The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 483 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
On my trip to NARA last week I came across one of the rare photos of USS SAN DIEGO as she appeared post initial Fitting-Out, 10 January to about 28 February 1942 (may have departed earlier than this date) at the Boston Navy Yard in a photo collection I had not been in. This was the only photo in an ATLANTA class Cruiser folder. This would be her Shakedown configuration, which lasted about six weeks. The location isn't certain, but likely was off Boston or in Hampton Roads. This photo shows her prior to the quad 1.1-in mount being installed on her fantail. During her Post-Shakedown availability, 15 April to 8 May 1942 at BosNY, she would have had the fourth quad 1.1-in mount installed. Fred had a copy of this image as provided to him from a crewman. It was uncertain as to the source or date of that image and isn't available in either the 19-LCM or 80-G collections at NARA. This scan is a better copy than the one I was shown. There likely were additional photos taken at the same time as the aircraft circled the ship.

This image shows that her Mk 4 radars have been censored, but the SC-1 air search radar wasn't.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
One more photo that clearly shows the diagonal light color stripes on the forward ends of both the forward and aft superstructure units, also seen on many of the Santa Cruz photos that are supposedly Juneau.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
San Diego crewman George Horton sent me only a partial copy of the photo above, not the complete photo. What he sent me went from the aft director to about mount 8. I have never seen the entire photo before. Good find.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
The 11/28/17 post above shows a photo of San Juan's paint being touched up. This post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=120#p677554
clearly shows the San Juan camo scheme was not changed as of 10/21/1942, 5 days before Santa Cruz.
How does the San Juan touch up photo we have seen multiple times on this site prove that Juneau had a total change to her paint job before Santa Cruz absent documentation or photos?

As usual the evidence I included in this post viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=380#p728736 will mean nothing to our experts and moderators, but if you are building a model of Juneau, you may want to take a long hard look at the 11/12/17 post referred to in this paragraph. We have yet to hear from anyone how wet water wake action on the hull will show up at over a mile as in the 1st photo Martin posted on 10/30/17.
See the photos in this post-- viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=400#p729262. You decide if salt stains or wet water are going to show up at that range. I would suggest the photo evidence of modern ships in similar colors is very strong evidence they will not.

We have also yet to receive an explanation as to why the same dark spot on the starboard bow appears in both the first and third photos that Martin posted on 10/30/17. However since the Laffey photos show the port side faded we should of course ignore these 2 starboard photos, despite the fact the one with the X is crystal clear unlike the Laffey photos which supposedly are over/under exposed. They mean nothing like all other evidence I have put on this site, despite the fact safe to assume 2 different cameras were used to take them and both show strong evidence of dark paint on the starboard bow. For those who care to open their eyes the 3rd 10/30/17 photo also has evidence of camo patterns on both the hull and the superstructure, as referred to in my 11/12/17 post.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Since we have been told that SCAAR 99 means nothing and that the dark area clearly visible on the lower hull has to be the result of wet wave action of the wake, I decided to do a search of videos of naval ships underway.

A list of the ones that are relevant are below. You are of course welcome to do your own search.

A few of them involve the littoral Freedom class ship with camo paint in light/dark grey and black.

Based on these videos I would suggest the following conclusions are justified--

Wake action wet water does not turn a light color or grey into a dark color. Nor does it turn a dark color light.

Wet water on a hull would not be visible at the range of the SCAAR 99 photo. Not now and for sure not in 1942. You have to get real close to see any evidence of wet water on these videos.

Wakes do not go half way up the rear hull even in rough seas. These videos are mostly of ships at speeds and rough conditions totally absent at Santa Cruz or the trip back.

No doubt we will soon be told that WWII paint was completely different from modern day paint and is capable of acting in a fashion to make it believable that the dark pattern obvious in SCAAR 99 is wet surface vs paint. The video evidence below suggests otherwise.

