At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[Rick E Davis]

The image that Jeff posted above is a crop I made from a much larger photo of Pearl Harbor, which was one of several aerial photos taken on 13 October 1941. Attached is the close to full size image only cropped at the top and bottom to delete excess sky/foreground. Note that the cropped image with the labels identifying the various ships is only a very small part of the overall photo.





Another photo taken that day by the aircraft a little more to the East, showed the submarine base. There is some overlap with the first image. Note that the contrast of ships in this photo is different than in the first image, which is likely the result of print processing and a slightly different aspect angle to the subjects or less likely adjusted camera settings.



As a reference, this image was reported as taken on 10 October 1941 and shows the overall area of Ford Island and the surrounding anchorages. Note the direction arrow as to North.



If you look closely, you can see that the 13 October photos were taken at nearly noon resulting in shadows from overhangs on the ships depending on the aspect angle that the ships have been moored at.

5-D (and for that matter so did 5-N) paint faded and chalked along with salt residue on most surfaces. The hull really exhibited more wear and fading/chalking/salt than the superstructure. Plus, the crews could more easily "touch-up" the superstructures even while at sea.

So yes the superstructure of USS ARIZONA and USS NEVADA would naturally look darker than the rest of the ship and her hull.

[Rick E Davis]

Something else that I want to add to earlier discussion. I started looking into 1941 camouflage not so much looking for "What USS ARIZONA was painted on 7 December 1941", rather I was interested in how certain destroyers involved in a series of camo experiments were painted and when they painted out of those schemes.

One of the very few color images surviving of one batch of destroyers painted in various camo schemes, was this one (80-GK-14467) of DesDiv 6 at San Diego NAS in October 1941. I couldn't quite understand why they were still painted in these schemes applied back in the early summer of 1941 and why they were at the San Diego NAS pier. In research through deck logs I found out that this group of destroyers (USS CLARK (DD-361) and DesDiv 6) arrived at NAS San Diego on 13 October 1941 and that from the order the destroyers are moored together, from the pier out - USS CLARK, USS CASE, USS CUMMINGS, USS SHAW, and USS TUCKER, the date of this photo occurred during the 13-19 October 1941 period. USS CLARK departed and went to MINY for an overhaul and alterations. The DesDiv 6 destroyers left in early November and returned to Pearl Harbor. DesDiv 6 destroyers were at NAS San Diego solely to be degaussed. Apparently there wasn't such a facility at Pearl harbor at the time. As best I can tell the four destroyers in DesDiv 6, USS CUMMINGS (DD-365), USS CASE (DD370), USS SHAW (DD-373), and USS TUCKER (DD-374), remained painted in their experimental and now obsolete camo schemes until receiving overhauls scheduled to happen (and was in the process for some) in early December 1941.

DesDiv 6 camo schemes were;

USS CUMMINGS (DD-365) ... Ms 1 (Dark Gray 5-D)
USS CASE (DD-370) ... Ms 3 (Light Gray 5-L with Ms 5 painted false bow wave)
USS SHAW (DD-373) ...Ms 2 (Modified Graded System)
USS TUCKER (DD-374) ... Ms 1 modified (a lighter shade of Dark Gray)

So what scheme was USS SHAW painted at the time she blew-up while in floating drydock on 7 December 1941? Even from the fire damage to her forward half, she doesn't appear to still be painted in a Graded scheme. From official directives, she should be painted in either Ms 11 using either 5-S or 5-N.

[Jeff Sharp]

Shaw was definitely no longer in MS-2. Perhaps her repaint was happening in the floating dry dock when the attack happened.

Looking at this pic of Tucker and Case, it's hard to make out any detail but Case doesn't seem to be in MS-3 anymore either.

[Rick E Davis]

From the 1 December 1941 PHNY Weekly Overhaul Report;

USS CUMMINGS (DD-365) was in the yard starting 23 Nov and scheduled to finish 12 Dec 1941 for SC radar "prep" work to modify the mast. She was to be scheduled for Shell plating renewal later in December.

