About merchant ship wartime colours

[gap]

Interesting read:

https://www.shipsnostalgia.com/threa...colours.29141/

summarizing:

1. Grey paint was the general rule for Allied merchant vessels. Some ships had funnel tops and top half of masts painted white so to blend with the sky.
   
   
2. Apparently there was no official rule prescribing the above, so the grey paint was more a matter of common selse by shipmasters/shipowners than else.
   
   
3. As a consequence of the previous point, there was not a sudden transition from peacetime colours to wartime grey. Some ships - probably the ones whose trading routes were closer to the main war theatres - were repainted at the earliest opportunity after the war broke out, whereas a few others are reported to have switched colours as late as January 1941.
   
   
4. Ships built during the war were delivered in grey paint. Late in the war a few Liberty ships might have sported dazzle comoufflages too, but that was not universal.
   
   
5. The implementation of safety rules was somehow more strict for ships sailing in convoys. These rules included:
   
   • avoiding bright hull/superstructure colours;
   • not having the ship name painted on the hull;
   • no dark funnel smokes (this would have ruled out old coal-burning steamers from convoys).
   
   
6. As far as I can understand, breaking the first of the aforementioned rules would have had no other consequence than a harsh reprimand by the convoy commodore, which implies that, occasionally, ships in peacetime colours might still be found within Allied convoys.
   
   
7. Demonstration of the above, is that - as reported by a WWII survivor - neutral ships retained their company colours for most of the war even when sailing in convoys. If I can add a personal note, this might have been sort of a nonsense. According to German engagement rules any ship sailing within Allied convoys, even though belonging to a neutral nation, would have been a valid target, and retaining peacetime colours would only have made her an easier prey. In other words, convoy protection would have nullified "neutrality privileges" or, even worse, it could have rendered them counterproductive, but this is probably something which was not so clear at that time.

If you have any other information on the subject, be it in form of pictures, documents, first-hand reports or simple impressions, you are welcomed to share them here

[gap]

Quick addendum regarding Liberty ships and dazzle camo patterns:

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum...1eee0d#p822146

Originally Posted by reigels @ shipmodels.info

No dazzle's at all on the Atlantic for Liberty freighters (or tankers).

The only dazzle painted liberties I've seen were the Navy conversions for support and repair ships, predominantly found in the Pacific.

Ocean Gray is often cited as the as-build color for some Liberty ship yards, but there is a huge amount of variation (and weathering) in actual use.

[kapuhy]

Thanks for sharing this

I was recently trying to find information on the same subject, namely when did painting schemes change from what's visible on pre-war photos to "gray is good for everyone" approach, but didn't find anything other than incidental data. Your post and links clear up a lot.

Edit:

Originally Posted by gap

as reported by a WWII survivor - neutral ships retained their company colours for most of the war even when sailing in convoys. If I can add a personal note, this might have been sort of a nonsense. According to German engagement rules any ship sailing within Allied convoys, even though belonging to a neutral nation, would have been a valid target, and retaining peacetime colours would only have made her an easier prey. In other words, convoy protection would have nullified "neutrality privileges"

Makes sense though if these neutral ships joined convoy only occasionally / not for entire voyage. As soon as they dispersed from convoy for any reason (like, say, Spanish ship crossing from America in convoy then diverting to Spain), neutral colours would at least give Germans a pause, whereas if they were camouflaged they would likely be treated as combatant.

Edit 2: Some photos:

These we know from TWoS loading screens:

Seems at least some ships wear black hull and brownish superstructure.

Tanker in the middle, black hull with company colors on the funnel.

Convoy in 1942, Hampton Roads. Shows merchant ships in grey, with brown decks, hulls painted with camouflage stripes:



There's a lot of pictures here from convoy dated 1941 - ships mostly gray, with some like brownish colour (or perhaps just rust?):

https://www.barnorama.com/vintage-pi...voy-from-1941/

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Thanks for sharing this

I was recently trying to find information on the same subject, namely when did painting schemes change from what's visible on pre-war photos to "gray is good for everyone" approach, but didn't find anything other than incidental data. Your post and links clear up a lot.

