The Ship Model Forum

Thank you for the response. Nav Source has a few photos of the 24d scheme, more study!

Killerbeans wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2026 6:30 am What color would the inner face of the bofor tubs be? I'm building Hazelwood, in her 24d scheme, so I assumed various undersides would be 5L light grey, bridge wings, etc. but not so sure now.

Generally speaking, the exterior color of a gun tub carried over into the interior.

Can't speak to countershading - I'm not sure when that started to come into effect.

If anyone would know, it would @Tracy White.

First off, I don't know if there was a standard camo doctrine for painting the insides of the "tubs" bulwarks in the Dazzle schemes.

There are at least two things to consider, what was the exterior of the "tubs" painted? And realize that the 40-mm bulwarks had canvas cover panels that went over the 40-mm round clips to protect them. What these canvas covers were painted (or maybe not) will determine what color the interior and exterior of the bulwarks (depending if the mounts are active) appeared to be.

Normally I would simply say I have no idea of what the interiors were painted to. Given the "things to consider" and other unknowns, it is next to know the answer without photos. Since most photos of destroyers are broadside when the interiors of "tubs" can't be seen, finding photos useful for this effort is nearly impossible. Also, with the canvas cover panels being used to protect the 40-mm rounds, they can't be seen when the ship is NOT in combat. However, you are somewhat lucky with USS HAZELWOOD. There are photos of HAZELWOOD taken from alongside after her kamikaze damage which sort of freeze frames what parts of HAZELWOOD looked like. See attached.

Here you can see her canvas cover panels are flipped over the bulwarks showing what those were painted. Exact colors are difficult to be identified, but you get the idea of what shades were used. Plus, in at least one case, it appears that a canvas panel is white or natural and not painted when the other cover panels are painted. These two photos don't show all the mounts, but gives you an idea.

What color would the inner face of the bofor tubs be? I'm building Hazelwood, in her 24d scheme, so I assumed various undersides would be 5L light grey, bridge wings, etc. but not so sure now.

Thank you again, sir. I'll look into that. Tbis entire Fletcher thing is a rabbit hole of some depth!

Black Cat makes very nice 40-mm and 20-mm guns and other finer detailed equipment that can be used on FLETCHER kits.

Thanks for the reply and info, Rick. I saw a webpage that had DD info, including fit for weapons and even radar, but lost it. I've chosen MM parts for my conversion, but can't find any 40mms other than DStefan. Any help appreciated. I figure build configuration, weapons configuration, radar and paint. Anything I missed?

“As built” by Beth-SF, the FLETCHER’s would be the same. Except when there was a configuration change ( like going from three twin 40-mm mounts to five or then upgrading to the Anti-Kamikaze mod ). The first three Beth-SF built FLETCHER's, (DD-526-528), have quite unique bridge configurations not seen on any other FLETCHER's.

One unique feature seen on Beth-SF and most Beth-SP built units was a rub strake along the midship section. (Some Fletchers worked on by Beth-SF also had a rub stake added).

Also, there were changes (upgrades) to the bridge configuration. Look at photos of unit(s) you are thinking of building.

Something I forgot to mention earlier about converting options of 1/350 scale FLETCHERS, was I kit bashed the Tamiya and Trumpeter Fletcher kits to get what I wanted. Trumpeter has a water-line option and Tamiya doesn’t. However I limited my builds (two; USS CHEVALIER (DD-451) and USS SIGSBEE (DD-502) in Anti-Kamikaze mod) with these two kits because of so many problems with both kits and for a long time no upgrade options for Square-Bridge configurations. How, ModelMonkey has Square-Bridge upgrades, I just never have gotten around to ordering all the parts I would need yet. I’m doing the same bashing with the STEVENS kit to get my desired waterline model (and not dealing with the battleship armor belt seen on the iLove kit. When the iLove FLETCHER original configuration kit is available, I may do bashing projects with that kit. Will depend on what additional options they offer of the FLETCHER Kit line. All the Trumpeter "THE SULLIVANS" 1/350 scale kits I have will be turned into parts sources, primarily the waterline hulls.

At one point I heard that a Square-Bridge FLETCHER with five twin 40mm mounts configuration (USS JOHNSTON was mentioned) and a post-WWII THE SULLIVANS as she appears as a museum were planned, a 4-Gun version with three twin 3-in/50 RFG mounts. But, whether these are just rumors or real plans I don’t know. Since iLove is a division of Trumpeter and Trumpeter has been producing the same versions of FLETCHERS as iLove, except in 1/200 scale AND they have already advertised THE SULLIVANS kit, it could happen.

