The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:38 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2990
David,

Look at the NYNY photo, the areas you refer to corresponds directly to below the "knuckle" and then transitions to the armor belt. Think that may be a factor in the different shades? Some paints when wet look darker and others look lighter. We really don't know what USS JUNEAU was repainted to. If it was Mountbatten Pink, the shade was lighter than 5-N and a bit darker than 5-O. Even "if" two different paints have been used as you believe, the "new pattern" doesn't come close to matching USS JUNEAU appearance on 1 June 1942. The small difference in shades wouldn't provide any benefit to USS JUNEAU's camo scheme. It would more likely that two different mixed batches of paint were used than two different paint shades.

As for there being two shades of paint on the aft hull of USS JUNEAU, this image says otherwise. There are either "touch-ups", or oil smudges/leaks, or rub marks in that area, but the paint is a constant shade. The second image is the other image of USS JUNEAU captured by the TBM crew. It gives a different aspect angle of the aft portion of the cruiser.

The big question is, is USS JUNEAU painted in the same camo scheme as she appeared in on 1 June 1942??? :scratch:

Image

Image

As for wakes NOT getting up on the sides of an ATLANTA class, look at these images. Note that the same "difference" in shades occurs in the same areas on USS ATLANTA, only in her case the lower zone is slightly darker. A play of shadows and lighting may well account for this appearance in both cases. And we know from several photos that USS ATLANTA's hull was repainted a solid coat of 5-N at PHNY in July 1942.

Images of USS ATLANTA;

Image

Image

Image

Images of USS OAKLAND showing the wear on her Ms 21 camo and then at PH shortly afterwards on 13 December 1943, showing her being "touched-up" with primer before applying another coat of 5-N. The wear at the bow is quite noticeable as is along other areas of the hull. And no they didn't paint a false bow wave on USS OAKLAND. :big_grin:

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 227
Location: NAZARETH PA
I neglected to mention in the post earlier today that all of the enhanced photos posted on 10/30/17 plus the photo posted before mine today showing 80 G 304513 all show wake patterns very much like the one I discussed in my prior post today. The enlarged 80 G 304513 crop posted earlier today also shows the dark areas on the bow clearly visible in the enhanced photos plus some of the camo patterns on the hull starting below the 1.1 mount and on the 01/02 levels. Something I did not pick up before it appears the forward superstructure might have had a solid light/dark grey pattern on the forward/aft parts and on the stack. Straight diagonal lines appear to be visible for what they are worth.

Fair to say not a single CLAA photo on this page or for that matter on this entire site shows a ripple wake going half way up the hull of a CLAA under way, with or without a large bow wave.

As for the light color CLAA photo on the San Juan site, as stated previously it was described in Morrison's Guadalcanal book as an official USN photo. Just because no one has found it does not make it unreliable. It identified the ship as San Juan, highly unlikely. The camera may have been the same one that took the dark color CLAA photo that I seem to recall was ID'd as San Juan on this site. Makes sense since it was a dark CLAA with CV 6. Obviously it was not taken by the same camera used for the TBF aerial photos showing light color ships. By the way it could be argued that fact makes every one in the TBF series unreliable for our purposes. I am not saying such is the case merely pointing out the argument could be made. The light color CLAA photo shows IJN planes as dark, just like the entire SCAAR series that have photos of enemy planes, something for model builders to consider when you decide if it is reliable. If the planes show up the same way as in all other Santa Cruz photos, why is this one not reliable for the CLAA color?

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1415
Rick, the closeup of the june 1 1942 Juneau shows at least 4 maybe 5 colors on the hull between the front of the bow & before #1 twin 5" gun mount. any water on the side of the hull would be gone because the movement of the ship thru the air til it got to current anchoring location, dropping the anchor & the arrival of that boat by #2 mount. she has a different camo in the oct picture compared to the june picture. there is no paint splotches on the aft 5" gun mounts & no painted medium dark rolling wave above the waterline in October compared to june. I just realized what I thought was dark paint on the hull by the aft mounts was actually a dark colored powered(?) barge.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2990
David,

Yes there were several different colors used in USS JUNEAU's camo pattern seen on 1 June 1942. Capt. Swenson liked to experiment with his ship's camo. :big_grin:

Yes the salt seawater would eventually evaporate. But, the 26 October 1942 views shows USS JUNEAU after she spent the previous 1.5 hour in violent maneuvers trying to stay in formation with USS HORNET as she tried dodging Japanese bombs and torpedoes. As the seawater evaporates, a salt deposit is left ... kind of like a chalk layer. The photos I posted, clearly show that at speed and even at slower speeds, water got on the sides of the ATLANTA class cruiser hull and caused rapid wear all along the hull at the bow and waterline.

