The Ship Model Forum

Not an expert on this class of ship by any means. But, does it appear the foremast of the Juneau has a more inclined rake to it in the first picture compared to Atlanta in the second? May be it's just the angle the picture was taken from.

For what little it is worth the camo pattern on the March 42 photo on the forward stack does not match the pattern in the 6/1/42 Juneau photo. Beyond the stack I cannot extract much superstructure camo detail from the photo. The hull pattern I cannot find on any photo of Juneau or Atlanta. Then again clean/clear shots of Atlanta camo are rather scarce to my knowledge. Whatever ship it is the photo is useless for a 10/42 model of either ship.

Meanwhile, does anyone have any decent PORT side photos of Juneau camo?

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

What a great photo. Interesting how it looks like the Haze Grey was carried onto the hull.

_________________
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

Martin, actually I suspect that USS ATLANTA is wearing a "standard" Ms 12mod(R) scheme with 5N and 5O on the hull and 5O and 5H on the superstructure. The "hazy" weather (maybe drizzle?) conditions kind of subdue the colors even at this limited range. Some of the USS SAN JUAN photos do indeed look like 5H was carried down to the hull sides in a few places.

There are actually a fair number of USS ATLANTA (CL-51) photos, unfortunately the ones I have scanned are starboard side views.

An interesting set of images follows that shows the evolution of USS ATLANTA's camo. The first image shows ATLANTA after returning from Shakedown on 19 March 1942. By the end of of her Post-Shakedown Availability (about 30 March 1942), she apparently had her camo scheme on the hull altered from her May 1942 photo (2nd image) taken an Pearl Harbor and during the Battle of Midway (3rd image). But, the superstructure pattern was little altered. The last image (4th image) shows her during her 22-23 October 1942 layover at Espiritu Santo by which time her hull has been repainted with 5N. But, her superstructure appears to be the same as applied during her fitting out at NYNY. ATLANTA was delivered by Federal painted in "Peacetime" scheme and her Ms12mod(R) camo was applied by NYNY during her prolonged fitting out there.









The first four ATLANTA class cruisers exhibit different Ms 12mod(R) Camo "philosophies". The Federal built units delivered to NYNY, USS ATLANTA and USS JUNEAU, show the use of small patterns on both the hull and superstructure. While the Bethlehem-Quincy built units delivered to BosNY exhibit the use of a larger size of patterns on the superstructure and to an extent on the hull as well. It appears that USS JUNEAU was painted by Federal prior to delivery to NYNY in a similar pattern as was applied to USS ATLANTA. But both during the fitting our period (11 February to 22 March 1942) and her Post-Shakedown Availability (21 May to 1 June 1942), JUNEAU had her camo altered with DIFFERENT patterns on at least the hull on the starboard and port sides. So she left NYNY in early June 1942 in an "Experimental Pair of Schemes" not even standard for Ms12mod(R). Plus as has been pointed out her superstructure (hull?) camo was altered again on 15 June 1942. There is a possibility that at least her hull scheme was further altered, even if only slightly, while at Balboa on 19-22 August 1942 during drydocking to repair a leaking fuel tank. Something that would require at least some "touch-up".

At any rate in mid-September 1942 she looked like this.



Fortunately for those who wish to model USS JUNEAU in her Battle of Santa Cruz camo, there are a couple of good photos of her. You decide the color.

If I may, it sure looks as if there are at least two places where the 5-H was carried down to the hull sides - right below the uppermost and the main deck level after 5" gun mounts...

It appears to me when you blow-up that image and several others where USS ATLANTA appears in the background, that they have been touching up the paint. Which is the "fresh" paint and which is the "old" paint is up to debate. The second image below is the closest to the camera, they were taking views on the stern of USS JUNEAU with that view and a couple of others.

I could indeed be fresh paint. On the other hand, Alabama carried 5H onto the hull as well...

_________________
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

In both photos Rick posted, the same two spots appear to be the same color as the lighter paint in the superstructure, which is 5-H, and a markedly different color than the 5-O spots, which match the dark color topside...