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/archives/2456

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1PXcT0qOO8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEBPMOoUUig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4e4jLTX0U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl1sDcWoWpE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvzld04Q5XI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzveUz-WRGQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXxlQ9RJLNA

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Below is another video of a Freedom class speed trial taken at closer range than the ones above.

Anyone see any evidence of wet water on the hull changing the color/wake wet areas or stains 20-40% up the hull at the stern on this or any of the ones above or any WWII photo at the range of SCAAR 99? If not perhaps the photo evidence I have put here is not as meaningless as you have been told.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFtq4ZmD7Zc

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Everyone who still bothers to read this thread, go look at the Santa Cruz video that the Santa Cruz Action Report image #99 (and likely most of the still photos in the NORTHAMPTON photos came from stills taken from the movie films taken the day of the battle and the events afterwards) show that the cruiser was approaching the formation and turning to the her port. I have been provided a better res copy version of the NARA film that the poorer res Critical Past videos came from (Critical Past cut up a longer eleven minute film into three or more pieces and sell them separately) and you can see this cruiser coming towards the formation and making the turn before disappearing behind USS RUSSELL. The images are still quite small, poor res, and even further away, but the image changes contrast and glints, etc as the cruiser passes across the screen. I still have no idea if this is USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO with certainty. I how wonder if the series of images on the starboard side of USS RUSSELL showing what we both think is USS SAN DIEGO is this same cruiser as she completes the turn and takes her place in the formation as the other ships over take her.

In any case, the long distant image #99 as I have stated over and over again is obvious to any observer as something anyone can NOT reliably make any conclusions about her camo. It is over twice as far away as the images taken by USS HORNET's Avenger crew. No one else sees a camo scheme that looks anything like what USS JUNEAU had on her starboard side hull when she left New York Navy Yard on 1 June 1942.

I posted the image of USS SAN JUAN not as THE PROOF that USS JUNEAU was repainted in a solid color, only that your contention that USS JUNEAU NEVER was painted at all after 15 June 1942. EVERY USN warship in WWII touched up the ship's paint whenever they had an opportunity to do so. The ship's CO and the Chiefs would make sure of that. Touching up superstructure could be done while at sea, work on the hull needed to be done when the ship was anchored. A dry-dock wasn't required.

When USS SAN JUAN was captured in the photo at Tongatabu on 30 August 1942, taken from onboard USS ENTERPRISE, she and ENTERPRISE were headed to PHNY for repairs. She only laid over for 1.5 days, and yet the crew was sent over the side to "touch-up" the paint. USS JUNEAU had a six day layover at the end of September 1942, more than enough time to paint the ship. While at PHNY USS SAN JUAN was dry-docked and she had a repainting of her Ms 12R(mod) pattern. Look closely at the photos of SAN JUAN before and after her PHNY period and you can see slight changes in her previous camo pattern. So she arrived at the Battle of Santa Cruz with a relatively fresh paint job. I posted a series of photos of USS SAN JUAN showing her starboard side in August 1942 and then on 21 October 1942 ... viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=120#p677577 ...

The images of USS JUNEAU taken on 16 September 1942 clearly shows a ship in serious need of being painted. Her camo was salt-stained and faded by 3-months of at sea time. Whether a "touch-up" or a complete repainting. I keep pointing out that USS JUNEAU's CO, Capt. Swenson, was actively involved in camo experiments since mid-1941. He had JUNEAU's camo pattern on the superstructure CHANGED at Argentia on 15-16 June 1942. The correspondence we have all seen shows that he had his OWN ideas as to what to paint HIS ship. By September 1942 the directives from PacFlt was for ALL ships to paint into Ms 21 if not already so painted. I have no doubt that Capt. Swenson would order his ship to be painted, to what and in what color, I have no idea.

