Calling all USS Lexington CV-2 fans

[Dick J]

OK, that was a fun little math problem....

Sound like a personal (experience) problem, to me!

[Tracy White]

More a realization of why I fail

I have told the wife though, that if we come into some huuuge windfall of money I'm getting a research crash pad next to a couple of choice archives...

[Tracy White]

No, these are in the college park archives, near DC. The regionals, such as the one I live near have far, far less photos.

You're part of the way on the right track. The 80-G photos aren't organized by subject though, so what would be best would be to scan each box in order and build a database as you go with subjects tagged; this would allow you to build sets based on queries. You'd also need a group looking over the photos and making corrections, as many of them have incorrect captions.

But then you have the ultimate problem of storage and transfer. I scan photos at 300 or 600 DPI depending on quality. 300DPI tif files (for a big project like this you only want to do it once, so you're going to want to choose the best quality image file) average about ROUGHLY 7.5 megabytes per. "Doubling" the quality to 600 DPI quadruples the file size (and also slows the scanner down). So, using our maths again we come up with a very wild guess of 8 terabytes for 300DPI, and 32 TB for a 600 DPI scan.

Then, of course, we post this to the web and people gladly pay us for the bandwidth suckage that commences and opportunity to acquire the images they're interested in in high resolution, without having to go and do the work themselves?

Pfft.. as if... people want everything for free these days.

*Edit* I guess that was a bit off-topic....

[lvsquarerigger]

No, these are in the college park archives, near DC. The regionals, such as the one I live near have far, far less photos.

You're part of the way on the right track. The 80-G photos aren't organized by subject though, so what would be best would be to scan each box in order and build a database as you go with subjects tagged; this would allow you to build sets based on queries. You'd also need a group looking over the photos and making corrections, as many of them have incorrect captions.

But then you have the ultimate problem of storage and transfer. I scan photos at 300 or 600 DPI depending on quality. 300DPI tif files (for a big project like this you only want to do it once, so you're going to want to choose the best quality image file) average about ROUGHLY 7.5 megabytes per. "Doubling" the quality to 600 DPI quadruples the file size (and also slows the scanner down). So, using our maths again we come up with a very wild guess of 8 terabytes for 300DPI, and 32 TB for a 600 DPI scan.

Then, of course, we post this to the web and people gladly pay us for the bandwidth suckage that commences and opportunity to acquire the images they're interested in in high resolution, without having to go and do the work themselves?

Pfft.. as if... people want everything for free these days.

*Edit* I guess that was a bit off-topic....

Seems like this has touched one of your buttons. Can't say I don't agree with you though. Maybe one of us will hit the lottery and donate a huge sum to do this job. Just look at what we found with that one photo of a barge at Pearl.

[Rick E Davis]

Interesting that this post generated this much discussion about 80-G photos.

The 80-G collection at NARA II (College Park, MD) has some 2861 boxes with anywhere from 150 to 250 photos in each box mounted on caption cards. There are other photo collections at NARA on more specific subject areas. As best I can tell the 80-G numbers start at photo # 80-G-581 in box #1 and goes to something like photo # 80-G-1333405. But, they are NOT continuos, there are many gaps (missing photos?). Actually the photos are pretty sparse above about 80-G-1036400. There are stories about what happened to the photos dated after 1957, most center around them being in a flood while in USN custody. The sequence numbers do not directly relate to a chronological order, although there is a trend line of from pre-WWII to about 1957. There are blocks of numbers that are not full ... examples, there are NO photos numbered in the 900,000s, only three boxes of photos numbered 500,000, and only a few are numbered in the 700,000 or 800,000 series (about 45-50 boxes in each of those). Compare this to some 456 boxes with photos numbered in the 600,000 series. The older boxes have photos mounted on heavier card stock than those from 1951-57, so older lower number boxes have about 150 photos per box and the newer higher number boxes have something like 250 photos per box. I figure on an average of 200 photos per box there are about 600,000 photos in the whole collection, maybe as high as 700,000.

