The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:26 am

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 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 26
Location: San Jose, CA
Hmmm.. those are some awfully straight lines for just wave action...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:53 pm 
Offline

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

I don't know which image you are referring to, but I will address comments made about ATLANTA class units in general about their unique hull shape and at sea wear and tear, over the last week.

I have been away from home on a short trip to NARA this last week. While traveling I can't post images unless I can copy the links from previous posts on Modelwarships. Since I got back I have been too busy to address some comments made. First off, I have to clarify my statements I wrote in haste about the images showing "wet" surfaces. I should have said they show surfaces that are or HAVE been wet and now have a salt coating. Anytime a ship is at sea for any length of time, chalking appears from salt residue and the nature of the paint used then.

1). The ATLANTA class hull shape. Unlike most USN ship designs built during WWII, they have a unique shape. There is a knuckle visible at the bow that then blends into the armor belt near the waterline isn't common on USN warships. The bow on image below shows this clearly. This combination creates a shadow effect in many photos taken of this class and appearance of a demarcation "line".

Many of the photos that are available of these units were taken as they were completed or shortly afterwards when their paint was still recently applied and little wear is seen yet. But the group of images below shows the unique knuckle and armor belt combination impact on the appearance of the "color" and "shade" of recently applied paint on various units.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

2). Wave action on the hull and wear on the paint applied. MANY photos show the wear and tear to paint applied to the hulls of ALL USN warships that have been at sea for any length of time. I previously posted images of the wear exhibited on USS OAKLAND to her Ms 21 camo scheme. But, there are other image examples. Note in these images the wet areas and dried salt coatings. Also, water run off from the main deck added additional wear in specific locations.

Image

Image

Note in this photo that the Ms 12R(mod) camo on USS SAN JUAN is almost completely washed out by the fading of the 5-N and 5-O on the hull and bright sun.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

And water wear on the hull of ships wasn't limited to the ATLANTA class cruisers, here are images of a BROOKLYN class unit with plenty of freeboard.

Image

Image

3). How ships were painted. It is rare to find photos of USN ships in the process of painting. But, there were two general methods of painting a ship. One was using spray guns, normally by yard workers or forward area repair facilities. The paint coat looks even and well covered across the whole ship. When a ship was painted by hand, normally by the crew, using the "mix" the paint by the formula using a base of white paint mixed with a tinting paste to get the desired color, there isn't always an even coat. When humans are mixing paint based on how many pints of tint paste needs to be added, sometimes just like painting your house with paint from different cans, there is variation in shade. Also, without benefit of a drydock, a common procedure was to paint the lower part of the hull from boats up so high and then or only to paint the hull above from by "going over the side".

Image

Image

Image



I have no idea of what is going on in most of the very small distant images presented as evidence. The images are way too small and taken at long distances to be reliable photographic evidence. The Ms 12R(mod) patterns painted on USS SAN DIEGO and USS SAN JUAN at times can not be made out at these distances. But, the images of USS JUNEAU taken on 26 October 1942 from an Avenger, was flying only about 500-ft altitude and were relatively close compared to the 4,000-5,000 yards ranges seen in the images taken from USS NORTHAMPTON.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 19, 2017 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 26
Location: San Jose, CA
Rick E Davis wrote:
Don,

I don't know which image you are referring to


Hi Rick!

I was talking about the pic of Pope in Feb 42...

Don Andrews
The Andrews Shipyard


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Don Andrews wrote:
I was talking about the pic of Pope in Feb 42...
Don Andrews
The Andrews Shipyard

Hi Don,

Yes I thought you were (re Pope) and one of the reason I was hesitant to post the pic (i.e. to confuse the issue here re Juneau). Sorry about that Rick, but thanks for posting ALL those images!

As for Pope, I myself think it is 'camo', but was continual 'shot down' be a few 'in the know'.

But never being one to take too much notice of what someone tells me without irrefutable proof /evidence, I believe it is a 'wavey' style camo at least back to amidships (maybe they never got the job finished?). But of course, not havimg seen her exit Surabaya that day, I could be wrong too.

PS. If anyone has a clearer / better photo of that image of Pope PLEASE do not hesitate to send it to me. Please.

BTW, to keep this thread on its rightful track, if a moderator cares to move the Pope posts to their own thread I wont come-a-crying-about it.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
A few more photos showing wave action/staining on the hull.

