The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:46 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 160 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Thanks for your input Maarten!

Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
........... 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?
It doesn't 'prove' it, but lends credence to her being so, but not 100% of course. If I was a gamblin' man though, well, then.................... Just for everyone's benifit, I'll post those other camo schemes below (again, as I know they are somewhere in their respective larger threads) so the similarities can be easily seen for those so interested (last known photos of the pair, Java on left, DR on right).

Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
..........the day after the Badung Strait battle (not 'Bandung' - that's a town on Java!).
Bandung / Badung. My bad! And given I have crossed that strait enough times I should have known better. As we Ozzies would say downunder "I got 'em arse about".:bash_2:

Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
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.
Also, if you look at Brett Morrow's post towards bottom Page 1, along with what Lars has had to say more recently, you will see that Brett also notes she has a new post-refit radar attached. So definitely post refit photo.

Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
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!
There is ALWAYS still research to be done Maarten, on many subjects. :heh: Too many subjects, not enough time though.


Attachments:
Java-and-Ruyter.jpg
Java-and-Ruyter.jpg [ 260.13 KiB | Viewed 1070 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 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
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.
Oh, we all get it wrong sometimes in what we publish, thats for sure, myself included. And as I said, all kudos to Osprey for at least publishing those subjects, but either the authors should do better due diligence, or Osprey should have an editor / proof reader with better knowledge of the subject being published. But some mistakes in the books I mentioned are simply just historically incorrect, the Force Z one having more than its fair share, while the Java Sea one is not too far behind, unfortunately. But that just IMO.

Maarten Schönfeld wrote:
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 hear you re the above Maarten, but I still think it wrong as it were to 'change' the naming of WWII vessels to fit the current vernacular. But, again, thats just my opinion, and it is not me writing the books. So, my opinion means diddly squat in the grand scheme of things! :big_grin:

_________________
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 11:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305843/

Given the (separate) movements of the two ships after 18th February 1942, would not the presence of Soemba (if it is her) beyond Tromp in this photo confirm that the photo was taken pre 18th February?

The location is Oosthaven is it not?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
dick wrote:
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/305843/
Given the (separate) movements of the two ships after 18th February 1942, would not the presence of Soemba (if it is her) beyond Tromp in this photo confirm that the photo was taken pre 18th February?
The location is Oosthaven is it not?

Good eyes Dick! I will leave it to others to confirm your ship ID, but..........................whom else could it be?

And it 'looks' like (what I have seen of) Oosthaven to me.

_________________
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 1:47 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1760
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
maxim wrote:
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.

I know these photos, and I've read the labeling. However: I cannot identify the location nor the date from the photo's themselves.

So I have no clue that the labelling 'before Badung Strait' is correct or not. As far as I can see these might have been taken just as well after the repair in Sidney. By the fact that the labeling doesn't specify either the precise location or date doesn't help.

_________________
"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 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 337
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Dick`s comments are on the mark, the ship in the background is indeed Soemba, she carried that scheme into late 43.
Given both ships movements, after the battle their paths did not cross again in 1942.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 6:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Brett Morrow wrote:
Dick`s comments are on the mark, the ship in the background is indeed Soemba, she carried that scheme into late 43.
Given both ships movements, after the battle their paths did not cross again in 1942.


Thanks.

And, correct me if I am wrong, their paths did not cross again until 1946.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 8:10 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:44 pm
Posts: 1760
Location: Herk-de-Stad, Belgium
Well, it seems that both the location (Oosthaven, today called Kota Bandar Lampung) and the timing (by the identification of the Soemba) has been clarified. Then we may conclude the Tromp did have camouflage prior to the Battle of Badung Strait, just as Lars had stated already.

For me the nagging question remains: when (and where) was this applied? Those two months and a week between 'Pearl Harbor' and 'Battle of Badung Strait' were quite hectic, lots of patrols and other operations, little time in harbour for painting the ship.

_________________
"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: Fri Sep 17, 2021 11:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:24 pm
Posts: 62
Wasn't TROMP at the Surabaja naval base early in the war (as of ~Dec. 12), operating on patrols in Madura Strait for a period? She might have received her camo then? In the Ratai Bay photos it doesn't appear to be a particularly thorough paint job, in any case.

