Mystery Pictures Page 1
Page 1 - Page 2
Help us to find out more about these photos.
Recent answers and questions are indicated by
Click on the pictures to see the larger version.
Bill Castle sent us this photo of an alleged Zwaardvis (1) class boat. Note the dazzle painting on the unidentified merchants, which indicates this is probably a WWII photo.
In case you have any information on this image, especially on the date, type of submarine and place then please contact us.
In Jan 2006 G.D. Horneman writes: ".....not a Dutch boat. English presumably, note the white sweaters and hats of the sailors on deck. Perhaps this is Algiers?...."
Note from the webteam: Although it is rare there are photos of Dutch Submariners wearing white sweaters.
In Jan 2006 J. Klootwijk writes: ".....The sub is a T-class submarine. But certainly it isn’t one of the four T-class subs that served in the Royal Netherlands Navy. Arguments:
- The slope of the upper casing to the bow is much steeper and shorter in
all four Dutch subs.
- The slope of the upper casing to the gun turret is very prominent. The
Dutch subs do have nearly no slope at all.
- The upper edges of the fore bow planes make an angle with the horizontal.
In the Dutch subs this edge is horizontal.
- The three crewmembers on deck are wearing white jerseys. Could be
possible on Dutch subs during the war but not too common.
J. Klootwijk sent us this photo of an unknown officer in an unknown submarine. On the back of the photo is written "Commandant aan de periscoop in een onderzeeboot, 1938" (Commander at the periscope in a submarine, 1938). J. Klootwijk suspects this could be the K XV.
In case you have any information on this image, especially on the date, type of submarine and the name of the commander then please contact us.
These photos are provided by J.J. Kragten / Traditiekamer OZD and show what is suspected to be Zeeleeuw (1) in the RDM drydock in Rotterdam. Clearly visible is the damaged fin. These photos are probably taken in the 1950s or early 1960s.
In case you have any information on this image, especially on the date and how the fin was damaged then please contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.org.
This photo was emailed to us by Miltiades Varvounis and shows the O 13 in what looks like a shipyard. The presence of the yard workers on the deck could indicate this image was taken during the construction, or a refit, of the submarine. The date and place are unknown and we also do not know the name of the ship in the background.
Do you have any additional information on this photo, especially on the date, location and the name of the ship in the background, then please contact us at email@example.com
In Aug 2005 Eelke writes: ".... The ship at the background has the paint scheme of the shipping company De Rotterdamsche Lloyd. The following picture shows a Kota-class cargo ship of that shipping company. It clearly resembles to the ship on the mystery picture.
Especially the boatdeck aft, the aft freightdeck and the visible part of the midships superstructure seem to resemble to the mentioned class. A totall of five ships of that class were built, of which three at the Royal Schelde in Flushing: SS Kota Baroe, SS Kota Radja and SS Kota Napon (construction no. 182.,183 and 187). Also HNLMS O13 (construction no. 190) has been built at the Royal Schelde. The first two cargo ships were built and launched in 1927 and 1929 The last one in 1931. This is also the year in which HNLMS O13 has been put in service.
- The buildings on the right on the background are of the same style as the buildings in Flushing. Source for photo's from that timeframe: "Kon. Mij. De Schelde; 125 jaar Scheepsbouw in Vlissingen".
- The people on the deck of HNLMS O13 look more like dockers than naval personnel.
So my best guess: Flushing 1931 (later than 18 April 1931) with the SS Kota Nopan on the background. The SS Kota Nopan itself also got "famous" in WWII, when it was attacked and taken as a prize by the German raider Komet in 1941. It was renamed SS Passau and later into SS Karin. Finally the ship was scuttled by the German crew when a US task force intercepted the ship while it attemted to break through the Allied blockade.
In May 2005 Willem Cool writes: "....This picture of O 13 is taken november 8, 1930. It is taken just after the launching of this vessel. the location is Vlissingen (Flushing). I found the picture and discription in the book, Ik nader ongezien, De onderzeeboten van de Koninklijke Marine 1906 - 1996..."
