The Ship Model Forum

From the poster of that video's text:

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

I notice the you tube description does include something about an AA cruiser leaving harbor.

Appears nothing else in the film would have been worth censor attention. Looks like either the CLAA part was censored or it is incredibly lousy even by 1942 standards. The you tube description is not clear on what was censored or if it is there I missed it.

If the CLAA was censored, and I suspect it was, I neglected to note on the film post above that the fact the Navy went to presumably great trouble to censor the film/remove details of the unknown CLAA/produce horrible quality compared to other same time footage can give us assurance that the Navy would never dream of tampering with a still photo for any reason at any time during the war. And that just maybe some of their 1942 still cameras were just as lousy as their movie cameras. Our photo guys would know the camera/film issues way better than me. Kind of interesting how most of the footage you can make out details and is half decent/typical 1942 quality similar to about 3 hours worth I have here on videotape and the CLAA is horrible. Wonder why.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Even without the censoring, it would be terribly difficult to extract any information from the NARA originals.

I am beginning to think that at best we are going to have "speculative" guesses as to the color of the ships in question (which I cannot recall beyond Juneau).

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,

The generation of this film/video copy is unknown. It is likely a copy of a copy, if not a copy of even more copies. No clue where the poster of the video got his copy. On top of it, likely to keep the file size small, they degraded the video even more. The USN made a lot of movies during WWII, and then made copies for distribution.

Videos you see of films in the collection at NARA are copied in two ways that I'm aware of. You can pay to have a film digitally copied by a vendor, if NARA hasn't already done so and makes the video available. The other is to do it yourself by setting up a video camera in front of a screen playing the film and record it OFF the screen as it plays. You can just image how good a copy that is. Not a great video, but a hell of a lot cheaper. I have seen many researchers hauling in video recording equipment onto the 3rd floor to do just this kind of recording.

With the file number, anyone can go to NARA II in College Park, MD, and see how good the original or whatever copy of the film is in NARA's collection.

Once again, the USN censored photos and films DURING WWII so that they could be released to THE PUBLIC. They censored radar, all kinds of electronic antennas, hull numbers, and sometimes SURROUNDING yards/ports to disguise WHERE the photo was taken. The USN NEVER would have bothered to censor the CAMO of a ship ... why would they? Even when the USN did censor a photo, they only censored one of the prints, made a copy negative of it and distributed prints of those photos to the media. The original uncensored photo is still somewhere if not "lost". I have come across many censored photos in the 80-G collection (the 100,000 number photos are mostly censored images) and then found the same photo UNCENSORED elsewhere.

The photos taken by CDR Rodee's TBF, the photographer was Sidney H. Rubin ACMM who was in the aircraft along with radioman Parker, and are "as is" taken by them on that day. THEY didn't alter the photos, no one in the USN who processed the film to make negatives and prints altered the photos. The USN DIDN'T release these photos to the Public. All 200+ photos gathered from the various ships involved in the Battle of Santa Cruz were used in the After Action Report. There was NO NEED to censor ANY of these photos. They were being used as Official Records of the action.

I see the photos taken by Sidney H. Rubin as his PROOF of what he SAW of how these ships were painted in. Dissing a vet and those who vets who processed the photos by saying his photos were "altered" by the USN to hide JUNEAU's "true camo" is dishonorable. Selectively BELIEVING some photos and not others simply because they DON'T look like your assumption is not being open-minded to learning the facts. If Textual documents and photos can NOT be believed, but only memories, we won't have proof of anything we model. Particularly as the vets who served honorably pass-on.

I never claimed that they altered a photo to hide the cammo.

I just noticed some strange things about one of the photos that looked like it had been altered.

But, as I said about two pages back, it turned out that the photo wasn't altered (after getting the newer scan of the photo), and what I had seen was just an artifact of a crappy print.

But I never thought it was to hide the cammo. If it was to hide anything, it would have been something else (but I haven't a clue as to what). But that is irrelevant now, as I am certain no censoring was done to that photo.

And, it is a solid color on that hull (The Juneau, I am guessing). At least it is solid enough that edge detection software can make out no changes in hue or tint in the side of the hull to date (I am still working to see if I can get a higher contrast edge-detection - or would that be "lower" contrast???).

edit: And my last comment was about two different subjects. The first sentence was about the youtube video, which is too far gone to recover anything.

