So, do you think the splashes are naval gunnery or aerial bombs?
If naval gunnery, I would think they would have to be 14" not 8" because of the height of the water plumes.
I would have to assume that aerial bombs would explode upon impact with the water and would make a shorter and broader plume.
It would be best to be able to see the entire 90 second film, and to be confident of the film's provenance.
Maybe, maybe not. Both the Pope and the Edsall faced both surface gunfire (Ashigara and Myoko in the Pope's case; Hiei, Kirishima, Tone and Chikuma in the case of the Edsall, though I have seen indications that it was more of the Tone and Chikuma) and air attack (float planes from the cruisers, Chitose and Mizuho; and Kates from the Ryujo in the case of the Pope; aircraft from Kido Butai in the case of the Edsall) during their final minutes. Both ships also sank by the stern. I don't believe the pictures would look that different for those reasons.
Additionally, while you are correct about the plumes from bomb misses looking somewhat different from shell misses, take a look a pictures of the Chikuma taking out the Gambier Bay at Samar and they don't look a lot different than this.
I haven't seen the film itself, but Kehn's book has several stills from the film. You can see part of the deck of the ship shooting the video, with the sinking destroyer in the right part of the frames. The Japanese modified the stills for propaganda use.
The big thing for me here is the Japanese identification of the destropyer as the "HMS Pope." The Pope was sunk with two British ships, whom in their death throes the Japanese cruisers passed to chase down the Pope. Their visuals of the Pope would not have been as clear as their visuals of the British ships, which had very big and famous navy jacks flying from their masts. The confusion seems understandable in the case of the Pope. It's inexplicable if the destroyer was the Edsall.
There was an additional picture of the Pope sinking, taken from a Japanese float plane, that looked similar to this one but from an aerial view. Unfortunately, I never saved it and cannot find it now.
I don't necessarily think that the DD was "sinking" at this point in the photo, although it appears that the end might have been one good hit away.
Appears to be a near miss to the stem raising the bow up, and some kind of hit (or very near miss) aft. I haven't quite decided what I think that thing in the air is just yet.
I disagree. To my thinking, the ship is very clearly sinking. The Clemson-class destroyers ("Flush Deckers" or "Four Pipers" or somesuch) ran very low in the water at high speed. A hit on the stern wouldn't cause the bow to work that high. When the bow goes that high, it means the ship is sinking. The Pope was sinking by the stern in any case, as a result of the near miss from a float plane that cost her an engine and opened up her hull plating.
I do agree with you on "that thing in the air." My guess is that it's an airburst. By the time this shot was taken, however, the Pope's crew would have abandoned ship. The Pope's 3-inch antiaircraft gun had jammed also, leaving them with only machine guns or, possibly, their 4-inch main gunnery armament. But they wouldn't have been firing at this time. That would seem to be an argument that this is in fact the Edsall.
We'll just have to disagree at this point about the status of "sinking", or not.
The [i]Clemsons[/i] were little more than DEs in WW2 parlance, and even an 8" near miss might have bounced her bow up. In fact, look at all the white spume from that forward plume.
Besides, at this point, sinking or not, either ship would have likely been no longer "at speed". And, for my part, the angle for "down at the stern" is wrong if she is sinking. I don't think that sinking would bring the bow up until she would have been down to nearly the last stack (or further).
The air busrt still makes me wonder due to that dark blob. Since you say the Japanese altered the photo, it's debatable as to what it represents.
Hard to say for sure without a good review of the raw film.
I guess I should point out that the stills Kehn has in his book show the destroyer disappearing from view in the next still, with some smoke rising from the water.
You were just waiting to do that, weren't you? lol.
Still, could have been first frame last frame?
Hello,
The original Japanese film of this event IS the source for the still photo. I have a copy of the film footage, and there is NO question the still is culled from the film. The angle, range, and violence of the sinking ALL mark this as the destruction of USS EDSALL (DD-219) & not POPE. In the film we see the ship hit multiple times, but accounts by POPE's survivors all agree that the ship was not struck by any shells until she had upended and was plunging. This is clearly not the case in the sinking of EDSALL.
