Reading a Museum Artifact: What Commander John Graf’s Flight Jacket Can Tell Us

By William Clarkson
HRNM Educator

In addition to providing insight into the past, artifacts help us form a closer connection with a historical narrative. But what if we do not have that narrative context? Today we will look at an artifact on display at the Hampton Roads Naval Museum in the Ten Thousand-Day War at Sea exhibit, our current special exhibit about the U.S. Navy’s role during the Vietnam War. One of two flight jackets in the gallery, this G-1 style flight jacket belonged to Commander John “Jack” Graf, who enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1945. Graf was a Photographers Mate who commissioned as an officer in 1958. A flight jacket provides a snapshot of an aviator’s service. Using this jacket, we’ll explore how to “read” an artifact and how that examination can be a window into the artifact owner’s career.

CDR John Graf’s leather G-1 style flight jacket, on display at HRNM (HRNM)

At its most basic, this is a leather jacket with a fur-lined collar. Generally, only pilots and aircrew personnel receive and wear this kind of garment. These jackets came about in response to the extreme conditions present when flying at altitude.[i] Based on the materials and design, this is a “G-1” flight jacket (a general designation for a range of variants), which tells us that it was made sometime after 1947 when the “G-1” style came into being.[ii] The leather flight jacket ceased being used during missions as cockpits changed and new fabrics and technologies were developed. Thus, this style of flight jacket became more a status symbol than necessary equipment. The nameplate on the left breast provides the name, rank, and service of the owner. In this case, J.G. Graf, Lieutenant, U.S. Navy, owned this jacket. A close inspection shows the letters “JG” scratched off after the rank, indicating that Graf acquired the jacket while a Lieutenant (Junior Grade), and instead of having a new nameplate made and sewn on, he chose a more expedient remedy.

Steam rises from a vent at a snow- and ice-covered Little America Station during Operation Deep Freeze III (U.S. Navy Seabee Museum)

Visible below the nameplate is a patch from Operation Deep Freeze III (1957-58). Patches of military garments denote service with specific units or participation in certain official operations. The Deep Freeze operations were part of a long-term international scientific effort to perform research and experiments across several stations in Antarctica.[iii] This included atmospheric study, ice-core sampling, and astronomy in the polar environment. This phase of Deep Freeze coincided with the International Geophysical Year, a larger global scientific effort to study both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Serving in Antarctica is uncommon for Sailors, and the patch’s presence on this flight jacket makes Graf’s career somewhat unique. With the benefit of John Graf’s service history, we know that he did participate in Deep Freeze III, and was part of the “wintering-over” party at Little America Station in Kainan Bay on the Ross Ice Shelf. It was here that Graf commissioned as ensign, making the transition from enlisted to the officer ranks, becoming what is known in the Navy as a “Mustang.”[iv]

USS Independence (CV 62), USS Saratoga (CV 60), and USS Intrepid (CVA 11) celebrate the 50th anniversary of U.S. Naval Aviation (NHHC)

The jacket’s other patches also provide valuable information. The patch on the right shoulder is that of Heavy Attack Squadron 9 (VAH-9), known as the “Hoot Owls.” This patch is datable to the mid-1950s to early 1960s, since the design changed when the squadron was redesignated as RVAH-9 in 1964. On the right breast is the patch of USS Saratoga (CVA 60). Commissioned in 1956, Saratoga was the second aircraft carrier to bear that name. On the left shoulder is the patch of Carrier Air Group 3, known as “Battle Axe.” These three patches are diagnostic due to the overlap of each unit’s service history. VAH-9 was assigned to USS Saratoga from 1957 to 1964 as part of Carrier Air Group 3 (CVG-3). CVG-3 was redesignated as Carrier Air Wing 3, and VAH-9 to RVAH-9 in 1963 and 1964, respectively. Based on this evidence, we can reasonably surmise that Graf served aboard Saratoga as a member of VAH-9 sometime between the years of 1957-1963. With the benefit of Graf’s service history, we know that he served with VAH-9 aboard Saratoga from 1959-1963, during which time USS Saratoga deployed several times to the Mediterranean and was involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

OV-1 Mohawk aircraft of the Vietnam era. It was in this type of aircraft that LCDR Graf was shot down and captured during his second Vietnam tour in 1969. (Nasa.gov)

