The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1756 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:48 pm
Posts: 5
BB62vet wrote:
Patrick,

Enjoyed your intro! Welcome aboard...here is a link to DD-629 USS ABBOT - they have a tab for FLETCHER class blueprints/plans. I think one of their goals is to upload all the engineering drawings for a typ. FLETCHER tin can. I'm gathering info for a future kit bash of a 1/144 scale FLETCHER into my former ship USS STODDARD (DD-566) 1966-68 which will take some involvement.

http://abbot.us/DD629/main/

Hope this helps,

Thanks for the welcome BB62vet. And also thank you for that link to the USS ABBOT web site. Very helpful. Lot of pictures there. Took me a while to go through them all. Oh BTW, the Tin Can Sailors still have the DVD on the Fletchers for sale, happy to say. Got one coming. Well, stay cool. It feels very tropical right now here in south Texas. Just downright steamy. lol

Best regards
Patrick


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 11:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:41 pm
Posts: 1261
Location: Wallburg, NC
If anyone has any actual plans for the Mk. 32 Triple Torpedo Tubes (as used onboard the FLETCHERS 1950s/60s) and can either scan them in or make .pdfs - I would appreciate it.

TIA,

Hank

_________________
HMS III
Wallburg, NC
BB-62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38) Late 1940 1:200
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144
Finished:
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2957
Hank,

The drawings are for more modern Mods of the Mk 32 ASW triple TT, but the overall dimension have not changed.

... http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a384573.pdf ...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:10 pm 
Offline
Model Monkey
Model Monkey

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:27 pm
Posts: 2638
Location: USA
In the queue. :-)

_________________
Have fun, Monkey around.

-Steve Larsen
Catalog: https://modelmonkey.wixsite.com/modelmonkey

On the ways:
1/350 USS Saratoga CV-3 ('44)
1/350 USS Yorktown CV-10 ('45)
1/192 USS Missouri BB-63 ('45)
1/350 HMS Duke of York ('45)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:20 am
Posts: 42
Location: Lompoc, California
What was the main difference between the USS Cushing (DD-7 97) and USS Sigourney(DD-643), USS Aulick(DD-569), USS Cony (DD-508)? I ask cause I want to get a tamiya cushing and mconvert it to one of the other 3.

_________________
Complete:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS California BB-44

Under construction:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS South Dakota BB-57 (45%)
IHP 1/700 USS Montana BB-67 (20% complete)
1/700 USS Sigourney DD-643 (Tamiya USS Cushing DD-797)(20%)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1339
forward superstructure.
USS CUSHING (DD-797) http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0579712.jpg
USS SIGOURNEY (DD-643) http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0564312.jpg
USS AULICK (DD-569) http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0556919.jpg
USS CONY (DD-508 / DDE-508) http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0550843.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2017 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2957
The Tamiya 1/700 scale CUSHING kit is of a Square(Open)-Bridge FLETCHER class unit. USS SIGOURNEY (DD-643) was a Square(Open)-Bridge FLETCHER class unit. USS AULICK (DD-569) and USS CONY (DD-508) were both Round(Closed)-Bridge FLETCHER class units. The 1/700 Tamiya FLETCHER kit would be a better start for those two than the CUSHING kit.

Depending on how accurate you wish your build to be, look for photos of the ship you wish to model and see how the bulwarks and such vary between the Tamiya kit and that ship. I'm assuming you are planning on a model build as the ship appeared in WWII? The FLETCHER class units varied throughout WWII with the Anti-Aircraft Armament increasing to the mid-war five twin 40-mm mounts and seven single 20-mm guns standard. Then very late in WWII the Anti-Kamikaze mod was applied to about a third of the class, with two quad 40-mm mounts replacing the forward torpedo tubes and waist twin 40-mm guns and six twin 20-mm mounts replacing the single 20-mm guns. The CUSHING kit represents the five twin 40-mm configuration. SIGOURNEY was in the five twin 40-mm configuration for most of the war, virtually the entire time she was in the Pacific war zone. She was being converted to the Anti-Kamikaze mod as the war was ending.

Don't trust the Barrett illustrations to be accurate for individual units in the FLETCHER class. They use the same illustration for multiple units, some of which NEVER had the illustrated configuration. Reference the photos available on Navsource and elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:20 am
Posts: 42
Location: Lompoc, California
Rick E Davis wrote:
The Tamiya 1/700 scale CUSHING kit is of a Square(Open)-Bridge FLETCHER class unit. USS SIGOURNEY (DD-643) was a Square(Open)-Bridge FLETCHER class unit. USS AULICK (DD-569) and USS CONY (DD-508) were both Round(Closed)-Bridge FLETCHER class units. The 1/700 Tamiya FLETCHER kit would be a better start for those two than the CUSHING kit.