The second is about the Juneau photo. It is, as I said, likely a solid color hull, and what looks to be a solid color superstructure (although it could be mottled still. Just that it would be terrifically difficult to detect that, given the problems of the Ms 12 Mod blending together at a distance, which is what we have in that photo).

I tend to believe the photo, personally.

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, you are not the one who thinks the 80-G-304512 and 80-G-304513 photos have been doctored to hide her camo.

An example of finding something in NARA files when you WEREN'T expecting to.

Another researcher of destroyers was at NARA early in December. He sent me a Flash-Drive with his digital camera shots of documents and scans of photos he found in Textual Records. One of the subjects he went through was in S19 (Camo) files for Destroyers. One of the documents he scanned was about a Camo Evaluation on destroyers of DesDiv 17 while at Pearl Harbor in April-May 1941. See attached. On the surface it would seem that there would be no connection to JUNEAU. But, when I looked at the cover page, I noticed that the Officer assigned to be in charge of these Camo Evaluations was the ComDesDiv 17, Cmdr. Lyman K. Swenson (see note written by Section Code 341) ... the future Capt. of USS JUNEAU!!! So, Capt. Swenson was indeed involved in Camo Research/evaluation prior to his promotion and assignment to USS JUNEAU. DesDiv 17 transferred to the Atlantic in June 1941, about the time he was promoted. He certainly would have had more knowledge, working relationship with USN Camo experts, opinions about, and influence on his ship's camo than the normal CO's.

This discussion of camouflage brings to mind a question.

First an observation. The Soviet Navy had a habit of painting large hull numbers that were easy to see on their ships, and occasionally changing the numbers on each ship. For example some of the Slava class cruisers had three hull numbers. I can think of no reason for doing this except to confuse other navies as to what ships were where and when. If you just counted all the different hull numbers you would conclude that they had three times as many of these cruisers as they actually had.

During WWII all navies depended upon photo recon images to determine what ships were in harbors, and to prepare ship identification information for the fleets. Did the US Navy ever rotate hull painting on individual ships with different camouflage patterns and non-camo paint just to make it harder for the enemy to determine the identity of ships and the number of ships of each class?

I know that camouflage was occasionally changed to use more effective patterns. But were ships periodically repainted just to make it more difficult to identify them? If so, how often were ships repainted and who (what level in the command chain) decided when?

Phil

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

Not really a topic for this thread, but I can provide some answers.

The use of "Hull Numbers" on ships, at least prior to NATO, was strictly the policy of each Navy. The USN assigned ship type and hull numbers on a formal basis in 1920 that stayed with the ship (unless type changed) throughout their entire career with the USN. The hull number means more in the USN than an AT SEA ID, it is used for tracking everything about the ship and as a short-hand way to ID the ship in correspondence and communications. Destroyers used hull numbers before 1920 particularly during WWI for ID purposes in operations with the RN. Prior to WWII it wasn't common for hull numbers to be displayed on cruisers and larger ships in the USN. With NATO and multi-national operations, a standard assignment of hull number IDs was established to ease identification and to standardize ship typing.

The RN has used "Pendant/Pennant Numbers" on destroyers since at least WWI. But the assignment of numbers wasn't a permanent ID, at least not until recently (post-NATO). It was more as a ship to ship ID and could be changed as needed/desired. Actually the RN changed destroyer Pendants across the destroyer fleet about THREE times during WWI.

The French assigned hull Pendants prior to WWII and during based on a ship's assignment in a unit.

The Soviets from what I understand assigned hull Pendant numbers based on Fleet/Organization assignment and yes it appeared they changed numbers just to confuse things.

No the USN didn't change camo/paint schemes JUST to confuse the enemy. Actually it seemed that the USN changed Camo schemes to confuse the USN most of the time. The USN didn't utilize Camo scheme as a way to ID a ship. From mid-1941 to Fall of 1942, some destroyers went through MULTIPLE Camo patterns (many with-in the Ms 12/Ms 12R or Mod family) as the USN tried to figure out the most optimal scheme. This period of experimentation can be very confusing for modeler's trying to figure out how a ship was painted at a specific time period.

