The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:04 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 499 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3390
Kevin,

Well maybe "Doctored" is the wrong word, how about "Altered"?

What I'm trying to say, when you take an original photo, image # 99, and yes contrast can and WAS adjusted in the darkroom to get a "better" viewing image, and play with the image to "make" it appear to present something that isn't there ... aka a dark painted panel, that isn't being honest about how significant the tone difference is between the different shades seen in the image. That darker panel, if you honestly look at it on the original non-contrast adjusted image, is multiple shades of varying darker than the major surrounding area. In images 80-G-304513 and the Santa Cruz Action Report image # 99, Fred is trying to say that shadows mean applied darker paint that somehow looks like USS JUNEAU on 1 June 1942. I have looked at 10,000's of original WWII images and puzzled about strange "spots, panels, and objects" on their paint. Once I got to see color photos of some of the same ships, it was an eye opener that there were all kinds of "oil stains", Salt Stains, scrap marks from minor collisions, primer applied, fresh touch-up paint that was of the same formula used in that area, but looks so much darker than the surrounding area, and yes shadows. I have posted multiple color images to reflect just how complicated the paint of WWII USN ships was, even when dealing with just Ms 21 5-N.

Any knowledge about how WWII USN camo was intended to work and more importantly that Capt. Swenson was actively involved in the USN camo work in 1941, then the documents that were in USS JUNEAU's BuShips files and have been posted here, are more significant. They show that he liked and wanted to paint his ship in the "Mountbatten Pink" Camouflage he saw on South Atlantic USN units during JUNEAU's convoy escort mission there, believing it was more effective than what his ship was painted with. He acknowledges that the Camo Scheme he had applied to USS JUNEAU at New York Navy Yard in May 1942 and adjusted at Argentia on 15-16 June 1942, was optimized for the North Atlantic that he "expected" his ship to operate in. By the end of September 1942 he had seen first hand the power of Japanese airpower (USS WASP lost while she was part of her escort) and had to know that the camo scheme on USS JUNEAU from June to September 1942 was the wrong camo to paint his ship with for operations in the Pacific. At the end of September 1942 he had the chance to apply the camo he expressed a desire to apply in correspondence in mid-September or apply something similar to the best ability he could arrange at Noumea.

Capt. Swenson wouldn't have any reason to apply a darker panel like Fred is proposing. It serves no camouflage purpose. Plus he says that it matches the camo pattern seen on JUNEAU's starboard side on 1 June 1942. There is no evidence of the wavy 5-N and 5-H pattern seen on the hull of either image.

The bottom-line is that the small size image # 99 (USS JUNEAU image on 80-G-304513 is almost four times larger on an 8x10 image than image # 99) is so far away and at an oblique angle making any determination of the camo practically impossible. If you are familiar with film photography and processing, then you have to know the difference in resolution and relative difference of the grainy negatives between a 16-mm negative and a 4x5 negative. Besides, the sequence of images preceding the image # 99 of an Atlanta class cruiser turning have been ID as being USS SAN DIEGO. There is more evidence that this poor image is USS SAN DIEGO.

Fred and apparently you Mr X, see a dark panel of a strange shape in image # 99, and I see combined shadows and hull shape features creating a darker area. Photo 80-G-304513 doesn't show this pattern, only the shadow of the anchor and the knuckle plus water spray from the bow wave. Fine, we can leave it at that. But, no modeler can possibly paint a model of USS JUNEAU based on the image # 99. With the images taken by the HORNET TBF crewman, they could, after taking a guess on the color used.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 01, 2018 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 274
Location: NAZARETH PA
KevinD

Welcome to the you shall be misquoted if you dare to contradict our resident expert club.

The latest pearl of wisdom is almost humorous---

" Capt. Swenson wouldn't have any reason to apply a darker panel like Fred is proposing. " Yes I am sure any USN CO would just love to take a hull with significant white/light color on it into a possible night action especially after first Savo. Does not require a camo expert to see the high wisdom in that idea. Seems reasonable to assume Swenson had a pretty good idea what he might get into long before he got there and had the motive to forget Mountbatten Pink and go darker.

And then we have the top photo in this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731445 Yes there is plenty of spray. Where is the wet water stain? Same place as in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bgvVUFJ6lo----NOWHERE. Plus that video shows a tanker in MS12 Mod which quite possibly had exactly the same paint on its hull as both San Diego and San Juan. You can watch water go right over both gray and blue colors and leave no wet stain behind.