Depending on how accurate you wish your build to be, look for photos of the ship you wish to model and see how the bulwarks and such vary between the Tamiya kit and that ship. I'm assuming you are planning on a model build as the ship appeared in WWII? The FLETCHER class units varied throughout WWII with the Anti-Aircraft Armament increasing to the mid-war five twin 40-mm mounts and seven single 20-mm guns standard. Then very late in WWII the Anti-Kamikaze mod was applied to about a third of the class, with two quad 40-mm mounts replacing the forward torpedo tubes and waist twin 40-mm guns and six twin 20-mm mounts replacing the single 20-mm guns. The CUSHING kit represents the five twin 40-mm configuration. SIGOURNEY was in the five twin 40-mm configuration for most of the war, virtually the entire time she was in the Pacific war zone. She was being converted to the Anti-Kamikaze mod as the war was ending.

Don't trust the Barrett illustrations to be accurate for individual units in the FLETCHER class. They use the same illustration for multiple units, some of which NEVER had the illustrated configuration. Reference the photos available on Navsource and elsewhere.



Thanks for that bit of information! Cause what I plan on doing is having one of the Fletcher class as of late 1944 in TF 77 before the battle of leyte gulf sailing next tovthe USS California in a dio. So the cushing would be ok if I went with the Sigourney, and if I went with one of the other two, the Fletcher would be good? But if i go with the tamiya fletcher wouldn't I have to get an aftermarket set to update it to 44 layout? Also I saw that the Sigourney was ordered to be painted in ME 32/13D but can't actually find any evidence that she was painted in the scheme. Was she only in the overall navy blue 5-N?

_________________
Complete:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS California BB-44

Under construction:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS South Dakota BB-57 (45%)
IHP 1/700 USS Montana BB-67 (20% complete)
1/700 USS Sigourney DD-643 (Tamiya USS Cushing DD-797)(20%)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2957
Yes if you chose one of the Round-Bridge units, you would need to modify them from what parts are available in the 1/700 Tamiya FLETCHER kit. Finding aftermarket parts to convert a Tamiya FLETCHER kit or you can kit bash a FLETCHER kit and a CUSHING kit together, which would get you a Round-Bridge unit with the mid-war configuration. Of course you would have left over parts.

As for the camo on USS SIGOURNEY (DD-643) in that October 1944 time frame, we don't know. Lee Johnson and others, including myself, have not found any photographic evidence that she actually painted into dazzle camo in the forward areas. The safe thing would be to assume that she stayed in Ms 21 (5-N) camo.

USS SIGOURNEY was assigned to DesRon 22 for the better part of the war, one of the lease photographed DesRon units.

During October 1944 "most" of DesRon 22 units were in the SF Bay area getting overhauls. Only USS CONY (DD-508), USS AULICK (DD-569), USS ROBINSON (DD-562), and USS SIGOURNEY (DD-643) were available for the early Philippines operations. As you can see from the list below, most of DesRon 22 units didn't get painted into dazzle until late 1944 during overhauls. CONY, AULICK, and ROBINSON were painted in dazzle during yard periods in 1944 or prior to delivery. USS SIGOURNEY is the unknown. My guess is she wasn't repainted into dazzle in the forward areas.

DesRon 22

DesDiv 43
DD-465 SAUFLEY ... Post Overhaul 15 October 1944 photos at HPNY shows her painted in dazzle camo (Overhaul 31 August - 18 October 1944)
DD-466 WALLER (DesRon Flag) ... Post Overhaul 14 October 1944 photos at SF shows her painted in dazzle camo (Overhaul 31 August - 18 October 1944)
DD-477 PRINGLE ... Post Overhaul 1 December 1943 photos at MINY shows her painted in Ms 21 (Overhaul 1 September - 19 October 1944)
DD-498 PHILIP ... 22 August 1944 as she headed to the West Coast for overhaul, shows her painted in Ms 21 (Overhaul 31 August - 18 October 1944; painted in dazzle during overhaul)
DD-499 RENSHAW ... no photos available in 1944 (Overhaul 31 August - 18 October 1944; Painted in dazzle during overhaul)