I had originally seen a few things that made me think the photos had been re-touched (WHY, though, I never ventured to guess).

But when I showed the photos to a friend who had a bit more experience, he pointed out that I was just seeing artifacts of a copying process, or marks made on top of the photos that had left the appearance of retouching.

But I never thought it was to hide the camouflage. I couldn't figure out why anyone would alter it to begin with. The closest I came was to disguise the ship's identity, but that isn't about specifically hiding the cammo job.

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

I'm still not sure what COLOR JUNEAU was repainted to. As I have said based on what is available, the candidates are most likely 5-N, or 5-O or even Mountbatten Pink. As Martin has suggested, JUNEAU's superstructure could have the very small splotch pattern evident in her 1 June 1942 NYNY photos. (JUNEAU's ship built at Federal, ATLANTA also used small splotches on her superstructure, where as the two Bethlehem-Quincy built units had larger splotch patterns which should show up in this photo.) That pattern is so small that at range the two colors involved would blend together and produced a "shade" between the two. I could buy that. But, that wouldn't be the case for JUNEAU's starboard side hull pattern which used 5-N and what looks like 5-H (or lighter) above it on the hull side. That much contrast would have shown up in this photo. So her hull was definitely repainted. I suspect that the superstructure was repainted at the same time based on the matching contrast to the hull. If the June 1942 Light pattern of "5-H and Off-White" was still in use in this photo, then the superstructure would have shown up as a lighter contrast compared to the hull. IF the superstructure was repainted with two colors in a small splotch pattern, it would have had to be something more closely matching "standard" Ms 12R/Mod colors.





Actually, given that JUNEAU's camo scheme as she left NYNY on 1 June 1942 didn't follow "standard" Ms 12R/Mod rules of 5-N, 5-O, and 5-H, she was strictly speaking in an EXPERIMENTAL scheme from June to September 1942. Even more, from photos, she had TWO schemes; one on the portside and one on the starboard side.

Capt. Swenson was involved with Camo Experiments/evaluation in 1941 before he was promoted and assumed command of JUNEAU in December 1941. He already knew that the light camo applied in May 1942 wasn't appropriate for operations in the Pacific in the face of Japanese aircraft. He likely was getting "suggestions" from Task Force commanders that his ship was an issue because it was different that the rest of the ships (most of which at the time were in "standard" Ms 12R/Mod). I get that from what was directed to Pacific assigned USN Destroyers in October 1942 to REPAINT to MS 21 ASAP. He implied in the posted documents that he wanted to apply "Mountbatten Pink" used on a few USN ships in the South Atlantic. Whether he got permission to do so or was able to get that paint mixed locally is questionable. By this point in the war, September 1942, 5-N was the preferred paint for USN ships assigned to the Pacific.

What COLOR USS JUNEAU was repainted to in the 80-G-304512/304513 photos is likely the only REAL question here.

Do you have any B&W Photos of Mountbatten Pink?

If I had something to run a color contrast against, I might be able to see if there was at least the possibility that the ship in the later photo was Mountbatten Pink (It wouldn't say for certain, it would just give a possibility of ruling it out).

Also, I just noticed that the Blast Bags on her guns in the above photos (304513) are uncolored.

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

The blast bags are either natural canvas or white canvas. Ships stocked it for the misc stuff that required it. The Bloomers got destroyed on a regular basis. They were suppose to paint the canvas the same color as the rest of the ship, but often that didn't happen.

The "only" ship image I have that is "suppose" to be in Mountbatten Pink is HMS MANCHESTER. At least that is what I have been told. This image is one of my "older" scans and isn't very hi-res and wasn't very good to begin with.



