The Ship Model Forum

There you go, only thinking about yourself! (Hopefully, you know I'm kidding).

Photos of Scharnhorst wreck clearly show her last camo pattern, though the waters off Norway may be more conducive to the paint staying intact. Though I do recall the patterns being visible on some of the wrecks Ballard found in Ironbottom sound (Vincennes comes to mind).

_________________
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

OK, so I am a big ABEbooks fan, dealt with 'em for 20 years or more, but found a cheaper version of Rods book on Biblio so................go through the sign up / make an account dance, pay for the book and.............................two hours later get issued a refund saying 'book unavailable'!

So first and last for me with Biblio, back to ABE, and for just a few dollars more (wasn't that the name of a Clint Westwood movie?) I now have another better quality copy ordered through them. And they DO deliver!

Now hold back those tears Martin, I'm OK, I'll live though it, but....................................Biblio wont be seeing me again.

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

Another site below with photos of modern light color destroyers, some at high speed.

Most at a pretty close range. When present there are wet areas above the water line about 25-35% up to the deck. They are barely visible at ranges that appear to be around 500 yards. Where grey paint is present the water stains are only slightly darker than the paint.

After viewing these do you really think a water stain on a light color hull is going to show up on a 1942 photo at a range of over a mile? Or a dark one? Or one of any color? If yes fair to say we would all like to see a sample WWII photo. If no then fair to say the dark wavy line on SCAAR 99 is what it looks like--a dark camo pattern.

Are you going to say this photo evidence is also worthless and means nothing?

https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/12/30/ ... the-world/

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

On a "light" color painted cruiser, maybe not. But it did on USS SAN JUAN on 21 July 1942 at Tongatabu from USS WASP (CV-7).





But, the cruiser in the Santa Cruz Action Report photo #99, sure looks to be a "dark" color painted cruiser. Which is either USS SAN DIEGO or USS JUNEAU. Compare Image #99 with the quarter aft view of USS JUNEAU on 1 June 1942 directly below it (ignore the barge) and the quarter aft view of USS SAN DIEGO. WHERE exactly is the "dark wavy line" that you see that looks like the 1 June 1942 image???? I sure don't see any such sharp demarcation line between 5-N and 5-H paint. As a matter of FACT, the lower hull looks lighter than the upper hull. In the 1 June 1942 USS JUNEAU photos, her superstructure was painted with 5-O and 5-H. During 15-16 June 1942 Capt. Swenson had her superstructure painted 5-H and "Off-White" and would be lighter that seen in this 1 June 1942 image.







Everyone enjoy Thanksgiving with your families.

Off topic but...........................




Argh, the venerable old Kanawha, and a fantastic dive too, in only 60m / 200 ft off Tulagi, Solomon Islands.



Kanawha - left - trying to make her getaway. Painting Stan Stokes 'The Unlucky Eight'.



On fire and sinking



Main port stern gun



Main port stern gun with 2ndry armament visible in raised 'tub' (as can be seen in historical 'burning' photo)



Starboard and port (background) main stern guns

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

The armament listing for ships on Navsource is not an accurate source for that info. Plus, for long service vessels, when their armament changed over time, they only list one armament configuration. There is a photo of USS KANAWHA on her page taken post an overhaul at MINY with more accurate notes on her armament ... "Two 5-in/51 guns" replaced her four 4-in guns. Looks like she had a couple of 3-in DP guns as well. I can't tell how many 40-mm guns she may have had.

If you mean 40mm Bofors, singles or twins, (or the quad 'Chicago Piano's of US origin as it were) the wreck has none. If that's a 3" up in the tub (my photo & fire photo) then she had two more of those singles port / stbd midway between aft guns and bridge superstructure, and one up on the bow, and a several single Oerlikon 20 mm cannons - scattered about. (And those two aft 5in where the only two of those aboard.) She was certainly not well armed for air attack, that's for sure.

But I think we may be getting a little (long?) way off topic here.

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

Back on topic.

A few pics, maybe already in the thread, and nothing to discernible really camo-wise, save for the close up of San Diego, June 1942. The other simply states ".......taken over the bomb damaged deck of USS Enterprise. An Atlanta Class cruiser in background" with no date mentioned.

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

First three images are of USS SAN JUAN (CL-54) on 30 August 1942 at Tongatabu, image 80-GK-412 at NARA. Both USS ENTERPRISE (bomb damage) and USS SAN JUAN (hang-fire in 51 mount) were heading back to Pearl Harbor for repairs after damage suffered during initial Guadalcanal campaign. The date and ID are verified based on War Diaries and that USS SAN JUAN's hull number can be made out on Hi-Res image of this photo that I paid to have scanned at NARA from the original 4x5 transparency. I have posted a better quality version of the close crop image before in this thread. The image clearly showed that the crew was "touching" up her hull even though they laid over at Tongatabu for only 1.5 days. Below the close crop is the full frame view taken onboard USS ENTERPRISE to give a perspective as to how far away USS SAN JUAN was.






