USN 2-tone camo 1941-1943

[Navy Bird]

Hi mates,

Most of the sites I've visited say that the USN 2-tone camo had No. 12 Blue-Grey on top and No. 10 Light Grey undersides. The 2-tone scheme prior to 1941 was M-485 Blue-Grey and M-495 Light Grey. Most references seem to say that these were essentially the same colours.

The closest match to the Blue-Grey is often cited as FS35189. When I search for paints that match this FS number I get PRU Blue! This doesn't seem quite right to me, as I can't see PRU Blue as being the topside colour for a 1942 Dauntless!

Any advice?

Cheers,

Bill

[gcn]

I've used Tamiya XF-18 for the topside, looks good enough to my eye. Especially when you start to weather it, which tends to happen with these aircraft.

[Phantom726]

I tend to look at this site whenever in doubt: http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/colorcharts/stuff_eng_colorcharts_us.htm

WEM produces a wide selection of the US WWII colors.

HTH

[Don McIntyre]

I use the Modelmaster USN Blue-Gray over Light Gull Gray and it looks right to me.

Tamiya's F4U-2 in Natural Sunlight:

[Fernando]

Hi, Navy Bird,

Well, PRU Blue was not painted on US Navy planes, but it may well be that the most approximate FS colour for both is the same (= there is no closer one!) Straggler Nick could provide the measurements ("where 2.0 is close")

It also depends on which commercial brand PRU you are looking at; from memory, it can be very close, more than USN Intermediate Blue, the common alternate colour oft cited.

BTW, first time I heard of another standard in between M-xxx and ANA colours...

Fernando

[Steven Eisenman]

Not sure where this 12 and 10 come in or any other number for that matter. The USN did not have a standard for the "early" Blue-Gray. It was an ad hoc response to carrier commanders who did not want light colored aircraft on the blue decks. It was found that this ad hoc Blue-gray weathered poorly and chalked. The USN came out with color chips (probably late '41), passed them around and got a darker paint made.

Most out there is an approximation, I've seen complex mixes to using Model Master II PRU Blue.

In the back of the Official Monogram USN...color book, there are three paint chips for blue gray. The first is perhaps representitive of the early ad hoc color, the second representitive of the darker color and the third is perhaps close to Sea Gray (FS 36118), which was an approved relacement for blue gray, but never used.

All things considered a good match may be more in the eye of the modeler and the look he is trying to achieve.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Steven Eisenman

[Navy Bird]

Great replies, everyone, thanks so much! And yes, Nick would provide a nice analysis for us! Nick, where are you?

Cheers,

Bill

[Navy Bird]

Not sure where this 12 and 10 come in or any other number for that matter.

It's in the Wikipedia article on USN Aircraft Camouflage. Not the best source, of course, but the dates for the change between these numbers do correlate with the dates for USN orders shown in the Don Color site that I included in a previous post. Don Color states that the exact shade of these colors were not specified, as you also stated. So there is no exact shade or answer - although if the USN passed out color chips in late 1941, and got a darker color, that may correlate to the adoption of Nos. 12 and 10 on August 20, 1941.

I'm asking these questions on behalf of another modeller who is doing an early Dauntless. I think that using Light Gull Gray on the undersides is a given, but I'd like to give him some alternatives for the top. Looks like this one may be almost as bad as Olive Drab!

Cheers,

Bill

[Steven Eisenman]

I have no idea wher the number 12 and 10 come from.

As for Light Gull Gray is a given. No it is not. It is another color entirely. It is not non-spec light gray. Light Gray was a specified color, Light Gull Gray is another color. Light Gull Gray came in after the USN phaed out Blue-Gray / Light Gray.

It is only bad as olive drab if you make it so and change things about.

[Navy Bird]

As for Light Gull Gray is a given. No it is not. It is another color entirely. It is not non-spec light gray. Light Gray was a specified color, Light Gull Gray is another color. Light Gull Gray came in after the USN phaed out Blue-Gray / Light Gray.

Hi Steven,

What I said was that "using" LGG was a given for this model, and that was based on using the IPMS Stockholm chart that shows M-495 Light grey as being close to FS36440. I didn't say that LGG was M-495 (or No.10 if that is a real designation).

That said, I don't have access to the chips in the Monogram book, and it sounds like you do. Can you elaborate on how M-495 is different than LGG? Since this color seems to have been "specified" as you say (whereas the blue-grey wasn't, as you said there is no standard for it and other sources agree) I would be interested in your interpretation of the light gray. Is there a better FS or ANA match other than LGG? Thanks!