Glad that you find my post useful. When I looked for the missing information I had exactly your beautifully painted ships in mind!

If you ask me, the bulk of British and Commonwealth vessels, especially deep-sea ships and ships expected to sail in convoys, should start painted in peacetime colours and turn grey within the first one or two weeks of war, at max.

Conversely, coastal vessels, especially the ones belonging to far British colonies and to other cobelligerents, could be made to follow a somewhat slower re-painting curve, some old and lesser exposed ships retaining their vivid company colours until mid to late 1940 - or even later for the USA and Latin American countries which entered the war at a later stage and were substantially umprepared to it. A few inshore vessels which only operated within the relatively safe waters of ports or in their immediate vicinity, e.g. lighters, barges, tugboats, and the likes, could even be let to retain their colors (mixed with a generous dose of rust) until the end of the conflict.

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Makes sense though if these neutral ships joined convoy only occasionally / not for entire voyage. As soon as they dispersed from convoy for any reason (like, say, Spanish ship crossing from America in convoy then diverting to Spain), neutral colours would at least give Germans a pause, whereas if they were camouflaged they would likely be treated as combatant.

You make a good point here but you probably chose the wrong example: though a few Spanish ships and boats were torpedoed and sunk by the Kriegsmarine, I doubt that the vessels of a neutral but Axis-friendly nation would have been allowed to sail within Allied convoys. I think I have even read reports of Spanish ships seized by the RN due to the ambiguous stance of their owning companies

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Edit 2: Some photos:

mmm... I am confident that at some point we will find some pictures confirming the presence of ships in company colours within convoys, but it seems to me that the first two photographs were digitally colorized (if so, I would be curious to see the B/W originals).

The last picture seem original though, but all the portrayed ships look to me as being plain grey, except for the vessels on the center left - probably an auxiliary vessel - which sports a dazzle pattern.

[gap]

@ kapuhy I have finally found the B/W originals of the "suspect" pictures you had posted before.



From Wikimedia Commons:

Description An Atlantic convoy underway as seen from a Royal Air Force Short Sunderland flying boat.
Date circa 1943
Source Dennis Richards and Hilary St. George Saunders: Royal Air Force 1939–1945. Volume II: The Fight Avails; London, HMSO, 1953. Photo [1]
Author Unknown author

It is hard to say from this picture as shadows might milead our eyes, but yes, several ships in the picture above seem to have black hulls and bright supestructures.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________




from the Russia in Estonia Twitter profile:

The 31st of August 1941, 7 ships of the USSR allies in the war with Nazi Germany reached the port of Arkhangelsk. This convoy under the code name "Dervish" was the first to supply the USSR with military equipment and armaments according to the lendlease programme.

The central ship has black hull and a dark-painted funnel with three brighter bands. According to Wikipedia, Operation Dervish convoy was composed of the following merchant ships:

Lancastrian Prince, owned by Prince Line (Furnes, Withy & Co.)
New Westminster City, owned by Reardon Smith Line
Esneh, owned by Moss Hutchinson Line
Trehata, owned by Hain Steamship Co.
Llanstephan Castle, owned by Union Castle Line
Alchiba, owned by Van Nievelt, Goudriaan & Co.

Add to them RFA Aldersdale (Admiralty-owned fleet oiler). Discarding for obvious reasons the latter, a quick internet research tells me that neither of the above shipping copanies used a similar funnel pattern. The attribution might be wrong, or further research might be required, nonetheless the fact remains: that looks lika a war convoy, and at least one of the ships composing it is not painted grey

[Mister_M]

Originally Posted by gap

The last picture seem original though, but all the portrayed ships look to me as being plain grey, except for the vessels on the center left - probably an auxiliary vessel - which sports a dazzle pattern.

They are all grey with camo skin ("dazzle").

Originally Posted by gap

It is hard to say from this picture as shadows might milead our eyes, but yes, several ships in the picture above seem to have black hulls and bright supestructures.