The USN Photographic Center filed this 80-G series that literally mean "MISC" photos as they got photos. In high number boxes you will find mostly photos from 1956-57 (many, many Officer Portraits and photo mapping survey views) with groups of OLD NAVY and WWII photos thrown in. There is a card catalog at NARA, that the USN had/used to locate subjects from this mass of photos. But, there are many photos not in the card catalog or the photo is simply labeled as "Pakistan" destroyer or "USN Destroyer alongside USS WHATEVER". Other photos are simply miss labeled as being the wrong ship (real puzzle when the hull number is visible). These are the fun photos to find, because they have been overlooked simply because few (if anyone) knew they were there. I have gone "through" some 511 boxes to date. BUT, THERE IS NO WAY I'm going to scan EVERY PHOTO in the boxes. I'm 60 and there isn't enough time left to do that. I go through each box looking at every photo ... I'm looking for USN destroyers and other highly interesting photos as I come across them. I actually target foreign navy and "Old Navy" views of any ship, because of their rarity. I started out by looking up every "FLETCHER" photo during the 1950s (along with some WWII subjects) in the card catalog and pulling the boxes those were in (amazingly they come in groups of boxes) and moved on to looking at the boxes between those "known w/FLETCHERS" boxes. There are literally 1,000s and 1,000s of USN Officer Portrait photos and the USN did aerial surveys of various USN facilities and other places like shipyards at locations all over the globe every couple of years with 1,000s and 1,000s of more photos. I skip over those photos pretty quickly. Although some of the overhead yard photos are interesting.

Now as to the LEXINGTON photo I posted above, this is one from the 700,000 series of numbers and was among the first boxes in that series I looked at. I didn't look to see if this photo is in the card catalog or not, the whole series may not be in the card catalog. So far there hasn't been a clear majority group of photos in this numbered series ... some Old Navy views (like LEXINGTON) and a large group of post-VE day views of Truman's trip to Potsdam Conference and tours he made going and returning and late pacific war views. I will continue to go through a few boxes from this group on each trip. Maybe I'll find more gems, maybe nothing.

[lvsquarerigger]

Interesting that this post generated this much discussion about 80-G photos.

The 80-G collection at NARA II (College Park, MD) has some 2861 boxes with anywhere from 150 to 250 photos in each box mounted on caption cards. There are other photo collections at NARA on more specific subject areas. As best I can tell the 80-G numbers start at photo # 80-G-581 in box #1 and goes to something like photo # 80-G-1333405. But, they are NOT continuos, there are many gaps (missing photos?). Actually the photos are pretty sparse above about 80-G-1036400. There are stories about what happened to the photos dated after 1957, most center around them being in a flood while in USN custody. The sequence numbers do not directly relate to a chronological order, although there is a trend line of from pre-WWII to about 1957. There are blocks of numbers that are not full ... examples, there are NO photos numbered in the 900,000s, only three boxes of photos numbered 500,000, and only a few are numbered in the 700,000 or 800,000 series (about 45-50 boxes in each of those). Compare this to some 456 boxes with photos numbered in the 600,000 series. The older boxes have photos mounted on heavier card stock than those from 1951-57, so older lower number boxes have about 150 photos per box and the newer higher number boxes have something like 250 photos per box. I figure on an average of 200 photos per box there are about 600,000 photos in the whole collection, maybe as high as 700,000.

The USN Photographic Center filed this 80-G series that literally mean "MISC" photos as they got photos. In high number boxes you will find mostly photos from 1956-57 (many, many Officer Portraits and photo mapping survey views) with groups of OLD NAVY and WWII photos thrown in. There is a card catalog at NARA, that the USN had/used to locate subjects from this mass of photos. But, there are many photos not in the card catalog or the photo is simply labeled as "Pakistan" destroyer or "USN Destroyer alongside USS WHATEVER". Other photos are simply miss labeled as being the wrong ship (real puzzle when the hull number is visible). These are the fun photos to find, because they have been overlooked simply because few (if anyone) knew they were there. I have gone "through" some 511 boxes to date. BUT, THERE IS NO WAY I'm going to scan EVERY PHOTO in the boxes. I'm 60 and there isn't enough time left to do that. I go through each box looking at every photo ... I'm looking for USN destroyers and other highly interesting photos as I come across them. I actually target foreign navy and "Old Navy" views of any ship, because of their rarity. I started out by looking up every "FLETCHER" photo during the 1950s (along with some WWII subjects) in the card catalog and pulling the boxes those were in (amazingly they come in groups of boxes) and moved on to looking at the boxes between those "known w/FLETCHERS" boxes. There are literally 1,000s and 1,000s of USN Officer Portrait photos and the USN did aerial surveys of various USN facilities and other places like shipyards at locations all over the globe every couple of years with 1,000s and 1,000s of more photos. I skip over those photos pretty quickly. Although some of the overhead yard photos are interesting.