Kevin and All others--forgive the regurgitation but I am going to copy below these 2 posts because I believe recent photo evidence goes right along with them and should be included in one post---http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731577 and viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731617. I would suggest looking at this one also--http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731446

Timmy C
The area you circled is the dark spot which is visible in both SCAAR 99 and 80 G 304573. Since it is clearly in both photos common sense would suggest that the starboard bow was repainted into a dark grey or blue before Santa Cruz. Also seems safe to assume the TBF camera was not transferred to the ship from which SCAAR 99 was taken, which eliminates the usual camera/film defect theory to explain light or dark colors and blow off the light color CLAA photo with CV 6. Why 80 G 304573 does not show the lower dark pattern that shows up in SCAAR 99 is the mystery we need a photo expert to explain. Way beyond me. Perhaps brighter sun light, altitude from the plane, beyond me.
Meanwhile exhibits A-H in this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p692161 all show a CLAA with a dark hull. Very few of them show the camo pattern on it. Most show traces of the diagonal stripes on the forward portions of the forward/aft superstructure units clearly visible on the multiple San Diego photos on this site. All of the crops are blurred which is understandable. I can see faint traces on the hull in exhibits F and G. The pattern on exhibit I/SCAAR 99 is clearly different from all of the other dark hull crops.
If we are going to raise hands then we should also point out we have yet to see a long range as in the SCAAR photos shot of a salt stain showing light over dark or a wet water stain. Or of a wet water stain at long range which the video sites I posted a few days ago strongly suggest is not going to happen, especially the color close range footage of a WWII USN tanker in MS 12 Mod approx. 50-100 yards away in rough seas. There is plenty of photo/video evidence of old naval ships on the net that makes the same point. If a wet stain does not show up at that range, how is it going to appear at the range in the SCAAR crops? Common sense would suggest it is not going to happen. I should also point out I showed the crop of SCAAR 99 to my wife and 8/5 year old grandsons, all of whom have no knowledge of this site, and they all see the dark lower pattern on it. There is a viewer of this site who has told me he agrees SCAAR 99 is a different CLAA in camo but refuses to so state it. Guess he is fearful of being labeled fixated/wrong/ etc. Much more important is another occasional viewer of this site, the author of Naval Battle of Guadalcanal James Grace. He was in touch with well over 100 USN WWII vets to research that book. See pages 216-21 of his book for the list. He agrees with what I earlier quoted both my father saying and the email I copied onto this site from CV8 crewman Rich Nowatzki---when a WWII USN sailor spoke the word camo when related to a ship it meant a pattern not a solid color. When he quoted Stanley Shreier on page 166 as referring to camo on Juneau he is sure he was referring to a pattern. I am assuming he does not mind me quoting him on these issues, if he does safe to predict he will put his own post here.
Last but not least none of the stains in this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731490 come close to the shape of the pattern visible in SCAAR 99. Nor are any of them close to the range of the SCAAR crops. There is no photo to my knowledge of any CLAA producing a wake pattern similar to the pattern in SCAAR 99. I would be willing to bet all of those close range wet/stain areas would not appear at the range of the SCAAR crops. It has been well over a month and no one has produced one yet.