So, why is this flight jacket in the Vietnam section of HRNM? While this artifact does not reflect CDR Graf’s time in Vietnam, it represents the man who served there. LT Graf first deployed to Vietnam in 1966 as a Naval Intelligence Liaison Officer, during which time he was forced to crash land an O-1 Bird Dog observation plane (with no prior pilot’s training) after the pilot was killed by ground fire. For this action he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. LCDR Graf returned to Vietnam in 1969 where on November 15, 1969, both he and the pilot of an OV-1 Mohawk were forced to eject and were captured by North Vietnamese forces. Graf died during an escape attempt in February 1970. John Graf was declared “Killed-in-Action” in February 1978 and posthumously promoted to the rank of Commander. This jacket stands as a physical connection to the life and career of a Sailor, officer, and aviator of the U.S. Navy who served and was lost during the Vietnam War.



Notes:
[i] This blog about an MA-1 flight jacket on display briefly discusses the origins of the flight jackets, and how they were adapted with changing flight conditions: https://hamptonroadsnavalmuseum.blogspot.com/2020/07/naval-aviators-essential-accessories.html
[ii] The label inside the collar of the jacket is quite worn, so the specific variant is not immediately discernable. Often, artifacts are only datable to a range of time and not a specific date of creation or use.
[iii] The Cruisebook for Operation Deep Freeze (Task Force 43) is available online at: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/museums/Seabee/Cruisebooks/postwwiicruisebooks/antarctica-cruisebooks/DEEPFREEZE%20III%20TASK%20FORCE%2043%201957-58.pdf
[iv] While not official Navy terminology, Sailors who rise in the enlisted ranks and are then commissioned into the officer corps are often referred to as “Mustangs,” or “Mustangers.”

Patrol Craft on the Rivers of Vietnam

By CAPT Alexander Monroe, USN (Ret.)
HRNM Volunteer

The Hampton Roads Naval Museum displays a boat company builder’s plate and an American flag with bullet holes in its exhibit, “The Ten Thousand-Day War at Sea: The U.S. Navy in Vietnam.” These artifacts, talismans of a war fought fifty years ago, demonstrate the contributions of the riverine Sailors in Vietnam. Crews of the fast-moving river boats interdicted transfer of Viet Cong war supplies and personnel. Concurrently, they improved the health, welfare, and safety of innocent civilians in their area of operational responsibility.[i] They carried out these duties admirably, enduring lengthy repeated patrols which were generally tedious but could be interspersed with moments of terror and stress.[ii]

The unit patch of River Patrol Section 531, known as The Delta Dragons, on organizational clothing of former Engineman Second Class James Lawrence “Larry” Weatherall, USN, of PBR 105. (Courtesy of Larry Weatherall)

Unit patch of Task Force 116, The River Patrol Force, South Vietnam, 1967 (Courtesy of Larry Weatherall)

By the summer of 1965, it seemed clear that South Vietnamese Navy (VNN) forces would be unable to control the waterways of the Mekong River Delta or the Rung Sat Special Zone (RSSZ).[iii] This yielded a new objective: “for the U.S. Navy to develop a plan to cover 500 miles of major waterways to check day traffic and establish a delta wide curfew at night.” The result was the December 18, 1965, establishment of Task Force 116 (River Patrol Force) in Operation Game Warden.[iv]

The goal of U.S. Navy involvement in riverine operations was to supplement the offshore interdiction of insurgents and their supplies and equipment by clearing the Viet Cong (VC) from havens from which they could attack South Vietnamese cities, impose taxes on inhabitants, and terrorize innocent civilians in a rich, fertile land that produced the most rice in the country. An early measure, using propeller-driven 36-foot LCPLs initiated by Rear Admiral Norvell G. Ward, was ineffective because of slow speed of the craft and lack of protection from Viet Cong fire. The fiberglass PBR emerged. Its two 216 horsepower diesel engines powered a water jet propulsion system, and it was equipped with a Raytheon pathfinder radar set and provided armor around the Boat Captain (Coxswain’s) operating position. It could operate in nearly all inland waters. It responded with alacrity to even slight manipulation of the helm and did not rust. Apart from problems removing flotsam from the water jets and at times removing snakes, it was simple to operate and maintain.[v] PBRs were armed with twin .50 caliber machine guns forward and a single aft and an M60 machine gun amidships. There was a grenade launcher, 4 M16 small arms, and a .45 caliber pistol carried by the Boat Captain.