DesDiv 44
DD-507 CONWAY ... no photos available in 1944 (Overhaul 31 August - 18 October 1944)
DD-508 CONY ... Photos dated October 1944 show her in dazzle camo (Overhaul 6 December 1943 - 2 March 1944)
DD-510 EATON ... no photos available in 1944 (Overhaul 1 September - 22 October 1944)
DD-643 SIGOURNEY ... no photos available in 1944 (No major yards periods in 1944, would have needed to be painted in forward area)

Units assigned at various times;
DD-569 AULICK ... Photos dated October 1944 show her in dazzle camo (Overhaul 17 May - 22 June 1944)
DD-562 ROBINSON ... Photos dated October 1944 show her in dazzle camo (delivered in dazzle)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 7:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:20 am
Posts: 42
Location: Lompoc, California
So the Sigourney was basically that guy that did alot of important stuff, but people didn't really pay much attention to. I am assuming she never went through an overhaul until 1945. Unless her running aground near Koiare, Bougainville on December 10th got her some sort of repairs in a drydock. Comparing information, she received the order for MS 32/13D a week or so following the grounding (December 30th 1943 is the date sent). About the only time I could see her being painted was around that time. But I don't see any records of her being repaired/ examined after the grounding and between her setting sail in september '43 to her overhaul in 1945, there is 1 photo but its not dated either. Any of her crew from WWII recount what color she was in at least?

As I do research on this ship, all I was going to use her for was an extra in my USS California dio, so the destroyer would not be the center piece.

_________________
Complete:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS California BB-44

Under construction:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS South Dakota BB-57 (45%)
IHP 1/700 USS Montana BB-67 (20% complete)
1/700 USS Sigourney DD-643 (Tamiya USS Cushing DD-797)(20%)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2957
I guess you could put it that way.

Most of the destroyers painted in dazzle were done so with the assistance of a support unit. The patterns were such that laying out the outline was difficult without use of a drydock. Not necessary, but sure did help. The USN didn't start applying dazzle to destroyers in numbers until early 1944, and then initially only at stateside yards. While a ship was undergoing an overhaul or extensive repairs was a good time. SIGOURNEY was one of those destroyers who completed her 10-40mm upgrade during Post-Shakedown Availability in August 1943, well before dazzle was in effect. Her first "overhaul" should have been in late 1944. But, she was quite busy as you say. Some ships just slip through the cracks. With the FLETCHER class being 175 units, I know of quite a few individual units that I don't have photos of them "in the war zone".

Actually there could be photos of SIGOURNEY in dazzle (or Ms 21) somewhere during the Philippines campaign, or earlier, its just that the photos were taken at too distant to make out her hull number or it was blocked from view and not identified. After my last trip to NARA, I have two FLETCHER images in the 13D pattern that are UNKNOWN reported taken in 1945. I will attempt to ID them, but that is not a certainty. The 13D pattern was one of the most common dazzle patterns used on FLETCHERS in either Ms 31 or Ms 32 colors. In the case of DesRon 22 units, because of where they served in early 1944, SW Asia, there just wasn't as much photography taken by USN for some reason or another. But, sometimes photos turn up taken by the US Army or Australian forces.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Aug 14, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:20 am
Posts: 42
Location: Lompoc, California
Hopefully something comes up though, but yeah, having 175 ships in the class could cause some to slip through and not be painted in the dazzle camo. I noticed it was a very popular scheme to use; one site shows a good number to ships painted in that design. Yet Sigourney is the only one not confirmed to have it done. I wouldn't say it would be wrong to paint her in the 13D, but since no true evidence has arisen, having her in the MS 21 is probably the safest bet.

_________________
Complete:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS California BB-44

Under construction:
Trumpeter 1/700 USS South Dakota BB-57 (45%)
IHP 1/700 USS Montana BB-67 (20% complete)
1/700 USS Sigourney DD-643 (Tamiya USS Cushing DD-797)(20%)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:16 pm
Posts: 41
Rick E Davis wrote:
I guess you could put it that way.

Most of the destroyers painted in dazzle were done so with the assistance of a support unit. The patterns were such that laying out the outline was difficult without use of a drydock. Not necessary, but sure did help. The USN didn't start applying dazzle to destroyers in numbers until early 1944, and then initially only at stateside yards.