Nevada:
Attachment:
BB-36 80-G-74407.jpg

New Jersey:
Attachment:
BB-62 80-G-272734 #1crop.jpg

To a lesser extent, New York:
Attachment:
BB34 New York 31Mar1945 80G-316811.jpg


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

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
SCAAR 99/138, 80 G 304513, and the light color CLAA photo taken with Enterprise at Santa Cruz—an official USN photo despite the fact it is consistently blown off as unreliable on this site—all show a light color CLAA in the white-light grey range except for the dark bow in both SCAAR 99 and 80 G 304513.

The sites below are color photos of post war Canadian Navy ships in light grey paint shades in sea conditions similar to the ones in the Santa Cruz photos.

After reviewing the sites at the bottom of this post can someone please answer the following questions to enlighten our model builders, not me.

How are photos of salt stains on dark color USN ships relevant to this discussion? I have yet to see a possible model builder dispute the presence of a dark pattern on the lower hull in SCAAR 99 or the dark patterns on the bow or the fact the rear 2/3 of the ship is a much lighter color than San Diego/San Juan.

When will we see a photo of a CLAA with ripple effect/closely spaced wave action stains half way up the REAR 2/3 of the hull as portrayed in SCAAR 99? Where are the closely spaced/half way up the REAR hull water stains in these photos?
viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=400#p729169

Where are the closely spaced ripple wakes half way up the hull at the REAR of the ship in this aerial photo plus the ones posted above taken on 12/11/43 and 3/8/44? All I see in all of these photos is smooth wave action along the water line on the rear half of the ship. http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/054/0405424.jpg
There is a better one of San Diego on pinterest taken at close range from the starboard bow but I am not a member. You can find it by google.

Why are there no wave action/dark salt stains on the Canadian ships in the photos below?

Why is a water stain on a light color hull going to show up in a photo taken from a few miles away as dark? Can anyone produce a photo that shows such a situation at the distance of the CLAA in SCAAR 99? If we cannot answer that question then how do we explain the dark pattern on SCAAR 99 clearly visible to everyone who has seen this site based on the fact only one person denies they are there? For that matter the same question for a dark color hull not that it is relevant. How is a wake stain on the hull going to show up at the range at which SCAAR 99 was taken when the only portion of the wake itself that is visible is the forward half of the hull, barely visible and at the water line. NO large bow wave visible. What shows up is white at the forward waterline, not clear. By the way a pattern similar to all of the other underway photos on this site--very little turbulence along the rear 1/2 of the water line in Santa Cruz type conditions. Based on these facts how is a wet hull stain going to show up at that range?

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... ouche2.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... /terra.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... urent1.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... iere-1.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... onnie2.jpg

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/ ... avour2.jpg

https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada ... /fleet.jpg

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
The point being the photos show light colors on military ships. If you have better color ones showing the precise color please feel free to put them on here. As long as they are lighter than 1942 blue/grey WWII USN colors my guess is the analysis will not change.

After another view perhaps the photos of white salt stains on dark ships are relevant. If the ripple dark pattern on SCAAR 99 on the rear 2/3 of the ship halfway up the hull is a salt stain, why is it dark? If it is wet water, how did it get that high in such calm seas and why does no such pattern appear in any other photo of a CLAA? The question remains how would wet water show up on a less than dark hull at that range? Where do we find another LONG RANGE shot showing a wet water stain?

Do we have any real live Navy of any country sailors on board here who can guess the speed/angle of turn required to get a wake pattern half way up the hull? My guess it would be a much higher speed/angle than normally used in non combat conditions such as those obviously the case in SCAAR 99. Especially on a class of ship that I seem to recall was a tad top heavy to begin with. For what it is worth this site confirms the guess they were top heavy
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... uisers-cl/
but this one suggests they were not top heavy until late 42.
http://www.cmchant.com/the-anti-aircraf ... anta-class
If that was the case then Juneau may not have been top heavy.

To clear the confusion our model builders deserve answers to these questions. Answers based on facts and/or photos.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
The site below seems to show the Canadian Navy color David was referring to.


https://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/departure/

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:33 pm 
Offline

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

This image;

Attachment:
Juneau-lg-2.jpg


Is "unreliable" and appears to be "light" for the same reason that these ships appear dark in the ship image and almost "white" in the second image. The camera and platform taking both photos is the same, an Avenger from USS HORNET on the morning of 26 October 1942 as the attack formation is circling TF 17 before heading to attack the IJN forces. The ships are seen backlighted by the sun in the first image and in direct sun light in the second image and are reflecting the sun's brightness.