Former Engineman Fireman (ENFN) Larry Weatherall standing beside Raytheon Pathfinder radar onboard the PBR at Joint Base Little Creek/Fort Story, November 9, 2021 (Photo taken by CAPT Alexander Monroe, USN (Ret.))

Crewing a PBR required a First Class Petty Officer, usually drawn from a deck rate such as Boatswain’s Mate, Quartermaster, or Signalman to serve as Boat Captain; a Gunner’s Mate Third Class; an Engineman Third Class; and an ordinary seaman. If petty officers were unavailable, strikers might be used. Sometimes, a Vietnamese police officer or interpreter might be assigned. The crews were cross-trained. All hands learned how to operate, how “to drive the boat, how to clean weapons and break them down.” Operation and maintenance of the boat’s engines and steering gear was the responsibility of the Engineman or Engineman striker. River sections, later called “divisions,” each consisted of ten PBRs under the command of a U.S. Navy lieutenant and contained 42 enlisted personnel.

PBR 105 underway in the Ham Luong River, South Vietnam. The crewmembers from bow to stern are: GMSN Richard McMurry, QM1 Robert Fellman, SN Kenneth Bowman, and ENFN Larry Weatherall. (Photo courtesy of former Gunner’s Mate Seaman David Wilkinson)

PBR operations were carried out to remove Viet Cong influence from the Mekong River delta and contiguous areas by aggressive daylight and night patrols, each consisting of two to three PBRs. Patrols were an exhausting 10 hours in length, excluding transit time to the area under surveillance. In June 1967, the Navy made 639 daylight patrols and 701 at night. As a result, the PBR crews detained 84 individuals and seized 25 surface craft.[vi] Boat captains cruised along inland rivers and inlets from which VC forces emerged to extort “taxes” and otherwise harry indigenous craft and their operators engaged in innocent passage. In the daytime, PBR crews stopped and made fast to the craft being searched, inspecting all river craft traffic to establish the identity and bona fides of its operators. Crews removed suspected VC insurgents and transferred any contraband to the closest South Vietnamese police activity or VNN installation. The effort could be tedious, though in some cases PBRs were taken under sniper fire from VC hideouts ashore without crew members being able to identify its source. The bullet-riddled flag on display from PBR 109 was discovered at the end of its patrol. No patrols were routine and hostilities could emerge without warning.[vii] At the end of each patrol, the craft was cleaned of debris, rearmed, and refueled for the next patrol.

GMSN David A. Wilkinson displays a VC flag he seized from a captured VC watercraft in the Ham Luong River. (Courtesy of Larry Weatherall)

Night evolutions were different because traffic on the rivers was forbidden, and craft sighted were presumed hostile. In some cases, boat captains shut down engines and drifted with radar energized and starlight scopes in use, hopeful that they might detect illicit camps and traffic and destroy it. This was not foolproof, and in one case glowing light was found to be fireflies. On October 31, 1966, Boat Captain Boatswain’s Mate First Class James E. Williams and the crew of PBR 105 discovered a large concentration of VC insurgents attempting to cross the Mekong River about 10 miles west of My Tho. He began an attack at dusk which continued into full darkness. In addition to pressing the attack in his boat, he requested and received assistance from HAL-3 (Helicopter Attack Light Squadron Three). These Sailors and aviators stopped the crossing, destroyed multiple VC watercraft, and killed a large number of insurgents. Williams earned the Medal of Honor for this action. A key feature of his performance and that of all PBR boat captains and patrol officers was the necessity of making tactical and weapons employment decisions rapidly under duress. Very few commanding officers of Seventh Fleet ships could do that. This combat regimen continued day in and day out until individual personnel were rotated out of theater, medically evacuated, or killed. It was, as Captain Thomas Glickman observed, “a strange way to fight a war.”[viii]

The PBR crews faced certain hazards. One great danger emerged because VNN shore bases were infiltrated by VC insurgents.[ix] By June 1967, it was reported that, “Viet Cong were keeping detailed records on the movements and habits of various PBRs in an attempt to discern patrol patterns that could be used in planning ambushes.” For that reason, “external hull numbers and identifying marks were removed from all PBRs.” Were it not for that order, the builder’s plate for PBR 105 might never have come to the Hampton Roads Naval Museum.

