"Paints for German Fleet" Topic

Hi all, I am just about to start Victory At Sea gaming. I have to say that I don't intend to spend a lot of money on this, it's more of a filler game for me, a change from my main interests of Ancients, Renaisssance and Russian Civil War.

Having said that, if something is worth doing, it's worth doing properly and though I loathe painting, and when I say loathe I really do mean LOATHE (I actually pay others to paint my figures, that's how much I hate it) I thought I might try and paint a German ship or two.

My prospective opponent tells me that all I have to do is undercoat 'em black, drybrush grey and paint the decks. I can then highlight the smaller stuff if I want to and paint camo on the sides. Hmmmm, sounds easy enough. He did show me an American site that sells the right colour paint that I would need, but as there is a Games Workshop outlet here in York and a couple of model shops, it would seem easier for me to get the paint here rather than send off to America for it.

So when my ships arrive, what shades of grey, brown etc from Games Workshop, Tamiya or Miniature Paints should I be looking to get? I have thought about asking people to point me at appropriate sites, and I would certainly be interested in seeing them, but I have found that when printing pictures sometimes the colour changes from what is on the website to what comes off the printer, that was certainly a problem with my Reds for RCW. Besides, I don't have a printer so a friend has to do it for me.

As I don't normally paint anything other than green bases on figures and maybe the occasional ancient galley, the Kriegsmarine would be the only thing these paints would be used for so I'm looking at buying the minimum that I can get away with whilst still doing the job correctly.

If it helps, the ships I will be getting are the Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Graf Spee, Prinz Eugen, The Graf Zeppelin aircraft carrier and 4 Narvick Z23 destroyers. As I said, for me this won't be a main period but a complete set up for less than £10, even if I do only play from time to time, you can't beat that for price can you!?

link

Try the above link for some art with German ships.

Hope this helps

This site has been uesful for me in my search for "proper" color schemes for my VaS project….I mostly just "eyeball" the color and try and match the grey as best as I can w/ the vallejo paints that I have on hand…the bigger issue is the deck color and painting the deck in the proper places on the model…this site has helped me out a great deal with that as well….

link

Just FYI – I also use the drybrush technique…grey over black…and have been very satisfied w/ the results…in the old days…15-20 years ago…..I just spray painted everything grey, painted the smokestack tops black, and wallah, Im done….nowadays, Im a bit pickier and try and put more work into my GHQ models….

Remember you will need a lighter shade of grey than the pictures if you are dry-brushing over black primer.

Yes, lots of good ideas there. What great sites!

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but if I break out a can of black spray, give my models a complete coating and then apply a drybrush of light grey I should be about right. Of course there's the decking to do and any bits I might want to highlight but light grey is the primary colour.

Can I ask, when it comes to the dry brushing, is it better to just put one heavy coat of grey on, or a lighter coat followed by a second coat, possibly in a lighter shade? I wouldn't want the undercoat to show through but then again I don't want to obscure the detail either. In your experience which works best?

Is there a Games Workshop, Tamiya or Miniature Paints grey(s) that you would recommend? What about decking? Does any particular brown fit the bill?

I might even enjoy painting these. It's certainly a change from sending my stuff off to be painted! Thanks again for all your help guys, it's much appreciated.

Depends on the scale / size of what you drybrushing…when doing 1/2400 scale I began by painting several shades (medium grey to light) over black but found that just a single coat of light or light-medium grey works best, because I want some of the black to show through…remember you painting for an effect that people will see at arms length (typical eyeball view at gaming table distances, so you want to exagerate the effect slightly so that black portholes, some of the underlying superstructure, etc., show through a bit…this really sets off the detail….same deal w/ the deck…a liitle black or grey showing thru here and there makes the vessel look a little weathered….you can also wash the deck or even the whole ship with a brown ink (I use windsor and newton peat ink) but be careful with this and experiment with various strengths of ink….most of the ships, though I just drybrush over black and do not ink….

