The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 483 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Kevin, maybe try a different browser? The context (right-click) menu on my Chrome shows the "Save Photo As" option fine:

Attachment:
mw.png


It also works in MS Edge.


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

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Rick, thanks for your detailed reply!

Rick E Davis wrote:
I was at NARA all last week when you posted on 26 October. I saw your question about "blocking downloads" from my Photobucket Account.


No not from there, direct from this forum as it were. See previous post to answer Tracy.

Rick E Davis wrote:
As for the differences in the first two images above. I don't know how versed you are in film negative photo taking and processing plus print from negative processing,


Have been a photog since 1971 and still am, so am well versed in both negative taking / processing and digital from simple enhancement / to down right manipulation.

Rick E Davis wrote:
Finally, how the prints were processed will impact how much contrast is observed.


Yes, but...............................one ships appears with a 'clean' hull, the other not, IMO.

Rick E Davis wrote:
Hence the same image on the USS SAN JUAN came from a DIFFERENT print copy.


Yes but whether in this case or not, not the first time one of the Atlanta CL's has been misidentified. Not saying they are here, but.................just sayin'. And with those two in comparison shot I see one with a 'clean' hull (top image) and one (bottom) with a.......................I wont say 'camo' but a different 'textured' or shaded / patterned even hull (although 'patterned' may be too strong a descriptive word here) that is NOT just shadows / processing IMO. But that's just my IMO which aint really worth two bits in the overall scheme of things.

Rick E Davis wrote:
The two small images that are likely at least a couple of generations away from the original print, much less the original film negative............ Aerial photos many times are closer to the subject than another ship in formation.


Roger all that.

Rick E Davis wrote:
I have scanned OVER 10,000's images at NARA from the prints available there.


Jesu Christo, you are a hog for punishment Rick! I have scanned hundreds if not thousands of my pre-digital age slide and neg u/w images and I know what an effort that took (especially when you loose most in a computer crash!). You are to be congratulated given what I know was a HERCULEAN task / effort, that not many people would / could even come close to comprehending. (No disrespect to those that do of course and are excluded.)

Rick E Davis wrote:
Plus I provide the number and location of the original photo so that anyone can go look at it for themselves.


Like I said, given that you allow all to download 'your work' (and let me tell you non photo technos, scanning images is WORK, and not just with a capital W but with ALL capitals!) you are a CHAMPION. Guess I have just been trying to download them the wrong way. :-(

Best,
KD

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Last edited by KevinD on Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:50 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
Here is part one of the pictures Fred sent me. I'm strictly posting the images for him, so don't ask me what they mean. He can explain what they are all about.
Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99copy1.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99copy2.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99copy3.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99cropcopy1.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99cropcopy2.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99cropcopy3.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99cropcopy4.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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
Part 2
Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-138copy1.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-138copy2.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-138copy3.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-138copy4.jpg

Attachment:
SantaCruzAARptxPhoto-138copy5.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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
3rd and final batch of photos:
Attachment:
z1-TF17x103closeup-26Oct42-ORIG.jpg

Attachment:
z2-TF17x103closeup-26Oct42-copy-2.jpg

Attachment:
z3-TF17x103closeup-26Oct42-copy-3.jpg

Attachment:
zTF17x103closeup-26Oct42copy-4-b-w.jpg

I agree with Tracy that lines are drawn, and no one is changing anyone's mind. As for the rest of the viewers at home, view the photos and make your own conclusions.

The only other thing I will say is "play nice, boys". I WILL lock this thread if you can't keep the discussion respectful.


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  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Just back from a vacation.

I will post what I think the photos Martin graciously just posted mean within the next day or so.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Have been tied up with entertaining grand kids and other priorities since 11/1.

Commentary on the enhancements and other related topics should appear within 2-3 days.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
..........................I couldn't get Ricks images to save after downloading here (or on the 'other' site for that matter).

That is, when I downloaded an image of Ricks (say the Mountbatten Pink DD) it came up with a file name like "zDD362x20-15Jan43.lr_zpsn6tfyqpe" for instance, which I then tried to save 'as is'.

Well, notice the dot / 'full stop' after 43? If I leave that in (and all that follows) as it's name when I save I get a blank image and the message below when I try to open it. Don't ask me why, it just does. (And yes I have all the latest everything - well everything one needs anyway re photo downloading, changing file types, enhancement, opening most (obviously) un-openable images, etc.)

