The Ship Model Forum

Thank you to everyone who has responded and all the information. Firstly I’ve got my information from the internet so it's limited, as to if she went back to the RN in late 42, two sites I’ve found do not mention her being returned to the RN and going to the Russians in 1944, however they use HMS rather HNoMS and both have exactly the same wording. The other two sites state late 42 going back to the RN, with different text. Rick’s photos show her without the single gun tubs whereas the Uboat net and photo from the IWM have these. I thought AAA was increased as the war progressed so are these pictures later? All show the port side ships boat, there do not seem to be any pictures of her as she is depicted in the kit. Dick thank you for the camo guide I think I’ll go with that, though need to find some acrylic MS4. Al.

David,

I referenced this source prior to posting the images. I have found from comments by people more familiar with RN ship histories, that Naval-History.net has some questionable information

You left out the part that has caused confusion;

August to September 1942

Under refit. Norwegian personnel replaced by RN. Nominated for service in Western Approaches Command for convoy escort.


Service as HMS St ALBANS

October 1942

Commissioned for RN service.

29th - Refit completion and passage to Tobermory for work-up after post refit trials.

Firstly thanks to everyone who responded to my original post. Still considering whether to go with St Albans, or the only other ships that stayed in the RN with that bridge that I can find are Roxburgh and Rockingham. So whilst I've asked on the trading forum with no luck, I'm looking for the 1/400 searchlight tower from the Gold Medal models fret, if any one has one they are prepared to sell or I have some parts mainly USN from the WEM photo-etch to trade. Thanks Al.

A nameplate is available for St. Albans, among others for Wickes and Clemson class ships.

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.™

-Steve L.

Complete catalog: - https://www.model-monkey.com/
Follow Model Monkey® on Facebook: - https://www.facebook.com/modelmonkeybookandhobby

Looking for any information on HMS Brighton in April 1941. Looking at the pictures on the IWM website and Navsource the colour scheme looks the same as HMS Campbeltown would this be WA White, WA Blue with the dark patches in MS 1. Would she be configured the same as HMS Campbeltown with the exception of only one of the US type boats and cradles. Thanks Al.

This just arrived from Poland today. My 1/400 USS Ward. The instructions show measure 11, wasn't it in measure 1 on December 7, 1941? John

Hi everyone! I'm looking for pictures of USS Barney in his final configuration as AG-113. I managed to find just one picture while planning my conversion of the USS Ward from Flyhawk, so I still have some doubts if the commanding bridge changed from the 1943 configuration. Thanks in advance!

Hey all. I am about to start work on modifying a Flyhawk USS Ward into one of the Asiatic Fleet Clemsons during the ABDA period. I have been closely studying pictures of these ships from that time period and found something peculiar I had a question about. It seems to me from the pictures I have found, that the Asiatic fleet Clemsons had a .50 caliber machine gun platform added on each side the midships deckhouse past the no 3 funnel, with the starboard side one seeming to replace the forward starboard life boat. I circled the area in question on the three good beam pictures of Clemsons from the time period below (Pope from 2/42, Whipple from 3/42, and Peary from 2/42). The pictures from the Whipple during the tragic Langley affair add the best detail I can find of the area in question. I hope my commentary explains what I am seeing well.
Am I seeing this correctly?


I apologize if this has already been discussed, I didn't see anything on this thread about it, but I may have missed it.

Gregory,

Those are interesting images. I have gone to NARA for years (some 80 week long trips) and have found few photos (and those are normally too distant to determine details) of the Asiatic destroyers during the opening weeks of the war in the Pacific. I find images of surviving units after returning to the West Coast, but they already had some mods done. But, these images are great!! Thanks for posting them.

It was standard for the pre-WWII Flush-deckers to have a pair of 50-cal forward of the waist 4-in guns. The addition of two more 50-cal aft of the 4-in guns makes sense in the effort of increasing AA armament on these units.

This image of USS BARKER (DD-213) maybe of interest and help(?), even if the subject has already had some mods done to her armament. This photo was taken on 21 July 1942, during her brief stop to refuel at Hukulofa Harbor, Tongatabu, by a photographer onboard USS WASP (CV-7). None of the major structural mods have yet been made (like cutting down funnels). But I found interesting that there are TWO 20-mm guns added forward of the waist 4-in guns, likely in Australia, and no visible 50-cal MG's.

