U.S. Navy - RevuAIR

How does one correct a primary source?

By fStop Fitzgerald | 30 August 2023

It happens. Not often, but it does occur. A trusted primary source of information has a verifiable glaring error.

How does one go about correcting it?

In writing my most recent column for Naval History about the USS Iowa (Battleship No. 4), I naturally searched for photographs. One of my favorite sites for pre-World War I imagery is the Library of Congress. Among their many collections are the glass images from the Detroit Photographic Company.

If you are not familiar with Detroit Photographic images, a quick Google search will get you to a myriad of photographs all from the late 1800s and early 1900s. The quality, because most are from large glass plates, is generally phenomenal, and the detail is exquisite. The subjects span the gamut of American history. Check out your old home town to see what it looked like during that period. Or railroads. Architecture. Shipping. Commerce. Farming. Literally anything you can think of, the photographers of the Detroit Photographic Company have it.

I found an interesting image for my search, LC-D4-13000 det 4a08494. It is titled, “League Island Navy Yard, U.S.S. Iowa and monitors, Philadelphia ca. 1900.”

I am always a sucker for monitor photographs and the thumbnail looked interesting with the bright white and buff colors of the battleship contrasting with drab gray of the monitors.

mail order disulfiram But . . .

While the photograph did not disappoint. It is beautifully detailed, well composed, everything a photographer could want. Except the subject is wrong.

The battleship is not Iowa, but Indiana (Battleship No. 1).

This is not me saying so on a whim, but from basic knowledge.

The Iowa was built as the first American sea-going battleship with blue-water operations taking the fore. Three battleships (not including the second-class Texas and Maine, a long Navy procurement story) had been built before Iowa—the Indiana class, which included Indiana (Battleship No. 1), Massachusetts (Battleship No. 2), and Oregon (Battleship No. 3).

The primary difference between No. 1/2/3 and No. 4 was the Iowa had a forecastle deck that stretched back to the aft secondary 8-inch gun turrets. This added deck made the Iowa much more blue-water friendly than the very wet Indianas.

Some other physical notes of differences include the location of the forward secondary turrets farther aft, behind the fore funnel on the Iowa and also a deck lower at the same level with the fore main turret. Compare the drawings with the photograph.

Cropping in tight on the bow of the battleship shows only one row of deadlights, not two as one should see with the Iowa. This lone row is a hallmark of the Indiana class.

For the record: only one other class of U.S. pre-dreadnought battleships was constructed without a forecastle deck. It was the the Kearsarge class, which included Kearsarge (Battleship No. 5) and Kentucky (Battleship No. 6). However, neither of these could ever be confused with any other class because of the unique arrangement of their fore and aft turrets.

This is the aft turret of Kearsarge. Note the stacked main and secondary armament in circular turrets atop each other. The two could not rotate independently. Also note there is no similarity with the Indiana class or Iowa, for that matter.

Given that we now know the class of the so-called Iowa in the questionable photograph is actually an Indiana, which of the three—Indiana, Massachusetts, or Oregon—is it?

In their as-built condition, each ship carried a unique bow decoration (not called a figurehead, but a “bow decoration”).

This is the decoration on the mystery ship. While hard to “read,” the center escutcheon appears to feature a left-looking portrait.

This is Battleship No. 1’s bow decoration. Note the escutcheon contains a left-facing portrait.

Battleship No. 2’s decoration is very similar to Indiana‘s but features an eagle.

There is no mistaking Battleship No. 3 Oregon‘s shield for any other.

And to totally rule out Iowa from the discussion, here is Battleship No. 4’s decoration. One additional note in comparing the four bow views is the distance between the ornamentation and the bow torpedo tube. In the Indianas, the tube is almost part of the decoration, while Iowa‘s is far removed.

order Latuda Conclusion

Based on the bow ornament, the mystery ship can only reasonably be Indiana or Massachusetts as much of their ornamentation matches. Iowa and Oregon are impossibilities. While I could say that there is more relief shown in portrait of Indiana than the eagle of Massachusetts, and that the mystery photograph appears to show stark relief. That does not make it certain that the ship is Indiana.