This photo was emailed to us by Haral Sannes and shows an unknown boat (possibly O 8) and O 9 in what could be Den Helder basin, date unknown.
Do you have any additional information on this photo, especially on the date and location, then please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
In Jan. 2005 J. Klootwijk writes: "....This is indeed the Submarine Service basin in Den Helder. When one compares the two aerial photos of the basin (locate here) one sees that the jetty's have the same layout. The boat on the left is definately not the O 8 because that boat has a much bigger and 'fatter' tower than this one. This boat is from the O 2 class type. The rigging is similair to that of the O 2 and O 3.
J.J. Kragten emailed us this image of Zeehond (3)'s longroom. The photo is taken on 16 Mar 1961 during the commissioning of the submarine at the R.D.M. shipyard in Rotterdam . Johan wants to know what kind of device is located on top of the filing cabinet.
Do you have any additional information on this photo, especially on the aparatus above the filing cabinet, then please contact us.
In Dec 2005 Jim Eagles writes: "....The apparatus you are looking for information about is a British wireless receiver - either a B28 or a B40 model. They were a common receiver used during the 1940's to the 1960's that I know of, perhaps even longer....... cheers Jim Eagles ex RAN Communications Branch Townsville, N. Queensland...."
In Dec 2005 Bill Castle write: "....I see that you have identified this receiver as the Murphy B40. There should also be on board the B41, which was the LF version, for use with reception, when the boat was submerged to periscope depth, employing the main loop Ariel, which was stretched along the forward jumping wire. They were a replacement, for the earlier, Marconi B29 and B29, which were still fitted to English boats, during the early to mid 50's. While the B40 may have been a success the B41, was found to be very inferior to the Marconi B29. So much so, that Marconi W/T company, of Chelmsford, Essex, were still manufacturing the units for the Admiralty, as late as 1959.....Regards Bill Castle, Ex-Po Radio Electrician...."
In Nov 2005 David F. Hood writes: "....When I served in the Royal Navy as a radio operator aboard HMS Porpoise in the seventies we were still using the B40/41 in the wireless office as main receivers but we also had a B44 which looks almost indentical which was used for crew entertainment and could be fed throughout the boat by loudspeakers in each compartment. I suggest that is what the one in your picture is being used for as it is certainly not in the wireless office...."
In Jan 2005 Henk van den Broek writes: "..This is a Murphy B-40 shortwave receiver. They were used in the sixties by western navies and were/are of very good quality. They are still being sold on the second hand market. Also: This type receveir is very heavy, about 50 Kg, and should not be placed loose on top of a filing cabinet at all.
Jan 2005: Just by coincidence Radio Operator R. Teeselink emailed us an image of a similar device.
J. Klootwijk emailed us this photo of an unknown K-class boat. It looks like the submarine is moored for brake up. The date and place are also unknown.
Do you have any additional information on this photo then please contact us.
In Sept 2004 Willem Cool writes: ".....The unknown sub on the picture is most likely Hr.Ms. K V or K VI. These are boats from the K V class, which contained a third unit "K VII", this boat was lost with all hands in 1942 at Soerabaja, so she is not an option. There are a few remarkable features on the pic. showing some details which makes identification not so hard.
1 - The anchors aft of the bowplanes.
2 - The far forward location of the 7.5cm dekgun (the foundation is showing between thew anchor and the deck-tubes).
3 - The deck-tube mounting (with open slidedoor) in the left of the picture.
4 - The straight down form of the bow.
When you ad this all together, you see there is only one type of Sub in the Dutch Navy possible...."
F.G.J. Vrieswijk provided this photo of an unknown Ltz. II o.c. in an unknown submarine. The photo is probably taken some time during WWII.
Do you have any idea who this is and where/when this photo was taken ? Then please email the webmaster at email@example.com
This beautiful colour image, looking aft from O 24's bridge, is taken some where on the US East coast in 1944. More images of these series are located here. Please contact us if you are able to identify the location.
