USS Juneau Camouflage Discussion

[FRED BRANYAN]

JUNEAU STUDENTS/MODEL BUILDERS

I have contacted a few more possible sources since my 3/2/16 2011 post. I am also including the ones I forgot in the updated list below.

X=responded cannot help.

CV6. ORG EMAIL BOUNCED
ENTERPRISE CV6 ORGANIZATION REFERRED ME TO WIDOW OF ARNOLD OLSON
ESPIRITU SANTO GOVT. AND LOCAL NEWSPAPER
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. 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.
NEWPORT RI NAVAL BASE LIBRARY X
NOUMEA TOWN/NAUTICAL MUSEUM X
PANAMA CANAL HISTORICAL WEBSITE X
PENSACOLA NAS MUSEUM
SOUTH PACIFIC WWII MUSEUM X
USNI PHOTO COLLECTION X (ALSO RULED OUT ANY RELEVANT PHOTO IN THE BARR COLLECTION)
WWII MUSEUM NEW ORLEANS X

Peg Olson still has her husband's photos. I gave her a detailed description of what I am looking for. She is in the process of searching the collection. She lives across the country from me so not possible to do the search myself which I offered to do if she was within driving distance. The Enterprise organization referred my request to one CV 6 vet who responded he could not help me. Peg referred me to a VT 10 pilot on CV 6 at Santa Cruz, I emailed him but have not heard back from him.

All of the mounts on the in progress CL 52 model are complete. Anyone who desires photos of them let me know. There will be a slight delay on the rest of the model for reasons explained in the next post.

[MartinJQuinn]

Gentleman,

What is it about this thread? I'm asking ALL of you:

Please play nice in the sandbox.

Please don't attack each other.

Please keep comments focused on the subject of the thread (Atlanta Class ships). Discussion of various kits available, and their merits, are inbounds, as long as it doesn't devolve into name calling.

The models are only going to be as good as the sources available to the manufacturer. Floating Drydock plans - while not perfect - are usually considered a pretty good source. As with any kit - it's pretty hard to judge the merits of said kit without holding in your hands.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

[Rick E Davis]

Meanwhile, a third photo of USS JUNEAU (CL-52) became apparent after some digging. I had come across a photo earlier last year showing USS RUSSELL (DD-414) transferring crewmen survivors from USS HORNET (CV-8) to an unnamed ATLANTA class cruiser. See attached full photo and a cropped close-up of the cruiser. At the time I could NOT ID the ship. While looking through JUNEAU's War Diary it was mentioned that on 28 September 1942 after the battle that USS RUSSELL transferred nearly 200 HORNET survivors to USS JUNEAU between 1110 to 1245. After checking records (see attached page from RUSSELL's War Diary for 28 October 1942) to be sure that RUSSELL didn't transfer survivors to another cruiser, I verified that this photo is of USS JUNEAU. The photo doesn't contradict the photos taken by the Avenger crew on 26 October 1942.

I'll let you decide now she is painted. The photo certainly isn't the best quality, but key features can be made out well enough. As a note, the sun is behind the ships, almost high noon. Shadows on the depth charges, etc are apparent.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Barely visible below the guy leaning over the rail (3 o clock from the guy on the line) is a circular pattern pointing up. There appear to be others either side of it.

Not quite visible in the photos posted above but if you download them and adjust brightness/contrast, or probably without any adjustments, you will see a camo pattern on the ventilator behind mount 8 that is identical to the pattern on it in photo 0405213 for Juneau on Navsource. Almost for sure there is camo on the fantail 1.1 tub and possibly the starboard fantail 1.1 tub. I have a close range photo of the port 20 mm tub but it is blocked by mount 8 in this photo. I am having my usual luck trying to download photos neither paint or postimg working. In any event almost certainly still camo on the tubs, for sure on the vent and quite possibly the hull. Impossible to tell on the hull due to the very marginal photo quality one way or the other.

Most curious how the Laffey photos show good detail of her but Juneau is bleached out, and this photo shows half decent detail of Russell but the paint surface quality on Juneau stinks compared to Russell. Purely coincidence no doubt.

I have had this photo for years, forget who sent it to me, but this copy is better than the one I had. I did not see camo patterns at all in the even worse copy I had.

[MartinJQuinn]

Great find Rick!

[MatthewB]

I am seeing what could be camo on the hull, but it is too low-contrast for me to pull out without a lot of work.