I find certainty in the ship’s boats.

Note in both the mystery photograph and a verified photograph of Indiana, the ship’s boats are marked with a capital “I.” Perhaps this is what convinced the caption writer a century and a quarter ago.

To the point of all this…

I cannot be the first person to have made this identification in 125 years. Where are the others? Certainly someone let the Library of Congress know. Why is there not an annotation for this on the link to the images? I appreciate that archivists are bound to the information they are given and Detroit Photographic engraved this on the plate. But isn’t it also within an archivist’s purview as a historian to set the record straight? Especially when there is compelling evidence?

I will try to contact the Library of Congress and let them know about the issue. Don’t hold your breath, I’m not holding mine.

Brodie System

By fStop Fitzgerald | 28 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Mini Aircraft and Carriers to Match

Norman Polmar’s March-April 2014 for Historic Aircraft in the U.S. Naval Institute’s (USNI) Naval History magazine concerned the smallest of aircraft carriers and perhaps its (and the Marine Corps and Army’s) smallest aircraft.

The tiny aircraft—OY-1/2 in the Navy and Marines and L-4 in the Army—are often mistaken for the ubiquitous and similar Piper Cub. Their “carrier” was an LST.

An artist’s depiction of a U.S. Marine Corps OY-2 BuNo 03929.

In the July 1943 invasion of Sicily, LST-386 was fitted with a flight deck to launch the so-called “grasshoppers.” The runway was 12-by-216 feet and constructed timber with a metal mesh covering in just 36 hours. While also carrying her normal full load of troops and cargo, she also launched four grasshoppers.

The flight deck as installed on LST-906. Crewmembers watch as one grasshopper takes off and another waits its turn, foreground. Note the aircraft stowage and their side codes.

At Salerno in September 1943, LST-356 was fitted with a similar deck and launched five grasshoppers before a sixth hit a guardrail and crashed. The crew was rescued, but the other two planes the LST carried were not launched.

During the invasion of southern France in August 1944, three LSTs, among them LST-906, were configured as grasshopper carriers and launched more than 30 aircraft. A similar LST also operated in the Pacific with Army and Marine aircraft.

*LST-906* with a grasshopper preparing to launch from its deck.

An L-4B takes off from LST-906 during the invasion of southern France, St. Tropez, circa August–September 1944. Note the aircraft stowage. [Society of the Third Infantry Division]

An Army lieutenant, James H. Brodie, developed a system for launching and landing light aircraft from ships. While the system could be easily adapted to virtually any ship large enough to carry the airplanes, the LST was the ship of choice. For the operations, a tripod assembly was attached to the planes nose and wing with a locking hook at the apex. This was somewhat akin to that used by the Curtiss F9Cs to attach themselves to the airships Akron (ZRS-4) and Macon (ZRS-5).

The Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk had a lockable hook attached above its wing to latch onto a trapeze in the bottom of the airships Akron and Macon.

Two booms were angled off the side of the ship with a reinforced cable connecting them about 40 feet clear of the water. For launching, a plane was hoisted up and connected to a trolley on the cable. The plane would run the length of the cable gaining enough speed to remain airborne and trip a release at the end freeing the plane for flight.

To “land” the plane, the pilot would fly parallel to the ship and hook onto a trapeze attached to the trolley, which had a braking system to stop the aircraft.

During training on LST-776, three Marine aircraft were lost, with no casualties, and five pilots qualified.

At Iwo Jima in February 1945, the Brodie system was activated aboard LST-776, making four launches of Marine OY-1s. No recoveries were noted. At Okinawa in April, LST-776 successfully completed 25 Army grasshopper launches and recoveries.

Mr. Polmar’s column goes into greater detail. In the end, only one graphic was used (below) but it only shows the landing aspect of the process because it was more complex. Four photographs were published, three showing a take-off from a deck and one showing LST-776.

Two photographs of LST-776. Note that the overhead oblique shows a catapult with grasshopper amidships. This was mounted only during the early training off San Diego and was removed before the LST entered combat.

