The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:19 pm

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 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:44 pm
Posts: 8
Location: Oahu, HI
Interesting string. I saw a few photos I hadn't seen before. :thumbs_up_1:
I'm impressed by the scholarship-and the passion.

I produced my little project on the cusp of the INTERNET explosion.
I did meet the late Lester Zook and his family when they visited Hawaii. I honestly don't remember what he said about her camouflage except she had quite a few changes. I consciously backed off asking to detailed 'modellers questions'. Mr. Zook talked a lot about the personalities he served with and quite a bit about the first night on the raft.
He was a good man.

I never found any more photos on USS Juneau -but I do recall my astonishment at the collection of small thumbnails the NARA snail mailed me back in the early 90's in beginning my research.
I really had to stand in front of my mailbox amazed by what was sent. Now GOOGLE is your friend-but let me tell you young sonny when I was young.....

Remember pre-INTERNET days.

I suspect there may be some personal 'snaps' tucked away in some albums in an attic taken by her Executive Officer, the late Commander Walter More, before he left USS JUNEAU. (Lester Zook later served with him again on a heavy cruiser). I never investigated.

I have always thought that USS JUNEAU's final warpaint was a solid color after examining-till I was cross eyed-the HORNET photos late into the Honolulu night.

Still do.

Always will.

What grade of color is anyone's guess (good luck interpreting black and white glossies).

Got burned out from that project. It was a lot of work. Went on and did other things. But that little Floating Drydock monograph was one of the most interesting little journeys in my life.

Image


Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated. :big_grin:


Back to yard work.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:44 pm
Posts: 8
Location: Oahu, HI
HORNET photo.
Mr. Lester Zook -Chief Signal man on USS JUNEAU -when he visited Hawaii (where I live) shared with me this regarding the perspective of the HORNET photos. This was when I was still gathering material.

The HORNET TBF's could not land because USS HORNET was pretty much dead in the water and was preparing to be towed. She was in no condition to have aircraft land on her. The HORNET flashed the signal to the TBF's "Go To Enterprise". USS JUNEAU was in line of sight between the The HORNET and TBF's and left the scene thinking she was ordered to cover USS ENTERPRISE. That wasn't the case and Lester Zook (who was chief signal man-on board [pre-war Navy]and in the place to know said Captain Swenson got plenty mad at that screwup afterward. Sad to say Lester Zook related men from the HORNET felt JUNEAU had let HORNET down by leaving the HORNET screen for to join ENTERPRISE. Many men on board the JUNEAU were brand new recruits on a brand new ship pitched into a war. So mistakes can be made.
This is all verbal testimony-not written anywhere. Just related to me by Mr Zook while in front of his family.

The log from JUNEAU confirms that a flight of TBF's are approaching from starboard. So as the photo from the TBF is being taken somebody on the JUNEAU is logging them. What isn't always obvious on cropped is that there is a little clock in the lower corner which I recall matches the time from the log entry. You see this from time to time on aerial pictures from that period. JUNEAU October log survived. For obvious reasons the November log didn't. You can see it in the JUNEAU log from the battle.

I have always thought after my research the USS JUNEAU's final warpaint is a solid color.

Always have.

And always will.

Now you are wondering what did Lester Zook say about her paint scheme? He just said she went through quite a few- but that was her in the photo. That is quite a general statement (is he saying that is her color or she is that ATLANTA class cruiser) I didn't press him While he was hail and hardy when I met him he talked more about the crew and his first night on the raft after the sinking.
I just couldn't steer it to paint schemes.

One question I had was did the JUNEAU have a "nickname"? He didn't recall one. Just that it was a hard worked ship with a Captain trying to train a mostly new, young crew for war.

:wave_1:


Last edited by Rod Dickson on Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Glad to know you are alive!!!

Jim Sawruk told me about the 141 photos attached to the Official Santa Cruz Action Report when it was at NHC (now NHHC) which were transferred to NARA long ago. It took me several trips to NARA before I found someone who could direct me to the report and hence locating the photos there-in. It appears that all the photos were taken by photographers aboard USS NORTHAMPTON. Many of the still shots were made from the movies made that fateful day.

By happenstance, finding out in completely different textual material on 1941 USN camo experiments in the Pacific that the future Capt. Swenson while in command of a destroyer squadron, was in charge of evaluating at least one series of the USN camo experiments done in mid-1941 provided insight into a likely reason for JUNEAU's experimental camo scheme applied at New York Navy Yard in May 1942 and that was further modified at his orders in mid-June. He knew the lead USN camo experts and his previous commands in submarines and destroyers slanted his camo views to schemes that were effective against submarines and NOT aircraft. The cruise of JUNEAU to the South Atlantic exposed him to USN ships painted in Mountbatten Pink. His interest in camo was strong enough that he even had the formula for that color of paint.

From the Avenger photos taken of JUNEAU on 26 October 1942, I'm certain that she was repainted to a solid scheme most likely in late September 1942 during the ship's five day layover ... whether by his own direction or was directed to do so by the local Task Force command or PacFlt direction. What color that solid scheme is, I don't pretend to know without further evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:44 pm
Posts: 8
Location: Oahu, HI
One of the 'hard lessons learned' after the Battle of Savo island is that you don't store paint on a ship for obvious reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
And it was a lesson leadership took to heart and enforced throughout the remainder of the war.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Actually, the USN started to limit the amount of paint onboard ships earlier than 1943.

