The Ship Model Forum

Thanks for the kind words that all that very useful information! Glad to share what I have found myself with the community, more information is always useful, and this conversation is definitely doing to help me with the build.

I also agree that the Asiatic Fleet destroyers were not uniform in their outfits, but I did want to get the general outline of it down, as there do seem to be some general changes which most or in some cases all of them had, like landing the forward starboard life boat. Also, I probably should have been clearer with what I meant by 1942 changes. I don't think they happened during the war itself, all of these happened prewar aside from maybe adding some .30 cals here or there, what I was trying to say and was not clear about is that these are changes they received by 1942 (Like the plates for the bridge windows) as compared to a barebones as completed 1918 Clemson. I'm converting a Flyhawk Ward and their model represents a very barebones prewar Wickes class, so the modifications list I posted I believe happened prewar in their last refits.

As for paint, based on the evidence, I think I am going to paint my destroyer (I haven't quite chosen which yet) in a base coat of light grey, add some rust, and then make Cavite Blue (or something close) and add it as a wash so that it looks like a very battered Cavite Blue fading away in the tropic sun, giving it the very battered look they had.

Lastly, do you think that ID on the Ford from the Kookaburra photo is correct? Because if it is, I think it IDs her in the photo of the four Java Sea survivors around the George G Henry, as the aft mast and life rafts seem to line up perfectly, where as they don't with the next in board destroyer. If the Kookaburra photo is indeed a wartime picture, then Ford is the outmost DD in that other photo. I think this would make her not the destroyer with the Black Hawk in that other photo as the Ford does not seem to have the platform and the ship next to the Black Hawk has it but no main mast, making it one of the other AF DDs.

Thanks again for all that info, and the photo of the other .50 cal position is exactly what I needed even if it is off of a lend lease DD!

From the inimitable Dan Mullin's book, ANOTHER SIX HUNDRED:

"There was on board [JOHN D. FORD], a spare 50 Cal. machine gun. Mullin had figured out a way to mount it on a 30 cal. Lewis gun mount and also mount two Lewis guns, side by side on a single stand...[with permission of their Gunnery Officer, LT Wm Mack]..."had worked to accomplish same while in Kupang Bay [Timor]. Some welding was necessary...The guns in their new mounts were functionable" (p. 115)

"...the makeshift, jury-rigged 50 cal. machine gun on the galley deck house joined in..." (p. 175)

So, those additions ought to be visible in any photos of JD FORD, I would think.

That good to know about the Ford and would definitely help identify her. I am always impressed by the ingenuity of the Asiatic fleet sailors. Unfortunately, I don't think either image has enough resolution in the deckhouse area to confirm if those ships have the said mounting. The image of her next to the George G Henry seems to come from a film, but I can't find it on the AWM and I've been digging for it there for a bit today. HMAS Kanimbla was operating off Java during this period, so in absence of other information, I would tentatively say its the Ford, but a better photo would be great.

I did find a different video which shows several interesting ships including a brief shot of an AF DD from this time period. It was taken on a convoy moving through the Indian Ocean, Java Sea, and Australia in Jan-March 1942.

What appears to be an Asiatic fleet Clemson can be seen for a few seconds at 29:40
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C190139

Other interesting shots are
12:47 N class DD followed by Indomitable
13:35 USS Boise awaiting repairs in India
24:54 AMC in what seems to be an interesting fake wake camo
28:53 D class cruiser
32:57 Another D class cruiser?
46:35 N class DD followed by carrier

Old image acquired years ago--don't know the source--but relevant perhaps. Never been v. convinced myself about any wartime camo painting on STEWART, though.

Thanks for sharing that painting, it's quite interesting!

I am fairly convinced the Stewart carried camouflage during this period though. The photos of her in drydock are pretty convincing to me. I cannot account for that distinct difference in color on her bow and stern any other way.
The USS Holland also seems to have painted on a similar fake bow camouflage during this period. The photo below on the left shows her right before she deployed to the Asiatic fleet and on the right it shows her on March 5th and she too seems to have added a similar false bow painting, which would make two ships in the Asiatic fleet which carried that style of camouflage.