United States Naval Aviation 1910-20

By fStop Fitzgerald | 28 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Review Rejected by Amazon

If you have any interest at all in U.S. Naval Aviation, this is the book—in two volumes—that you should have. And I cannot stress this hard enough—IT IS FREE!

I am sick of charlatans reprinting U.S. Government publications—that you have already paid for with your tax dollars—taking the free pdfs from the government web sites and using print-on-demand to provide unsuspecting consumers with an ersatz product.

I wrote a review for the book spelling this out and it was rejected. I’ll have that review below, but this is the supporting information.

This is the hit page on Amazon for the search “United States Naval Aviation 1910-2010”:

I’ll refer to the entries, from left, as 1 through 5.

Let’s start with #2, with no image available. It is not available because this is (supposedly) the official Navy printed book. Its description says so (Publisher). Note its weight and that it is a hardcover. Both are correct for the book as published by the Navy. Note that none of the others are hardcover. The Navy NEVER PRINTED soft cover. The ONLY other OFFICIAL U.S. Government printed version is done by the Government Publishing Office (GPO).This is only available in soft cover and costs $94 for both volumes.

Under the Amazon listing for this hardcover version are just five offerings. One for a tick over $25 and the rest right around $250. I’m assuming that the higher priced versions are the actual official book. (Since those were only given to admirals and offices, wonder who is making bucks off these?) The $26.67 version peaked my interest, so I’ve ordered it, prepared to return it if it is not official. I’ll let you know what I find.

#1, 3, and 5 have reasonable prices, but as I noted they are neither hardbound nor official. Here they are in order. Note the publisher and page count of each. The original has nearly 1,300 pages.

Just so you know the source of all this information [and my upset], I was Lead Editor of Scholarly Publications at NHHC. This was my book from start to finish. I approved the book at every step from editing through production.

As far as Amazon’s other “publishers,” this is what is happening. Just like I am suggesting that you do, these parasites have downloaded the FREE pdfs from the official Navy web site at the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), the group that wrote, edited, and printed the original.

Once they have downloaded the files, they simply stick a cover on it (thus the different covers you see on the Amazon splash page) and post it for sale. When they get an order they send the pdf to their print-on-demand (POD) printer of choice and have them send you the book. You can do exactly the same thing. If you want to have one printed for yourself, you can save a lot of money by linking with your own POD printer.

What have they invested in this money-making scheme? Nothing except the time it takes to download the files, stick a cover on, and email the file to their printer. They are doing this for thousands of government publications that are in reality FREE to you, the taxpayer.

I did not discuss #4 because it is a Kindle edition. Neither the Navy nor GPO has published a Kindle version. But the process is only slightly different. In this case the “publisher” has paid (or done the work themselves) to have the pdfs converted. Once they get the Kindle file, it is readily duplicated and sent out as needed. Again, no real work or outlay on their part.

This is the background. Here is my rejected review:

There is one caveat to reprinting government publications: It is permissible provided you have written approval from the government agency that published the original and that you file for a new ISBN. No one ever contacted us about reprinting with the exception of GPO (who even have to follow the rules above). I further doubt they even know what an ISBN is.

I just remembered I never told you about the book… It is two volumes, the first written by Navy historian Mark L. Evans is a chronology of the century of Naval Aviation. It is thus the definitive Navy statement of what happened, when, and where. The second volume, by retired Navy historian Roy A. Grossnick, is titled “Statistics.” It includes virtually everything anyone would like to know about Navy air, from a complete breakdown of BuNos, to carrier and squadron deployments, to Navy aviators in space. Thus this, too, is the official Navy word on these topics.

Anyway, there you have it. The link to the FREE pages is embedded above. Please check it out if you like Navy aviation.

And so I have witnesses, this is what I ordered from Amazon for $26.67: a used, very good condition, former library book (why are they getting rid of such a substantial and current resource?). It is hardcover and printed by DON. Let’s see if it is the real thing.