In USS JUNEAU's War Diary, this entry on 21 August 1942 states when they had to "Remove Excess paints" while at Balboa, CZ;

Friday August 21 - Moored to pier 8, Balboa, C.Z. Entered drydock at 0735 for purpose of repairing leaky fuel oil tank (C-414). While in dock scraped bottom and repainted. During the afternoon, the Commanding Officer boarded the SOUTH DAKOTA during canal transit at Miraflores locks to confer with COMTASKGROUP 2.9, Rear Admiral W.L. LEE, U.S.N., and was disembarked at Balboa. JUNEAU was de-docked at 2230 and proceeded to fuel dock. During visit at Balboa received provisions on board and disembarked excess paint in accordance with current instructions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2016 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
It was actually something that came about no later than the attack on Pearl Harbor and I think possibly earlier based on Royal Navy experience. The 1943 document was the only one I was able to find that I had online - I also have an exchange and re-affirmation in 1945. Commander of a Battleship task force wanted permission to carry more paint and it was turned down. Then, when the war ended there is a document lifting the sanction on paint and one of the Washington DC-based admirals wrote "Man the brushes!" on the route slip. All stuff I've been meaning to post at some point, but I try and balance things so I'm not just a camouflage and damage report site.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 pm
Posts: 1586
Location: The beautiful PNW
Just found by accident some video of what the Veteran keeps calling the Juneau at the Guadalcanal landings, but she was still in the South Atlantic at this time. It has to be the San Juan as she was assigned as a fire support ship, you also see a great close up of the Starboard side of the USS Buchanan which was in the same TG 62.4 as San Juan. Not wanting to get into the war about color, but it is interesting to note how overall grey the San Juan looks(at least at this resolution) in this film at almost broadside when we know she was in some sort of MS12m based on other (and in color) images in this thread. I also just finally got around to finishing James Grace's "Naval Battle of Guadalcanal", and on pg 166 this caught my eye,

"On the Fletcher, Stanley Shrier was pointing out the Juneau's camouflage scheme to another man when the explosion took his breath away"

Wonder why Mr. Shrier was pointing it out?

The San Juan can be seen at the 9:40 mark and again at 11:38. Would be awesome if any of the archive junkies out there could find this film in it's original resolution.
Marine Landing's at Guadalcanal
On a side note, the improvised(?) twin 20mm is interesting

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Are those really 20-mm guns or air-cooled 50-cal?? Could be USMC guns on vehicles onboard the ship?? They certainly are not standard 20-mm mounts.

The one destroyer that is seen a couple of times is USS RALPH TALBOT (DD-390).

The APD seen in the film is USS GREGORY (APD-3) which was lost off Lunga Point on 4 September 1942.

The CL(AA) is USS SAN JUAN (CL-54).

One of the early FLETCHERS can be seen briefly at about 8:43. I can't make out which one she is. But, that means that this film is a mix of different clips, because NONE of the FLETCHER's were at the initial landings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
PRESENT/FUTURE BUILDERS OF JUNEAU MODELS

What follows is some info I forgot to include in the writeup for the Juneau model that went on the site this weekend.

The book Left to Die about the sinking of the ship mentions 50 cals near the aft director. Close examination of a few other Atlanta class ship photos seemed to show 4 mounted there. I put 4 ISW 20s without shields there I could not find after market 1/350 50 cals.

The writeup for the model has a fairly extensive discussion of why I painted the ship in camo. I forgot to mention that both 80-G-304513 and the Laffey photos show traces of camo on the superstructure. They are not clear enough to extract the entire pattern, which I suspect was changed at Argentia in mid June of 42, so I tried to duplicate the 6/1/42 photo pattern. The photo evidence I chose to believe were the very light color ship ID'd as Juneau at http://www.cl54.com/album/details.php?i ... 9b7af1e722 and the ship in Item I on page 27 of the CASF site. That photo clearly shows something similar to the navy blue in the 6/1/42 photo. I seem to recall being told that is the result of wake action halfway up the side of the ship. I have a photo here showing San Diego at high speed at Santa Cruz with a large bow wave going back maybe 30% from the bow. There is zero white water visible above the water line compared to the bow wave. That said appears highly unlikely the dark pattern going all the way to the stern is wave action. Especially considering the fact the ship in the photo is with a formation conducting personnel transfers of WIA sailors. I rather doubt those ships were doing 20+ knots as they were at Santa Cruz.

I note with interest the info kindly provided by taskforce 48 on the 11/9/16 2232 post as follows: James Grace's "Naval Battle of Guadalcanal", and on pg 166 this caught my eye, "On the Fletcher, Stanley Shrier was pointing out the Juneau's camouflage scheme to another man when the explosion took his breath away. Wonder why Mr. Shrier was pointing it out?" Counting the 4 I contacted that makes 5 eyewitnesses confirming camo on the ship. And the one in the book above made a specific comment about camo the instant before she blew up. That would seem to strongly imply there was camo on the ship despite the photos that seem to show it another solid color. Then again perhaps the people who were there were all hallucinating, blinded by sunlight, or had their observations changed by shock. Possible for 1-2 maybe, but not 5.