But take that 'dot' out (and all that follows it) when I save, and wallah, the image magically appears (again, don't ask me why, it just does) IN 600dpi no less!

So, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR POSTING all those images on the several forums that you have. But boy, do I have some retrospective work to do now!

Image

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
JUNEAU MODEL BUILDERS—

First and foremost may I suggest a few thoughts in remembrance of all those lost this date 75 years ago. On both sides. I live in the Peoples Republic of PA and based on the time conversion chart at this site http://timebie.com/tz/timediff.php?q1=G ... ght%20Time
this post is going on to the site at about the time Juneau took its fatal torpedo hit. Namely 1900 EST.

For anyone interested in trying to build a model of Juneau as damaged on this date 75 years ago and before it was sunk later that day you may want to take a look at the post I put here—
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23563&start=280#p727114
The site listed there contains more details than I have seen in any book.

I recently swapped emails with a fellow member of this site who has monitored this discussion. During the course of a Juneau related email conversation it soon became obvious that he has more photo skill than I ever will. I asked him to enhance the following photos which have appeared on this site—

Santa Cruz After Action Report Photo (SCAAR hereafter) 99, a crop of which appears at the 12/8/16 1924 post with a cross bar thru the ship.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=340#p708373
SCAAR 138, which appears in the 12/31/16 1601 post.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=360#p709942
80 G 304513, which shows up about 20 times on this topic.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=340#p708471

By the way if you wish copies of any SCAAR photo for your own study and review, the following members of this site have the complete collection—Rick Davis, Martin Quinn, and myself.

The fellow member who did the enhancements does not wish to participate directly at this point in time. Suffice to say he used methods I do not have.

Before discussing the enhancements you should understand the following. I will be discussing mainly photos and witness testimony, mostly the former. I am not getting involved in timelines/presence or absence of radar units on long range photos/conflicting TF ship formation diagrams/photos that have no details on them as to time taken or subject details such as who is attacking what, which is probably 99% of the ones at NARA, or speculation except mine where it is clearly identified as such. To my mind the photo evidence discussed below is credible, convincing, and makes a very persuasive case that Juneau was not re painted and was in something very close to original 6/1/42 camo at Santa Cruz. Especially when combined with eye witness observations.