Something that I came across in learning about the paints they used is the use of Ultramarine for the pigmentation of the 5N, 5O, 5D, and 5H paints used by the USA.

Sunlight affects Ultramarine, where it tends to cause it to fade in Saturation (the amount of "color" in the pigment) and "Value" (the amount of "Black" in the color), so that a "Blue" or "Dark Grey" would become a lighter grey over time.

Add that to the photographic equipment used, where the need to capture the darker foreground ship would cause the more distant objects (even if only a few more yard away) to become more easily overexposed.

Looking at the minor pigmentation differences on the hull, though, looks as if it is actually just due to previous wave patterns on the hull darkening the paint (wetting it). Because the differences do not correspond to any known prior camouflage pattern.

Just as a question, though.

The ship's hull in Sept 1942 DID have the Camo-pattern on it.

Yet I am nearly positive no such pattern exists on this ship.

Which would leave the question:

When did it get a chance to paint the hull?

Painting the hull would be a fairly quick process.

��It is a flat surface.
��It isn't walked upon, or otherwise "in use" during the normal operation of the ship in port.
��Two to three dozen men could finish it in a couple of hours.

MB

[Rick E Davis]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the only "downtime" that USS JUNEAU had between USS WASP being lost and the Battle of Santa Cruz was between 26 September to departing on 2 October 1942 at Dumbea Bay (Noumea), New Caledonia, except for that 1450 (16 September) to 0615 (17 September) stop at Espiritu Santo to drop-off USS WASP survivors. She remained at the same berth (#43) the entire time at Dumbea Bay. That is the most likely time for her to have been painted. Normal routine was to at least touch-up the paint on ships during such downtimes. The crew of SAN JUAN from a color photo was seen painting her hull during a ONE DAY layover. So, yes with "All Hands over the side", the job can be done in relatively short time. But, depending on how good the surface prep was, brush painting would likely be a poorer paint job than done in a yard like PHNY or MINY. I have dozens of photos of destroyers painted over their dazzle camo with Ms 21/22 in early 1945 in forward areas and the paint was falling off a month later. Painting the superstructure is a more complicated effort ... and more time consuming, but can be done. I think that time involved and because the hulls see the most wear on the paint, is why photos of USS ATANTA and USS SAN DIEGO show their hulls being repainted, but not their superstructure initially.

USS JUNEAU's War Diary says nothing much during this period. But, War Diaries don't discuss routines, they are for "what the ship did operationally". JUNEAU's Deck Logs were full during those days in late September 1942 of crewmen transfers, resupply, ammunition transfers between ships, refueling, etc. But no mention of any painting. But, as I have said in all (some 100??) the War Diaries/Deck Logs I have been in, only two destroyers have mentioned repainting their camo ... USS O'BANNON (DD-450) in November 1942 and USS BENNETT (DD-473) in May 1944 being repainted into one of the dazzle schemes (aka ... "Measure 31 camouflage applied to ship." that is all that was written).

[CL52]

photo


I have been researching the Juneau, including her crew for many years. I have some observations to make. First off, I'm glad someone else identified the ship in the "personnel transfer" photo above as the Juneau. I found that picture several years ago and identified it as the Juneau independently. First I was able to identify the Russell from the camouflage pattern on the splinter shield. Then I looked at war diaries and command logs and found that the Juneau was the only Atlanta class cruiser to receive men from the Russell.

Photo


Now to identify the ship in this photo. Upon first looking at it, I felt it to be the San Diego, but couldn't make a positive identification. I can't make out if an SG antenna is on the fore mast or not, which would identify the Juneau. So I took another approach. I examined the photo of the personnel transfer of Oct 28. I noticed that right below and aft of the double bit by mount number 5, there was a pattern of damage, possible camouflage and scuffs most likely caused by barges and lighters pulling alongside. These marks have a distinctive pattern, like this

Photo


I then superimposed that section of the hull on the hull of the Santa Cruz photo. Since the double bit is clearly visible the exact area can be pinpointed in both photos. The same marks are visible in the same pattern in the Santa Cruz photo. This leads me to believe that this is the Juneau. However I wanted more proof.