Glad to share them! And that's cool you've been able to visit NARA, I'm hoping to get out there someday to search for more photos of the Asiatic fleet from this time. I would be interested in those photos you mention if you have them handy.

As far as the .50 cals go, they do seem to have that pair forward of the 4 inch guns you mention, which with the pair of platforms makes for a total of 4x.50 cals which should account for all of the ones they carried early war as far as I am aware.

That image of USS Barker is quite helpful! I am pretty sure 20 mms were added after the ABDA period, as I am not aware of any making to the Asiatic fleet but she seems unmodified aside from that, and it gives a great view of the short pole mast near the search light which replaced the mainmast prewar. The rigging which is visible is also very welcome! This is only a guess, but my hunch is that the 50. cal platforms were either not strong enough or big enough to support a 20 mm gun and were removed extremely quickly after they escaped Java when they upgraded to 20 mm guns in Australia.

What was done to the Asiatic Fleet destroyers in the December 1941 through early 1942 period, likely didn't match what BuShips had authorized for the Flush-Decker destroyers. The non-updated units (27 of them) with six 3-in guns, were updated to a "standard" 4-in gunned ASW Escort mod, which removed two of the four triple TT banks and started out with about five 50-cal MGs then 20-mm guns. The units likely got as many 50-cal MG's as good locations could be found ... authorized or not. One location for 50-cal MG's I have noticed, was one on the aft deckhouse just forward of the 4-in gun in one corner. Surviving units were used as local escorts for convoys and patrols around Australia. What mods were done prior to returning to first PH and then the West Coast, are as you know, is fuzzy and may not be standard for the whole group. USS BARKER appears to have been the LAST unit of the Asiatic destroyers to return stateside. At first the USN utilized these units as convoy escorts from the West Coast to Hawaii and some points beyond, so more modern destroyers could operate with the forward fleet. This also was necessary while yard space opened for them to be modified/upgraded at West Coast yards.

Not sure that I have any good scanned NARA images of the Asiatic destroyers in the waters from the Philippines to Australia in 1942. The problem with finding such photos at NARA, is that the destroyers were too small to rate a full-time photographer. Individual sailors and soldiers were not allowed (suppose to anyway) take photos with their own cameras even just before the war started. The only photos taken were either taken by a larger warship (but the USN cruisers were either damaged and sent home or lost and photos lost with them) or Aussie photographers. The AWM has some of the more famous views available.

A possibility of images at NARA for this subject, could be US Army Signal Corp photos, something I have not searched to any degree beyond my uncle's 475th Inf Regt in Burma in 1944.

Interesting photos. I've seen the one of Pope before, but not of Whipple and Peary. I know the conventional wisdom is Pope is not camouflaged, but that "darker" color sure looks uniform in height from about amidships on back. I also find it interesting how dark Whipple and Peary are painted.

Regarding Barker, I wonder if we are seeing a worn Cavite Blue over Standard Gray?

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

No worries at all if you don't have any of the scanned photos. From what I understand they're needles in haystacks anyway. I am sure there are at least a few more photos out there, but I'm guessing they are hidden in private collections and the people who have them don't realize what they are. For example I recently came across a few photos of Houston at Darwin I hadn't seen before which were poorly label on an Australian website.


This is just a personal opinion, but I suspect all three of them are wearing Cavite Blue and it is just extremely worn on the Pope. Peary had extremely similar paint wear to the Pope and photos of her next to the Houston shows her hull being the same color as the Houston's hull making me believe they are all in Cavite Blue and it is extremely worn out starting to show the Standard grey beneath it. Here is Houston and the Peary https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... n_1942.jpg

There is a much higher resolution image of the Peary here https://territorystories.nt.gov.au/10070/727964
You need to download it as a high resolution TIFF off the website, but it shows her jury rigged pole mast to the replace the bomb damaged one really well, and also shows other good details of the ship