FWIW


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2021 3:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Following along the lines of what G-Opt said,, if one looks at the camo comparison photo of Java and DR (in this thread), DR's camo is well worn, while Java's looks comparitively 'clean'. When was it applied and could that give some clue as to when Tromp's may have been applied?

_________________
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: Sat Sep 18, 2021 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 337
Location: Laurieton , Australia
The answer to the approx. date of Tromp`s application may lay in cruiser Sumatra. She left the D.E.I. in January 1942 but I cannot find the exact date.
Images of her in Ceylon would indicate she was painted in 2 tone scheme before she got there. Her scheme was almost identical to Java, all the schemes for Dutch ships on the D.E.I stn followed the same simple lines and were applied approx. the same time, no doubt from a directive I have not seen. It would not require a massive amount of effort nor time to format the schemes as the only colour needed was the darker colour over the pre overall light grey, I have not actually seen a port side image of Tromp in the initial scheme.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Brett Morrow wrote:
... no doubt from a directive I have not seen....


For what it is worth, which may be limited as he cites no source for his assertion, in his book "Dutch Warships of WWII" Henk van Willigenburg states of the pattern scheme that it "was implemented by the RNethN as of 16th December 1941."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 337
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Thanks Dick, time wise makes sense after Netherlands declaration of War against Japan. This would then point to the application last 2 weeks of that month into early Jan 42. Sumatra`s hasty exit from unfinished refit and transfer to Colombo sometime Jan would also allow time for her application, evident in those relevant images.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 5:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2015 7:37 am
Posts: 223
Hi All,

Hi Richard, wasn't there reference to 1941 Leamington camo designs for Java etc in the HO 1333 file (that ref number is a IIRC vague memory) giving the camo dept job numbers.

Obviously we can't know if they were used etc but it does run in my memory that they are referenced.

Best wishes
Sean.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:44 pm
Posts: 650
Location: UK
Hi Sean,

Yes, Job No’s 37 (identified as De Ruyter), Job 38 (identified as Java), Job 39 (unidentified) and Job 56 (identified as Isaac Sweers). They were requested July 1941 and delivered to the Admiralty during August and September 1941. There is a note to the effect that Java’s design was returned in August for simplification as facilities for painting the ship were likely to be limited but I would find it hard to believe that it was these Leamington designs that were used in the NEI.

July/August 1941 was the high point of Leamington’s multi-coloured, complex, curvaceous disruptive designs. For context, Job 32 was Prince of Wales and Sheffield was Job 63:
Attachment:
PoW Sheff.jpg
PoW Sheff.jpg [ 92.74 KiB | Viewed 765 times ]


I would suggest that this is Job 56 on Isaac Sweers:

Attachment:
Issac Sweers a.jpg
Issac Sweers a.jpg [ 237.31 KiB | Viewed 765 times ]

And this is possibly Job 39 on van Heemskerck:
Attachment:
van Heemskerck - Copy.jpg
van Heemskerck - Copy.jpg [ 129.48 KiB | Viewed 765 times ]


The simple, straight-edged designs seen on the Dutch ships in the NEI do not in any way resemble these and other mid 1941 Leamington/Admiralty disruptives in style, and the tropical green Tromp used over the basic grey is not a colour from the Leamington/RN palette.

Best wishes


Last edited by dick on Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Thanks very much for that juicy 'little' bit of info Dick! :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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 21, 2021 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
Hello all. :wave_1: I've read this forum for the last few years to get help on some models I've built myself, and this particular thread today inspired me to make an account, as the ships during the dreadful ABDA campaign have always been of particular interest to me.

I've done a fair bit of research on Tromp during this time for a model I made, and I think I can possibly add a bit to the conversation on here. The photos in question of the Tromp are in a series of photographs taken from the HMAS Hobart in Oosthaven right before the debacle in the Gaspar Strait on either February 13th or 14th. Here is a link to a website with some of the original photos with their original captions https://collections.museumsvictoria.com ... =Costhaven So the photos definitely show Tromp in the camouflage she had during the ABDA campaign.

A few thoughts on Dutch camouflage from the time as a whole. This is just my personal theory on their camouflage, but it seems to fit well with what sparse evidence we have, as a lot of the documents on this period were lost when the East Indies were lost. Anyway, it seems to me that the Dutch came up with camouflage designs in the NEI for their own ships. This would explain why Isaac Sweers and Jacob van Heemskerck both have radically different camouflages at the time, because they were stationed with the British navy not the Dutch navy, and thus got British pattern camouflages.