Hello Rick

So many years on......Thanks for all you do to inspire research on Fletcher DD's : )

http://www.usndazzle.com/Destroyers%20P ... s/520E.jpg

There's a few other photos online which need photoshop clean up.
https://m.soundcloud.com/nys_military_m ... obert-alan

This Blue Jackets served aboard USS Isherwood DD 520 in 1943
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303 ... -Aug43.jpg

Your photo bucket album of USS Isherwood & USS Bell - taken from USS Tuscaloosa in 1943 is Winston Churchill
In RMS Queen Mary running at high speed to meet FDR,.....with U Boats alerted.
USS Augusta - Crusier...could not keep up...Dropped out.
Photo bucket changed their link rules.
My Photos of DD 520 are still online. ..will try to fix that for Shipmodel forum.
April 16/ 1945 radar picket 14,....USS Pringle sunk....USS Laffey on nearby picket...crashed by 7 Kamikaze, towed away a charred wreck.
USS Isherwood arrived to search for Pringle survivors, ...replace USS Laffey on RP.
LSM R and other boats in radar picket with Pringle were firing into the sea to kill sharks near survivors.

USS Isherwood was sea grey in 1943 Atlantic, ...Pacific Blue ( apology for Bu ships number)...during Aleutians 43/44
Dazzle 31 16d from Vallejo CA 1944 August to post Kamikaze repairs July 45.

Again. ...Thanks Rick for All the years of publish on Fletcher class.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2957
Brad,

Thank you for your post.

I do have to correct you on ISHERWOOD's painting/camo in 1943. From when she was completed and during her tour with the Home Fleet, she was painted in Ms 21 (5-N), until she was repainted in dazzle.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:16 pm
Posts: 41
Quote:
I do have to correct you on ISHERWOOD's painting/camo in 1943. From when she was completed and during her tour with the Home Fleet, she was painted in Ms 21 (5-N), until she was repainted in dazzle.


A LT/JG on Isherwood kept a private diary.
During last week of January 44 Isherwood and William D Porter put in at Pearl Harbor,...Isherwood had taken a 46 degree roll during an operation in the Aleutians, had damaged it's Sonar dome.
The diary has William D Porter getting painted in Black/White dazzle.....Isherwood in drydock painted Blue.
I had thought the Ship was painted grey in 43....with it getting painted blue as per the ref from the diary.
Dazzle was applied in August 44
The 1943 photos of the ship b/w give the impression of Grey paint.
Possibly the Ms 21 5n dark blue looks Grey in b/w photos : )


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 30, 2017 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 2957
Brad,

It can be difficult to determine the color of paints in B&W images, unless it is known what camo schemes were in use at the time of the photo. Ms 21 camo (5-N paint) is one that really varies in grayscale photos. There are very dark images and very light images that much can be largely explained by camera settings. Photographers would naturally set the camera so that as many details as possible would show up in the photo. Another factor was that 5-N was one of the paints that faded a lot in the Pacific sun, plus the salt spray created a layer of salt film that certainly lighted the overall color.

But, we know from directions in BuShips files that virtually every FLETCHER, ALL of which were designated for operations in the Pacific, from early 1943 were ordered to be painted in Ms 21 camo even if they would be operating in the Atlantic Fleet for a period of time. From August 1942 until early 1943 if a FLETCHER was going to operate in the Atlantic, like the units that went to Operation Torch in November 1942, were painted in Ms 22 camo. At the same time the Pacific Fleet had already required that their ships be painted in Ms 21 camo, but units transferred from the Atlantic continued to arrive in their Atlantic Fleet camo and needed to be repainted. Efforts to get all or almost all units in the Pacific Fleet painted in Ms 21 camo was ordered in late October 1942, as soon as operations allowed.

There were some oddball camo schemes that continued to see use after Ms 21 and Ms 22 camo schemes were approved as the primary schemes to be used. Ms 18 camo, the demarcation line between 5-H and 5-N followed the main deck sheer line rather than be parallel to the waterline, was fairly common in the Atlantic fleet. Mountbatten Pink (a med gray) was used in the South Atlantic into 1944. Etc.

The example of USS WILLIAM D PORTER and USS ISHERWOOD being painted with different camo schemes at the same time in January 1944 is an example of a period of transition in authorized camo schemes. The new dazzle schemes were authorized in late 1943, but each ship was to receive direction via correspondence as to which specific pattern design. WILLIAM D. PORTER likely received such a letter and her CO "agreed" to having his ship so painted. ISHERWOOD either had not received direction as to which dazzle scheme to apply or her CO decided not to apply it in favor of a fresh coat of 5-N.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1756 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group