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.comI 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.