Grumman F-14A Tomcat (I)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 27 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Part I

Norman Polmar’s contribution to his Historic Aircraft series in the April 2012 issue of Naval History was one of his most ambitious. It covered three pages instead of the usual two and featured two of my illustrations. Could the F-14 Tomcat deserve anything less?

It also was the perhaps the most complex project for me because there is so much information available about the Tom. There was so much to work with that the first difficult aspect of the project was selecting a base drawing to work from. In the end, it turned out to be base drawings. I ended up with 15 folders of work that included nearly 40 base drawings and hundreds of photographs.

These are a few of my reference drawings.

I think the Japanese do some of the best line work and drew primarily on Famous Aircraft of the World Volume 83 of March 1977 and Volume 89 of September 1977. The Russians also do good work. I used a couple of their books as well. I’ve never been impressed by Kinzey’s work, most of his drawings are little detailed, but I did have his F-14 In Detail & Scale, as well as all the usual offering by Squadron Signal for generic information. Danny Coremans’s Uncovering the Grumman F-14 A/B/D Tomcat is a fantastic picture book that provides a wealth of detail information. Cannot recommend it highly enough.

Because again of time, I opted for 2D. This was a lot of fun because it forced me to work with the interaction of compound curves and light. Still not a master but the end results are acceptable.

Part II to come.

USS St. Lo (CVE-63)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 24 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

The subject of my second column was a little personal. My wife’s uncle lowered himself into the Philippine Sea hand-over-hand on a line from the bow after “abandon ship” was announced. It was the second time during the war that Petty Officer Ashley Cherry had a ship sunk from under him. The first was at Pearl Harbor’s berth F-12 on 7 December 1941 aboard Raleigh (CL-7).

This is the link to the column: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/june/historic-ships-very-short-life

The little CVE should be remembered. She was lost at the Battle of Off Samar on 25 October 1944, the first major victim of a Japanese kamikaze plane during the first organized suicide mission. Few know of the destruction of St. Lo because her loss was overshadowed by that of her sister, Gambier Bay (CVE-73). She was lost the same day to Japanese cruisers, becoming the sole U.S. carrier sunk by enemy surface ships.

Within two minutes of being struck by the kamikaze, a major explosion blew *St. Lo*‘s after elevator skyward and destroyed much of the after section of the ship’s flight deck. (U.S. Naval Institute)

The Action Report of St. Lo‘s loss at the Battle Off Samar.

Profile of sister ship *Thetis Bay* (CVE-90). [HNSA]

Island of sister ship *Thetis Bay* (CVE-90). [HNSA]

A detail drawing of a CVE’s island. [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

Sections of sister ship *Thetis Bay* (CVE-90). [HNSA]

A detail drawing of a CVE’s funnel. [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

*St. Lo* (CVE-63) as she appeared at the time of her sinkiing. Measure 32, Design 15A camouflage. [ [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

Starboard side drawing prepared by the Bureau of Ships for a camouflage scheme intended for aircraft carriers of the CVE-55 *Casablanca* class. [NHHC 80-G-170033]

Port side drawing prepared by the Bureau of Ships for a camouflage scheme intended for aircraft carriers of the CVE-55 *Casablanca* class. [NHHC 80-G-170034]

The Measure 32 colors were 5-P Pale Gray, 5-L Light Gray, 5-O Ocean Gray, and BK Dull Black. The decks were 20-B Deck Blue. [ (c) J. M. Caiella ]

This is a generic photograph of the stern mounted 5 inch/38-caliber dual-purpose mount common to most CVEs including *St. Lo*. [U.S. Naval Institute]

Aircraft assigned to the *St. Lo*. [St. Lo Association]

USS Wampanoag

By fStop Fitzgerald | 24 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

When I took over Naval History‘s Historic Fleets column, one of the first things Editor-in-Chief Richard Latture did was change its title to Historic Ships, which is more in keeping with the piece’s focus.

For my very first column, I chose Wampanoag, a ship very few have heard of, but one that should be known as it was in all respects the progenitor of what later became known as battle cruisers.