Perhaps a slow convoy with old steam ships still burning coal (they have a stern of the old type), small ships of less value which are not worth to camouflage with grey paint...

https://www.history.navy.mil/content...1772365144.jpg (from here : https://www.history.navy.mil/researc...ip-shapes.html)

[gap]

Originally Posted by Mister_M

They are all grey with camo skin ("dazzle").

It is my impression that dazzle camoufflages were only used on naval and auxiliary vessels, or at least I have never seen a merchant ship in complex camo scheme. To me, only the ship on the right has a dazzle pattern painted on her hull and I suspect her to be an auxiliary, but again my eyes are not very sharp

Originally Posted by Mister_M

Perhaps a slow convoy with old steam ships still burning coal (they have a stern of the old type), small ships of less value which are not worth to camouflage with grey paint...

https://www.history.navy.mil/content...1772365144.jpg (from here : https://www.history.navy.mil/researc...ip-shapes.html)

Yes, from their look those are definitely not "modern" freighters. As for them not being worth a dozen cans of grey paint, well, according to one of the posters in the forum thread I linked at post #1, a decent grey coat could be obtained by mixing black and white paint, which for sure wasn't in short supply at that time

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by Mister_M

Perhaps a slow convoy with old steam ships still burning coal (they have a stern of the old type), small ships of less value which are not worth to camouflage with grey paint...

I doubt cost of paint would be a consideration compared to any ship's value, (especially since paint needed was probably already on board - as noted in gap's link, all they needed is to mix black and white paint they probably had stored since these were most common colours during peace) but with ships operating in low risk areas their captains could indeed decide the risk is too small to warrant the time and effort needed to repaint them.

Edit: ninja'd

Some other findings:

- German supply ship Roda sinking after being torpedoed in 1940. Interesting example of keeping black/white painting and funnel colours even after being taken into navy service:

https://shipwrecks.com/wp-content/up...da_sinking.jpg

As for rules for peace-painted ships and coal burners in convoys, there were obviously exceptions, as shown by photo here (atlantic convoy in 1941, phot taken by Robert Capa):

[Mister_M]

So, to start again from the beginning :

Originally Posted by gap

* Grey paint was the general rule for Allied merchant vessels. Some ships had funnel tops and top half of masts painted white so to blend with the sky.
* Ships built during the war were delivered in grey paint.

An important detail is missing : what shade of grey was it ? Since it appears than certain shades of grey would give position to the u-boats at full moon nights :

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

the destroyers escorting the tankers were painted an inappropriate shade of grey, which the U-Boats used to locate the convoy in the moonlight.

Apparently, certain shades of grey paint made a ship highly visible on a clear night when the moon was out....thus the highly specific regulations about what shade of grey you were supposed to use.

You partially answered the question by publishing the "official" colors, but we don't know what exact grey color used the merchants...

Originally Posted by iambecomelife

"Janus" practically glowed in the moonlight because of grey and white paint.

Out of curiosity I looked up Janus's shipping company in a WW2 ID book - sure enough the paint scheme for that line was grey and white.

Janus' peace paint sheme was probably the same as Mercier's one which was light grey : https://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ship/986.html

Originally Posted by gap

* As a consequence of the previous point, there was not a sudden transition from peacetime colours to wartime grey. Some ships - probably the ones whose trading routes were closer to the main war theatres - were repainted at the earliest opportunity after the war broke out, whereas a few others are reported to have switched colours as late as January 1941.

And probably many changed much more later... or never.

Originally Posted by gap

* The implementation of safety rules was somehow more strict for ships sailing in convoys. These rules included:

• no dark funnel smokes (this would have ruled out old coal-burning steamers from convoys).

There were "fast" and "slow" convoys. The latters probably were for old coal steamers (which produced dark smoke)... So this "rule" was only for fast convoys...