So, to sum up
2 photos show the same dark spot on the starboard bow, both taken within 24-48 hours of each other. They suggest someone did not like the white false bow and/or a repaint job stopped at about mount 3. The fact they both show an otherwise light color upper middle-rear hull suggests taken together as a pair they are credible.
1 of those 2 shows a lower dark pattern similar to the 6/1/42 NYC photos.
As far as I know no CLAA photo exists that shows a wake going half way up the rear hull of that class of ship. Or any other WWII USN ship in Santa Cruz type sea conditions. Assuming I am correct there is no other explanation for the dark pattern other than paint. Especially considering the info below.
Photo and video evidence strongly suggests wet/salt stains will not show up at the range of the SCAAR photos. If you do not want to believe me, do your own you tube/net trolling. Anyone who finds evidence otherwise feel free to enlighten us. I found only 2 color videos from WWII but perhaps there are more out there that are clear enough. The tanker in MS 12 mod paint should be pretty persuasive evidence on how wet water will show up on a hull painted in a dark color on the bow and probably another dark or navy blue color in the pattern showing along the lower part of the rest of the hull.
The 3 photos of CLAAs in this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731452 to my eyes show the CLAA in I/SCAAR 99 to be closer than the other 2 by putting a ruler vs the aft superstructure unit. Due to the angle of the ship in 99 I might be wrong. If I am right so much for the concept of 99 not being reliable due to distance.
Of course it means nothing but the analysis above tracks with what Rich Nowatzki told me--Juneau impressed him due to its light color--and what he told me tracks with the useless light color CLAA photo with CV 6. Which also tracks with SCAAR 99 and 80 G 304573. An eye witness and a published author and still a public speaker on Santa Cruz and still sharp as a tack but regardless of course not a reliable source for this discussion.
_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com
I did not acknowledge Juneau was re painted in 9/42 or any other time. I did say the starboard bow was repainted sometime prior to Santa Cruz based on 2 photos. A point I made well over a month ago. Just discovering it now?
Speaking of progress you have gone from the dark pattern does not exist to if it does it is wake action to the photo is at too long a range to possibly be reliable. Since Tim's "raises hand" comment seems to confirm he also sees a dark pattern what is next on the list of excuses to blow this photo off as strong evidence it is Juneau with a pattern similar to NYC? Knuckles? Give us a break.
The rest is just the usual regurgitated unrelated crap, for example who cares about knuckles at the range of the SCAAR photos. Of all the Atlanta class photos where is one showing a scalloped curved pattern half way up the stern? All of them are smooth wakes barely above the water line except the bow in calm water as at Santa Cruz. You have yet to produce a long range photo at the range of your CLAA crops of any ship showing any type of wet water from a wake on the hull. If 19 LCM CL 53-2-2 is not proof positive that SCAAR 99 is not San Diego I do not know what is. No way are the patterns remotely similar. Thanks for posting proof positive for anyone with common sense willing to open their eyes.
_________________
FRED BRANYAN
fredb1048@aol.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for new evidence, this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731452 is strong evidence that SCAAR photos 83/86/99 show 99 closer than the CLAA in 83 and 86. If indeed closer I am at a loss to explain how the CLAA in 83/86 did a R turn and morphed into closer 99. We have gone from the dark pattern on SCAAR 99 is not there to if it is there it is wake/salt action to the photo is too far away to extract detail from it and now we are back to wake/salt action as the source of the dark pattern. All of this despite what is obvious in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bgvVUFJ6lo. Based on that video are we really supposed to believe wet water wake action is going to show up on MS 12 Mod at over a mile?

But it gets better. Take a look at the 2 bottom photos in this post--http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731613. We are treated to a very large version of SCAAR 99 with the 19 LCM San Diego photo directly below it. The large 99 photo clearly shows a dark scalloped/curved uneven dark pattern nowhere near any close or long range camo photo of either San Diego or San Juan. Had it been one of the enhanced non doctored photos it would have been easier to see but so be it. Pretty easy just looking from one to the other to show it is not San Diego which had spots of blue going all the way up to the main deck. The Noumea photo 80 G 33914 in viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731626 is indeed blurred and bleached but still shows dark patterns up to the main deck from stem to stern. These photos eliminate San Diego from consideration for the ship in SCAAR 99. The oft repeated San Juan color photos are proof positive at a distance closer than the SCAAR photos involved the entire hull looked dark. No light area on her whatsoever and no darker false bow on either ship. Cannot be her either. The multiple salt stain/wet water stains on non CLAA ships are in no way related to the dark closely curved scalloped pattern generously provided in the enlarged 99 photo which anyone who cares to open their eyes can see. Sorry to say we have yet to see a close or long range photo of curved wake/salt stain action along the ENTIRE rear half of the hull of a CLAA in a curved/scalloped manner a la 99. To borrow a word any photo not coming close to that pattern and that range is meaningless. So I say again the photo evidence strongly suggests SCAAR 99 considered in conjunction with 80 G 304513--which also shows the dark starboard bow back to about mount 3 a fact that continues to be ignored-- is Juneau and is NOT San Diego or San Juan.

And in closing I would like to make one thing crystal clear. Having known or been in contact with more WWII USN vets than probably anyone else on this site and having known many modelers who disagree with the IPMS rule philosophy that accuracy does not count in a competition and who get very upset with themselves when they discover their model is not accurate, I consider it important to the memory of the vets and their families and present/future model builders to present all evidence I can as to what this ship probably looked like. I could not care less about being an "adversary" or whatever else I was recently labeled but I will contest anything I consider to be irrelevant proves nothing crap on behalf of the vets and model builders. We have been told a few times by our moderators photos rule and the evidence of vets is not relevant/meaningless. There is nothing but photo and video evidence to support the last sentence in the paragraph above.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11168
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Happy New Year all!