Enhancing the contrast is only going to highlight ANY differences in the shades and shapes on USS JUNEAU or any of the other images. The sun was nearly overhead and shadows from projections on the ship will cast shadows. Period.

But, David do you agree that the 26 and 28 October 1942 photos of USS JUNEAU don't show the same camo pattern as 1 June 1942?

The "Light" SAN JUAN website photo is just that, a photo of USS SAN JUAN. MORRISON likely had the original print when he included it in his book. The ship's name (and likely who took the photo and from which ship) would be noted on the back of the print. If he noted it as being USS SAN JUAN, that is most likely the ID of that cruiser. The single aircraft in that image shows as "dark" simply because it is banking away from the photographer and the bottom of the aircraft is seen in shadow as the sun is above it (at about the 10 O'clock angle) while the ship is in full sun. Without additional information on who and when the photo was taken, or a full size print, it is impossible to ID the cruiser. It is clearly reflecting a strong exposure to the sun, no matter what the cruiser's camo is. Similar photos of USS SAN DIEGO taken by USS PENNSACOLA have a similar bright appearance. It proves nothing on the ships camo, whether it is USS JUNEAU, SAN DIEGO, or SAN JUAN.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1415
agree as not same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 83
Gentlemen,

I realise some of you are / or may be old sea dogs, and I don't mean to try teach an old dog new tricks, nor be so presumptuous as to think I know more / have more experience than you do re ocean effect on hulls / hull paints but................................to those land lubbers out there, if there are any, then the 'look' of the hull and the amount of wake / waves rolling along a ships side has several interdependent factors that must be taken into account such as; sea state (calm / rough, etc), direction (and size) of the swell angle in relation to the ships course and speed, and also the direction (and strength) of the wind (interacting so to speak with said swell and ships course / speed).

Now while never having been an officially deputised swabbie, or a higher higher, I have spent my fair time at sea in all sorts of weather conditions, from glassy mirror-like calm (love it!) to in the teeth of a cyclone (as we call em 'down under'), which scared the hell out of me at the time, but is a great experience to look back on now (but as the say, there are no atheists in the trenches, nor at sea in a cyclone I might add) and all states in between (dead calm to and including cyclonic that is), and the above paragraph re variables on hull / paint / look condition are my own first hand experience/s.

Just something to keep in mind (or not as the case may be).

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 227
Location: NAZARETH PA
According to a diagram of an Atlanta class cruiser on this site https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.co ... cl-53.html
the stern was 13' high and the bow 29'. Height appears to be in the 13' range up to the forward stack.

I think it is fair to say that every NARA and SCAAR photo of the battle and the WIA transfers shows smooth seas in the 2-4' swell range. So does every other CLAA underway photo I have seen. I just looked at every CLAA photo on this site and every one in my collection, which includes 1 aerial photo of an underway CLAA and 9 underway shots, some are not on this site. They are all NARA photos as far as I know. The 9 as far as I know are in the Pacific in 42.

Each and every photo in such smooth conditions shows no ripple effect/closely spaced waves going half way up the hull. They all show long/smooth swells at a rather small height beside the hull. The aerial shows very little extension away from the hull although the speed is unknown. This includes the close range photo of Atlanta during her high speed trial. Seems safe to assume if a wake is going to climb half way up the hull that is the time for it to happen. I have 2 San Juan Santa Cruz photos taken from the #3 1.1 director which appear to show pretty much what the aerial does, with the wake a little wider at the stern probably due to high speed. There is no photo evidence of a ripple/closely spaced wake required to create the pattern in the SCAAR 99 photo in either the Atlanta or my San Juan photos. Or in any of the other CLAA photos on this site or anywhere else to my knowledge in the Pacific in 1942.

