USS Juneau Camouflage Discussion

[Rick E Davis]

Phil,

I know this as well, since I did some of my own negative and print processing in the early 1970s from my own Nikon F2S. Unless the negative processing is messed up, the major "adjustments" to photo differences are the camera settings ... back when the photographer HAD to set them himself (not easy to do in combat) ... and in the print processing. I found that depending on the enlarger exposure time, paper type, and how careful the person is in processing the print, the contrast and even sharpness can change the appearance of prints made from the negative. I have several times come across prints in 80-G at NARA of the same photo in different places ... sometimes as many as THREE different prints ... and the contrast of the prints can and normally are different due to when they were produced. I posted the above two images earlier in this forum just to illustrate what a difference can be seen in photos. The USN paint WASN'T flat, it had reflectance, so bright sunlight would lighten the appearance of a ship quite a bit.

During WWII we don't talk about it much here, but there were two types of negatives in use during WWII ... Panchromatic and Orthochromatic each had different sensitivities to different wavelengths. I can't remember which is which, but one film type showed "yellow" as dark and the other showed it as "near white". Since Yellow Chromate was a common primer used by the USN to touch-up exposed metal areas, you can see that the difference in appearance can be confusing to observers of prints. Looking at color photos taken during WWII many times will show clearly the use of primer touched up spots, that stand out clearly. In grayscale they may only appear as a light area or a dark area. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to know which negative film was used in a given photo.

Anyway, I'm not the one in this discussion fixated on whether the cruiser is a "light" or "dark" ship. I only consider light vs dark when there are multiple ships in the view and the paint used on at least one ship is known. I generally don't try to declare the paint of a ship based on a grayscale print. An impossible task as far as I'm concerned particularly during a period when the USN was changing their camo. But, things like where there is a ship known to have a high contrast scheme certainly can be seen in decent photos. Seeing the scheme pattern is one good way to ID a ship by comparing to known photos of ships of the same type, even if the colors are unknown. Lack of that contrast on a ship that had a high contrast scheme tells me that it has been painted over with something different. An example of an interesting study of different "camo paint" is this view of the USN anchorage at Argentia in October 1941. It is difficult to reproduce this image here with the size limits of Photobucket and this website, but you do get the idea that the USN at the time was experimenting with a LOT of different paints and schemes prior to Pearl Harbor just from the contrasts seen between the ships. Try are ships in Ms 1, various original Ms 12, some look to be painted with likely 5-S.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Wow, I have been called a lot of names in my time but "fixated" is a new one. Guess that is what I get for daring to suggest Juneau was not repainted or that a photo of it in a light color deserves equal consideration with other photos showing it not in a light color. How dare I suggest such insanity or equal treatment of a conflicting photo or finding an explanation for it. I must be as crazy as the 4 vets who were there and confirmed the ship was in a very light color and the 2 who said it had camo on it identical to 19-N-31264.

Meanwhile since you experts are so convinced i am wrong/fixated then maybe you could consider doing the following.

Post the original full photo of your photo I from the post on the prior page. That way anyone else who cares to do so can follow the procedure below and state their opinion if so inclined.

Enlarge the unknown CLAA in the distance until it almost fills the screen.

Make a screen print of the enlargement and put it on a word document.

Set contrast to +10 and brightness to -10 on the photo.