Image

Image

The Santa Cruz Action Report Photo #99 taken from USS NORTHAMPTON at a range of about guessing a mile+ away in a turn does NOT show a dark lower hull, it shows a lighter band at the waterline that matches "roughly" the location of the armor belt. See "A" on image below. The Boot Strip shows below that light area. See "B" on image below. The darker area on the bow area is a shadow in the area below the knuckle. See "C" on image below. A feature noted in several images I posted earlier. The upper hull and superstructure are close to the same shade of grayscale on vertical surfaces. Also, we don't know if this cruiser is USS JUNEAU or USS SAN DIEGO, both of which were in TF 17 during the retreat.

USS JUNEAU as painted in June 1942 had a high contrast dark band of 5-N paint with a much light band of 5-H above it on her hull on her STARBOARD side. And a lighter contrasting lower band (likely 5-O) on her PORTSIDE. In the 16 September 1942 over exposed views in the background of views of USS LAFFEY, her portside paint scheme shows a well worn hull, but the dark pattern can been seen, while the superstructure looks lighter still.

PLEASE note how worn and "light (salt)-coated" her paint is in these views on 16 September 1942, and where and HOW HIGH the salt residue is located. Prior to this photo, USS JUNEAU had been at sea since early June 1942, first to Argentia, then all the way to Brazil through the Caribbean, before heading to the Pacific via the Panama Canal with only a brief overnight drydocking to repair a leaking oil tank.

The last image below, shows USS SAN JUAN at Tongatabu as seen from USS ENTERPRISE on 30 August 1942. The crew is touching up her hull paint during their brief two day layover before heading to Pearl Harbor for repairs. PLEASE note the light salt coated areas being painted over.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

The contrast adjusted version of image #99 (see attached link below) does NOT change those factors. It just makes the lighter areas lighter and the darker areas darker. Well beyond the generally constant contrast seen in the original image #99 above scanned from the print in the report at a hi-res close crop view.

download/file.php?id=104513&mode=view

If the cruiser in this image #99 was clearly "light", then your observations about light color painted Canadian vessels may be relevant. The cruiser in this image #99 stands out quite well against the background sky. Also, modern warships get regular maintenance and use better quality paint that in general is more glossy than paint used in WWII. Salt wouldn't show up as much on a hull painted as light as the Canadian vessels. But, we are talking about the gray painted cruiser in image #99.

Once again, the small images from the USS SAN JUAN reunion website and the multiple images (Santa Cruz Action Report photo #138 is nothing more than a blob buried in smoke) posted in this thread taken at distances of 4,000 + yards, just are not going to be useable for accurate analysis of details nor can have their identification verified. No one can use those small images to paint a model with a "pattern" camo, if it exists on that cruiser. The USS HORNET Avenger taken photos on 26 October 1942 at about 500-ft altitude and some 1,000 to 2,000-ft slant range and by USS RUSSELL alongside on 28 October, much closer than the formation photos taken from USS NORTHAMPTON, show that USS JUNEAU was clearly in a solid camo scheme of unknown color.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Below is a link to the aerial photo of San Diego I referred to above. I also have it here if anyone wants it via email. You will have to be signed in to pinterest most likely to access it.

Ship is in a right turn at I am guessing a pretty slow speed due to small bow wave.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/448037862907984264/

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Quote:
To clear the confusion our model builders deserve answers to these questions


Speaking as a previous (1/700 San Diego) and potential (if a 1/350 plastic ever comes out) builder of Atlantas, I'll comment here as a "modeler":

Without meaning any offence, the discussion in this thread does not consist of any evidence that would actually be useful to the modeler. The modeler needs a clear image of a dazzle pattern (I know dazzle isn't quite the right term for MS 12mod's purpose, but I'll use it for clarity's sake) if they are to apply it on their model. This does not exist. So far, the only images being brought forth here in favour of the dazzle presence consist of fuzzy, tiny, noisy, hazy images that 1) fails to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the presence of dazzle or 2) more germane to the "this is important to the modeler" claim, a clear depiction of what that pattern is.

If the purpose of this discussion is to push for a clear answer for modelers, then some evidence of a quality needed to support 2) before the debate over 1) is even relevant.

As it stands, the only evidence provided are of a quality barely sufficient to address the historical inquiry of 1), nevermind the modeling purpose behind 2).

I welcome the discussion on whether the images provided show the presence of dazzle, but please don't couch it in some normative argument over whether one party or another is attempting to obfuscate the issue: there's no clear photo available to provide modelers with useful and accurate information anyway!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
I never said the details of the pattern are clear. Neither did the single person who made a comment on it agreeing that there is a pattern present on SCAAR 99. I only said there is one there and that it is similar to the one present on 6/1/42. The photos Martin posted on 10/30/17 have been viewed 119 times as I write this and no one else for what it is worth have said they are useless. There are also traces of camo visible in other photos to include the port side Laffey ones.