In trying to build a SF built square bridge, circa '44, would it be safe to say they (SF built) were fairly consistant?
I was gifted a 1/144 kit, 3/4 built, missing parts, hence the square bridge conversion. I think AA, and radar would be the most obvious details?

ScottMcD - That link works and those pictures are very helpful. I've seen that conversion on eBay you mentioned. There are a couple of products he has that I'm thinking about ordering.

Rick - I have those images from NavSource but I didn't realize it until after I posted my question. The downside of a poorly organized reference file.

I'm kind of bouncing around on which Fletcher to build. The Nicholas was the first to catch my interest thanks to the pictures and stories of her sailing into Tokyo Bay. But, as this is my first ship model in decades I may find an interesting subject requiring a little less conversion work and just build up parts and info to build the Nicholas later on.

I’m traveling and away from my desktop computer and can’t post images. But, the Navsource images for USS NICHOLAS (DD-449) dated in January 1944, are accurate for late 1945 as well.

Working with either the Tamiya FLETCHER kit or Trumpeter THE SULLIVAN's kit can be used to get to the late 1945 configuration of NICHOLAS. But, the Tamiya kit would require a lot of modifications to get to the five twin 40-mm mounts standard, since that isn’t an out of the box option. I’m not familiar with the round bridge conversion of the TRUMPETER kit, but that may be easier. But some modifications will be required depending on “now” accurate you which to model NICHOLAS. An advantage to using the Trumpeter kit as your base, is that your model can be water-line or full hull.

The 3-D printed market has several vendors that can produce replacement parts for weapons, etc. I can’t keep up with all of them and I haven’t seen all of them to verify which would be the best. Checking Model Monkey and BlackCat are ones I can recommend.

Another option “may” be available soon. The iLove company (really just another subgroup of Trumpeter) is suppose to be offering several versions of FLETCHERS and based on the STEVENS kit would be an improvement on the older TAMIYA and TRUMPETER Fletcher kits.

Does this link work for you? It shows the Nicholas Jan '44 refit. https://destroyerhistory.org/ussnichola ... tions.html

There is an eBay seller, tankbuster47, that offers a 1/350 3D Printed Fletcher Class '43-'45 Round Bridge that could be used with the Trumpeter 1/350 USS Sullivans kit to build a late war Nicholas. I don't know about the accuracy of the Trumpeter kit but it might get you closer to the late war fit.

Howdy all,

I'm looking to gather some information regarding building a model of the USS Nicholas as she appeared at the time of the surrender in Tokyo bay. I'm planning to use the Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher as the basis but I'm trying to determine her configuration so I can figure out what changes and updates to make.

I have the photos from Navsource which will help a lot. The Destroyer History Foundation looks to have a few more but I can't get more than the thumbnail to show for those.

So any suggestions on a source for additional photos the Nicholas near the end of the war? Or at least after her last refit.

Thank you in advance for any help.

Shane

A valid point, but I'll acquire the parts over time. Some kits are worth the extra cost.
I'll wind up with more in 3dp parts for my 4 piper than the kit. My GMM pe set was equal to the cost of the kit. The Fletcher is a must build for me.
YMMV

I don't know about the Revel 1/144 scale FLETCHER kit being a much better baseline for a good FLETCHER model. There are many omissions of equipment (nothing on the bridge wings!!!) and a big error of using the wrong version of the Mk 37 director (the modeled the taper-back Mk 37 instead of the proper square-back Mk 37. Armament is not very well molded (multiple parts for the 5-in gun mounts). In other words, the cost of replacing components with aftermarket ones in 1/144 scale will be more expensive than in 1/350 scale.

It seems the trumpy 1/200 Fletcher is a "B team" kit.
Basically good bones, but...
I'll likely pass, as I have a RoG 1/144 kit, but never say never.

Rick E Davis wrote: Sun Feb 01, 2026 4:23 pm Once again, DON'T use the Trumpeter THE SULLIVANS kit as a reference!! This kit is terrible at accuracy (no twin 20-mm guns!! as an example).

