Alan Chesley's USS Arizona (1978) states that in December 1941, the USS Arizona was painted in the Measure 14 "Ocean Gray System".
Haze gray masts above the surperstructure, Ocean gray on hull and superstructures, and deck blue on all decks ( I assume this includes the main deck. Suppose this includes the turret tops as well?)
Has anyone came across any information that disputes this? I want to make sure it's correct. I will be modeling her as she looked on December 6th. (Minus the sun shade on the bow)
Go to modelshipwrights.com for the current dynamic site!
General Ship Modeling
Discuss modeling techniques, experiences, and ship modeling in general.
Discuss modeling techniques, experiences, and ship modeling in general.
Hosted by Jim Starkweather
Measure 14 System and the Arizona
95bravo
Joined: November 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,242 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,064 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 07:59 AM UTC
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 09:50 AM UTC
Every picture of the Arizona I've seen in color, usually models, even museum models, have shown her main decks as a faded tan. Decks above the main deck are shown painted the deck blue. I can't say for sure that this is correct or not.
By the way she didn't just have the sun shades at the bow. She also had one aft and at the quarterdeck. Contrary to what most people think that is not the stern, but a ceremonial area further forward. Going off memory, always risky, I believe the quarterdeck was near the main mast, the aft mast, and to one side. I think it was to starboard, right.
One thing most kits get wrong, so watch for this. The 1.1 inch AA guns that were supposed to me mounted in the wells on either side of the main mast on the rear deck weren't ever installed. The shields for them were put on, but the guns were never put in. If your kit has those be sure to leave them off.
By the way she didn't just have the sun shades at the bow. She also had one aft and at the quarterdeck. Contrary to what most people think that is not the stern, but a ceremonial area further forward. Going off memory, always risky, I believe the quarterdeck was near the main mast, the aft mast, and to one side. I think it was to starboard, right.
One thing most kits get wrong, so watch for this. The 1.1 inch AA guns that were supposed to me mounted in the wells on either side of the main mast on the rear deck weren't ever installed. The shields for them were put on, but the guns were never put in. If your kit has those be sure to leave them off.
95bravo
Joined: November 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,242 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,064 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 10:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
She also had one aft and at the quarterdeck. Contrary to what most people think that is not the stern, but a ceremonial area further forward. Going off memory, always risky, I believe the quarterdeck was near the main mast, the aft mast, and to one side. I think it was to starboard, right.
I think your memory is pretty darned good Rodger. In the line drawing I'm using asone of my references it shows a structure in or about the location you mentioned. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what it was...now I know
In regards to the deck, I'd seen the same thing in artist renderings, but have questioned the validity of it. However, it makes sense that the main deck would have remained the wood's color.
Thanks for your input!
Steve
blaster76
Joined: September 15, 2002
KitMaker: 8,985 posts
Model Shipwrights: 3,509 posts
Posted: Saturday, August 06, 2005 - 05:56 PM UTC
I've never seen an artist rendidtion or a model that had the blue deck.
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 03:24 AM UTC
Steven, I've posted a question concerning your question on a historical site I hang out at. One of the guys, who goes by the name Salvage Sailor, is one of the divers who has actually dived on the Arizona in Pearl. I think if anybody would know for sure he would. I'll let you know.
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 03:22 PM UTC
Steven, my e-fried Craig came through, sort of. He pointed me toward a site ran by David Aiken and Tracy White, who I only know from another board as David and Tracy, so I couldn't track them down. These two gentlemen have forgotten more about Pearl Harbor than you and I will probably ever know. Tracy answered a similar question awhile back and here is his response.
"have enough 5-D to do so would instead use 5-S. ARIZONA went into drydock on the 26th of October following a collision at sea with the NEVADA on the 22nd. There is a very real chance that Arizona was in the modified Measure 1 paint scheme. You can read more about it on this thread here. Unfortunately I don't have a better answer for you at this time. Steve Wiper from Classic Warships has promised a book about the battleships of Pearl in the future with color photographs, but until then we just have to wait.
