The Ship Model Forum

AH, OK. Yes I would say it needs further research. BuShips is one area to go through, but also the records of the forward units, which is one area I don't believe has been touched much, if at all, by researchers in the DC/College park records. It's just not as obvious/apparent as BuShips, etc..

I will say that I have seen in some of the localized records (specifically APAs built in Vancouver WA) that there was a lag time for orders to reach yards, and that sometimes lead to them sending orders to BuShips to the effect of "we asked but received no guidance so we're painting the ship this way, just so y'all know." (I may have embellished the language a bit). Due to the large variety of dazzle schemes and the need for touch-up in the field, the design sheets were actually issued to the ship's captain and not the yard, not that this would affect the transition away from dazzle schemes. But it hints that in some cases it is possible that the orders were flowed down to the ships, and if my understanding of the Mail system of the time is any indication, it's possible that some of these orders might have been delayed a few months. Pure speculation though.

The documents I've posted have all been from the records of Navy Yards, so there are significant gaps I would LOVE to fill.

I'm just looking for a logical reason for the Measure 32 on ships that had completed post shakedown, after the change order, when dispatched to the Western Pacific from the West coast. Perhaps there is no way of knowing given presently located documentation, but I am somewhat curious. Was this a normal occurrence?

Yes, and? I'm not getting what your question is.

Tracy,
The content of the reference (c) reports, would indicate that AVP's, as well as carriers, were considered aviation assets. Early reports had them listed with Patwings while later reports listed them as a distinct category in each (Atl-Pac) fleet.

To quote Ref. (b), "1. In advance of new Pacific Fleet letter, Camouflage Measure 21 desired following types of ships assigned Air Force, Pacific Fleet: AV, AVD, AVP, DD, AKV, ARV, IX, YF." http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/ ... 04254.html

Reference (c), if you put the ship's location into a spreadsheet by report date, tells you approximately when the ship was in or left a given location, San Diego, for instance. Granted, the reports are not totally accurate, as can be found when referring to VP and VPB squadron histories, (http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/dictvol2.htm and/or http://www.vpnavy.org/index1.html) which mention working from specific AVPs.

Russ

Also, I added the other two references as links so other people know what you're referring to. I have a big update to my camouflage section pending with new text and links to new camouflage documents that are mentioned in my Updates section. Probably later this month.

Reference (c) has nothing to do with this.

That said, Hornet was still in her dazzle when her flight deck collapsed in June of 1945, despite there being plans/orders for her to paint in Measure 12 in February of that year.

We do not have even a small fraction of all of the camouflage documents from the war. We don't know if the timetable was influenced by operations (obviously yes, but no proof) or discretion of the captain, etc..

To: Chief of Naval Camouflage Research
FM: Puzzled

References:
(a) 1942 September Pacific Fleet Camouflage - orders Measure 21 for most ships of the Pacific Fleet
(b) 1944 December S19-7 Speedletter Serial 04254: Camouflage Painting Instructions - FMO to Buships letter
(c) http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww ... loc-ac.htm

1. In light of the above references, and lacking references for application of Measures 31-32-33 to ships of the Pacific Fleet, specifically AVP's, there is puzzlement at the camouflage still found on certain AVP's in March of 1945 and later at Kerama Rhetto.
2. According to Ref. (c), AVP 35 did deploy from CONUS until mid-January, 1945. AVP 53 did not deploy from CONUS until March 1945. Yet, they are clearly painted in Measure 32 Design 2ax.

3. Does the addressee have any insight as to why this occurred?