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.

http://circleplastics.co.uk/2017/09/ 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.

La Ceiba 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.

In the Weeds

By fStop Fitzgerald | 21 May 2021

This is why I still have film in the freezer from the 1980 Lake Placid Olympic Winter Games.

I am doing a full-ship cutaway drawing of the Civil War ironclad USS Cairo.

The first ironclad gunboat built in the United States was **Saint Louis**, ca. 1862. She was a sister ship of **Cairo**.

The riverine gunboat had a life of just two and a half months with the US Navy from 1 October to 12 December 1862. She had, however, been commissioned into the US Army on 25 January 1862 until her transfer to the Navy that fall. Cairo had the ignominy of being the first warship ever sunk by a remotely detonated mine (called a torpedo in Civil War parlance).

Her salvage from the bottom of the Yazoo River began in 1960 and her remains are on display at the USS Cairo Museum outside Vicksburg, Mississippi. [https://www.nps.gov/vick/u-s-s-cairo-gunboat.htm]

The illustration is being done for a book by Dwight S. Hughes on the Western Waters gunboats. Previously we worked together on a book about the Monitor and Virginia: Unlike Anything That Ever Floated: The Monitor and Virginia and the Battle of Hampton Roads, March 8–9, 1862. [https://www.amazon.com/Unlike-Anything-That-Ever-Floated/dp/1611215250]

Work has progressed well. Here are several iterations of the hull structure.

The other internals are coming along as well: the engines, boilers, wheel, and “doctor” engine. Guns and their carriages have been built.

In going over the drawings looking for missing details, I found the stove which has little depiction other than a box. Other drawings revealed nothing more. What did this thing look like?

I started poking around on the web looking for the “Cairo stove.” Quickly I hit on a site for South Bend Replicas in Indiana [https://southbendreplicas.com]. I pinged the owner, Jim Olson, who very quickly responded to my request for help. His company had built a replica of the stove working from the original and very badly disfigured remains.

Ideally, of course, it would have been nice to work from Jim’s drawings. Sadly, however, they had been lost in a 100-year flood a few years back. He did everything he could to help be especially by sharing a number of photographs from which to work. One set had the remains marked up in measurements, which was a God-send. While my finished stove may not be 100 percent accurate, it is more than just a ballpark guess.

The remains of the original stove with its measured markings.

An interesting point about the original stove is that it was named the “Southern Belle No. 5.” Kind of enigmatic for a Union ship.

Jim Olson with his completed reproduction.

The stove overall and another reproduction in full use.

An interesting design aspect is that the wood fuel and grate are on the right. You see the firebox door at the top (with the Southern Belle name plate) and at the bottom is the ash drawer. Notice the rivet pattern at the top of the oven. The oven’s top was curved a few inches below the top plate. The heat rises from the grate, arches over the top of the oven, goes down the left side (in these views), and across the bottom. It exits at the bottom back and goes up the chimney. Jim said that when it was in full operation, they could pull off one of the top deck plates (there are four, each with their own pot plates), and the draft was so strong that nothing escaped above the stove. Pretty amazing.

This is the firebox door above the stove’s medallion.

Two looks at my version of the original.

Jim is generous beyond words. He spent far too much time on my little project and provided a wealth of information and answered everyone of my inane questions as if they were intelligent. Beyond this, he sent me a six-pound copy of the stove’s medallion, which he had cast for his reproductions. This was made from the stove’s original, so I have a Kevin Bacon one degree of separation!

. . . and the illustration’s version.

Tale of a Sad Photograph

By fStop Fitzgerald | 30 August 2020

Nitrate photographic negatives were among the first on a light-weight “stable” flexible base. Before them were the heavy and fragile glass plates. Needless to say, the new base greatly enhanced the photographer’s abilities by significantly reducing weight and volume as well as shipping and carriage requirements.

If you grew up with film before digital you may recall seeing the edges of film marked as “Safety Film.” This is because those films were no longer on nitrate bases, but were first on cellulose acetate (“acetate” film) and later, polyester.

The first flexible film base, cellulose nitrate (hence “nitrate” negatives) was commercially produced in 1888 by George Eastman in his Kodak camera. This unleashed a whole new world of photography for amateurs and professionals alike. It brought the camera into the home.

While this was a great technological leap forward for photography, it had some dangerous baggage. Another name for cellulose nitrate (or nitrocellulose) is gun cotton for a very good reason—it was a very powerful explosive. It first saw use as gun powder for artillery where its power of gas generation was six times that of black powder. It was later used in explosive warheads of shells and torpedoes and for blasting in mining and construction.

It saw other uses as well, some not as successful. As the supplies of ivory began drying up in 1869, the billiards industry offered a prize to whomever came up with the best replacement for ivory billiard balls. John Wesley Hyatt won with a new material he invented called camphored nitrocellulose. It was briefly popular, but the balls were extremely flammable, and sometimes exploded upon impact, which added an interesting dimension to a game of pool.

Hyatt Celluloid Billiard Ball
Smithsonian Institution/Gift of Celanese Plastic Company

In use with film, however, it was extremely dangerous, especially when used in movies. The film base was, and is, highly flammable, and it releases hazardous gases as it deteriorates. In movie theaters, when subjected to the high heat of arc light, the film would often burst into flame, which accounts for the large number of early movie theater fires.

Any photographic collection that contains flexible, transparent film negatives from the 1890 to 1950 period very likely contains at least some nitrate film. These negatives need special attention and should immediately be separated from other film.

Acetate negatives also have issues, but not as dangerous to human health as it is to image health. The chemical composition also breaks down with the image first crackling and bubbling, and then shrinking the film support. When acetate film is stored in a poor environment of high heat and humidity—or exposed to acidic vapors from other degrading film—it undergoes chemical reactions within the plastic support to form acetic acid. This acid causes the support to become acidic, brittle, buckle, and shrink. In turn, the acid spreads into the gelatin emulsion or into the air creating a harsh, acidic odor.