It isn't worth arguing about given that ATLANTA had her hull camo repainted shortly after this photo, during her Post-Shakedown Availability, likely as part of dry-docking to clean and repaint the below water areas prior to heading to the Pacific. Looking at the photos taken after her arrival in the Pacific shows that the camo pattern on the hull was different.

One of the reasons I think they are repainting some areas of ATLANTA's hull in these views is that there appear to be some crew/workmen alongside her in a boat(s) and some of the areas that are a different "shade" have clear vertical demarkation lines within the "lighter shade" areas, some that don't match where existing camo scheme demarkation are. Heck we could be looking at primer. I learned once I found color photos of some destroyers during WWII, that some of those "lighter areas" of paint ... are primer paint ... typically yellow. Trying to get absolutes of a ship's camo WHILE she is still being worked on in a yard is impossible. A photo can capture a scene that only existed for a couple of hours. I saw destroyers being worked on in 1972 at Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for transfer to Iran. They were in various shades of primer paint, blue, yellow, light gray. When our guide was asked about the different colors, he said that they painted the different colors to indicate what level of "completion" that work for that area was in. They would NOT let us take photos of the destroyers in dry-dock, too bad ... it would have been a colorful photo.

The degree of age and wear on paint changes the tone of paint, to what I'm not sure and what "fresh" paint would look like in contrast with old paint I don't know either without test patches. The paint on the hull really gets beat up during operation at sea. A common practice was to touch-up the paint during downtimes. Typical Shakedown at the time involved going to Casco Bay and maybe down to Guantanamo Bay. Plenty of time to beat up her paint job.

JUNEAU MODEL BUILDERS

I started the model on 3/3.

While cropping and enlarging several photos of the ship I had some luck with one of the Laffey photos using brightness/contrast to show the port hull blue camo pattern up to about the forward stack. If you want copies let me know. Martin Quinn also has them.

While working with one of the Laffey photos I noticed something else. The aft gun mounts do not appear to have blast bags. The port wing mount does appear to have blast bags. In the photo Martin posted on page 13 and the multiple repetitions of it since then the forward mounts definitely have blast bags. So does the starboard wing mount number 5. The 3 aft mounts do not appear to have blast bags. Same arrangement as the Laffey photo. Per my photos Atlanta and San Juan had no blast bags in the fall of 42. San Diego had them on all 8 mounts per my photos. As for 10/26/42 that puts this ship in a unique category. Since the other 3 Atlanta class ships did not have this mix it would appear that this photo does indeed show Juneau.

The boat deck on the same photo when enlarged seems to have either boats or refueling lines stacked on the deck. George Horton told me a long time ago San Diego did not have either on their boat deck at Santa Cruz. This would also seem to suggest the ship is Juneau.

Note the black straps below the whaleboat in the 6/1/42 NYC photo. They appear in the Santa Cruz photo above also. This would also suggest Juneau. By the way on line damage commentary says the first torpedo blew off her port whaleboat. Unusual for these ships at the time it appears she was carrying 2 whaleboats through the fall of 42.

As for the 1st 2 guesses above perhaps some ex navy or photo folks can comment on the accuracy of my guesses.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Fred,

Was the photo without "blast bags" taken in port or at sea? You have to be careful with any photo taken in port because ships are always working on something in port, and photos may not show the normal configuration at sea. It could be that the crew was making replacements.

****

By the way, what you are calling "blast bags" are really "bloomers" - that is the official term and what they were called in the blueprints and training manuals. It is what we still called them when I was in the Navy in the 60s and 70s. Bloomers strap around the gun barrels forward of the point where recoil carries the gun back unto the gun port shield. The aft end of the bloomers attaches to a metal framework called a "buckler" that fastens to the face of the turret/gun mount. See the attached picture from OP 805.