Can one of you link/repost 80 G 304573? I tried using the text search, but there's no searchable reference in the message bodies in this thread that are next to the image. Thanks.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3390
Quote;

And then we have the top photo in this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=460#p731445 Yes there is plenty of spray. Where is the wet water stain? Same place as in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bgvVUFJ6lo----NOWHERE. Plus that video shows a tanker in MS12 Mod which quite possibly had exactly the same paint on its hull as both San Diego and San Juan. You can watch water go right over both gray and blue colors and leave no wet stain behind.


When a surface is already wet, it is hard to see wet stains.

So many of your links are broken I have little idea what you are trying to point out. But, it doesn't matter, you are going to continue to only see what you want to see.



For any modelers, here is the bottom-line:

On 1 June 1942 USS JUNEAU looked like this;

Please note the quite pronounced wavy 5-N & 5-H demarcation along the hull on the starboard side.

Image

The ONLY confirmed evidence of how USS JUNEAU (CL-52) was painted and appeared on 26 October 1942 are these photos.

80-G-304513 Photo taken by CDR Rodee's TBF as you can see the wingtip. Almost certainly, the photographer is Sidney H. Rubin ACMM who was in the aircraft along with Parker who is the radioman. They returned to the area in the 1110 to 1115 timeframe.
Image

80-G-304513 cropped view of above image
Image

80-G-304512 Another photo taken by CDR Rodee's TBF
Image

80-G-304512 cropped view of above image
Image

On 28 October 1942 a photographer onboard USS RUSSELL (DD-414) took these photos while transferring USS HORNET survivors to USS JUNEAU.

Image

Image

During a brief stop at Espiritu Santos on 16-17 September 1942 while survivors from USS WASP (CV-7) were dropped off, Capt. Swenson mailed this letter.

Image

On 16 September 1942 USS JUNEAU looked like this after being at sea since 16 June 1942.

Note that USS JUNEAU was painted with 5-O and 5-H on her portside and how salt-stained and worn her paint is.

Image

Then USS JUNEAU was in Dumbea Bay at Noumea from 25 September 1942 until 2 October 1942 during her ONLY layover before the Battle of Santa Cruz. Six days was plenty of time for Capt. Swenson to decide how and what he would have the crew and whatever help he could get from shore installations to paint his ship that was in bad need of a repainting. The letter above and below indicates that he had a preference to use Mountbatten Pink that he even had the formula for. Was he able to have that paint made, who knows? Or did he simply use the paint that the PacFlt had order to be used??

After the Battle of Santa Cruz, Capt. Swenson mailed this letter;

Image


In the rest of this thread there has been reams of text trying to explain why these images don't show a repainted USS JUNEAU, but that photos from the Santa Cruz Action Report taken at longer ranges of mostly unidentifiable Atlanta Class cruisers or have been ID as USS SAN DIEGO, somehow show that USS JUNEAU repainted her bow and YET that she still looked like she did on 1 June 1942????

The Santa Cruz Action Report, photos taken from USS NORTHAMPTON, images are best seen here and shown in the likely sequence that they were taken ... viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692377 ...

The fixation for the last two months has been on this small area of the image # 99 from the Santa Cruz Action Report, one of the photos made from movie film stills. A close crop scan I made at high-res that is beyond the limits of blowing up this image. We are looking at the grains of the print emulsion.

Attachment:
zSantaCruzAARptxPhoto-99crop10.jpg


I'm simply tied of posting image after image of ships with OBVIOUS salt-stains and worn paint, including of USS JUNEAU on 16 September 1942, trying to prove to certain individuals that such conditions existed on USN ships in WWII. So I won't. I'm tied of explaining how this little image of a cruiser that is at least 60-75% likely to be USS SAN DIEGO based on the images preceding the turn this image shows, is useless for ID'ing the cruiser to 100%. So I won't.

Read what you want and make up your minds.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3390
Timmy, you need to help me out. Which image is 80-G-304573? I don't catalog images by their 80-G number, only the subject hull number/name.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3390
Oh Timmy, I think that Fred made a typo and he means ... 80-G-304513. I reposted that image above and below are closer-crop views I have used.

If you really want fun, contact me and I can send you full size images of whatever you want. As you know what I can post here is restricted in size by Photobucket and what Modelwarships can accept, which is why I post as many close-cropped views as I can to show details.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
After discussion it with Tim (Cadman), we've decided to lock this thread. The argument has become circular and redundant, with neither side able to convince the other of their points. We will it leave it to the reader to make up their own mind on what was presented.