Best as I can tell, the Dutch came up with a basic camouflage design prior to the war. This design was in place, but not implemented until the start of the war, as the Dutch did not want to provoke the Japanese in anyway. The outbreak of war took the Dutch off guard and thus the basic angular camouflage design seems to have been implemented in several different ways as soon as possible depending on where the ships were based.

Thus De Ruyter, Sumatra, and Tromp which were all based in Soerabaja in December to early January 1941-1942 seem to have gotten a 3 tone version of the basic angular camouflage. It stands out the most in this photo of the Sumatra to me, https://www.world-war.co.uk/rotate.php? ... a42_bombay. But De Ruyter and Tromp both seem to be in a triple tone camouflage based on their pictures from the time as well. I could be wrong about this, but Sumatra seems to be very much in a 3 tone, and De Ruyter and Tromp both seem to have that as well, which would make sense, as they were all operating out of Soerabaja when they got painted. This would present a possible reason for the wear on the camo of De Ruyter and Tromp, as if the paint was a last minute addition due to war, it likely would have been hastily applied, and might not have even been paint meant for use at sea, thus it would have probably worn quickly.

Java was not operating out of Soerabaja at the start of the war, but rather was escorting convoys out of Singapore, and thus from what I can tell was given a slightly different two tone camouflage at the start of the war. If it was British paint used to paint her in the Dutch style in Singapore, it could have been better paint from the British stocks, and thus the different wear from De Ruyter and Tromp. if I had to guess, she probably was using 507c on her peace war light grey to make her camo.

Edited to add: The Dutch cargo ship SS Abbekerk which was operating in the NEI at this time also has part of what seems to be the Dutch camouflage design for the NEI at the time. While she lacks any hull camouflage, she clearly has an upper works camouflage very reminiscent of the De Ruyter's funnel camouflage at the time, which would point further to a general idea of a camouflage pattern for Dutch ships in the NEI, with several variations in the main design. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C241831

Thus from what I can tell, the Dutch had a general plan of camouflage they implemented at the start of the war with Japan, but with a few variations depending on which yard their ships were operating out of. Most of the ships got the Soerabaja style of the camouflage, but at least Java seems to have gotten a slightly different version of it due to her being else where at the start of the war. That's just my two cents on the matter.

Sorry this post was so long winded, but it was the best way I could break down my thoughts on the matter. I could be totally wrong about this theory, but its the best one I can come up with given the info I've dug up. I'm curious to hear what you guys think about this, and for any feedback on this theory you might have. :thumbs_up_1:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
Also, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but for those wanting to build Tromp during the late 1941-February 1942 ABDACOM period, do note, her foremast with the searchlight platform was shortened prior to the outbreak of war as evidenced by this 1941 photo where she still has her floatplane, something she did not carry during the war. This is not well documented but seems to have happened when the 40 mm guns were repositioned centerline which also occurred prior to the war.


Attachments:
File comment: Tromp mast height
Tromp mast.PNG
Tromp mast.PNG [ 206.69 KiB | Viewed 678 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 3689
Location: Bonn
Why do you think that Tromp got a 3 colour camouflage?

I have seen interpretations with several colours in case of De Ruyter, but I am not really convinced that more than 2 colours were used, the same for Java.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 22, 2021 11:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
maxim wrote:
Why do you think that Tromp got a 3 colour camouflage?

I have seen interpretations with several colours in case of De Ruyter, but I am not really convinced that more than 2 colours were used, the same for Java.

So here are my break down of the three ships in what I would refer to the 'Soerabaja' Style of the basic Dutch design, as all three of them probably got their camouflage in Soerabaja at the start of the war, and thus I suspect they all got similar jobs, unlike Java who was based out of Singapore at the time.

Note: sorry if I am not supposed to be posting pictures by attaching them as files like this.


Attachments:
Sumatra.PNG
Sumatra.PNG [ 112.28 KiB | Viewed 651 times ]
De Ruyter.PNG
De Ruyter.PNG [ 204.6 KiB | Viewed 651 times ]
Tromp 1.PNG
Tromp 1.PNG [ 187.87 KiB | Viewed 651 times ]
Tromp 2.PNG
Tromp 2.PNG [ 398.11 KiB | Viewed 651 times ]
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, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 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