|
|
Post by navairdave (Dave) on Dec 5, 2013 18:50:19 GMT -5
As she may have appeared on Dec. 6th 1941  |
|
|
|
Post by yardbird78 on Dec 5, 2013 18:56:16 GMT -5
Nice painting. Is that blue accurate? What happened to good old fashioned gray?
Darwin
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Nelson on Dec 7, 2013 0:57:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by navairdave (Dave) on Dec 7, 2013 4:45:35 GMT -5
December 7th 1941  |
|
|
|
Post by navairdave (Dave) on Dec 8, 2013 7:20:23 GMT -5
The aftermath.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2013 8:08:23 GMT -5
Steve Nelson,
Thanks for posting the Battleship Division Colors and I often wonder what the colors means ... and viola you answered a burning question on my mind for years. Thanks a million!
|
|
|
|
Post by RichardCV14 on Aug 18, 2014 19:57:53 GMT -5
The blue had been specified, but I understand there's still some controversy over whether she'd actually been repainted yet on 12/7. Then there's the whole "red turret tops" thing..again, they were specified, but no one seems to know if they had actually been painted or not (although overhead photos seem to show the turret tops a different shade than the rest of the ship.) This pic shows the latest thinking on what the Arizona's colors were at the time of the attack.  I built the ancient Revell 1/425 Arizona a few years ago. I used an old tin of Humbrol labeled "Azure Blue." It was too dark for the color it was supposed to be, but seemed a decent match for the "Pacific Blue" specified for battlewagons. I also thing the red turret tops just look cool. The model is pretty much straight from the box, although I scratchbuilt an OS2U, since the model only came with biplanes. SN     |
|
|
|
Post by RichardCV14 on Aug 18, 2014 20:05:48 GMT -5
I still just don't buy into the red turret tops. Why doesn't someone find a National Park Service diver and just ask? Turret 1 is still in place and I've been told that 3 and 4 are still stored somewhere on the island since they used the 14" as shore batteries in 1942. Heck, those guns may even still be there.
There's still a lot of Pearl Harbor salvage stored up in Diamond Head. With war on the horizon I just don't see them painting turrets such a visible color. You can also get great photos of the California, which supposedly had white turret tops, as she rests on the bottom on Dec 7 and there is NO color difference evident. Same with the Nevada run aground...no turret color. Are we given to assume the Arizona was way "out front" on this procedure just directed in November '41?
I think the red turret tops are ugly and just don't "feel right". I spent some years in the Navy and never saw anything done promptly after directed. So maybe I'll just have to say my Arizona is as she was in June, '41?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Milarta on Aug 20, 2014 21:31:12 GMT -5
I for one don't believe in the red turrets. There is no sense in painting anything visible like that red.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Nelson on Sept 8, 2014 12:40:07 GMT -5
Dana Bell gave a nice in-depth presentation on this subject at the IPMS Nationals a few years ago. As I recall, the colored turret tops were a pre-war thing on Battleships and Cruisers to make them easy for their own scout planes to identify. There's ample documentation laying out the requirments, but how universally they were applied is uncertain. For Battleships, as I recall the assigned color of the forward turrets indicated the ship, and the color of the aft turrets indicated the division (For Arizona both colors happened to be red.) Cruisers were to have colored bands on the turret tops, rather than solid color. There are photos of ships painted with these markings in the pre-war years. I understand the controversy concerning Arizona is whether her turret tops were ever actually painted red, and/or whether the color had been removed or painted over before December 7.
I know some of Arizona's superstructure is still rusting away somewhere on Navy property inaccessible to the public, but I always assumed the when her big guns were removed for use as shore batteries the turrets themselves were scrapped. Between fire damage and over 70 years of deterioration I don't know how much information could be gotten from the turret still on the wreck.
SN
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim Broshot on Sept 8, 2014 22:56:53 GMT -5
That is a really excellent model. It sure beats my effort at the old Revell kit when back when I was in college (in the early 70s).
|
|
|
|
Post by yardbird78 on Jan 15, 2015 14:23:45 GMT -5
I know some of Arizona's superstructure is still rusting away somewhere on Navy property inaccessible to the public, but I always assumed the when her big guns were removed for use as shore batteries the turrets themselves were scrapped. Between fire damage and over 70 years of deterioration I don't know how much information could be gotten from the turret still on the wreck. SN Both aft turrets were removed and the entire structure(s) were planned to be re-installed as shore defense batteries. One of them was completed and test fired within a few days of the end of the war. Of course, by that time, the threat of a Japanese invasion was negligible. The concrete works, support structure, ammo storage etc, still exist, but are normally not accessible to the general public. I have not been able to determine what happened to the actual turrets and guns. Darwin |
|
|
|
Post by jbowman on Jan 12, 2019 22:45:44 GMT -5
|
|