And what will appear on the photo after this process? A wavy line on the hull, dark on the bottom, visible also in the post by the way which of course was ignored, that has a rather striking similarity to the one in 19-N-31264. In fact a few straight lines very similar to that photo appear. Even more amazing the dark pattern at the lower part of the hull raises near the bow. So does the pattern in 31264. San Diego had no such pattern confirmed by the 2 photos at the bottom of the page 14 on the maritime quest Hornet site and page 14 of this site. Even more unbelievable the pattern on the aft director tower, the only superstructure camo that can be deciphered in the photo, has an incredible resemblance to the pattern on the stern photo of Juneau at navsource. If you bother to check the same location on San Diego on navsource or the ones on page 14 of this site it had a horizontal half in half pattern totally different from what you see in photo I and the same location on Juneau at navsource. I can see the response now---there are also wavy lines on the hull not visible in 31264. Therefore it can not be Juneau. So let me play your repaint game--perhaps the CO made the wise decision to add more blue to the pattern to reduce the amount of white/light grey paint showing. A wise decision if he made it especially after the result of the first Savo Island action. And according to you he had more than enough time for repainting. Or they are water marks despite the fact my copy of the photo looks to be in perfect condition. Or better yet some camera issue known only to experts will be blamed for creating this pattern on the hull and the one on the director tower. Therefore it cannot be Juneau and must be a camera warp of San Diego and I am fixated on an incorrect interpretation of the photo. Next will be the stern pattern does not match on photo I and the one on navsource. True and correct. Reason unknown but lets play repaint again. Next will be the director pattern is not a perfect match for the navsource photo. True and correct. And keep in mind the superstructure was repainted after the navsource photo. No doubt there will be many reasons why the interpretation above is all wrong and/or the result of fixation.

Almost amusing how I mentioned the above fact yesterday at 0820 but all I get in response is how I am wrong on the formation set up. Not a word on this issue.

Contrary to light/dark fixation my only fixation is to enable any follow model builder to make an informed decision on what the ship looked like. I could not possibly care less what non model builders think nor do I have any interest in seeing the same photos over and over with the same contention and ignoring any photo/eye witness that contradicts the contention.

Due to work on the house now complete I have been away from the model for awhile. Time to get back to it. It will continue in a happy mode thanks to photo I. Looks like I got it right.

[MatthewB]

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

I have already been over this.

I have done no small amount of forensic analysis on Photos (doing computational analysis of color and light balance based upon the varying degrees of pure-white in a scene as compared to the other shades of grey seen in a scene, as compared to what their "real-world" colors would be in B&W).

Some of these photos have turned up as being inconclusive, but I have found a few where I am very certain we are looking at a 5-N or 5-O or 5-H "color" on the ships.

I even had to go do research on the chemical composition of the paints used (and what they were made from) in order to get estimate ranges for fading of paint in the Pacific Sun.

But.... As I also pointed out, due to exposure and/or developing errors in some of the photos (shooting the exposure to give clarity to one object in a scene, but then having the developer try to clear-up another object in the scene), that many of the colors are simply unrecoverable due to blown-out exposures or over/under development.

This is one of the great advantages of digital photography: The information remains even with a messed up exposure. It just remains to discover what tricks will recover the information.

MB

[Rick E Davis]

Fred,

Sigh.

Which photo from the previous page are you referencing ... I posted several??? Which post at 0830??? Please call out the Image letter that I gave each of them. Then I can post the full image as best as Photobucket and this website will allow. I can even play with the contrast and post that image. I can also send it to Matthew for him to play with. But, you have been fixated on the color of JUNEAU being what she looked like on 1 June 1942 for some time and ignore THREE good photos taken by two vets that show that she almost certainly had her scheme at least MODIFIED on 26 October 1942.

I have been busy Tuesday burning DVD's of the images from the report for you and others. And today I spent packaging them, going to the post office, and mailing them. Not much time left to reply to my E-Mail.

[Rick E Davis]

Ok, here are the overall photos that go along with the close-crop views I posted earlier and are reposting here with the overall views. These ATLANTA class cruiser images come in three groups that now I have had time to look at them, it is clear that two of the groups were taken in sequence. Which makes sense because it appears these prints came from motion picture film single negative frames (these films are available at Critical Past).

I'll start with the last set taken while USS RUSSELL was transferring wounded USS HORNET survivors to USS NORTHAMPTON. I'll follow-up in another posting the images taken for the other group of four photos taken while the destroyer were fighting the fire (tomorrow after I get some sleep ). The photos were cataloged out of true sequence. I have arranged them in the order that they were taken. Taken note that USS RUSSELL transferred wounded HORNET survivors at 0803-0931 and at 1650-1845 on 27 October 1942. USS JUNEAU returned to the Task Force from the USS ENTERPRISE Task Force at about 1230. (these times come from USS NORTHAMPTON and USS JUNEAU War Diaries) On 28 October, more crewmen from HORNET were transferred at 1250-1309 and at 1530-1625.