In May 2005 Ben Bring writes: "That is a bridge in NYC. It's a railroad bridge next to the triboro bridge "
In May 2005 Anton Vugts write: "The picture is probably taken in the harbour of Sidney Australia"
In Jan 2005 J. Klootwijk writes: "The nearest arch bridge is the Hells Gate Bridge, opened in 1917. The suspension bridge in the distance being the Triboro Bridge, opened in 1936. Both bridges crossing the East River in New York. As the Hells gate Bridge is the northerly bridge the O 24 is travelling North to the Long Island sound." As proof he also attached the photo at the right of the The Triboro and Hells Gate bridge seen from the South.
In Sept 2004 Gary Heverly writes: "Joseph T. Galietto is correct. This link has a 1999 photo of the East River Triborough bridge and the railroad bridge shown with the submarine photo. htttp://www.nycroads.com/crossings/triborough/ "
Early June 2004 Richard Skow writes: "Sydney Australia Harbour Bridge 90% sure as the construction is the same build before the second world war" a couple of day later Richard writes: "I went back and had a closer view, Sydney has no bridge at all like that at the back ground sorry mate never gave it a thought"
In May 2004 Joseph T. Galietto writes: "I think this picture was taken on the waters around New York City. I think the near bridge is Hells Gate a Railroad Bridge the boroughs of Queens and the Bronx the Suspension bridge in the background would be a portion of the Tribrough bridge. This would be where Long Island Sound meets the East River. But please keep keep in mind the identification is tentative."
A 1944 'statement of torpedo issue' for the O 19 lists a torpedo type Mk IV*SD ((SD stands for Submarine Dutch) with a speed/range of 40/20,000. This range seems far too high for any regular Mk IV torpedo. Please contact us if you have an explanation or more information on the subject.
More information on Dutch submarine torpedo's is located at Torpedoes and Mines of the Dutch Submarine Service.
In Jan 2006 Jaap Anten writes: ".......a spontaneous reaction at the mysterious range of 20,000 at 40 knots. The form is clearly British. Obviously, 20,000 can’t be knots. But look at the next column.. At the column next to the mysterious range the depth at which the weapon did travel is given as 8 ft, i.e. 8 feet. If we take both columns together, this gives a range of 20,000 feet at a depth of 8 feet. For a torpedo 20,000 feet (6,000 meters) at 40 knots is very well compatible with a known range of 4,000 meters at 45 knots. (A small increase in speed means much more power.)..."
In May 2004 a British researcher writes: ""The original document shows that the weapon was signed for by a Chief Engineer Artificer rating on the depot ship HMS MAIDSTONE on 19th August 1944. The weapon is given as a 21-inch Mark IV* SD fitted with a TPX (heavy) warhead and CCR pistol. I agree that the warhead must be for a Mark VIII**, so we are dealing with a hybrid weapon which may have had inconsistent running. The possibility exists that trials of such weapons may have shown them to be reliable at 40kt to 2000yd, but not further. Alternatively, the weapon may have been issued set to 2000yd maximum for a test firing on a range. As a Mark IV* could not have ranged to 40kt/20,000yd, a clerical error for 2,000 is possible. Alternatively the error could have been for some entirely different number. "The RN did not conduct tests with hydrogen-peroxide or other long-range weapons in WW2."
In May 2004 Tony D. writes: "Nowhere on that form does it say that the 20,000 figure is in 'yards', it simply says 'range' with no unit of measurement given. If the figure '20,000' was in feet, then that works out to be about 6,600 yards, which is in the ballpark for the Mark IV
In May 2004 Mike Snyder writes: "A couple more interesting entries, one, the warhead is listed as TORPEX, which was not introduced into British torpedoes until 1943, while no Mk.IV was manufactured after 1921. Also, the pistol is listed as a CCR type, a pistol type not available until 1944 and then in limited numbers. A range at 40 knots of 20,000yds implied a more energetic fuel than air and kerosene, either pure oxygen or hydrogen peroxide. However, my sources all indicate the British did not experiment with this fuel till after WW2."
