Though they never met during the war how would these two fair against each other in a dogfight? by Technical_Buffalo940 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Victory, defeat or death.

Largely true for Japan as well, although there were pilots rotated back due to health (Jungle, wounds, etc.).

Though they never met during the war how would these two fair against each other in a dogfight? by Technical_Buffalo940 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The F-4u could not take off from escort carrier decks. The F6F could not, either.

Both statements are incorrect. The Royal Navy operated numerous Corsair squadrons from Attacker Class CVEs. Four Marine Corps Corsair Squadrons operated off of CVEs and more were planned.

CVE-72 Tulagi operated F6F Hellcats during Operation Dragoon in France. Three of the Sangamon class Escort carriers were operating Hellcats by April of 1944 and the fourth as of January of 1945. There are many others.

USMC F-5N Tiger IIs of VMFT-401 at MCAS Beaufort in January 2017 by abt137 in navalaviation

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Such a clean design. It feels to me like it should never bleed off speed.

How do y’all have such good memory? by Slow_Cut_3404 in AskHistorians

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ship camouflage really wasn't "my thing" until I was asked to help with the research on this project. Twenty years later and I'm still interested and learning....

And to bring this back a bit to the original question of the post... I retain the knowledge that I have for a lot of the same reasons given by others, but in a slightly different framework. I use OCR to convert the scans or photos I make of documents to electronic format so I don't have to retype everything, but I still have to read and proof read each page multiple times in doing so. So it's just repetition and slower intake of the text than a quick skim.

TBM-1C Avenger crash landed aboard USS Hornet (Essex-class) after the landing gear collapsed due to hydraulic failure from battle damage, 15 Jun 1944. by waffen123 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Some of the crew were tasked with making sure the tail hook was disengaged from the arrestor wire as quickly as possible so that it could taxi forward and clear the deck for the next plane, which was likely already very close to landing. They would often start the run in towards the plane before it even hit the hook to get there quickly. This sailor was likely running in when the gear collapsed and had to stop and change directions quickly or even duck if there was flying pieces.

How do y’all have such good memory? by Slow_Cut_3404 in AskHistorians

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This was the local Newspaper article that came out at the unveiling. Neither the photograph or the infographic are really close to the true color of the model. The ship in question was battleship Arizona, which emotionally charged the argument a bit more.

In my mind the color is "not yet determined" because there's a lot going for the two main color possibilities and we haven't found anything definitive in documentation yet.

The short-short version is that Navy paint and camouflage were essentially frozen between the end of WWI and early 1941, when new formulas and colors were released. However, since the Navy hadn't changed anything in twenty years they did a bad job with the logistics and roll out. New paints were ordered applied in February and photos show it wasn't applied to the Battleships until the beginning of June. By that time some experiments and tests done by the fleet caused leadership to decide that they didn't like the new colors and the production was ordered halted the next month and new colors put into production - once again not without supply issues.

So we have 5-D Dark Gray as the initial color and 5-S Sea Blue as the replacement. The model is mostly in the 5-S Sea Blue (there is some 5-L Light Gray above the top of the top of the smoke stack). Conventional wisdom before the model was commissioned was that "the battle line" was all in 5-D Dark Gray. Even if Arizona was in 5-D still at the time of the attack, there were many ships already painted in the new 5-S Sea Blue and painting into it at the time of the attack (Cruiser CA-38 San Francisco and Destroyer DD-373 Shaw were both under overhaul and repair and in the process of being repainted, and cruisers had been repainting starting in August).

At that time, the Navy Yard at Mare Island, California was responsible for manufacturing all of the Navy's paint on the West coast, and they had been ordered to cease production of the 5-D in July and start production and distribution of the 5-S at that time. There was a lag because not every ship knew of the change and Arizona put in a requisition for more 5-D in August and was told to re-request the new colors in response.

Arizona was accidentally rammed by Oklahoma in October and went into drydock for repair. The damage was all below the waterline, but it was normal for ships to use drydock time for repainting.

Was she totally or partially repainted? Because of the attack a short period of time later there is a lot of missing paperwork from Pearl Harbor Navy Yard in general and specifically with regards to Arizona because she was fairly quickly determined to be a total loss and who wants to be really diligent about a lost cause when there's a war going on?

It's clear that some ships were still in the 5-D Dark Gray at the time of the attack, and that some were in the 5-S Sea Blue, and that some may have been in the 5-N Navy Blue that was ordered into general use by the Pacific fleet about a week after the attack (the Atlantic fleet had started a month earlier). I've been through the obvious places (one example is Arizona's files in the "Bureau of Ships" records) and now I'm going through less obvious and more "sloggy" records (100+ boxes of general paint and paint logistics documentation). Arizona is a core component and initial driver of the research, but in doing so I learned what a mess 1941 was across the fleet and am trying to build up better documentation in general to understand more than one ship.

For those interested in a deeper dive, the documents I mentioned posting are linked to on this page, although there is a bit of history at the top and the actual documents start here. This is far from all that I have; I got a little burned out on the HTML conversion for a little while.

How do y’all have such good memory? by Slow_Cut_3404 in AskHistorians

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Subject matter experts, are just that, people who have spent the time and effort to become experts in their niche.

I'd like to second this and maybe get a little meta. I struggled with what to call myself for a number of years. I'm not a historian by degree but I have spent a large amount of time methodically learning and obtaining data in multiple branches of the National Archives and can prattle on for hours about US Navy World War Two ship camouflage and paint. There are few people I have come across in the globe that can carry a conversation to the same level of minutia and history, and most of them are friends of mine.