Now as to the LEXINGTON photo I posted above, this is one from the 700,000 series of numbers and was among the first boxes in that series I looked at. I didn't look to see if this photo is in the card catalog or not, the whole series may not be in the card catalog. So far there hasn't been a clear majority group of photos in this numbered series ... some Old Navy views (like LEXINGTON) and a large group of post-VE day views of Truman's trip to Potsdam Conference and tours he made going and returning and late pacific war views. I will continue to go through a few boxes from this group on each trip. Maybe I'll find more gems, maybe nothing.

Thanks for doing what you do and sharing so freely.

James

[DennisJP]

Thank you also for your generosity.
I believe also these are just the untagged pictures. There are many picture that have been tagged correctly but have not been posted on the web as well. Think of all the times a ship went into the ship yard for refit and all the pictures that were taken of the work as well as the blueprints and changes to them. In my Lexington book it say's on the April 42 section of the plans, that were copied, that there where pictures taken of the 1.1" mounts. So there were pictures taken of all the accomplished shipyard work. In the Lexington Class book there is all kinds of pictures of Saratoga in PSNS Shipyard during her refits. We have all the photos taken while at see during battles from the ships. All the Submarine attack photos.
Gets even better. LOL All the gun Camera footage of all the planes participating in the attacks on Japanese fleet units, as well as land bases. (Piece together the footage from all the dive bombers that attacked Zuikaku for example) If you do it from the individual carriers that attacked like Yorktown CV-10 is credited with Zuikaku and spliced the film together after coping it to the computer of each dive bomber in order you have the sequence of the attack recorded. Could do the same for the others. Yamato, Musashi, Chitose, Zuiho and so on.

[Rick E Davis]

The "requirement" from BuShips and the CNO was that photos would be taken of each ship after EVERY major modification. At NARA these BuShips photos are in the 19-LCM collection, which isn't complete (however there are many photos available as "negatives only"). But, I have found textual records where BuShips asked the yard where were the photos and the reply is, sorry we forgot to task order the base photographer!!! Even so, the multiple copies of photos (and negatives) were sent to BuShips and a whole host of other parties. A practice that continued at least into the 1960s. What constituted "major modifications" is a little fuzzy as well, so addition of a few 20-mm guns likely didn't get recorded with photos.

In the case of ships lost during WWII, like LEXINGTON, the individuals responsible for maintaining files of the ship, would purge their files and likely be assigned to maintain records on another ship. By purge I mean it depends who had that file (there were several holders of LEXINGTON files, BuShips, Operation Commands, Logistics, Yards doing the work and the Home yard) and the "requirement" was that "closed" files were suppose to be forwarded to DC for disposition. As you can see, several sets of files could be forwarded on the same ship. But, during the war with higher priority being to fight the war, some individuals may well have destroyed material of "no value" to the war effort now that the ship was lost.

There could still be photos of LEXINGTON's quad 1.1-in mounts installation somewhere, where isn't readily known. I know of USN photos saved from dumpsters as some USN office purged old files in the 1960s.

[DennisJP]

Thank You!!!!!
Best wishes on your next search of the files. Thank you for your interest in searching there and what you have shared. I'm way over in the Philippines at present time but will be coming back to the USA in the future. I would not mind taking a trip up there and checking it out, after I get back State side.

[Zad Fnark]

Hi All,

Apologies if this has been answered before -- I've been reading around and haven't seen it...

What colors should be used in the hanger deck (walls, deck)? Were these colors used by Lex and Sara pretty much the standard for all USN CVs?

Thanks,

Ed-

[Jon C Ryckert]

I 've looked at all of the port side pics of Lex leading up to the sinking and I can't tell if the pipe (aviation fuel line?) that runs horizontaly above the torpedo belt armor is there or not. I have seen it on the starboard side. Just wondering if it was like the prewar BB's and only had it on one side.

[Jon C Ryckert]

Hi All,

Apologies if this has been answered before -- I've been reading around and haven't seen it...