In this sequence of photos, the crewmen being transferred are obviously of the wounded category, so these photos were taken on 27 October. Note the position of RUSSELL's torpedo tubes. In other RUSSELL photos when it appears that she is transferring only non-wounded or those with slight wounds (walking wounded), the torpedo tubes are aligned on the centerline.


Image F





Image H





Image G; Note that the cruiser is starting to turn to starboard





Image I; Note the same cruiser is turning further to starboard






I "think" Fred is talking about this last image, Image "I". I certainly DON'T see a dark lower band, if anything the lower area looks lighter (wet?) than the upper part of the hull. Frankly, these distant images are too poor to derive much info for ID. Right now I lean to her being SAN DIEGO because it looks like in some of the images that her SC-1 radar is on the foremast and no sign of a SG radar. In comparison here is what SAN DIEGO looked like in September 1942. Compare to Image "F" and Image "H".

[Rick E Davis]

Part two of the Santa Cruz photos of ATLANTA class cruiser images was seen in photos taken by USS NORTHAMPTON.

This group of images shows USS HORNET after the first attack as the escorting destroyers come alongside to help fight the fires. The fires appear to have been largely suppressed and NORTHAMPTON is approaching to tow HORNET. At this point of the battle the cruisers of the screen were circling the carrier and destroyers. In these photos, taken as NORTHAMPTON maneuvered around HORNET, several views of ATLANTA class cruisers show up in the background. Included is one image I missed in my previous posting showing views. The additional image will be called "Image J" is at the bottom.

For me none of these five images taken at a distance and in at least one case is masked by smoke, is of adequate resolution to identify. I believe that the first four images here are of the same cruiser as she makes her way past HORNET. The group of four images are backlighted by the sun, the fifth image (Image "J") is in the sun, but masked by smoke.

The first four of these images look like they could have been taken in sequence as NORTHAMPTON approached HORNET inter first attempt at towing. Here the images are show in likely order;

Image B





Image D





Image E





Image C





The final image that I had missed earlier, appears to have been taken at a different time and could be a different ATLANTA class cruiser from the previous group directly above (Images B-E).

Image J; This cruiser is masked by smoke from USS HORNET, making the distant view even worse.




It looks like as I deep dive looking at these images, more views of the ATLANTA class cruisers may be in the background that I overlooked while scanning these images because of the small size of the images. I didn't do a close-crop scan of these images. Here is one photo I spotted tonight with a view of an ATLANTA class cruiser.

[FRED BRANYAN]

No doubt it means nothing but the Santa Cruz 1942 book by Mark Stiles on page 66-7 also shows the same diagram Lundstrom did from a different angle. Juneau off port bow and San Diego off port quarter. The diagram also includes the direction from which all IJN attacks came from and the altitude from which they were launched. No headings in the diagram but the narrative gives NE before the attack and after evasive turns also generally NE. Appears Frank, Hammel, Lundstrom and Morison were his primary sources. Anyone wants the diagram let me know and I will try to scan it.

Back to the model.

[Fliger747]

Panchromatic film was sensitive to all light wavelengths (more or less) and Orthochromatic was sensitive to blue light. Silver Gelatin photo papers are (single contrast) orthochromatic as well, which allows the use of red safe lights in the darkroom so you can see what you are doing.

An additional item here thrown in is the use of colored filters, a yellow or occasionally orange or red filter can change the relationships dramatically. By looking at the cloud sky contrast one can tell a bit about the film or filtration. Photos such as the Destroyer alongside are inherently high contrast and will make the destroyer look darker because of the bright sky tending to call for a shorter exposure etc.

I had a friend who had served on Hornet the whole year she was in commission, a short but exciting year!