Why even bother looking at images of USS THE SULLIVANS (DD-537) when you plan on modeling USS KIDD (DD-661)? There are normally all kinds of small differences between destroyers in the same class. Even things like framing supports for bulwarks varied, maybe due to yard practices and previous work done at other yards!! The Anti-Kamikaze upgrades were done on 53 FLETCHERS during late 1945 into 1946, by multiple yards, at least 17. Some of these "yards" weren't even officially yards (just repair bases) had NEVER done work like this on FLETCHER class destroyers!!! They were pressed into doing these upgrades due to the high demand for overhauls, plus Kamikaze, collision, and mine damage across the whole fleet. USS KIDD was modified at Hunters Point NSY, along with four sisters. THE SULLIVANS was upgraded at MINSY., along with 15 sisters.

I apologize if it came off as unknowledgeable on my front. My thought process was that if since the kit is Sullivans, what changes would I need to make, hence why the back and forth compairison. But as you said, since the kit is inaccurate on many levels, now I don't need to worry what can be kept or changed, etc. I already have all the aftermarket parts necessary to ensure it's accurate (bridge, FCS, weaponary, etc). I asked about the bulwark issue because the aftermarket PE only matches Sullivans or her sisters that recieved that specific bulwark, so I wanted to see what changes I had to make.

Noted on the Mark 63.

Another point. The Mk 63 Gun Fire Control System had multiple elements to it. The director was actually a variate of the Mk 51 with added equipment. The antenna was installed on the gun mount itself, and the computer was below decks.

Once again, DON'T use the Trumpeter THE SULLIVANS kit as a reference!! This kit is terrible at accuracy (no twin 20-mm guns!! as an example).

Why even bother looking at images of USS THE SULLIVANS (DD-537) when you plan on modeling USS KIDD (DD-661)? There are normally all kinds of small differences between destroyers in the same class. Even things like framing supports for bulwarks varied, maybe due to yard practices and previous work done at other yards!! The Anti-Kamikaze upgrades were done on 53 FLETCHERS during late 1945 into 1946, by multiple yards, at least 17. Some of these "yards" weren't even officially yards (just repair bases) had NEVER done work like this on FLETCHER class destroyers!!! They were pressed into doing these upgrades due to the high demand for overhauls, plus Kamikaze, collision, and mine damage across the whole fleet. USS KIDD was modified at Hunters Point NSY, along with four sisters. THE SULLIVANS was upgraded at MINSY., along with 15 sisters.

Another thing, don't necessarily think that there is a "permanent" gap in deck edge bulwark amidships. Many destroyers had a section of this bulwark that was removable to allow for gangway access and/or retrieving/loading torpedoes. Although in the case of USS KIDD, this gap in the bulwark appears was intentional to facilitate loading of torpedoes. See the attached image, you can see the small crane used for loading torpedoes. (originally the torpedo loading crane was located further forward but the addition of quad 40-mm mounts made this change of crane loading) Plus if you look close, you can see the gangway. This image and others taken at the same time, highlight the RCM equipment antennas added.

Rick E Davis wrote: Sat Jan 31, 2026 9:25 pm On all destroyers with the newer "Square-Back" Mk 37 director, FLETCHER's and newer, initially had the Mk 12 radar replacing the Mk 4 radar and the Mk 22 when available. (production of the Mk 22 lagged the Mk 12 by about six months).

On the older destroyers with the "Angle-Back" Mk 37 director, SIMS, BENSON, and GLEAVES classes (the earlier Mk 37 directors didn't have room inside for Mk 12 radar equipment) couldn't have the Mk 12 radar. The USN tried installing Mk 22 radars on many of the units with the earlier Mk 37 Angle-back directors in combination with the Mk 4 radar directors, but the results weren't satisfactory. Eventually the newer Mk 28 radar (circular antenna), which had a smaller antenna and was less capable compared to the Mk 25 radar installed post-war on FLETCHER, SUMNER, and GEARING classes, but was better than the earlier Mk 4 radar.

Yes the added boxes on the back of the Mk 37 director were for the newer radar equipment.

For the larger units (battleships, cruisers, and carriers) which had the "angle-back" or "square-back" Mk 37 directors is a lot more complicated. Which units got which was depended on when they were built in the production line. For units initially equipped with angle-back Mk 37 directors, in some cases the original director was modified for newer radars. Basically, the shell needed to be modified.

Thank you for the clarification.

To jump back to the previous reply, other than the bulwark around the two waist twin 20mm being different on the Kidd and Sullivans and the differing position of the Mark 63 FCS deckhouse (which based on these two photos, Sullivans had the wall facing aft with railings around, and Kidd had the wall facing fore with railings around), those were the only differences?