The Ship Model Forum

I just got off the phone with Ed Lavin. You can see his photo at http://www.ussslater.org/publications/s ... 18-11.html

Before I get into what he told me see my following posts:

11/20/15 1357
12/4/15 1237
12/15/15 1849
12/17/15 1148

I sent Ed the top 3 photos I sent to Rich in the post of 12/15/15. I did not send the photo that Martin posted on page 13 but I did describe it to him and I am going to mail him a copy of it.

With paper copies of the 3 photos showing a white and blue hull in front of him, he confirmed that is what Juneau looked like at Santa Cruz. He confirmed that Juneau was much lighter than San Diego. He also confirmed that San Diego had floater nets but could not remember exactly when or where they were installed. When I described the dark color of the mystery ship to him he thought it was San Diego. He was positive Juneau was not in any such color.

So, in summary we have a man on the ship, Maurice Beckner, from commissioning until 11/8/42 telling me it was a “very light grey”. We have a CV 8 crewman, Rich Nowatzki, telling me the port side of the ship was “whitish” but could not remember any blue. If the Laffey photos are accurate that is perfectly understandable. We have today a San Diego 20 MM gunner, Ed Lavin, who saw all the action on 10/26/42 telling me the San Juan Santa Cruz and NYC photos are a match for his memory of what Juenau looked like at Santa Cruz to include the blue paint on the hull. He also made it clear neither CLAA was a solid color and that San Diego was darker. Confirmed by the lousy photos of San Diego that show her camo.

As to the “expert” commentary below in the 12/29/15 2153 post concerning the memory of someone on the ship for 267 days minimum (Maurice told me he reported before it was commissioned but I did not get the date), I think they are quite capable of giving reliable testimony as to what their ship looked like. Especially considering he was only involved in one day of combat while on it other than the Wasp sinking if my memory of her war record is correct.

“As to what crewmen remember, I think that they had a lot more important things on their minds once the shooting started and that routine became lost.”

Model builders you can believe the all light or all dark photos in prior posts. Or you can believe the "expert" speculation not supported by any documents or records or photos as to supposed re painting. Or you can believe the people who were there.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

As reference here are two images I have of USS SAN DIEGO (CL-53) and that I posted earlier, one before and one after the Battle of Santa Cruz. I would like to have more, but I ran out of time to hunt for more at NARA. The Card Catalog didn't list many photos in 1942 and the ones they did, I seem to already have.

USS SAN DIEGO at Pearl Harbor in a photo dated 14 June 1942. Note no SG radar, no amidships life rafts below the 20-mm gun gallery, and no floater net baskets/bundles. She is painted in a more or less "standard" Ms 12R or Ms 12mod. Also, note the open bridge bulwark atop the bridge.


USS SAN DIEGO at Espiritu Santo in a photo dated 18 February 1943. Note that a SG radar has been installed on the foremast (when? Likely at Pearl Harbor) on a small platform below the SC-1 radar. Also, note that life rafts have been installed by this date below the 20-mm gun gallery and that no floater net baskets/bundles are visible along the 01 deck level. She has had her hull painted in 5-N and retains a Ms 12R scheme on her superstructure. Again note the open bridge bulwark seen quite well here.


If the cruiser (IMAGE A in my 29 December 2015 post) that appears in 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513 isn't USS JUNEAU, then the other cruiser that can be seen in 80-G-304512 in this close-crop view (IMAGE G in my 29 December 2015 post) is JUNEAU.


I identified the cruiser in IMAGE A as USS JUNEAU based NOT on color, but on configuration details.

Please also note the canvas bloomers. They are either white or natural canvas. Notice the contrast of the canvas with the paint on the superstructure and hull. If the superstructure was "primarily" still an off-white do you think there would be this much contrast? The ship is NOT in shade and the sun is almost high noon.