The key to drybrushing is to start out with a floppy old brush and wipe most of the paint load onto newspaper or an old cloth (I even use my painting shirt Im wearing!) and just hit the model or figure with a light / "dry" load of paint..less is more…you can always go back and hit it again, until you get the shade/effect that you want….

"I began by painting several shades (medium grey to light) over black but found that just a single coat of light or light-medium grey works best, because I want some of the black to show through…."

I should have said single color instead of single coat…you actually end up hitting the model more than one time with the "drybrush"

Be wary of the photographs of models with nice wood decks.

They were almost invariably over painted during war time.
British ships usually in dark grey black. US ships similar to RAF Blue. German ships often carried camouflage patterns up across the decks as did Italian ships as well.

After 1940 it was very unusual to see warships still sporting unpainted wood decks.

Also re the Japanese cruiser photographs. By the end of WW1 they did not build ships with wooden decks in order to save weight. The Japanese and many other countries used a material called 'cortesine' because it was non slip and lighter than wood. On Japanese ships, particulary cruisers. it was a rich chocolate brown with brass strips running from side to side every so often to hold it down. Some destroyers had the same material on their decks, particularly around gun mounts. In general the Japanese seem to have painted this black or very dark grey on destroyers at some stage during WW2. Ships completed during the war seem to have dark battleship grey decks, which may indicate they were also using cemtex.
German ships made use of cortesine too, but in their case it was tan. British WW1 cortesine still showed on many older ships. It too was chocolate brown, but a bit darker and less rich looking than the Japanese variant. Very dull in appearace. WW2 British ships usually had 'cemtex' on their decks. This was a non slip material applied like cement. It was a dark grey black and seems to have been applied to ships under refit as well. Some sources describe it as 'black green', so it probably varied.
French warships also used cortesine to save weight. Their version was deep red wine colour. Most pre war built ships had their upper decks covered in this material especially around the gun mountings of smaller ships.
Soviet ships had dull brick red decks usually, with the shade varying depending on the supply. But generally a red brown somewhere between chestnut and 'rust' in appearance.

Ships that retained areas of wooden deck that was not overpainted, normally allowed it to fade in wartime. Washing it down frequently in salt water turns the wood to a flat pale grey shade.

In general, ships had dark grey areas around the anchors, and back to the wave break deflectors in front of the forward turret. There were exceptions to this, but you are fairly safe in presuming its dark grey for most.

In a general sense, most Allied warships tried to have a completely flat grey appearance when looking down on them, as from an aircraft. Many Axis ships did the same, but on both sides there were instances of camouflage carried up over the decks from the side patterns. HMS Nelson and HMS Rodney in particular. Many Italian warships had blue grey decks, but also often carried the camouflage across the decks as well.

As a maritime artist, colours are very important to me. But it is important to keep in mind that you must allow for what the ship will look like at sea in various light situations.

It is necessary to paint a model warship of 1:3000 to 1:2400 scale in a shade approximately 5:1 lighter than the real colour. This is because paint will always look darker on a small object such as a model, than it does on a large object such as a real ship. Therefore even if you had access to the actual paints used by a navy, they would look wront on a model unless you lightened them.

Hope that is of some help.

"After 1940 it was very unusual to see warships still sporting unpainted wood decks."

I know that for mid to late war you are absolutely correct in decks being painted over…but is this the case for '41 and maybe even '42?

Take a look at this site:
link

Th first picture you see is the Saratoga with a wooden flight deck….circa 1942

All of the early war measures have this statement:
"All horizontal surfaces except wood decks shall be painted Dark Gray 5-D. The systems differ only in the painting of the vertical surfaces. In case of doubt, as on sloping surfaces, use Dark Gray 5-D….etc…etc…"

I have looked at scores of pictures of ships from various countries, models, artwork, etc., and many, many pics seem to show wood decks of various shades…especially, early war….thru '42….

Perhaps this is a misconception or a common modelers fancy, to paint ships with wood decks….of course the models look better with wood decks….are we that far off to paint our models that way? You sure see allot of pics of ships w/ wood decks!

