The Ship Model Forum

I wonder how the photog felt looking down the barrels of those aft fives’? Bet he hoped the pilot had the IFF on. After all friendly fire ain’t so friendly!

_________________
“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

It is kind of interesting to know how much IFF was in its infancy with the USN in 1942. Even though most ships and particularly the carriers had IFF systems installed, many of the USN aircraft on those carriers didn't. It took time for aircraft with the IFF systems to get through the pipeline. So there were plenty of times when approaching aircraft were "unknowns" and many ship's crews were "cautious" about them until certain. The TF Fighter Direction/Control, which the escorts depended on for verification that approaching aircraft were friend or foe, was normally on the carrier. With HORNET out of action, things really got confusing with visual checking required. In this case you can see that the aft mounts are all being trained by the aft Mk 37/Mk 4 director/radar on the lead aircraft (there were something like 3-4 Avengers in this group). In the Action Reports, there were complaints about getting good tracks on targets by the Mk 4 radar by some ships at Santa Cruz. I read in some other reports sent back to BuShips from destroyers in this period that power output and overall system operation for the early radars were impacted by failing electronic tubes. Reliability of the Mk 4 (and other radars) improved rapidly and with spare parts being more plentiful, issues were less of an issue.

Michael and Rick,

Thanks for your insight. I really enjoy reading the details of the research you all do. I can relate. I started my career in the Air Force as an engineer at Wright Patterson AFB working for a unit called Foreign Technologies Division. We did reverse engineering of intelligence products including imagery. In fact some of the people I worked with worked on Project Blue Book the official investigation of UFOs. I see the research you do in this hobby use the same techniques we did back then. Now coming full circle, I am currently a contractor working for DOD organization that is testing the latest military IFF system Mode V. Thanks again, I enjoy reading these post event when I am not making a model of the particular subject.

Cheers
Scot

Scot

I have built the YKM model as San Diego and I have the BWN kit. The one in progress is the ISW Atlanta class as Juneau. Last time I checked it is not on their site yet but I assume you saw the photos of the hull in prior pages of this site. If you need parts I suggest first contact me I have some spares and if I cannot help you my guess is if you email Jon at ISW he will sell you whatever you need for a reasonable price. I am not putting prices here but suffice to say his prices for both the hull and the superstructure etc parts I needed were most reasonable. As it will turn out the model in progress will be ISW except for the PE which will come out of the BWN kit plus assorted after market kits. I know they were working on PE for their kit so hopefully they can assist you in that regard also. The BWN 4 piece hull is a mega disaster stay away from it.

If you decide to do Juneau I have just about every photo of the ship known to mankind on a word document organized bow to stern that I used to paint the model plus hull/superstructure camo photos reduced to 1/350 model size to allow for use on a light table to trace them. If you want any of this stuff let me know.

Good luck with your build.

Fred

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Fred,

Thanks for the offer. After taking inventory I think most of the parts are there. I already planned to use Veteran Models Dual 5” with blast bags, Alliance Modelworks ship railing and watertight doors. The only missing parts are the life rafts and chains. The hull is in one peace, not top and bottom or four part.

Cheers
Scot

Scot

If you are doing Juneau note the photo at the top of the 7/15 2057 post above. The forward 3 mounts had blast bags, the other ones did not.

Fred

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Some "new" photos of USS ATLANTA (CL-51).

I came across these two images in a group of photos taken by USS ENTERPRISE (CV-6) in 80-G at NARA. The first one was ID as ATLANTA and the second one was not identified, but was obviously USS ATLANTA. In an example of untrustworthy dating of 80-G photos, the two photos showed the same date of 21 August 1942. The first photo was likely taken during the Battle of Midway close to when a more famous photo of ATLANTA was taken. The second photo showed ATLANTA alongside USS ENTERPRISE in company with USS SARATOGA (CV-3). Organization listings show that ATLANTA was assigned to ENTERPRISE's TF and stayed with her until ENTERPRISE was damaged on 24 August and needed to retire for repairs. SARATOGA was torpedoed on 31 August 1942. By the time SARATOGA was repaired and returned to the South Pacific, ATLANTA was sunk. Since USS ENTERPRISE took these photos, the second image dates to 24 August or earlier. So the date of 21 August could be accurate or at least dates from the middle of August 1942.