I have the track charts of the Juneau during Santa Cruz. We know that the photo of the unknown cruiser is taken about 1154. This is just minutes before the Juneau 1158 departure for TF 16.

photo


I know that during the time that the Hornet was dead in the water, the rest of TF 17 circled her in a counter clockwise direction. According to documents, the Juneau and San Diego were on opposite sides of the circle (and the photo shows this). If I could figure out the heading the photo was taken, I can tell immediately which ship it is. I searched through all documents looking for the heading of the Hornet while she was dead in the water, but couldn't find anything. I then had an idea, wind. I found that the Juneau reported that the �winds prevailed from the southeast throughout the day�. In fact the Juneau command log has the wind direction listed hourly, and at 1200 as 110 degrees, (the whole day is in the same range). I looked at several pictures, looking for smoke. (The Northampton smoke is visible as she attempts to tow the Hornet.). Several other pictures taken about the same time all show the smoke heading towards the starboard side of the Hornet, slightly towards the bow. Since we know the wind direction, I can place the direction the Hornet was facing. I placed a compass on the Hornet with 110 degrees facing where the wind was coming from. I them superimposed this picture on the Juneau's track chart. The cruiser in the photo falls almost directly on the spot where the Juneau was at around 1154.

Photo


This leads me to believe that the Juneau is the cruiser in the photo. Now as to her camouflage. I am most certain that the Juneau was not repainted in a new pattern. She was in her June 15 pattern when she was lost. Let me explain how I came to this conclusion. We know that on September 16 the Juneau camouflage was still present. She was in Espiritu Santo for 15 hours and 2 minutes. The only other time she was in port before Santa Cruz was 9/26 � 10/2 for a total of 5 days 23 hours and 13 minutes. This time in port was busy for the Juneau. During this time she received fuel oil, diesel oil, ammunition, returned ammunition, and received stores and provisions. The crew was given liberty in port. All the time she was there she was on a 48 hour sailing notice or less. In fact her command log has her on a four hour notice on 9/27. Then there is the picture of the personnel transfer. There is a lot of damage and scuffs to the side of the hull, considering she never made port again from 10/2 to 10/26. Also there is a large amount of rust originating from her stanchions all along her side. Way too much for a 3-4 week old paint job. There also appears to be what could be camouflage on parts of the ship in the personnel transfer photo.

Why wasn't she painted? The Juneau camouflage was experimental, under the direct orders of Commander Charles Bittinger, of the Bureau of Ships (Burships), camouflage section. He was the navy's camouflage expert after having served in the same position in WW1. Capt Swenson of the Juneau was in constant contact with him, in fact he wrote a letter to Bittinger and sent to him in August 1942 as the Juneau was heading to the pacific. Unfortunately what the letter contained remains a mystery, but if I were to guess, he was asking advice on the camouflage and what should be done about it. The mail being what it was in those days, it probably took at least many weeks to reach him and receive a reply. For example, the letter written from the CO of the Memphis to the CO of the Juneau on July 25, 1942 did not get a response from Capt Swenson until November 8, 1942, almost 3 � months later. Capt Swenson would not paint his ship without orders, and almost no one in the pacific would attempt to overrule Burships.
Why does the ship appear one color? I think that most of the camouflage faded and wore off, or so much touching up was done to the point that the base gray paint is the Dominant color. In the Santa Cruz photo various large dark areas are visible, most likely all that remains of the scheme.
In those desperate dark days the navy ran their ships hard, and threw everything into to fray. The Atlanta and Juneau should have never been used in a surface battle, and the results were almost a forgone conclusion.

Now whether or not she was painted during her 9 day 32 minute layover from 10/30 to 11/8 is something we may never know.

[Rick E Davis]

CL52,

I assume you have gone through all the pages for the last year or so that have dealt with "What Camo was USS JUNEAU painted at Santa Cruz".

You used some different methods to ID the 26 October 1942 aerial photo (actually two of them) as USS JUNEAU. I based my ID more on the configuration differences between USS JUNEAU and USS SAN DIEGO as of 26 October 1942. Plus textual records where I could find any info that helped (the USS RUSSELL photo was a good example of where War Diaries for JUNEAU and RUSSELL answered that question). The SG radar on JUNEAU's foremast and bridge differences. I verified in SAN DIEGO's BuShips files that she had her SG radar installed in February 1943, so she didn't have an SG radar installed yet at the time of Santa Cruz. The High Res images I scanned of the 80-G-304513 and 80-G-304512 and have posted several times in this thread show that the bridge matched the Federal-built units and not the Quincy-built units. Plus the unique signature of the SG radar with its solid reflector can just be made out on the foremast.