And that book by Don Kehn, called A BLUE SEA OF BLOOD aint half bad either...but, only if you enjoy the solution of a mystery that recognizes the sacrifices of these young USN & USAAC men rather than the perpetration of more nonsense.
KMD,
Thanx for the comments. With the caveats that I have NOT seen the actual video or the track charts for the Edsall's sinking or finished reading Kehn's book (or even been able to get a copy of the ATIS translation of the Japanese report on the Battle of the Java Sea, which have been trying to locate), I'm not sure they are dispositive as to the identity of the ship, however, for the following reasons:
1. The stills in Kehn's book show the deck of the ship from where the video was shot. This deck indicates the sinking destroyer was off the ship's starboard bow. The track charts for the sinking of the Pope (from Paul Dull's Battle History of the IJN) show the Pope off the starboard bow of the Ashigara and Myoko. Additionally, the Ashigara and Myoko turned away from the sinking destroyer before they reached her sinking position. There is some indication, albeit inconclusive, from the stills in Kehn's book that the ship that shot the video was in the process of turning.
2. The first-hand accounts I have read of the Pope's sinking indicate she was taken under gunfire as the crew was preparing to abandon ship, and then actually hit as she was sinking. The hits only hastened the completion of the work began by the Chitose's seaplanes and the crew's own demolition charges.
As a trial attorney, I should also caution as to the reliability of eye-witness accounts. It is easy, especially in battle and other stressful situations, for senses and recollections to become garbled.
The best example I can give is the consistent eyewitness acounts of the last hours of the Battle of the Java Sea by the survivors of the USS Houston (Winslow, Schultz, et al), all of which are insistent that the Houston heavily damaged her foes in the Java Sea, even in the light of postwar Japanese records that show otherwise; and all of which insist on a position of the Houston within the Combined Striking Force's column that are at odds with the Dutch, British and Australian accounts. These inaccuracies are understandable given the circumstances, and are even helpful in piecing together the heretofore murky olast hours of the Battle of the Java Sea, but that is for another blog post ...
In short, given that the crew of the Pope would have been trying to distance themselves from their dying destroyer and had the more pressing matter of simple survival to attend to, their version of events must be recognized as potentially not completely acurate. It would not be surprising and in fact completely understandable if they missed a hit on the destroyer while it was still upright.
3. Japanese accounts indicate the Edsall was burning and dead in the water as a result of bomb hits from Kido Butai's aircraft when she sank. The ship in this picture does not appear to be burning.
4. The Japanese themselves identify the ship as the "HMS Pope." With the Exeter and the Encounter both being British and the Ashigara having been kept at a distance from the P
Hello,
First: the angle of the ship as seen from the photographing ship is what matters. It corresponds exactly to the angle, range & distance of TONE versus EDSALL as shown in the Japanese track-charts.
The IJN cruisers against POPE never approached either this closely or at this angle. (BTW, all of the photos in the fight against EXETER, ENCOUNTER, & POPE were taken from Japanese floatplanes.)
Second: EDSALL is seen listing to starboard here, and that is the position in which she was seen by the IJN vessels that approached her from the angle shown here.
EDSALL was not afire or burning when the IJN ships finally caught up with her. The fires had either burned out or had been extinguished by then. But she had started to list over, "showing her red bottom" as one eyewitness put it...This is important because it verifies that she sank differently than POPE--And POPE's people were well clear of the ship--by several hundred yards--when the final shells arrived. They had time & distance to look back at the ship. Survivors of POPE have communicated over the years that this photo does not really look like the sinking of their ship...
That's always been good enough for me, and all the more so in combination with the matchup to the track-chart angle, range, etc.
FINALLY: it is just because almost all of POPE's crew survived that this photo was so misnamed. It is not as though the Japanese wanted the world to know of the fate of EDSALL's survivors, after all.
KMD,
First, my compliments. You clearly believe in your case here and you're putting up evidence to back it up. I would not have posted the picture with the question if I didn't want educated and informed discussion of it, so thank you.
