Gents, I would like to put forth a rebuttal of author Jeffrey Cox’s ‘final engagement’ chart for the ending of the Battle of the Java Sea night action with the sinking of Hr. Ms. Java and Hr. Ms. De Ruyter by torpedo’s. Java’s sinking will be treated here as Part 1, while De Ruyter’s as Part 2 in a separate thread.
INTRO: In 2011 a Mr Jeffrey Cox published an article entitled “A Turn Too Far” regarding the naval engagement between the IJN and Allied naval forces on the night of the 27th Feb 1942, and which is generally referred to as the ending of the Battle of the Java Sea as related to that particular days events. That is, he specifically focused on the sinkings of Hr. Ms. Java and Hr. Ms. De Ruyter by torpedo from the IJN’s Nachi and Haguro. In the article, he put forth his views on how that particular engagement / sinking occurred and published a chart of his assumptive courses of the ships involved. Then a couple of years later Mr Cox published a book entitled ‘Rising Sun, Falling Skies’, (his first book in what has turned out now to be a trilogy focusing on the naval events in the first two years of WWII). ‘Rising Sun, Falling Skies’ hence covered the first three months or so of the ‘War in the Pacific’. In that book he named a chapter ‘A Turn Too Far’ (the title of his original article) and again included the same reasoning from that article which has the Allied ships making an echelon (or individual) turn away to the east (starboard), not a column (follow-the-leader) turn away as is historically recorded. He also included his highly speculative / assumptive chart on the action / sinking showing both his take on the Allied course, and his highly inaccurate assumption of the IJN torp firing angles. Given Mr Cox’s own statement that “I've studied the battle literally since I was in junior high school 28 years ago” it is then rather surprising that he got it so wrong. (However, most of his sources – in all three of his books - are secondary, not primary, so make of that what you will). Be that as it may, over the years many ‘old hands’ have commented on the incorrectness / inaccuracy of his assumptions and especially his chart, and lamented it falling into the historical record so to speak.
Now, unfortunately this very thing has transpired in another publication, that is another book published in 2020 (Osprey’s Java Sea 1942) has used the identical chart to illustrate the same action, further muddying / falsifying (however unintentionally) the historical record.
So with that in mind, and as someone who has also studied the action, and been directly involved in the discovery of, and first dives on, both the Java and De Ruyter wrecks, I would like to submit the following ‘evidence’ that I believe not only proves Mr Cox’s assumption way of course (pardon the pun), but hopefully sets the record somewhat straighter. I of course am open to challenges on my below by all means, but I first ask you to carefully study the ‘evidence’ as photographically presented so to speak.
I will start in this first thread with Hr. Ms. Java, hit by a torpedo on the port side aft, as she was the first of the two Allied ships sunk (that night) and as it turns out the first of the two shipwrecks discovered. I will then start another thread re Hr. Ms. De Ruyter’s sinking, as each rebuttal is image heavy.
Descriptions for images in the order the appear below (as I could not place them 'in-line').
IMAGE 1) The image shows Mr Cox’s assumed version of events (although this particular image was scanned from the Java Sea 1942 book, as I do not have Mr Cox’s book at hand, but this chart IS identical to Mr Cox’s chart, so it is one-and-the-same for all intents and purposes). Note the IJN torpedo tracks and the echelon / individual turn away he proposes for the final engagement. As can be shown (and as has been in the historical record for long before Mr Cox’s article), there is no doubt whatsoever that his chart is incorrect in both the firing angle of the IJN torpedo’s and the Allied ships courses in the turn away.
IMAGE 2) The actual angle according to the Japanese themselves that Haguro and Nachi fired their torps on, that is 130 degrees True, which can be calculated here (I drew in the long grey lines paralleling the IJN torp tracks that the IJN themselves show), and as is stated in primary IJN docs re the action, i.e 130 True. (This chart excerpt comes from the original Sentai 5 AAR, although I have added the arrow showing north, which the IJN showed themselves in another part of the chart, the longer torp track line angles and the writing at top.)
IMAGE 3) This shows how we found the Java wrecks’ two sections situated when we discovered them. And we know from historical records that, after the torp hit that severed Java’s stern, the main body sank within twelve to fifteen minutes max; so not much time for the hulk to ‘change course’ as it were (and photos of her helm pointer on the wreck shows it pointing directly ahead). So Java’s main section sinking quickly stern first as reported by survivors - after her very stern section dislocated directly after the torp hit and sank immediately, but separately, from the main body of the ship - fits this scenario, with her bow possibly pivoting slightly to port (west) as the main body sunk stern first
IMAGE 4) The actual bearing / compass heading the wreck of Java was laying at on the seabed (pre-salvage that is) when we discovered it in 2002.
IMAGE 5) The colour image is from the 2016 survey that found the wrecks ‘missing’ and the dark blue ‘outline’ around my Java main body ‘wreck insert’ is the sonar shadow caused by the ‘hole’ left in the seabed when the wreck was illegally salvaged. My insert of the Java wreck is from my previous image (i.e. exact / identical compass bearing / heading) and as can be seen it matches up perfectly with the angle / bearing of the ‘hole’ in the seabed where the wreck once lay.
Hence I believe that these two threads and the images in them will show that the Allied ship/s were not 1) turning away in Mr Cox’s assumptive echelon / individual turn formation to the east, but in a column turn as historically recorded; and 2) Java had not even entered into that column turn away when stuck by her torp (see also a De Ruyter survivors statement re same in the second thread re De Ruyter’s sinking), and this is near as well 100% confirmed by how her wreck was orientated on the seabed, and her helm observed and photographed to be pointing directly ahead on the wreck.