T

[MartinJQuinn]

USS Atlanta, October 1942

USSAtlanta102542_80G266844.jpg

[DougC]

The distance shots of the Hornet appeared to be shot through a red filter. How the clouds stand out is the usual indicator.

[Rick E Davis]

Martin,

I scanned that same photo of USS ATLANTA taken by USS TANGIER (AV-8) at Espiritu Santo. The photo was taken on roughly 22-23 October 1942 based on TANGIER's War Diary as to when ATLANTA was there for a very short stay. The photographer on TANGIER loved to take photos of the ships she encountered throughout the entire war and into the immediate Post-WWII era. Her photos are throughout the 80-G collection. Too bad that as far as we know, TANGIER and JUNEAU did NOT cross paths!!! Then again somewhere in 80-G ...

[FRED BRANYAN]

Let me join your habit of copying other people

�I "think" Fred is talking about this last image, Image "I". I certainly DON'T see a dark lower band, if anything the lower area looks lighter (wet?) than the upper part of the hull. Frankly, these distant images are too poor to derive much info for ID. Right now I lean to her being SAN DIEGO because it looks like in some of the images that her SC-1 radar is on the foremast and no sign of a SG radar. In comparison here is what SAN DIEGO looked like in September 1942. Compare to Image "F" and Image "H".�

This does refer to the 5/22 1537 post you put on. By the way how about putting the full photo A so our viewers can see the range from the camera to the CLAA? And how about a starboard photo of San Diego to compare with Image I?

Now let me join your habit of dealing with FACTS.

Fact 1. Your own photo A in the above post allegedly Juneau due to formation position seems to show a haze gray pattern at the lower part of the aft superstructure. So does all of the other photos in your sequence except maybe G and for sure I. Take a look at the bottom photo in your 5/24 1158 post. Look real hard at the lower forward portion of the aft superstructure. What do you see�a pattern almost identical to the one in you�re A-F for sure, possibly G, plus H in your 5/22 1537 post. Image F in the 5/24 1158 post is more clear than the 5/22 1537 post and also shows the haze gray pattern. Image F in the 5/24 1158 post also shows the haze grey pattern at the lower rear of the forward superstructure also visible in the bottom photo of the 5/24 1158 post. Something real similar appears in Image A 5/22 1537 post allegedly Juneau. The pattern is far more prevalent than only images F and H per the quote above.
It appears in just about every one of them except I. Strictly my own opinion but searching for radar on �distant images� is highly unreliable since they may not show up at all but camo patterns do. The same pattern showing up consistently in different photos that are identical with ones on a known photo at close range cannot be blown off to camera/lighting issues. That pattern being the one belonging to San Diego obviously makes it clear it is San Diego and not Juneau.

Fact 2. The ship in Image I is at least as close and a lot closer than several of the others showing the San Diego pattern mentioned above. But since it does not agree with your re paint theory �these distant images are too poor to derive much info for ID.� You ID'd F and H as San Diego both ships on the horizon but Image I which is probably closer is too far away to ID? Total crap. You can deny it all you wish but your own photo shows a horizontal wavy line almost the full length of the hull and raising near the bow in the same manner as 19-G-31264. The shade below the wavy line is darker than the shade above it, may lightning not strike me for using the light/dark words. That line is visible on your own posts. If you follow the procedure I detailed in my 5/24 1708 post it is even more obvious. The only lighter color you can possibly be seeing is at the water line and in the water. This ship does not bear the slightest resemblance to the pattern clearly visible in your A-H images on either of the 5/22 1537/////5/24 1158 posts. It also displays a pattern that is not the same as the Avenger photos, which by the way show no pattern at all. I will let any ex navy folks address this issue but I highly doubt the sea conditions clearly visible in all of the photos are capable of producing wet marks half way up or more on the hull of the ship in Image I. Assuming they agree then the marks are wet water concept is also shot. By the way there is very little white water other than bow waves visible along the water lines of the CLAAs in any of your photos. So I would love to know how wet water got half way or more up along the entire length of the hull in your Image I.