Thanks for the HOLLAND photo. She left Tjilatjap early enough to have painted that after she reached Oz for all we know. But, maybe not. I'm prone to 'constructive skepticism' when there are so few provable certainties.

And yes, I can see STEWART appears with what looks like a paint job on her hull in the drydock at Surabaja. There, too, we have no idea when it was done...Was it first painted when she was in the drydock?

And STEWART is a v. intriguing case anyway, since even though she was lost--or perhaps because of it--her story is unusually well-documented, with writings by CDR Tom Binford, Wick Alford's book, Bill Kale's extremely important diary, and the excellent John Klar articles on DD-224 in Warship International zine...Additionally I knew pretty well a guy who served on her throughout her brief wartime career (& who escaped on JOHN D. FORD) and I asked him, as all other Asiatic Fleet vets I knew/met over the years, about painting the ship...Neither he nor any of the others ever recalled or wrote about any painting of the hull. I think most knew of smaller areas painted/touched up on the upperworks, but not in any specified camo pattern.

However, the visible evidence is more compelling in her case than others.

[Sadly for model builders, two areas in which AF destroyers were at the forefront of upgrades are not really visible: their Q gear, and their ECMs.]

On another tack, I wonder if some of the ad hoc alterations to AF fourpipers were influenced by British practice in refitting those 50 old flushdeckers we gave them in 1940 (?)


FWIW (& the search goes on...)

Pic is of PAUL JONES and STEWART at Cavite.

Glad to share the photo of the Holland. I agree it isn't clear when she added that other that it seems to be sometime after she deployed (I highly doubt she could have gotten away with a non standard design like that with the Pacific fleet in Pearl) and before March 5th. I find it more interesting that it is so similar to what Stewart was wearing.

As for the Stewart, those records are rather invaluable as is anything from this time period. I do think the drydock photos give decent evidence of when they were taken and thus as to when the camouflage was added. The depth charges are still on her racks which points at least to me that the photo was taken extremely soon after she rolled over, possibly day of. I find it very hard to believe a ship in drydock that was under active bombing attacks would be allowed to keep several thousand pounds of exposed explosives on her stern, particularly in such a logistically valuable and highly vulnerable location. That combined with the fact that there is still water in the drydock with the hull seeming to be inspected makes me think that photo is taken very soon after she rolled over, likely day of.

I personally doubt that the USN crew would have bothered painting a camouflage scheme on her after she was crippled and abandoned, and I also doubt the Dutch would have painted a scheme on a crippled destroyer, especially a scheme which didn't match the standard scheme they used on their ships.

That leads me to think Stewart was already wearing this paint job prior to entering drydock and that it wasn't added there. Which brings up the question of when it was added. As mentioned, it doesn't seem like she had much if any time to add it during the war, so my personal guess is that she painted up in this very late in 1941 possibly after the war warning went out, and she went to war in it, which would explain why her crew doesn't mention adding it during the campaign, due to it being a very late prewar job.

It is a shame though that those details (Q gear and ECMs) aren't visible. And one would have to wonder if that idea came from the British and where they added their .50 cals, it's an interesting hypothesis. It could also be a form of convergent evolution, but both are intriguing possibilities. Always something more to research and learn.

And thanks for that photo of the DDs in Cavite, those are always interesting to see!

Hi D,

A little late to this party but.....................


FWIW, of interest may (or may not) be that the late Alan Raven posited that it was / may be a Lend Lease DD in Brit hands and photo taken in the UK! (Partially / primarily(?) because of what he was convinced is / was camo.)


I didnt think that the album being in the hands of a Hobart vet meant that the photos contained were taken from Hobart. Didn't these sailor albums contain photos from numerous, or at least other, sources than from the ship said album owner was in? I though they contained a collection of photos with no specific 'point of origin', no?

And yes certainly some good info here gents!

BTW, did Pope have depth charge throwers, or just "roll offs"?

_________________
“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

AFAIK the Asiatic Fleet tincans only had DC roll off racks.