Cheers,

Bill

Here is a reference (other than Wikipedia) that shows a "No. 12 Blue-Gray" -

Link

And one for "No. 10 Light Gray" -

Link

Edited September 21, 2012 by Navy Bird

[Jennings Heilig]

Pre-war Light Gray is, I believe, somewhat lighter than X6440 Light Gull Gray, and not as brown. LGG has a distinct warm brownish cast to it.

[Chuck1945]

Light Gray became ANA 602 Light Gray, there are color samples in the book Steven cites of both ANA 602 and ANA 620 (Light Gull Gray), They are on different pages so short of removing a page it is not possible to make a side-by-side comparison. My impression though is that Light Gray (602) is slightly darker than Light Gull Gray (620). It is this ANA color (620) that later became FS36440 Light Gull Gray. From a modelling perspective, especially if 'scale color' is considered, FS 36440 Light Gull Gray should be acceptable as USN Light Gray from the early WWII period.

It may be just the result of the way my monitor displays the photo Don linked of his Corsair, but the upper surface color appears way too light and blue for the WWII USN Blue-Gray color. Blue-Gray is a darker color that is very much a blue-grey, think perhaps of the British color Dark Sea Grey bu witht just a touch more blue. On my monitor the link to #10 Blue Gray has about the right degree of blue-grey, but nay be too light. It is in the same ballpark at least as the lightest example in the Monogram book..

[Nick Millman]

Steven is not quite correct in the way he has described the M-495 Blue Grey chips in Elliot's book. The suffix numbers to the three chips refer to the notes in the table of colours on pp 190-191. The (1) chip refers to the Blue Grey paint from an FM-2 restored by the NASM and is therefore one example of the applied paint. The (3) chip is believed to be an interim colour planned for the three tone scheme and not for the two tone scheme and is therefore irrelevant. The (4) chip was found in a classified period document and is believed to represent the colour as intended e.g. the paint colour standard for Blue Grey - it is Munsell 9B 3.5/1.5. The chip in the book is somewhat between FS 26118 and 26099 in appearance.

It's also not really true to say that M-485 was an 'ad hoc' colour. This goes back to variance and degradation vs the paint colour standard. It is just that a verifiable official colour standard swatch has not survived. Photographs reveal that the paint surface chalked heavily making it appear lighter and greyer. Colour photographs are very deceptive but people just love them. For many modellers one badly reproduced colour image is a better resource than a dozen pages of actual paint colour analysis and notes. No wonder the net is awash with misleading colour information.

The pigments used in the paint were specified as titanium oxide (white) or antimony oxide (white), Prussian blue (aka "iron" blue), and carbon black. I do not know why two white pigments were specified or whether the titanium was anatase or rutile which would affect the degree of chalking. The original Munsell notation for this colour was 5 B 4/2 but that was in the 1929 system and many errors have resulted from this notation being used with the new system. The matching to the one example of actual paint from the Grumman FM-2 restoration cited by Elliot is 10 B 5/4 with the closest FS595b given as 35189.

Palmieri also compared the colour to FS 35189, commenting that it is "a good match". I found a significant difference of 6.91 between the two colours and using Palmieri's Methuen reference for triangulation - 23 (E-F) 5 - I would conclude that 35189 is a little too light, bright and grey, possibly a degraded paint surface. The closest match to 10 B 5/4 is actually 35177 @ 3.37 but that is a stronger, clearer blue - and just too blue.

Ian Huntley also compares M-495 Blue Grey to FS 35189, citing the same Methuen reference and commented that it tended to turn towards "a blueish-grey from the original greenish-blue grey".

The Dial chip (US Camouflage WWII 1964) is too purplish in appearance.

Looking at the FS595b pigments:-

35189 - titanium dioxide, phthalo blue (green shade), natural raw umber, quinacridone magenta y

35177 - titanium dioxide, benzimidazolone yellow, phthalo blue (green shade), quinacridone red

Crikey! None of these imitates the original "cruder" pigments very well and result in colours which are chromatically stronger towards either the grey or the blue. Anyone who has oil paints (or even water paints) can very quickly and better visualise the "character" of the colour by mixing titanium white, Prussian blue and ivory black. Were it still available I would have no hesitation in suggesting Humbrol 124 Satin Petrol Blue out of the tin to represent a moderately oxidised and weathered aircraft. That is where PRU blue comes in as the same paint imitates a weathered PRU Blue. 35189 is like a very faded and washed out version of the colour.