So fellow builders I suggest you review this site starting on page 13 if you are confused as to the paint scheme on the ship when lost. I went with the photos above and the people who were there. Based on the testimony/quote of Mr. Shrier I am doubly glad I made that decision. I regret not asking more Hornet survivors I was in touch with years ago who are no longer with us, including Clay Fisher who was picked up by Juneau. He was sharp and had a superior memory for detail. Too late now.

I have a lot of research here I will by happy to share with any model builder. Within the next few months I will put it all on a flash drive and give the drive to Martin Quinn. Due to fossilhood he will be around a lot longer than me. I also have documents used for the camo patterns which you can use on a 1/350 model if you have a light table. They will be on the drive also.

Below is an updated list of all facilities I contacted in the effort to find fall 42 photos of Juneau. In the very unlikely event that the UTEP library finds the photos I went there to see last month and they show anything of value I will get them onto this site. Aside from that I can think of no further cages to rattle in this search. If any of you get luckier than me in the search please get them on this site for the benefit of model builders.

I have a new project in progress and will not be checking this site anytime soon.

Considering the date today perhaps you could join me giving thought to the families of those who still suffer from the loss of this ship.


AIR FORCE HISTORICAL RESEARCH AGENCY MAXWELL AFB X
ARMY HISTORICAL CENTER CARLISLE X
BROOKLYN NAVY YARD PHOTO COLLECTION X
CAPE COD CANAL X
ENTERPRISE CV6 ORGANIZATION REFERRED ME TO WIDOW OF ARNOLD OLSON X
ESPIRITU SANTO GOVT. AND LOCAL NEWSPAPER
IJN MUSEUM (SENT IN ENGLISH AND JAPANESE, ASKED FOR ANY REPORT FROM THE SUB THAT SANK HER)
IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM X //ROYAL NAVY ARCHIVES
LIBRARIES NEAR ARGENTIA NAVAL BASE X
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PRINTS AND PHOTOS DIVISION
MUSEUM OF THE PACIFIC WAR FREDERICKSBURG TX X
NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN COLLEGE PARK SEVERAL VISITS. NARA IN BOSTON AND NYC NO LUCK. COLLEGE PARK FOR PHOTOS/CORRESPONDENCE RECORDS OF CRUISER CAMO--SEARCHED 19 LCM AND 80 G COLLECTIONS FOR 95 SHIPS THAT SAILED IN SIGHT OF JUNEAU HOPING TO FIND HER ALSO IN A PHOTO OF THE TARGET SHIP. METHOD WORKED FOR HORNET BUT NOT FOR JUNEAU.
http://www.navycruisers.org/officersstaff.html
NEWPORT RI NAVAL BASE LIBRARY X
NOUMEA TOWN/NAUTICAL/WWII MUSEUM XX
PANAMA CANAL HISTORICAL WEBSITE X
PENSACOLA NAS MUSEUM
SOUTH PACIFIC WWII MUSEUM X
UNIV. OF TEXAS EL PASO LIBRARY SPECIAL COLLECTIONS UNIT—CUSTODIAN OF PRIVATE PAPERS OF LIFE ARTIST TOM LEA. PERSONAL VISIT 10/24/16 SEARCHING FOR PHOTOS OF CROSSING THE LINE CEREMONY ON HORNET THAT MAY HAVE SHOWN SHIPS WITH HER IN THE BACKGROUND. DESPITE THE FACT I WAS TOLD THEY WERE THERE THE STAFF COULD NOT FIND THEM. THE USN DID SEND HIM SOME BATTLE OF SANTA CRUZ PHOTOS A FEW OF WHICH I HAD NOT SEEN BEFORE. THEY WERE IN EXCELLENT CONDITION AND APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN DUPLICATE ORIGINAL PRINTS.
USNI PHOTO COLLECTION X (ALSO RULED OUT ANY RELEVANT PHOTO IN THE BARR COLLECTION)
WWII MUSEUM NEW ORLEANS X

X=THEY RESPONDED

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Last edited by Timmy C on Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Added link to the model


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Well, I also suggest that everyone look at the entire discussion. The photos taken by CDR Rodee's TBF, the photographer is Sidney H. Rubin ACMM, is the only solid visual evidence available. Rodee's TBF returned to the area in the 1110 to 1115 timeframe. Fuller discussion about the photos 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513, (plus the photo taken from USS RUSSELL (DD-414), 80-G-34102) can be found at the links below. These two aerial photos taken just before noon on 26 October 1942 pretty much is the best evidence available as to what USS JUNEAU looked like during that battle. What changes to her paint scheme after that date prior to her loss is unknown.

... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23563&start=360#p677620 ...

... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23563&start=500#p687374 ...

... viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23563&start=580#p700951 ...

Something new to add. During our last trip to NARA in October 2016, Sean Hert scanned three of the images of USS JUNEAU in the background of USS LAFFEY on 16 September 1942. I'm posting all three here. The first one is the same image that I had scanned in the background of USS LAFFEY (DD-459). The other two are views taken at slightly different times during the transfer process. I'm posting cropped views of these images thanks to Sean.