PBRs moored alongside USS Harnett County (LST 821). There are no hull numbers on the craft, to counter VC efforts to hinder PBR operations. (Courtesy of Larry Weatherall)

The effectiveness of PBRs is set forth in operations reports and other publications of Commander Naval Forces Vietnam. The foreword of the June 1967 Historical Supplement mentions, “pressure along Viet Cong (river) crossing routes and ‘tax collection’ sites.” On two occasions, the 13th and 15th Delta inhabitants pointed out two Viet Cong cadre members. Also on the 15th, a sampan owner complained that 2 VC “tax collectors had confiscated 6 of 40 bags of rice he was taking to a nearby rice mill.” When PBR crews apprehended the men, the owner pointed out, “one of the detainees attempted to bribe the patrol officer with 700 piasters (about $6.00) and a watch.” On June 23, two women, one in the last stages of pregnancy and her midwife, hailed the crew of PBR 138 in the Co Chien River seeking assistance in reaching a hospital at Vinh Long, 17 miles upriver. The lady delivered a baby boy without complications on board and was put ashore at Vinh Long to be taken by ambulance to the hospital.[x] The gratitude is evident in a letter reproduced in the October 21, 1967, issue of the “Jackstaff,” signed by 25 operators of motorized sampans on the Ham Luong River, patrolled by PBRs. The signers noted, “In the beginning the VC had set up their check points and collect [sic] money from us and we were oppressed.” They went on to say, “Since the day of PBR activities on the Ham Luong River, the VC’s heartless actions were put to an end, and we have had peace of mind in our daily work.” The signers of the letter stated that they understood the necessity for the inspections and praised the courtesy of the PBR crews.

Photograph of “Grateful for PBRs,” from “The Jackstaff,” Naval Forces Vietnam, October 21, 1967. This page expresses civilians’ thanks for the PBR patrols, and courtesy of the crews who carried out a needed task.

The flag and builder’s plate on display at the naval museum are thus a powerful and lasting tribute to those who served so ably and well in the service of the United States Navy on a hostile foreign shore. They did so despite a deeply divided national view of the Vietnam War.

Author’s Note: Many thanks to Larry Weatherall and David Wilkinson for their help with this post.



[i] “Boy’s Harelip Corrected Through Navymen’s Help, Jackstaff, Naval Forces Vietnam, May 19, 1967, 4, which shows a photograph of Lieutenant Charles D. Witt and the 14 year old boy whose deformity was completely corrected; “Navy Surgical Team,” Jackstaff, JOC Ted Jorgenson, Naval Forces Vietnam, June 30, 1967, 4; See Also COMNAVFORVN Ltr FF-5/03:gem, 5750, Serial 0603 of 9 August 1967, which reports the May 24th, 1967 death of Lieutenant Witt in an ambush and other matters to include Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO).
[ii] Interview with former Engineman Second Class James Lawrence “Larry” Weatherall, USN, at Joint Base Little Creek/Fort Story, November 9, 2021. Larry Weatherall has been instrumental in restoring the PBR on static display at Joint Base Little Creek/Fort Story.
[iii] Ibid., War in the Shallows, 91-3.
[iv] Ibid., War in the Shallows, 95-6.
[v] Ibid., War in the Shallows, 104-110.
[vi] Monthly Historical Supplement (June 1967), U.S. Naval Forces Vietnam Ltr FF5-16/03:gem 5750 Serial 0702, 17 Sept 1967, 4.
[vii] Ibid., River Patrol Force, 14.
[viii] Ibid., River Patrol Force, 15
[ix] Monthly Historical Supplement (May 1967), U.S. Naval Forces Vietnam, Chronology, vi.
[x] Ibid., Historical Supplement (June 1967), 11.

"Liberty on Church Street"

By Diana Gordon
Hampton Roads Naval Museum Educator

This vibrant painting by Maizelle Brown hangs in our World War II gallery. The artist, a Hampton Roads local and lifelong Norfolk resident, often illustrates African-American history and culture in her artwork. This particular piece, Liberty, portrays visual information about the struggles of those facing segregation in our local area during World War II. Maizelle uses a thicker acrylic paint as her medium to express African-American experiences on Church Street, one of busy areas in segregated Norfolk. Church Street was where much of the African-American community's shopping, entertainment, and restaurants were located during the war years. This was the only area locally where African-American Sailors could enjoy the night life of Norfolk. 