This is the link to the column: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2016/april/historic-ships-wampanoag-germ-idea-battlecruiser

As with so many of the early ships, especially those that have relegated to the back pages of history, documentation is thin. For this piece, I relied on Navy and Congressional reports. This from 1868 provided much information.

These line drawings are contemporary with the ship. Regrettably, my recording of sources at this time was deficient, so I cannot direct you to the source. It may have been from *The Century* magazine.

This drawing, most likely based on the above drawing was published by Proceedings in December 1937, page 1734. Note how compact (low) the engines and boilers are

Photographs of *Wampanoag* are rare and good ones are non-existent. This image of the ship at the New York Navy Yard, according to its source, the Naval History and Heritage Command, could be one of two things. The photo’s original mat has a date of 1874. In March 1874, the ship now renamed *Florida*, departed New York to become a receiving and store ship at New London Naval Station, Connecticut. This may show her after her refitting for that purpose. It is possible, however, than given her “new” condition appearance, this may have been taken in the winter of 1868, at the time of her trials. (NHHC NH 54159)

Perhaps the best extant photograph of the ship was most likely taken at the New York Navy Yard, c. 1869. (NHHC NH 76423)

This very poor image, also from the New York Navy Yard, probably in 1866, shows (from left) Wampanoag, fitting out; a screw gunboat of the *Cayuga* or *Kansas* class; *Madawaska*, preparing for trials; *Susquehanna;* *Idaho*, laid up after her unsuccessful trials (across the channel from *Wampanoag*): two “Double-Ender” sidewheel gunboats; and *Vermont*. (NHHC NH 85970)

This painting by J. C. Roach is entitled “An Incident of the Late War with Great Britain . . . USS *Wampanoag* Escaping from the Channel Fleet after Destroying the Halifax Convoy, July Fourth, 1866.” It depicts the ship performing her designed mission in an imaginary conflict. (NHHC NH 95699-KN)

An engraving of the ship show her under both sail and steam. (Source Unrecorded)

This very clean etching may have been based on photo NH 76423. (Source Unrecorded)

I’m Back: the Making Sausage Redux (1)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 20 January 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

I haven’t posted in all of 2018. A lot has happened, but now that I have allegedly retired, I’m going to try to be more religious about posting.

Let’s see if we can do something with current projects.

Richard Latture, Editor-in-Chief of the U.S. Naval Institute‘s Naval History magazine, is working on a project to be printed in conjunction with the release of a new Tom Hanks movie, Greyhound, about destroyer combat in the North Atlantic during World War II. The film uses the destroyer Kidd (DD-661), which is on display in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as part of the setting. Although Fletcher-class destroyers served almost exclusively in the Pacific, there are no extant examples of the Gleaves and Benson classes, which would be representative of the Atlantic destroyers.

Image result for USS kidd

Former USS Kidd (DD-661) in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

My assignment was to do a cutaway drawing of the Kidd. This is by far my most intense project. First thing is I knew it would not be 100 percent. That goes completely against the way I want to work, but it is a reality. That is simply a given when a deadline is staring you in the face along with little details such as time and money. The goal is to get the important parts right and live with representations or approximations for those that aren’t. Bottom line: it is not a photograph.

In starting a project, I collect as many base drawings as possible. This is, sadly, where the first compromises enter the project. Drawings simply do not match up. I have a fairly extensive collection of books to rely on for the initial search. I know which authors to trust and how much Kentucky windage needs to be used on other authors’ work. (One, whom shall not be named, has a great reputation for plans and models, but his plan view lines do not link with his profiles and sections. Where did he got that rep?) I check their sources, if available, for additional information.

Less than a tenth of my collection.

I also have a decent collection of drawings that I’ve obtained from various sources primarily the National Archives and the Library of Congress. I was fortunate in this instance to trip over a collection of several hundred drawings on microfilm of the Fletcher-class. However, another caveat creeps in.

Fletchers were built at 11 different yards. And they were not identical. The plans I found were from the Bath Iron Works in Maine. Kidd was built by Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Kearny, New Jersey. I know the two sets of plans are not identical. I just don’t know what is different and where.

Even though I have these great drawings, they provide another three caveats.