What is significant and interesting about these photos is that they are the only ones taken of USS JUNEAU prior to her layover at Noumea in late September and the Battle of Santa Cruz. These photos show that her paint scheme has seen a lot of abuse in the prior three months. The demarcation line between the darker 5-N (on the starboard side and maybe 5-O on the portside?) and 5-H (or something even lighter) above it can barely be made out. The superstructure DOES NOT show any of the dapple camo that was apparent in the 1 June 1942 New York Navy Yard photos. Capt. Swenson had the crew change the superstructure camo scheme to "5-H and an off-white" in mid-June 1942. What pattern was used is not known and certainly can't be determined from this set of photos.

Compare these three views to a starboard view of JUNEAU on 1 June 1942 at NYNY and one taken a couple of days earlier of her portside. Bottom two images. There is NO EVIDENCE that there remains any dapple pattern camo on her gun mounts or superstructure. It could have been so faded after three months at sea that the two pattern colors blended together or the ship had already repainted the superstructure into something different.

I have no idea of what color JUNEAU was in on 16 September, 26 October, or when she was lost. I'm certain that the three known photos taken on 26 October and 28 October 1942 show that she had a solid pattern. Some evidenced in textual documents written by Capt. Swenson was that he wanted to paint his ship in Mountbatten Pink like what he saw on some of the South American stationed ships. Whether he could acquire that paint, have it made, or came up with something else, or was directed to use the PacFlt directed Ms 21 paint, I have no idea. After the Battle of Santa Cruz and prior to her last battle, she had another downtime that lasted several days and Capt. Swenson could have had her painted in something different yet again.

A random comment about JUNEAU's camo at the time of her loss may or may not point to something different about her paint ... Mountbatten Pink??? Saying that a comment about her "camo" proves a specific scheme was used doesn't mean anything. Virtually every USN warship in 1942 was painted in "camo" ... a variety of camo schemes existed throughout the war.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
If I may also weigh in here, in the interest of being precise, Measures 13, 14, 21 are all camouflage even though they're solid colors. Saying "She was camouflaged" is completely accurate but completely useless in the context of this discussion. She's either in a pattern camouflage or solid camouflage.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2256
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
In the shots with the Laffey, the superstructure has no camouflage on it.

And, in the shots where it does have camo on it, the lighter color on the hull is the same as the lighter color on the superstructure.

It is hard to tell this because of the shadows on the superstructure and the adjacent darker colors creating what is known as a "Mach Effect" (The same guy whom supersonic speeds are named after also studied color theory and perception), which creates a darker appearance for colors in certain types of patterns.

These Mach effects were why the mottled superstructures turned out to be ineffective, because they are what caused the colors to just run together into a single color at ranges much closer than people expected.

I'm still not sure what this whole argument is over though.

I need to go back and re-read it.

I am so far from building my own Juneau that I haven't followed it too closely.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:51 am 
Offline

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

As a refresher. When JUNEAU left New York Navy Yard in early June 1942, she had an experimental camo pattern/scheme that only slightly went by Ms 12R/mod rules. She had one pattern and apparently a set of colors, on one side and a different set on the other side. Even the false bow pattern appears to be different. Capt. Swenson had the superstructure repainted in Mid-June 1942 to an even lighter scheme of "5-H and Off-White".

JUNEAU may have set a record for how many camo patterns she had from commissioning until her loss.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Below is an email I sent to Matthew directly on 11/22/16 after I had sent him some yardarm photos. Included in the email were crops of some of the gun mounts I used for the model. I have not heard back from him.

Please refer to your 11/13 CASF post. It said there is no camo in the Laffey photos.

Perhaps you can tell me what appears at the following locations on the best of the 3 photos Rick Davis posted above yours which is copied below? I used the middle one by the way.

1 The pattern on the port forward 1.1 gun tub where the aft shield meets the superstructure and just above it on the bulkhead.
2 The light/dark pattern on the forward superstructure starting with the area between the 2 black vents and extending to the forward 20mm gun position, pattern clearly visible above the 1.1 tub.
3 Light/dark pattern on the forward 20mm gun tub
4 Same for the midships 20 mm gun tubs.
5 Patterns going up the entire rear spine of the forward stack.
6 Circular pattern on the aft stack above and below the searchlight tub.
7 Pattern on the aft stack searchlight tub.
8 Patterns on both directors and their bases.
9 Faint traces of patterns visible on the port wing and aft 5" mounts. Note they appear from what little detail can be extracted to be different from the crops of the original patterns on the same mounts below the Laffey photos.
10 Pattern on the house structure for lack of a better word on port torpedo tube.
11 Pattern on 1.1 tub below aft director

Since I see essentially no shadows anywhere on the photo, and since I am totally ignorant of mach effect on a photo, perhaps you can explain to me and the rest of the CASF site precisely what these patterns in 1-11 are and precisely how they were created by mach effect? I would also like to know how mach effect created the above patterns which have a marked similarity to other MS 12 mod patterns. And if I am correct that they are in fact paint patterns perhaps you could amend your post accordingly. And if my review in 1-11 above is correct it appears the pattern was in fact changed at Argentia after the 6/1/42 photos were taken. The minor differences in color support the off white/haze grey applied at Argentia.