Image

Image

As for it was IMPOSSIBLE for wet or salt-stains to show up on WWII ships OR to be as high up as the main deck on USS JUNEAU. Look at the photos of JUNEAU above and look at the photo below of the Brooklyn Class cruiser USS St. LOUIS (CL-49), a flat-sided cruiser with much higher freeboard. It is evident there is salt-stains up to the main deck and that she has been touched up in several places. The Atlanta Class cruisers had a complex hull structure. The armor belt was wet most of the time and would have had a pretty evident salt-stain in a relatively short period of at sea time. Look at the various images I have posted of Atlanta Class cruisers showing their wear and abuse to their hull's paint and the amount of salt stains. Look at the two photos of USS SAN JUAN below in both color and in grayscale. Note in the color image how the bright direct sun REFLECTS off the superstructure paint and that there is a bright reflective area along the hull, that matches roughly the pattern you see on the #99 image.

The BRAND-NEW ships you are posting images of, wouldn't have time to have much accumulation of salt or wear on the paint.

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
In anticipation of seeing WWII paint was different, see the videos listed below.

The top one is a mag of one of the ones above. The bottom 3 are WWII footage in color. No wet areas visible despite heavy seas and close range.

I guess DavidP and I are the only ones hallucinating here that are able to conclude the dark area on SCAAR 99 is paint and not wet area or now a defective photo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_phQ9ApNd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_NWqK6G1Y WWII NO WET VISIBLE 1:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcJcew0HI04 DD NAVY BLUE NO WET VISIBLE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bgvVUFJ6lo TANKER IN MS 12 MOD AT ABOUT 50-100 YDS NO WET VISIBLE

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Dave

Since everything I put here is meaningless and since you also told Rick Davis SCAAR 99 shows paint and not wake action that puts you in the same class with me, for humor I said we are both hallucinating. I guess he ignored or forgot the fact you said the same thing to him. Watch out you too might become meaningless because you supported something I said.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
All those ships look like they are getting pretty wet to me. :big_grin:

I'm not at all sure what you are trying to prove with these cherry-picked videos of ships with fresh coats of paint.

The video of USS HALSEY POWELL (DD-686) dates from 24 February 1945 while alongside USS WISCONSIN (BB-64) for refueling. We used this image in my SQUARE-BRIDGE FLETCHER book. Sure looks like she is getting some wear and tear to the paint on her hull. There is the beginning of salt-stains, which aren't showing up as much because she "IS WET". I have Fall 1944 images of her with plenty of dried salt-statins while she is in an anchorage. She likely had a paint job while at Ulithi in January 1945.

Image

But, as an illustration of salt-stains and deposits that create a whitest coating, here is another FLETCHER, USS ISHERWOOD (DD-520) off Okinawa on 16 April 1945.

Image

And USS SAN DIEGO (CL-53) as the war ends in Tokyo Bay.

Image

However, I don't have to go any further than a series of images of USS SAN JUAN (CL-54) showing the salt-satins and deposits along with fading paint while she is alongside USS ENTERPRISE (CV-6) and USS WASP (CV-7) in August 1942.

Image

Image

Image

But, back to the discussion;

The question is does this image ...

Image

Look like this image???

Image

Or like these images??

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 11:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Simply proving you do not see wet water on a ship except at a very close range. Whether they are WWII or modern and look at the 2 WWII videos if you think I am cherry picking. Feel free to let us know when you find a video or photos that disprove that point. Then also tell us how a wake pattern is going to show up at over a mile.

Meanwhile take a look at your post here viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p692161 from 5/22/16

According to my copies of the SCAAR photos your exhibits A-I are photos 124/53/109/119/130/83/86/91/99. Above you say the ship in 99 is too far away to be ID'd, despite the fact all the others are San Diego based on the dark hull and the diagonal stripes on the forward edges of the superstructure visible in most of the photos including 124 your A. Take a look at photos 83/exhibit F and 91/exhibit H which you yourself ID as San Diego based on the camo and invisible radar units. Then take a look at 99. The range to the ship in each of the 3--83/91/99-- seems almost identical to me. Plus 99 does not show a dark hull like all of the others. Put on your glasses if you cannot see the dark pattern on the lower hull and the lighter area above it. If Dave can see it I am unclear why you cannot see it.

