JUNEAU MODEL BUILDERS—
First and foremost may I suggest a few thoughts in remembrance of all those lost this date 75 years ago. On both sides. I live in the Peoples Republic of PA and based on the time conversion chart at this site
http://timebie.com/tz/timediff.php?q1=G ... ght%20Timethis post is going on to the site at about the time Juneau took its fatal torpedo hit. Namely 1900 EST.
For anyone interested in trying to build a model of Juneau as damaged on this date 75 years ago and before it was sunk later that day you may want to take a look at the post I put here—
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=23563&start=280#p727114The site listed there contains more details than I have seen in any book.
I recently swapped emails with a fellow member of this site who has monitored this discussion. During the course of a Juneau related email conversation it soon became obvious that he has more photo skill than I ever will. I asked him to enhance the following photos which have appeared on this site—
Santa Cruz After Action Report Photo (SCAAR hereafter) 99, a crop of which appears at the 12/8/16 1924 post with a cross bar thru the ship.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=340#p708373SCAAR 138, which appears in the 12/31/16 1601 post.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=360#p70994280 G 304513, which shows up about 20 times on this topic.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=340#p708471By the way if you wish copies of any SCAAR photo for your own study and review, the following members of this site have the complete collection—Rick Davis, Martin Quinn, and myself.
The fellow member who did the enhancements does not wish to participate directly at this point in time. Suffice to say he used methods I do not have.
Before discussing the enhancements you should understand the following. I will be discussing mainly photos and witness testimony, mostly the former. I am not getting involved in timelines/presence or absence of radar units on long range photos/conflicting TF ship formation diagrams/photos that have no details on them as to time taken or subject details such as who is attacking what, which is probably 99% of the ones at NARA, or speculation except mine where it is clearly identified as such. To my mind the photo evidence discussed below is credible, convincing, and makes a very persuasive case that Juneau was not re painted and was in something very close to original 6/1/42 camo at Santa Cruz. Especially when combined with eye witness observations.
Before discussing the enhancements, if you are not familiar with this topic from its beginning may I suggest you review the posts below. I have included the date and time, the current page number as of this date, and a very brief description of its relevance to the enhancements. I am also trying to put in direct links since I noticed the time changes for the post on subsequent views of them. The caps below are to clearly differentiate web addresses from the description info, not to “shout”.
10/11/15 2245/2 LAFFEY/JUNEAU PHOTOS
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=20#p67061911/20/15 1457/6 MAURICE BECKNER MEMORY ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=100#p67408112/15/15 1849/6 RICH NOWATZKI EMAIL ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=100#p67641712/17/15 1148/6 RICH NOWATZKI EMAIL ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=100#p67653312/29/15 2153/7 TBF AERIAL PHOTOS OF HORNET TF
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=120#p6776201/9/16 1409/8 ED LAVIN MEMORY ON JUNEAU COLOR
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=140#p6786553/3/16 1302/11 MULTIPLE CLAA PHOTOS AND SOME OF ATLANTA APPEARING DARK AT VARIOUS RANGES.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=200#p6840905/21/16 2213/13 SCAAR PHOTOS CAMO PATTERN OF SAN DIEGO ESPECIALLY DIAGONAL STRIPES ON FRONT OF BOTH FORWARD/AFT SUPERSTRUCTURE UNITS ARE VISIBLE
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p6921225/22/16 1437/13 SAME AS ABOVE
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=240#p692161SAN DIEGO PATTERN CLEARLY VISIBLE ON SHIP THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE JUNEAU BECAUSE OF HORNET TF SHIP FORMATION DIAGRAM
5/24/16 2258/14 SAME AS ABOVE. SAN DIEGO SUPE PATTERNS CLEARLY VISIBLE. PATTERN ON BOTTOM PHOTO ALSO SUPPOSEDLY SAN DIEGO IS CLEARLY DIFFERENT. DOES THE DARK PATTERN ON LOWER HULL EXTEND UP TO THE MAIN DECK AS IT CLEARLY DOES ON THE SAN DIEGO PHOTOS? NO IT DOES NOT. OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENT CLAA.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p6923775/25/16 2109/ SAN DIEGO SUPE PATTERNS CLEARLY VISIBLE ESPECIALLY AFT DIAGONAL STRIPE ON ALL EXCEPT BOTTOM 3
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p6924775/27/16 2030/14 SAN DIEGO AFT SUPE STRIPE CLEARLY VISIBLE ON ENLARGED CROP
