Board Thread:Game Updates/@comment-26154973-20190430095737/@comment-26082284-20190501130442

AC-Phoenix wrote: 2605:6001:F447:8400:C826:AD24:5221:7B46 wrote: AnimeFreak40K wrote:  Now, even though I'm putting my money on West Virgina because she got the worst of the two at Pearl Harbor, I *want* Maryland because that's where I live (I'm originally from Ohio, but 've given up on seeing any Ohio-Class anything in this game XD) ...as I type this, I can't help but want all of the Big Seven to be implemented and for there to be some sort of super-epic CI if you have them all in the same fleet...because that would be just f**king amazing! I understand but the camo schemes of the Mk. 5 and mk 8 mount looks like Colorado's third mount. http://navsource.org/archives/01/045/014564.jpg   I haven't been able to find a mount in the exact same camo scheme from either Maryland or WestVirginia. I really do think it's Colorado. Mutsu being there instead of Nagato imho suggests it's Maryland.

But yeah, the question is how accurate the CG even is. I think you are right about it being the rear turret, but if you take a close look, at your picture the blue part isn't supposed to be all the way to the back either. Well, the Mark VIII cgi is clearly turret 3 of the USS Colorado - each sister had different camo painting and that one has tell-tale lines of Colorado pattern.

But.

The problem is with Mark V cgi which has the same pattern. And it shouldn't because Colorado turret 3 didn't really have straight roof. She had catapult there since late 1920s that was replaced with AA platforms in early 1942.

So only thing we can say for sure is that artist used Colorado turret 3 as a reference for artwork, but also took some liberties with that.

If somebody is interested in Colorado-class WW2 camo patterns good source site is here:

https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/sh-co-mk/camouflg/usn-wwii/3--bb2.htm