What colors should be used in the hanger deck (walls, deck)? Were these colors used by Lex and Sara pretty much the standard for all USN CVs?

Thanks,

Ed-

From my understanding, all walls and ceilings were white (5-U?) and the hanger deck was #20 Standard Deck gray. Not sure what time frame you are looking for but I think that it was this way for the early part of the war. Mid to late war they might have had certain parts of the walls painted black, navy blue or some other color that matches the flight deck stain or camo. There are fellas here who know more than I do and hopefully they will correct me if I am wrong.

[Zad Fnark]

Thanks, Jon.

I was thinking of May '42. I wasn't sure if they would have toned the colors down from white once the war started. (around the elevators, anyway)

Ed

[steviecee]

From what I've read a lot of the interior paint was taken out because it would/could catch fire from accidents or battle damage

[lvsquarerigger]

I'm getting ready to modify the boat pockets on my Lex and was studying the HNSA prints of the ship. To me it seems like the starboard pocket is not set in the same distance all along it's length being closer at the stern end and deeper at the front. Also the walkways in port pockets one and two are semicircular in that they flow around the boat and have stairways in them not going up to them as the others do. Has anyone seen this and then modeled it this way as everything I've seen modeled just has straight walkways?

[Dick J]

If you look at the sides of the ship right behind the aftermost boat pockets, you should see a bend or "kink" in the side at the level of the after 5" gun galleries. Above the kink, the side is vertical, and it angles in below it. So the "upper half" of the boat pocket retains its full width moving aft, but the deck at the base of the pocket tapers inward as you move aft.

[lvsquarerigger]

If you look at the sides of the ship right behind the aftermost boat pockets, you should see a bend or "kink" in the side at the level of the after 5" gun galleries. Above the kink, the side is vertical, and it angles in below it. So the "upper half" of the boat pocket retains its full width moving aft, but the deck at the base of the pocket tapers inward as you move aft.

Thanks for the clarification

[lvsquarerigger]

If you look at the sides of the ship right behind the aftermost boat pockets, you should see a bend or "kink" in the side at the level of the after 5" gun galleries. Above the kink, the side is vertical, and it angles in below it. So the "upper half" of the boat pocket retains its full width moving aft, but the deck at the base of the pocket tapers inward as you move aft.

Thanks for the clarification

I had written up a full description of the measurements of the starboard boat pocket front and rear on both levels and also the interior measurements of the hangar deck area corresponding to the same space and my internet connection went on the fritz and I lost it all. Suffice to say there is a definite difference, front and rear, on the starboard pocket. It's more pronounced on the deck level as compared to the walkway level but it is there. And measuring the open distance on the hangar deck there is a 10 mm difference as it narrows going forward. It looks like it's to allow the stack vents from the boiler rooms. Anyway another thing the kit got wrong and needs fixing.

[Jon C Ryckert]

I'm getting ready to modify the boat pockets on my Lex and was studying the HNSA prints of the ship. To me it seems like the starboard pocket is not set in the same distance all along it's length being closer at the stern end and deeper at the front. Also the walkways in port pockets one and two are semicircular in that they flow around the boat and have stairways in them not going up to them as the others do. Has anyone seen this and then modeled it this way as everything I've seen modeled just has straight walkways?

I made the forward most boat pocket for the port side and I made it exactly as you decsibed it, The opening for the stairs is there ( left corner) but I have not installed it yet. This is the best pic I could get out of five taken, I really need a new camera.

[lvsquarerigger]

I'm getting ready to modify the boat pockets on my Lex and was studying the HNSA prints of the ship. To me it seems like the starboard pocket is not set in the same distance all along it's length being closer at the stern end and deeper at the front. Also the walkways in port pockets one and two are semicircular in that they flow around the boat and have stairways in them not going up to them as the others do. Has anyone seen this and then modeled it this way as everything I've seen modeled just has straight walkways?

I made the forward most boat pocket for the port side and I made it exactly as you decsibed it, The opening for the stairs is there ( left corner) but I have not installed it yet. This is the best pic I could get out of five taken, I really need a new camera.

Just like I envisioned it. I have a wild idea to take the HNSA prints ona flash drive to Kinko's and see if they could size a printout to the exact length of the kit. What a resource that would be and so easy to take measurements from.