I find it strange that USS JUNEAU reported REPAINTING the superstructure on 15-16 June 1942 to 5-H and "off-white". NO ONE knows what that new scheme/pattern looked like. The only photo available is an overexposed one from 16 September 1942 that only shows a light shade without the pattern being readily visible. Then how can JUNEAU still look as she did when she left NYNY 1 June on 26 September 1942? Also, USS MEMPHIS reports that JUNEAU's portside and starboard are different patterns and contrasts. Further JUNEAU was dry-docked at Balboa, CZ to repair a fuel tank leak and had her hull bottom repainted. How much if any "touch-up" was done to the hull then?

I did NOT doctor the original photos or the scans. The USN didn't doctor the photos. Fred saw the originals at NARA and anyone can look at them there and can see that this 1/2-in size image has not been "touched up". JUNEAU's crew would have repainted over her lighter scheme and with bleed through that can produce a shade lighter than other ships like NORTHAMPTON and HORNET (as part of her Ms 12R scheme) painted with 5-N much earlier and touched up often.

You can look at the photos and decide for yourself HOW this cruiser is painted.

No one said you doctored the originals.

Maybe you can explain why 3 people who were there are consistent in their description of a light colored ship as Juneau, why Santa Cruz photos confirm San Diego was in the summer of 42 pattern you posted above, and why nonetheless we have with Hornet a solid dark color CLAA that is nowhere close in color to San Diego (despite books labeling the ship as her) and nowhere near how the witnesses describe Juneau? And your expert forensic proof that no one screwed around with the original or the camera created this mystery is located where? And where might we find the records or photos that prove your guess she was repainted into the solid dark color during down time? And if you have neither why don't you stick with your destroyers and give this topic a break.

By this time next week we just might have a 4th eye witness confirming the NYC type paint job was still on it. What are you going to do if that happens, say 4 eyewitnesses are all nuts? Your "expert" opinion sure as h__ seems to be saying that about the 3 I have communicated with. Real class.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Sorry Fred, I think you need to look in the mirror.

It is not an insult to question someone's memory. It is a duty to the memory of those who did not make it back to get the facts correct. There are many reasons someone might miss-remember a fact or detail. Somewhere between the documents and oral histories lies the truth.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Fred,

I know a man who was in the USAAC in WW-II. He flew B-17's at Midway and during the Battle of the Bismarck Sea. I spoke with him about his experiences and in the latter battle, he was credited with sinking an IJN cruiser. None were present for the battle, and all have been confirmed to have been sunk elsewhere. He said that at one point he personally saw 22 ships burning simultaneously. Only 16 ships were present, 8 DDs and 8 cargo/transport ships, and their sinkings were spread out over a couple of days. Furthermore, 4 of the DDs survived. You will never convince this man that he didn't sink a cruiser or that his squadron didn't sink at least 22 ships. I know him to be an honest and honorable man. He isn't lying. He is just mistaken.

On a different detail, but same subject, while researching the AN/SPG-49 radar I communicated with about two dozen FTMs who worked on the radars, including two instructors in the radar schools. Some of them worked on these radars for 15 or more years on several ships. You might think that their memories would be a good source of information on this subject.

I asked them all what the tracking mode pulsed power output was for the radar (3 megawatts). This is a simple numerical figure, and something that everyone who worked on the radars had to know (they tested the output frequently - sometimes daily). This value never changed during the entire 17 year service life of these radars. It is something they should easily remember. I also thought I remembered the correct output.

They were answering the question 30-40 years after they last worked on the radars - they were all out of service before 1980.

I got a range of answers with outputs from 5 kilowatts to 6 gigawatts! The radar school instructors were wrong. All but four of these experienced '49 technicians were wrong. I was wrong.

I asked a dozen or so GMMs who worked on the Talos missiles how often they tested the missiles. Each missile was serviced monthly to replace a rechargeable battery, and tested every other month. So the GMMs had to remove every missile from storage and move them to a test cell at least once a month. There they opened them up to replace batteries and to run tests, so it wasn't a simple task, and with dozens of missiles on board it was a task they performed almost daily for years while they were in service.

Again, I got a range of answers and only two men were correct.

I have done several oral histories with elderly people and it isn't unusual for them to tell a different version of a story every time they tell it.