Fact 3. The formation conflicts are irrelevant. The photos speak volumes.

I just want to make sure beyond a doubt in my mind that any current or future model builder is very well aware of the above FACTS.

[Rick E Davis]

Here is the full image of the photo that Image "A" was cropped from. I thought I had done so, sorry I lost track in spending hours posting the series of images. As a note; the close-crop views were scanned from the original prints at a much higher dpi than the 600dpi I scanned the whole 8x10 prints. As a comparison, if you order the stills from Critical Past, they will be only at 300dpi for a 3x4-in image.

Image A; This photo of USS HORNET with want is likely USS JUNEAU behind her beyond her stern, was taken as her attack force of aircraft assembled to head to the Japanese force. According to the formation diagrams, only JUNEAU can be in that position relative to HORNET heading in that direction AND to be seen by NORTHAMPTON from that angle. This photo is TOO FAR AWAY to ID based on any camo patterns. The ship image is little more than a Silhouette.


Close Crop of Image A including USS HORNET that I posted earlier.


A further close crop of Image A at even higher dpi focused on the cruiser.


The only "white" along the hull of the cruiser in Image "A" is the water wake along the length of the hull. Otherwise the hull and superstructure looks to be pretty even in contrast except for shadows, gaps in the superstructure and glint areas.

The Image in "I" if you follow the images and please go to Critical Past and look at this scene with the same cruiser passing in the background and then turning to starboard and heading back the other way ... http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675 ... rld-War-II ... at about 1/3 of the way into the video starting at image# 65675049023_001587_3.jpg going to image# 65675049023_001748_3.jpg and then towards the end of this clip starting at image# 65675049023_003519-3.jpg and going to image# 65675049023_003726_3.jpg you see the same ship. But the images that precede those video views and are NOT seen in the videos, but are seen among the photos from the NORTHAMPTON Action Report and I have posted here as Images "F through I".

The images of Image "F and H" that give a hint of Ms 12R/mod as seen on USS SAN DIEGO in September 1942 are CLOSER than the image of Image "I" based on the aspect angle and that the cruiser is turning AWAY from the camera.

You have missed my point. I actually agree that trying to see and identify the radars in any of these images, the best way and most ACCURATE way to ID between USS JUNEAU and USS SAN DIEGO, is not really an option. I say there are "hints" of the SC-1 radar on the foremast in some images and not on the mainmast. But even though camo patterns, if any exist, can be used to help ID the ships, the range of any of these photos doesn't allow a certain ID one way or another in these cases. I only say that I was leaning to SAN DIEGO because the pattern "appears" to be there and something I intended to mention in my earlier post and forgot to; USS JUNEAU returned to TF 17 at around 1230 ... after the first transfer of wounded HORNET crewmen to NORTHAMPTON was at 0803-0931. The second transfer of wounded crewmen took place as 1650-1845 after JUNEAU was back with the Task Force. There are TWO sequences of photos showing transfers to NORTHAMPTON ... both among these photos and in the Critical Past video ... one looking at mostly the forward part of USS RUSSELL and showing her torpedo tube mount angled from the centerline (looks like they were using the torpedo crane as one of the transfer line anchors) and another looking mostly at the aft end of the destroyer when the tubes were both straight with the centerline of the ship. One set of transfers, with the torpedo tubes angled, appear to be in overcast, while the other set looking mostly at the aft end of the destroyer is in bright sun. The second set of transfers could have been taken on 27 October or 28 October. In the Critical Past videos ... which are a series of spliced clips of movie film ... appear to show more than two of the transfers to NORTHAMPTON. There were four all together, sorting out which is which is difficult.

If you are now arguing that the distance of these photos makes it impossible to ID the ships I will agree, except where other facts place ONLY one cruiser in that position. Certainly if the photos I have posted are "TOO FAR AWAY" then these two images are also TOO FAR AWAY to judge ID of them as well. We don't know which cruiser is pictured in these images ... there are TWO ID's according to what you found for these photos.