Please DO NOT try and resurrect this discussion in the Atlanta class thread or in a new thread. Those posts and/or threads will be taken out back behind the woodshed and dispatched accordingly.

_________________
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 Mar 20, 2018 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
The Juneau has been found by Paul Allen's RV Petrel. If information becomes available that clarifies her final paint scheme, I will post it here. The thread will, however, remain locked.
Attachment:
JuneauPaint.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: Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Screen captures of the RV Petrel's video of the wreck. The photos are sobering. All photos courtesy of RV Petrel.
Attachment:
JuneauVideo01.JPG

Attachment:
JuneauVideo02.JPG

Attachment:
JuneauVideo03.JPG

Attachment:
JuneauVideo04.JPG

Attachment:
JuneauVideo05.JPG

Attachment:
JuneauVideo06.JPG


It appears you can see the camouflage pattern on the hull, but not on the superstructure, matching the first photo in this post by Rick Davis.

Edit: Someone thought that a camouflage pattern is visible on this section of the superstructure. This is a crop of the first photo posted above, where the hull is peeled back.
Attachment:
JuneauVideo01a.jpg

Also in this pictures, under where the arrows are pointing to:
Attachment:
PossibleCamoPattern_LI.jpg


Edit 2: More wreck photos, courtesy of RV Petrel:
Attachment:
JuneauNewBatch01.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauNewBatch02.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauNewBatch03.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauNewBatch04.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauNewBatch05.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauNewBatch06.jpg


Make your own conclusions. My (non-expert) conclusion? The ship - especially the hull - was hastily repainted at some point, and the darker color is showing/bleeding through the new paint on the hull.


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: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Added some more wreck photos.

Final thoughts, courtesy of the comments on RV Petrel's FB page:


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: Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 274
Location: NAZARETH PA
I recently received stills of the port side not released yet to the public or shown on the net. Do not ask me for the source.

For model builders, the port hull camo was not changed after June of 42. There is zero evidence of a subsequent blue/gray repaint job bleeding off. The top of the torpedo tubes was repainted into something that looks like Deck Blue (camo appears on top of them in June of 42). The only camo pattern above the deck that is visible is the aft stack housing. All the rest is washed off or eroded off down to the primer. For naval engineers if we have any such members there are 7 vertical cracks in the hull adjacent to the torpedo tubes extending from the deck down toward the blue camo. About half of the photos are of badly damaged wreckage.

I have permission to share these photos with model builders ONLY with the understanding none of these photos are to go beyond whoever I send them to or appear on the net or any other public forum. If you qualify feel free to contact me.

I have asked for equivalent photos of the starboard side if they exist. If available I will report on them when they arrive.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 274
Location: NAZARETH PA
Apologies the cracks on the port side are rust stains from chains for the railings.

Starboard side photos arrived. They confirm the hull was still white with a blue wave pattern. Some camo pattern on the superstructure is visible, similar to Mustin and other Santa Cruz DD schemes.

In case I get eaten by an alien Martin Quinn also has the photos. I have asked him to transfer this and the post above to the prior Juneau camo discussion and re close it until I have permission to share these photos.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Additional posts added, thread locked again.

I've viewed the photos. I'm not an expert, so I'm going to withhold any comments, because it's just my opinion, and that don't matter much.

_________________
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 Jan 14, 2020 2:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
I recently received stills of the port side not released yet to the public or shown on the net. Do not ask me for the source.
>snip<
I have asked for equivalent photos of the starboard side if they exist. If available I will report on them when they arrive.

Here are the photos. All photos credit “Paul G. Allen’s Vulcan Inc.” All comments in the captions "Fred Branyan"
Attachment:
Juneau01.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau02.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau03.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau04.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau05.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau06.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau07.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau08.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau09.jpg


Here is a video of the wreckage, from a presentation at the Sullivan Brothers Iowa Veterans Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lDvLqW ... e=youtu.be


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 Jan 14, 2020 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
A few questions after looking at the photos:
Attachment:
JuneauPortSide01a.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauPortSide01b.jpg

Attachment:
JuneauPortSide02a.jpg

Attachment:
Juneau05.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: Tue Jan 14, 2020 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Neat find from Matt Enochs at the Seattle NARA Branch
Attachment:
image0-1.png

Attachment:
image1.png


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 Feb 04, 2020 3:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
MartinJQuinn wrote:
A few questions after looking at the photos:

In response to my question above, Fred Banyan said: "The questions in your 1/14/20 1324 post can be answered by looking at NH 97866. You will see the same white panels in a high res copy of it. Their presence is proof positive the port side hull was not repainted as if any more proof is needed for either side."

