The Ship Model Forum

Gentlemen,

Found this while looking for something else entirely, isn't that always the case?

[url]http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0541310.jpg[/url]

Mac

Gentlemen, I thank you for your input. I had just received the above mentioned book in the mail, I hope to get around to reading it soon. After much deliberation, I will follow the patterns with what the scheme calls for but with 5n on the stack.

Thank you,

Matt

[quote="NCMac"]I'm still inclined to believe the scheme in the photo was locally applied in a forward area, perhaps without benefit of the full range of paints. While in the Atlantic, [i]Sterett[/i] was frequently in company of [i]Lang[/i] which sported an unusual Measure 12 [url]http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0539901.jpg[/url] as well as Royal Navy Home Fleet units. Perhaps these influenced the design.[/quote]

I've seen similar "flavors" on some early APDs - it's actually a better application of a disruptive pattern than most Ms 12 mod by far.
APD-2 Colhoun: http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/04/100400202.jpg
APD-4 Little: http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/04/100400401.jpg

Sterrett's camo by the time she got back to the states was BEAT UP. Look at the below photo - lots of fading, spot touch ups, an obviously lighter patch under the forward 5" mount, check out the "4" on her hull, it's all sorts of whacked out.

[attachment=0]DD-407_1942-12-14.jpg[/attachment]

Rick and Tracy,

Calhoun was indeed the weapons officer at this time (and during Savo Island). He wrote, "We had received only air-search and fire control radars, which showed targets as small blips on a straight line. We did not have a plan view of the water's surface like that provided by the more sophisticated surface-search model. Still, the fire control radar was a godsend because it enabled us to determine positively that there was a target out there, that it was on a specific bearing, and that it was a precise number of yards away."

As you say, a weapons guy is most interested in those things that most apply to his duties.

I'm still inclined to believe the scheme in the photo was locally applied in a forward area, perhaps without benefit of the full range of paints. While in the Atlantic, [i]Sterett[/i] was frequently in company of [i]Lang[/i] which sported an unusual Measure 12 [url]http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0539901.jpg[/url] as well as Royal Navy Home Fleet units. Perhaps these influenced the design.

Again, as you say, so many ships, so little time, yet all have great stories to tell.

Regards,

Mac.

I guess he should have looked "UP" occasionally. :big_grin:

It was kind of like asking my uncle who served on DE-244 at the end of WWII in the Pacific about his ship's armament and paint scheme. He was a Surface Search radar operator and had no clue about that stuff. :heh:

[quote="Rick E Davis"]Interesting comment about "received" their first radar, since photos show she had the SC air search radar installed by 22 March 1942. He may be referring to Mk 4 (FD) radar for the director.[/quote]

I've got the book at home, but it's been a while since I read it. He was Weapon's Officer at the time of her big battle and was stationed in the director, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was a little fixated on the Mk 4 versus the SC.

Interesting comment about "received" their first radar, since photos show she had the SC air search radar installed by 22 March 1942. He may be referring to Mk 4 (FD) radar for the director.

His reference to Portsmouth Navy Yard likely reflects the location of the Norfolk Navy Yard at Portsmouth, VA, and are one and the same. Some usage refers to the location "USN Yard at Portsmouth, VA", where as the "Official Name" of the yard is different. There is/was a Portsmouth Navy Yard in NH, which STERETT didn't return to (Portsmouth NY is basically a Submarine Yard). Some Navy Yards have dual names based on original name and new names; New York Navy Yard and Brooklyn Navy Yard, Charlestown Navy Yard and Boston Navy Yard.

San Diego Naval Base was less of a full blown YARD, as an operational base where minor repairs could be done. I don't know if they had/have any drydocks there.

The only way to accurately know what work was done to STERETT in May 1942, would be to look in Official BuShips Records at NARA for a Departure Report or letter of Alterations submitted by the Ship's CO. There may or may not be a report for any work done at San Diego, since there seldom were reports on "voyage repairs" and such. Deck Logs/War Diaries may shed light on what was done at San Diego. I have wondered how many times 20-mm guns were installed at San Diego prior to departing for the war zones. I have not gotten into STERETT's records myself. Too many destroyers, too little time. :smallsmile:

Rick,

No specific mention of drydocking at either Norfolk or San Diego, although he does write, "We reached Norfolk on 27 May and immediately entered Portsmouth Navy Yard for repairs and the installation of our first radar." Does the distinction between Norfolk and Portsmouth perhaps imply drydocking?

Your guess is probably better than mine.

Mac

Did Calhoun mention drydocking either at Norfolk or San Diego? It doesn't take long to paint a destroyer at a yard and many times if the ship was dry-docked for any reason and there was a need, painting was done. She had a drydocking back in March prior to going to the UK, so it is iffy if she was dry-docked again unless she needed underwater repairs (props, rudder, sonar, etc).

Matt,

Some background on [i]Sterett[/i] taken from Captain C.Raymond Calhoun's book, [u]Tin Can Sailor[/u]. [i]Sterett[/i] started the war in the Atlantic and there is a photo dated February 1942 of her in a relatively conventional pattern measure 12 that is nothing like your photo. On 27 May 1942 she entered Portsmouth Navy Yard for repairs and a radar installation. Calhoun writes of the radar but makes no mention of new paint and notes they departed 5 June, so a short yard period. They arrived San Diego 18 June and departed escorting the Guadalcanal troopships 1 July. He makes no mention of repairs at San Diego but they were there nearly two weeks. [i]Sterett[/i] remained in the Guadalcanal area until she returned to Pearl Harbor and the Mare Island in December to repair the Savo Island damage.

Perhaps this is some "forward area" painting and so doesn't match schemes we are more used to.

I've got one more source to check but it'll have to wait a day or two.

Regards,

Mac

I've got a good scan of the other side dated December 1942 and her paint is definitely beat up. The stack I would say is 5-N, but I'm not sure if it's also 5-O or just a really evenly dirty 5-H. Not sure about the turret.

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to ask you all your opinion, I see I asked this question almost 4 years ago. Attached is a photo(Courtesy of Rick Davis) of the USS Sterett DD-407, I believe taken just after the Nov 13th battle off Guadalcanal. Her MS-12 is slightly perplexing, I know guessing colors from Black and white pictures is not an exact science as much as a guess but a couple of things stand out.

1st: Pattern is slightly unusual for what was seen for MS-12(m), I know, what wasn't an unusal Ms12 pattern
2nd: The colors on the stack seem much darker than the 5-O/5-H that should be on it
3rd: The lighter color on the hull seems too light for 5-0 when compared to the darker grey on the upper works

[attachment=0]camo.jpg[/attachment]
Any thoughts?

Matt