Analysis for this secton was redone per our greatly improved method, not least of which is the use of a greatly-increased number of reference pics (16) - now including two examples in post-WWII CVS/LPH fit:
Click on Image to Enlarge At left, Valley Forge undated sometime during 1958 - in practically identical fit, and with identical air complement, as to be depicted for Boxer, circa 1957 - yet (even at full-resolution) it is frustratingly small. (If anyone has access to a high-res version of this image, I would very much like to know about it and get a copy!). At right is a (rare, color) closeup of Antietam's bow, sometime in May of 1958. (Note in the background a C-3 freighter, fitted- and painted exactly like the Revell Hawaiian Pilot box art, from the same era.)
As always with this data set, the real "star" category, providing the following 10 reference pics, was the WWII-fit:
Click on Image to Enlarge At top, from left-to-right: Essex on 7/31/42, Yorktown undated 1943, Intrepid 11/25/43 and Ticonderoga on 5/30/44. At middle-left, Yorktown on 9/30/44, and at right Bon Homme Richard, still in her WWII fit on 2/28/52. And at bottom, from left-to-right: Hornet 8/3/44, Yorktown in October, 1944, Randolph on 11/5/44 and Bunker Hill in July of 1973.
Completing the set were the following 4 examples, in SCB-27 fit:
Click on Image to Enlarge At top, Wasp sometime in November, 1951. At bottom-left, Kearsarge in April, 1952, and at center and -right, Lake Champlain on 11/1/52.
Note several of the above depict ships with their bows pointing away from the camera - really lousy for viewing this section - but they were the best available to achieve the required number of 16 sources. Likwise, the interpretation was done exactly as for the other sections, with the following result:
As expected, the large number of WWII-fit references produced aparent "smearing" of features - but also some strongly reinforced, repeat-"hits". Unfortunately, neither the CVS/LPH nor SCB-27 groups achieved the same (aparently neither having enough input sources) nor did they even appear to agree with any patterns in the WWII set. Thus, guestimating a "generic" pattern, at middle, was very difficult, with the result looking pretty much like just a regular spacing of openings.
This was not particularly convincing - in fact, marginally less so than in the original attempt, so I will retain the the earlier results, here:
Click on Image to Enlarge Interesting - the expanded data set is apparently still not as definitive as desired.
I would judge there to be about equal reasons for- (and against) using either of the above results.
Cheers,
-Matty