I did say, several times, that my sole purpose after having researched and built a model of the ship, something I suspect none of the other frequent visitors to this site have done, is to allow a model builder to review ALL photo evidence, not just the ones that support the position the ship was never re painted after late June of 42. Once a 1/350 Atlanta model shows up my guess is Juneau will be a prime target for model builders. I suspect most builders are like me and get rather unhappy when they discover they just created an inaccurate model. My 1/192 builder friend I know gets very unhappy, so it is not just me. Those are the ones I am trying to make sure have all of the evidence. Not the ones here now, since there appear to be none anyway, but future ones. My guess is not everyone who has seen the entire photo evidence would agree that it is all useless and proves nothing. Evidence of a pattern both on the hull and the superstructure is there for anyone who cares to see it. Not the entire pattern, just traces of it. Obviously not enough to create masks that are accurate and best guess by the builder would be involved.

Among other things it seems to prove the starboard bow was repainted in 2 tones of grey. Clearly visible in the 80 G photo on the site multiple times to include the 10/30/17 enhancements. Also visible in SCAAR 99. So are we going to say something visible in 2 photos, from 2 different cameras which greatly reduces the potential for camera malfunctions, not 1 photo, is useless and means nothing? I could be proven wrong but I suspect most future model builders who see that evidence will consider it to be worthwhile and accurate.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Gentlemen,

I would like to post the following photo AND caption from Glenn R Arnolds - Warship Perspectives -Atlanta Class Cruisers in WWII, published 1998.

Not sure how much faith some of you experts place in said photo and caption, or if it has been 'discredited' before, I leave that to you to decide / comment on, but if correct, well................................

Oh by the way, while this has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever, while never having served in the navy (or military of any sort) I bet I am the only person on this forum that has not only seen up-close an Atlanta Class cruiser in the flesh, but have literally touched and explored one. Argh, it's a tough life, but someone has to do it ;-)


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

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
KevinD wrote:
I bet I am the only person on this forum that has not only seen up-close an Atlanta Class cruiser in the flesh, but have literally touched and explored one. Argh, it's a tough life, but someone has to do it ;-)

Soooo...go find a few pieces of the Juneau and let us know what the correct pattern was. See - problem solved! :heh:
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
How are photos of salt stains on dark color USN ships relevant to this discussion?

Because earlier, you said this:
FRED BRANYAN wrote:
Each and every photo in such smooth conditions shows no ripple effect/closely spaced waves going half way up the hull. They all show long/smooth swells at a rather small height beside the hull. The aerial shows very little extension away from the hull although the speed is unknown. This includes the close range photo of Atlanta during her high speed trial. Seems safe to assume if a wake is going to climb half way up the hull that is the time for it to happen. I have 2 San Juan Santa Cruz photos taken from the #3 1.1 director which appear to show pretty much what the aerial does, with the wake a little wider at the stern probably due to high speed. There is no photo evidence of a ripple/closely spaced wake required to create the pattern in the SCAAR 99 photo in either the Atlanta or my San Juan photos. Or in any of the other CLAA photos on this site or anywhere else to my knowledge in the Pacific in 1942.

The photos of other type of ships at Santa Cruz also do not show wakes going half way up the hull.

Perhaps if either of the surviving CLAAs were caught in the late war typhoons maybe we can locate ripple wakes in photos of them.

Considering the photo evidence it appears safe to assume the SCAAR 99 photo showing a dark pattern on the lower portion of a light color hull up to the bow is what it looks like--a camo pattern.

You seem to be making the assertion that what we may be seeing has to be a camouflage pattern, because it can't be residual wave action (at least, that is how I am taking it). The photos of the other ships shows that - even in relatively calm seas - there is wave action 1/2 up the hull on different ships with different hull forms. Including two that don't move through the water nearly as fast as Juneau (and kicking up more wave action).

Personally, the close ups don't convince me one way or the other of what I'm seeing. Again, I don't think many - if any - minds have been changed by this discussion.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
You seem to be making the assertion that what we may be seeing has to be a camouflage pattern, because it can't be residual wave action (at least, that is how I am taking it). The photos of the other ships shows that - even in relatively calm seas - there is wave action 1/2 up the hull on different ships with different hull forms. Including two that don't move through the water nearly as fast as Juneau (and kicking up more wave action).

I guess I am blind. Where are these photos showing wakes half way up the side of a CLAA? Where is there one that shows such wake action on a ship about a mile away?