USS SHAW (DD-373) was in the yard starting 22 Nov and scheduled to finish 12 Dec 1941. See dry-docked in YFD-2 on 1 December for Shell Plating Renewal.

As an aside; USS CASSIN (DD-372) and USS DOWNES (DD-375) were in the yard starting on 1 Dec and was scheduled to drydock on 5 Dec and scheduled to be done 26 Dec to have Shell Plating Renewal work done.

The remaining sisters in DesDiv 6, USS CASE (DD-370) and USS TUCKER (DD-374) along with USS CUMMINGS, were scheduled to have Shell Plating Renewal work done after these units.

Since USS SHAW was getting shell plating work done, applying new camo paint was logical and was possible for USS CUMMINGS as well at least for her superstructure. A lot of repair and repainting work at Pearl Harbor was also done by tenders and repair ships at anchorage. So what got done on USS CASE and USS TUCKER prior to the attack after early novegebr return to Pearl Harbor isn't known. Overhaul work on destroyers use to be done on the west coast, but because of backlogs at MINY and PSNY. more and more work was being done at Pearl Harbor.

[SeanF]

A question regarding the USS Clark in that excellent color photo: Do we know if she was in Ms. 1, or could it have been Ms. 4 (black in lieu of 5-D)? (Either way, that's some seriously patchy paint on the forward hull and gunhouses!)

- Sean F.

[Jeff Sharp]

Getting things back on the Arizona track. Here's a couple of night shots. Thought they were pretty cool.

[Franz]

Jeff, very interesting photos! Do you know what year?

This has been one of the questions I've been trying to figure out. Did she show white light at night, no lights at night or red lights at night? Your photos were taken at sea and I wonder if it would have been any different in-port. I'm not sure how red lighting would have shown up in a night photo, but these look like white lights to me including portholes in the hull.

Franz

[SeanF]

Looks like it would be early 1930s, before the funnel was raised. Cool photos! I can't recall ever seeing night time shots like that before!

- Sean F.

[Jeff Sharp]

Yeah, 1935 at the latest.

Here are a couple of stills from film spliced together of the wreck. By this time, turret #3 guns had been turned to the starboard side and then removed. Only the sides of the turret remained. On the far left of this pic you can kind of see what is left of turret #3. If the guns were still there, they would be just out of the pic and they would be pointing towards the camera. Only one of the remaining sides is visible here with half of it in shadow..



Here is the whole view including USS West Virginia.

[Rick E Davis]

My posting of the DesDiv 6 color image (80-GK-14467) and of USS SHAW, plus the data on yard periods for the DesDiv 6 units, may not be directly about USS ARIZONA, but they provide some related insight.

Yes USS CLARK was painted in Ms 1 with 5-D paint in this image and the other units represent several other schemes and paints used early in the 1941 camo schemes. Unfortunately 80-GK-14467 has gone to the "Blue Side". I scanned the original transparency at NARA to get that image. But, even so, the wear and tear on the hull paint, along with a degree of fading is informative and the touch-up to the paint was a common routine in the USN.

The Overhaul Reports and USS SHAW's image, along with images of other ships (primarily cruisers) that had been repainted into Ms 11 with 5-S on the West Coast and at PHNY, illustrates that although in limited supply, there was 5-S paint at Pearl Harbor.

[Jeff Sharp]

One of the things about the color pic with the destroyers that caught my eye is that Shaw's stacks are not the same color. Very odd! You can clearly see the different color bands on her stern though.

[Rick E Davis]

USS SHAW (DD-373) worn a "modified" Ms 2 scheme. See attachment from an initial June 1941 report. What all modifications to her camo that could have been tried with her, may never be known. There were a series of evaluation observations done during the summer of 1941, and this could have been one of the variations tried. Or the crew had started to repaint sections of the superstructure already. Note on the attachment; the officer recommending changing her pattern from the Ms 2 scheme's directions (he was also the head of evaluation of the various camo experiments on destroyers) was Commander Swenson, who would be promoted to Captain Swenson and would be assigned command of USS JUNEAU (CL-52).