CL52Radars-26Oct42.jpg

However, as for her paint scheme on 26 October 1942, we have to disagree. Yes JUNEAU had an experimental camo scheme. But, Capt. Swenson wasn't a passive Co following orders, he was actively involved in USN camouflage experiments in the summer of 1941 while severing as CO of a DesDiv in the Pacific and was in charge of evaluating a series of different schemes. In the Camo documents in JUNEAU's BuShips files, there was a letter that Capt. Swenson wrote in September 1942 RECOMMENDING that his ship should be painted in Mountbatten Pink. Was that paint used or some other "blend" that Capt. Swenson chose??? FIVE days at anchor in Dumbea Bay, Noumea was more than enough time to repaint JUNEAU. JUNEAU's War Diary says the crew repainted her superstructure over the course of TWO days in June 1942 and USS SAN JUAN's crew took time during a TWO days at anchor at Nuku'alofa Harbor to either repaint the hull or do a major touch-up, even though they were headed to Pearl Harbor for a major yard period. By the same time as Santa Cruz, USS ATLANTA had repainted her hull with 5-N. (Where Pearl Harbor repainted SAN JUAN in a slightly modified pattern of Ms 12R(mod) from her original pattern) Touching up or even repainting a ship was COMMON PRACTICE, and seldom got noted in either War Diaries or Deck Logs. The operating forces in the Pacific often DIDN'T follow directions of BuShips in the forward areas.



The three "now" firmly known images of USS JUNEAU on 26-28 October 1942 (80-G-304513 and 80-G-304512 and 80-G-34102) show that she does NOT have the same scheme with 5-N on her lower starboard hull that she had on 1 June 1942, which wasn't painted over during the 15-16 June 1942 layover at Argentia and that USS MEMPHIS commented on in July 1942. I simply can not see now these images show anything less than that at least her hull was repainted and that her superstructure closely matches her hull. The white 'Bloomers' and black boot-strip show that the contrast of the hull and superstructure is a shade between those two in contrast. Compare JUNEAU to USS NORTHAMPTON in Ms 21 and USS HORNET in Ms 12R(mod). What paint was actually used to repaint her is still unknown. Some individuals think she was painted with 5-N, some with Mountbatten Pink, and others some other shade like 5-O.





I have many photos of destroyers and cruisers showing that normal operations wore the paint on hulls, particularly paint applied by crewmen in forward areas. So I would expect to see worn spots even after only three weeks.

[Rick E Davis]

Something new. In some Santa Cruz Action Report photos I located I think I have found at least ONE more image, distant and not real helpful in determining camo questions of USS JUNEAU prior to the IJN attack while USS HORNET was launching her attack group. However, it is interesting all the same. And hopefully will help in separating out other images of ATLANTA class units taken 26-28 October 1942 at some distance and with timeline dating of the images, provide likely IDs.

First Image is a cropped view taken by USS NORTHAMPTON (CA-26) taken at some distance. Note the ATLANTA class cruiser seen aft of her stern and beyond her.

Second Image is a further cropped view that doesn't add much info.





Identifying this unit as either USS SAN DIEGO or USS JUNEAU maybe possible due to the stated locations of the ships in the Task Force at that time.

Third Image shows a page from DesRon 2 Santa Cruz Action Report with the Task Force formation map. Note where NORTHAMPTON is located and that JUNEAU is positioned almost exactly in line with her view of USS HORNET as seen in this photo. After the first IJN attack, this formation fell apart as USS HORNET was damaged and immobilized. Firefighting and rescue operations provided for a mixed



More to come.

[FRED BRANYAN]

FOR JUNEAU STUDENTS

I recently decided to take a look at my father's Samuel Morison volume on Guadalcanal published in 1954. His version was published 7/54 the 7the printing originally published by Little Brown in 1949. By the way his book was printed by the same publisher.

Opposite of page 218 in the Santa Cruz chapter are 2 photos. Top one the well known photo of a Kate going past South Dakota. Bottom one a light color CLAA labeled "USS San Juan repelling air attack". Said photo is identical to the photo of Juneau on the San Juan site at http://www.cl54.com/album/categories.php?cat_id=7 which shows a light color photo of Juneau taken from San Juan. I then ordered a used paperback version of the USNI version of Volume V on alibris. All photos in that book are in the center of the book. Both the original and the USNI version have the following statement below the List of Illustrations:

All photographs not otherwise described are official Unites States Navy

The above photograph of a light colored CLAA labeled as San Juan in the book and Juneau on the San Juan site is �not otherwise described� in either the original or the USNI publication. That converts it into an official USN photo.