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:38 am 
Offline

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

I never got the WR ATLANTA class book, at least I don't think I did. I loose track of so many books in my library. :big_grin:

I have Arnold's FLUSH-DECKER book and like it. He has a lot of great photos in it. But, his method of presenting them and his research is rather shallow. there are errors in his assumptions. He concentrated on collecting photos, but doesn't research the "why" of what is going on. He apparently didn't bother consulting the book that Rod Dickson wrote on USS JUNEAU in 1993 for Floating Drydock. Rod did a lot of research in textual records, went through many photos, worked with survivors some 25 years ago, and came to the same conclusion that USS JUNEAU was repainted into a solid camo scheme sometime before her loss. I suspect that the 1 June 1942 photos were the only ones that Arnold found dating nearest to when USS JUNEAU was lost. As the photos posted in this thread show and the facts of her short career shows, she didn't stay in that scheme long. Capt. Swenson had her repainted in Argentia on 15-16 June 1942.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
USS JUNEAU on 16 September 1942

Image

and USS SAN JUAN on 20 August 1942

Image

andUSS SAN DIEGO on 13 April 1943

Image

and USS SAN JUAN on 21 July 1942, she looks kind of "light" when fully in strong sun light. As does USS BARKER (painted in Cavite Blue?) and USS KANAWHA (painted in Ms 21)

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
MartinJQuinn wrote:
Soooo...go find a few pieces of the Juneau and let us know what the correct pattern was. See - problem solved! :heh:

Certainly - if you'd care to pay the expenses I'll give it a damn good try. I suspect you have the location where she sank then? :heh:
But I think, without even putting your hand in your pocket that you are going to find that she is found sooner rather than later anyway. :woo_hoo:

And when that happens I will be very surprised, after 75 years u/w, it will prove a thing (re camo).

Besides, how many other ships that almost / seemingly were literally blown to bits, (or even not) have been found in deep water that still showed their camo pattern? (A genuine question as I am no encyclopedia on deep, as in undiveable by divers, shipwrecks. Nor do I have my extensive library at had to search through and check same myself. And my memory doesn't serve me all that well at times. :wave_1: )

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Rick E Davis wrote:
I never got the WR ATLANTA class book, at least I don't think I did. I loose track of so many books in my library. :big_grin:


I am glad others too have lost track of what books they have. But I am assuming yours are at least 'at hand', while mine are in boxes about 9,000mls / 14,000kms away! :Mad_6:

Rick E Davis wrote:
I have Arnold's FLUSH-DECKER book and like it. He has a lot of great photos in it. But, his method of presenting them and his research is rather shallow. there are errors in his assumptions. He concentrated on collecting photos, but doesn't research the "why" of what is going on. He apparently didn't bother consulting the book that Rod Dickson wrote on USS JUNEAU in 1993 for Floating Drydock.


Now there's one I think I missed. But it course it could be in the above said boxes and forgotten about. A lot of water, literally, under the bridge since then. :big_grin:

But if I missed it, I don't know how, as I was gobbling up any / every book and photo I could find on Atlanta Class ships for our then current USS Atlanta Project.

Rick E Davis wrote:
Rod did a lot of research in textual records, went through many photos, worked with survivors some 25 years ago, and came to the same conclusion that USS JUNEAU was repainted into a solid camo scheme sometime before her loss. I suspect that the 1 June 1942 photos were the only ones that Arnold found dating nearest to when USS JUNEAU was lost. As the photos posted in this thread show and the facts of her short career shows, she didn't stay in that scheme long. Capt. Swenson had her repainted in Argentia on 15-16 June 1942.


Yes I cyberly know Rod and certainly respect his knowledge. As for the rest, well.................well, just well. :smallsmile:

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Rick E Davis wrote:
I have Arnold's FLUSH-DECKER book and like it. He has a lot of great photos in it. But, his method of presenting them and his research is rather shallow. there are errors in his assumptions. He concentrated on collecting photos, but doesn't research the "why" of what is going on. He apparently didn't bother consulting the book that Rod Dickson wrote on USS JUNEAU in 1993 for Floating Drydock.


KevinD wrote:
Now there's one I think I missed. But it course it could be in the above said boxes and forgotten about. A lot of water, literally, under the bridge since then. :big_grin:

But if I missed it, I don't know how, as I was gobbling up any / every book and photo I could find on Atlanta Class ships for our then current USS Atlanta Project.


Well, I just solved that 'problem' by buying a(nother?) copy of Rod's book on-line. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


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 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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