But, hey, I'm a lawyer (I'm just a caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me ...), so I need to poke and prod the evidence. And, again, I have not seen the actual video or read Kehn's entire book yet, though I'm working on the latter ... so far I like what I'm reading. The Asiatic Fleet in general deserves all the coverage it can get.
But my questions and comments:
1. I find the claim that the angle of the shooting ship to the target ship to be irrelevant rather curious. I would think that both matter a great deal.
2. The ship in this picture is listing to starboard? That I cannot tell. Aside from sinking by the stern it looks fairly straight up to me. Perhaps you can point out to me tnhe indicia of this list.
3. As far as I know, you are correct in that every other known picture of the Ashigara and Myoko chasing down the Exeter, Encounter and Pope were taken from the ubiquitous Japanese float planes. I have seen one picture clearly taken by an aircraft that was identified as the Pope sinking, in a very similar manner to that shown in this picture. I had it and lost it and I can't find it again. Perhaps you've seen it?
4. Is there any way of getting the actual track charts short of going to the Navy Yard in DC?
5. What about the persistent claim that the video was shot from the Ashigara? (If I understand you correctly, you believe this video was shot from the Tone.)
Hello,
The IJN track chart is reproduced in A BLUE SEA OF BLOOD. The only difference is there is more detail in it than the original BatDiv 3 chart on microfilm...No substantial alterations otherwise. The maps & charts in "Senshi Sosho" are usually quite reliable, as they come from the original primary source.
The angle from which the photo is shot is critical, naturally, but what REALLY matters is that only one IJN warship was in a position to shoot a film/pic of a sinking flushdecker off its [i.e., the flushdecker's] port quarter at a distance of 1-2km, or so, with the destroyer dead in the water. That ship was TONE. This simplifies matters greatly...and the match-up is just about perfect. Not ambiguous at all, in fact.
The ASHIGARA - MYOKO error was originated in 1952 when the film was discovered by pre-production staff of NBC TV during the making of "Victory at Sea."
Yes, I have the pic of POPE taken from the floatplane.
The other major visual consideration is the quality of light. EDSALL was sunk late in the day just before dusk; POPE just after midday. Big difference. The film of EDSALL's destruction is in very murky, tenebrous light just as one would expect at that hour. It is not well-lit as it would have been for POPE's sinking.
More importantly: multiple salvoes fall both on & around EDSALL, with destructive direct hits on the aft deckhouse area, bridge, and elsewhere. NO ONE who survived from POPE ever said such hits occurred on their vessel as it sank. NONE.
The Japanese printed a version of the still in their April 15, 1942 issue of "Asahigraph" magazine; in December 1942 a propaganda booklet entitled "Victory on the March" reproduced it again, this time with the "HMS POPE" caption...The latter pic is very slightly altered, so as to make the sinking ship more clear and with an additional Japanese salvo splash landing near the bow of the old DD. That splash does not appear in the original print or film itself. This alteration must have been made to have IJN gunnery appear better than it in fact was that day...a perfectly typical and understandable propaganda ploy.
The misidentification (deliberate or inadvertent) is not hard to understand. And if deliberate would have served to conceal the warcrimes against EDSALL (& MODJOKERTO's) survivors...I believe the killings of EDSALL's people to have been the largest execution of survivors from a single USN warship during WW2. (If this is erroneous, I will gladly stand corrected.)
My feeling is that the Japanese were so eager for persuasive propaganda images in their early campaigns that they were quite willing to use this one under false pretenses. But, that's another--albeit fascinating-- aspect of the Pacific War altogether...
gentlemen,
i enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments. why cant i find the 90 sec on the net?
thanks
JTM,
I don't know; I had been hoping to find it myself. I can only speculate as to reasons:
1. The video is extremely rare, possibly in bad shape, and may not be in possession of anyone who is able to digitize it and post it on YouTube or something.
2. Possible copyright issues. Strange for a World War II video taken by a defunct organization, but still possible.
KMDJr,
You do seem to have a wealth of information. Maybe you should write a book 
Can you walk me through the photo vis-a-vis the destroyer? I had made an earlier mental note of the added shell splash. The light in the altered version looks different -- darker -- than the stills in Kenh's book.