Originally Posted by gap

* neutral ships retained their company colours for most of the war even when sailing in convoys. If I can add a personal note, this might have been sort of a nonsense. According to German engagement rules any ship sailing within Allied convoys, even though belonging to a neutral nation, would have been a valid target, and retaining peacetime colours would only have made her an easier prey. In other words, convoy protection would have nullified "neutrality privileges" or, even worse, it could have rendered them counterproductive, but this is probably something which was not so clear at that time.

Answer :

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Possibly because you do not intend to stay in the convoy for entire cruise and don't want to have to paint them back on when you separate from it. Plus, there's a small chance that given two equally juicy targets in the periscope, U-Boat will select one that belongs to the enemy nation.

[gap]

Resurrecting this thread to share a picture of the French reefer Damohey. It is interesting because it portrays the ship during allied landings of 11 November 1942, as she ran aground off Fedala, French Morocco.



As you can clearly see, to that date her funnel was still painted with the colors of her pre-war owners, Chargeurs Réunis.
Ship's history is a bit unclear though. Some sources say that the ship, under Free French control, was carrying provisions for the allied fleet, whereas other sources state that the vessel, still under Vichy control, had been used as a blockship for hampering Operation Torch landings.

Who is right?

EDIT:

Just found a webpage listing pre-1970 French merchants:

https://www.marine-marchande.net/Per...11-Perchoc.htm

Under Dahomey's timeline, it states:

11/08/1942 – Upon the arrival of the Americans in Morocco, she voluntarily ran aground in Bouznika, north of Casablanca.

An excellent picture is also provided with distinct neutrality markings visible on hull side:



That means that after French capitulation, the ship remained in Vichy French (nominally neutral) merchant fleet. Puzzle solved

[gap]

Another controversial example, still regarding a Chargeurs Réunis-owned vessels, the refrigerated passenger-cargo ship Forbin.

A basic timeline of her eventful career is available here. This is an excerpt:

The mixed passenger-cargo ship Forbin is launched in 1922 by the shipbuilding company Forges et Chantiers de la Méditerranée in Graville, Le Havre; in March 1923 she enters service with the steamship company Chargeurs Réunis, Le Havre; on 14 November 1939 she is requisitioned [by the French Government]; in May 1940 she moves from Dunkirk to Le Havre; due to the bombardments in Le Havre, on 11 June 1940 she leaves for Bordeaux; on the eve of the Armistice of 22 June 1940 she evacuates Bordeaux with 500 passengers, mostly Polish and Czech citizens, and she sets course for Gibraltar for continuing her war service on the English side; on July 7th she arrives in Liverpool where she in one of the first merchant ships joining the FNFL [Free French Naval Forces]. On July 17th she is seized by the British; she is placed under the control of the Ministry of War Transport and managed by Bibby Line with a FNFL crew.

The following picture is provided together with the above information:



Unlike the caption, I believe the picture to portray the Forbin in her pre-war paint scheme. As a vessel under direct control of MoWT and crewed by the FNFL, I doubt she would have retained her old colors, but the again, who knows? The ensign wore by the vessel could help clearing up this doubt, but unfortunately the picture resolution is too poor to discerne the presence or absence of the Cross of Lorraine on the French Flag flown at ship's stern

[kapuhy]

Originally Posted by gap

Unlike the caption, I believe the picture to portray the Forbin in her pre-war paint scheme. As a vessel under direct control of MoWT and crewed by the FNFL, I doubt she would have retained her old colors, but the again, who knows? The ensign wore by the vessel could help clearing up this doubt, but unfortunately the picture resolution is too poor to discerne the presence or absence of the Cross of Lorraine on the French Flag flown at ship's stern

Ockham's razor says it's pre-war photo: no armament, no camouflage, no Cross of Lorraine, no signs of intensive wartime use, no emergency liferafts.

[gap]

Originally Posted by kapuhy

Ockham's razor says it's pre-war photo: no armament, no camouflage, no Cross of Lorraine, no signs of intensive wartime use, no emergency liferafts.

Thank you kapuhy, I agree with Ockham. Although he is only a barber he is quite proficient in naval history