One thing is for sure, ARIZONA was 5-D for part of 1941 at least, so if you paint her htat color you won't be wrong for at least part of 1941! "
http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?s=2d82a9c33750b7ff0e4360b0fc0e351f;act=ST;f=18;t=1246
I'm still looking for a website I found a while back that gave detailed information about the various camo measures in use before and during the war.
"have enough 5-D to do so would instead use 5-S. ARIZONA went into drydock on the 26th of October following a collision at sea with the NEVADA on the 22nd. There is a very real chance that Arizona was in the modified Measure 1 paint scheme. You can read more about it on this thread here. Unfortunately I don't have a better answer for you at this time. Steve Wiper from Classic Warships has promised a book about the battleships of Pearl in the future with color photographs, but until then we just have to wait.
One thing is for sure, ARIZONA was 5-D for part of 1941 at least, so if you paint her htat color you won't be wrong for at least part of 1941! "
http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?s=2d82a9c33750b7ff0e4360b0fc0e351f;act=ST;f=18;t=1246
I'm still looking for a website I found a while back that gave detailed information about the various camo measures in use before and during the war.
95bravo
Joined: November 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,242 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,064 posts
Posted: Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 05:32 PM UTC
Wow Rodger, some serious sleuthing talents! Thanks for the great information! Between you and Mike's help, Measure 1 it is! .....hehehe I knew I should have asked this!
Hey check out the link that Mike added in the other Arizona thread. It's a 1/192nd scale Arizona....awe inspiring.
Thanks again
Steve
Hey check out the link that Mike added in the other Arizona thread. It's a 1/192nd scale Arizona....awe inspiring.
Thanks again
Steve
MartinJQuinn
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 574 posts
Model Shipwrights: 530 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 01:09 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I'm still looking for a website I found a while back that gave detailed information about the various camo measures in use before and during the war.
You can find most of what you are looking for here: http://www.shipcamouflage.com/
There is a whole section on camouflage measures, plus a database of what measure each ship wore and when. The database is incomplete, but extensive.
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 02:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextI'm still looking for a website I found a while back that gave detailed information about the various camo measures in use before and during the war.
You can find most of what you are looking for here: http://www.shipcamouflage.com/
There is a whole section on camouflage measures, plus a database of what measure each ship wore and when. The database is incomplete, but extensive.
THAT's the ONE. Thanks Martin. I've added it to my favorites here at work.
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Model Shipwrights: 89 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 03:20 AM UTC
This thread on the Pearl Harbor Message board is a more complete discussion of what's metioned in the previous citing.
http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?s=659c58c0cd09d886ae5bf91a3f615924;act=ST;f=13;t=364;&#top
It should answer any questions.
http://www.pearlharborattacked.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard312a/ikonboard.cgi?s=659c58c0cd09d886ae5bf91a3f615924;act=ST;f=13;t=364;&#top
It should answer any questions.
dlgn25
Vendor
Joined: June 17, 2004
KitMaker: 398 posts
Model Shipwrights: 292 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 04:58 AM UTC
Hi Steve,
The Chesley info is VERY dated, and incorrect. ARIZONA was never in Ms.14. The speculation that she may have been in modified Ms.1 is just that: speculation. Until someone comes up with incontrovertible proof in the form of documents showing she repainted in one of the blues being tested, go with Measure 1 using 5-D Dark Gray and the 1941 version of 5-L Light Gray.
Cheers,
John Snyder
The Token Yank
White Ensign Models
http://WhiteEnsignModels.com
The Chesley info is VERY dated, and incorrect. ARIZONA was never in Ms.14. The speculation that she may have been in modified Ms.1 is just that: speculation. Until someone comes up with incontrovertible proof in the form of documents showing she repainted in one of the blues being tested, go with Measure 1 using 5-D Dark Gray and the 1941 version of 5-L Light Gray.
Cheers,
John Snyder
The Token Yank
White Ensign Models
http://WhiteEnsignModels.com
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 05:50 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Hi Steve,
The Chesley info is VERY dated, and incorrect. ARIZONA was never in Ms.14. The speculation that she may have been in modified Ms.1 is just that: speculation. Until someone comes up with incontrovertible proof in the form of documents showing she repainted in one of the blues being tested, go with Measure 1 using 5-D Dark Gray and the 1941 version of 5-L Light Gray.