So much for the reliability of memories! I don't mean disrespect to any of these people, but you just can't depend upon memories. If you have nothing other than memories to go on you have no proof.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

Given the above post, it seems a good time to post some thoughts I have been meaning to post on this thread for a while.

Now I realize this post may get my ‘offside’ with some / many folks who treat a veterans word as ‘gospel’ and that my comments my come a bit late here, but with all due respect to ALL concerned, I just have to say that I am simply stunned by how much faith folks - not just here but in other forums / research situations - place in the memory of the (the duly venerated) WWII vets.

As an underwater explorer involved in the very first (discovery) dives on numerous WWII warships, and the actual detailed damage survey of several (USS Atlanta being one) I have found (i.e. proven) - with all due respect and no offence meant - that vets memories to be wrong in more cases than not when it comes to what they thought happened during their ships final action, or in some case even what took place on board in the time (weeks / months) preceding their ships demise, or how their ship was configured (at the time of sinking). Of course, when one thinks about it, this should come as no surprise really, given the circumstances of those times. But still some / many people hold the vets memories as, if not Gospel, then written in stone and woe be anyone who should question them.

Be that as it may, I mean no disrespect with this post for the vets who I hold in the highest regards, nor do I think that they intentionally tried/try to mislead by any means, but given my first hand experiences (and my colleagues and my ability to ‘travel back in time’ as it were when visiting the wrecks unseen since they sank and see first hand the configuration / damage or lack there of), errors in memories are what we found time and time again.

And the vets I dealt with (circa 1995 to 2010) were all still very very much ‘mind sharp’ and 100% sure of what they were telling me. Or so it seemed. In several (almost all) instances it took underwater photos of said item or damage – or lack thereof - to convince them they were mistaken.

Of course I don’t expect anyone to ‘change religion’ because of this post, and while I certainly wouldn’t say to treat a vets memories with only a ‘grain of salt’, I certainly learned not to treat then as anything like Gospel either.

Kevin Denlay

I need to look in the mirror? Care to explain that "expert" comment?

Meanwhile we have 3 people who were there answering a very simple question--was the ship as it appeared in the NYC/San Juan photos or in the one Martin posted. All 3 not knowing or in touch with the other 2. All responding in the same manner--it was very light not dark. We are not dealing with missles or complex weapon systems or radar on this issue.

Meanwhile Matthews opinion that the photo is questionable is ignored. Too bad we have not heard anything further from him. By the way his qualifications sound a whole lot more expert to me.

Meanwhile 3 people who were there confirm the photo taken by San Juan showing a light color is accurate and the dark one is not. Because it does not have a NARA number one "expert" labels it as "supposed" while the other one says no NARA number does not mean it is not valid. And they both ignore it as if it did not exist. So how do you explain how both that one and the one Martin posted were taken the dame day within miles of each other and show what appear to be completely different ships. Woops, sorry I forgot it is "supposed". Real consistent. The San Juan photo came most likely from a family member of a crewman with no NARA number, therefore it is useless compared to the one Martin posted with a NARA number. Sorry I forgot the logic here.

And if we are going to get into personal experiences and memory retention let me relate a few.

My father was in the Pacific for most of the war. He could sit and watch Victory at Sea and other documentaries and ID ships by month and year before the narrator said a word about them. By configuration and damage. This went on for 40+ years after the war. He ID'd Franklin that way and shows on after his death confirm the ID. So this expert crap that combat is going to erase details of memory is highly debatable to put it mildly.

I hosted 3 reunions of the Mustin Hornet Association and attended several more. The vets I met had clear memories of what they saw confirmed by books I read. The few I asked about questions for models gave me accurate answers confirmed by photos I got from my model club after I talked to them.