1. Bath built at least three, and possibly four, different sets of Fletchers, known today as “flights.” There are detail differences between each. Assuming the same for Federal, which flight would match most closely to Kidd?

2. Even within these set of Bath drawings, the profiles, sections, and plan views do not match among flights for general outlines. I assume this is because of the microfilming process.

3. Many of the drawings needed to be combined; i.e., there were multiple frames of one drawing. Again, in linking these, there were dimensional differences and adjacent images would not be 100 percent in alignment.

The first three images need to be combined to form one complete drawing.

So, just in selecting whcih drawings tomwork from forces a number of decisions to be made, each of them getting the result farther from what is accurate.

Bottom line: I am not building a destroyer.

Why Three Views are Necessary

By fStop Fitzgerald | 2 July 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

We live in a three-dimensional (physicists may say four, fantasists say more) world. To visually represent that, one needs to meld length, width, and depth. Absent any one and the result is a bizarre view of the world.

Hence, we can start with something as seemingly complex as this flat, 2-dimensional—up and down, left and right—drawing . . .

And get something that looks a bit more real-worldly with not only left-right, up-down, but also front-back.

What if one dimension is missing?

Archaeologists, historians, and other scholars have for years been wondering what the Confederate submersible H. L. Hunley really looked like. The historic vessel was discovered a number of years ago, has been raised, and is currently under minute excavation and discovery in Charleston, South Carolina. Many questions have been answered, especially what she looked like. (https://hunley.org/) Here is a link to the most recent detailed (extremely!) analysis of the vessel by the Underwater Archaeology Branch of the Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/recovery-report.html)

But before this, to envision the boat, historians had to rely on a written record, no known photographs exist. There were a few sketches and one watercolor wash painting by R. G. Skerrett, which gave a fair idea of her form, but they—as is all art—were reliant on the artist’s eye and especially, hand. What is real? (Naval History and Heritage Command)

One of the early references was this two-view tracing of a predecessor boat, the “Rebel Submarine Ram” Pioneer. It was from a contemporary 1864 Civil War report from U.S. Navy Fleet Engineer William H. Shock to the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. (National Archives and Records Administration)

The upper drawing shows a side view of the ram, with some interior details. The bottom drawing shows a top view looking down of the vessel.

There is nothing, however, to show us the third dimension, a front view. The illustrations below will demonstrate the impact of that missing third dimension.

All the views you will see were made with this set of lines that I pulled from the original drawing. The only thing that is different between the pairs of renders is that in one, I let the original drawings determine the final shapes, and in the other one I assumed the third dimension to be curved.

These are the top views of the two versions, the lower has many more lines because those are necessary to draw the curves in the 3D rendering of these lines. Note however that the external lines of each part are identical. This reflects the lines’ origins from the lines pulled from the original.

This shows the resultant 3D render.

Similarly, here are the side views, again with the lower drawing and render showing the addition of curved lines.

And this drawing shows the resultant third dimension, the front views, based on the base (left) and curved lines.

Here are the resultant images in full 3D.

Note that, both 3D renderings match the original 2D drawing. Which is correct?

While that is certainly obvious, this is just an illustration of issues that can occur in the absence of information.

This rendering further illustrates the need for three views. Notice the two highlighted areas.

Many times with all three views provided, even that information is not enough. Sometimes it is a confusion on the part of the original craftsman with regard to how a particular line should be depicted in each of the three views. More often, however, lines are hidden. These require either additional drawings, or better yet, a perspective drawing of their intersections. No examples come immediately to mind, but I am certain at least one will crop up on an upcoming drawing. I will address that when it happens.

This final rendering shows the curved 3D version over the original lines. The other version would similarly line up.

CSS Tennessee Brooke Rifles

By fStop Fitzgerald | 25 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

The Confederate ironclad Tennessee was effectively armed with a concentrated and powerful armament of two 7-inch Brooke double-banded rifles fore and aft on pivot mounts and four 6.4-inch Brooke double-banded rifles, two per broadside.