When I first saw the photo in 1984 (at the tender age of 13 -- yes, I was and am a geek -- at a bookstore in San Francisco) I had thought the sky looked surprisingly dark. I attributed that to the generally poorer quality of Japanese photography in World War II to that of the US. My how times have changed. Like I just said, to me the altered still looks darker than the stills from the film. Could that not be a function of the altering process -- specifically, blowing it up to make the destroyer more visible?
Additionally, to me the destroyer does not look like it was shot from the port quarter. It looks close to broadside. Are you saying that the Tone had approached from the port quarter, but by the time the vid was shot it was close to broadside?
From what I have seen of the Ashigara-Myoko's chase of the Pope, the two Japanese CA's would have started off the port quarter, with the Nachi and Haguro further behind and off the Pope's starboard quarter. The Pope had to do some maneuvering to avoid the floatplanes air attacks, so it's not clear to be what position she was in when the Ashigara and Myoko finally caught up to her.
"The ASHIGARA - MYOKO error was originated in 1952 when the film was discovered by pre-production staff of NBC TV during the making of "Victory at Sea."" How did NBC make such an error?
PART ONE
Hello,
First, thank-you very much the civil tone. Not all who have found EDSALL's story as reconstructed in A BLUE SEA OF BLOOD (by that Don Kehn character) have responded to it, or its mysteries, as politely.
Yes, I can walk you through the photo--and the film. But, better still I will lead you to the film itself: buy Niek Koppen's beautiful documentary, "De Slag in de Javazee" (1995), and you will see about 20secs of the Japanese film. Otherwise, you must deal with the Dutch archives in Holland--if you want to see the original propaganda short from which the still (& Niek's footage) is culled--and it is relatively expensive.
Also, there ARE indeed serious copyright issues, and images may not be captured from Koppen's film or the Dutch copy of the Japanese short. (But, Niek's movie is as good a doc as you'll find on the Java naval campaign, and worth having quite apart from the EDSALL sinking footage.)
The photo shows the ship off the port quarter (moving to midships if you like) which is exactly the position of TONE relative to DD-219 at the end of the EDSALL action. In both Niek's doc and the actual IJN footage, the lighting is extremely poor. Niek's is a blue tint, BTW, which I have been told has to do with trying to make it as clear as possible for the big screen...But, the original appears to have been 35mm. (60' = about 90secs) and so is probably as good as they could get under the less-than-ideal conditions.
RE the origins of the ASHIGARA "goof"--These are difficult to sort out. Unfortunately I was not able to dig deeply into the origins of this error before Don Morris (who made the original ID in '52) died (in 2002), but speculation--with other very well-informed and intelligent IJN experts--lead us to believe that he may have confused ASHIGARA, the flagship of VADM Ibo Takahashi, CinC of Third Fleet, who was in charge of the area into which EDSALL's people were transported, with the heavy cruisers in VADM Nagumo's Task Force (the so-called 'Kido Butai') operating south of Java in Feb/March. (However, a retired USN officer writing in 1980 as an editor for SHIPMATE when these errors were definitively corrected by RADM Edwin Layton & CAPT John J. A. Michel, simply called it a "goof"). Personally I don't think the identity of the Japanese ship much mattered to them in 1952. The film was too poor to be used in "Victory At Sea" by NBC-TV anyway, and the whole business was so confused and dark that the navy appears to have done little in the way of researching or publicizing specifics. (Certainly not the truth about the recovery of the bodies in Kendari after the war, for example.)
The title of the talks given by author Kehn at his readings and book-signings has been "Hidden In Plain Sight" and if I understand correctly this pertains to the famous propaganda photo, and more besides.
But, that's another story...
OK, I have finished reading the book. My first question is, are there comparable charts available concerning the sinking of the Pope?
Hello,
There is a good(ish) chart for the Sea Battle Off Cape Puting (IJN vs. EXETER, ENCOUNTER & POPE), but not, alas, for the pursuit & sinking of POPE about 2 hours later.
Commenting by HaloScan