In late June of 1982 I had a soldier get out of my OH 6 helicopter from the R rear seat after we tried to tell him not to get out, walk the length of the tail boom, remember he was wearing my spare flight helmet and that I was in the L front seat, then do a R turn forward march right into the tail rotor. He took off the R side of his face a few fingers on his R hand and shattered his R arm. Had the throttle not been down to flight idle it probably would have killed him. My helmet saved his life per the doctors. He spent a year in Walter Reed. Aside from the 2 separate days my parents died this was the worst of my life. And let me assure you I remember quite well everything I saw and did down to the color of our OH 6, its lack of stripes on the tail rotor, no warning arrow on the tail boom, its tail number--15979, where the red crosses were on the Huey medevac, where it landed, what we went thru to get it there, every detail. Not long after it happened I discussed the mental and emotional impact of this with my brother a Vietnam vet and he said it was the same as his reaction to combat in general and 2 friendly fire episodes in particular. Of the vets I have spoken to about Santa Cruz, about half of them break up thinking of lost friends and/or what they saw and did. I would be willing to bet my life their memory for details had not faded either. For exactly the same reasons mine has not of my accident above. Especially as to the simple question as to what color a ship was. Oh by the way when I look in the mirror on that event I can still see and hear the detailed passenger briefing I gave the man before we took off, which he acknowledged to the accident investigation folks. Included in that briefing was my SOP commentary do not even think about going close to the tail and if you do this is what can happen. Had that briefing not happened pretty good chance I could have faced a court martial. It happened on our 2 week annual training, which is federal not state. UCMJ applies. Anyone who thinks this is fiction just rattle my cage I will be happy to give you the exact date and location and you can file a FOIA request with the safety folks at Ft Rucker. I never saw their report but I would guess it has photos of the soldier and the bent tail boom from the sudden stoppage of the entire drive train.

Any more commentary on why I trust vets to answer a simple question? Any more commentary on why I should not trust what these guys tell me when it is supported by the San Juan photo?

And for you "experts", may I suggest you deal only with provable facts not guesses and not advice about looking in mirrors. If I ever need such advice I will ask for it. Simple fact remains we have a serious conflict in 2 reliable photos neither proven to be altered (yet) of the same ship. A guess not supported by any fact that it was repainted during down time while a photo of it at Santa Cruz in light paint exists is not a fact. Then again I am just a dumb peon compared to you guys so I guess I should just keep quiet.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

You've been insulting people this way in this thread for quite some time. That is when I lost my respect for your position. And at this point it doesn't really matter what you or I think - the readers have enough examples from both sides to know who they will trust.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

You can call it insults if you wish. I call it candid opinions of 2 people whose whole arrogant tone and context is that they know way more than anyone else on the site and are the resident experts on how to refer to photos etc etc. This despite the fact both of you told me at NARA you had slim interest in the ship.

Unless another insult to our vets shows up this is the last time I will respond to either one of you.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Believing that memory is infallible is arrogant.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Fred,

I'm simply presenting the facts, laying out USS JUNEAU's timeline showing downtimes and times when she is known to have been painted and providing known images of her on known dates. True, I don't have all that much interest in JUNEAU, I didn't have a bias on her final camo appearance. But, I think that made me able to evaluate the 80-G-304513 image as an unbiased person. I spent about a day of my limited research time at NARA digging into this "question".

I have been in contact with Matthew and provided him with the full size scans that I made and the ones made from the original negatives at NARA so he could fully evaluate them. He has already "backed off" from calling the "photos doctored" after he talked to one of his friends who is more familiar with "Film Negatives and Prints" than modern digital versions. His initial processing wasn't applicable to film images. He is the one who made a comment to me about the "white bloomers", I didn't notice that. He has yet to give me a "final" answer. I'll let Matthew speak for what he found.

I contacted and provided the image and what I found to several individuals who DO have a lot of experience looking at USN WWII photos and can evaluate them on their own. One specifically, Chuck Haberlein, the retired head of the NHHC Photo Collection and who was Ballard's "expert" in ID'ing wrecks in Iron Bottom Sound during his expedition, says these photos show NO SIGNS of censoring. He said if the USN was going to censor anything, it would be the radars and the Mk 4 radars are clearly visible.

