Calling all Royal Navy J, K-N class destroyer fans

[PetrOs]

I am reading the Langtree book now, and got interesting note on Jervis there.
He writes there that:
Jervis got 4" AA gun instead of rear quintuple TA when going to mediterranean. As she came there, the 4" was landed, and a QUADRUPLE TA was installed instead. Is there a proof of her having one Quad and one Quintuple TA? I am building her, so would be highly interested to know...

[dick]

Here is the relevant column for the J Class in the half yearly return CB 0815B dated April 1941 (theoretically correct as at 31st March 1941):

Re a. PR means pentad, QR means quadruple so "PQR" is a slight typo by the staff officer compiling this list!

But a distinction is clearly being made between Jervis and what the rest of her class were supposed to have.

Re b. the number of torpedoes carried on Jervis is clearly shown as 9 not 10.

Then at the bottom of the page confirmation of what we see in photos, that Jervis did not at that time have one set of TTs replaced by a 4" as she is not listed:

[tjstoneman]

dick wrote '... "PQR" is a slight typo by the staff officer compiling this list' - in fact, this was probably not a typo. Norman Friedman in British Destroyers From Earliest Days to the Second World War (Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing, 2009) wrote "... removal of the centre tubes in the I class, their pentad revolving (PR) mounts being redesignated pentad quadruple revolving (PQR) mounts." He refers to a CAFO dated 15 February 1940. Thus it appears that PQR mounts DID exist, and it is entirely possible that JERVIS was fitted with one.

[dick]

A good point Tim and if I had turned a couple more pages in CB 01815B I would have seen this in relation to the I Class:

PQR I Class.jpg (7.29 KiB) Viewed 5511 times

(Still poor staff work however as "PQR" should have been listed along with the other TT options in the Notes section!)

[PetrOs]

Is there a decent drawing (or a photo) how such a PQR tubes set would look like? On the pentad tubes, there is a control position on top. What would happen with it?

[SovereignHobbies]

A good point Tim and if I had turned a couple more pages in CB 01815B I would have seen this in relation to the I Class:

PQR I Class.jpg

(Still poor staff work however as "PQR" should have been listed along with the other TT options in the Notes section!)

Dear Richard,

Could you please tell me the date for CB01815B? I haven't yet modified my Imperial you see... Presumably it's dated before she was sunk

[Brett Morrow]

The previous image of Jervis at Alex shows the forward 5 set TT trained to beam strbd, the torpedoman splinter enclosure may be there, but the aft quad set has no enclosure, the previous strbd image I posted shows no control position on the aft set.
Her IWM image for mid 42 shows no enclosure on either TT set.
As with all equipment these primary control positions may have been repositioned spanning time, the small useless image in Langtree`s book Pg 91, shows what could be a change of primary control to the aft set? but very had to distinguish.
For early/mid 41 it would appear the aft set had no enclosure fitted.

[dick]

Dear Jamie,

That was the April 1941 edition theoretically corrected to 31 March 1941. Interestingly the previous edition (October 1940, theoretically corrected to 30th September 1940) does not make this exception for Imperial. To my mind this raises the possibility that one of her sets of PQR TT mountings was damaged by her mining in October 1940 and replaced with a spare PR set during her repairs at Malta November 1940 - March 1941. If so I wonder which?! Given that the damage was concentrated aft towards Imperial�s stern perhaps the aft set of TTs? Frustratingly the Admiral Superintendent�s report only details damage to and repairs made to Imperial�s structure (hull) and the photos I sent you copies of don�t help.

[dick]

I think that these two photos show what we may all have been looking for: photographic evidence that the aft set of TTs on Jervis was a PQR.
In the first (looking forward) the outermost tubes on both mountings are in line ie the aft mounting was no narrower than the forward one:

In the second (looking aft) there is an obvious gap where a centre tube would have been:

Also visible in both photos is what I interpret as the (largely unprotected) local firing control position at the edge of the PQR which I think is in fact also visible in Brett's photo:

This overheard view shows it in the same position on a PQR on an I Class destroyer (Icarus):

[PetrOs]

Okay! Now I just need to decide how do I make the surgery on the middle tube on Jervis build.