Cheers,
John Snyder
The Token Yank
White Ensign Models
http://WhiteEnsignModels.com
Jeez, this is getting as bad as "what is the proper Olive Drab" that the tank guys are always arguing about. Reading that thread 1.90E+31 posted there is arguement on both sides, with two guys I greatly respect, Dave Aiken and Tracy White, going for the shades of blue.
I guess you pays your money and you takes your chances.
95bravo
Joined: November 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,242 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,064 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 06:33 AM UTC
In reading that thread and I noted John's response in it as well. Yep...going with the Measure 1.
You would think that there would be orders someplace that could provide the definitive answer. Someone needs to get on the stick, head to NARA, dig through the miles of files and come up with the answer.
:-) :-)
Of course...then we enter that nebulous realm of properly mixed ratios at the time....
Thanks for all the input everyone....this has been a fantastic discussion!
You would think that there would be orders someplace that could provide the definitive answer. Someone needs to get on the stick, head to NARA, dig through the miles of files and come up with the answer.
:-) :-) Of course...then we enter that nebulous realm of properly mixed ratios at the time....
Thanks for all the input everyone....this has been a fantastic discussion!
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Model Shipwrights: 89 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 06:47 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Jeez, this is getting as bad as "what is the proper Olive Drab" that the tank guys are always arguing about. Reading that thread 1.90E+31 posted there is arguement on both sides, with two guys I greatly respect, Dave Aiken and Tracy White, going for the shades of blue.
Actually, this is a discussion whether a color similar to black or a color similar to non-specular sea blue was used. There is a significant difference between the two. As for the discussion itself, the "evidence" used to advance the blue color is based on one sentence of one paragraph in an order, not an actual order replacing one color with another.
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:25 AM UTC
I think the only way anybody is going to know for sure is if they find a supply order showing that the Arizona pulled X number of cans of 5D, or X number of cans 5s, or X number of cans of pink, or whatever, from supply. I don't know if that is ever going to happen. I know I've spoken to Pearl Harbor vets, including my ROTC commander who as on the bridge of the Nevada when she tried to sortie, who say it was dark gray, while others have said it was blue.
I painted my 1/350 Banner kit a shade of gray/blue. I personally think it was too light, but it looked ok at the time. I may vary well paint the 1/720 kit I have of her in my stash a totally different color..
I think this may be one of those historical oddities we'll never know for sure.
I painted my 1/350 Banner kit a shade of gray/blue. I personally think it was too light, but it looked ok at the time. I may vary well paint the 1/720 kit I have of her in my stash a totally different color..
I think this may be one of those historical oddities we'll never know for sure.
95bravo
Joined: November 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,242 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,064 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think this may be one of those historical oddities we'll never know for sure.
Indeed, the plague of the historian...and modeler. It's a shame that most of these documents were not saved. At the time, I would suspect that it was not considered of historical relevance...then it becomes relevant 64 years later.
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Model Shipwrights: 89 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:35 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think the only way anybody is going to know for sure is if they find a supply order showing that the Arizona pulled X number of cans of 5D, or X number of cans 5s, or X number of cans of pink, or whatever, from supply. I don't know if that is ever going to happen. I know I've spoken to Pearl Harbor vets, including my ROTC commander who as on the bridge of the Nevada when she tried to sortie, who say it was dark gray, while others have said it was blue.
I painted my 1/350 Banner kit a shade of gray/blue. I personally think it was too light, but it looked ok at the time. I may vary well paint the 1/720 kit I have of her in my stash a totally different color..
I think this may be one of those historical oddities we'll never know for sure.
I'd disagree, since there seems to be plenty of evidence presented in the discussion I've cited to demonstrate that the ships were painted in 5-D. One of the more significant points mentioned is that the only measure in use that called for 5-D was Measure 1, and all of the measures that called for 5-S were completely unlike Measure 1 in design. Also, FYI, only 5-D was issued pre-mixed. 5-S was mixed pierside from white paint and blue tint.