For the benefit of model builders traces of camo pattern also appear in 80 G 304513, the aerial photo posted about 20X since page 13 which supposedly proves a solid color paint job, at the following locations clearly visible if the photo is enlarged:

1 Diagonal dark line thru the anchor suggesting the original white false bow was replaced with a dark one.
2 Forward bulkhead below the floater nets.
3 Bulkhead below mount 3.
4.Forward 1.1 tub.
5.Forward director and base.
6.Front stack forward side a light color.
7.Aft stack base below searchlight and crane straight patterns that appear too dark and large for shadows.
8.Aft superstructure below director barely visible.

Whether these are camo patterns or photo issues I do not know. Based on 8 candidates appears unlikely they are all photo issues. The patterns above do not match the 6/1/42 NYC photos which suggest the pattern was changed at Argentia.

As for 80-G-34102, the crop of the transfer of personnel from Russell, camo patterns also appear to be visible at:

1.Vent cover just forward of aft 1.1 tub.
2.Starboard aft 20 MM tub.
3.Aft 1.1 tub.
4.Lower 1/3 of mount 8.

Again the quality of the basic photo and the effects of enlargement make all of these educated guesses vs proof of anything. See my 4/6/16 1933 post for how the camo on the vent cover matches another photo.

Also posted on 11/13/16 was the one below, which I feel compelled to respond to---

If I may also weigh in here, in the interest of being precise, Measures 13, 14, 21 are all camouflage even though they're solid colors. Saying "She was camouflaged" is completely accurate but completely useless in the context of this discussion. She's either in a pattern camouflage or solid camouflage.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

During my 29 years in the army we never referred to solid colors as camo. Only paint schemes with patterns in them. If a tank was all OD we did not refer to it as camouflaged. Same for helicopters which by the way we were not permitted to touch the paint jobs on. When we painted the noses of our Cobra gunships with water soluble paint sharkmouths for Annual Training the maintenance officer almost had to change his underwear. I had the same experience with members of all of the other armed services I dealt with. We did not refer to 70s vintage OD fatigues as camouflaged. We did refer to the 80s vintage tree pattern Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) as camouflaged, or as we who wore flight suits referred to them, as tree suits.

There are a few more issues way more important than my experience. Using my father as an example, about 50 years ago he built a model of his 2nd carrier, the Hancock, in her late war 2 tone paint scheme, which I assume was late war MS 21. As I was familiar by then with the Hornet camo scheme, we had a conversation which made it obvious that he only considered 1942 MS 12 mod and dazzle camo which Hancock initially wore to be camouflage paint schemes. At another time he made the comment that by late in the war camo on USN ships was a thing of the past and/or phasing out. More proof he did not consider the late war paint scheme to be camo.

Over the 10 years or so that I had contact with CV 8 vets and was building models of the destroyers with Hornet I also had discussions with them about camo on the Santa Cruz ships. Several of them said the heavy cruisers at Santa Cruz were not camouflaged, and were the only ones there not camouflaged. More evidence by the way from people who were there plus the 4 I contacted specifically about Juneau that every ship there except the heavy cruisers had camo on them. And more evidence that WWII USN sailors did not consider a solid color to be camo.

Taking all of this into consideration, I refer again and quote below the 11/9/16 taskforce 48 quote of a sailor who was there when Juneau exploded copied below:

"On the Fletcher, Stanley Shrier was pointing out the Juneau's camouflage scheme to another man when the explosion took his breath away"

And once more the relevant part of the other 11/13/16 post:

Saying "She was camouflaged" is completely accurate but completely useless in the context of this discussion.

Rather than completely useless I would suggest the above quote by Mr. Shrier is compelling evidence there was camo on the Juneau the day she was sunk. I would also suggest his comment was very similar to the conversations and interpretations of what was camo and what was not that I had with my father and about 20 of his shipmates. His comment was also consistent with the interpretation of camo paint on military equipment that I encountered from 1970-99 from members of the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Coast Guard.

If anyone cares to dispute my experience with camo or the discussions I had with WWII USN vets on that topic, then I suggest you contact the military vet of your choice and see what their definition of camo is. My guess is they will agree if it does not have a pattern it is not camo. Better yet, if you can find one, contact a WWII or if unavailable a current Navy vet and see how they describe and react to solid colors and the very few camo patterns they are currently using on small ships. I highly doubt they will refer to whatever the solid grey shade currently in use on USN ships as camouflage.

IAW expert SOP no doubt within 12-24 hours there will be at least one and probably 2 posts saying I am all wrong in everything stated above. To which I will respond in advance with a relevant quote:

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

And before you post call a vet and do your own research on the evidence of what military personnel refer to as camo, then and now.

In the unlikely event anyone reading this today knows one of the approximately 300 remaining Pearl Harbor vets, by all means call them and wish them well.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
During my 29 years in the army we never referred to solid colors as camo.


Navy leadership and camouflage designers considered solid schemes as camouflage. Ms 13 and 21 were Camouflage Painting Measures. You can say I'm being too anal and pedantic and you might be correct, but it is incorrect to say that Measure 12 mod and 31/2/3 were camouflage and the others weren't, regardless of whether or not it's a veteran saying it.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Definition; Camo = Camouflage = The disguising of military personnel, equipment, and installations by painting or covering them to make them blend in with their surroundings.