I had already searched for both photos on the San Juan site at NARA no luck. When I found out the info above I then emailed both the NHHC and the USNI photo collection to see if either of them had the light color one. Neither of them have it. I emailed the couple that provided the photo to the San Juan site months ago with no response. I called them around 5/11 and left a message on their machine explaining my interest in the photo. He called on the morning of 5/21 and while confirming his uncle was on the Hornet and they are the same couple mentioned as the donors of both the light and dark Juneau photos, he has no memory of donating the photos nor does he have any information on how he got them. I told him a letter is on the way with my contact information in case something happens to restore his memory on this subject.

Rather interesting how this official USN photo with an incorrect ID in a book written by someone who probably saw most if not all of the ships involved at Santa Cruz �I would assume we can agree San Juan was not almost white at Santa Cruz--grew legs and evaporated from NARA, NHHC, and/or the USNI but conspiracy has already been eliminated so we cannot consider that as a cause. According to this site Morison was in the Solomons vicinity from March to July of 1943 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Samuel_Eliot_Morison and according to this site http://pacific.valka.cz/ships/index.htm San Juan was operating out of Noumea and Espiritu Santo for the first 6 months of 43. Therefore a pretty good chance that he saw both remaining Atlanta class ships with his own eyes and an even better chance he saw San Juan. The Danfs for San Diego is not as precise for that time period as for San Juan. According to several sites he had a large staff of USN researchers working for him who also should have intercepted the incorrect ID of the ship in the photo.

While cleaning out some old videotapes I found one of George Horton addressing the 1996 reunion of the Mustin-Hornet Association about the Battle of Santa Cruz. I did not attend that reunion. He mentioned at the beginning he would be showing slides of a lot of photos, some of which he got from �good sources� or words to that effect. I saw a few I did not recognize. I also saw him show the same light colored CLAA photo on the San Juan site and clearly ID it as Juneau.

Since it is now a confirmed USN photo clearly labeled as Juneau by someone who was there, CAN WE NOW REMOVE IT FROM THE �SUPPOSED� CATEGORY AND SEEK AN EXPLANATION AS TO HOW THE SAME SHIP ON THE SAME DAY APPEARS BOTH SOLID DARK AND SOLID ALMOST WHITE? CAN WE NOW GIVE IT THE SAME RESPECT AND CREDIBILITY AS THE AERIAL AVENGER PHOTOS? Not that I care but perhaps some other folks interested in the ship might. Interesting to note this photo is not even worth mentioning 2 posts above this one.

As for Noumea I have not heard from the widow of Arnold Olson for awhile. I will contact her in a month or so. The George Horton presentation included a comment to the effect that he was in touch with Life artist Tom Lea who apparently took a bunch of photos while on board Hornet just prior to Santa Cruz. I am in touch with the facility that holds his records and they are searching for photos of the ships with Hornet. In the event they tell me none show up I just might go there myself to search their records. I find it a little tough to believe that photos taken on and around the flight deck�some of them were taken during a crossing the line ceremony�do not show any ships in the water near Hornet. Then again I am dealing with pure civilians so I will cut them some slack. The information in this paragraph is an addition to the list included in my 3/24/16 1857 post.

FOR JUNEAU MODEL BUILDERS ONLY
The in progress model is complete as to the single piece hull in prior photos. I am awaiting segmented anti skid mat decals a friend is making for me. If anyone wishes photos let me know.

[Rick E Davis]

Fred,

The so called SAN JUAN website images are still up in the air as to which ship they are and what they show. As you say there is conflicting info as to if the photos are of SAN JUAN or JUNEAU, between Samuel Morrison and Mr George Horton. Besides, since one is DARK and one is LIGHT, it is a 50-50 chance that one of them is correct. Until a really good ORIGINAL PRINTS turn up that can be analyzed as to which cruiser it is, this pair of images prove nothing except that they are of an ATLANTA class cruiser. I would love to find those two photos and if I do come across them (looking in SAN JUAN "named" photos in 80-G may actually produce it, even if they miss-identified it), I will post them here.