Finally, during the IPMS Nationals in Atlanta, Daniel Martinez was sked what color the ships were painted, and he replied a very dark blue-gray. Since the only color approaching that description in service at the time was 5-D, which is actually a very dark blue, I think your answer is right there.
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Model Shipwrights: 89 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:40 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Indeed, the plague of the historian...and modeler. It's a shame that most of these documents were not saved. At the time, I would suspect that it was not considered of historical relevance...then it becomes relevant 64 years later.
The documents still exist. Their serial numbers are 15-Cn41, and 21-CN41. 15-CN41 can be seen in it's entirety on the Ship Camouflage site, and 21-CN41 is cited numerous times in the old Plastic Ship Modeler magazine articles by Alan Raven. This is actually quite well documented.
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Model Shipwrights: 1,821 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 07:49 AM UTC
1.90E+31, (why can't you have a real name like everybody else :-) ) in that link that you posted Tracy White, on Dec 2 2003, wrote the following. "Now comes the big question. What color blue were these ships? It is a very good question as I know 5-S did not work very well and was quickly discontinued. Also, 5-S is noticeably lighter than 5-N, and in the above mentioned film, these ships are very dark blue, so it is my belief that the battleships were painted with 5-N (Navy Blue). " He also writes the following. "Don Preul, who has several models on display at the Arizona memorial and the Bowfin Museum, also weighed in:
For what it worth I believe that Steve is correct. As for the film, we saw about 7 films. They all can't be wrong. I have been working with the historian at the USS Arizona Memorial for about 6 years now and with all the research that Mr. Martinez has done he too is convinced that the USS Arizona was Navy Blue. After Oklahoma collided with Arizona (Oct 22), the Arizona went into drydock #1 for repairs. The Arizona was there until Nov.11. The photo from Nov. 8 clearly shows that The Arizona has a fresh paint job. Since the production of 5D had already stopped by this time (Orders by Adm Kimmel dated Oct 6th) I believe that The Arizona was painted 5N." The Mr Matinez mentioned there is the Daniel Martinez you menioned.
The 5S, or Sea Blue, can also be called also be called a very dark blue.
I really don't know the answer. It seems this has been debated quite a bit, and may still be debated.
For what it worth I believe that Steve is correct. As for the film, we saw about 7 films. They all can't be wrong. I have been working with the historian at the USS Arizona Memorial for about 6 years now and with all the research that Mr. Martinez has done he too is convinced that the USS Arizona was Navy Blue. After Oklahoma collided with Arizona (Oct 22), the Arizona went into drydock #1 for repairs. The Arizona was there until Nov.11. The photo from Nov. 8 clearly shows that The Arizona has a fresh paint job. Since the production of 5D had already stopped by this time (Orders by Adm Kimmel dated Oct 6th) I believe that The Arizona was painted 5N." The Mr Matinez mentioned there is the Daniel Martinez you menioned.
The 5S, or Sea Blue, can also be called also be called a very dark blue.
I really don't know the answer. It seems this has been debated quite a bit, and may still be debated.
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Model Shipwrights: 89 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 08:14 AM UTC
Halfyank,
As you read this series of postings, you will find that the people you are citing base their theory on what Don Montgomery proposed. The problem with what he proposed was that 5-N wasn't authorized for use in the Pacific Fleet until February 1942. Once this was pointed out, the discussion then moved to the use of 5-S. Here is a sample that was posted on the Ship Camouflage site of 5-D and 5-S side by side:
As you can see, there is a significant difference between the two, which would be discernable in photos. Also, as stated in that thread, The Nevada, West Virginia, and California were also said to have been painted in 5-N, but there are photos posted which show them to have been painted in 5-D. Also, in the documents cited as showing that 5-S was used, they state that these colors were to be used experimentally on destroyers, and if you go to the Pearl Harbor Experiments page on shipcamouflage.com, you'll see which ships these were, and when they were painted in these experimental colors.