Juneau-lg.jpg

juneau2-lg.jpg

However, the photos taken by a USS HORNET Avenger crew and a photographer aboard USS RUSSELL are certainly a LOT closer than any of the photos I have posted or you have pointed to. Again it is BECAUSE the ONLY positively identified photos of USS JUNEAU at the Battle of Santa Cruz shows "NO PATTERN AT ALL", to quote you, that I contend that she was repainted prior to the Battle.

We won't end this discussion until a color photo of USS JUNEAU clearly showing her hull number turns up. I posted these images to let others DECIDE based on the facts presented.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Since my suggestion was ignored, anyone wishing to compare Image I to the starboard side of San Diego can view the photos on page 9 near the bottom. Note in particular the aerial photo near the stern provided to me by George Horton, San Diego crewman, never published and not on line to my knowledge. Then see if you can find any pattern like that or the other known and probable San Diego photos on Image I. You can also see a pretty close color replica of the pattern at http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm. Having spent somewhere around 500 hours on the model, I think I have a pretty good handle on the camo pattern and I am guessing the model is somewhere around 85-90% accurate on that issue. Should give you a pretty good idea of what you will not find on Image I.

As usual the 2 Juneau photos taken by San Juan one of which is now a confirmed USN photo are treated as UFOs with zero factual explanation as to why we are looking at 2 different colors. Their ID on the San Juan site means absolutely nothing. How many more times are you going to force us to look at them? Thanks to your own Image I we do not need to see them anymore.

[Rick E Davis]

Sigh.

I make NO assurance that any of the images other than Image "A" are ACTUALLY either USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO. I only pointed out factors that MAY lead to an identity. So comparing starboard images of SAN DIEGO to an oblique view of the unknown cruiser in the far background is an useless exercise. The aerial view of SAN DIEGO looks like one of "BuShips" required aerial views of as completed new ships. Likely there is a series of these somewhere, if not in 19-LCM, then in 19-N. As a matter of fact, there is an aerial view of SAN JUAN similar to this one in Paul Silverstone's US WARSHIPS OF WWII book on page 90 with a wrong date ... should be June 1942 not 1944.

The two so called "SAN JUAN website" photos, are just that unknowns at this point. You yourself said you found the same image identified as SAN JUAN and as JUNEAU in different places ... Samuel Morrison's book being one. UNTIL original prints of these photos (or the negatives) are located and analyzed in detail, which cruiser of THREE during the Battle of Santa Cruz and which ship actually took the photos, they will remain a mystery.

As for "HOW" the same ship can appear in two different "shades" of grayscale, several individuals here ... not just me ... have tried to explain how film photograph works. Depending on all the variables, a ship or group of ships will appear to be DARK or LIGHT. The distant shots like the "SAN JUAN website" photos and for that matter the distant NORTHAMPTON photos, are not reliable for showing camo or IDing a ship. As an example I found several views of USS BARTON among the NORTHAMPTON photos, they were taken while the destroyers were either fighting HORNET's fires or after the ship was abandoned and they were picking up survivors. Most were too far away to make out her camo scheme to any degree. You knew she was BARTON, since she was the only BENSON-GLEAVES class unit at the Battle. But, I found one photo of her close enough to NORTHAMPTON and with BARTON dead in the water, that her camo could be made out.

Have a good Memorial Day.

[FRED BRANYAN]

Images A-I appear to be of excellent quality. Much better than many others I have seen at NARA.

In order to get these on the site I assume but could be wrong you had to use paper copies. If that assumption is not correct may I humbly suggest you do the following---print images A/F/H/I. If it is correct may I suggest you do the following.

1. Forget computer scans. And for the moment your theory that A is Juneau.
2. If not already on hand obtain the mother of all magnifying glasses. Or a microscope.
3 Use the mother to do a close exam of the camo patterns on the forward part of the aft superstructure/aft part of the forward superstructure on Images A/F/H. You already seem to agree F and H are San Diego. Using this procedure and comparing what you see to the known San Diego photos on this site perhaps you will agree that A/F/H--and all the others except I if you care to examine them using this procedure--are San Diego.
4. Repeat the procedure above with Image I. Before you do that just look at the photo. To my eyeballs looks to be a different ship long before studying camo patterns. Lets just say a different color. If camo shows up on long range Image A it should appear on closer Image I. If you wish forget range to target there is evidence of camo on A-I. Once the mother is applied to it as stated several times before you will see something way different from Images A-H.

