Calling all USS Nevada BB-36 and USS Oklahoma BB-37 fans

[Rick E Davis]

Thanks, I didn't even think about USS PENNSYLVANIA. I scanned another photo at Pearl Harbor dated 13 October 1941 and it was clear that USS ARIZONA and USS NEVADA were tied up in the same locations that they were on 7 December 1941. Since the USN was cycling different BatDiv in and out of Pearl for training, etc., in thinking about it there likely wasn't a permanent assignment of mooring locations.

Cropped view of 80-G-411193 dated 13 October 1941. This was one of series of photos showing various ships in anchorage around Ford Island and the Navy yard complex.

[Jeff Sharp]

Yeah, for some reason Pennsy always seemed to be moored at 1010 dock. This is a rare occasion of her at Battleship Row.
I too, like Sean, would like to see a crop of Nevada's aft turrets and gun tubs. Can you post that as well?
Thx

[Rick E Davis]

Here you go. Shadows and clutter/crew activities make seeing things a little harder for this part of the ship.

[SeanF]

Empty gun tub, plain as day.

Maybe hints of bleached/unbleached paint in ovals where rafts were placed on turret 4? Two aligned along the starboard (photo left) edge, maybe two along the centerline (between turret 3's barrels?)? Real hard to say with a white top and the shading issues you mentioned. Interesting challenge...

Got the shape of the mainmast searchlight platform, though! I've been wondering about that.

Thank you!

- Sean F.

[MatthewB]

Jeff,

There were two types of B&W film in use during WWII. Their spectral response to light are different.

Orthochromatic; Orthochromatic photography refers to a photographic emulsion that is sensitive to only blue and green light, and thus can be processed with a red safelight. The increased blue sensitivity causes blue objects to appear lighter, and red ones darker. Orthochromatic film proved troublesome for motion pictures, rendering pink skies as perpetually overcast, blond hair as washed-out, blue eyes nearly white, and red lips nearly black.

Panchromatic; Panchromatic photography has a photographic emulsion that is sensitive to a broader spectral response range (of colors) and is generally "truer" to what the human eye sees.

Panchromatic film was quite a bit more expensive and harder to process, enhance Orthochromatic film continued in use for a long time.

So it is likely that the overhead film was Panchromatic and the onboard image you posted used Orthochromatic film. The RED on Turret Two looks closer to the GREY on Turret One in the onboard view and as completely different colors in the overhead view.

This is one of the reasons I really don't try to determine "colors" from grayscale images without knowing what kind of film was used.

This difference is also why many of the photographs we see of ships in Ms. 11/21, or Ms. 12/22 look so "Light" compared to the likely actual Shade for the Hue of Blue in question.

And there are tricks to figuring out which film was used by comparing a white-value and a known color value/hue to a greyscale comparison used specifically to determine what the known Color Value/Hue should be for that type of film.

It can get really complex, but we had a class for this in Photographic Restoration when I was younger that taught a lot of different techniques for discovering likely colors within a photograph.

MB

[Jeff Sharp]

Thanks, I didn't even think about USS PENNSYLVANIA. I scanned another photo at Pearl Harbor dated 13 October 1941 and it was clear that USS ARIZONA and USS NEVADA were tied up in the same locations that they were on 7 December 1941. Since the USN was cycling different BatDiv in and out of Pearl for training, etc., in thinking about it there likely wasn't a permanent assignment of mooring locations.

Cropped view of 80-G-411193 dated 13 October 1941. This was one of series of photos showing various ships in anchorage around Ford Island and the Navy yard complex.

This shot of 'Zona prior to the explosion would suggest that both forward tops were painted the same but I would love to see a hi-rez copy of this photo to get a better look.

[Jeff Sharp]

The video of Nevada leaving dry dock after repairs can be found on the net from multiple sources. Almost all of them however are horribly blue shifted making Nevada appear more blue than what she really was while wearing MS-1/5 camo. This caused ALMOST just as many arguments as the Arizona debate.

This particular copy of that film is by far the truest representation of her actual color.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5cqIT6_Cbs&t=9s

The portion of the film showing Nevada is at the end. Here are a couple of screen shots with a great look at her hull above the boot topping, the boot topping itself, and the anti-fouling red below the boot topping. The anti-fouling red and the boot topping were just repainted prior to undocking. Notice also the thin line of sea blue paint used at the top edge of the boot topping to give it a straight line. That was the very beginning of her getting painted into overall sea blue paint.

[Jeff Sharp]

So, do we suppose the (likely blown clear) rafts had been painted red, or 5-D so as not to stand out when the ship was seen in profile? (And if 5-D, and if only the #2 turret top were painted, they'd be obscuring over a third of the color meant for aerial recognition. Seeing how Maryland appears to have had both aft turrets blue at one point, and seeing the variations in where the 5-D/5-L boundaries are on the various ships, I suspect the individual captains exercised some influence over their ships' schemes. Drastic variations in placement of those rafts as well. I wonder... I've seen some models of Nevada carrying rafts on the #4 turret... perhaps her captain personally opposed to the whole color coding thing, especially as it conflicted in principle with the navy's decision to paint his ship's deck?)
- Sean F.