In May 2004 Thomas Schoene writes: "One possibility; could someone have written the range in feet instead of yards? That would be around 6700 yards, which is reasonable as a nominal range for a Mk IV. Granted, it is pretty odd to give naval ranges that way, but I note that they do specifically write yards after another measurement later. Possibly they did that to differentiate it from the earlier figure."
In May 2004: Tiornu writes: "Those figures don't seem far removed from those for the US Mk 16 and 17. The "SD" suffix may indicate a special modification. I wonder if they took an old Mk IV (surplus in 1944) and modified it for experimentation with hydrogen peroxide or some such.........................According to John Roberts the following: "MkIV*SD torpedoes were supplied to O19, O21, O23 and O24. These were to be fitted with MkVIII warheads in 1943 and the production of the latter was changed from TNT to Torpex in the same year. The max speed of 40knots is Ok but the max range of 20000 yards is something of a mystery - what use would such a range be to a submarine?"..............Fred Milford, who has done a lot of torpedo research, sent the following: "A 1930 chart prepared by or for the Torpedo Engineer Officer at Portsmouth lists three Mk IV* torpedoes for RN submarines. They are designated Mk IV*S., Mk IV S.O. (for "O" Class submarines, presumably OBERON and OXLEY and ODIN Classes) and Mk IV S.X. (for "X" Class submarines--presumably the experimental XI). The "S.O." version was fitted with external depth and speed settings. Performance specification is 6000 yds @ 40 kts and 9500 yds @ 30 knots. Unless the torpedo had a 20 knot speed setting, the 20,000 yd range figure in the O19 document doesn't make sense to me."
From left to right: Two unknown Royal Navy Oberon or Porpoise-class boats, HMS Orpheus and the Zeehond (3). Date and place unknown. Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org if you can date this photo, know to what the location is, or have any other additional information.
In May 2004 Bart Speckens writes that the photo is taken after a Fishplay exercise in Haakonsvern (Norway). Infortunately he does not know the date.
A torpedo being transferred from the submarine tender Mercuur (1) to O 14. Off Den Helder, early 1930's (Photo: © Jan Klootwijk). Note the unknown signal (bal on pole). Please contact us at email@example.com if you can date this photo, or know to what the "ball on pole" stands for.
In Jan 2006 Charles E. Bailey (USN Retired) writes: ".....If I was to guess what the signal was with the ball on top, It was red, and it ment they were taken arms on board.from the mother ship. In the American navy we called it Maggy's Draws, and the no-smoking lamp was lit...."
In May 2004 Johan writes that normally a vessel will hoist a bal in the mast to indicate she has anchored. But since the superstructure of the submarine is very low they must have decided to use a pole instead.
On 24 March 2004 Dennis Feary writes: "The ball on pole denotes Restriction / Hazard to navigation at that side of the vessel (re wreck / salvage operations)"
We would like your help in identifying these submarine machine guns. All these subs were built in the 1930's so the guns are probably pre-WWII or WWII (since they might have been replaced at a later date) type.
Can you help us identifying these guns (calibre, size, type, mark, etcetera) or do you have any other information on these photos then please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
In May 2004 gun magazine editor Leszek Erenfeicht writes: ".... 25A, D, E and F are definitely the 20 mm Oerlikons, and looks distinctively British to me, although US made were very similar. The B and C are without a shadow of doubt in my mind the Vickers 40 mm automatic cannon, similar to the ones used on board of the Polish French-built mine-layer submarines of the Wilk-Class........... The 25B shows it definitely firing (ammo bearer has his ears covered, while the layer has cotton wad tampons in his ears, there is a canvas case catcher over the ejection port - although the latter seems empty.........The 25G I'm not sure, but it looks much like the Vickers as well - it has the same more or less diameter of the barrel water jacket, same sights and a toothed arc under the receiver - just like the Vickers had....."