Light Gray did not become FS 36440. It was not carried over but was rather superceded as the Elliot table reveals. The two colours, although having a very close resemblance, have different Munsell notations. 36440 is a little more greenish than Light Gray although it is still the closest FS value. Palmieri asserts that the iron oxide (which he calls Burnt Sienna) was added to offset the blue reflectivity in the white to maintain a pure neutral grey, citing Munsell 1929 N7. It is true that pure greys often appear bluish - or cold - to the eye. For modelling purposes I think these differences and nuances are academic. From the Munsell it was undoubtedly a warm grey.

Because Munsell is not readily visualised I've prepared a schematic of rendered chips for these paints as described. I'm not going to post it on here but anyone who wants a copy is welcome to pm with their email address and I'll gladly send it to them.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Nick Millman

[Steven Eisenman]

Nick, let's wait for Dana Bell's write up.

He has been digging around in the US National Archives and has come up with the documentation and color chips for the second round of blue-gray.

The original blue-gray was put on at the instigation of Admiral Halsey, without BuAer approval. Soon after the BuAer adopted it. So the pacific based aircraft show the lighter blue-gray color.

The reference to Elliott is speculative, as there is no documentation as to his chips of blue-gray. Just raising the possibility that is what Elliott was basing his work on.

[Nick Millman]

Nick, let's wait for Dana Bell's write up.

He has been digging around in the US National Archives and has come up with the documentation and color chips for the second round of blue-gray.

The original blue-gray was put on at the instigation of Admiral Halsey, without BuAer approval. Soon after the BuAer adopted it. So the pacific based aircraft show the lighter blue-gray color.

The reference to Elliott is speculative, as there is no documentation as to his chips of blue-gray. Just raising the possibility that is what Elliott was basing his work on.

Regardless of that your earlier comment (where I note that you didn't wait for Dana Bell's write-up) required correction as to fact regarding the purpose of the chips in Elliot. The documentation for the three chips is clear from his notes on pp 190-191 (as I mentioned above) and I respectfully suggest you refer to those before jumping to conclusions about them and what they represent.

I don't understand what you mean about the "second round of blue-gray" - it was governed by a standard first applied from 30 Dec 1940 to 1 Feb 1943 for patrol aircraft and non-shipboard based amphibious aircraft, from 13 Oct 1941 to 1 Feb 1943 for shipboard aircraft and from 26 Dec 1941 to 1 Feb 1943 for other land-based aircraft. On 20 Aug 1941 ComAir Battle Force directed that all carrier-based aircraft in Battle Force be painted in the Blue Gray which is what I think you are referring to when you mention Halsey. And BuAer (not Halsey) issued a consolidated directive on 6 Feb 1942. The pigmentation didn't change although the proportions might have.

There might well have been local mixes to match the standard but it is wrong to suggest that the colour itself was 'ad hoc'. There were certainly instructions for painting the tri-colour scheme locally using existing stores paints (including the Blue Gray) but as always it is most important to distinguish between those and paint colour standards.

And since we are on the subject of factual accuracy your comparison of chip (4) to Sea Gray and FS 36118 does not bear scrutiny either. Taking both the cited Munsell value and measurements of the chip itself to 36118 the difference is 3.87. Visually and objectively they appear similar and variance could bring them together but in pure colour terms the chip (Munsell 9 B 3.5/1.5) is more blue than 36118 (Munsell 1.8 PB 3.9/1.1). I think that this is probably the same error Dial made in the preparation of his chip for Blue Gray and the comparison confusion is also referenced by Huntley with regard to AID documents.

[Navy Bird]

Great stuff! The history and science behind the camouflage colours is always interesting for me to read. Nick, have you ever encountered the designations of No. 12 Blue-Gray and No. 10 Light Gray? If so, where did these designations come from?

From a modelling perspective, it appears that PRU Blue may have its place as one of the colours that could be used to depict a weathered and faded USN plane from the 1942 period. My thanks to all for sharing this information. And Don, I was remiss in not commenting on your Corsair. Great job!

Cheers,

Bill

[Steven Eisenman]

Nick, do you have a reference for the standard of 1940? According to Elliott there is no directive.

The color cards found in the NA date to '41.

[Nick Millman]

Great stuff! The history and science behind the camouflage colours is always interesting for me to read. Nick, have you ever encountered the designations of No. 12 Blue-Gray and No. 10 Light Gray? If so, where did these designations come from?