Finally, you mention the date which 5-D was discontinued (October 6) by order 15-CN41. However, 15-CN41 also stated that existing stocks of 5-D are to be exhausted before use of the new paints are to be allowed. Since the Pacific Fleet had only completed repainting into Measure 1 in late October, it's unlikely that 5-D had been exhaused by the time Arizona went into drydock 3 weeks later.
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/development_of_naval_camouflage.htm)
As you read this series of postings, you will find that the people you are citing base their theory on what Don Montgomery proposed. The problem with what he proposed was that 5-N wasn't authorized for use in the Pacific Fleet until February 1942. Once this was pointed out, the discussion then moved to the use of 5-S. Here is a sample that was posted on the Ship Camouflage site of 5-D and 5-S side by side:
As you can see, there is a significant difference between the two, which would be discernable in photos. Also, as stated in that thread, The Nevada, West Virginia, and California were also said to have been painted in 5-N, but there are photos posted which show them to have been painted in 5-D. Also, in the documents cited as showing that 5-S was used, they state that these colors were to be used experimentally on destroyers, and if you go to the Pearl Harbor Experiments page on shipcamouflage.com, you'll see which ships these were, and when they were painted in these experimental colors.
Finally, you mention the date which 5-D was discontinued (October 6) by order 15-CN41. However, 15-CN41 also stated that existing stocks of 5-D are to be exhausted before use of the new paints are to be allowed. Since the Pacific Fleet had only completed repainting into Measure 1 in late October, it's unlikely that 5-D had been exhaused by the time Arizona went into drydock 3 weeks later.
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/development_of_naval_camouflage.htm)
skipper
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,182 posts
Model Shipwrights: 4,070 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 09:29 PM UTC
Hi all!
So, as usual in all things in life, there's a different point of view here, which is natural because of the time gap between the two sources!
I don't want to send gas over the fire, but in case of doubt, I trust Snyder and Sort (shipcamouflage.com).
Also would like to add, that when you are modeling, a battleship in this case, and if you are going to make it full accurate you have to be fully documented on it, to a particular day - in this case December 6th 1941!
Remember that, weaponry, communications systems, masts, colors, everything can change in a overaul or in a smaller repair!
Remember above all, this is supposed to be FUN!
And fun it is not only building and painting, it is also the research fase - so, hit the library, books, websites, and make your own conclusions... They shoul NOT BE very different from others, but you have made your work!
My 2 cents on this discussion
Skipper
So, as usual in all things in life, there's a different point of view here, which is natural because of the time gap between the two sources!
I don't want to send gas over the fire, but in case of doubt, I trust Snyder and Sort (shipcamouflage.com).
Also would like to add, that when you are modeling, a battleship in this case, and if you are going to make it full accurate you have to be fully documented on it, to a particular day - in this case December 6th 1941!
Remember that, weaponry, communications systems, masts, colors, everything can change in a overaul or in a smaller repair!
Remember above all, this is supposed to be FUN!
And fun it is not only building and painting, it is also the research fase - so, hit the library, books, websites, and make your own conclusions... They shoul NOT BE very different from others, but you have made your work!
My 2 cents on this discussion
Skipper
desertmole
Joined: February 04, 2004
KitMaker: 53 posts
Model Shipwrights: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, August 08, 2005 - 11:56 PM UTC
Oh Boy, you guys have done it now! You have opened the biggest, giant, economy-sized can of worms in history. The debate on this has been going on for years over on Steel Navy, and though no one has been indicted for murder, some of the posts have been pretty acrimonious, and almost qualify as lethal weapons! :-)
Seriously, there have been posts on that site discussing photos, films, orders and God knows what else. You practically need a PhD in chemistry to understand some of the discussions on film make-up, aging over time, B&W photo analysis, etc. Not to mention the issue of paint fading due to the sun, water, etc.
A few things do stand out. On 1250 Home recently it was reported that Daniel Martinez, Pearl Harbor Historian, stated that on dives to the wreck he has wiped aside the silt on the deck, and found no stain of any kind on the wood. Measure 1 is thought to be correct, but the question of whether repainting of the ships on Battleship Row to the new interim colors that were ordered in Oct. 41 (I think) actually started to occur is in question.