The 7-inch rifles, weighing 15,300 pounds each, were manufactured in Selma, Alabama. This, the bow gun, tube no. S-10, is property of the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC) and located at the Washington Navy Yard in Washington, DC. Its companion tube, no. S-5 at the stern pivot, is also the property of NHHC, is on loan and on display outside the Selma City Hall. In the background, the three visible guns are from Tennessee’s four-gun broadside battery.

This gun is one of the four 9,000 pound 6.4-inch broadside rifles, three of which are also at NHHC in Washington. It was forged at the Tredegar Ironworks in Richmond, Virginia.

This illustration shows the guns mounts. The pivot guns were mounted on large sliding carriages and the broadside guns on two-wheel Marsilly carriages.

Not as Advertised

By fStop Fitzgerald | 10 June 2017 | Comments 0 Comment

When is the Battle of Midway NOT the Battle of Midway?

Research is everything. Your output, no matter what the format—words, painting, oratory, conversation, whatever—is wholly dependent upon those nuggets of information it stands on.

Assume you know nothing about the battle, which was remembered just last week on the 75th anniversary. You go to a “primary” web site, such as the Navy’s own Naval History and Heritage Command. (https://www.history.navy.mil/) This is official Navy. It is their history site. On it you will find many original documents and images from throughout the Navy’s nearly 250 year history. It is a great resource. [ed. note: I am employed by NHHC and thus am not an impartial source.]

A search for the site for “Battle of Midway” results in some 963 hits. The fourth entry is this painting by Rodolfo Claudus. Its title, by the artist, is officially “Battle of Midway, 3 June 1942.” And that is where the rub is. Nothing about the battle as depicted by the artist is correct. It is not inaccurate, it is flat wrong.

First, take the title. Most historians—and in particular, the U.S. Navy—deem the battle as spanning from 4 to 7 June 1942. On 3 June, a PBY patrol plane spotted the occupation force, not the main force including the carriers as reported. Nine Army Air Force B-17s launched from Midway to attack the fleet. After three hours of flight they found the transports some 660 miles from their base. Battling through heavy antiaircraft fire, they dropped their bombs and claimed four hits. In fact, they inflicted no damage. This attack, solely by the Army, on the transport force was the only combat on 3 June.

This segues into the content of the painting. There are four elements and one action.

The actions shows a carrier in combat. Nothing like this occurred on 3 June.

The primary element is an aircraft carrier. The artist has done a credible likeness of an Essex (CV-9)-class carrier, in particular the long-hull variant. Now the “howevers” begin . . .

The first and name-ship of the Essex class was not commissioned until December 1942, so obviously, none of the class fought at Midway. The artist does mark the ship with the number 10 on the funnel, indicating CV-10, USS Yorktown. That would be appropriate . . . if . . . that was the right Yorktown. The Yorktown at Midway was CV-5, which was badly damaged on 4 June and sunk on 6 June. Another relatively minor point, but a factual error nevertheless, CV-10 was a short-hull Essex, not long-hull.

The next most prominent element is the Japanese aircraft. There is little to quibble here except, of course, that none were shot down on 3 June.

The third element, to the left, is a destroyer. The artist has depicted either an Allen M. Sumner (DD-692)- or Gearing (DD-710)-class ship. In either case, the very first of these ships was not laid down until July 1943. They didn’t exist at the time of the battle.

The final element is a battleship to the right shrouded in mist or haze. Unlike the other two ships, this is a bit less specific, however, its length, shape of the bow, and closely spaced, tall thin stacks favor the North Carolina (BB-55) class over the Iowa (BB-61). It is definitely not meant to be a single-stack South Dakota (BB-57) or any of the pre-war battleships. Once again, in any case, this element is moot. No U.S. battleships were anywhere near Midway and none participated in the battle.

So, what you have here is a painting that in every element has no relation (except perhaps ships at sea, in combat, with aircraft) to its title.

Sadly, it must be filed under its official title, hence, misleading the unknowing.

Everything hinges on the caption, and the one provided is of no help. It gives the painting as c.1950, yet in the artist’s hand it is labelled 1956.

Bottom line—question everything. Even these comments.