What's This Thing #3

[rtrapasso]

Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Northampton, Chester, Louisville, Chicago, Augusta, Houston, Portland, or Indianapolis.

Bad boy - you i did not give a cookie for Chicago, Salt Lake City, Northampton or Chester (i think those are the only actual ships mentioned before this) so you know it is not one of these.

That leaves: Pennsacola, Louisville, Augusta, Houston, Portland, or Indianapolis (one person said he was going to guess the Indy, but didn't).

So of those ships, you are correct, it is one of them. But which one?

EDIT - you added Augusta as i was posting. Still no cookie!

[Tankerace]

That's fine, I'm on a diet [:D]

So it was Augusta? That's odd.

[von Murrin]

Louisville.

Accompanying photo:

[Cap Mandrake]

It's the Louisville-Houston-Chester[:'(] We have apparently already dismissed the Chicago, Northhampton and Augusta

Note that the mystery pic is a starboard aft quarter view. This is confirmed by the life raft? mounted on the back of the forward funnel. This is also barely seen on the picture of the Chicago. I wasted some of my precious time looking for a Northhampton class with a life raft mounted on the side of the forward funnel[:@]

The fact that the mystery pic is not from abeam means that the geometry of the forward superstructure looks funny.

I think we would need some geographic, contextual or time hint to sort out the remaing three Northhampton class cruisers.

[von Murrin]

Here's a modification of the above photo demonstrating why I think it's Louisville. Similarities are circled and seeming similar lengths are checkered lines.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

Here's a modification of the above photo demonstrating why I think it's Louisville. Similarities are circled and seeming similar lengths are checkered lines.

von Murrin;


I agree that it is a Northampton class vessel..as those features are seen in the Northampton class. The superstructure differences are seen over time I think...BTW...there is no life raft on the back of the fore funnel.

Here is the Northhampton itself...with thsoe same features.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

It's the Louisville-Houston-Chester[:'(] We have apparently already dismissed the Chicago, Northhampton and Augusta

Note that the mystery pic is a starboard aft quarter view. This is confirmed by the life raft? mounted on the back of the forward funnel. This is also barely seen on the picture of the Chicago. I wasted some of my precious time looking for a Northhampton class with a life raft mounted on the side of the forward funnel[:@]

The fact that the mystery pic is not from abeam means that the geometry of the forward superstructure looks funny.

I think we would need some geographic, contextual or time hint to sort out the remaing three Northhampton class cruisers.

OK - here is a (BIG) hint - within a few days of this picture being taken, they were going to need the liferaft you guys keep noticing...

[Cap Mandrake]

USS Houston, sunk in battle of Sunda Straight March 1, 1942.

The other members of the Northhampton Class that were lost in the war have already been excluded.

Photo taken by US sub


http://www.navalships.org/usshouston.html


Surprising to me that both the Perth and Houston were lost under the command of a Dutch Admiral (Doorman) even though there were no Dutch capital ships involved.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

USS Houston, sunk in battle of Sunda Straight March 1, 1942.

The other members of the Northhampton Class that were lost in the war have already been excluded.

Photo taken by US sub


http://www.navalships.org/usshouston.html


Surprising to me that both the Perth and Houston were lost under the command of a Dutch Admiral (Doorman) even though there were no Dutch capital ships involved.

Cookie to Capt. Mandrake! It is the USS Houston - and this was the last photo taken of her.

Although this photo is said to be taken on the website quoted as "being through the periscope of an Allied sub" - a better attribution (including the person who submitted the photo) says it was actually taken through the GUNSIGHT of an Allied vessel.

Either way, the photo made the hairs stand up on the back of my neck when i saw it (and the caption).

Of course, periscope cameras were not standard in US (or other Allied subs) in the beginning of the war. Amateur photographers on the crew figured out how to do them, and methods eventually became standardized to allow for things like photorecon through the periscope. I suspect similarly someone fitted a camera a the gunsite to allow this picture. Unfortunately, the ship to which this is attributed to is not given. See:
info.lib.uh.edu/sca/ digital/cruiser/atwar.htm

As for Doorman - i don't believe he was "in charge" anymore when the Houston and Perth were sunk. Doorman was lost when De Ruyter (and Java) were sunk on 28 February. The Battle of Sunda straight started some hours later.

[Cap Mandrake]

Interesting. The point remains that Doorman sent the Houston and Perth in harms way. It is simply something I found surprising given current American sensibilities about foreign control of US armed forces.

I was accustomed to British commanders giving orders to US forces..just surprised me about the Dutch. Still, I do have Doorman in charge of a US flagged force vs the AI [:)]

[ChezDaJez]

I would assume that Doorman was given command for 2 reasons:
1. Intimate knowledge of the area and...
2. The US recognized that we needed Dutch ships and with them came the political requirement to use their commanders. The same with the Brits.

I highly doubt that any of our Allies would willingly take a back seat to us unless absolutely necessary. After all it was their colonies under attack and they needed to be seen as leading the effort back in their home countries. It would have been political suicide for anyone to just step aside to the US. No country wants to see their navies being led into battle by foreigners when they have capable commanders themselves.

Chez

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

I would assume that Doorman was given command for 2 reasons:
1. Intimate knowledge of the area and...
2. The US recognized that we needed Dutch ships and with them came the political requirement to use their commanders. The same with the Brits.

I highly doubt that any of our Allies would willingly take a back seat to us unless absolutely necessary. After all it was their colonies under attack and they needed to be seen as leading the effort back in their home countries. It would have been political suicide for anyone to just step aside to the US. No country wants to see their navies being led into battle by foreigners when they have capable commanders themselves.

Chez

Agreed. An eminently sensible political decision. That is why it surprised me. [:D]I suspect there was some calcualtion that Japanese control of the DEI was a bad thing for the US.