Before discussing the enhancements, if you are not familiar with this topic from its beginning may I suggest you review the posts below. I have included the date and time, the current page number as of this date, and a very brief description of its relevance to the enhancements. I am also trying to put in direct links since I noticed the time changes for the post on subsequent views of them. The caps below are to clearly differentiate web addresses from the description info, not to “shout”.
10/11/15 2245/2 LAFFEY/JUNEAU PHOTOS
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=20#p670619
11/20/15 1457/6 MAURICE BECKNER MEMORY ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=100#p674081
12/15/15 1849/6 RICH NOWATZKI EMAIL ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=100#p676417
12/17/15 1148/6 RICH NOWATZKI EMAIL ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=100#p676533
12/29/15 2153/7 TBF AERIAL PHOTOS OF HORNET TF
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=120#p677620
1/9/16 1409/8 ED LAVIN MEMORY ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=140#p678655
3/3/16 1302/11 MULTIPLE CLAA PHOTOS AND SOME OF ATLANTA APPEARING DARK AT VARIOUS RANGES.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=200#p684090
5/21/16 2213/13 SCAAR PHOTOS CAMO PATTERN OF SAN DIEGO ESPECIALLY DIAGONAL STRIPES ON FRONT OF BOTH FORWARD/AFT SUPERSTRUCTURE UNITS ARE VISIBLE
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p692122
5/22/16 1437/13 SAME AS ABOVE
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p692161
SAN DIEGO PATTERN CLEARLY VISIBLE ON SHIP THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE JUNEAU BECAUSE OF HORNET TF SHIP FORMATION DIAGRAM
5/24/16 2258/14 SAME AS ABOVE. SAN DIEGO SUPE PATTERNS CLEARLY VISIBLE. PATTERN ON BOTTOM PHOTO ALSO SUPPOSEDLY SAN DIEGO IS CLEARLY DIFFERENT. DOES THE DARK PATTERN ON LOWER HULL EXTEND UP TO THE MAIN DECK AS IT CLEARLY DOES ON THE SAN DIEGO PHOTOS? NO IT DOES NOT. OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENT CLAA.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692377
5/25/16 2109/ SAN DIEGO SUPE PATTERNS CLEARLY VISIBLE ESPECIALLY AFT DIAGONAL STRIPE ON ALL EXCEPT BOTTOM 3
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692477
5/27/16 2030/14 SAN DIEGO AFT SUPE STRIPE CLEARLY VISIBLE ON ENLARGED CROP
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692655
5/30/16 1651/14 MY SUGGESTIONS TO SEE CAMO ON 99
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692851
5/30/16 2342/14 CAMO PATTERN CLEARLY VISIBLE BOTTOM OF HULL ON 99. PATTERN NOWHERE NEAR THAT ON SAN DIEGO
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692865
7/3/16 1544/15 SAN DIEGO/SAN JUAN PATTERN PHOTOS. BOTH ARE DARK IN ALL PHOTOS. SAN DIEGO PATTERN CLEARLY VISIBLE IN PHOTOS 2-3 IN SAME POSITION THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY JUNEAU IN 5/22/16 1437/13 POST. PROBABLY TAKEN BY PENSACOLA AS PART OF SERIES IN 33924-6 SHOWING NUMBERS 12-14 IN LOWER R CORNER. WAKE IN PHOTO WITH NO SHIP ALMOST CERTAINLY HORNET’S. 33945 HAS NUMBER 35 IN LOWER R CORNER.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=280#p695512
7/5/16 0038/15 CLAA SUPPOSEDLY JUNEAU IS DARK JUST AS IN PHOTOS ABOVE AFT SUPE DIAGONAL STRIPE CLEARLY VISIBLE
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=280#p695625
11/13/16 1747/17 ASSORTED LAFFEY/JUNEAU PHOTOS, HULL PATTERN MATCHES 6/42 PORT SIDE PHOTO IN SAME POST.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=320#p706558
12/7/16 1150/17 MY REVIEW OF CAMO PATTERNS IN 3 PHOTOS, ONE OF WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SOLID COLOR ON JUNEAU. SUMMARY OF PHOTO EVIDENCE OF TRACES OF CAMO ON JUNEAU
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=320#p708236
12/12/16 2122/19 MARTIN QUINN COMMENTARY, ESPECIALLY THE EXCERPT BELOW—
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=360#p708699

____________________________________________________________________________________
POINT ONE: The fact is, the Navy called their various painting instructions camouflage, regardless of if was one color or twenty. However - I can see how the average swabbie would not consider a ship in overall blue to be "camouflage".

POINT TWO:
While the photos at Santa Cruz strongly suggest one color, the Fletcher sailor's comment about the "camouflage" could be considered anecdotal evidence that perhaps Juneau wasn't a solid color. Or, perhaps the repainting was hurried and the earlier scheme was bleeding through? I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but it is possible.

POINT THREE:
To me, good photos are the best evidence. They can irrefutably prove or disprove facts. That is, if they are "good" photos. The Santa Cruz photos are pretty good, but the Juneau starts to blur when you zoom in. However, she certainly looks one color.

Documents are a strongly secondary source - however they are not infallible. Just because the instructions said "do this", doesn't mean they were followed to the letter. Human nature being what it is, humans will almost always take the easy way out, and follow the "spirit" of the instructions, not the letter.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I would also suggest you view directly the Santa Cruz photos that appear at http://www.cl54.com/album/categories.php?cat_id=7. The site graciously sent me copies and I will be happy to share them with anyone who wants them. They also appear at numerous places on this site. Based on prior posts and photos of Atlanta/San Diego/San Juan seems pretty safe to assume the dark CLAA on that site is San Juan.

To give you an idea what San Diego may have looked like at Santa Cruz, I suggest you view my model of it at http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm. I have a collection of 1942 photos of the ship, some on this site and some not, I will be happy to share with you if you wish. I could not find any 1942 model of San Juan on this site however color photos of her in the fall of 42 are on the net and this site.

IAW Point 3 of Martin’s post last year and what I said in the 7th paragraph above, I will be dealing with photos mainly and supporting testimony from the vets I spoke with. I could care less about convincing anyone not a model builder on any topic. For that matter those of you who actually build models I do not care to convince you either. My goal is to give you a complete list of the past photo evidence in the posts in paragraph 8 above and discuss the enhancements posted on 10/30/17 and what they mean for your decision on how to paint any model of the ship. However if you are building a model of the ship I would encourage you to share your opinion on this topic for the benefit of anyone else doing so. Especially if during your review you find something I missed.