In Sept 2003 Peter Podlewski writes: .......the # 25-B, C and D are showing a Vickers 37mm "POM-POM" gun MK. IX 1-Pounder. The system is clear as known from the .303 British. MG, only up-scaled to huge dimensions. Due to the powerful cartridge, a lot of stoppages and weapon-jams have occurred and thus this types production was discontinued in 1930.
In Sept at the autogun forum Textor wrote: .....The weapon pictured in the images 25-A, D, E,
and F is the widely used Oerlikon S 20 mm cannon, designed originally in Switzerland, and later manufactured under license (or not) by many participants of WW2. It fired 450 rounds per minute, typically from a top-mounted 60-round drum magazine, which can be seen in one of the images. Its calibre was 20x110 RB, the cartridges needed to be greased for the gun to function, and it had a practical range of about 1500 m.
The type of weapon pictured in 25-B and -G is harder to determine. It appears to belong to the large family of "Pom-Poms", i.e. slow-firing automatic cannon derived from the one invented by Hiram Maxim in 1884, and later improved by the British Vickers company. They were much used by all sides in WW1, and also adapted to air defence. They all share the water-cooled barrel and machine-gun like appearance of their ancestor. Calibres ranged from the original 37x94R up to the later 40x158R, with projectiles (first solid shot, later HE shells) weighing from one to two English pounds. Given the large size of the gun on the submarine, it could be the Vickers 2pdr, which was introduced by the Royal Navy in the 1930s. In that case, it probably weighed from around 350 to 400 kg and fired approx. 90 rpm with a relatively low muzzle velocity of 620 m/s.
Comparing 25-B, C and D: Well, the big difference is that in the later photograph G, you get to see the ammo feed opening in the receiver, which is covered in B by some small black box, perhaps a belt container. Given the informal dress and hand-over-hears in B, those two sailors may be actually preparing to fire the gun, whereas the two formally dressed ones in G couldn't fire - there is no cartridge belt in their weapon. A posed image perhaps, or a drill?
Otherwise, the two guns look reasonably similar, as fare as I can see. It is entirely possible that different sub-types of the Vickers-Maxim 40 mm cannon were in service with the Dutch Navy submarines, given the long period over which the O and K series boats were introduced. According to Tony's "Rapid Fire", changes were made to the Royal Navy's Maxims in order to increased muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Perhaps the Royal Netherlands Navy acquired Pom-Poms before and after those changes?......
In Sept 2003 at the autogun forum THEARGUS wrote: ....25-A, D, E and F are as has been said Oerlikon, but they are definitely publicity/posed shots as no magazine is in place.
The weapon in B, C and G is a difficult one. While it is obviously water cooled, actually picking it is a problem due to scale. My initial thought was they rather than a Pom Pom of some type it could well be a .50 cal HMG (Vickers or Browning). Although if the sheet metal guards shown in the photos were ammo related this wouldn't work.
TonyD's site agrees that Dutch vessels were refitted in British or Australian yards and 2pdr's were amongst the weapons fitted.
But compare these first two images:
Italian 2pdr MkII Italian 2pdr MkII Vickers 40mm AA on naval mounting. (Photo: © Vickers Barrow Museum Service).
These first two of Italian 2pdr MkII mountings, I'd say these look a lot closer in scale than the last one which is a Vickers 40mm AA on a naval mounting.
If we take the awkward posture of the gun layer in image 25-B into account, it looks as if these mountings were designed for a seated operator (removed as part of the stripping/down lightening conversion for submarine use?). In which case.
Row of 40mm anti-aircraft guns on naval mountings being tested at Eskmeals Gun Range. (Photo: © Vickers Barrow Museum Service). Vickers 2-pounder pom pom naval gun, c.1920 Imperial Japanese Navy. (Photo: © Vickers Barrow Museum Service).
Vickers 2-pounder pom pom naval gun, c.1920 Imperial Japanese Navy. (Photo: © Vickers Barrow Museum Service).
Would seem to be a good match. This gun was a pompom for the Japanese navy circa 1920.