Colour photographs of modern aircraft carriers will often show the decks in a sort of tan shade. I always wondered about this because I knew it to be incorrect. After some enquiries I learnt that taken at a quite different angle to the other surfaces, light grey will often appear brownish in photographs. Add skid marks and other discolourations and it will seem quite a lot different. This is due to a reflective mix of blue sky and clouds, with grey. So it really confuses the situation.

While some ships did retain wooden decks post 1940 the colours in photographic prints can be confusing. For example it is really only in the past few years that computer technology has improved sufficiently that old prints have been able to be 'clarified'. From this we now know that most of the ships seen damaged, burning, or sinking at Pearl Harbour were in the regulation colours. This was dull grey over all with white upper masts for most. The same regulation required wood decks to be overpainted in the same colour grey. Darker ships are apparently in the early version of the later navy blue over all. Its also possible….and we no longer have the means to know….that Pearl Harbour photographs were printed in a manner to make them look more like peacetime grey, thereby hightening the air of 'attacked while in peace'. But for what ever reason they ended up so neutral looking, we know that modern film analysis shows they were in regulation schemes and mostly in 'Measure 1'. This was a grey similar to British 'battleship grey'. All surfaces were to be painted in this shade of mid to dark grey with black boot topping. However surfaces above the top of the bridge were painted white. The over all painting was intended to include all wooden decks.

My major references for colour are the following.
UNITED STATES NAVY WARSHIP CAMOUFLAGE by Chris Ellis.1975.
ROYAL NAVY WARSHIP CAMOUFLAGE by Peter Hodges. 1973.
NAVAL CAMOUFLAGE 1914-1945 by David Williams. 2001.
KRIEGSMARINE by Robert C. Stern. 1979.
DIE DEUTSCHEN KRIEGSCHIFFE. Groner. 1959.
LINERS IN BATTLEDRESS. 1999.
Plus various paintings made by war artist at the time. I presume that the artists were reporting what they saw. They have to be granted credence because their other colours are correct…so why would they do the decks wrong? Just logic!

However I've also done a study of various other resources, particularly when preparing a painting for someone, or doing cover art.

In the case of 'touched up' photographs….a common practice when colour photographs were still too expensive, we can presume a certain amount of artistic license by the person doing it. Therefore if they saw a planked deck, they probably presumed it to be natural wood and over painted the grey of a photographs accordingly. Artistic license can also explain some artists who did not see the actual ship, and were working from photographic images only.

In normal reading, one can come across many instances of discussion about ships being painted in an unusual way. This often came about due to experiments, or because the regulations were not known, not fully understood, or paint shades were in short supply. Then there is the other issue, and one I have deliberately questioned old sailors about in conversations. That is the issue of TLAR. (That looks about right)
Painting ship usually took place while ships were under refit. If lucky the dockyard might do it. If not it was up to the crew. It was an unpopular job, especially if others were ashore on leave and you were stuck chipping and painting. Many senior ratings and PO's would be ashore, junior officers might supervising etc and rigid adherence to the actual regulations, sometimes guessed at. The TLAR factor was laughed about and heartily agreed too by many of the ex-Navy men I interviewed over the years. Basically you have an unwilling painting party told to mix a particular shade. The written instructions say 1 part of this shade, 3 parts that shade, and 10 parts of another. The unhappy mixers tip the paint into the mixing cans and stir it around until someone declares TLAR! Any further accuracy is disgarded in the wish to get it over with.
Interestingly, many years ago, I interview a survivor of the Bismarck who confessed the same attitude among German crews as well. So it was a pretty general internationl attitude amongst fatigue parties.
Even ships painted in US dockyards, where spray painting was very common, were often finished off in the colours available, rather than the colours intended. Thus ships were in very dark grey instead of flat dark blue….because it was available. The presumption was that the crew would do any further paint work and would use the correct colour when they got it. In the meantime the ship could not be held up in the shipyard because of shortages of the right paint shade.