As Tracy says, in 1942 any of the prescribed "paint schemes" applied to USN ships whether they had a measure number or not, were CAMOUFLAGE. It is irrelevant what US Army soldiers considered to be CAMO in the 1970-80s. By the way OD is considered a camo scheme. Individual sailors onboard ships that they assigned to when EVERYTHING was getting painted in Ms 12R(mod) in the Atlantic Fleet in early 1942 "may" have their own definition of what camo is or isn't once they encounter "solid patterns". But observers aboard ships would know that the ships around them are not painted in a peacetime gray scheme.

You are not the only one in this discussion who has experience in applied camo of US military vehicles and aircraft during the late 20th century. All combat US vehicles, aircraft, and yes even ships have "special" paints applied to help protect them and to reduce visual detection. Those schemes are TAILORED for the application.

Try telling an USAF pilot that his F-117 painted in BLACK was NOT camo. Or a F-15E pilot that the "Gunship Gray" paint on his aircraft wasn't camo because it didn't have a pattern. Tell an M-1 tank crew in Desert Storm that their SAND color paint wasn't camo.

We have NO IDEA of what Stanley Shrier onboard USS FLETCHER was referring to when pointing out JUNEAU's Camouflage ... maybe she was painted in Mountbatten Pink for all we know. :big_grin: Also, there is a possibility that Capt. Swenson had JUNEAU repainted again after Santa Cruz when they had downtime of several days at Noumea from 30 October 1942 to 8 November 1942 with something that he thought was "better" than PacFlt ordered Ms 21. We don't know.

From USN SHIP CAMOUFLAGE INSTRUCTIONS - Ships 2 - Dated January 1941 - Please note the third paragraph down on this page, DEFINITION OF SHIP CAMOUFLAGE, where they DEFINE Ship Camouflage - NOTHING there says it has to be a pattern.

Image

As for your interpretations of the 16 September 1942 JUNEAU images as to TRACES of camo pattern, that is your opinion. I certainly didn't dwell on minute evaluation of these images. Even so, if you look at ALL three images, some of your noted trace patterns don't appear in ALL of the photos. Even if the 5-10% of the ship superstructure surface is as you think, shows a "camo pattern" trace - which could be touch-up paint for all we know, the rest of the ship's superstructure sure looks to be a solid scheme (particularly the gun mounts) and certainly doesn't look anything like she appeared on 1 June 1942. Looking at the images, there is a lot of evidence of streaking from water runoff EVERYWHERE on the ship. She looks like a ship that has been steaming for almost FOUR months in the Atlanta and Pacific oceans. But, that is irrelevant as to what JUNEAU was painted at the Battle of Santa Cruz, when there are clear images taken by an aircraft that her pattern was a solid pattern of undetermined color.


Last edited by Rick E Davis on Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Better yet, why don't you pick up the phone and call some WWII USN or active duty USN folks and see what their definition of camo is and see if it includes solid colors. As usual what I have to say about military personnel use of the word for patterns only means nothing to either one of you. Use of solid colors such as OD and tan for desert and black for night operators is so obvious and common sense no one is going to call it camo. They will call patterns camo. They could care less about MS numbers military documents such as the ones above etc. and what the military defines as camo. Such crap means NOTHING to people wearing the uniform.

Or is this reaction related to your prejudice vs the possibility of the ship being in camo? Related to your blowing off the photo at http://www.cl54.com/album/details.php? image_id=55&sessionid=ba527cd6a5a2c86f442d5984952c0334 since it does not jive with your re paint theory since it did not have a NARA number and does have a scheme totally different from your favorite 80 G 304513? Since then I proved it was a USN photo. Your own image I on page 27 has a lower hull pattern similar to the NYC and Laffey photo pattern which according to you is not there and if it is there it is the result of wave action. The pattern does not match the one on San Diego and Santa Cruz photos of San Diego at high speed shows a bow wave only not wake going half way up the hull all the way to the stern. So far you are the only one here to deny its existence. Does that tell you something about pre conceived ideas/prejudice? Or could it be if you admit the reality on that photo then your solid color theory is disproven? At a minimum it should inspire anyone acting like an expert to try to resolve the conflict in the photos vs blowing off anything or anybody supporting the existence of a camo scheme on the ship. Or could it be that if you agree that USN sailors used the word camo for patterns only then it proves your solid color theory is gone?

This is just one more example of how you 2 have a total disregard for what WWII vets had to say and what someone with way more military experience than either one of you have has to say. You guys know better than all of us. So I say again--rather than trying to display your expertise and attacking anything I put on here pick up the phone and call some WWII USN vets. If you know any. Then let us know what they have to say on what the word camo means to them. Do they use that word for solid colors? Yes or no, pretty simple. The idea that a WWII USN sailor is going to comment on a ships camo that is a solid color is so far out that you both should take the time to find one and ask him if he would have done that. If you do not know any find a Pearl Harbor survivor they should not be that tough to locate if all else fails. See what they have to say. I would give you contact info for the ones I spoke to but since they mean nothing to you find your own. Then perhaps your prejudice vs anything I put on here will finally go away. Miracles never cease. Not that I could give a rats carcass what you 2 think or say but the rest of those who visit this site would probably be happy to see less expert traffic/less prejudice vs anything/anybody suggesting the existence of camo on the ship on it.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
You guys know better than all of us.


