The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:23 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
My model shown above also shows (my interpretation) of the camouflage pattern in February 1942.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:24 pm
Posts: 62
Well-done.
These were the best fighting ships of the RNN at the time, and both were extremely lucky. TROMP might easily have been sunk at Badoeng Strait, and VAN HEEMSKERCK on her ill-advised attempt to reach Java later in the campaign.

After Badoeng Strait, RADM Doorman took some of the US fourpiper commanders over to view TROMP at Surabaja, which was badly shot up. But, she had fought very well in the engagement & earned the admiration of those American tincan men.

Both TROMP and VAN HEEMSKERCK were sorely missed in the Battle of the Java Sea, in my view.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:59 am
Posts: 128
Location: Shanghai,China
Attachment:
P1050665S.JPG
P1050665S.JPG [ 48.35 KiB | Viewed 2376 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:15 am 
maxim wrote:
There is an article about this class in Okręty Wojenne, which contains better drawings and which I should have somewhere.

The only kits are probably those of HP Model in 1/700?

I have the Jacob van Heemskerck, which depicts unfortunately not the 1942 version, but the postwar version.




I am VERY happy the the Jacob Van Heemskeeck kit is the postwar version. I would rather have it’s 1950s appearance a thousand times more than the 1942 look


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 1:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
Niko Model released a 1/700 kit of the 1942 version of Jacob van Heemskerck

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
I took a closer look on Niko Model's kit of Jacob van Heemskerck. It is the 1942 fit and then she had six 2 cm. The kit contains six Oerlikon, but she had Hispano-Suiza guns on a very interesting and completely different looking mounting, which was enclosed!

Image

Image

Image

Image
Source: https://nimh-beeldbank.defensie.nl

Are these 2 cm Hispano-Suiza available in 1/700?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:45 pm 
Guest wrote:
maxim wrote:
There is an article about this class in Okręty Wojenne, which contains better drawings and which I should have somewhere.

The only kits are probably those of HP Model in 1/700?

I have the Jacob van Heemskerck, which depicts unfortunately not the 1942 version, but the postwar version.




I am VERY happy that the Jacob Van Heemskeeck kit is the postwar version. I would rather have it’s 1950s appearance than her 1942 fit.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
Up till end Feb 1942 she remained in overall light grey, and was first camouflaged in Fremantle then, when under repairs from the Badung strait battle. She was still in Fremantle when the rest of the fleet engaged in the battle of Java Sea.

Hi Maarten,

Was just rereading this old thread and the above old post of yours caught my eye. So, just to be clear, are you then saying the photos at these AWM links posted previously are not pre Bandung Strait (as their captions state they are)?

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305844/
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305843/

For instance, for the image below the AWM states (pardon the 'all caps' as I just copied and pasted) "NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES. C.1941-02. STARBOARD SIDE VIEW OF THE DUTCH FLOTILLA CRUISER TROMP PRIOR TO THE BADUNG STRAIT ACTION IN WHICH SHE WAS SERIOUSLY DAMAGED. SHE WEARS A SPLINTER TYPE CAMOUFLAGE SCHEME, APPARENTLY OF TWO SHADES OF GREY, COMMON TO DUTCH SHIPS INVOLVED IN THE DEFENCE OF THE NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES. NOTE THE SEARCHLIGHT POSITION ON THE FOREMAST. HER FLOATPLANE HAS BEEN LANDED AS HAS HER PORT SAMPSON POST. NOTE THE PROMINENT RANGEFINDER ABOVE THE BRIDGE. ON THE DECKHOUSE AFT ARE TWIN BOFORS 40 MM AA GUNS ON TRIAXIALLY STABILISED HAZEMEYER MOUNTINGS WHICH WERE VERY ADVANCED FOR THE PERIOD. (NAVAL HISTORICAL COLLECTION)."


Attachments:
Tromp camo.JPG
Tromp camo.JPG [ 139.32 KiB | Viewed 1146 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 5:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
And now another question if I may. Re this link that was posted earlier in the thread, has anyone read the booklet and have any comments?
Warship No. 01: Cruiser HNLMS Tromp
http://www.lanasta.com/Shop/product/158/01-warship.html

Must say it surprises me that the author, seemingly(?) a Dutchman, would write the name as HNLMS rather than how WWII Dutch ships were actually named, that is Hr. Ms.. Reminds me of an (old) book I am reading at present, regarding the HMS Li Wo saga, and how the author repeatedly refers to Pearl Harbor as 'Harbour'. I realise we non-Americano's spell it differently, but that doesn't mean we should change the actual spelling of place names (or 'times') just to suit 'our' vocabulary. But thats just my opinion after all. :thumbs_up_1:

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Last edited by KevinD on Wed Sep 15, 2021 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 15, 2021 6:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
The linked photo of the Australian archive shows in my opinion Tromp as in February 1942 - not as after the repairs in Australia, where she got a different armament and camouflage pattern. /edit: also the remaining crane post aft (part of the original "main mast") was removed during the repairs in Australia, but is clearly visible on the photo in the Australian archive.