So if you are so sure you are correct in your range estimation on 99 how about you post the full photos and the crops for 83/91/99 if not all of them? Let's reduce the confusion for any model builder, what this site is supposed to provide service for. Let them have full access for their review so they can decide if the range on 99 is too far.

By the way for what extremely little it is worth I have yet to see a single person agree with your position that 99 is not Juneau or the photo quality prevents analysis of it or that wake action is visible on a hull at over a mile in range. Not even your fellow expert has come to your rescue on these items. Perhaps you could also explain why you ignored the fact Dave also told you it is paint not wake action.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
David,

The second image (first image being #99) shows USS JUNEAU as she was completed with the SC-1 radar moved to the main mast. The foremast was altered for a SG radar, but it wasn't available for installation at NYNY. The SG radar was installed at Boston Navy Yard on 29 June 1942. Only USS JUNEAU and USS SAN JUAN had this arrangement with the SG forward and the SC-1 aft. Both USS ATLANTA and USS SAN DIEGO had the SC-1 radar on the foremast and no SG radar (SAN DIEGO got her SG radar in Feb 1943). The SG radar was the biggest clue that told me the 26 October 1942 Avenger photo was of USS JUNEAU. The radar reflector is small, but unlike most radar antennas of the time was a solid reflector and not a wire mesh reflector. Even in moderate range images it shows up looking like a dark hockey stick depending on what aspect it was pointing at when the picture was taken. When I first posted the images from the Battle of Santa Cruz Action Report, I declared that I thought that the cropped image from photo #99 was USS SAN DIEGO because of the foremast height and what looks like there could be a SC-1 radar atop it. I still lean that way, but the photo is so distant that it could be USS JUNEAU.

Exacting on the tone of the two ships in the images. I don't know why exactly, but suspect that the salt-stain build-up and hull wear above the dark (black) boot stripe is why the image looks lighter near the water-line than directly above that. But, because of the hull configuration of the Atlanta class and the sun angle when the photo was taken along with the distance, there could be many variables in why the shades look as they do. But, even at this distance, USS JUNEAU if still painted in the original camo she had on 16 June 1942, the lower hull above the water should show a curvy dark area on the lower half of the hull. USS JUNEAU when she left NYNY was painted on the starboard side with 5-N below a 5-H hull, with a superstructure painted with 5-O and 5-H. At Argentia Capt. Swenson had the superstructure repainted into 5-H and "Off-White", whatever off-white means. So USS JUNEAU would be pretty light topside at any distance and would appear lighter than the 1 June 1942 NYNY images. The aerial photos on 26 October 1942 and surface photo on 28 October show that USS JUNEAU was repainted in a solid camo scheme darker than 5-H. Everyone I have asked AGREES with that assessment, but none of us has a firm idea on what color she was painted to.

Then you are saying that the image #99 does NOT look like USS JUNEAU. I have over a dozen people who like me are not certain that image #99 is USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO and agree it is too small of an image to tell. I contend you can't determine that image #99 PROVES that USS JUNEAU was still painted as she was on 16 June 1942.

At this link I posted a series of images from the Santa Cruz Action Report that showed close-crop higher-res scanned images of Atlanta class cruisers in the background of various photos taken while USS RUSSELL was alongside USS NORTHAMPTON transferring USS HORNET survivors ... viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p692161 ... then at this link I posted the full frame images I scanned showing the context of what the previous images looked like in the full image .... viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p692377 ... For completeness and to make looking at the images easier, I'm reposting the images from the last link below so people won't have to jump back and forth between links.