I posted a link to Steel Navy over on the Strategypage.com site a while back, and included a quip "Just don't ask what color the Arizona was on 7 Dec. 41" with the link, and started a shor firestorm over on their discussion board site because of it.
Seriously, there have been posts on that site discussing photos, films, orders and God knows what else. You practically need a PhD in chemistry to understand some of the discussions on film make-up, aging over time, B&W photo analysis, etc. Not to mention the issue of paint fading due to the sun, water, etc.
A few things do stand out. On 1250 Home recently it was reported that Daniel Martinez, Pearl Harbor Historian, stated that on dives to the wreck he has wiped aside the silt on the deck, and found no stain of any kind on the wood. Measure 1 is thought to be correct, but the question of whether repainting of the ships on Battleship Row to the new interim colors that were ordered in Oct. 41 (I think) actually started to occur is in question.
I posted a link to Steel Navy over on the Strategypage.com site a while back, and included a quip "Just don't ask what color the Arizona was on 7 Dec. 41" with the link, and started a shor firestorm over on their discussion board site because of it.
skipper
Joined: February 28, 2002
KitMaker: 5,182 posts
Model Shipwrights: 4,070 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 12:24 AM UTC
Yes this can be a can of worms, but it can be also a friendly discussion - just as long as members stay focused and bearing in mind that this is supposed to be fun!
When reading and interpreting the knowledge that is writen, can be absorbed in different ways, unless it is writen in a way that there's no error margin - but even these can be doubted - depending on the sources!
So when I say, hit the books and your sources, all that work will have the effect on you to understand all the surrondings and things that led / make that event or explain some changes / things (like in this case, a color scheme). If a modeler make all the efforts he can, post his questions and doubts here in Armorama (or any modeling forum/ mailling list/ club meetings), the one's who now, should help - this is the reason and purpose of this wesbsite!
If a particular matter is one of those "can of worms", than the question should be posted too, but since it's a "hot topic", temper and respect should be taken in consideration when replying
Not al the modelers have the same knowledge, not all the modelers are at the same level, not all modelers have the same resources and sources...
I am glad to see that modelers are a family full of resources, and the members at the Warship area are a real crew, and things like these, are held with all the respect and seriousness that it is due to our hobby!
Skipper
When reading and interpreting the knowledge that is writen, can be absorbed in different ways, unless it is writen in a way that there's no error margin - but even these can be doubted - depending on the sources!
So when I say, hit the books and your sources, all that work will have the effect on you to understand all the surrondings and things that led / make that event or explain some changes / things (like in this case, a color scheme). If a modeler make all the efforts he can, post his questions and doubts here in Armorama (or any modeling forum/ mailling list/ club meetings), the one's who now, should help - this is the reason and purpose of this wesbsite!
If a particular matter is one of those "can of worms", than the question should be posted too, but since it's a "hot topic", temper and respect should be taken in consideration when replying
Not al the modelers have the same knowledge, not all the modelers are at the same level, not all modelers have the same resources and sources...
I am glad to see that modelers are a family full of resources, and the members at the Warship area are a real crew, and things like these, are held with all the respect and seriousness that it is due to our hobby!
Skipper
1.90E_31
Joined: December 24, 2004
KitMaker: 252 posts
Model Shipwrights: 89 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 - 06:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Yes this can be a can of worms, but it can be also a friendly discussion - just as long as members stay focused and bearing in mind that this is supposed to be fun!
There is no need for this to become combattive. All I have wished to do is to present the information which is at present available, and allow the members to evaluate it for themselves. If people wish to have a different opinion of this information than I do, then that's their decision. I disagree with the hypothesis that the Arizona was painted in a blue color other than 5-D since there is no documentary evidence to support it. However, as modelers, it's up to them as to how this information is acted upon. Whatever that decision may be, it shouldn't and won't be a point of contention.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Model Shipwrights and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.