The photos of other type of ships at Santa Cruz also do not show wakes going half way up the hull.

Perhaps if either of the surviving CLAAs were caught in the late war typhoons maybe we can locate ripple wakes in photos of them.

Considering the photo evidence it appears safe to assume the SCAAR 99 photo showing a dark pattern on the lower portion of a light color hull up to the bow is what it looks like--a camo pattern.

Then again perhaps you NARA folks could get the negatives for SCAAR 99/138 and 80 G 304513 and let us know if they tell us anything different?

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1415
agree on that 2nd last sentence.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2990
Ships maneuvering to avoid getting hit by bombs and torpedoes throw a lot of water up. So fine no water EVER gets on the hull of ATLANTA class cruisers and there was no wear to the paint as was seen on the USS OAKLAND photo.

Fine. It doesn't change the facts. The facts are that there is NO camo pattern on the hull in photo 80-G-304513 that looks anywhere near what USS JUNEAU had on 1 June 1942. :wave_1:

The Santa Cruz Report photo #99 shows a VERY SMALL IMAGE, less than 1/2-in wide on an 8x10 photo, of a cruiser about 2,000-3,000 yards away from the camera, a 16mm movie camera, showing a hull in a lighter shade of paint than the superstructure. Compare to the nearly 2-in long image of USS JUNEAU in 80-G-304513 taken from roughly 1,000 yards away from an airplane above. When your Mr "X" played with the contrast of photo #99 the hull and superstructure look the same shade, except for the lighter area near the water ... that according to you NEVER gets wet. Again, the image doesn't look like USS JUNEAU on 1 June 1942. So if photo #99 is USS JUNEAU then she was painted a darker solid color. :big_grin:

The photos in the Santa Cruz Report came from photographers onboard USS NORTHAMPTON. The majority of the photos were made from movie frame stills. Hence there are no "photo negatives" available, only movie films. A digital copy of the movie with the frame that the Photo #99 came from is available at Critical Past and you know that ... http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675 ... rld-War-II ... Order high res scans (for them hi-res means 300dpi) from them. Or pay to have a copy of the film at NARA made at whatever resolution you desire. :thumbs_up_1:

I paid to have a scan made of the negative of 80-G-304513 available at NARA about two years ago. The negative that NARA has is a copy negative of the original print. It makes horrible scans with far less details than the scan of the original print made from the original negative. I can post it if you want.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6109
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Maryland, November 1942. Note the wavy lines on the hull from wave action. Almost looks like a camouflage pattern - but it's not. She was overall 5N at this point.
Attachment:
BB-46 42.11.08 Port Bow.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 83
Well although I have no intent of hijacking this thread, given that Martin has posted an example of another ship I thought I would do same.

Actually it probably deserves its own thread, as elsewhere the 'debate' has been fiery and somewhat unresolved IMO, although persons holier than me do not think so.

Anyway. long story short, here we have the DD USS Pope leaving Surabaya, purportedly for the last time in company with HMS Encounter and HMS Exeter, i.e. 28 Feb, 42. Now while that might not be the case, i.e. the date, it is generally agreed the image was taken at Surabaya in Feb 1942, if not on her final sortie.

The general but not necessary fully unanimous consensus among the cognoscenti say the colouration of the hull is from wave action alone, but I remain unconvinced, although there are some 'relatively good' arguments for the 'wave action' position by folks more knowledgeable than myself.

Be that as it may, make of it what you will, but if it is caused by wave action it just shows what wave action can do to the look / colouration of a hull.

And on a similar note, although most of the pics in this thread show Juneau and her cohorts in calm - or relatively 'calm' - conditions, who knows what they had traveled through in the previous weeks / months. After all, the Pacific ain't always so pacific.

Just sayin' is all.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 21
Location: San Jose, CA
Hmmm.. those are some awfully straight lines for just wave action...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2990
Don,

I don't know which image you are referring to, but I will address comments made about ATLANTA class units in general about their unique hull shape and at sea wear and tear, over the last week.