The first three images in this sequence are ID as USS SAN DIEGO in photos #83 (image F), #91 (image H), and #86 (image G), and finally # 99 (image I), I have as unknown. As anyone can see, the image in images #86 and #99 are further away than the first two cruiser images, with #99 being a much smaller image due to the aspect and turning away from the camera. After looking at a better version of the movie film that the stills were used to make many of the photos in the Action Report, I'm unsure of which direction image #99 was going prior to the turn. Except for image #99, none of the other images posted here show up in the video clip. There were three separate sessions of transferring survivors from USS RUSSELL to USS NORTHAMPTON over two days. I can't tell when these photos were taken. On the first day of transfers, in the morning, JUNEAU had yet to return to TF 17. But, she was with TF 17 for the other two transfers, one the afternoon of the first day and the last session the next day.

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

Image


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

Image


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

Image


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

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 26
Location: San Jose, CA
Gentlemen:

I have avidly followed this discussion for the camouflage information, while attempting to avoid the vitriol. However, with Rick’s last post, I believe I may have solved your identification problem. Looking at those photos in sequence, as he presented them, I think you are missing the forest for the trees. Look not at San Diego/mystery Atlanta class CLAA. Look at Russell. In all four photographs, Russell’s guns are in EXACTLY the same orientation, and her topside personnel are in similar locations. I agree that in performing wounded transfer, her crew may have specific assigned locations, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Russell’s armament would be oriented in exactly the same manner on two or possibly three seperate occasions. . Therefore, I postulate that all four photos are taken at the same time, and thus the cruiser in the background, if identified in one photo, is the same in all four photos, i.e. San Diego. Comments welcome.

Don Andrews


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
By the way for what extremely little it is worth I have yet to see a single person agree with your position that 99 is not Juneau or the photo quality prevents analysis of it or that wake action is visible on a hull at over a mile in range.

*raises hand*

I more inclined to see the light/dark/light along the hull as being bow wave/trough/wake than any actual paint pattern.

To clarify, is the area within the red the pattern you're seeing, Fred?


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

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Don Andrews wrote:
I agree that in performing wounded transfer, her crew may have specific assigned locations, but it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Russell’s armament would be oriented in exactly the same manner on two or possibly three seperate occasions. .


While I agree with you that the ship is likely San Diego, I would caution against armament position as being a good indicator of it being the same event. For UNREP and similar situations in this time period, main armaments would often be positioned in such a way as to avoid fouling the various lines and to make available needed hooks and attachement points. See this photo of Russell in a very different period in the war, and doing an UNREP on her starboard side - note the main armament are all pointed in the same position as in the SCAR series: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0541437.jpg

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Don,

I could buy what you say, that was my original assumption, but there were two (I thought it was three, but checking records my memory was off, two transfers of USS HORNET survivors by USS RUSSELL to NORTHAMPTON and one to JUNEAU) HORNET survivors to USS NORTHAMPTON by USS RUSSELL. The transfers to USS NORTHAMPTON were both on 27 October 1942; at 0803-0931 and 1643 (1710 according to RUSSELL)-1845. NORTHAMPTON received HORNET survivors from one or two other destroyers on 28 October 1942. Then on the 28th RUSSELL transferred additional survivors to USS JUNEAU. Since USS JUNEAU didn't return to TF 17 until 1438 (first sighting TF 17 at 1225) on the 27th, she missed completely the first transfer. Since Capt. Swenson was the junior CO of the four cruisers in TF 17, USS JUNEAU assumed the last position in the "Natural Order Column". I really wish there had been time stamps to the photos in the report, since the photos are in no particular order. But what exactly were her movements relative to TF 17 during the afternoon of the 27th is unknown.

Transfers from RUSSELL to NORTHAMPTON were captured on film (two different transfers, unless there were TWO movie cameras in use) located at least two different locations on NORTHAMPTON. One of the clips that Critical Past has shows what may be this cruiser ... http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675 ... rld-War-II ... starting at about frame 70. But this isn't the same long NARA clip I have seen elsewhere. The clip I have seen shows the cruiser APPROACHING TF 17 starting at frame 154. I can't tell which of these two clips that this image #99 comes from.