Sean,
For years I believed that those two rafts that left the ghost images on top of turret #2 were not there on Dec. 7th. I could never spot them in any of the sortie photos. Now, finally more and more Hi-Rez photos of that day are becoming available.
Here is a crop of turret #2 during her sortie showing those 2 rafts in place.



As far as whether or not they painted the rafts to match the turret top, perhaps this photo will help answer that question. Notice the white raft leaning up against to mast leg. I bet this was one of the rafts that was on top of Turret #4.



I was also able to locate 4 maybe 5 more rafts in this crop of the same Hi-Rez photo as above that I never knew existed. Also worth noting is that shed that is directly under the mast legs, sitting on top of the boat deck.

[ABF(fuels)2ndclass]

While looking at these aerial views of the Nevada and only being able to see these pictures in black and white, 20B deck blue was not in use, I'm thinking these decks could have been paints in 5D as well. Any thoughts?

[Rick E Davis]

In going through more of the 1941 camo documents that I have access to, I found something that explains why USS NEVADA and USS TENNESSEE have painted decks and most (or none) of the other battleships don't. See attached, note which battleships were included in these "painted decks aerial observation camo effectiveness" experiments.

The first letter dated 31 October 1941, had an attachment providing a "temporary" formula for mixing a paint to use in place of the new 20-B deck paint.

The second letter dated 12 November 1941, provides a revised list of ships involved in the experiment and that were to have painted decks. I don't know when their decks were painted, but in a 22 November 1941 letter, the results of the tests for the destroyers (USS MAHAN (DD-364), USS DRAYTON (DD-366), USS LAMSON (DD-367), and USS FLUSSER (DD-368)) were presented. A couple of weeks before the attack. A lot of "camo" experiments were going on prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor with directives changing all the time.

I'm as interested in these Task Force assignments myself. I knew that the Carriers were divided up as such, but I didn't know that a Battleship was assigned to at least some of them. Plus I didn't realize, or overlooked, that these Task Forces dated back to at least October 1941. In other TF databases as of 7 December 1941, BatDiv 2 & 4 were assigned to TF 1 and BatDiv 1 was assigned to TF 2. No Battleships were assigned to TF 3 (Scouting Force). I suspect that only these ships were listed as to being "evaluated" for this experiment.

[Jeff Sharp]

Wow Rick! This is pretty definitive stuff! This now poses another question. Now I wonder if all the other MS-11 cruisers, Phoenix, St Louis, Honolulu still had unpainted decks. This suggest that they weren't painted.

[Rick E Davis]

There were other documents "directing" to paint the decks, but whether it was done before the attack is unknown.

There were quite a few destroyers still painted in Ms 11 w/5-S and other experimental schemes in late November.

[Rick E Davis]

Here are a couple of images provided by Ernie Arroyo that he scanned at NARA, showing USS OKLAHOMA (left) and USS NEVADA (right) at Pearl Harbor on 3 November 1941. The first image shows the overall view and the second image shows a cropped view of the two battleships. I believe that this is the same photos referenced earlier as being in "The Way It Was Pearl Harbor, The Original Photographs", pg. 14. They are both in MS-1/MS-5. I don't have the book, so I'm not sure, but the date is the same.

Note that the Ms 5 False Bow Waves have slightly different shapes. By November 1941 only USS OKLAHOMA and USS NEVADA of the Pacific Fleet battleships still retained the Ms 5 camo. The other two battleships documented as having been painted with Ms 5, USS COLORADO and USS NEW MEXICO (maybe USS MISSISSIPPI as well?), had either transferred to the Atlantic Fleet (NEW MEXICO class units) and repainted to Ms 2/12 or had gone to PSNY for overhaul (COLORADO) in June 1941.

[Brian K.]

Does anyone have a good shot of the Air defense station under the main tripod mast legs?

[Brian K.]

I found what I needed, incase somebody else is looking check Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships pages 184 and 185.

[SigfanUSAF]

Quick question-
Are the barbetts of turrets 1 & 4 larger diameter or did they use the same basic barbett for turrets 2 & 3?

I need to know for my 1945 Oklahoma (bombarding Okinawa). I�m wondering if it would have been feasible to put Arizona�s #3 & 4 in place.....

[SeanF]

Quick question-
Are the barbetts of turrets 1 & 4 larger diameter or did they use the same basic barbett for turrets 2 & 3?

I need to know for my 1945 Oklahoma (bombarding Okinawa). I�m wondering if it would have been feasible to put Arizona�s #3 & 4 in place.....

Yes, 1 & 4 are larger.

- Sean F.

[SigfanUSAF]

Thank you Sean

[SigfanUSAF]

SigfanUSAF, barbetts 2 & 3 are 30' 2" OD compared to barbetts 1 & 4 that are 32' 2" OD. turrets 2 & 3 are narrower & shorter in length compared to turrets 1 & 4. what scale is your Oklahoma as I'm kitbashing Revell's 1/429 scale Arizona into the 1941 version Oklahoma & 1945 Nevada?

Hobby Boss 1/350. I�m actually doing the OK and the NV in �45.

[SeanF]

The shape of the bow is different as well.

I tweaked-out a Dragon 1:700 Arizona hull into a Nevada-class hull a few years back. It took a lot of effort. They look so similar at first glance, but they really are quite different. Comparable to... say, a P-39 Airacobra and a P-63 King Cobra.

- Sean F.