Different schemes within a formation can lead to confusion. For example also at Pearl Harbour the USS Nevada seems to be in Measure 2. This involved a dark grey on the hull areas, changing to a lighter shade near the deck, with the superstructure in haze grey. Decks were supposed to be in US Navy deck blue…. which is very similar in shade to British RAF blue uniform colour. However availability resulted in many ships simply using dark grey. By early 1942 after the US was in the war the dark grey was replaced by 'Ocean Grey'. This was applied to many ships with wooden deck areas but as the planks still show through in close up photographs, many people may presume this will be natural wood, whereas in fact it has been painted.
When I was a Guest on USS Missouri many years ago my first impression was that it followed the normal standard of Measure 3 (Peacetime) in haze grey, with the correct shade of blue grey horizontal surfaces, including the deck. When I actually stepped aboard I was very surprised to see that the wood decks were actually unpainted, but had been allowed to fade to grey. All non wooden surfaces were painted in deck blue, but the effect when seen at a distance was quite similar.

As the Germans seem to have adopted camouflage with some enthusiasm in WW2 and their schemes were usually carried across the deck, it seems illogical that they would leave the other deck areas in polished wood!!! I know the Bismarck survivor I spoke too said the decks were all dull grey when she was sunk….although its hard to find a model or art work that does not show a lovely shade of yellow brown!

I also spoke at one time with a Petty Officer who had been in Denmark when the Prinz Eugen surrendered. He was, I think, from HMS Devonshire and formed part of the initial 'prize crew'. He stated quite clearly that it was painted in a much lighter shade of grey than his own ship, and the scheme was 'all over'. From photographs this would appear to be correct. But I've seen models and art work depicting her with bright yellowish wood decks.

Groner also states that decks were in grey, or the shade of camouflage carried across them.

Turret tops of German ships varied with the operation they were engaged in, as it was used as a recognition system after the disaster of 1940 when the Luftwaffe sank two German destroyers. Hence they could be yellow, pale blue, dark red and so on according to the operation engaged in and the arrangements made with the Luftwaffe.

Because of the research I've done over some four decades, I never use wood shades for decks unless I know it to be the case. Instead, I use the corresponding colour for the camouflage or paint scheme in use.

At least US Navy ships of late 1944-through 1945 are dead easy. Just paint them totally flat navy blue! I do dry brush a litte lighter shade to made details stand out, and a thin ink wash of black mixed with blue, also helps make detail stand out.

Japanese escorts for the same era are similarly easy, being painted mostly over all dark greys. Paint was in terribly short supply, so it is always a case of what was available. So Japanese escorts are usually dark…but can even be darkish green.

I hope this helps.

On the other hand, I have the opposite philosophy, which is to paint my cruiser/battleship decks natural-wood-color unless I am absolutely sure it is wrong.

My excuse for this is that:

1) So far, I have been painting european navies from the pre-Pearl-Harbor period, when such an appearance was more likely.
2) I have a fair amount of source material indicating that many of my ships could have had wood decks for at least part of this time period (for example, Alan Raven says in his book "Camouflage Volume One: Royal Navy 1939-1941" "unless otherwise stated, areas of deck covered with wood, corticene, semtex, and bare steel should be assumed to be in their pre-war colors as follows: wood – natural …".
3) Any ship I use in a game will probably be painted incorrectly anyway, since the paint schemes frequently changed from year-to-year and even month-to-month. (For example, the Raven books show at least 4 different schemes for HMS Berwick during my time period).

And of course, my main reason, which is that wood decks are pretty. :-)

However, after reading Mal's opinions above, I think I will experiment with painted decks on some of my models, for variety, and to see what they look like.

Mark H.

By 'wood natural' he means faded wood which as I have mentioned goes grey.
'Wood holystoned' is wood that is daily scrubbed down to its orignial fresh cut appearance. The exact shade varies depending on the type of wood, but is usually pale yellowish tan.
Paint schemes did indeed change regularly during WW2. I usually select something I like and just stick with that. But occasionally, such as during the recent Narvik campaign, I will paint a group of ships specifically for it. Hence my Warspite has natural wood decks and most of the British ships are in over all drab grey. However although I planned to have a new model of Renown painted in time, that did not happen, so I had to use my existing one which is in a later Admiralty disruptive scheme.
Although it would be easy to just do decks a standard wood scheme, I find variation more pleasing to the eye for the early WW2 period when standardization was not so common. Later in the war nearly all ships sported a complete camouflage scheme of one kind or another, but in the early period operational necessity resulted in a very mixed look.