My final suggestion—download all of the 10/30/17 enhancements so that you can better make your own evaluation of them. Put them on a word document and adjust contrast/brightness to your satisfaction.

On to the enhancements.

Every enhancement of SCAAR 99 shows a pattern on the lower hull, as stated in several prior posts above. But they show something else a little more clearly. Take a look at the dark pattern that starts in the general area of the forward gun mounts.

The next group is SCAAR 138. I will get to them shortly.

Final group is 80 G 304513. Something jumped out at me that one of us should have caught long ago. Guess my 20/20 is failing me. Take a look at any one of the 4. Look at the bow. There is a dark diagonal line going thru the anchor SW-NE. Forward of that point the bow appears to be a false one in a dark color. Take a look at the hull between mounts 2-3. Another SW-NE line. Forward of that to the false dark bow is what appears to be a lighter shade of grey. Starting below mount 3 are what appear to be very faint traces of the original camo pattern, with varying visibility in the enhancements. That part of the ship is also light in some of them. See my 12/7/16 1150/17 post for evidence of camo patterns in 3 different photos including this one. The superstructure patterns seem to be similar to the original pattern but there is not enough detail to be positive. Whether the pattern was changed at Argentia or just the colors is very hard to tell. My guess is only the colors but the War Diary suggests it was both.

As for 138, the primary points are it is not a dark hull as in the multiple San Juan/San Diego photos on this site. It also appears to be moving out smartly at a speed I suspect was in the 25KT range. Note the wake. It stays near the waterline and does not climb half way up the hull. There are several photos of CLAAs on this site that make the same point and I have some not on this site if any of you want them. This might be Juneau and my pure guess due to the smoke and what is visible of the ship is that it is Juneau. Impossible to be absolutely sure due to complete absence of details.

So what do these photos mean?

I would suggest the following.

Both a surface photo (99) and an aerial (80 G 304513) taken from most likely 2 different cameras show a lower hull pattern (99 for sure and traces on 80 G 304513) and dark areas on the bow (both). 80 G 304513 seems to suggest an attempt to re paint the starboard side of the ship that was not completed. It also suggests traces of the original pattern behind the dark areas on the bow. It has traces of superstructure camo very similar to the 6/42 photos. These guesses if correct do not jive with the light color CLAA on the San Juan site. Why such an obvious conflict remains I cannot figure out. However seems fair to say the rest of the hull behind the dark bow is a much lighter color than the dark San Diego/San Juan photos and has very faint traces of pattern on 80 G 304513 and clear and obvious traces of a pattern resembling the 6/42 photos in 99 behind the dark spot.

As for the port side, not visible in any SCAAR photo that I can find, I refer back to Rich Nowatzki’s 12/15/16 emails. With my father he was in the starboard aft 5” gun position and probably saw only the port side of Juneau. He had about 30 days to study the ship prior to Santa Cruz. If he saw the other side on or after 10/26/1942 he had other priorities to deal with. He described it as “whitish”, something that would seem to match both the San Juan site light color photo and the Laffey series photos. This suggests, with no proof obviously, that the port side was not repainted and remained in either the original pattern or a very bleached out version of it based on what is contained in Rich’s emails. His description is also a common sense match for the light color CLAA photo on the above San Juan site. No photo of Atlanta/San Diego/San Juan in 1942 comes remotely close to that appearance. Nor do the later war San Diego/San Juan photos. FYI I contacted the family that donated the photos to the San Juan site and was told they could not remember where they got it from. No 80 G or other NARA number has appeared for it on this site. I had no luck trying to find it at NARA. It was listed as an official USN photo in the Morrison volume on Guadalcanal. By process of elimination no other ID but Juneau makes sense.

Almost every photo of San Diego/San Juan at Santa Cruz shows a dark color. If a clear photo they show known patterns. 99/138/ 80 G 304513/the San Juan site light CLAA do not show a dark color except for the starboard bow. Take those facts and photos into consideration.