I have been away from home on a short trip to NARA this last week. While traveling I can't post images unless I can copy the links from previous posts on Modelwarships. Since I got back I have been too busy to address some comments made. First off, I have to clarify my statements I wrote in haste about the images showing "wet" surfaces. I should have said they show surfaces that are or HAVE been wet and now have a salt coating. Anytime a ship is at sea for any length of time, chalking appears from salt residue and the nature of the paint used then.

1). The ATLANTA class hull shape. Unlike most USN ship designs built during WWII, they have a unique shape. There is a knuckle visible at the bow that then blends into the armor belt near the waterline isn't common on USN warships. The bow on image below shows this clearly. This combination creates a shadow effect in many photos taken of this class and appearance of a demarcation "line".

Many of the photos that are available of these units were taken as they were completed or shortly afterwards when their paint was still recently applied and little wear is seen yet. But the group of images below shows the unique knuckle and armor belt combination impact on the appearance of the "color" and "shade" of recently applied paint on various units.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

2). Wave action on the hull and wear on the paint applied. MANY photos show the wear and tear to paint applied to the hulls of ALL USN warships that have been at sea for any length of time. I previously posted images of the wear exhibited on USS OAKLAND to her Ms 21 camo scheme. But, there are other image examples. Note in these images the wet areas and dried salt coatings. Also, water run off from the main deck added additional wear in specific locations.

Image

Image

Note in this photo that the Ms 12R(mod) camo on USS SAN JUAN is almost completely washed out by the fading of the 5-N and 5-O on the hull and bright sun.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

And water wear on the hull of ships wasn't limited to the ATLANTA class cruisers, here are images of a BROOKLYN class unit with plenty of freeboard.

Image

Image

3). How ships were painted. It is rare to find photos of USN ships in the process of painting. But, there were two general methods of painting a ship. One was using spray guns, normally by yard workers or forward area repair facilities. The paint coat looks even and well covered across the whole ship. When a ship was painted by hand, normally by the crew, using the "mix" the paint by the formula using a base of white paint mixed with a tinting paste to get the desired color, there isn't always an even coat. When humans are mixing paint based on how many pints of tint paste needs to be added, sometimes just like painting your house with paint from different cans, there is variation in shade. Also, without benefit of a drydock, a common procedure was to paint the lower part of the hull from boats up so high and then or only to paint the hull above from by "going over the side".

Image

Image

Image



I have no idea of what is going on in most of the very small distant images presented as evidence. The images are way too small and taken at long distances to be reliable photographic evidence. The Ms 12R(mod) patterns painted on USS SAN DIEGO and USS SAN JUAN at times can not be made out at these distances. But, the images of USS JUNEAU taken on 26 October 1942 from an Avenger, was flying only about 500-ft altitude and were relatively close compared to the 4,000-5,000 yards ranges seen in the images taken from USS NORTHAMPTON.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 21
Location: San Jose, CA
Rick E Davis wrote:
Don,

I don't know which image you are referring to


Hi Rick!

I was talking about the pic of Pope in Feb 42...

Don Andrews
The Andrews Shipyard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 83
Don Andrews wrote:
I was talking about the pic of Pope in Feb 42...
Don Andrews
The Andrews Shipyard

Hi Don,

Yes I thought you were (re Pope) and one of the reason I was hesitant to post the pic (i.e. to confuse the issue here re Juneau). Sorry about that Rick, but thanks for posting ALL those images!

As for Pope, I myself think it is 'camo', but was continual 'shot down' be a few 'in the know'.

But never being one to take too much notice of what someone tells me without irrefutable proof /evidence, I believe it is a 'wavey' style camo at least back to amidships (maybe they never got the job finished?). But of course, not havimg seen her exit Surabaya that day, I could be wrong too.

PS. If anyone has a clearer / better photo of that image of Pope PLEASE do not hesitate to send it to me. Please.

BTW, to keep this thread on its rightful track, if a moderator cares to move the Pope posts to their own thread I wont come-a-crying-about it.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant. HMS Repulse. Dec. 8 1941


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6109
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
A few more photos showing wave action/staining on the hull.