I've seen a lot of material indicating that wartime unpainted wood decks would not always be "gray" (even I would imagine that this would probably be the most common color, due to weathering). See the below for an example of some of this material. Therefore, if someone wants to paint their miniature using a warmer wood deck color, they have an excuse, so long as they don't claim these warmer colours to be the rule:

Here is an example of grey-ish faded looking wood decks (subject to the usual pitfalls associated with old color photos, which tend to be dark and contrasty). Some of these may be painted weathered blue:
link
link

Here are some decks showing a more brown tone:
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link
link

Here are some blueish-looking flight decks:
link
link
link

Here's a beautiful image of HMS Rodney from the same site:
link

Sorry for highjacking the thread… :-(

Getting back to the topic, here's an alleged color photo of Bismarck's deck. I suppose this could be colorized, however…
link

Sheeeeeesh! I just gave a detailed photo by photo breakdown of the links from hinds, but explorer crashed and just left a few bits up there. So I sat down and did it all again, and the blasted thing did it again.

The other links.
Wildcats on Wasp, is typical of a faded print. That deck is quite certainly dark blue. I saved it, put it through a modern photo program, and its blue.
Enterprise June 1941 looks tan, but US Navy practice for the time decrees dark grey or blue grey. Possibly a touched up photo.
Saratoga underway 1942. Definitely a touched up photo. The colour is too constant and the shade under the front of the aircraft looks fake. There is a patch on the port side of the deck behind the aft most aircraft, that appears to be blue grey and was missed by who ever did the touching up.

Fourth photo of a Hellcat on deck. Definitely a worn deck that has been stained or painted originally.

Fifth photograph. Grumman Hellcats. That is how blue decks look in old photographs when worn. Obviously a stained blue deck originally.

6 and 7 are of USS Texas after a refit in home waters. She is wearing measure 32. The guns are protected and everything looks so neat because she is under inspection. If you look closely you'll see the light upper and dark lower shades of that scheme, especially on the foredeck with various items light grey but with dark grey tops. She also has the port anchor chain in dull red, and the starboard one in dark green. This is a favourite for ships being inspected by someone important. However if you examine the planks carefully you can pick up signs of dark blue stain. Texas has obviously been under refit and is being inspected. Before she heads off to a war zone all that neat stuff would be gone and the deck will be restained!

Photo 8. North Carolina on her first voyage. A wood deck that is being allowed to fade. Salt water helps that process and she had no doubt been washed down daily. The top of the bridge and other visible areas give the camouflage scheme away as being measure 1.

Photo 9. The same faded wood the deck of the Missouri was when I visited her many years ago. No doubt it is still the same shade. It turns grey due to salt water action. Only certain light conditions give it away as unpainted.

Photo 1 of the bluish decks. Yep…USS Wasp even has the newly prescribed pale grey deck markings.

Photo 2. USS Cowpens. The photograph is probably on a higher quality film that has not faded. Its colours look so true one could almost suspect it is a modern fake, but that is not so. Its a genuine photograph alright.

Photo 3. Hellcat having its wings extended. Faded, but showing the genuine schemes, including dark blue deck, grey deck markings, but with a thin red warning line around the deck lift.

Next post HMS Rodney. That shows her in her Admiralty scheme that was carried across the decks, although its not obvious from the angle it was taken. The colours are a bit faded but give a good idea how she should look. The tops of her masts are in shadow and appear dark, but were actually painted in matt white.

Lastly the photo of Bismarck. I've also seen that one labelled as Tirpitz too. Its obviously been colourized and none of the shades are genuine. I'd say either done in modern times, or more likely it was a touched up colour post card sold at various ports. The job was obviously done by someone who had no idea of the actual shades of grey in use by the Kriegsmarine!!!

Mal.Wright.