My "provable facts" that USS JUNEAU was repainted between 16 September and 26 October are the PHOTOS ... two of them ... 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513. The only downtime that JUNEAU had when she COULD have repainted and had plenty of time to do so, was 26 September to 2 October. Also, photos of SAN DIEGO shows that she retained at least her superstructure Ms 12R camo into February 1943. That would seem to eliminate her.

The two images from SAN JUAN's website you provide as PROOF that JUNEAU was in light color are mere thumbnails compared to the scans Roger and I made of the 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513 images. One of the SAN JUAN website images shows a dark colored ship and one shows a light colored ship. Below are the "Full Size" of these images available.





These two images are too small to ID the ship BY CONFIGURATION in the photo beyond it being an ATLANTA class cruiser. I tried and you have said that you tried to get in contact with the couple that supplied those images and neither of us has had any success. I wanted to consider those images in the discussion, but there is nothing to evaluate. One shows a dark ship and one shows a light ship. Just like one distant image of TF 17 I scanned shows ALL the ships LIGHT and several other distant shots I scanned show ALL the ships to be DARK. You have chosen one image of the pair as proof and IGNORED all the other photos.

From JUNEAU's War Diary starting after JUNEAU mistakes a message sent to the six TBFs (one of these aircraft took the subject images) from HORNET to proceed to USS ENTERPRISE and heads to ENTERPRISE herself;

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) separate 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.

1338 - Planes from HORNET begin landing in water as ENTERPRISE appears unable to accommodate more planes.

The 1233 entry was the last mention of Firing on enemy aircraft that day by JUNEAU. So if the photos from the SAN JUAN website are of JUNEAU taken by SAN JUAN ... or they could be photos of SAN JUAN taken by JUNEAU? ... then they were taken around about 1230-1235. Which is only about a half an hour after JUNEAU left the TF17 formation at about the time that 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513 were taken.

I value vets and what they have to say about their experiences, but as others have said, I know that their memories JUST like anyone else, is not infallible. But, none of the gentlemen you have mentioned has addressed this forum directly, we only have what you say they said. There is no way for us to ask them questions or to point out things.

Modelers and anyone else can decide for themselves. You are free to paint your model was you wish. But, painting based on memories without any photos of a pattern changed 15-16 June 1942, will be difficult.

The photos presented in this thread are causing a lot of confusion about the colors of the ships. I have done a lot of black and white film developing and printing. One thing seems very obvious about the two photos in Rick's last post (10 Jan 2016 2:23 PM). They are exposed VERY differently. Look at the sky - the blue sky was the same color and brightness when both pictures were made, but the sky is two very different shades of gray in the photos.

In Juneau-lg.jpg the sky and the ship are very light and there isn't much contrast between clouds and sky. It appears that the exposure was set to expose the ocean correctly and the lighter objects are a bit washed out - maybe to improve chances that dark aircraft could be seen better. This could also be the result of over exposure when the print was made, or even inadequate time in the developer. There were a lot of ways to screw up a picture (I speak from experience).

In Juneau2-lg.jpg the sky and ship are very dark and the clouds are bright. Also, the foreground details on the ship where the photo was taken are also very dark. It looks like the exposure was set to get good contrast on the clouds and lighter objects. Again, the exposure could have been juggled while making the print, or the picture could have been left in the developer too long.

It is also possible that Juneau-lg.jpg was made with the sun behind the camera, so the ship is brightly lighted. The reflections off the water are contrasty like you would get with the sun at your back.

Juneau2-lg.jpg may have been shot with the sun behind the ship. This would also explain why the foreground details are black in the photo. Another possibility is that the ships were passing through the shadow of one of the clouds. The water around the ship looks as if it is in shadow - no bright reflections.

Finally, a range of filters were used with black and white photography to increase or decrease contrast - of the overall photo or just for specific colors. Juneau-lg.jpg looks like it might have been shot with a yellow filter to decrease sky contrast, and Juneau2-lg.jpg might have been shot with a red filter to increase sky contrast.