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p6926555/30/16 1651/14 MY SUGGESTIONS TO SEE CAMO ON 99
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p6928515/30/16 2342/14 CAMO PATTERN CLEARLY VISIBLE BOTTOM OF HULL ON 99. PATTERN NOWHERE NEAR THAT ON SAN DIEGO
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=260#p6928657/3/16 1544/15 SAN DIEGO/SAN JUAN PATTERN PHOTOS. BOTH ARE DARK IN ALL PHOTOS. SAN DIEGO PATTERN CLEARLY VISIBLE IN PHOTOS 2-3 IN SAME POSITION THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY JUNEAU IN 5/22/16 1437/13 POST. PROBABLY TAKEN BY PENSACOLA AS PART OF SERIES IN 33924-6 SHOWING NUMBERS 12-14 IN LOWER R CORNER. WAKE IN PHOTO WITH NO SHIP ALMOST CERTAINLY HORNET’S. 33945 HAS NUMBER 35 IN LOWER R CORNER.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=280#p6955127/5/16 0038/15 CLAA SUPPOSEDLY JUNEAU IS DARK JUST AS IN PHOTOS ABOVE AFT SUPE DIAGONAL STRIPE CLEARLY VISIBLE
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=280#p69562511/13/16 1747/17 ASSORTED LAFFEY/JUNEAU PHOTOS, HULL PATTERN MATCHES 6/42 PORT SIDE PHOTO IN SAME POST.
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=320#p70655812/7/16 1150/17 MY REVIEW OF CAMO PATTERNS IN 3 PHOTOS, ONE OF WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SOLID COLOR ON JUNEAU. SUMMARY OF PHOTO EVIDENCE OF TRACES OF CAMO ON JUNEAU
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=320#p70823612/12/16 2122/19 MARTIN QUINN COMMENTARY, ESPECIALLY THE EXCERPT BELOW—
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=360#p708699____________________________________________________________________________________
POINT ONE: The fact is, the Navy called their various painting instructions camouflage, regardless of if was one color or twenty. However - I can see how the average swabbie would not consider a ship in overall blue to be "camouflage".
POINT TWO:
While the photos at Santa Cruz strongly suggest one color, the Fletcher sailor's comment about the "camouflage" could be considered anecdotal evidence that perhaps Juneau wasn't a solid color. Or, perhaps the repainting was hurried and the earlier scheme was bleeding through? I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but it is possible.
POINT THREE:
To me, good photos are the best evidence. They can irrefutably prove or disprove facts. That is, if they are "good" photos. The Santa Cruz photos are pretty good, but the Juneau starts to blur when you zoom in. However, she certainly looks one color.
Documents are a strongly secondary source - however they are not infallible. Just because the instructions said "do this", doesn't mean they were followed to the letter. Human nature being what it is, humans will almost always take the easy way out, and follow the "spirit" of the instructions, not the letter.
____________________________________________________________________________________
I would also suggest you view directly the Santa Cruz photos that appear at
http://www.cl54.com/album/categories.php?cat_id=7. The site graciously sent me copies and I will be happy to share them with anyone who wants them. They also appear at numerous places on this site. Based on prior posts and photos of Atlanta/San Diego/San Juan seems pretty safe to assume the dark CLAA on that site is San Juan.
To give you an idea what San Diego may have looked like at Santa Cruz, I suggest you view my model of it at
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm. I have a collection of 1942 photos of the ship, some on this site and some not, I will be happy to share with you if you wish. I could not find any 1942 model of San Juan on this site however color photos of her in the fall of 42 are on the net and this site.
IAW Point 3 of Martin’s post last year and what I said in the 7th paragraph above, I will be dealing with photos mainly and supporting testimony from the vets I spoke with. I could care less about convincing anyone not a model builder on any topic. For that matter those of you who actually build models I do not care to convince you either. My goal is to give you a complete list of the past photo evidence in the posts in paragraph 8 above and discuss the enhancements posted on 10/30/17 and what they mean for your decision on how to paint any model of the ship. However if you are building a model of the ship I would encourage you to share your opinion on this topic for the benefit of anyone else doing so. Especially if during your review you find something I missed.
My final suggestion—download all of the 10/30/17 enhancements so that you can better make your own evaluation of them. Put them on a word document and adjust contrast/brightness to your satisfaction.
On to the enhancements.
Every enhancement of SCAAR 99 shows a pattern on the lower hull, as stated in several prior posts above. But they show something else a little more clearly. Take a look at the dark pattern that starts in the general area of the forward gun mounts.