This procedure should eliminate any warps or other malfunctions created by computer magnification processes.

If you do not want to believe me have someone not involved and with no knowledge of the differences in interpretation perform 1-4 above. It would be interesting to hear the result.

My thanks for the good Memorial Day wishes. Unfortunately this is the day I think more than most about friends lost in Vietnam and the 5 fellow military pilots KIA in non combat crashes most of which never should have happened. I hope yours was better.

[Rick E Davis]

These photos are pretty good quality for "Combat" photos which many times are poorer quality due to many factors associated with cameramen being in Combat. That isn't an issue. That fact that the images of the ATLANTA class cruiser(s) are in the far distance makes those images less robust for ID.

ALL of the images I posted are scans of ORIGINAL PRINTS. I don't make paper copies and then scan them for a digital copy. Paper copies make way too poor of resolution for analysis.

ALL of the full 8x10 photo scans were done at 600 dpi. The original full print scan is 5807x4641 pixels. NO ADJUSTMENTS to the image contrast, etc were made during the scan.

ALL of the cropped views were scanned at higher dpi ... generally 1800 dpi high enough to get enlarging down to the grain size limits of the prints emulsion ... which is a way better look at the image than you will get with a magnifying glass looking at a paper copy or the original print. My iMac 21.5-in 4k LED screen does a great job of image enlargement. This small image of the cruiser from the original photo, that physically measures about 1/2-in on the 8x10 print, is 2348x1400 pixels. At 600 dpi enlarging this small image starts to pixelating squares before getting to the grain level.

I don't think that the evidence of Radars on Image "I" is strong enough to be positive on a ship ID. I held off on declaring that the cruiser in photos 80-G-304513 and 304512 were of USS JUNEAU until additional configuration features were verified. The bloomers were the final piece, I had not noticed that her sisters DIDN'T have them on their forward mounts.

Image "I" has some hints that the SC-1 radar is on the foremast. USS JUNEAU had a SC-1 radar on her mainmast and a SG radar on the foremast. SAN DIEGO at in October 1942 only had a SC-1 radar on her foremast, NO SG radar. Even though the SC-1 radar is larger than a SG radar, the SC-1 radar antenna had a mesh reflector with a light weight support structure that just doesn't show up well at distance. The SC-1 vertical support and turning motor is relatively thin and tall looking like a tapered extension to the mast. Sometimes the SC-1 antenna shows up as a kind of fuzzy "shadow". The SG even though it is small in comparison is a solid reflector with a boxy motor under it and shows up with a "unique shape" bigger in diameter than the top of the mast on this class of ships. The Mk 4 (FD) radar is between these two radars as far as "density" of the antenna. The brackets and the reflector are much heavier and show up better.

As to the general appearance of Image "I"; there are differences in the shade. But, the other preceding portside images show that the sun is mostly behind the ship. Once she starts to turn and is in the turn, parts of the ship is now more in the sun. Oblique views make "seeing" Ms 12R/mod camo schemes hard because the patterns are truncated by that aspect. I have seen this with oblique views of destroyer photos in the Atlantic, where the only way you can tell that they had a Ms 12 pattern is at the stern.

I won't declare this to be SAN DIEGO with certainty, until there is more evidence. This image (Image "I") is poor enough in quality that my analysis of the radars can be way off. This cruiser could also be JUNEAU ... as I posted originally. This is one of those 50-50 or 60-40 cases.

[Rick E Davis]

Back to the location and DIRECTIONS that USN forces were at during the Battle of Santa Cruz and specifically which course USS HORNET was on at different times during the battle, here is the map provided in Samuel Morrison's book.

