Tag: World War II

USS St. Lo (CVE-63)

USS St. Lo (CVE-63)

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

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

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.

 

 

 

Not as Advertised

Not as Advertised

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.

 

 

 

70 Years On but Never Too Late

70 Years On but Never Too Late

http://catherinecrouch.com/fame-fiction-dangerous-woman Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, Volume IV

http://servuclean.com/STORE by H. J. Cooper, et al

Aircraft Technical Publication, 1943. 76 pages.

 

Frankly I don’t know how I missed this series.

I’ve been collecting aviation books for more than 50 years and this set got by me. And I am sorry it did.

There are seven books in the series, one for each year of World War II and 1946. My copy is from the original series (I have since acquired copies of all the originals and several reprints). The chapters of each consist of a 2- or 3-page aircraft biography and a 3-view drawing to 1/72nd scale. Those drawings are the heart and soul of the series. (Don’t let the low page count fool you. The drawings pages are not numbered. Many are two-page foldouts, and not a few are three-page.)

Frankly, I discovered this series after deciding I was paying Bob’s Aviation Documentary Services too much money for aircraft drawings. His catalog listed these books as the sources of a lot of his drawings. So I went to the source. I paid for the whole seven volumes less than I spent over six months with Bob.

Now, the caveats. The series is uneven in that the drawings improved over the seven years. The Vol. 7 drawings are definitely superior and more accurate than those of the earlier volumes. Also the accuracy of especially German and Japanese aircraft is suspect in the earlier volumes. But don’t let this put you off.

First these are pretty neat artifacts of Great Britain in the midst of a fight for its life. Look at the ads they contain, especially over the life of the series, and you get a micro-education on England at war.

Second, there are a lot of aircraft you’ll have a hard time tracking down. In this particular volume, some of the more unusual of the 76 aircraft covered include the Miles M-28 and Martinet I, three TGs, nine PTs, 11 ATs, Hall PH-3, Spartan NP-1, German DFS 230A-1, and Mitsubishi OB-01. If you are an aviation junkie as I am, you will be in hog heaven.

As noted, some of these are available in reprint if you want a pristine copy. Frankly I like the crap-shoot of used, especially if they come from England. I have yet to have received one that didn’t include some interesting “bonus” items buried among the pages such as photographs, cards, newspaper clippings, or notes by previous owners. The physical quality may leave a lot to be desired, but it all depends on what you are looking for.

Whether you opt for the originals or reprints, if you are unfamiliar with this series, it is time you became acquainted.

Reviewed November 2014

Verified by ExactMetrics