What is significant about this photo, is that ATLANTA has already had her hull repainted with 5N paint. This photo shows that she was repainted earlier than previous photos. It is quite possible that she had her hull repainted while at Pearl Harbor in early July 1942.

DANFS entry;

Reaching Pearl on 13 June 1942, Atlanta, outside of a brief period of antiaircraft practice on 21, 25 and 26 June, remained in port, taking on stores and provisions and standing on 24-hour and then 48-hour alert into July 1942. Drydocked on 1 and 2 July so that her bottom could be scraped, cleaned and painted, the light cruiser completed her availability on the 6th, and then resumed a busy schedule of gunnery practice with drone targets, high-speed sleds, and in shore bombardment in the Hawaiian operating area.

"New" image of ATLANTA at Battle of Midway with her on station alongside USS HORNET's starboard side.


Image of ATLANTA at Midway that is better known showing her off HORNET's portside.


Image of ATLANTA taken in August 1942 after her hull was repainted.


Close-Crop view of USS ATLANTA (CL-51) seen in the above photo

Again, nice photos Rick, thanks for posting.

Seen most before, except the first one, but hadn't noticed the (4) planes overflying abaft, and at least 1 (if not 2, although one 'may' be a blemish), coming in to land on Sara before (cause I guess my only interest at the time was Atlanta).

_________________
“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

Kevin,

I didn't really pay much attention to the image of SARATOGA. But, yes there are four aircraft in the view. Two flying over the carrier and two approaching for a landing. One is in the glide path while the other is headed at the camera. Good catch.

I don't think that I could nail down the date of this photo based on what is known here.

Rick

Seems like me, Rick, your eyes were originally 'locked' on the CL. But having dived on the wreck of Saratoga (as well as Atlanta), photos of her always interest me as well.

Actually though, there are six aircraft in view, i.e. four 'overflying' as it were (plus two on approach), two a bit further abaft, right at very very top of image.

And twas as I actually thought, though appreciate the corroboration as it were, i.e. one of the ones on approach is 'head on' to the camera (and not a blemish as I said may have been a possibility).

_________________
“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

In a post above I provided the links to views of USS JUNEAU taken on 1 June 1942 at New York Navy Yard that are downloadable in three different sizes from the NHHC website. NHHC scanned these from prints they had of these images. I got curious how these images, free to anyone, would compare to scans made from the existing negatives at NARA. A little explaining is needed here. At NARA there is a collection of prints that BuShips gathered of ships as completed or after major mods. Unfortunately the original prints for JUNEAU taken on 1 June 1942 are missing, except for the stern view (posted elsewhere). However, the negatives for these "missing" prints still exist at NARA (or should). Researchers can not scan the original negatives. But, you can pay an authorized vendor to scan the images and get prints or simply digital files. I decided awhile back to get several images scanned from the original negatives of ships that I know had photos taken but that are not available in 19-LCM as prints (or in some cases are not available anywhere in a quality hi-res format). These three USS JUNEAU images are among the ones I ordered scanned. I had all of these scanned at 600dpi at an output size of 8x10. I had to convert and downsize those files to JPEGS so they could be posted here.

There isn't much new here, but I thought to add these with my observations may help others. To me the bow-on view provides some insights into the portside bow area camo pattern than can't be seen elsewhere.