This Image shows the operating area of the USN forces during the Battle, giving orientation of the battle area and general wind speed direction. Note that the carriers had to turn to the southeast to launch and recover aircraft.


A close-up of the operation area of the carriers during the battle showing their relative movements. Notice how many times HORNET changed course with at least two swings to the SE to launch aircraft.


From USS JUNEAU's War Diary 26 October 1942 (Note that Morrison's times are one hour different than JUNEAU's times);

3. Chronological log of Battle. (Kept by quartermasters specially detailed for this duty. Times are believed to be exact to the nearest minute).

TIME - (-12)

0756 - Ship went to general quarters

0800 - Ship's position Lat. 8-37 S., Long. 166-40 E. Base course 270 degrees, speed 23 knots.

0810 - NORTHHAMPTON radar contact reported bogey aircraft bearing 200 degrees (T), 28 miles.

0812 - Changed base course on signal to 330 degrees (T), speed 27 knots.

0831 - HORNET launched planes. Course approximately 120 degrees. Maneuvered to maintain station.

0845 - Resumed base course 330 degrees (T).

0857 - HORNET launched planes. Maneuvered to maintain station, to resumed base course 330 degrees (T).

0929 - Received signal to "Go to General Quarters" from C.T.F.17.

0942 - Planes report enemy dive bombers to port of ENTERPRISE. Intercepted message from ENTERPRISE to HORNET over Combat Air Patrol voice circuit for HORNET to launch all aircraft.

0943 - HORNET launched planes. Increased speed to 30 knots. Resumed to base course of 330 degrees (T).

0948 - HORNET directs lookout for Hawks and Zeros. NORTHHAMPTON reports radar contact of bogey aircraft bearing 270 degrees (T), 35 miles.

0956 - Sighted smoke on water on port beam. Plane evidently shot down.

0958 - HORNET reports radar contact on bogey aircraft bearing 270 degrees (T), 25 miles.

1000 - Ships position in Lat. 8-31 S., Long. 168-45 E. Ship's head 110 degrees (T), speed 29 knots. Search planes report 9 enemy dive bombers on course southeast.

1001 - Changed course to 080 degrees (T).

1004 - Our Combat Patrol reported enemy dive bombers at 17,000 feet.

1005 - Fighters report contacting enemy dive bombers.

1006 - A destroyer reports planes coming in high.

1009 - Sighted smoke on water bearing 225 degrees (T). NORTHAMPTON reports planes bearing 200 degrees (T), 28 miles.

1010 - Dive bombers attack developes with HORNET as target. Close miss on carrier. JUNEAU opens fire with 5" and machine gun batteries. Ship's head 065 degrees (T). Bearing of HORNET about 265 degrees (T), 2000 yards. Plane shot down. Dive bombers at 7,000 feet.

1011 - Dive bombing attack continuing on carrier. Plane shot down ahead of carrier.

1012 - HORNET hit by bomb aft. Heavy sheet of flame visible. HORNET on starboard quarter of JUNEAU.

1013 - Plane shot down.

1014 - Two (2) planes shot down.

1015 - Two (2) planes shot down. One crashing off JUNEAU starboard bow about 200 yards. Torpedo plane attack developed. Three (3) torpedo planes launched torpedos off JUNEAU starboard bow. HORNET on fire.

[James M]

Not to break this discussion but do you guys know what cruiser this is.
Caption says taken from damaged Enterprise



James

[Rick E Davis]

The cruiser in the background of USS ENTERPRISE is USS SAN JUAN (CL-54). I posted about this image a few pages back ... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23563&start=340#p677577 ... I paid to have the original transparency at NARA scanned and the hull number was clear enough to read. Also, given the date, in textual records (War Diaries of SAN JUAN and USS ENTERPRISE) even without seeing the hull number, the only ATLANTA class cruiser with ENTERPRISE and at the same place was SAN JUAN. SAN JUAN damaged her 51 mount off Guadalcanal and was ordered back to Pearl Harbor for repair as was ENTERPRISE.