This is my interpretation:
http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/modelle/112-lars/4785-niederlaendischer-leichter-kreuzer-hr-ms-tromp-1700-niko-model-von-lars-scharff

Warship No. 01: Cruiser HNLMS Tromp is useful, e.g. for detail drawings, the changes of the rear superstructure - but it does not contain photos as in February 1942.

Here is my review (in German):
http://www.modellmarine.de/index.php/literatur/180-geschichtsliteratur/ww2-pazifik/3252-warship-no-01-cruiser-hnlms-tromp

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 3:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Thanks for your reply maxim.

Hopefully Maarten will still chime in as I wonder why his description of Tromp's paint scheme circa Feb 42 is at odds with what the AWM photos show / state. Hence why I was wondering if those photos are wrongly dated. But the scheme they show is certainly similar to some other Dutch warships circa that same time frame, so in all liklyhood they are cicra 42. (Besides, the photos Brett Morrow posted of her in Sydney post-refit appear to show a different camo scheme than shown in the AWM photos, so in all likehood the AWM ones are as you / they state, i.e. circa Feb 42.)

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 5:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
Check the different photos. The camouflage pattern in February 1942 is very similar to the other Dutch ships of the ABDA force - and very different from the one she had after the repairs in Australia. The photos are very likely dated correctly.

The period (end 1941 to February 1942) is not well documented, I found only the on the first page linked photos from the Australian archive.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
maxim wrote:
Check the different photos. The camouflage pattern in February 1942 is very similar to the other Dutch ships of the ABDA force - and very different from the one she had after the repairs in Australia.


:Oops_1:

Maxim, with all due respect, you are just repeating what I said in my last post above. :wave_1: So yes, I am well aware of that, but given Maarten's expertise I would still like to hear why he thinks / thought differently.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 6:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
Perhaps he had not yet known these photos?

Check what he gave as reference: the Lanasta book. This does not include any photo from that period.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Well if they are circa 42, which I believe they are, then one has to have a bit of a laugh at how Tromp is portrayed at the Bandung Strait Battle on the cover of the Osprey booklet published just last year with her looking rather different (see below) during said battle.

Not surprising with Osprey any longer though, as in the three 'recently' published (in the past year of so) Osprey booklets I have bought - about actions I know something about - most of their commissioned paintings in them are historically inaccurate, not to mention some of the 'whoppers' in the text. Now I could understand if they just picked out any old painting for use, but to have paintings commissioned specifically for use in the booklets and still get them historically wrong, well........................................that just says something about Ospreys seemingly ever-quickening - it seems quantity over quality - downhill slide from their earlier releases, which were first class (for instance their earlier three booklets on Betty's, pub.2001; Vals, pub.2011; and Kates, pub.2017). Not only has their historical accuracy dropped well off - as shown in the books I bought, specifically 'Java Sea 1942' and 'Sinking Force Z 1941' - in many cases they have become smaller (i.e. less pages). But kudos to Osprey for at least publishing something re those actions, just a shame the authours couldn't be more historically accurate, given the ease of which 'facts' can be checked these days.

But I digress, back to Tromp.


Attachments:
Tromp-cover.jpg
Tromp-cover.jpg [ 214.72 KiB | Viewed 1088 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1759
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
KevinD wrote:
Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
Up till end Feb 1942 she remained in overall light grey, and was first camouflaged in Fremantle then, when under repairs from the Badung strait battle. She was still in Fremantle when the rest of the fleet engaged in the battle of Java Sea.

Hi Maarten,

Was just rereading this old thread and the above old post of yours caught my eye. So, just to be clear, are you then saying the photos at these AWM links posted previously are not pre Bandung Strait (as their captions state they are)?
..."

Hi Kevin,

I just received a nudge from Lars to chime in. Sorry, I hadn't noticed, I wasn't on alert to this topic, now I am!

From the Dutch sources I'm aware of there was no note of a splinter camouflage pattern being applied to Hr.Ms. Tromp BEFORE her repairs in Australia (Sydney) between March 4th and end of April. So this took place AFTER the Dutch surrender end of February 1942.

