The Ship Model Forum

There are significantly subtle differences between the sisters that makes it "dangerous" to use Pennsylvania as a detail gap filler. It also makes it a fun challenge to determine those specific details for each sister.

The spud locker area evolved over time. Initially out of refit she didn't have the wings; they came in later and as far as I can tell were primarily to enable quicker passage between the main deck and boat deck. The area underneath the wings was *not* filled in at the time of those drawings (January 1941) as the crosses through that area (see "riveted plate" text) is meant to depict an open space on the BOGP (note the same crosses in vent trunks).

I believe the original version of the wreck plans was drawn incorrectly. Brian O'Connor told me a story of surprising / educating one of the head divers on the survey he worked (I forget the other diver's name, sorry) on by sliding his hand underneath the edge, demonstrating it was an open space and not solid. The amount of silt in the area had built up over time so as to make it appear to be a solid bulkhead underneath the overhang.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

It wouldn't be the first time plans were drawn wrong! The drawing of director platform comes to mind. But silt piling up a whole deck level high only in this area under the wings? The rest of the ship has about 3 or 4 inches of silt on the decks. How does 12 to 14 feet of slit manage to stack up specifically only in this area? I'm not saying it's not there but it seems odd.

I haven't dove on her myself nor seen any footage of this area to personally evaluate it - it's just a story I remember him relating. Given both the frame 88 break, vegetable locker structure, and overhang it's likely that there are less currents in this area (other than the passage way, which I could see acting like a funnel) but it's also possible that the divers at the time were mostly swimming at the surface looking down and the shadows and silt could make it appear as a solid structure.

Also possible I miss-remembered the story, but I distinctly remember him saying he passed his hand / arm underneath a structure in that area. Upon further reflection, he may have been talking about the port side Botswain's Mate locker, but that's all I can think of.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Slight tangent! Tracy, remember when we were trying to determine if there was a small mushroom vent sticking above the larger port side square vent on the boat deck under the boat racks as seen in the plans?


I modeled it to look like this.


I just noticed in the pic Larry posted what appears to be a small mushroom vent poking out of the starboard side square vent. You can see it just above the 5" gun.

PLOT TWIST!

The mushroom vent in the drawing is on the port rectangular vent, but the photo clearly shows the starboard rectangular vent, which doesn't have a mushroom vent in the drawing!

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Yes - they were a common feature of ships "of a certain age." You can see them on Oklahoma and Wyoming, as well as some flat ones on the flush-deck four pipers.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Hey guys.
I really want to thank all of you for your comments. It sure raises questions. Being a former draftsman, I totally agree with Tracy that plans do not always represent as built, but the 1940 picture, I think, shows a definite line, to the right of the large ventilator and above the gangway davit, that goes all the way up from the deck to the top of the vegetable locker. So there is visual proof just like the ventilator issue that Jeff brought up.
This is just another one of those issues, like the Arizona's paint color at Pearl Harbor, that for now is a flip of the coin. My coin toss is going to be the solid line all the way up and also going with Don Preul's choice of sea blue.
Thanks again to everyone.

Larry

Larry, I don't wish to muddy the waters for you but take a look at this photo.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013909b.jpg
It shows Tern wearing MS-1 camo. Behind Tern is Navajo who is not in MS-1. Now take a look at Arizona's mainmast and compare her color tone to the two other ships.

It certainly is darker, but would the paint have charred from the heat? I don't know. I guess it just gets down to what ever you as the modeler decides is right for you knowing that you have a 50/50 chance of being right.

I wonder where you got that information?

I've seen nothing definitive yet in any of the films I've seen. This one shot is pretty intriguing though. Here we see the platform that was added at the base of the tripod leg. You can see where it attaches to the portion of the veggie locker in question. There seems to be a hint of bulkhead under the platform. But maybe that is just the support column I see here.

I don't know either but it looks pretty clean here.

I've got another question for you guys. As I said before, I'm probably going to paint the Arizona in the 5S scheme as opposed to the dark gray, but what about her deck color? Would it have Deck Blue or the Sea blue. It appears that Don's model is sea blue . Any ideas?

Larry

Larry, Nobody really knows at this point what color the decks were either. Heck, I painted mine Linoleum brown based on one color photo of USS Idaho. Point is, nobody can prove you wrong at this point to whatever color you decide.
I'm still digging into the veggie locker question.
Any post attack photo is going to be no help. The water level is right at or just above the area in question. This view is the best I've come across so far.


This 1940 shot of her though seems to agree with your assessment of the starboard side and matches what the plans are telling us.

Hi All: I'm new to this forum, am going to build the Trumpeter 1/200 scale USS Arizona for a small display at an airport here in Colorado.

I would like to confirm the correct colors of the Arizona on December 7, 1941. Most modelers' photos I see recently show it a dark blue, Meditteranean Blue or Navy Blue with red tops on three of the four turrets. I would like to confirm that somehow, is there anything out there I could look up to confirm that? (One of the survivors of the Arizona on 12/7/41 is going to be honored, and I want to be sure I get things like the colors correct!

Thanks for any help on this.

Davegee

It's one of the most contentious topics in USN ship modeling, and there's no one single document that'll tell you she's in that blue scheme (5-S Sea Blue) for certain at the time of the attack. However, when Don Preul unveiled his updated Arizona model at the Pearl Harbor Memorial in 2006, a short news article was written about how those colours came to be and can be a quick source for you to reference back to if someone calls you on it: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/1 ... ory04.html

Don later presented the sources behind his decision at a 2011 conference - the PDF/powerpoint slides can be found here: http://www.shipmodelersassociation.org/ ... E_2011.pdf Slide 22-23 may be of especial interest.

There's a fuller discussion of this scattered in the Calling All Ship Fans -> At 'Em Arizona thread.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

All her documentation was destroyed post-attack. The BattleLine wore 5-D dark gray. Noone has found any documentation for a blue painted battleship. Hearsay & "stories" Just my opinion FWIW.
John

Even survivors disagreed.

Perhaps, if there is some way to contact the survivor to be honored, ask him what he remembers the colors to be. Paint your model that way. He'll be happy.

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby

This doesn't mean much, to be honest. The ships weren't sending in a lot of documentation with regards to camouflage.

To Davegee - first off, welcome aboard. As other have said, it's a contentious issue. I'm one of the ones that fanned the flames and still keep the embers going. I wrote a piece that lays out what I've found in the National Archives and what questions I had. I still peck away at it from time to time.

I remain open to the possibility that Arizona and some of the battle fleet was not painted in standard Measure 1. There are a lot of photos that are inconclusive and textual documents that can point in either direction. Some say the absence of proof is proof of absence, but I say there are some questions we simply do not have the answer to yet and there's no shame in not knowing everything.

Of course, you want to build your model and not wait. We know for a fact that Arizona was painted in Measure 1 for a lot of 1941. You won't be wrong for "1941" with standard Measure 1. You just might not be right for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, but even if I found proof I'm sure we'd still have plenty of people arguing about it until the lights go out.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Jeff,
Thanks for your perseverance. The 1940 picture does look pretty convincing.
As for the deck color. Do you know what would have been the standard deck color for a Measure 1 configuration?

Larry