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.
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.