Not according to you.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:24 pm 
Offline

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

Where do I begin?

So US Army vets that served in the 1970-80s and aging USN vets who did NOT give a damn what their ships were painted have the expertise about the definition of camo? I have known and talked to MANY WWII vets in my life. I have worked with MANY active duty USAF and some USN and US Army types on the job for 30+ years on things including what they should paint their stuff to help protect them from being detected by the enemy. Trust me those VETS/Active Duty personnel DID care about what their stuff was painted and nothing about deciding on a camo/paint scheme is easy or always based on common sense - do they count? Does my 30-year experience with "CAMO" count?

Four of my uncles served in WWII, two in the USN. I only got to know and talk to two of them about their Military service. One was a soldier with Merrill's Marauders in Burma, he didn't talk about his service there until I brought over a pile of US Army pack equipment and asked him if he would recreate his individual pack that he carried. He sat there and was able to put together his pack and tell me what I was missing! I had several helmets with different coatings, he picked out the one closest to his helmet. He also, opened up about some of his experience in combat and about picking up the pieces of his best friend who was hit by a Japanese mortar round in his foxhole. The other uncle, still alive, was a surface radar operator on two ships late in WWII; an ARL and was transferred to a DE at Okinawa. When I asked him about what his ships were painted so I could build models of them, he didn't know. He had a photo of his DE that was taken when it served in the Atlantic before he ever saw his DE and said I guess this way. The photo showed his ship as completed and painted in a dazzle camo scheme common for Atlantic DEs in 1944. Only trouble is I knew that the Atlantic DEs like his ship, were upgraded and repainted in either Ms 21 or Ms 22 in May 1945 before heading to the Pacific. I located photos of his ARL as completed (he was a plank owner for that ship) in a dazzle camo scheme, then another photo of it at Okinawa after it arrived there and had been repainted in Ms 21. He didn't recall either scheme. But he remembers his return stateside on his DE as it stopped in China, and everywhere between there and South Africa to Mayport, FL where his ship was mothballed.

I worked with a guy who was a gunner onboard USS ENTERPRISE early in WWII. I worked with another guy who flew SB2C Helldiver's in WWII. I worked with a guy who was a radio mechanic on B-24's. I worked for a guy who was a Gunner Trainer for USN aircrews. My Junior High Principle was a US Army sergeant who was one of the first US soldiers to entry a Concentration Camp. Funny, I never bothered asking them what their ship/plane/vehicle was painted. I was more interested in their experiences.

I completely believe that 95% of US vets didn't call what their ships/planes/vehicles were painted as camo whether it was a solid scheme or in some sort of dazzle or pattern. THEY WERE JUST PAINTED WHATEVER they were order to paint it. My uncle certainly didn't think it was something important enough to remember. Manning a 20-mm gun on the ARL while at Okinawa when a Kamikaze came over, he remembered.

Tracy and I and others refer to USN Measures (Ms) because the USN provided specs for the application of various schemes intended to BEST protect their ships from being detected and attacked by enemy action. Photos of ships show patterns applied - solid or multiple colors - and some textual records call out the measure specific ships were painted based on these standard measures. We know what paints were called for in those measures from those "standard" schemes. The USN experimented with MANY camouflage schemes during during WWII. Those schemes may or may not have surviving documentation. That info is a good aid to modelers in painting their models than trying to figure out paint colors from Black & White photos.

I have to point this out again, since you apparently DIDN'T read it;

Attachment:
z1941-01-xx - Ships 2 - 05crop.jpg


The thing is, NONE of this "IS IT CAMO OR JUST PAINT" discussion is relevant to what you and others are really interested in, which is WHAT was JUNEAU painted at various times in 1942? You have decided what JUNEAU was painted in at Santa Cruz without any proof that shows WHAT the scheme actually looked like. Any photos that points or shows otherwise is a FALSE proof in your mind!! The overall impression of WWII vets at Santa Cruz that you have talked to, are not backed up by photos. Did your WWII vets guide your hand in drawing the patterns for your model? There are few photos of USS JUNEAU as you well know. You completely ignore the THREE best photos of USS JUNEAU available taken on 26-28 October 1942; 80-G-34102, 80-G-304512, and 80-G-304513. These photos clearly show that the ship has been repainted since 16 September 1942 with a solid scheme - IN an UNKNOWN color. The LAFFEY photos with USS JUNEAU in the background, 80-G-13606, 80-G-13610, and 80-G-13611, show a worn paint scheme. I DID NOT say that the hull in these LAFFEY photos DIDN'T show the dark lower band, the hull shows what remains of her pattern seen on 1 June 1942. I was talking about the SUPERSTRUCTURE - reread what I wrote. We known that Capt. Swenson had the ships SUPERSTRUCTURE repainted in mid-June 1942. Whether there remains any of that camo - excuse me that PAINT - scheme in these poor photos is debatable. I never bothered trying to figure out how much pattern, if any, remains in these photos after the better Santa Cruz photos surfaced. Which by the way you found and acknowledge IS USS JUNEAU, but that you dismiss as doctored images because they don't show your assumed "Camo Patterns". What I can make out in these "LAFFEY" photos show little match on the SUPERSTRUCTURE to what was painted on JUNEAU on 1 June 1942. How you or anyone can figure out what the STARBOARD SIDE or for that matter looks on the PORTSIDE between mid-June to September 1942 is beyond my ability to understand.

