ordered in mid/late November. 5-N Navy Blue used the same ingredients as 5-S, 5-O, and 5-L, so it would be something that they could have fairly easily and “instantly” switched to before the attack once they knew the mixing rations of the tinting paste and untinted white base.
5-D is safest.