As for the Whipple, I suspect that she was repainted after the ABDA period before that photo was taken. I say that because her mainmast is black in that photo, and I have a picture of her in a drydock in mid February 1942 after she collided with the De Ruyter and her foremast is white. Her hull was that darker color even in the Asiatic fleet period though. (If you want an idea of how dark, compare her white awnings to the color of the deck and funnel in this picture from the scuttling of the Langley http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pi ... ipple.html)
Edited to add here: This page has the photo of Whipple in the drydock with the white foremast. The photo is 2/3rds of the way down. I have no idea where this old book got it, but there it is. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... paign.html

As far as I can tell, all of the Asiatic fleet destroyers were painted in Cavite Blue prior to the war but that paint was not well made, so it was badly wearing to reveal the prewar light grey by the end of February. There are exceptions to this I have found though. One is the Stewart which shared a non-standard false bow and stern design with the USS Holland (https://beeldbank.nimh.nl/films-media/? ... &reverse=0) and one of the Java Sea Survivors (I think its the USS John D Ford) which also has at the very least something on the bow in this photo taken immediately after the battle of the Java Sea (https://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0521120.jpg)

Lastly, I very recently discovered this wartime painting of the USS Marblehead by an Arthur Edwaine Beaumont, a WW II USN Painter. It's titled Battle Scarred Veteran-USS Marblehead. I can't help but notice that she is in a spot on Ms 1 Camouflage which the Cavite Blue scheme followed. I am personally pretty sure that this is the color Cavite Blue was. https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Battl ... CFE8EA5141

Sorry if this was a lot. I want to make sure I get my model correct.

Also here is a master list of the modifications that I have found the Asiatic fleet destroyers to have had. Red=removed black=added. Any feedback would be welcome!

Also I just realized that weird thing I point out seems to be this light that G-opt pointed out earlier

viewtopic.php?f=49&t=7599&start=400
download/file.php?id=124490&mode=view
download/file.php?id=124487&mode=view

Great info - thanks for sharing.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Glad to share it!

One last general thing regarding that platform. The Japanese seem to have left it on the USS Stewart when they put it into service as PB 102 and the post war pictures of her back in US service give some pretty decent images of what it looked like. Also attached is a diagram of what the platform looked like as far as I can tell. Hopefully this will be of help to anyone looking to make a Clemson from the Asiatic fleet during WW II. I hope it's not confusing.

A few perhaps useful images...WHIPPLE's .30cal Lewis gun, her .50cal & 4"/50cal deckhouse gun all visible there.

WILLIE B. in May '41 at Subic Bay in what must be assumed is some darker paint scheme. Whether this is the so-called Cavite Blue, I have no idea. Her deckhouse looks like it has MGs in shrouds where the 4" had been, but hard to say for sure. Her Gunnery Officer's account is lacking in many details re her firepower, but he did note she salvaged a bunch of MGs from PBYs & mounted them after the raid on Darwin, I think. Prewar he said she only had two (2) .30cal MGs...but, his book is quite mistaken in some significant areas, too.

The AWM photo alleging to be POPE which does show a MG position aft on the deckhouse--is suspect for a number of reasons, mainly because the photo is said to have originated from a HMAS HOBART sailor's album, but DD-225 & HOBART never operated together...and his album is filled with errors of location/ship ID, etc.

The IJN floatplane image of POPE as she settled off Cape Puting on 1 MAR '42 doesn't really seem to show that after MG platform...

A late prewar pic over the aft deckhouse of either POPE or EDSALL. Pea-shooter visible on the fantail & next to the no. 4 4" gun under its canvas... I don't know what's under that shroud to the L. Is that a MG?

Anyway, HTH

Thanks for sharing these! I had seen several of them, but the photo of the Willie B and late pre-war picture were new to me and most helpful. The photo of the William B Preston in particular was very noteworthy! And I do agree those do seem to be MGs under shrouds on her midships deck house, good spot on that. Here's another picture of her from what appears to be early in the war based on her still white mast where several more MG emplacements are visible, notably behind the no 1 4 inch gun. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C241388

The picture of Whipple is also helpful to me as it shows the .50 cal emplacement/platform on the port side. Notice how close the edge of that is to the portside torpedo tubes, which gives an approximate size of the platform from what I can tell.