Bottomline, the NHHC files for these same images were apparently scanned at a lower output res than I had done, But, other that the higher res scans done by the NARA Vendor being a bit sharper in some cases, the NHHC images appeared to not be far off. An area to look for sharpness was the lettering on the barge next to JUNEAU. Easier to read in the scans I had done, but the lettering was still readable if a little blurry from the highest NHHC downloadable image. In other words, I'm not sure that in this case it was worth the added expense to have these images scanned. But, I'm satisfied. Other images I had scanned had not been available from any source except as prints of second (or third) generation copy negatives. I was REAL happy with the results from those!!!

First are the "full-frame" views. This gives you an idea of how far away they took the photos.








Here are close-crops of just USS JUNEAU to get a better look here.

Rick

For photo reasons way beyond my pay grade NHHC sent me a copy of 19-N-31264 (the broadside shot above) that does not blur out when blown up. I downloaded your full and crop shots and they blurred out on my computer when enlarged. Might be just my computer. I can send it to you if you wish and you can see if is better to put here.

I did not have that problem with the starboard quarter shot.

The bow on shot is much better than all of the versions of it I have downloaded. For the first time I noticed on the port side what looks to be haze grey behind the haze/ocean grey diagonal stripes behind the blue false bow. The haze grey goes back as far as can be seen which is at least as far as the whaleboats. Which in turn puts it all the way back to around the forward stack. Too late for my model which is almost finished but perhaps anyone else who wishes to build one will take note of that fact. Based on the Quincy photos showing only the aft half of the port side this opens the possibility that the port side was haze grey at least back to the forward stack and perhaps further. The bow on shot by the way does not blur out on my computer.

The presence of these 6 high quality shots in one place is a fine source for anyone else planning a model of the ship.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Fred,

There may have been an issue when I downsized the full image to load into Photobucket that messed up the broadside images. Photobucket and Modelwarships have a max size to posted images. Hard to say what is going on..

It doesn't matter much if you could download the NHHC images because they show much the same thing. The NHHC and what I had scanned for the quarter view and the broadside looked close to the same and showed the pattern fairly well give the distance of the camera from the ship. There is just a bit more sharpness and I can blow-up the image quite a bit. I hit grain before pixels.

I'll try sending you a JPEG version of the broadside shot, the TIFF version is TOO BIG to E-Mail.

The Bow on view surprised me, I figured that the false bow pattern would mirror the starboard side. Too bad they didn't continue around the ship and take a starboard side photo. The ship was out in the channel and it looks like the photography ship (boat) could have done so. There was no starboard side photos in the BuShip 19-N series.

Model friends,

I haven't started on my USS Juneau yet but believe I want to do it in it's Ms 12r Mod. All the references I've read mention there colors; 5-S, 5-H, and 5-O. In the photo above the starboard hull appears to have four distinct colors. The obvious lower hull is 5-S, and I assume the area around the hull number is 5-O but there are two distinct colors behind that. At first I thought is was a shadow but it appears as a distinct line in the bow on shot. Could the lighter color be 5-L?

Scot

The camo on JUNEAU isn't straightforward at any point in her career. The scheme she is painted to on 1 June 1942 isn't technically Ms 12R(mod), it is an experimental design with each side having different patterns. The starboard side lowest paint band was darker than the lower band on the portside. The starboard side looks to be "mostly", except at the false bow area, 5-N (compare to the black boot stripe) and 5-H (but could be 5-L or some sort of experimental color). There isn't a complete view of JUNEAU's portside on 1 June 1942, there is a partial view taken a few days before which doesn't show the false bow area. The photo can be seen here ... http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/052/0405225.jpg ... where the lower band is lighter than 5-N, maybe 5-O (or again is an experimental color). The false bow painting appears to be more complicated on the portside than on the starboard side. On 16 June the superstructure colors were changed as well from 5-O and 5-H to 5-H and something defined as "off-white". So exactly what the colors are in the 1 June 1942 photos is a bit of a question mark, along with what they were after 16 June.

By May 1942 5-S wouldn't LIKELY have been used, 5-N replaced 5-S in Ms 12R(mod) schemes in late 1941.