There is another Critical Past clip (Critical Past chops up longer original films to charge more for them) very short with an additional view of an Atlanta class cruiser ... http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675 ... se-bombers ... starting at frame 232, the cruiser can be seen beyond USS RUSSELL during a transfer.

Because I had no firm evidence, firm time of the image or the ability to ID the ship from configuration details, I have been willing to see the possibility that this image is either SAN DIEGO or JUNEAU. I just can't determine the camo pattern/color of this cruiser a this long distance photo.

Frankly, I don't see this image as relevant as to USS JUNEAU's camo on 26 October, 1942, with the Avenger and USS RUSSELL photos being available and clearly showing her painted in solid camo scheme of unknown color.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
More examples of WWII ships at see with salt-stains build-up.

First image shows USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) in late 1945. Note that when the salt-stains get wet it shows up.

Image

Second image shows USS BILOX (CL-80) in about October 1943 while she was on Shakedown training and having been at sea for a relatively short period. Not a great image, but instructive on wear and tear on the hull and application of primer and shows salt-stain build-up starting.

Image

Another rather famous image of USS BAILEY (DD-492) that was erroneously given as an example of a "False Bow Wave" being applied, ready shows a lot of salt-stains build-up, chalking, fading, and wet areas from wave action. Fresh painted ships don't exhibit these characteristics. Sorry, the caption says "December 1942", it should be "December 1943".

Image

I can probably find a 1,000 similar grayscale images if you desire.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Quote Fred:

1. "... 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. ..."

You finally acknowledge that USS JUNEAU was repainted in late September 1942. That is progress.

2. "... 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 ..."

Of course they are not the same camera. The TBF photos were taken with a large format camera (likely 4x5) and the image # 99 and all of the images with USS RUSSELL transferring survivors to USS NORTHAMPTON were taken with a 16-mm movie camera. The film size is 4x5-in vs 16-mm square (approx. 0.63x0.63-in). That means the TBF Aerial Camera views have about 112 times more res than the movie film stills. If you had ever took your own B&W photos and DEVELOPED them yourself and MADE prints, you would know that photos will VARY in appearance according to the camera settings used, lighting conditions, filters used on the camera, negative processing, and finally the enlarger process and PAPER used to produce the print.

3. "... 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."

It doesn't show because it isn't there. The aerial photos taken by the TBF were closer and of course from above at nearly noon on a fairly sunny part of that day. At the range from the camera that image # 99 was taken shadows or other factors are involved. And if image # 99 is USS SAN DIEGO, she does have a faded camo pattern on her hull. It looks to be an overcast time on that day, the shadows on USS RUSSELL in the full frame images indicates that the sun is somewhere behind her. Other views of the RUSSELL transfers taken from the bow of USS NORTHAMPTON, show a much sunnier time period.

4. "... 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."

Well all of the images you sight in that post, except for the first one of USS SAN JUAN and to a large extent the last one, image # 99, have the sun behind the cruiser. The cruiser appears almost like a silhouette in most views and as one on some views. Image # 99 is turning and has parts of the ship in the sun.

5. "... 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."

A relatively fresh painted ship getting constant water over her sides is NOT going to show salt-stains. I posted multiple views of ships at close or medium range exhibiting that ships at sea for a lengthy period without cleaning and repainting, will show significant statins and fading. Both SAN JUAN and JUNEAU had been repainted in September 1942. As far as I know USS SAN DIEGO had NOT been repainted nor had significant touch-up since she arrived in the Pacific and arrived at Pearl Harbor in June 1942 and departed with being USS HORNET's escort, unless it was done in late September 1942. Virtually all the available photos of USS SAN DIEGO, when the sun is directly on her and not behind her, show a relatively light photo when compared to the Ms 21 ships around her. While the longer range views won't show salt-stains as such, they do LOWER the contrast of the existing paint on the ship, and reflect more light. That is why many Ms 21 ships at sea for extended periods look very light in shade.

6. "... 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." ... "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."