As for the picture(s?) of the Pope, you may be right that the photo from the AWM is not the Pope, but I think it is one of the Asiatic fleet Clemsons during the ABDA period as far as I can tell, and may be the Pope, but also might not be. This website has not only that photo, and the original caption which does say it is the Pope. More interestingly for IDing that ship is that it identifies the photographer, David Goodwin. There are 107 other photos from his album on that website, and his hand written IDs seem pretty accurate to me. This particular photographer seems to have taken many of the famous photos that survived the ABDA period, and the photo is a part of a collection which includes pictures which are definitely from the ABDA period, so it does seem to be an Asiatic fleet Clemson to me, perhaps just a misidentification of which one it was.
https://collections.museumsvictoria.com ... ms/1717077 (click on his hyper linked name under photographer to see the rest of his collection, the main link I tried to use for it is not working properly)

With regard to the photo of her sinking, I do agree that picture does not seem to show the platform, but I hesitate to call that picture conclusive in her case given how low resolution the photo is (The much larger main guns are barely discernable in the photo). The platform is really hard to see at an angle if the anti shrapnel mats are removed this photo of Stewart shows. The platform is barely visible even with the much higher resolution. It could be a combination of the poor quality of the photo combined with the mats being jettisoned for damage control made it very hard to see. It is also possible the Pope did not have the platform, again I just hesitate to call it definite the Pope's case.

My current theory (which could be very wrong) is that the platform was added in the same refit that removed the mainmast. The mainmast being removed to help the AA arcs of the .50 cals on the new platform. The Houston and Marblehead seem to have done a similar thing, cutting down their masts to allow for better arcs of fire for their machine guns. Thus, Asiatic fleet destroyers that did not have their mainmast during the ABDA period should have the platform as Whipple, Peary, and that other photo show.

Attached below is another one of the Asiatic fleet destroyers from right after the ABDA period. The photo claims to be a prewar photo of Black Hawk AD 9 with a Clemson alongside. The Clemson has its mainmast cut down and the platforms in place in the photo. I think the photo is misidentified though, as it appears to be taken in Fremantle, and Black Hawk was only there from March 6-10th according to her log. She was there is Barker, Bulmer, Parrot, and Paul Jones. Barker and Bulmer escorted her to that location so I think it is one of them, but if it is Fremantle, the photo could only have been taken during that window. It does show what appears to me to be another Asiatic fleet Clemson from the ABDA period with that platform and the mainmast gone. Did they all have it? Maybe not, but it would seem to me at least most of them did. I fully admit I could be wrong, I just can't understand what I am seeing other than a platform for the .50 cal. in this an the other photos (Original photo here https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C240638)

Also here is a photo I found that claims to be a photo of the USS Peary from the USS Houston taken in Darwin in 1942. (Original post here https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@N05/5412009887/). The ship clearly has it's 3/23 inch pea shooter as well as all of its TTs so its not the Peary. It does have it's mainmast gone and thus appears to be a wartime photograph of one of the Asiatic fleet destroyers other than Peary, as it is a very early war photo given the mainmast is gone, it doesn't have any major upgrades, still has all it's TTs, and came from Australia. It does not show the platform area well due to shadows, but does appear to possibly show both the .50 cals on the starboard side. It's more of an interest as another possible Asiatic fleet Clemson than anything else, though.

Lastly, I found a color film which includes several sequences of the USS Peary sinking which I had not seen before which people may find interesting. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1283946 (It may be her around the 2:00 mark, but definitely shows clear footage of her going down at 2:28, 2:46, and 3:33).

Sorry for the length of this post, it is a lot, I want to make sure I get this correct before I make my Asiatic fleet Clemson, and thanks again for sharing those photos above G-Opt, they were great to see!

Something I just put together about the John D Ford may shine a bit of light on this. A while back I found this photo of the USS John D Ford (I'll put the link to the source below) apparently taken from the HMAS Kanimbla in January 1942 while escorting a convoy to Java. I've been confused by it for a while, as the Ford still has her mainmast in it, unlike every other Asiatic fleet destroyer I have seen, which did not make sense to me. Then I remembered December 8th, 1941 found the Ford in Manila awaiting Pillsbury and Peary to finish their overhauls to undergo dock work herself.

If this refit was the one that removed the mainmast and added the platforms, then it would make sense why the Ford still had her main mast during the war, because she never got the refit at Cavite due to the start of the war. She does not appear to have that platform fitted either, which makes sense if both happened in the same refit, meaning Ford went to war more unmodified than the rest of her sisters. Do note she also appears to have landed her foremost lifeboat and divots prior to the war though.