The last image is one that has been published often and posted by me several times in this thread as well from a scan I made from the print at NARA, 80-G-10120.



Compare with this undated image found in USS SAN DIEGO's 19-LCM file at NARA.

No offence meant Rick, but not quite sure what your point is, i.e. that you have already posted all these before and they are nothing new (as I alluded to in my post), and post your better quality images again simply for my benefit, etc, or..........................?

Nor am I sure what you are pointing out by comparing the last two images, save for the faded camo on one I assume?

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

I believe Rick's saying your first three photos show San Juan (your post had not indicated an exact ship), and are therefore not directly germane to the Juneau discussion, in case that was your intention.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Agh, got it. And yes it only mentioned "an Atlanta Class cruiser" in the caption in book, but no name. So its San Juan eh. Understood. Thanks then Rick!

But the lower two comparison?

By the way, some rarely seen if ever to many - save for you NARAophiles and other hard core photo collectors / evaluators of course - photos in the book I mention, its packed full of them actually (photos that is), mainly of carrier related events, with a scattering of other engagements too of course

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

Rick's saying that's the same photo as the one he's shown previously in the thread, so isn't anything new to the discussion.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Kevin,

Frankly I had no idea why you posted the images. I assumed that you thought that the first group of three images could have been USS JUNEAU, which others have speculated before since it has been labeled as "unknown". Since I knew which cruiser she was and had better quality images and you apparently didn't bother to look through this thread, I reposted them for you. You posted the SAN DIEGO image as well for an unknown reason. I posted the better scan and an additional image from the stern quarter to give you a better view the full camo pattern with both views.

It would be helpful for you to go through all the pages in this thread to know what has been posted and what hasn't. There have been many images posted of all four of the early ATLANTA class cruisers here.

That is correct, I had no idea what Atl.Cls. she was, so thanks for the ID. But you could also have just as easy said "see page / post so and so for better pics of same" rather than wasting your time (and mine wondering why you did so) by reposting your same.



Thanks for the advice Rick and one day I might just do that, but to be honest this camo 'argument' really has little interst for me, while pics of the class do (hence the only reason I'd bother, as opposed to read pages and pages and pages of text, that if what I have seen in the last half dozen are any example, it's just going over / rehashing the same old thing, where never the twain shall meet it seems). So one day I'll take your advice, but till then I'll just refrain from posting images and let you big boys / old hands continue at what appears to me to a hopeless, nay fruitless, task of having anyone in either camp so to speak change their mind on the ship in question's camo or lack there-off as it were. And, yes I don't need to be told that a solid colour is considered camo per se.

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

Quote; That is correct, I had no idea what Atl.Cls. she was, so thanks for the ID. But you could also have just as easy said "see page / post so and so for better pics of same" rather than wasting your time (and mine wondering why you did so) by reposting your same.

It is easier for me to simply generate a new message with images from my Photobucket account than go through 22 pages and find specific posting links to previous posts. It is much better if you would do the research of going through previous posts before asking questions.

PS; I forgot earlier to one of your comments. "Chicago Piano" is the nickname for the quad 1.1-in mount, not the quad 40-mm mount.

Well Rick if it is easier for you to do that and repost same images and waste bandwidth, and write a bunch of text to boot, as a late comer to this thread (with little interest in the camo disagreement) then it is even much easier for me to ask a question, as opposed to going back through now 23 pages of the same repetitive disagreement, even 'argument dare I say'.

So I'll stand by my previous statement, but edit it (for you), i.e. rather than quote chapter and verse and repost same images, you could just say "You photos previously posted / questions answered, look through thread" which will waste much less time of yours, that is if you even care to so so (see below).


I know exactly what a Chicago Piano and a 40mm (Bofors) are and look like, and that they are different weapons sytems, having seen both in real life. I was just inferring in that post that not only were there no 40mm (Bofors) as you asked, there were none of the CP 1.1"s on Kanawha either; but yes I could have worded mine better I'll admit.

Anyway thanks for the advice, but you stick by your reposting same images and I'll stick to asking questions. Who knows what new info may turn up. You of course need not waste your time answering any of my posts / questions, after all it is not obligatory.

Best, Kevin

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

If I post links to previous posts to get to an image(s) posted there, and then have to still write up another description to answer your question, or in this case guess at what you were doing by posting the three views of USS SAN JUAN and one of USS SAN DIEGO, I'm not saving anytime or using anymore bandwidth from my paid Photobucket account. If you don't have the time to read everything in this relatively short thread to understand the context of the issues that Fred and I have been debating, then why do you bother posting?

Y'all are arguing in circles at this point about things that don't pertain to the original discussion.

EVERYONE is wasting time away from the bench. I suggest we let it drop, have some eggnog, and wait for a post that pertains to the original question.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Damn the eggnog Tracy, lets have some of the harder stuff!

But you are right Tracy, we are wandering somewhat (well) of topic here, which appears to be, between the two main 'antagonists' so to speak, a stalemate / never the twain shall meet situation at present (and each to their own to others).

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