First two links. No and yes for weathered blue.
The first one is weathered wood to its grey appearance from being kept clean with salt water. The deck of New Mexico is definitely weathered blue. You can even see patches where it is bluer. The ship appears to be in measure 22. However she could be in 32 as they are so similar, but given the dates I'd say its 32.

Mal,

Many of your points (though not all) are convincing. If I ever get to painting Pacific War US ships, I would certainly seriously consider painted decks.

BTW, the Enterprise and Saratoga images which I linked to above are probably correct. Note the following quote from the new Chesnau/Baker book on "Yorktown Class Aircraft Carriers" (Shipcraft). "As completed, she was similar to Yorktown, in Navy Gray with Dark Gray decks and a brownish-maroon stained flight deck …" "… In March 1942, during the refit that saw the introduction of her first 20mm Oerlikons, Enterprise was repainted in Measure 11, a scheme introduced in the US Navy some six months earlier in order to offer better camouflage against aerial attack. Two colours only were used for this Sea Blue System: all vertical and near-vertical surfaces were painted Sea Blue (5-S) and all horizontal surfaces Deck Blue (10-B), with the caveat that wooden surfaces (that is, the flight deck) and canvas coverings were to be stained a close approximation of the latter colour instead of painted. Enterprise fought at Midway in these colours…"

Mark H.

So elaborating on the above, through Q1 1942, many US carriers apparently had not yet been given blue-colored flight decks. Of course, that still means that if we want to model them during any of the significant battles of the Pacific war (at least by the time of Coral Sea), they would probably be some sort of blue.

There is an image on page 398 of "British Battleships of World War Two" (Raven & Roberts), which shows how Rodney carried her Admiralty scheme on to the decks. However, I am not willing to conclude that this was the rule. Most of my aerial photos of POW in her last scheme, for example, appear to show unpainted wood decks. Whatever their shade is (greyish-brown, or whatever), they look much lighter than the sides. Other British BBs appear to have decks painted some sort of medium gray. (Fine; I guess that gives me a choice…).

Mark H.

BTW, my Rodney image above may well be colorized. Look at the water.

Don't put too much trust in old photographs. WW2 film was usually poor and faded quickly.
The Rodney image looks touched up, rather than colourized. But interestingly the colours match Hodges, only rather faded.

I know that. We have family photos from around 1959 (when we lived in Indonesia), which look just like those faded WWII photos (worse, some of them).

Too bad I can't find some plausible images of German decks for the originator of this thread.

Wow! So many knowldgeable replies, thanks guys. I had no idea the subject was so complex.

Oh its a very complex subject Alan. But I prefer to keep it reasonably simple when painting my ships.

Mal.Wright.

"Wildcats on Wasp, is typical of a faded print. That deck is quite certainly dark blue. I saved it, put it through a modern photo program, and [it's] blue."

How does one account for the fact that the blue-grey Wildcats, their dark blue roundels, and the blue sea in the background, do not share this effect? If this is NOT a retouched photograph, why would the flight deck fail to mimic the shades of blue that are otherwise clearly present in the photo?

That the flight deck would be a similar shade of blue to the very blue sea and likely as dark or darker than the Wildcats' paint, seems counter-intuitive…these should conform somewhat more closely to the other blue shades in the photo, than they seem to.

I have to be blunt and say its a pretty poor bit of observation and understanding of colour on your part. They are all different shades of blue, they are viewed at different angles and therefore differing reflective qualities. Why on earth would they all confirm to the other blue shades!!!

The 'faded' look of the deck is due to wear and tear, probably a bit of black rubber intermingled, so wood showing through, the angle, and various other factors. There is almost certainly a difference in freshness of the various shades on the other objects too.

For goodness sakes, you are looking at a photograph that is nearly as old as me, and I bet I looked much pinker then, than I do now!

I mean no offence, but if you put an observation so bluntly, you have to expect a similar reply.