Bloomers are water seals, and they are especially important on mounts on the forward part of ships. Watch movies of ships in storms and the reason will be apparent. The front end of destroyers and cruisers was submerged much of the time in heavy seas. I have seen pictures of several ships that had bloomers only on the forward turrets/mounts. Some ships didn't have bloomers on any mounts. This is the sort of thing that could be created and installed by a ship's crew (it didn't require a shipyard or tender), so it isn't unusual that different ships of the same class might have different arrangements.

One clue is whether the bloomers hang loosely like cloth or appear to be thicker and hold a shape. Our bloomers were government issue made with multiple layers of canvas and black rubber - a very thick Mackintosh. Ships crews could piece together simple canvas bags to serve as bloomers. So even if a ship didn't have bloomers in its approved parts list the crew could still make them using canvas from the ships stores, with bucklers cobbled together from simple flat bar from damage control supplies. Or they could have them made on a tender in forward areas.

The 5"/38 mounts had a rubber tube water seal all the way around the gun port shield. When the guns were inactive the tube seal was expanded by pressurizing with air from the gas ejector system. This was the primary water seal for the gun. When the guns were active the seal was collapsed to allow the gun port shield to rotate freely. If this seal was leaking the crew might cobble together bloomers to help keep the gun mount dry in heavy weather.

Phil

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

Phil,

You are 100%, at least for post-WWII that Bloomers were for keeping water out and not as "Blast Bags". There was a "Blast Shield" of sorts that kept out any blast effects from inside the mounts that was attached to the gun barrel and moved with it in elevation. See attached. During WWII the USN spent a fair amount of time "trying" to come up with a solution for the "water intrusion" issues with the 5-in/38-cal mounts (both single and twin). The crews were constantly replacing destroyed/torn/worn out Bloomers made with canvas. I have run into correspondence about this problem several times at NARA. Ships would even run out of canvas they kept onboard.



Several different designs of Bloomers were tried. None were successful. Charleston Navy Yard played with a method of sliding metal plates to cover the gun ports for a couple of years during WWII and it can be seen on several destroyers built at or worked on by Charleston Navy Yard in 1943-45. Ultimately this method was selected as the new STANDARD in Spring 1945 as the "Charleston Navy Yard Sliding Metal Gun Port Covers" to be installed on the FORWARD mounts. An example of this method is provided below. It was being installed, on at least destroyers, in the last half of 1945 units under refit ... for some destroyers anyway. Apparently this method didn't pan out as being "less effort to maintain" because they were completely gone by the beginning of the Korean War.

There was another method under development as well, the inflatable rubber gaskets as you described. This method was to be used on AFT mounts. It apparently was decided to be used on all mounts in the post-WWII era. In photos of destroyers in the 1950s-1960s, some used canvas bloomers and some didn't.

In reference to the use of Bloomers on the ATLANTA class, it is difficult to be steadfast that they were used or not used for 100% of the time that these ships were operational. Replacing the Bloomers at sea was done (some photos of destroyers show crude methods of replacements) particularly on the forward mounts and whenever they anchored at a forward area after an active period of service. On destroyers the practice was to "keep" Bloomers on any FORWARD facing mounts that would "most likely" get water. Aft mounts may or may not have them. Cruisers "should" have less water intrusion issues than the destroyers, even small ones like the ATLANTA class. But, it does seem that what "rules" a given ship followed depended on what the CO (or Chief) said needed to be done.

Phil

Apologies the term blast bags comes from after market vendors for the gun mounts. Us ex army folks are not up on correct terminology ha!

If you take a look at the enlarged/cropped version of 80 G 304512 on the previous page, directly below the washed out Laffey photo, you will see a photo of what is probably Juneau based on multiple analysis of the features of the ship visible in the photo. If you download that photo and then enlarge the gun mounts, hopefully you will agree the forward 3 mounts and the wing mount number 5 have bloomers, the 3 aft mounts do not. While preparing to paint the mounts on the model I cropped/enlarged all photos I could find of the mounts, most from the on line and 6/1/42 photos, they are all without bloomers. I would be happy to share them with you if you wish.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Fred
What scale is your model?