As to any model you may plan or have in progress, I hope this post is helpful. By all means do not accept my analysis and eval of the enhancements as gospel. Do you own review of them and the photos on the list of posts above. If you go to NARA there might be a DD/CA AAR lurking somewhere with additional photos however our diligent NARA visitors have probably exhausted all possible searches for hidden photos. Such a search located the SCAAR when many others had no success trying to find such a crucial source of photos for this topic, including me.

As Martin wisely indicated above, MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS and have fun.

In the event that any descendant of a Juneau crewman stumbles on to this post, please accept my condolences for the loss of your family member.

Last but far from least, below is a link to the site for the obituary of Maurice Dinsmore Beckner, last crewman of the Juneau. He died 10/5/2017. Marty I hope you are with your shipmates, and that you had a chance to tell the First Lt. who kicked you off of the ship what you think of him.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/palmbe ... =186882669

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
JUNEAU MODEL BUILDERS

As a further update in case you attempt any research on your own, below is an updated list of facilities I contacted attempting to get photos of the ship

AIR FORCE HISTORICAL RESEARCH AGENCY MAXWELL AFB X
ARMY HISTORICAL CENTER CARLISLE X
AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL X
AUSTRALIAN NAVY HISTORY DEPT. X
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD PHOTO COLLECTION X
CAPE COD CANAL X
ENTERPRISE CV6 ORGANIZATION REFERRED ME TO WIDOW OF ARNOLD OLSON X
ESPIRITU SANTO GOVT. AND LOCAL NEWSPAPER
GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN VETERANS ASSOCIATION WEBSITE 12/20/16
IJN MUSEUM (SENT IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE, ASKED FOR ANY REPORT FROM THE SUB THAT SANK HER)
IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM X //ROYAL NAVY ARCHIVES
LIBRARIES NEAR ARGENTIA NAVAL BASE X
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTS AND PHOTOS DIVISION
MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC WAR FREDERICKSBURG TX X
NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN COLLEGE PARK SEVERAL VISITS. NARA IN BOSTON AND NYC NO LUCK. COLLEGE PARK FOR PHOTOS/CORRESPONDENCE RECORDS OF CRUISER CAMO--SEARCHED 19 LCM AND 80 G COLLECTIONS FOR 95 SHIPS THAT SAILED IN SIGHT OF JUNEAU HOPING TO FIND HER ALSO IN A PHOTO OF THE TARGET SHIP. METHOD WORKED FOR HORNET BUT NOT FOR JUNEAU.
http://www.navycruisers.org/officersstaff.html
NEWPORT RI NAVAL BASE LIBRARY X
NOUMEA TOWN/NAUTICAL/WWII MUSEUM XX
PANAMA CANAL HISTORICAL WEBSITE X
PENSACOLA NAS MUSEUM
ROYAL NAVY ARCHIVES
ROYAL NEW ZEALAND NAVY NATIONAL MUSEUM
JIM SAWRUK CHECKED HIS IJN SOURCES IN JAPAN, NO INFO IN THEIR RECORDS ON JUNEAU CAMO SCHEME.
SOUTH PACIFIC WWII MUSEUM X
UNIV. OF TEXAS LIBRARY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS UNIT—CUSTODIAN OF PRIVATE PAPERS OF LIFE ARTIST TOM LEA. PERSONAL VISIT 10/24/16 SEARCHING FOR PHOTOS OF CROSSING THE LINE CEREMONY ON HORNET THAT MAY HAVE SHOWN SHIPS WITH HER IN THE BACKGROUND. DESPITE THE FACT I WAS TOLD THEY WERE THERE THE STAFF COULD NOT FIND THEM. THE USN DID SEND HIM SOME BATTLE OF SANTA CRUZ PHOTOS A FEW OF WHICH I HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE. THEY WERE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION AND APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DUPLICATE ORIGINAL PRINTS.
USNI PHOTO COLLECTION X (ALSO RULED OUT ANY RELEVANT PHOTO IN THE BARR COLLECTION)
USS FLETCHER ASSOCIATION SITE TRYING TO FIND STANLEY SHREIER 12/20/16
WWII MUSEUM NEW ORLEANS X

X=THEY RESPONDED. NONE OF THEM HAD PHOTOS TAKEN AFTER 6/1/1942

Below is a list of ships I checked in the 80 G collection at NARA trying to locate photos of Juneau any of them may have taken. The list was based on ships I found with Juneau in her War Diary, Deck Log, DANFS, and a few books.