So it is quite possible that both photos are of the same ship on the same day. Given all the variables involved it is impossible to say one way or the other based on the photos.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

I should note that I haven't been able to do much work in the last month, due to progression of the paralysis of my right arm.

I have only managed to do a few things in the last week, and even that caused me to have some severe issues from the pain caused by the paralysis.

I am trying to write a script that will help clear up much of the noise in the images, and to hopefully recover the actual colors, based upon contrast measurement with a known value (such as white shorts on a person, a known direction of the sun, and a known black object - or an object that can be contrasted sufficiently accurately from a known color given the sunlight... That latter one is difficult).

Hopefully, I will be able to get that done, at least, as pecking at the keyboard with my left hand isn't completely impossible (as seen here). And, if I can manage to go long enough without needing painkillers, then I can double or triple my dose for a day to be able to actually use my freaking arm to do some actual work.

OH!

And I might be able to resolve the tops of the Masts of the shot of the Atlanta-class ship from the carrier (was it the Wasp?) that I previously thought was doctored.

I can make out some signal in the contrast. I just hope it is enough to make anything out of.

And, Phil.... I've already been over the contrast differences in the exposures.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew and Phil

I guess you could say my prime heartburn with this whole discussion is I am quoted directly at the top of page 16, shortly followed by discussion of conspiracy theorists, then contact 3 eyewitnesses one of whom confirms he saw blue on the hull at Santa Cruz, said testimony essentially ignored because it does not match the dark ship photo in question and therefore presumed to be unreliable. Despite the fact no one on this site was in touch with them other than me, due to their age or for whatever unknown reason they are treated as unreliable and the dark ship photo more reliable than them. Rich Nowatzki is a published author, mentally is sharp as a tack, and I consider him reliable. I have been in touch with him for over 20 years. If he says he saw a "whitish" ship right beside his at Santa Cruz, I would be willing to bet the current lottery if I win it he saw what he said he saw. The other 2 I recently found through the internet. In my phone conversations with them they were obviously old but seemed credible to me. For reasons stated yesterday for personal reasons plus my contact with USN vets I have a whole lot of confidence that people seeing things they should not see are going to have a life time very clear memory of the vicinity they see them in. Whatever the ultimate outcome to the photo analysis by you guys, I must confess to blow them off as being not worth listening to and/or ignoring what they say I find extremely insulting to the people who were there.

I think it is fair to say either the San Juan light photo or the dark photos are wrong. Unless the ship could act like a lizard and change colors. And I hope one or both of you guys can do something close to the professional forensic analysis these photos need to determine what ones are accurate and what ones are camera or other factor junk. I tried to find the San Juan photos at NARA on 12/28/15 no luck. The family that gave them to the San Juan site did not respond to emails asking where they got them. So I hope you can do something with whatever you currently have. Appears unlikely you are going to get anything new or different or better.

I wish you both good luck in your efforts. Matthew, hope your arm gets better.

For what extremely little will probably come out of it I emailed the Eta Jima museum this weekend asking for any reports that may exist from the 11/13/42 gun fight and I 26 that describe the ship. I sent the request in both English and Japanese. Chance of success for that probably in winning the lottery category. Today I emailed the Espiritu Santo Chamber of Commerce and a newspaper in Noumea asking for help in locating any local photos of Juneau that may exist from Oct-Nov of 42. Chance of success for that probably in the range of the Eagles ever winning a Super Bowl. Acts of pure desperation but maybe a miracle will happen.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Fred,

I understand your frustration! I have been working for 12 years to try to determine the configuration of the USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 in 1971 - while I was serving aboard the ship. It was a chameleon, changing every time we went into home port in Yokosuka or into Subic in the Philippines. I have a couple dozen typed pages of changes I have discovered during the ship's 17 years active service.

Sometimes 1st Division painted black non-skid walkways on the foc'sle around the anchor gear and sometimes it was just deck gray. One division would paint hand rails gray while another would paint them white. Every time a division got a new Chief Warrant Officer things would get repainted his way. And we got a new Charlie Noble XO that wanted all paint removed from brass and everything polished. One Captain wanted gray "warship like" awnings and another wanted spotless white. These things changed a lot in the 27 months I was aboard.