Juneau-lg.jpg

juneau2-lg.jpg

Meanwhile, here are the images of ATLANTA class cruisers with TF 16 on 26 October 1942 and afterwards on the retreat back to Noumea that I have found in the background of various photos in the Santa Cruz Action Report. These are in no specific order within each grouping. These are close cropped images and provide WAY more info than the "SAN JUAN website" images.

For completeness sake here is the image I posted above again. ID's are VERY preliminary. Still trying to cross correlate when various transfers took place (RUSSELL made THREE transfers of HORNET survivors to NORTHAMPTON).

Image A; Taken during launching of USS HORNET's Strike Force from USS NORTHAMPTON. I have a tentative ID that this is USS JUNEAU based on her location relative to USS NORTHAMPTON and USS HORNET



Images credited with being taken AFTER the First Attack on USS HORNET (1010-1018)

Image B; Can't ID at this time ... either USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO ... taken in background of destroyers fighting the fire alongside USS HORNET


Image C; Can't ID at this time ... either USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO ... taken in background of destroyers fighting the fire alongside USS HORNET


Image D; Can't ID at this time ... either USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO ... taken in background of destroyers fighting the fire alongside USS HORNET


Image E; Can't ID at this time ... either USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO ... taken in background of destroyers fighting the fire alongside USS HORNET


Images credited with being taken during the Retreat back to Noumea on 27-28 October 1942;

Image F; This image I have tentatively identified as USS SAN DIEGO from what looks like the SC radar is on the foremast. Also, the camo does look like Ms 12R(mod) that USS SAN DIEGO had at the time. Taken in background while USS RUSSELL is transferring HORNET survivors to NORTHAMPTON.


Image G; This image I have tentatively identified as USS SAN DIEGO from what looks like the SC radar is on the foremast. Also, again the camo does look like Ms 12R(mod) that USS SAN DIEGO had at the time. Taken in background while USS RUSSELL is transferring HORNET survivors to NORTHAMPTON.


Image H; This image I have tentatively identified as USS SAN DIEGO from the camo looking like the same Ms 12R(mod) scheme as the above images. Taken in background while USS RUSSELL is transferring HORNET survivors to NORTHAMPTON.


Image I; This image I have tentatively identified as USS SAN DIEGO from what looks like the SC radar is on the foremast. But, could be USS JUNEAU. Taken in background while USS RUSSELL is transferring HORNET survivors to NORTHAMPTON.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Photo A probably San Diego since it is on the port quarter not bow as indicated in the formation diagram.

Photos B-H clearly show the large light color pattern on the lower forward part of the aft superstructure that is clearly visible in the San Diego photos on page 14 on both sides of the superstructure.

Photo I is a CLAA considerably lighter than the other photos. No MS 12 mod pattern visible so it is probably Juneau. Even in the photo above patterns are visible on the hull and the stern that are completely different from those on San Diego. If you download the photo and adjust contrast/brightness the pattern is even more obvious and bears a rather striking resemblance to 19 N 31264. No doubt these patterns are water marks or some other photo malfunction since the Avenger photos show no pattern at all and if accepted as credible would be strong evidence the ship was not re painted.

[Rick E Davis]

Fred,

Look at the DesRon 2 formation diagram again, the Task Force is heading SE, USS JUNEAU is on the port aft quarter and USS SAN DIEGO is on the starboard aft quarter of USS HORNET. USS NORTHAMPTON is on the starboard bow quarter. NORTHAMPTON and JUNEAU were 180 degrees across from each other in the formation. So even when HORNET reversed direction and/or the Task Force changed direction, they would always be across from each other and NORTHAMPTON and SAN DIEGO would be on the same side of HORNET..

I still think that Image A is "likely" JUNEAU.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Lundstrom's book on the subject has a diagram which puts San Diego port quarter and Juneau port bow off of Hornet. Since your A seems to look a lot more like B-H than your I does that would seem to suggest Lundstrom's diagram is accurate. Whatever A is the photo is so blurred its ID can not be determined one way or another.

A diagram I got from George Horton shows the same formation Lundstrom's does.

Did you check deck logs while down there for formation locations? I seem to recall they are usually given when in a combat situation.

[Dick J]

When the formation turns, they don't always swing the escorts around to maintain the same relative positions. Especially in battle, the usual course of action is for each ship to turn to conform to the direction of the carrier. In Rick's formation diagram, when the formation turns to the NNE (or to about 030 degrees), Juneau is then on the port bow and San Diego on the port quarter. But Juneau is still the one of the two that is directly opposite Hornet as seen from the Northampton.