James

James

I have 2 of the old 1/350 resin kits on hand, one BWN 4 piece hull and one YKM 2 piece hull. I am not dazzled by the fit of the hull pieces on either one of them. I was hoping Dragon would produce a plastic kit of the ship which is one reason I delayed building the model until now. Another reason is I am going to try to re produce the mask procedure that Gabriel Djinn used on my Hughes model for Juneau. That could easily put completion in the 6 month range. Looking at photos of the actual ship I think I can re produce the hull patterns accurately but due to smaller size patterns and multiple curves not the superstructure patterns. The 5" mounts I am doing first and by hand. No way I know of to get masking tape cut that small for those patterns.

If it turns out this computer will not do the mask method that Gabriel used, I have a few ideas in my sick mind that might work for the superstructure.

I do not do WIPs but I do send periodic progress photos to a few fellow Battle of Santa Cruz students. If you would like to be included on those send me an email direct please.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

I like the YMW USS Alaska. It was the better of the two as far as how everything is layout out and the construction process.
You should post some photos comparing both kits. It would let people know more about the kits and help them decide which one they would like better.
I don't know much about either one and would be interested in seeing the differences.
All resin kits are more difficult to build than plastic ones.

I will be starting my own Juneau model soon.
Planning on modeling her from the March 42 photos. It will be in 1/96 scale and an rc running model.
I have a friend who did the Atlanta and I really want to see both of the running together.


Can you post a link to the mask method you mentioned. I would really like to learn about that.
I will need to find an easy way to paint her camouflage.

Thanks for all the information you have posted. It has been a real help.

James

Ditto from me please.

Are you referring to the Blue Water Navy kit versus Yankee ModelWorks? If so, Yankee ModelWorks bought the BWN molds, so theirs was an improved BWN. Yankee has since been acquired by Brandon of Freetime / BlueRidge Models.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

James and James

The link for Gabriel's method is here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160032

However if I read it correctly it does not include the portion for making stick on masks which is what he did for me for the Hughes model. I have sent him an email in the last few days asking him to send that info. I seem to recall it involved sophisticated equipment and/or computer programming. Once it arrives I will relay it here.

I just completed cropping Juneau photos to pretty much the size of the model forward and aft superstructure units. Awaiting to hear from Gabriel I am going to try to use the prints of my photos to do precise surgery on the patterns from the photos. If it works I will attach a few patterns to a superstructure unit with white glue and spray the other color over the paper masks. Once dry I will attempt to remove the masks with very wet Q tips. This is a method I have never attempted before. If it works I might just use that very labor intensive method. Trust me when I tell you trying to use a light table and masking tape and cutting the tape to match all of the curves and thin parts of patterns is out of the question for 1/350. For my San Diego model the method I used was fine for larger patterns but out of the question for the superstructure units on Juneau. I will however be using a similar method to San Diego for the Juneau hull.

As far as I know both the BWN and YKM kits are no longer available. The BWN was earlier and has a better supply of metal parts such as masts etc. Mine is at least 20 years old. I have it on reliable info both came from the same molds. I have never had luck trying to upload photos to this site but suffice to say if a Dragon kit existed I would not touch either one of them. If by some miracle you can find one I would suggest the BWN 2 piece upper/lower hull kit which I am told came out after the 4 piece hull. No idea whether that one also has the metal masts. Whichever kit I use it will involve a nuclear holacaust to try to get the hull pieces together, sanded, filled etc etc. San Diego took me about a month just to complete that issue. Only to complete the Santa Cruz fleet will I tolerate such aggravation. The 5" gun barrels on both are a disgrace, as are the 20 MM/1.1 guns, as are the torpedo tubes and whale boats, etc etc so either kit requires a major raid on your spares box or enriching the after market folks.

I hope this helps and I wish you both good luck on your models.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

I cut the link to the site for Gabriel above it is complete below.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160032

_________________
FRED BRANYAN