AARON WARD 483
ANDERSON 411
ARTIC AF 7
AMERICAN LEGION APA 17
ATLANTA CL 51
AUGUSTA CA 31
BARNETT APA 5
BARTON 599
BENHAM 397
BUCHANNAN 484
CHESTER CA 27
CINCINATTI CL 6
CORRY 334
CUNNINGHAM 371
CUSHING 376
DALE 353
DAVIS 395
DEWEY 349
DUNCAN 485
ELLYSON 454
EMMONS 457
ENTERPRISE CV 6
FARENHOLT 491
FARRAGUT 348
FITCH 462
FLUSSER 368
FORREST 461
GLEAVES 423
GUADALOUPE AO 32
GWIN 433
HAYWOOD APA 6
HELENA CL 50
HOBSON 464
HORNET CV 8
HOVEY M 91 DD 208
HOPKINS M 93 DD 249
HUGHES 410
HULL DD 350
HUNTER LIGGETT APA 14
JOUETT 396
LAFAYETTE AP 53
LAFFEY 459
LAMSON 367
LAND DD 399
LANSDALE 426
LANSDOWNE 486
LARDNER 487
LIVERMORE 429
MACOMB 458
MAHAN 364
MARBLEHEAD CL 12
MASSACHUSETTS BB 59
MATAGORDA AVP 22
MAURY 401
MAYO 422
MCDONOUGH 351
MEADE 602
MEMPHIS CL 13
MINNEAPOLIS CA 36
MORRIS 417
MUSTIN 413
NAVAJO TUG AT 64
NEW ORLEANS CA 32
NEVILLE APA 9
NORTHAMPTON CA 26
NORTH CAROLINA BB 55
O BRIEN 415
OMAHA CL 4
PENSACOLA CA 24
PHELPS 360
PHILADELPHIA CL 41
PORTER 356
PORTLAND CA 33
PRAIRIE AD 15
RANGER CV 4
RHEEM NOT FOUND
RODMAN 456
RUSSELL 414
SALINAS AO 19
SLC CA 25
SAN FRANCISCO CA 38
SAN DIEGO CL 53
SAN JUAN CL 54
SARATOGA CV 3
SAVANNAH CL 42
SEMINOLE AT 65
SMITH 378
SOMMERS 381
SOUTH DAKOTA BB 57
TUSCARORA YTB 341
VESTAL AR 4
WALKE 416
WASHINGTON BB 56
WASP CV 7
WILKES 441
WINOOSKI AO 38
WORDEN 352

List below prepared to coincide with 80 G filing system.

AD 15
AF 7
AF 11
AM 73/77
AMC 77
AO 19/32/38
AP 53
APA 5/6/9/14/17
AR 4/5
ASR 3 EX AM 39
AT 64-5
AT 66
AVP 22
BB 55-7/59
BB57
CA 24-7/31-33/36/38
CL 4/5/6/12/13/41-2/50-1/53-4/
CV 3/4/6/7/8
DD 179/208/249/334/348-9/351/350/352-3/356/360/364/367-8/371/376/378-9/381/395-7/399/401/410-11/413/414-7/422-3/
426/429/433/437/441/443/452/454 ALSO DMS 19/456 ALSO DMS 21/ 457-9/461-2/463/464/483-7/491/599/602/
DMS 13
YTB 341

While re reading Naval Battle of Guadalcanal by James Grace I realized I missed the following ships present during the attack of 11/12/1942 on a convoy that Juneau was escorting. They might be worth checking in 80 G if any of you have an interest.

BETELGEUSE AK 28 (41-43)/AKA 11
CRESCENT CITY AP 40 (41-43)/APA 21
FLETCHER DD 445
MCCALLA DD 488
MCCAWLEY AP 10 (40-43)/APA 4
MONSSEN DD 436
O'BANNON DD 450
PRESIDENT ADAMS AP 38(41-43)/APA 19
PRESIDENT JACKSON AP 37(42-43)/APA 18
SOUTHARD DD 207

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
On this anniversary of a battle when so many lives were heroically lost and we are debating color.

I have already gone over these images.

However, to put these images in context, here are the full frame or nearly full frame versions of the same three images as above. I scanned these images myself and made NO alterations to them in the process of scanning or posting them other than reducing file size to allow posting. Note the relative size of the three images presented above in context of the total photo. Consult these when comparing to the contrast adjusted images presented above as posted by Martin.