The photo in question (which has been posted before in this thread), cropped only to show Juneau:
Attachment:
NH 97866-JuneauCrop.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: Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
I'm going to give Rick Davis a chance to give his (final) two cents:

Most of the recently posted images above had already been posted by M/V PETREL/Vulcan/Navigea from Paul Allen’s research group. Here are additional images already released by M/V PETREL/Vulcan that show the starboard side and one image of the aft fire control station and quad 1.1-in mount (seen from the portside) that show substantially more “dark” blue color that is not primer. These images are copyrighted by Paul Allen’s research group and are posted here for educational purposes.

First a note on USS JUNEAU’s final moments. The lethal torpedo from the IJN sub struck either directly into the hole left by the torpedo the previous night or very near it. JUNEAU was low in the water from the first hit and flooding. The crew was attempting to patch the first hole. The second torpedo may have actually struck above the armor belt or even in front of it (armor belt ends at Frame 40). There were magazines and shell stowage from the forward fire room bulkhead and forward under the three 5-in/38 gun mounts. Witnesses to the explosion said that there were two explosions. Likely the first was the torpedo. The second one very soon after, was the magazines being ignited.

When the magazines located under the bridge and 5-in/38 gun mounts on the third platform deck exploded, the front half of the ship disintegrated with some of the explosion flash venting out the torpedo holes on the portside and back through the No 1 fire room, No 1 engine room, and likely at least into the No 2 fire room (the evidence of explosion venting out the stack top is evident from damage to the top of the stack). The forward part of the surviving aft section of the ship was thrown upward burying her stern into the sea, causing it to break off (maybe because depth charges exploded), before coming back down and sinking quickly. Even the surviving section of the ship didn’t remain whole. There is at least one break in the deck between 56 and 57 5-in/38 gun mounts. A substantial part of JUNEAU would have been exposed to the explosion flash as a result.
Attachment:
Rick_01.jpg

Notes to the superstructure image;

- Silt is laying everywhere.

- Note the “yellowish” areas, some with rust already, likely were exposed to the explosion flash that vented out the torpedo holes on the portside, bending the armor belt outward, and back through the No 1 fire room and engine room, and into at least the No 2 fire room. Areas away from the portside explosion flash, are more “blue/dark”. The starboard side of the aft superstructure and hull below that area, appears to have been less impacted by the explosion flash that the portside. From the time of USS JUNEAU building until her loss, she had multiple layers of paint applied (as many as six). Some layers were likely blistered/burned away by the explosion flash, reveling layers underneath.

- There are places of obvious paint chips having peeled off or near to doing so.

- You can still see some of the canvas covers that went over the 1.1-in ammo clips.
Attachment:
Rick_02.jpg

Several notes to the three starboard side images below;

- The silt crud laying on the horizontal surfaces, but the front and left side of the waist 5-in/38 gun mount is a solid color.

- The deck can be seen in places and is a dark color, likely the standard Deck Blue.

- The hull side here is a solid shade of gray matching the 5-in/38 gun mount side, which appears to be lighter than 5-N, but is darker than the June 1942 scheme. No camo pattern visible.

- The color of the torpedo tube where the silt has fallen off reveals a dark color, likely deck blue. Also, note that the outboard torpedo tube is missing.

- The gun barrels are rusted. This is due to the paint of gun barrels burned off during heated battle and would rapidly rust if not repainted.

- The last image shows on the bulkhead behind the 5-in/38 gun mount and the torpedo tubes, scarring from internal explosion venting out the doors. One door is laying on the deck.

- The torpedo tubes operator’s coupla appears to have been made from aluminum from areas with no paint being quite shiny.
Attachment:
Rick_03.jpg

Attachment:
Rick_04.jpg

Attachment:
Rick_05.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: Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Found an old copy of Floating Drydocks "U.S.S. Juneau CL(AA) 52" in my collection. Published in 1993, here is the author's take on the camouflage:
Attachment:
FloatingDrydockJuneau003b.jpg


The book in question:
Attachment:
FloatingDrydockJuneau001.jpg

Attachment:
FloatingDrydockJuneau003.jpg

Attachment:
FloatingDrydockJuneau003a.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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 499 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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