Jane's Frightening Slips notes that the Koninklijke Marine had a 3.7cm 1pdr on issue and except for a lack of corrigations in the water jacket:
37mm anti-aircraft on naval mounting.
(Photo: © Vickers Barrow Museum Service).
Would appear to be spot on, right down to the lack of seats and a conical pedestal.
So that while I submit the gun is most probably a Vickers designed Pom pom, possibly a 'Mk.II' type and most likely original/pre war rather than an addition from British sources. It's calibre remains in doubt, as either 37mm or 40mm. But I'd go for 37mm as in the last two shots and the Jane's ref.
In Sept at the AUTOGUN replies: ...The 2 pdr came out in 1916 or thereabouts, and apart from the little aircraft 1 pdr Mk III gun, AFAIK all Vickers pom-poms from that date were made in 40x158R. The Japanese and Italians certainly adopted the gun in that calibre, and probably many others also, as until the Bofors came along there wasn't any comparable weapon available......
In Sept at the THEARGUS replies: ...Not whishing to argue, but I'm sure the '1pdr' crops up in a few places (minor navy's) between the wars, and as I understand the 'code' 1pdr is a 37mm. I have to say I think those last to photo's I linked to are our bird. But the captions for those Vickers photosets are so bloody vague! I find them very frustrating as I'm sure who ever curated the collection had little or no empathy or experience in either engineering or ordnance. They could be so much more with so little extra work.
Any how another quick troll through Jane's, and I find 1pdr's as opposed to 37mm in Chinese, Dutch and Hungarian service. Might they even be pre WWI guns in new mountings? I know its a bit of a reach :) .....
In Sept at the AUTOGUN replies: .....Vickers weren't the only people to make Pom-poms - the Maxim design was used widely pre-WW1. At least Germany and the USA made them as well (probably Italy also), and I suspect that a lot of them came onto the market after WWI......
In Sept at the autogun forum TONYDIG wrote: .....25-D is an Oerlikon gun on a height-adjustable mounting (column adjustable), you can see the elevation hand wheel on the far side. In "E", you can see that the pedestal is all the way down. In "F", you can see the gunner adjusting the height. This feature was common in both British and USN mountings early in the war. As this is a submarine mounting, that would make me believe that it is an Oerlikon on a British Mark IIA S/M mounting.......
In Sept 2003 GALLAND5 writes: .....The two guns in picture 25a and 25b are 20mm Oerlikon and Vickers .50 I cannot say anything more than this because I am not so well prepared about these weapons.
This photo of K XV's bridge is taken some time early 1944. The radar device is probably installed between July - 21 Oct 1943 during her refit in Rosyth and Dundee (U.K.).
If anyone can identify the radar or has more information on this type of radar then please contact the webmaster at email@example.com.
May 2004: The conclusions of T. Digiulian are confirmed by some notes in an O 19 officers notebook. This notebook list a type 291 RDF.
In June 2003 T. Digiulian provided information, from N. Friedman's book "Naval Radar", that identifies this radar as a Type 291-W:
"Type 291: The final British 214mc/s (P-band) small-ship search radar, introduced in 1942. The earliest version required separate transmitting and receiving antennas, but a TR box was soon developed. The antenna was similar in concept to that of Type 281, but the dipoles were supported by an X-shaped structure; by 1944 Type 291 was fitted to nearly all British destroyers and lesser escorts, and one version was employed in submarines. Design was relatively simple, installation requiring 7 days.
Peak power was 100kW (1.1-microsecond pulses, PRF 500) and typical ranges (destroyer installation, 35ft above water) were 9nm on a battleship, 6 on a destroyer, 3 on a submarine, 35 on an airplane at 10,000ft, 30 on one at 5000ft, and 15nm on one at 1000ft. Beamwidth was 40°, accuracy 200yds and 3° (antenna outfit ATQ/R) or 5° (ATS), and resolution 160yds. Range scales were 7500, 15,000and 75,000yds. 'M', 'P', and 'Q' versions had power rotation and PPI displays in addition to their A-scopes.
