TOMLABEL wrote:
Michael Vorrasi wrote:
The OP mentioned name plates. i was thinking of the name plate Hornet displayed on her forecastle while finishing up at Newport News. See here, look at it in at least medium size:http://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/19-N-26000/19-N-26371.html
Wow!!! Nice pic! I see the nameplate that you referenced. I might have mistaken the OP original question (I've never seen that pic) but yes, all visible identifying information on ships were removed/painted over as Mike said for security/operational reasons to elude and confuse both friend and foe.
Mike, nice information on another example of the differences between PHNY and Norfolk's practices!!! I always wondered why CV6's numbers weren't visible and CV5/8's were. Given the different shapes/structures of the AA tubs/etc and now identification numbers, it seems like there was a mild disconnect or preference (or orders) between the two.
Thanks Mike!!!!
Kelley
I have never figured out how painting over the ship's name, while displaying a number - the actual hull number no less - in a contrasting color and larger in height than the ship's name was, how that provided any OPSEC. Really?
I remember during the Cold War, the Soviets used false pendant numbers on the side of the hull - that made some sense to do that. I even saw an instance or two where they had painted different pendant numbers on different sides of the same ship. Of course, if an aircraft "rigged" the ship, it would make at least one pass down each side of it so the jig was up pretty quickly.