[Solomo]

Does anyone have a source for good plans in 1/96 for J-K-N's?
Thinking of scratching one for RC. Update: Picked up a copy of Ough's plans.

[Mike E.]

All:

Hoping everyone is keeping healthy and safe!

I was wondering if anyone can direct me to photos and/or drawings of the DFing office used on British J,K,N class destroyers during WW2? It was located under the tripod foremast, just aft of the forward deckhouse.

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

Mike E.

Addendum: I found some good closeup photos of the DFing office in some photos I had in my files from online (unfortunately I could not find the sites I got them from), as well as a Polish publication, "GPM Male Monographie #3: ORP Piorun," which has a nice, closeup photo of Piorun's DFing office on the inside back cover. The DFing office was located under the tripod mast, on the port side of the ship, on the forecastle deck level. The right forward corner of the office nearly pressed up against the forward leg of tripod mast. There looks like there was some kind of a vent on the roof of the DFing office. But I think I have enough info now to have a go at it.

[Mike E.]

All:

Now that Flyhawk has supplemented its 1/700 HMS Kelly flotilla leader kit with the release of a J/K/N class private destroyer fitted with a 4" HA gun, it's time to consider interesting subjects with colorful camouflage schemes that one can model with this kit. There are a number of possibilities--here are several:

HMAS Norman (1942): one will have to add a DFing office under the tripod mast. According to Alan Raven (RN Camouflage V.2), the colors are MS1, MS2, B5, and AP-507C, :

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C53109

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C230585

HMAS Nepal (1942): again, one will have to add a DFing office under the tripod mast. According to Alan Raven, the colors are AP-507A, B5, and AP-507C:

https://www.naval-history.net/Photo10ddNepal1PS.JPG

https://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/f ... pal-03.jpg

HMS Kingston, in this light gray/dark gray scheme (AP-507A/AP-507C):

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205142044

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a7/ae/f4 ... 3a7dca.jpg (here, Kingston has her aft torpedo tubes, but in the previous photo, she is in the same scheme with the 4" HA gun in the aft torpedo tube position)

HMS Javelin (1942): it would be really nice to know for sure if HMS Javelin wore this same pattern shown on her port side, on both sides of the ship:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205147199

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ww2images ... 7d-cB3bbJ/

I have come across some photos of survivors of HMAS Nestor on the starboard side of the deck of HMS Javelin in June 1942--and it seems to show that the ship was painted in a light and dark gray scheme, but it is hard for me to tell whether these photos confirm that the camouflage was symmetrical:

https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-nestor

https://www.navyhistory.org.au/wp-conte ... 68x533.jpg

Would anyone have any info or photos that might bear on this?

Thanks!

Mike E.

[Mike E.]

Author deleted duplicate post...

[tjstoneman]

Much useful information about these classes can be found in Christopher Langtree The Kelly's (London: Chatham Publishing, 2002)

HMAS Norman (1942): one will have to add a DFing office under the tripod mast. According to Alan Raven (RN Camouflage V.2), the colors are MS1, MS2, B5, and AP-507C, : I think the office concerned was the RDF (now called radar!) Office for the Type 291 set whose aerial was at the foretopmasthead.The MF/DF on the bridge face had a DF office within the bridge superstructure, and I don't think she carried HF/DF.

HMAS Nepal (1942): again, one will have to add a DFing office under the tripod mast. According to Alan Raven, the colors are AP-507A, B5, and AP-507C: Office under the foremast - as for Norman.

HMS Kingston, in this light gray/dark gray scheme (AP-507A/AP-507C):

HMS Javelin (1942): it would be really nice to know for sure if HMS Javelin wore this same pattern shown on her port side, on both sides of the ship: Langtree says "... probably symmetrical but no information exists to confirm this."