Thus if stored with stable polyester-based film, degrading nitrate and acetate negatives can and will impact its longevity as well. The types need to be well separated.

I have been a professional photojournalist for most of 50 years. Sadly, during my work with the U.S. Navy at the Naval History and Heritage Command I encountered some instances of nitrate and acetate film within their historic collections.

This is one such instance.

The photograph below was taken of an Aeromarine 39B during tests of using the airplane’s carrier deck landing skids as skis on light snow. It may be a unique image; I have found no similar photograph of an Aeromarine 39B using skids on snow. There is no date, but this type first entered Navy service in 1918 and was removed from its rolls in 1926. This print is contemporary with the original negative, thus it dates to the 1920s.

Below are scans of the original negative and, beneath it, a direct print.

It is obvious that this negative will never be printed again. It is quite likely that the print at the top is the only original one left of the negative. As it shows a fairly unique view from a tiny chunk of naval aviation history, it must be preserved—but not in the same folder as its negative!

This is a detail of the negative to better show its bubbling and cracking. I have highlighted a light portion of the film’s edge which gets narrower at the right. This is the “shadow” (it is light because it is a negative) of the grip on the film holder that held this side of the negative in place in the holder. There is another shadow on the other side of the film.

It is distressing to note that there are other instances of nitrate and acetate films within the collection. The nitrate negatives especially represent a very clear and present danger to not only the collection but the buildings and personnel around them.

Our photographic heritage is precious. Every instant of history that was recorded on film is on a piece of acetate, nitrate, or polyester that was present for that history, in the hands of a photographer who was witness to that history. Those slivers of film are the closest physical pieces we have of that history.

Our photographic heritage must be preserved!

What an Addition to the Aviation Bibliography

By fStop Fitzgerald | 18 July 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Boeing B-47 Stratojet: Strategic Air Command’s Transitional Bomber

By C. Mike Habermehl and Robert S. Hopkins III

Specialty Press, 2018. 320 pages. $44.95.

The Stratojet was every 1950s kid’s ideal of U.S. aviation might. It was big. Six jets hanging out there on the wings for all to see. It was fast. It even looked like it was going 600 mph when it was just sitting on the ramp. When discussing “clean” aircraft, the B-47 is among the first mentioned.

It was among the first designs released by Revell in 1954 once that company began producing plastic models from their own molds in 1953. It was re-released in 2006. Yes, the big jet caught the public’s attention. And the Soviets’ as well.

There are nearly a dozen significant books about the B-47, most published since the type went out of service. Thus, they should be very informative about even some of the most classified aspects of the bomber’s operations. Habermehl and Hopkins have very obviously capitalized on this and produced the most recent and perhaps the best on the topic.

This is an impressive work. It easily replaces—replaces—at least five books on my shelves. Few books can make that claim. One gets that sense that the narrative is an airframe-by-airframe, minute-by-minute account of the B-47’s history. It is, however, only a sense. The prose never has the staccato recitation of aircraft and dates. The hardcore airplane junkie readily finds that information in the expansive 66 pages of appendices.

It is the authors’ attention to detail—significant detail—and their logical presentation that yields the sense, but not the reality of information overload. Despite six decades of following aviation, I found many revelations in their work, a number of them surprising. For instance, the Air Force’s FICON (Fighter Conveyor) wingtip-tow project is well known. But the authors, in a section called “Drawing Board Disasters,” discuss not only a B-47/dual F-86 combination, but also a B-36/dual B-47 concept. Surprising as it is, they note that aerodynamic studies supported the feasibility of both projects. But these never got off the drawing board.

The physical presentation of the material is in a word “fantastic.” All books should be printed with this quality. The paper is thick, glossy stock, which reproduces the well-exposed and processed photographs as close to their original state as possible. Of course some images could or should be larger, but in the interest of more being better (more images, more information), they are reproduced large enough for the detail to be seen. Excellent informative graphics and charts are strategically placed throughout the book, further enhancing the narrative.

In this day of paying $50 for specialty books being the norm, this is an unequivocal no-brainer. If you want to know everything about the B-47, if you are interested in the early days of jet-propelled bombers or the Strategic Air Command or simply the evolution of an aircraft, this book not only belongs on your shelf, it must be read and re-read.

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 (II)

By fStop Fitzgerald | 27 May 2019 | Comments 0 Comment

Part II

Although the majority of the work was done in Illustrator, I did use Strata 3D for some of the smaller detail work, primarily the missiles. Drawings of the AIM-7 Sparrow III that I had were not very detailed, but good enough for the scale of the aircraft.

The drawings I had of the AIM-9 Sidewinder, however, had a surfeit of detail and therefore resulted in a better model.

The same was true for the AIM-54 Phoenix.

All too often, however, details—such as a reasonable representation of the ejection seats—are forgotten. I did not have a good 3-view of the Tom’s GRU-7A seat, but starting from an outline and referencing photographs such as the two below, I was able to at least create a flat view of the seat. It is reasonably accurate (per the photos) and good enough for the work required.

Because I wanted to the Tomcat both clean and with the gear down, canopy up, and refueling probe out, I chose two different squadrons, VF-1, the first to receive the ‘Cat, and VF-84, because they sported the classiest marks around.

I worked from about 25 photographs such as these from VF-1:

The work marks looked like this:

Before resulting in this:

I used fewer than a dozen photos from VF-84. Primarily because I did not need to look for the standard marks such as national insignia and placards. Here are a few:

They resulted in this (again pretty thin because of the standard marks):

And the final drawing:

Part III will be posted soon.

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)