Pope comes in here because she was also awaiting a refit a Cavite at the same time, so if she was missing that platform, I would guess it is because she was awaiting getting it fitted when the war started. The two caveats I would place with that though is that she does appear to have have her mainmast removed and replaced by the small one in that photo of her sinking, which would point to her having the platform if that theory of the removal of the mainmast and addition of the platform at the same is correct, and also if the other photo is indeed of a different Asiatic fleet Clemson, because that ship does appear to have the platform to me (if it's not the Pope, then it's likely from the Gaspar Sea sortie). Thus because of that, I could see why Pope would not have the platform, due to her not getting that final yard visit.

Link to original photo here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/41311545@ ... 3FY-aDAbPV

Ship Model Forum response 2/23/2024

Well, all very interesting, I agree. First, I commend your research & many good 'spots' including the .50cal platforms and the cut-down mainmasts. Those are really important & previously unrecognized.

All I would suggest is that it is an error to believe the Asiatic Fleet fourpipers in the fateful Dec. '41-March '42 period had anything very uniform about their outfits. Here are a few quick observations:

1) Most DesRon 29 tincans were mos. & mos. overdue for yardtime again by Dec. '41, so that whatever paintjobs they had would have been quite degraded.
2) Both PILLSBURY and PEARY were damaged in those first days of the war in the Cavite bombings. They had to have ad hoc measures taken to get them back into action. So, it stands to reason they could have had some more substantial changes made.
3) Ironically, the ill-fated PEARY was documented better than any other photographically. But do those pics tell us much of anything about her paintjob's color? Not really.
4) I can tell you the photo from Oz alleging to be PEARY at Darwin is not DD-226. Foremast w/crowsnest is the dead giveaway. But she's to the wrong side of CA-30 anyway. Who is it? No clue.
5) The photo of fourpiper next to BLACK HAWK is a useful one (even if blurry like a film still) & does show that MG platform. I would have to research that some more to try to identify the destroyer, and confirm place, time, ID, etc.
6) Gunnery officers on several ships left written accounts and never mention anything about such platforms, and very little about adding MG armament, but we know they did. Offhand I recall a JOHN D. FORD sailor (gunner) who recalled fitting up extra MGs on that flushdecker with pipe-stand mounts...JDF had an aggressive gunnery section, and I wonder if that's JDF next to BLACK HAWK...It would also make more sense that she is the ship in the photo said to be POPE.
7) The HOBART guy's album definitely has serious errors in it--including mistaking pix taken in Gaspar Strait for Sunda Strait or Java Sea, etc. But, that doesn't matter. She never worked w/POPE, so I am very skeptical about that ID. I agree totally that it's highly likely a wartime AF fourpiper, though. Just not POPE.
8.) Those things on the bridge under the bridge windows are not wartime additions to DD-224. I also find 'em on prewar pix taken in the Thirties...See the cover of Wick Alford's Playing for Time (2006), for a good shot.
9) It's not much, but I knew a lot of Asiatic Fleet guys, including men who were on ALDEN and STEWART (& escaped on J. D. FORD) and no one recalled doing much (if any) repainting, or anything about extra MGs. Clearly they had other priorities. This makes me think those platforms were done well before the war. But that's just an off-the-cuff guess.

Sorry to be so longwinded, and will look around for any more helpful pics...but, it's a lot to dig through at this busiest time of year. The one I attached is of course after transfer to GB but it's still USN weaponry & I thought small details might be helpful.

In reply to your last (very long) post:
I've had the Kookaburra fourpiper pic for many yrs and had totally forgotten where it came from or why I even thought it might be AF Java-related. Not sure now.
Have had various HE docs for years also, but thanks, that is good stuff. However, will note I've found other fourpiper men writing that they began their 'strip ship' evolution much earlier--so, again, I don't see much consistency in the DesRon 29 destroyers' experiences.
And, finally, contra the OCD/micro-history approach: painting ship was such a routine/daily thing that appearances could easily have altered somewhat from week to week...Ditto their armament. PEARY being a particularly apt example.

HTH