The Ship Model Forum

Some photos of the wreck here.

https://maritime-executive.com/article/ ... d-by-japan

An expedition dove on Stewart, DD-224. She's in good shape. You can recognize her in the sonar scan.

https://fox40.com/news/california-connection/shipwreck-ghost-ship-uss-stewart-pacific-california/amp/

Agree with you G-Opt. There are 2 renditions which exist of your image, the one you have posted Incorrectly captions the ship as Peary, the second labels the ship as Whipple. Four pipers are not my forte, but given her movements and layout, I would guess the ship to be Whipple. I suggest the location is the Brisbane River, likely taken at Hamilton wharves, and the date approx. early May 1942. At a guess, given the freeboard and accommodation ladder, the cruiser from which the image was taken may have been HMAS Australia.

Either way, Sydney or Brisbane, it would be well after the Java Campaign & after the dissolution of the old Asiatic Fleet.
Does not appear to be NEI waters, in any case.

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

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.

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.

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 in the 2017 book, IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE TRAGIC (Potomac), which has many previously unpublished photos & rare interviews w/Asiatic Fleet vets, etc.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

Not talking about that image at all...

...but this one.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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"?

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!

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.

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.