Brown's choice of acrylic paint and use of lines expresses the wonders of a night out on-the-town. The rich bolder tones of the paint give the mood of an exciting nightlife: lights, movement, bustle, and action. The vibrant colors of yellow, green, blue, and even white add to the excitement. The acrylic paint allows for less defined lines and quicker brush strokes which gives the appearance of activity and movement. Church Street is illustrated as teeming with civilians and Sailors. The artist strategically forms lines, leading the viewer's eyes from the crisp faces in the foreground to the less distinct movements of people in the background. In addition, the lines of the buildings frame the blurred motion of those disappearing from the scene into the night. 

Although the artist paints a bold and colorful painting about night life on Church Street, she also includes a darker part of local history: segregation. Segregation practices grew even with the increase of African-Americans in the military. The number of black Sailors increased drastically during World War II, thanks to the expanding roles made available for African Americans in the armed services. Prior to the war, black sailors were limited to being mess attendants. It took pressure from organizations such as the NAACP to lead President Franklin Roosevelt to pledge that blacks could enlist in the military according to the percentage of their population. Although the true percentage was never actually met, numbers of African-American service members grew drastically across all military branches. 

African-Americans enjoying some night life. The man dancing is a Steward 1st Class. This was likely taken at the Smith Street USO (right off of Church Street). (Courtesy of the Sargeant Memorial Collection, Slover Library, Norfolk VA)

The artwork might seem energetic due to the medium and color choice, but a second look will express the segregation issue faced by many cities around the country during this time. The piece highlights that even during wartime, when the nation was united against common enemies, it was still divided by racial issues. Progress had been made, but there was still work to do. 

1918 Artist's Study for "The Return of the Mayflower" by Bernard Gribble

Artist’s Study of The Return of the Mayflower by Gribble

By Diana Gordon

Hampton Roads Naval Museum Educator

Recently, our collection gained a preliminary study of The Return of the Mayflower by Bernard F. Gribble. This famous painting illustrates Norfolk-based Destroyer Squadron 8 heading into Queenstown, Ireland, in May of 1917—only a month after the United States declared war on Germany. Gribble created several different studies of The Return of the Mayflower before he finished the final piece. In art, studies are often done in preparation for the final product and are used to understand problems of the different elements of a piece, such as light, form, and composition.

In comparison to the final rendition of The Return of the Mayflower, the study offers a different perspective, one of less urgency and hope. The composition of this work is the exact opposite of the finalized piece. For instance, the British fisherman’s boat is located on the right hand side of the canvas instead of the left-as found in The Return of the Mayflower. Having the fisherman’s boat located on the right shifts the viewer’s eye to that corner and away from the United States destroyer steaming straight ahead, moving away from these signs of hope. In addition, the local fishermen waving to the Navy ships seem less urgent in their desire to see these signs of hope. The fishermen, each outlined and defined, seem to be casually waving to the ships as they approach. Gribble even added a dog to the fisherman’s boat, which removes some of the serious tones of the piece. In the final masterpiece, Gribble shows the fisherman less defined and more chaotic in their movements, as though they would do anything to see a glimmer of hope and salvation in their world of despair.

Final rendition of The Return of the Mayflower, by Gribble

 As many artists often do, Gribble created different studies of his final work with slightly different compositions. A master in oils and watercolors, Gribble stayed true to his skill and continued with darker color tones and dramatic atmospheres in his study of The Return of the Mayflower, but the piece lacked the strong sense of urgency and hope displayed in his final rendition.

This piece is a valuable new addition to our collection. Come by and see it today!

Announcing our First Artifact of the Month: "Admiral Byrd's Bird"

The new Artifact of the Month display debuts this week at the front of the Hampton Roads Naval Museum (HRNM) gallery in an initiative to give visitors the chance to discover rarely-seen items from the museum's collection that for various reasons are not part of the permanent exhibit.  This inaugural display commemorates the little-known role played by a veteran U.S. Navy explorer in countering Nazi rivals as they attempted to claim territory for the Third Reich at the bottom of the world during the prelude to World War II.  

In 1939, Rear Admiral Richard E. Byrd (seen at left as a commander in 1926 wearing a cold-weather mask developed for flying over the arctic), was appointed head of the United States Antarctic Service (USAS) by President Franklin Roosevelt and given orders to halt Nazi exploration in Antarctica and establish permanent bases there.  Among the biological specimens brought back by USAS members in 1941 was the Gentoo Penguin now featured in the museum's "Artifact of the Month" display (Charles Nusbaum Collection/ Hampton Roads Naval Museum)  

Alarmed by reports that Nazi explorers had staked claim over more than 200,000 square miles of Antarctica during the "German Antarctic Expedition of 1938-39," the Third Reich's first conquest of territory outside Europe, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a way to stem Hitler’s expansionism by mounting the first official U.S. government expedition to the continent.    