The next group is SCAAR 138. I will get to them shortly.
Final group is 80 G 304513. Something jumped out at me that one of us should have caught long ago. Guess my 20/20 is failing me. Take a look at any one of the 4. Look at the bow. There is a dark diagonal line going thru the anchor SW-NE. Forward of that point the bow appears to be a false one in a dark color. Take a look at the hull between mounts 2-3. Another SW-NE line. Forward of that to the false dark bow is what appears to be a lighter shade of grey. Starting below mount 3 are what appear to be very faint traces of the original camo pattern, with varying visibility in the enhancements. That part of the ship is also light in some of them. See my 12/7/16 1150/17 post for evidence of camo patterns in 3 different photos including this one. The superstructure patterns seem to be similar to the original pattern but there is not enough detail to be positive. Whether the pattern was changed at Argentia or just the colors is very hard to tell. My guess is only the colors but the War Diary suggests it was both.
As for 138, the primary points are it is not a dark hull as in the multiple San Juan/San Diego photos on this site. It also appears to be moving out smartly at a speed I suspect was in the 25KT range. Note the wake. It stays near the waterline and does not climb half way up the hull. There are several photos of CLAAs on this site that make the same point and I have some not on this site if any of you want them. This might be Juneau and my pure guess due to the smoke and what is visible of the ship is that it is Juneau. Impossible to be absolutely sure due to complete absence of details.
So what do these photos mean?
I would suggest the following.
Both a surface photo (99) and an aerial (80 G 304513) taken from most likely 2 different cameras show a lower hull pattern (99 for sure and traces on 80 G 304513) and dark areas on the bow (both). 80 G 304513 seems to suggest an attempt to re paint the starboard side of the ship that was not completed. It also suggests traces of the original pattern behind the dark areas on the bow. It has traces of superstructure camo very similar to the 6/42 photos. These guesses if correct do not jive with the light color CLAA on the San Juan site. Why such an obvious conflict remains I cannot figure out. However seems fair to say the rest of the hull behind the dark bow is a much lighter color than the dark San Diego/San Juan photos and has very faint traces of pattern on 80 G 304513 and clear and obvious traces of a pattern resembling the 6/42 photos in 99 behind the dark spot.
As for the port side, not visible in any SCAAR photo that I can find, I refer back to Rich Nowatzki’s 12/15/16 emails. With my father he was in the starboard aft 5” gun position and probably saw only the port side of Juneau. He had about 30 days to study the ship prior to Santa Cruz. If he saw the other side on or after 10/26/1942 he had other priorities to deal with. He described it as “whitish”, something that would seem to match both the San Juan site light color photo and the Laffey series photos. This suggests, with no proof obviously, that the port side was not repainted and remained in either the original pattern or a very bleached out version of it based on what is contained in Rich’s emails. His description is also a common sense match for the light color CLAA photo on the above San Juan site. No photo of Atlanta/San Diego/San Juan in 1942 comes remotely close to that appearance. Nor do the later war San Diego/San Juan photos. FYI I contacted the family that donated the photos to the San Juan site and was told they could not remember where they got it from. No 80 G or other NARA number has appeared for it on this site. I had no luck trying to find it at NARA. It was listed as an official USN photo in the Morrison volume on Guadalcanal. By process of elimination no other ID but Juneau makes sense.
Almost every photo of San Diego/San Juan at Santa Cruz shows a dark color. If a clear photo they show known patterns. 99/138/ 80 G 304513/the San Juan site light CLAA do not show a dark color except for the starboard bow. Take those facts and photos into consideration.
As to any model you may plan or have in progress, I hope this post is helpful. By all means do not accept my analysis and eval of the enhancements as gospel. Do you own review of them and the photos on the list of posts above. If you go to NARA there might be a DD/CA AAR lurking somewhere with additional photos however our diligent NARA visitors have probably exhausted all possible searches for hidden photos. Such a search located the SCAAR when many others had no success trying to find such a crucial source of photos for this topic, including me.
As Martin wisely indicated above, MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS and have fun.
In the event that any descendant of a Juneau crewman stumbles on to this post, please accept my condolences for the loss of your family member.
Last but far from least, below is a link to the site for the obituary of Maurice Dinsmore Beckner, last crewman of the Juneau. He died 10/5/2017. Marty I hope you are with your shipmates, and that you had a chance to tell the First Lt. who kicked you off of the ship what you think of him.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/palmbe ... =186882669