From a modelling perspective, it appears that PRU Blue may have its place as one of the colours that could be used to depict a weathered and faded USN plane from the 1942 period. My thanks to all for sharing this information. And Don, I was remiss in not commenting on your Corsair. Great job!

Cheers,

Bill

Hi Bill

No I have not encountered No. 12 and No.10 but I have a horrible feeling these might have been presumed from USN ship camouflage colours. I shall do some more digging to see what I can find.

Another paint to check out for a weathered model, especially in 1/72nd scale is Revell 79 Blaugrau (Blue Grey) which is supposedly an equivalent to RAL 7031 Blaugrau which is slightly lighter and washed out from the Munsell 9B 3.5/1.5 cited by Elliot. I have not checked this to see whether the Revell paint is true to the RAL colour.

I am suspicious of the 10 B 5/4 comparison simply because it is not consistent with the original pigments, being too bright and too blue, but have included it since Elliot cites it. Judging by the Corsair pic above it looks like the Modelmaster paint replicates this colour which has an appearance similar to Intermediate Blue rather than Blue Gray although the Testors website acrylic paint chip looks correct. I don't have the Testors paint so cannot confirm which direction it follows - towards more grey or more blue. I also found an online data reference for the Testors acrylic paint which does not look like the paint on the Corsair model and calculates as very close to FS 25237 @ 1.96 but again without the actual Testors paint I cannot confirm that. Interestingly FS 25237 is not so far from 35189 @ 3.35.

Regards

Nick

[Nick Millman]

Nick, do you have a reference for the standard of 1940? According to Elliott there is no directive.

The color cards found in the NA date to '41.

US Naval Aircraft Colours - USN Camouflage of WW2, Del Palmieri 1981. Palmieri mentions that there were two paint specs M-485 and M-485a, the latter referring to a "slight chemical reformulation of the identical hues". He notes evidence that F4Fs of VF 6, SBDs of VB-6 and VSB-6, TBDs of VT-6 and F4Fs of VMF-211 on board or delivered to Wake via USS Enterprise shortly before Pearl Harbor all revealed evidence of being re-painted from the overall light gray scheme with the Blue Gray sweeping "up and over the front of the cowling, leaving its front opening completely surrounded by the original Light Gray".

As an aside the earlier paint using Prussian blue pigment is distinct from later USN paints formulated on Ultramarine pigment because it has a noticeably greenish appearance on comparison. This effect is fugitive and caused by the interaction of the pigments.

If Dana has found new paint colour swatches I hope he communicates their colours with more precision than just a colour description or a subjective visual comparison to FS 595b! Tell him to get them properly measured and I will be happy to help with any calculations/comparisons.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Nick Millman

[Nick Millman]

While I was rendering these colours I decided to measure the (1) Blue Grey chip in Elliot because I didn't think it looked like the Munsell 10 B 4/2 cited for it in his table. It isn't. It is closer to the 5 B 4/2 cited by Palmieri which was supposed to be from the 1929 Munsell system.

Whilst 10 B 4/2 is not consistent with the pigments used for the original colour 5 B 4/2 is.

I have included both in the schematic. IMHO the colour should look like 5 B 4/2 and weathered towards FS 35189.

[MikeR]

Nick, how does Xtracolour Blue Gray compare with the information you have? I've bought it so I can do an early '42 F4F-3, probably either Thach's or O'Hare's aircraft.

Mike.

[Nick Millman]

Sorry Mike, I do not have this particular paint to be able to assess it. Paint colour appearance is always dependent on the pigments and a good way to check would be to compare it to the oil paint or water colour mix I have suggested - tint some titanium white with Prussian blue and ivory black. Regardless of proportions the character of the colour quickly becomes apparent and is at once reminiscent of Life colour photos. You are also welcome to have a copy of the pdf with chips if it would help - just drop me a pm.

[Seawinder]

As an aside the earlier paint using Prussian blue pigment is distinct from later USN paints formulated on Ultramarine pigment because it has a noticeably greenish appearance on comparison. This effect is fugitive and caused by the interaction of the pigments.

Nick et al, I was going to comment that to my eye the Model Master enamel rendition of Blue Gray lacks the suggestion of greenishnish I see in period photos. I wonder if it (and perhaps other renditions) could be improved by adding a pinch of green.

[Fernando]

Hi, Nick,

Blue-Grey in an Eastern (not Grumman) FM-2? Wasn't it too late for that?

Also, I would have described Light Grey as "darker" than Light Gull Grey, and "warmer" (this can be an side effect of its being darker), though without the characteristic yellowish tinge.

Fernando