I have come across some photos of survivors of HMAS Nestor on the starboard side of the deck of HMS Javelin in June 1942--and it seems to show that the ship was painted in a light and dark gray scheme, but it is hard for me to tell whether these photos confirm that the camouflage was symmetrical: Langtree says she was repainted in June 1942 (no exact date given, so not sure whether before or after Operation Vigorous when Nestor was sunk) from that queried above to "Mediterranean Disruptive; AP507A and AP507C" - no indication given as to symmetry or otherwise. Photos exist, showing both sides almost mirror images of each other, eg http://www.navyphotos.co.uk/Destroyers% ... 20dww2.htm

Would anyone have any info or photos that might shed some light on this?

Thanks!

[dick]

Dear Mike,

Re: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205124863

This very late 1941 and early 1942 scheme on Javelin was not the same both sides (beware of some photos on the internet which are simply the starboard side reversed).

I have a hunch what the portside looked like in a general sense but the photos I have do not show enough of it to tie it down.

I suspect Javelin wore the late 41/early 42 scheme until about 22nd April 1942, ie when she joined 14th DF and repainted to this scheme:

There are a number of photos showing Javelin during Op Ironclad at the beginning of May 1942 looking like this. This is the scheme that comes with the kit instructions.

As you can see this scheme was symmetrical both sides:

This was the scheme she was wearing when rescuing Nestor survivors 15/16 June 1942 (by then with Flotilla bands on her funnel).

This photo shows Javelin at that very time:

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205144526

Best wishes,

Richard

[Mike E.]

Richard:

Nailed it! Sincere thanks for your response!

Indeed, if you look at the first photo of survivors from HMAS Nestor taken by the aft deckhouse of HMS Javelin (the link to which I provided in my post), you can just barely make out that that the port side of the aft deckhouse is painted in a alternating light gray/black geometric scheme that in places looks like an alternating checkerboard pattern. The second photo in your posting shows that same pattern on the starboard side of the aft deckhouse. As this was a symmetrical scheme worn on both sides, that makes perfect sense.

So thanks for resolving that riddle!

Now if anyone could shed more light on the port-side pattern worn by Javelin when she was painted in her "leopard stripes" scheme (at least on the starboard-side) in late '41-early '42, that would be dandy. And agree, I have seen many examples in books and online of the incorrectly reversed photo image of Javelin's starboard side that makes it look like it was a symmetrical scheme.

Thanks again Dick, and stay healthy!

Best,

Mike E.

[Mike E.]

All:

As long as we are at it, would anyone know if there are photos that support this probably conjectural artistic rendering of the camouflage that HMS Khartoum wore during the latter phases of her very, very brief career?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/99/51/02 ... 17308f.png

Langtree, in his book, has a distant photo of the mostly submerged wreck of Khartoum, which is not clear enough to be useful. He claims that this is the only photo of Khartoum he was able to find. But the other K class destroyers that Khartoum had been operating with at about the time of her loss in June 1940 (Kimberley, Kandahar, Kingston), all wore versions of the same geometric scheme consisting of triangles and trapezoids on their hull--in mid-1941--about a year later! So it seems unlikely that Khartoum ever wore this scheme, given how frequently camouflage patterns changed, and given that all the photographic evidence regarding the various versions of this scheme dates from about a year later!

Any assistance on this matter would be appreciated.

Thanks! And stay healthy all!!!

Mike E.

[SovereignHobbies]

If anyone does have a good image of the port side of Javelin in that stripy scheme you're not the only one who'd love to see it. Normally when one exists though, Richard here already has it

We've got the starboard side drawn which was done for Flyhawk, but happily they agreed to go with the 507C & black triangular scheme instead for their kit instructions

[Mike E.]

I second James comment above, and thank both James and Dick for so generously sharing the fruits of their research and their insights with all of us on this message board.

So here is one more for you--a model purporting to be HMS Kandahar, from the Royal Museums Greenwich collection:

https://collections.rmg.co.uk/collectio ... 67513.html

The level of workmanship and finish is simply magnificent, but it is painted in what AFAIK is an imaginary scheme. Would that it were an actual scheme, as it is beautiful!

It only goes to show that you cannot always trust museum models to be 100% accurate!!!

Enjoy!

Mike E.