Nevada:
Attachment:
BB-36 80-G-74407.jpg

New Jersey:
Attachment:
BB-62 80-G-272734 #1crop.jpg

To a lesser extent, New York:
Attachment:
BB34 New York 31Mar1945 80G-316811.jpg


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 227
Location: NAZARETH PA
SCAAR 99/138, 80 G 304513, and the light color CLAA photo taken with Enterprise at Santa Cruz—an official USN photo despite the fact it is consistently blown off as unreliable on this site—all show a light color CLAA in the white-light grey range except for the dark bow in both SCAAR 99 and 80 G 304513.

The sites below are color photos of post war Canadian Navy ships in light grey paint shades in sea conditions similar to the ones in the Santa Cruz photos.

After reviewing the sites at the bottom of this post can someone please answer the following questions to enlighten our model builders, not me.

How are photos of salt stains on dark color USN ships relevant to this discussion? I have yet to see a possible model builder dispute the presence of a dark pattern on the lower hull in SCAAR 99 or the dark patterns on the bow or the fact the rear 2/3 of the ship is a much lighter color than San Diego/San Juan.

When will we see a photo of a CLAA with ripple effect/closely spaced wave action stains half way up the REAR 2/3 of the hull as portrayed in SCAAR 99? Where are the closely spaced/half way up the REAR hull water stains in these photos?
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=400#p729169

Where are the closely spaced ripple wakes half way up the hull at the REAR of the ship in this aerial photo plus the ones posted above taken on 12/11/43 and 3/8/44? All I see in all of these photos is smooth wave action along the water line on the rear half of the ship. http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/054/0405424.jpg
There is a better one of San Diego on pinterest taken at close range from the starboard bow but I am not a member. You can find it by google.

Why are there no wave action/dark salt stains on the Canadian ships in the photos below?

Why is a water stain on a light color hull going to show up in a photo taken from a few miles away as dark? Can anyone produce a photo that shows such a situation at the distance of the CLAA in SCAAR 99? If we cannot answer that question then how do we explain the dark pattern on SCAAR 99 clearly visible to everyone who has seen this site based on the fact only one person denies they are there? For that matter the same question for a dark color hull not that it is relevant. How is a wake stain on the hull going to show up at the range at which SCAAR 99 was taken when the only portion of the wake itself that is visible is the forward half of the hull, barely visible and at the water line. NO large bow wave visible. What shows up is white at the forward waterline, not clear. By the way a pattern similar to all of the other underway photos on this site--very little turbulence along the rear 1/2 of the water line in Santa Cruz type conditions. Based on these facts how is a wet hull stain going to show up at that range?

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... ouche2.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... /terra.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... urent1.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... iere-1.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... onnie2.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... avour2.jpg

https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada ... /fleet.jpg

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1415
FRED, the colors on the Canadian ships are wrong as there should be a lite tint of green or blue in the gray paint.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 227
Location: NAZARETH PA
The point being the photos show light colors on military ships. If you have better color ones showing the precise color please feel free to put them on here. As long as they are lighter than 1942 blue/grey WWII USN colors my guess is the analysis will not change.

After another view perhaps the photos of white salt stains on dark ships are relevant. If the ripple dark pattern on SCAAR 99 on the rear 2/3 of the ship halfway up the hull is a salt stain, why is it dark? If it is wet water, how did it get that high in such calm seas and why does no such pattern appear in any other photo of a CLAA? The question remains how would wet water show up on a less than dark hull at that range? Where do we find another LONG RANGE shot showing a wet water stain?

Do we have any real live Navy of any country sailors on board here who can guess the speed/angle of turn required to get a wake pattern half way up the hull? My guess it would be a much higher speed/angle than normally used in non combat conditions such as those obviously the case in SCAAR 99. Especially on a class of ship that I seem to recall was a tad top heavy to begin with. For what it is worth this site confirms the guess they were top heavy
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... uisers-cl/
but this one suggests they were not top heavy until late 42.
http://www.cmchant.com/the-anti-aircraf ... anta-class
If that was the case then Juneau may not have been top heavy.

To clear the confusion our model builders deserve answers to these questions. Answers based on facts and/or photos.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 227
Location: NAZARETH PA
The site below seems to show the Canadian Navy color David was referring to.


https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/departure/

_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 441 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group