The bow does have a distinct knuckle to it so the "straight line" following the sheer isn't due to different paints, but to two different surfaces and how they are lighted. There does appear to be a small panel with a different shade aft of the hull number.

Capt. Swenson took part in evaluating camo experiments in during 1941 in the Pacific while in command of a DesRon. His ideas may well have been used in painting his new ship.

Scot and other Juneau model builders

My 1/350 model is complete. I will not be submitting it to this site until late October since I will be making a research trip on 10/22 that just might produce photos of Juneau in October of 42. If a miracle happens. Should a miracle happen I will be including any such photo in the submission to the site.

Scot I have documents with photos on them that match the 1/350 model camo pattern. Feel free to contact
me directly if you want them. You will need a light table if you want to use them. I have a lot of other info on the ship if you want it.

Any model builder who wants photos of the completed model feel free to contact me.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

hi, came across a Revell of Germany USS Flint 1/700 scale and ordered it (we'll see what happens when it gets here from Berlin). i'm going to convert it into USS Tucson CL-98. from my understanding Flint and Tucson are near identical. there's not much info on Tucson and came across only one grainy color photo. is there any infomation i could find Tucson that one could point out to me?

the color picture is from navsource.org

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/098/0409802.jpg

did some colorizing attempts of USS Tucson but it seemed to reveal some photo decaying. any guess as to what color the ship was?

prior to salvage https://goo.gl/photos/3fDyeFJFGsupMZPEA

during WWII https://goo.gl/photos/sRw5McP2sdihhCgx9

late 40s? https://goo.gl/photos/drF3ekKqBg1nthSD8

during WWII https://goo.gl/photos/wBjtmKMLVF1NtUV5A

at this point i'm inclined to go with haze grey, but in one of the photos it looks like tops of the twin guns are painted ocean blue(?), so there's a possibility that deck blue was also used.

Are you using Photoshop, or some other program where you can get color and white-balancing before you begin to colorize?

Because it looks like you are attempting to work over images that still have a sepia tone or yellowing due to age in them.

As for the colors on the Hull and Superstructure.

On the Hull you would have Navy Blue (5N), Ocean Grey (5O) and Haze Grey (5H), and on the superstructure the Darkest Color would be Ocean Grey, with Haze Grey being the lightest color.

Also remember that these colors has a slight blue/purple tint to them earlier in the war, and a less purple, but still slightly bluish tint to them later in the war.

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

SOMETHING BETTER THAN MOUNTBATTEN PINK?

See page 21 for some discussion and black and white photos of this mostly RN color.

This past weekend I spent a brief vacation at the Montreal Inn in Cape May NJ.

While sitting on the balcony facing the ocean Sat. pm admiring the sunset and awaiting hungry sparrows--they never stopped by--I noticed a ship approx. 2-3 miles out apparently anchored. The superstructure and cargo derricks, if that is what the vertical structures were, were either white or very light grey. The hull was an unknown dark color. Size of the ship fairly small perhaps about the size of a Liberty ship.

Weather was clear but slightly humid. There were pink clouds for about an inch above the horizon for awhile and then grey above the pink. My view was looking ENE.

The white area of the ship reflected first the pink sky either behind it or as the sun set to the R of my view, and then the grey after the pink went away. Compared to a larger ship further out, an unknown color but dark and moving N to S, the white superstructure was much harder to see. The larger one looked like the ship that picked up Tom Hanks from his raft.

Sun 10/30 am was overcast and the white looked greyish. Again very hard to spot the ship except for the dark hull.

The ship was gone today 10/31 when I got up.

Perhaps whoever came up with the navy blue/white/very light grey for the hull of the Juneau and the "off white"/haze grey pattern for the superstructure made a similar observation? In any event it appears possible that white/very light grey may have had the same advantages of mountbatten pink without the permanent pink color. Unfortunately it appears we will never know for sure.

These are all pure guesses based on what I saw with my still 20/20 eyes.

Maybe the folks who conduct ship battles on pools/ponds/lakes can help us confirm this theory.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN