Gentlemen,

Please allow me to step in here again. My intial post was to verfiy if the source I'd used which was Alan Chelsey's USS Arizona, published in 1978 was correct. As it turned out, it was incorrect for whatever reasons. I have no problem with any of the evidence provided and will be painting my Arizona the measure that has been suggested thorughout the thread.

Best Wishes
Steve

Congradulations gentleman -you wonderful guys here on Armorama took a very -(can't find right word) situation-debated it and finally Steve made decision, Everyone kept his head and show a respect for each other-
Thank you

Guys,

I hope my post did not come across wrong. I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek. #:-) #:-) #:-)

This area has been debated quite extensively and while probably 99% of the posts were friendly and in good faith, there were a few invectives posted at the other site. The breadth of knowledge there was incredible, in a variety of subjects. The discussion there included the aging of photos and film, color analysis of black and white photos, living history discussions with veterans and even a suggestion to get paint chips from the Arizona's hull, or parts of the superstructure that were disposed of ashore.

The most painful thing about the debates were when a newby on SN would ask the question for about the 14th time in a couple of months, and the deebate would start again.

For myself, I like modelling and I'll admit for me, at least, close counts. I'm afraid I can't get overly a*al retentive about it. :-)

Morning Mates!

My posts were just preventive, because this could turn easily into an explosive thread
(as some of you know)

I am not saying "not to discuss"!!! It's from discussion that some of the most great ideas come to live! I am glad that this discussion was kept into reasonable levels of disagreement

Skipper

And how much do you want to bet that 7,000,000+ of the links lead to Russian Porn Sites???? :-) :-) :-)

I gotta believe the answer is yes. The reference material indicates it was SUPPOSED to be, but of course the enforcement of that would wind up coming down the the ships CPT or a flag officer's inspection.

The information from the Ship Camouflage site for Measure 22 (in which the Missouri was at the end of the war), says all horizontal surfaces are to be "Deck Blue 20-B", and it goes on to say that except for subs and carriers, wooden decks are to be darkened to this color also.

Seems strange to do that, but according to the reference material, that's what it was.

Here's the link:

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/measure_22.htm

Tom

Actually David Martinez, Pearl Harbor historian, said that in his dives to the wreck, the deck was unpainted or stained. Check out this post on 1250 Home:

http://members.boardhost.com/jacobs1250/msg/25763.html

Hope this helps.

Oops! Link doesn't work. Try this:

http://members.boardhost.com/jacobs1250/msg/25763.html

The steel horizontal surfaces were painted the same color as the rest of the ship-not blue.......Mike T

Ooops! My bad. I forgot you were specifically asking about the Arizona.

RTFT.

The "specification" for Measure 14 states the same thing as Measure 22, that is, that horizontal surfaces (decks) were SUPPOSED to be Deck Blue, 20-B. But of course the issue is whether the ship had actually been painted to fully comply, and that's a different issue altogether.

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

(Later Edit: Besides, it doesn't seem likely that Arizona was in Measure 14 as John Snyder and others have pointed out.)

Tom