First image, 80-G-304513, was taken shortly before noon on 26 October 1942, by one of USS HORNET's TBM crew upon returning to their ship.

The first image below is the Full Frame of where the photo of USS JUNEAU was taken in the foreground of USS HORNET. The second image is a close crop at higher res of just USS JUNEAU. This is the third image posted in a series above by Martin showing them altered in contrast in various steps. Note the size of the image of USS JUNEAU relative to the full frame.

Image

Image

As a comparison and trying to derive a pattern that matches what USS JUNEAU had on 1 June 1942 as she left NYNY, compare the above and the contrast adjusted images to this starboard broadside view of USS JUNEAU. There is no camo pattern match. Note that the sun is at noon when this photo was taken, there are some shadows visible in this photo. The hull shows wet area, that begins behind the anchor, from the high speed and maneuvering experienced that day resulting in the forward hull looking slightly "darker". But in no way matches the bow camo pattern that was applied to USS JUNEAU as of 1 June 1942. The "knuckle" on USS JUNEAU's hull is quite clear and show that the wet area ends along the bottom of the knuckle. The underwater hull paint and boot stripe is visible. USS JUNEAU was repainted in a solid camo scheme with an unknown paint the last four days in September 1942.

Image

Image

Image

The next image below shows the full frame and a couple of close crops of the overall image. I made no close crop scan at higher res of this image when I scanned the photos taken from USS NORTHAMPTON during the battle. This photo was taken shortly after USS HORNET was fatally struck at about 1020 and started to come to a full stop after making about a 180 degree turn. Given where USS JUNEAU was in the TF 17 formation relative to USS NORTHAMPTON and USS HORNET, this very small image taken roughly 4,000 yds away is likely USS JUNEAU. But, given the amount of small and the very small size of the image, there isn't much details that can be made out and the relative "grayscale" of the image is altered by the smoke. Even the contrast adjustments done above don't help to determine any info on the paint applied to USS JUNEAU.

Image

Image

Image

The image below, the first image posted by Martin above, was taken after the Battle from USS NORTHAMPTON while transferring USS HORNET survivors from USS RUSSELL. As you can see an ATLANTA class cruiser is making a turn in the background. The close crop image was scanned at a higher res to pull out as much details as possible. The two potential candidates with TF 17 after USS JUNEAU returned from TF 16, are USS JUNEAU and USS SAN DIEGO. Again look at the relative size of this image in relation to the whole photo.

Image

Image

Next, as for the "Light" USS SAN JUAN website image, there is no way to ID this small image that no one has located a full size copy of this print. As is, this photo was likely taken from USS SOUTH DAKOTA and the cruiser is USS SAN JUAN based on the other "Dark" image from the SAN JUAN website. As for why some photos look light even when painted with a dark paint. Even though the camo paint used by the USN in WWII was a flat paint, it still had reflectivity. In a bright sun, the reflection will turn almost any ship "Light" as in this first image. Compare these two images taken by the same TBM aircraft as she circled TF 17 early on 26 October 1942.

Image

Image

Finally, a couple of views of USS SAN DIEGO and USS SAN JUAN taken during the Battle of Santa Cruz or near that time. Note the bow wave being thrown up by both USS SAN DIEGO and USS SAN JUAN.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Make your own decision with your own eyes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
DavidP

Glad to see there is at least one person here who can see the obvious. Hopefully you are a model builder planning on building one of the ship.

By the way the photo 3rd from the bottom in the post above yours shows a CLAA at high speed. Does anyone see the wake going halfway up her hull in a ripple effect? All I see is a huge bow wave and more white water near the stern. Looks like someone in the design team did their homework to minimize wake turbulence on the hull. I have several others that make the same point. Seems safe to assume that photo SCAAR 99 with the X across the CLAA was taken of a lower speed ship if it is near a ship transferring WIAs. If no wake at high speed halfway up the hull, how do we get one at a lower speed? Failing that analysis, where is there a photo of a CLAA with a ripple effect wake halfway up the hull? Have any of you seen one? If you have please post it here, for sure I have not seen one.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
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


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

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
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  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
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. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


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

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
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


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

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
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  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New 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  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
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. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 483 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 25  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 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

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