Although other American explorers were preparing for their own private expeditions, retired Navy Rear Admiral Richard Byrd, already world famous for his Arctic and Antarctic exploits, stood out from the rest.  Roosevelt called the admiral for a private White House meeting to inform him of his intention to establish a permanent American presence on the continent, and on July 7, 1939, designated Byrd commanding officer of the United States Antarctic Service (USAS), which was supported by the Navy, Interior, State, and Treasury Departments.  

Original photographs from the expedition, including the bark USS Bear with penguins in the foreground, grace the Artifact of the Month display at the Hampton Roads Naval Museum in downtown Norfolk, Virginia (Charles Nusbaum Collection, HRNM). 

The USAS expedition of 1940-41 would be the first official American mission to establish a permanent presence in Antarctica, but it would be Byrd’s third expedition to the continent.  His first expedition in 1928 and a long-duration stay from 1933 to 1935, five months of it spent alone, had been the largest undertakings of their kind up to that point.  Before President Roosevelt put the might of the Federal Government at his disposal, Byrd had been preparing yet another large privately funded expedition.  Because his private journey of discovery had become a government operation, the native Virginian actually sold his own flagship, the former whaler USS Bear (AG-29), to the Navy for a dollar before sailing from Norfolk.  The cutter USMS North Star, based in Seattle, was the Department of the Interior’s contribution to the mission.  The 59 USAS members wintering over also had three aircraft, two light Army tanks, two light tractors, and 130 dogs for transportation. 

Within the new Artifact of the Month display at the Hampton Roads Naval Museum in downtown Norfolk, Virginia, an optimistically-rendered promotional illustration of the experimental mobile base Snow Cruiser is shown with an actual photograph from the expedition showing the behemoth vehicle being unloaded from USMS North Star upon reaching the Antarctic  (Charles Nusbaum Collection, HRNM). 

The technological marvel of the expedition was supposed to be the 55-foot-long, 33.5-ton multi-wheeled mobile base and laboratory called the Snow Cruiser that had been custom made for the USAS.  Unfortunately, its weight and lack of power proved too much for the vehicle to be of any practical use to the USAS team and the one-of-a-kind vehicle was soon abandoned.    

HRNM Exhibit Specialist Marta Joiner arranges the new Artifact of the Month display on Monday, September 14, 2015, at the front of the Hampton Roads Naval Museum in downtown Norfolk, Virginia, on the second level of Nauticus (Photo by Public Information Officer Susanne Greene, HRNM).

Although the USAS only undertook one season of research and exploration out of the two that were planned (possibly in part because their Nazi rivals never came back to defend their Antarctic “colony”), they established two bases, one of which became the oldest permanent U.S. research station in Antarctica.  Lessons learned during the USAS expedition also laid the groundwork for Operation Deep Freeze, which ensured a year-round Navy presence in Antarctica that lasted from 1955 until 1997.    

Despite the political and even military overtones of the USAS expedition, its chief accomplishments were scientific.  Among the specimens collected by USAS staff biologists were bird eggs and the skeletons of Wedell Seals.  Chief Mess Specialist Charles Nusbaum of Portsmouth, Virginia, accompanied Byrd on his historic mission to deny the Nazis a foothold in Antarctica, bringing back the intriguing artifacts, including the Gentoo Penguin, featured in HRNM's first Artifact of the Month exhibit. 

"Museum staff members are eager to share individual pieces from our collection that can tell a story on their own," said Hampton Roads Naval Museum Director Elizabeth Poulliot.  "We also want visitors to examine our new accessions.  The Artifact of the Month display gives people a chance to go behind the scenes to discover individual treasures not normally on exhibit," continued Poulliot.  "As is the case with most museums, our institution does not have enough space to exhibit everything.  Artifact of the Month ensures visitors see something new every return visit." 

Byrd’s USAS expedition to the Antarctic stands as the largest undertaking of its kind against fascism.  His next expedition in 1946, intended to both counter Soviet designs on Antarctica and train for a possible polar war with this new adversary, was known as Operation Highjump and still holds the record as the largest single expedition to Antarctica ever conducted, with 4,700 personnel and 13 ships involved. 

Indiana Jones, eat your heart out.