I couldn't find this earlier. There were several USN Destroyers painted in Mountbatten Pink, from Shipcamouflage.com;

Another unofficial camouflage used in 1942 was Mountbatten Pink. The destroyer WINSLOW was the first American ship to he painted in this singular color. While in transit from the Pacific to the Atlantic in December 194l she stopped at Capetown, South Africa. With her Measure 1B (Sapphire Blue) in need of repainting and while there, the captain was told of the concealment qualities of Mountbatten Pink, a color directly derived from the Union Castle line hull color, a lavender grey. WINSLOW's captain became convinced of its effectiveness and the ship left Capetown bound for New York painted overall in Union Castle Lavender. The paint had been procured from the DUNOTTER CASTLE, a Union Castle liner that was in port at the time. WINSLOW's new camouflage had an effect upon other destroyers, and by mid-l942 a small number of destroyers operating on the Central Atlantic repainted from 12R to Mountbatten Pink. Destroyers so painted included WARRINGTON, CLARK, and PHELPS. The use of Mountbatten Pink (also called "nipple pink" by USN sailors) was worn by vessels until early 1943.

I don't have any images of these destroyers while they were painted in Mountbatten Pink.

I have a couple of photos from Ron Smith's SOMERS class DVD when he sold them showing two of the SOMERS class destroyers while reportedly in Mountbatten Pink. Hopefully I have Ron's permission to show these two samples. Neither one of these is on the list above.

From these images, it is not possible to rule out Mountbatten Pink (which I just googled, and is a very strange pink) as a possible color of the Juneau.

A quick read says it was more favored in the Atlantic than in the Pacific (more use in that theatre).

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

Capt. Swenson while onboard the USS JUNEAU quite possibly got to see some of these "Pink" destroyers (USS DAVIS, USS JOUETT, and maybe SOMERS) in the South Atlanta when they escorted a convoy to Recife Brazil and back in July 1942. He must have liked the shade.

Really, not much is known and written down about which USN units had this Camo paint applied. Even fewer photos of them seem available (not many photos of the South Atlantic Operations seem to be available in general). Not really sure that the RN and USN versions of the paint are the same formula.

I am pretty sure that the two are not the same formulation, given that the difference between "white" and the ship's hull on the RN ship is less than the difference between "white" and the hull on the USN ship, both said to be in Mountbatten Pink.

Interestingly, both Have Blue and Tacit Blue (The US Testbed Aircraft for the F-117 and B-2) both were painted in a shade like "Mountbatten Pink" which was discovered to be the best stealth paint scheme.

So, that color actually is a very good camouflage paint for concealing ships at a distance (near or just past the horizon, when their superstructure is still visible). The reasons for the Pink being obscured at a distance have to do with how our brains process visual signals from certain hues. It has less to do with us seeing the color as it does our seeing an "edge."

In visual processing tests at UCLA, they showed that people could not discern multiple colors on some screens when they could not also detect an edge between those colors. Mountbatten Pink and the blue-grey night sky happen to be one of those combinations.

But the US military of the 1970s/80s balked at having its most advanced aircraft painted "pink" and instead opted for black/dark grey.

So... They were onto something with the color, but probably had not yet refined it between the two navies' versions of it.

Edit:

But, to return to the Juneau, a contrast study on the Juneau image does not rule out the possibility that it could be a Mountbatten pink. The contrast was not identical to the Mountbatten pink (but then I would need to know all sorts of things about the sun, overcast, humidity, color of the sea, etc. to really rule out Mountbatten Pink), but it was close enough to fall within the range of the two photos given.


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

I assume you saw the site at

https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/20 ... tten-pink/

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

HMS Curacoa, the 'C' class light cruiser converted to an anti-aircraft cruiser was painted Mountbatten Pink on the day she was run down by the RMS Queen Mary and was probably the last of the Royal Navy cruisers to be in the colour scheme (HMS's Kenya, Manchester, Ajax and Galatea were the others. There may be more).

This is the famous picture of Curacoa taken not long before she was sunk:-



It is interesting due to the counter shading, which was light grey, on the bow and 'B' gun deckhouse. Many folk who have made drawings of this scheme miss out the grey band amidships and below the 2 pdrs aft.

It does give a good indication of how (dark) Mountbatten Pink contrasts with light grey.

Regarding USS Juneau, has there ever been an explanation as to why she blew up so catastrophically?

Not to derail the thread (too far) but it looks like the Curacoa's counter-shading is also applied forward of the after-most twin 4" mount; as well as just below the top of the bridge structure

A site that might be of interest to Juneau students kindly sent to me by Martin Quinn

http://juneauempire.com/local/2016-01-1 ... turns-home

_________________
FRED BRANYAN