The "Image I" photo (reposted here for reference) is a close crop of a very distant view taken from a movie taken from aboard USS NORTHAMPTON. OTHER images in this movie sequence of the photos pulled from a movie film, show that the ship is likely SAN DIEGO. I reserve judgement as to the identity of this cruiser because configuration details can't be made out. This image shows a LIGHT band below a slightly darker upper hull and superstructure. How you can determine a camo pattern on this image, that is only about 1/2 an inch long on an 8x10 photo, looks like JUNEAU on 1 June 1942, go for it.

Image

As for the TWO distant CL-54 SAN JUAN website thumbnail size images that were reported to be USS JUNEAU, I thought this was settled a longtime ago. The first one, shown below properly flipped from how it is presented on the website, I was able to locate this photo at NARA as 80-G-33331 and the cruiser was identified as USS JUNEAU and was taken from USS SOUTH DAKOTA on the mounting card caption. But, author Rod Dickson determined, and I concur, that the cruiser in this photo is USS SAN JUAN. The other image, second one below, maybe was also taken by USS SOUTH DAKOTA and in that case can't possibly be USS JUNEAU. If the photo wasn't taken by USS SOUTH DAKOTA but by USS PENSACOLA, it looks like a series of photos taken by USS PENSACOLA of USS SAN DIEGO during attacks on TF 17, then the cruiser is most likely SAN DIEGO. In either case this very small thumbnail image isn't big enough or hi-reas enough to determine the identity with certainty.

Look at JUNEAU's War Diary;

1158 - Received following signal by flashing light from ComCruTaskFor 17 "GO TO ENTERPRISE" Proceeded. On joining CTF 17 on the following day discovered signal had not been intended for JUNEAU. Signal officer, leading signalman on flying bridge lower bridge signalman and striker all state signal addressed to JUNEAU by call and by procedure followed thereafter. Transmitting ship says not.
1200 - Ships position in Lat. 8-32 S., Long. 166-52 E.
1201 - ENTERPRISE reports enemy planes bearing 240 degrees(T), 10 miles.
1207 - Smoke on water bearing 289 degrees(T). Appears to be shot down plane.
1210 - Heavy AA fire over T.F>16 bearing 090 degrees(T). Changed course to 085 degrees(T) to intercept.
1212 - Friendly SBD3 plane, No. B-8 of BomRon 8, landed in water 1000 yards on starboard bow.
1216 - Picked up crew of 2 men of above plane with ship. Men wounded and sent to sick bay.
1217 - Resumed course 085 degrees(T), speed 30 knots to join T.F.16.
1221 - Sighted enemy plane ahead.
1228 - Enemy Zero shot down by fighter, bearing 118 degrees(T), 2000 yards.
1230 - Opened fire on plane on port beam. Plane turned away, witnessed two (2) seperate dog fights to starboard. Results unknown.
1231 - ENTERPRISE appears to have a list.
1232 - Near miss or hit on SOUTH DAKOTA.
1233 - Enemy plane approaching. Commenced firing.
1235 - SAN JUAN appears to be out of control, heading on reverse course of ENTERPRISE.
1240 - Planes being recovered by ENTERPRISE.
1247 - Smoke on horizon in direction of T.F.17.
1314 - JUNEAU reported to C.T.F. 16 for duty by TBS.
1326 - Joining up with T.F.16. Base course 130 degrees(T), speed 27 knots. Sighted PBY bearing 133 degrees(T). Sighted smoke on water bearing 070 degrees(T), vicinity of horizon. Appeared to be crashed plane.

From JUNEAU's timeline, as she approached TF 16 and BEFORE she was in formation with TF 16, she fired at Japanese aircraft twice, at 1230 and 1233. Neither plane dropped bombs on her or even close to her. Both of these images show the ATLANTA class cruiser under attack and if taken by USS SOUTH DAKOTA the only ATLANTA cruiser in formation with TF 16/ENTERPRISE was USS SAN JUAN. Until the "parentage" of this Official USN Photo is determined and a HIGHER-RES image is available for study, we will not have a firm ID.

Attachment:
juneau2-lg.flipped.jpg


Attachment:
Juneau-lg.jpg


As for the other images you are vaguely referring to in your second paragraph above, I have no idea of which ones you are talking about that show bow waves on SAN DIEGO and SAN JUAN or what that has relevance to some other image I'm denying something about - and what I'm denying??? You have a habit of confusing which images you are talking about. If you which to be a little more specific, I can address your comment.

Rod Dickson author of the Floating Drydock book on USS JUNEAU that has done about as complete research on USS JUNEAU as can be done, verified that he concluded that JUNEAU was repainted in a solid scheme based on the same two TBF photos - taken by a VET who had a CAMERA - I listed above; 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513.

Most modelers need photos to paint their model. At this point the three 26-28 October 1942 images provide the best evidence of what USS JUNEAU looked like at during the Battle of Santa Cruz.

Corrected the spelling of Rod Dickson's name. Damn auto correct spelling.


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


Last edited by Rick E Davis on Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 25  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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