Part 2 re Hr. Ms. De Ruyter now starts in the following but separate thread.
INTRO: In 2011 a Mr Jeffrey Cox published an article entitled “A Turn Too Far” regarding the naval engagement between the IJN and Allied naval forces on the night of the 27th Feb 1942, and which is generally referred to as the ending of the Battle of the Java Sea as related to that particular days events. That is, he specifically focused on the sinkings of Hr. Ms. Java and Hr. Ms. De Ruyter by torpedo from the IJN’s Nachi and Haguro. In the article, he put forth his views on how that particular engagement / sinking occurred and published a chart of his assumptive courses of the ships involved. Then a couple of years later Mr Cox published a book entitled ‘Rising Sun, Falling Skies’, (his first book in what has turned out now to be a trilogy focusing on the naval events in the first two years of WWII). ‘Rising Sun, Falling Skies’ hence covered the first three months or so of the ‘War in the Pacific’. In that book he named a chapter ‘A Turn Too Far’ (the title of his original article) and again included the same reasoning from that article which has the Allied ships making an echelon (or individual) turn away to the east (starboard), not a column (follow-the-leader) turn away as is historically recorded. He also included his highly speculative / assumptive chart on the action / sinking showing both his take on the Allied course, and his highly inaccurate assumption of the IJN torp firing angles. Given Mr Cox’s own statement that “I've studied the battle literally since I was in junior high school 28 years ago” it is then rather surprising that he got it so wrong. (However, most of his sources – in all three of his books - are secondary, not primary, so make of that what you will). Be that as it may, over the years many ‘old hands’ have commented on the incorrectness / inaccuracy of his assumptions and especially his chart, and lamented it falling into the historical record so to speak.
Now, unfortunately this very thing has transpired in another publication, that is another book published in 2020 (Osprey’s Java Sea 1942) has used the identical chart to illustrate the same action, further muddying / falsifying (however unintentionally) the historical record.
So with that in mind, and as someone who has also studied the action, and been directly involved in the discovery of, and first dives on, both the Java and De Ruyter wrecks, I would like to submit the following ‘evidence’ that I believe not only proves Mr Cox’s assumption way of course (pardon the pun), but hopefully sets the record somewhat straighter. I of course am open to challenges on my below by all means, but I first ask you to carefully study the ‘evidence’ as photographically presented so to speak.
I will start in this first thread with Hr. Ms. Java, hit by a torpedo on the port side aft, as she was the first of the two Allied ships sunk (that night) and as it turns out the first of the two shipwrecks discovered. I will then start another thread re Hr. Ms. De Ruyter’s sinking, as each rebuttal is image heavy.
Descriptions for images in the order the appear below (as I could not place them 'in-line').
IMAGE 1) The image shows Mr Cox’s assumed version of events (although this particular image was scanned from the Java Sea 1942 book, as I do not have Mr Cox’s book at hand, but this chart IS identical to Mr Cox’s chart, so it is one-and-the-same for all intents and purposes). Note the IJN torpedo tracks and the echelon / individual turn away he proposes for the final engagement. As can be shown (and as has been in the historical record for long before Mr Cox’s article), there is no doubt whatsoever that his chart is incorrect in both the firing angle of the IJN torpedo’s and the Allied ships courses in the turn away.
IMAGE 2) The actual angle according to the Japanese themselves that Haguro and Nachi fired their torps on, that is 130 degrees True, which can be calculated here (I drew in the long grey lines paralleling the IJN torp tracks that the IJN themselves show), and as is stated in primary IJN docs re the action, i.e 130 True. (This chart excerpt comes from the original Sentai 5 AAR, although I have added the arrow showing north, which the IJN showed themselves in another part of the chart, the longer torp track line angles and the writing at top.)
IMAGE 3) This shows how we found the Java wrecks’ two sections situated when we discovered them. And we know from historical records that, after the torp hit that severed Java’s stern, the main body sank within twelve to fifteen minutes max; so not much time for the hulk to ‘change course’ as it were (and photos of her helm pointer on the wreck shows it pointing directly ahead). So Java’s main section sinking quickly stern first as reported by survivors - after her very stern section dislocated directly after the torp hit and sank immediately, but separately, from the main body of the ship - fits this scenario, with her bow possibly pivoting slightly to port (west) as the main body sunk stern first
IMAGE 4) The actual bearing / compass heading the wreck of Java was laying at on the seabed (pre-salvage that is) when we discovered it in 2002.
IMAGE 5) The colour image is from the 2016 survey that found the wrecks ‘missing’ and the dark blue ‘outline’ around my Java main body ‘wreck insert’ is the sonar shadow caused by the ‘hole’ left in the seabed when the wreck was illegally salvaged. My insert of the Java wreck is from my previous image (i.e. exact / identical compass bearing / heading) and as can be seen it matches up perfectly with the angle / bearing of the ‘hole’ in the seabed where the wreck once lay.
Hence I believe that these two threads and the images in them will show that the Allied ship/s were not 1) turning away in Mr Cox’s assumptive echelon / individual turn formation to the east, but in a column turn as historically recorded; and 2) Java had not even entered into that column turn away when stuck by her torp (see also a De Ruyter survivors statement re same in the second thread re De Ruyter’s sinking), and this is near as well 100% confirmed by how her wreck was orientated on the seabed, and her helm observed and photographed to be pointing directly ahead on the wreck.
Part 2 re Hr. Ms. De Ruyter now starts in the following but separate thread.
Reactie