I have posted several images of Atlanta Class cruisers producing a wake/wave patterns that rises pretty high on the ship, even up to the main deck. The at anchor images of ships CLEARLY show salt-satins on the sides of Atlanta Class and other cruisers, etc. So they did get water up high and salt deposits did occur. Put your glass on and remove your blinders. :smallsmile: The two images (full frame and close-crop of USS SAN DIEGO) below are at similar ranges as the series of photos of cruisers beyond USS RUSSELL. USS SAN DIEGO is about 4,000 yards in tactical formation during the Santa Cruz Battle and USS OAKLAND is between 2,000 and 3,000 yards.

Full Frame View of USS SAN DIEGO across from the path of USS HORNET early in the battle.
Image

Close-Crop from the photo above. NOTE HOW LIGHT SAN DIEGO APPEARS in the full sun. Similar dark patterns appear on her as in image # 99.
Image

Image

7. "... 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."

Due to the distance and the camera film used, a high speed movie film (B&W or Color) with a faster shutter speed. is much grainer than the larger format 4x5 cameras in use in other cases, NONE of these images is very good for determining details. I have stated that over and over again. Image # 99 is a very small image size on the film, much smaller than the other views because the cruiser is in a turn and is an oblique view. These small size images are ones that I seldom scan while going through photos at NARA, they just don't give you much detail to learn anything like configuration or to help with IDs.

In Conclusion;

Finally why the image 80-G-304513 and Santa Cruz Action Report Image # 99 do and don't have similar features. I posted at this link ...viewtopic.php?f=69&p=728807#p729169 ... several images of the Atlanta Class hull that shows the unique shapes involved with this class AND common to all of them. There is a noticeable knuckle one deck below the main deck that goes back until it blends into the hull sides. The armor belt starts at about the same place as the knuckle disappears. It starts out following the main deck sheer line on its forward end and as it goes aft becomes parallel to the waterline. If you look close at Image # 99 the area above the bow "dark area" on the knuckle, is LIGHTER than below that area ... hmmm shadow? There are a lot of areas on the superstructure that show up as darker than anything on the hull of Image # 99 ... hmmm shadows?

Look at the annotated images below of 80-G-304513 and Santa Cruz Report Image # 99. Amazingly the "dark" area matches up with features on the Atlanta class hull. I placed lines slightly above the actual locations of the "armor belt" and the "knuckle" on both images.

The second version of Image #99 went the other way of "Mr X", who increased contrast, I reduced contrast below the original scanned image. Increasing contrast will only make ANY slightly darker areas even darker.

Finally, the last image. I don't have any other views of USS SAN DIEGO looking at her rear oblique rear quarter like Image # 99. This view is as close as I can get. This image was not dated in the 19-LCM file, so when it was taken in not known. It could be at Pearl Harbor in June 1942 or afterwards. But, you can compare her bow area for "light and dark and shadow" play going on

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
I did not acknowledge Juneau was re painted in 9/42 or any other time. I did say the starboard bow was repainted sometime prior to Santa Cruz based on 2 photos. A point I made well over a month ago. Just discovering it now?

Speaking of progress you have gone from the dark pattern does not exist to if it does it is wake action to the photo is at too long a range to possibly be reliable. Since Tim's "raises hand" comment seems to confirm he also sees a dark pattern what is next on the list of excuses to blow this photo off as strong evidence it is Juneau with a pattern similar to NYC? Knuckles? Give us a break.

The rest is just the usual regurgitated unrelated crap, for example who cares about knuckles at the range of the SCAAR photos. Of all the Atlanta class photos where is one showing a scalloped curved pattern half way up the stern? All of them are smooth wakes barely above the water line except the bow in calm water as at Santa Cruz. You have yet to produce a long range photo at the range of your CLAA crops of any ship showing any type of wet water from a wake on the hull. If 19 LCM CL 53-2-2 is not proof positive that SCAAR 99 is not San Diego I do not know what is. No way are the patterns remotely similar. Thanks for posting proof positive for anyone with common sense willing to open their eyes.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 483 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group