Due to my own poor choice of words, I miscommunicated my intent. I am trying to get at something that my poor observation and understanding of colors cannot account for, so I will make an attempt to clarify:

There are three shades of blue in the photograph that do NOT look "brownish". Furthermore, the grey-blue Wildcats were actually painted in a much LIGHTER shade of blue than EITHER of the blue flight deck stains that would be in use by the USN in those days (Norfolk 250 and the later FDS21). Yet, these Wildcats do not show evidence of the same brown or even lighter variants of brown, in their clearly-blue images. The dark blue sea in the background hasn't faded into any sort of brownish shade, either--does this help?

You have stated the flight deck was "quite certainly dark blue"; but you then wrote: The 'faded' look of the deck is due to wear and tear, probably a bit of black rubber intermingled, so wood showing through, the angle, and various other factors" [would affect its appearance].

Okay, so which of those two statements is correct? Is the flight deck a dark blue color (which shouldn't look brownish)? Or, is it faded, allowing natural the deck planking's brownish hues through (which shouldn't then "become" blue with processing)?

I understand color all right, but I do not understand photography, and I certainly don't understand the contradictions of your explanations as to the photograph's anomalous deck color. Please, I mean no offense….

OK. The colour of the deck would originally have been dark blue, but has weathered and worn considerably.

I would suggest the difference between the other blues and the Wildcats could be due to several factors. Light angles, and fresh paint.

I have just been painting the cover art for some new Naval rules to be released shortly. As a maritime artist I have to continually adjust my shades in order to get a look of reality. The major ship featured in the two paintings I have just completed looks grey. If you look at photographs it looks grey too. But if you examine the photographs really closely you can see there are subtle differences in shade due to the effects of light. So the ship in the cover art still looks grey, but in order to achieve its over all look, I've probably ended up using more than a dozen shades of grey.
Its still on the easel, so as I look across the room at it, it appears 'grey'. Its a WW1 Battlecruiser and should be grey. However, if I walk over to the easel and look up close, it becomes apparent that there are many shades blended together in order to make it look uniformly grey, despite many parts of the ship being hit by the light, at different angles. Indeed there is artificial light present too, because the ship is firing its guns, which creates a bright flash from the direction that is actually the dark side of the sky.
So when I look at a photograph, I have to make my eye take into account not only the over all look, but the number of shades needed to achieve that. Some dark greys can appear almost white when strong light hits them, and appear to be black if deprived of light. Reds and browns can fade to black as well if deprived of light.
This means that when doing photo analysis, you have to look 'about the place' on the photo. Firstly you try to establish which is the direction of the sun. Then if items are directly facing that light, or at a strong angle, or even a slight angle. Angles will determine the shade.
When looking at the photo's we can see areas of black, or very dark grey, which our eye tells us is just shade and if we were able to examine the area up close, it would be the same grey as other parts of the ship. The same applies to all colours, hence an aircraft with curved fuselage can seem to be in different shades, although its all paint from the same tin.
When I paint my model ships, I do not go to as much trouble as most people. That may seem strange, but the reasoning is that if I make my colours constant and merely highlight the edges of equipment with an ink wash, the light present over the wargames table will do the rest.
Technically I could paint ships to look much duller, if I am going to use them in a Battle of the Atlantic scenario in which the weather was terrible….or conversely paint them much lighter, if they are to be used in a wargame set in an area of bright sunlight such as the Pacific. But although I go to that sort of trouble on a canvas, I am of the opinion its not worth it on a model ship. The model will be used in a variety of situations over a few years, so a neutral look is preferable.

So…in order to tell why a section of deck, or a part of an aircraft appears brownish, or its correct colour, we would need to know several things. What was the state of the light at the time the photo was taken? Was there any reflected light? Was the paint faded or fresh?

In the case of the photo referred too, we dont know, and cannot know. So the best that can be done, is to consider the original colours and try to match them in at least a tiny area of the photo. If we can do that, then the colour can be identified and the other shades of it put down to light, shade and angle.

By examination of various parts of the deck in question, I am quite convinced that the original colour was a dark blue stain that would be correct for the period, but that it has suffered wear and tear, weathering and is also subject to angles of light etc.

Mal.Wright.