In a Fall 1941 follow-on evaluation, one Pacific destroyer (USS LAMSON (DD-367)) was painted in Ms 2 using 5-H, 5-O, and 5-S instead of 5-L, 5-O, and 5-D. Another destroyer (USS MAHAN (DD364)) was painted in Ms 12, again using 5-S.

[Franz]

I will be getting the book "The Battleship USS Arizona (Super Drawings in 3D) by Waldemar G�ralski & Leszek Wieliczko. The reviews I've seen on this book all talk about how much detail is in the drawings.

My question is does any one know how accurate all that detail is? For example in one of the reviews there are samples of the book shown. In one of these it shows voice tubes all along the bridge structure. The only voice tube I've seen in a photograph is the one in the wheelhouse (presumably to the engine room).

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Franz

[Tracy White]

It's better than it could have been but not without errors. The artist posted a series of renders here in 2012 and it lead to a couple of us working with him, but he had something like four days between when he posted them and when renders were due for the book, so there wasn't enough time to go through all of the decks and spaces. We were able to fix some large errors but there wasn't time for much.

[lgmccauley]

Hey Franz,
I have the book and have been using it as a resource for building my Arizona, but it does have some errors. It doesn't show the degaussing cables nor the saluting guns as some examples and there are others. The 3D Images are great and are very helpful in figuring things out, but I wouldn't use the book as your sole source of information. In addition to this book, I also reference FDD's plans and Stilwell's book with Alan Chesley's drawings. Another sourced has been Jeff's building log and of course this forum. I will check the accuracy of the book with these other resources before I proceed to make a part, but I certainly don't regret buying it. I also have the 3D books on the Missouri, The North Carolina and the Massachusetts.

Larry

[Franz]

Tracy, Larry thanks for the feedback.

Larry, I'm more concerned about the additive type of error i.e. showing something that was not there than I am about what they may have forgot (or didn't know about) to put in like the degaussing cables.

Tracy were there a lot of additive type of errors? Are the voice tubes and electrical lines, boxes and lighting fairly correct or should I take all of that with a grain of salt?

If the detail in the book is mostly correct I would want to add it in using something like the green stuff that gives you time to work with it (like clay) before it hardens. I would basically add some of the putty to the spot I want to enhance with this small detail and then use clay sculpting tools to remove putty to leave the electrical boxes and lines in place.

I have Stilwell's book and the Squadron book as well as the Floating Drydock Plans (unfortunately packed away somewhere) in addition to the Plans listed on your site Tracy. I do have a copy of Jeff's build log (which is really good) on word as a reference as well.

I also spent about a week going through this thread from the beginning to the current point before I actually created my login. I've also found this site to be a great resource with a lot of great and knowledgeable people on it.

Thanks again.


Franz

[Jeff Sharp]

I was going back through the online version of the National archives and came across a photo that confirms there were only three 50 cal mg's in Arizonas fighting top. I don't know how I missed this before. I may have skipped it as most of the other Pearl Harbor photos of the Arizona under attack or still burning are of low resolution.

Franz

Franz,
Do you see 3 or 4 MG's up there? Now I'm not so sure that there was only 3 up there. Looks like there IS a fourth laying flat.

[Franz]

Jeff, in the photo you have above it looks like 4 as well, but not in the one I posted or in the over head shot.

The other question I have is that the KA PE upgrade kit comes with barrels for the 50 cal machine guns, but they look like the water cooled version. The ones in the photos do not look like they are water cooled. Or am I getting the scale wrong because of the distance from the photographer?

Franz

[Franz]

Dave, I think the contention was that there was not enough room for 4 MG's and their ammo boxes and still allow for practical fields of fire for all four machine guns. Also In the picture I posted the barrels were so high above the blister that the top of the fourth gun should have still been visible in the upright position. If it was flat as the object Jeff's photo then what you said would hold true about the angle masking it.

Franz

[Rick E Davis]

Also, a possibility.

Realize that for maintenance on the small AA guns (50cal MGs and 20-mm) it was practice to remove the gun and either work on it onsite or in a shop. I have seen that done in quite a few photos during downtimes.

Also, all of the ship based 50-cal MGs were water cooled.