[Rick E Davis]

Fred,

The diagram I posted is from the DesRon 2 Action Report and is suppose to show the formation when the Task Force was first attacked ACCORDING to their RECORDS. As Dick says, my understanding is that the the carrier in the center determines the direction of the Task Force and the escorts only adjust direction in there existing positions once they start launching aircraft. Otherwise a lot of steaming would have to take place for everyone to get into the same relative positions. The carrier would be back-tracking at some point anyway. The formation that Lundstrom shows is the one set up initially when they started the mission, the "cruising formation". The only thing that really is important here is that NORTHAMPTON and JUNEAU were always across from each other on an axis through HORNET. That is until the attack started, then everything goes to pot quickly.

[FRED BRANYAN]

The Lundstrom diagram is essentially the same as the one above except for the 120 heading. The heading on his diagram would be more like 010-020. The 12 o clock direction of travel on his diagram is between Juneau and Barton.

Something to consider. Pensacola took a bunch of photos several good ones in the 33936-947 range, including if memory serves me the ones of the Val hitting the island. All of them if memory is still correct from the starboard side of Hornet. You can see some of them at http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_di ... age_14.htm pages 14-15. The 2 at the bottom of page 14 show San Diego on the right of the photos on the port quarter of Hornet assuming Hornet is still at the 9 o clock position on Pensacola. A position similar to photo A above. From photos after the hits with Hornet in that location that would appear a reasonable assumption. There is a wake in the photos on page 14 between Pensacola and San Diego that based on others she took I suspect is Hornets. It appears that perhaps Pensacola held assigned formation station until Hornet was stopped. That is a guess based on the photos.

If you change the heading from 120 to 010-020 if my geometry skills are still coherent that would put Pensacola on the starboard side of Hornet at about her 3 o clock position, matching some of the photos. Using the current 120 heading puts her on the port side. Not consistent with the Pensacola photos. Lundstroms book also has narrative that puts Pensacola on the starboard side.

I had the deck logs for both Pensacola and Juneau in my hands on the last visit there, but I was not looking for formation info. I suspect the answer to this puzzle might be in them or some of the other ships there.

[Rick E Davis]

It isn't worth arguing about relative locations of ships in the formation AFTER IJN started attacking HORNET ... first attack only lasted 8 minutes. Ships maneuvering to avoid bombs will get out of "perfect" cruising formation. I only considered this one photo as being able to ID the cruiser based on relative location of NORTHAMPTON and HORNET of the two ATLANTA class cruisers while HORNET was still launching her aircraft. The Lundstrom diagram with a bearing of 010-020 and the DesRon 2 diagram can both be accurate at different times in the launch and manuever period before the attack. Once HORNET was stopped and the cruisers started circling her and the destroyers moved in to help fight fires and rescue crewmen, it would take some detailed timeline tracking to figure out where every ship was at during the whole action. Without time ticks for the various photos, an impossible task.

These two often published photos taken by the same TBM aircraft as they departed the HORNET Task Force to attack the IJN ships, shows how the Task Force maneuvered as Dick and I suggest.

I can review the PENSACOLA photos (actually I still hope that there are more photos from PENSACOLA and other ships in the After Action Report files) in the 80-G-33936-947 series and maybe I will have time to scan them at higher res for further study on my next trip. But, I do have other things I'm hunting for at NARA.

[DrPR]

Rick,

I have been following this thread and have noted all the discussion about "light" and "dark" ships. I have been a photographer for more than half a century, and back in film days I had my own darkroom. I am very familiar how easy it is to screw up development of film and to create different effects during printing. Also, I am aware of how much difference light level makes upon the exposure of a photo. Consequently, I am VERY skeptical about the entire discussion of "light" and "dark" paint jobs.

To prove my point, look at the last two photos you posted of the Hornet formation, taken a few minutes apart from the same airplane. In one all of the ships are a light shade of gray and in the other all ships are dark. We can assume the ships did not change color in the few minutes between the photos, so it is obvious that the difference in shading in the two photos is the result of changes in lighting (cloudy or sunny), angle to the sun, differences in film processing (probably not as the two photos are from the same reel) or print development.

The same ship can appear light if photographed from the side exposed to direct sunlight and dark if photographed from the shaded side. Period.

Phil