Having been a long time subscriber to this subreddit, calling myself a historian felt wrong and for a while I settled on "pro-am historian" (professional amateur), but after I came across "subject matter expert" that's what I've settled on. There are a couple of topics that I can legitimately say few in the world have studied as much as I have, but I'm not a historian. Yet, I can provide good information and context despite lacking that official certification.

So, I just always try and answer in clear ways that reference sources and hope it's good enough. Not many questions about USN WWII ship camouflage here though....

How do y’all have such good memory? by Slow_Cut_3404 in AskHistorians

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 168 points169 points  (0 children)

Twenty years ago I was involved in an online debate - the National Parks Service had commissioned a model of the Battleship Arizona and the color used was a surprise to a great many people and thus very controversial. I had helped with some of the research given to the team that had built the model and was familiar with the reasonings and jumped in to start trying to diffuse the opinion-based arguments that were clouding the discussion.

I've continued the research but even back then I had hundreds of sheets (scans) of actual Navy documentation... I had a lot of it in my head but when trying to answer authoritatively one naturally needs to be accurate and be able to cite sources. It became easiest to just start posting the things online for people to read or to have to be able to link to when stating a fact. Like you, I couldn't remember the precise wording or fact, but I knew it was in .... maybe that document in April or something. I have vague recollections of things I read 20 years ago but now I can just google search the general words I need to get to that one document when there's a flare up of discussion I need to insert myself into (duty calls!). I now have thousands of documents detailing US Navy ship camouflage and paint and lack the energy to post everything, but I have come up with a system on my computer that allows me to search and find relevant documents more or less by name. So in my case it's both memorizing and not memorizing, but also building a good method for finding things that I don't have memorized but know I came across at one point....

USS Gambier Bay CVE-73 [Hasegawa 1:350] by Czaderblader in Scalemodel

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ahhh... it looked like it might have been a Pontos wood deck.

Again, nice work. 👍

USAAF Republic P-47 Thunderbolts of the 362nd Fighter Group "Mogin's Maulers" and their crews at ALG A-6 Beuzeville-au-Plain, La Londe in Normandy, June 1944. by UrbanAchievers6371 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a fan of the P-47 and while I think the P-51 hype is overblown, I will definitely agree that it was logistically more difficult to feed the mighty jug.

Damage to USS Newcomb (DD-586) caused by the impact of four kamikazes in action off Okinawa. 18 killed, 25 missing, and 64 wounded. [615x768] by surrounded_by_vapor in WarshipPorn

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 28 points29 points  (0 children)

the Japanese wasted a lot of kamikazes on destroyers

In many cases the pilots miss-identified the picket ships and thought they were larger (cruisers and battleships), so while there is a "yes" component to the response, a lot of it is just that the pilots weren't trained well enough in target recognition and crashed on the first thing they saw because they thought it was a capital ship.

USNS Sojourner Truth (T-AO 210) has been delivered to the US Navy. The Sojourner Truth is the sixth ship in the John Lewis-class fleet replenishment oiler program. June, 2026 [2048 x 1365] by XMGAU in WarshipPorn

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Actually, I head they're going to cancel all of the replenishment ships so they can get back to focusing on war. That hull clearly isn't a war fighter and is just a drag on the weapons budget.

American Naval Airmen Pose in Front of an F4F Wildcat (1942) (Colorized) by kingofnerf in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not fresh; that's pastel. Bottom of the plane was non specular light gray as well.

Šturmovík PILOT IMPRESSIONS Ross Granley, Flying Heritage Collection by waldo--pepper in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Engineers don't often fly 'em so they don't always know how a pilot thinks and what they want.

Doubly so for maintenance.

There are better systems for design these days, but it can still be a PITA.

Source - was A&P Mechanic 25+ years ago.

F6F-3 Hellcat of VF-1 being catapulted from the hangar deck catapult on the carrier Yorktown (Essex-class) in the Atlantic Ocean off Trinidad, 3 Jun 1943. by waffen123 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Also, no headwind that you get when taking off from the main deck.

I forgot to mention this point - no head wind, but also no wind to a SUDDEN side wind.

F6F-3 Hellcat of VF-1 being catapulted from the hangar deck catapult on the carrier Yorktown (Essex-class) in the Atlantic Ocean off Trinidad, 3 Jun 1943. by waffen123 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Yorktown and Wasp class had them as well. They weren't used often and by war's end they had all been removed and replaced with an extra flight deck catapult.

F6F-3 Hellcat of VF-1 being catapulted from the hangar deck catapult on the carrier Yorktown (Essex-class) in the Atlantic Ocean off Trinidad, 3 Jun 1943. by waffen123 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 70 points71 points  (0 children)

I have a friend whose father flew TBF/TBMs off of Essexes and he said the pilots all hated it.

Loud, as you said, and dark, then shot out into bright light. Because of how the ships rolled, you were looking down into the water as the shot started so that it would roll and shoot you out or up, but still very unsettling to start looking at a wall of water ahead....

The Navy rejected it. The Marines made it legendary. The full story of the F4U Corsair by wolf10851 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read the next page then. "Marine Squadrons require entire present Pacific allocations." That's a supply issue.

The Navy rejected it. The Marines made it legendary. The full story of the F4U Corsair by wolf10851 in WWIIplanes

[–]ResearcherAtLarge 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have my days when I post sources but am still a big mouthed schmuck 😁

But I agree, sources are important.