Type 291U, for coastal forces and trawlers, had a special lightweight aerial consisting of a pair of superimposed yagis. With the aerial at 20ft, its range was about 4.5nm on a battleship, 3 on a destroyer, 1.5 on a submarine, 15 on an airplane at 10,000ft, 22 on one at 5000ft and 12 on one at 1000ft. Again, the loss of range at 10,000ft seems attributable to the variation in antenna lobe pattern with antenna height. It was replaced by Type 268. Type 291W was designed for submarines, with a rotating aerial designed for watertightness under great pressure. Range, with the antenna at 30ft (4ft) was 5.5nm (2nm) on a battleship, 3.5 (1) on a destroyer, 2 (0.5) on a submarine, 30 (17) on an airplane at 10,000ft, 25 (12) on one at 5000ft and 15 (4) on one at 1000ft. Types 291U and 291W were limited to A-scopes. Type 291W was replaced in service by Type 267W. As for 291, it remained in service in destroyers until about 1952, after which destroyer air search was restricted to coverage provided by Type 293, the target indication radar."
April 2003: Former K XV crew member A. Hopman writes he seems to remember it is a Type 192. But since it is a long time ago he is not sure at all.
Tonijn's sail. Probably Narvik (Norway), 19??. Unique in this picture is the image of the bear(?) on the sail.
Please contact the webmaster at firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any additional information on logo on the sail.
In Jan 2006 Edwin van Os writes: ".....The bear is painted on the sail during the last 1987 voyage, before she was taken out of service for MJO (maintenance) at the shipyard Oude Rijkswerf. This last trip was also the last voyage "around the North" of the Dutch Submarine Service. I am not sure if this picture has been taken in Narvik. I do know that the last port was Bergen and that we did a Fjord trip before that..."
In Jan 2004 J.J. Kragten writes (translated by web team): ".......after an INTEL patrol in the Northern waters we had a R&R period in a port close to the pole circle, possibly Narvik. In that port we painted this image on the sail. In those days it was not uncommon that after a special patrol a special temporarily logo was painted on the sail (calimero, snoopy, etcetera). The image symbolizes the nature of the patrol, gathering information in a certain area.
A mine being transferred to the submarine O 19. The mine is just about to be lowered in its external shaft. This photo is taken sometime between mid-1939 and mid-1945. The other vessels name, location, date and type of mine are unknown (Photo: © Collection IMH / Siem Spruijt ).
We are especially interested in the type of mine being transferred. But details on the location, the other vessel and date are also very welcome. Please contact the webmaster at email@example.com if you have any additional information.
Check out the page Loading mines on board O 19 for more information and answers.
Mystery picture #21: Pre-WWII or WWII collection
Written on the back:
Written on the back:
"Submarine sailing on the surface".
Written on the back:
These are images from the collection of Alfons Verheijden. His uncle, J.H. van Bastelaar, served in the Dutch Submarine service and was killed on board the O 20. These are pre-WWII or WWII photos.
If any one think he has info on the type of submarine (class) or know in what year these photos were taken then please contact the webmaster at firstname.lastname@example.org.
24 Aug 2003: Steve Reichmuth writes: .....The photo on the left with the elegant stern lines marked on the back 'Naples', I believe is one of four possible submarines, she is either K-II, K-V, K-VI, or K-VII of that same class. Only these K-boats had this stern torpedo shutter arrangement (the torpedoes would seemingly pass so precariously close to the propellers) with the superstructure casing aft sloping down so dramatically.....
24 Aug 2003, the webteam writes: We just found the picture on the right in an archive and it is captioned as being the K VII.
Page 1 - Page 2
|Do you have any comments, corrections, additions or do you have material like stories, photos or other data available for this or any other page on this website? Then please do not hesitate to contact us at email@example.com|
|Models||M-media||Specials||Forum||Search||Help US !|
|Copyright © 1997-2006 - Design and content DutchSubmarines.com|