Until Dec 7th 1941 ther certainly was no application of camo. Several pictures I have prove that. On Dec 8th 'parts of the deck are painted green to be prepared for fighting actions.' From that moment until the time in Sidney no mention of any paintwork is made in the ship's diary. The source I'm referring to is the book 'De Tromp en haar Trompers', published in 2003. Jantinus Mulder was one of the authors. Book is naturally in Dutch.

'Cruiser HNLMS Tromp' was also published by the same person, in 2012. In that book no new data is added. So my conclusion so far has been that ther was NO application of any splinter camo before she went into repair in Sidney in March 1942. I cannot argue the fact that several other Dutch naval ships had received such camo befor the surrender (Java, De Ruyter) but that doesn't prove that this was also the case on Tromp, or does it? After March 1942 the ship has had several schemes before reverting to plain grey after WW2.

BUT: when going over closely to that first book of 2003, ther is one little photo plus caption that makes me doubt: next to the narrative on 22 February 1942, the day after the Badung Strait battle (not 'Bandung' - that's a town on Java!).
Attachment:
IMG_0592.JPG
IMG_0592.JPG [ 217.21 KiB | Viewed 1086 times ]


This photo, now well enlarged, seems to show the Tromp with the battle damage of Badung Strait. The caption says: 'The ship as it was when it went on its way to Australia'. So that at least that would mean that my assumption hasn't been correct.

I would be very glad to see more consistent proof that the ship had been painted (and when?) between start of the war on 7th of December and before the Battle of Badung strait. So ther is still research to be done!

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 8:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
@ Maarten: the photo you linked is likely made after the repairs in Australia, because both kingpost are removed. The early photos of Tromp feature two kingposts with a light main mast on it, the photos in the Australian archive labelled February 1942 show only one kingpost and a typical camouflage pattern similar to Java's and De Ruyter's. That indicate that the fit with only one kingpost is the intermediate one - before the repairs in Australia, i.e. around February 1942.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1759
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
KevinD wrote:
Well if they are circa 42, which I believe they are, then one has to have a bit of a laugh at how Tromp is portrayed at the Bandung Strait Battle on the cover of the Osprey booklet published just last year with her looking rather different (see below) during said battle.

Not surprising with Osprey any longer though, as in the three 'recently' published (in the past year of so) Osprey booklets I have bought - about actions I know something about - most of their commissioned paintings in them are historically inaccurate, not to mention some of the 'whoppers' in the text. Now I could understand if they just picked out any old painting for use, but to have paintings commissioned specifically for use in the booklets and still get them historically wrong, well........................................that just says something about Ospreys seemingly ever-quickening - it seems quantity over quality - downhill slide from their earlier releases, which were first class (for instance their earlier three booklets on Betty's, pub.2001; Vals, pub.2011; and Kates, pub.2017). Not only has their historical accuracy dropped well off - as shown in the books I bought, specifically 'Java Sea 1942' and 'Sinking Force Z 1941' - in many cases they have become smaller (i.e. less pages). But kudos to Osprey for at least publishing something re those actions, just a shame the authours couldn't be more historically accurate, given the ease of which 'facts' can be checked these days.

But I digress, back to Tromp.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on the quality of Osprey's publications. Not that other books or authors are perfect: no-one is (neither am I). Lanasta's books have their share of errors too.

Coming back to your note on the use of 'HNLMS' instead of 'Hr.Ms.': the use of the former is really a recent practice in the Dutch forces to be internationally aligned, as most operations are very internation nowadays. With the new series on Warships from Lanasta (from which the booklet on Trom was the first) they chose for English to get a broader audience than with the first book 'De Tromp en haar Trompers'. So they chose to align with the modern practice. 'Hr.Ms.' stands for 'Harer Majesteit's' meaning 'Her Majesty's' , so exactly the same as the English equivalent but in archaic Dutch. By adding 'NL' into the abbreviation the distinction with the Royal Navy is made.

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1759
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
maxim wrote:
@ Maarten: the photo you linked is likely made after the repairs in Australia, because both kingpost are removed. The early photos of Tromp feature two kingposts with a light main mast on it, the photos in the Australian archive labelled February 1942 show only one kingpost and a typical camouflage pattern similar to Java's and De Ruyter's. That indicate that the fit with only one kingpost is the intermediate one - before the repairs in Australia, i.e. around February 1942.

Thank you for the critical review of the picture, Lars! So even this photo doesn't help to confirm any use of splinter camo BEFORE the Battle of Badung Strait...

And it also sheds some more light on the questionable information in the Lanasta books as well...

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3688
Location: Bonn
What do you think about these photos?

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/044774/
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305844/ (same photo, not as dark)
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305843/

This show Tromp according to the labeling in February 1942 - and the camouflage, armament and other details fit to that date.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vlad and 44 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group