If you want to see another endless discussion and speculation about ship's colors just look in on the USS Arizona pages to see how she was painted on 7 December 1941. No one is really sure, even though parts of the ship are still available for archaeological examination.

One thing to remember is that ships are constantly being repainted, even when at sea. If for no other reason it is done just to give the crew something to do. So small modifications happen continuously. Occasionally the whole ship, or at least the hull or the superstructure were repainted. And when that happened it was with whatever paint was on hand. Ever see the movie "Operation Petticoat" where they didn't have enough red lead to prime the entire submarine so they mixed in white lead and got a shade of pink?

I'm not sure any ship was ever painted pink - even in primer - but they weren't always a standard blue or gray. They were painted with whatever was at hand because it was more important to prevent rust than it was to look pretty. So the color "on paper" did not always match the actual color. Even if the fellows on the ship recalled a "light gray" we can't be certain what the exact color mix was.

While we were on gunfire missions in Vietnam we saved the brass powder shell casings. Most were returned to the ammunition ships for recycling, but some were "lost at sea." In Hong Kong we traded these to Hong Kong Sally in return for a paint job on the hull. Who knows what they used for paint, but the ship came out a reasonable approximation of Ocean Gray with no rust showing. It was good enough for fighting a war - even for the flagship of the 7th Fleet!

So, if I were you, I would just give it my best guess. I really doubt that the "dark" ship in the photos was really dark. I suspect it is just a bad picture. Don't get all balled up in the details. Just build the best model you can and present it to the world as the best approximation to the real thing you can make.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

I've already done a contrast study on the "Darker" Ship in the foreground (Which I think is the Laffey, if it is the same photo to which you are referring).

And doing contrast studies with the blue shirts being warn by the crew (and how much they have been darkened), leads to the ship itself being just a typical Ms. 21, 5-N paint job, which is actually darker than most modelers here depict it.

But the way that photograph was taken, you could take another ship in entirely 5-N and put it in place of the Juneau, and it too would look considerably lighter given the photographic settings used on the Konica Cameras used by the Military, and the arrangement of the subject.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew and Phil

In another desperate act I was trolling you tube last night for footage of Noumea and Espiritu Santo.

Some footage of harbors but nothing of Juneau that I could ID, or any other CLAA.

There was one exception. If either of you guys have any talent for cleaning up really lousy quality b and w footage you might wish to visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDR51KimCSo . From 041-1:08 you will see an example of the film title of censored film. Looks to be a right broadside view of a CLAA minus masts and other details. A tiny bit of aft hull MS 12 mod seems to show up along the way, if correct it might be San Diego. Range camera to target I am guessing at least 2 miles maybe more. Overall horrible quality makes a positive ID next to impossible. Unlike several other films I found on the site there is no NPC number at the beginning so finding it at NARA is probably impossible. No mention at all of ID of any ship on the you tube caption.

About all this film tells us is there still might be footage or stills hiding from us out there somewhere.

I continue to wish you guys good luck with what little we have.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Phil

Not to worry, I trust vets a whole lot more than I trust photos.

The eventual model will be "whitish" as per what 3 or them told me, unless proof beyond a shadow of a doubt shows up in the meantime. I would bet on the lottery before I would bet on that happening.

I enjoyed your story of the good results of shell casings going overboard. Unfortunately the army had much tighter control of tank main gun expended rounds and we could not cause them to go into an ocean. I occasionally wonder how much German great suds we could have gotten armed with such trading material.

If you could compute a way to slither onto the helicopter gunnery range at Yakima Firing Center, I know for a fact there are a bunch of 20 and now probably 30 MM casings there. They never picked them up as far as I know during the 8 years I went there 73-76 and 86-91. Bad news while policing them up you might step on the front end of one that did not go off that changes its mind.

Have fun in the meantime.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

The footage is too low information. There is a lot that could be recovered in terms of edge-detection by a very high powered visual processing system, but it is far beyond my pay-grade.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16