I'm just skeptical because the Goodwin pic alleged to be POPE is in a photo album kept by a guy on a ship that did not operate w/POPE, and which has a number of erroneous IDs in it re the Java Campaign.

You're quite right that guys acquired many pics that were reprints..that was common enough. However, taking that viewpoint I might ask, 'Then how come that pic has not showed up in other albums?'
(Or maybe it did. I don't know.)
Anyway, it simply seems at least as strong an argument con as pro.

FWIW

This is probably a bad question, but which photo is this referring to (the one that Alan Raven thought was a British Lend Lease DD)?



Also unrelated, but does anyone have a good view of one of the Asiatic Fleet DD's bridge by chance? I'm trying to figure out what the railing on the bridge looked like, as I think I'm going to need to modify the Flyhawk Ward a bit.

The third photo down in your post from Friday Feb 23rd, above on this page.

_________________
“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

Thanks for clarifying!

That photo I am confused about. On one hand it appears to still have it's searchlight on the bridge, which I am not aware of any Asiatic fleet destroyers retaining in during the war until their refits. On the other hand the shield on the stern 4 inch mount looks like one of the ones which were added to Asiatic fleet destroyers and it still appears to have all of its torpedo tubes and no 20 mms replacing the amidships searchlight. Did any non Asiatic fleet Clemsons have a shielded stern gun like that?

1) I think that is likely an Asiatic Fleet fourpiper later (post-NEI campaign) at Sydney...similar to this photo of WHIPPLE.

2) Lend-lease DDs to GB did have shielded aft mounts, but they were mostly 12 pdr...The US aft 4-inch gun being one of the first things removed, as I understand it.

3) IJN records of the destruction of PILLSBURY had very explicit details of "strong white light signals from the bridge area" of DD-227 as she frantically tried to identify herself just before she was blown to shreds. The range was 6,000 meters.

HTH

That photo being taken of one of the escaped AF DDs right after the NEI campaign would make a lot of sense and fits it well. The ladder on the ship where the picture was taken from makes it look like it might be the USS Black Hawk. The height and ladder seem to fit that.

As for the Pillsbury, that checks out that a few of the AF DDs may have kept the bridge searchlight as this photo indicates as well. That is a gut punch to read though. Given that she was being shelled by cruisers, it makes me wonder if she thought that she was under fire from Houston and Perth who's fate was not known by the rest of the fleet from what I understand. It hurts to read that her brave crew thought she was under possible friendly fire, and makes that sinking more tragic to me

If we are still talking about the below vessel, I would respectfully have to disagree on that location. Having spent a bunch of time on Sydney Harbour, and much more time in the suburbs surrounding it, the shoreline is just too flat. On the other hand, having also traveled out of Surabaya Roads by boat, the background certainly is flat enough to be Madura (which of course does not prove / mean it is), and no doubt other places too. It just ain't Sydney, IMO.

_________________
“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

Not talking about that image at all...

...but this one.

Re the death of PILLSBURY, if you can find the article in the August 2013 issue of America in WWII zine, it has the details. These were also incorporated (with a few more from the IJN side perhaps?) in the 2017 book, IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE TRAGIC (Potomac), which has many previously unpublished photos & rare interviews w/Asiatic Fleet vets, etc. For anyone who has a genuine--or even passing--interest in the Asiatic Fleet, the book is worth getting.

https://www.amazon.com/Highest-Degree-T ... 8203&psc=1

The similarity of TAKAO-class and BROOKLYN-class cruiser main battery arrangement was most likely the explanation for PILLSBURY's weird behavior that night...As the Japanese ships had intercepted her in exactly the area designated by COMSOWESPAC for fleeing Allied ships to meet up and move south to Oz...

FWIW

That book has been on my to read list for a while, I'll have to move it up. And no matter who Pillsbury thought was firing, her thinking it was friendly fire is just tragic.

If one could only own one book on (the naval events of) the Java Sea campaign then I think In The Highest Degree Tragic would have to be it. Without a doubt the most thoroughly researched and up to date account at the present time.

_________________
“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

The image posted by G-Opt looks very much like the Brisbane River.