Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

[Rick E Davis]

Secondo,

The Fletcher class (and the Benson-Gleaves class) was originally intended to have two different types of sonar installed. Because the DE program took priority and production of sonar couldn't keep up with all of the demand, the Fletchers only had one sonar installed. We have discussed where the single sonar was located on Fletchers and I'm not sure which location was used due to a lack of photos or frame number location provided. The drawing "grabs" I provided were from the BIW Engineering Drawings which were based on the original configuration planned. I think the sea chests continued to be installed and retained for when sonars became available. Postwar there was a sonar dome roughly behind 52 mount and before the bridge.

[Secondo]

Secondo,

The Fletcher class (and the Benson-Gleaves class) was originally intended to have two different types of sonar installed.

I forgot that, sorry.
Based on the photos of the sinking William D. Porter (DD 579) that show the foremost sonar dome in its place, I added it to my model. I would also like to add the second fairwater, I suppose that it had to be plated over but I have no clues about its positioning, I'm just guessing it had to be on the starboard side somewhere near the bridge, perhaps in the position you mentioned, between the bridge and mount 52...

[Jennings]

I've read back through this entire 39 page thread, and I'm utterly confused. There's some great info here, but is there one single drawing (or could someone help me draw one up for everyone's benefit, which I'm happy to do) showing all of the openings on the Fletcher lower hull, what they are, and where exactly (with measurements) they are located?????

I'm so confused.

Tks!

J

[Sleepwalker]

Hi Jennings,

Take a look here: http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm. On the plans list you will find USS Sigsby with nicely shown sonar dome position. I have a photo (at home now) showing USS Uhlman in drydock with sonar dome exposed - it is clearly visible it was shifted towards port side (as shown at the drawings above posted by Rick). Somewhere back in this thread was photo showing close up of the sonar dome.
Summarizing:
1. Sonar dome was place around 5-1 gun.
2. It was placed off ship axis towards port side.
3. Its horizonal cross section was droplet like shape.
4. Size you can deduct from the drawing given above plus comparison with sailor on the photo mentioned.
5. Shape and the placement of the sonar dome was changing in time - finally having position as on Sumner/Gearing destroyers. Such sonar dome has USS Kidd now.

[MEGADETH9mm]

Finally finished it. Tried my best to patch a hole in the water right stern, you can barely tell with the naked eye for my home display. radar is still bent too far back, no smoke stack stains, forgot to blacken bullet hole on fuselage of betty. Casing will come next when i get around to it. History of this scene below.

USS Hudson DD475, Guam, Summer 1944

"One day while patrolling north of Guam we passed close to the wreckage of a Jap Betty, one their most effective bombers, and noticed one survivor still with the plane. Putting our motor whaleboat in the water with a small well armed party we tried to encourage the Jap to surrender; he resisted and tried to swim away from the boat which quickly overtook him and picked him up. He was aboard for a week and at first seemed scared to death. We rigged a hammock for 11tojoll as he was called, forward of #1 stack and the torpedo tubes, stationed a guard with him and took good care of the young airman, about eighteen. Finally he was transferred by hi-line to one of the new battleships for interrogation - I might add we were trying out a new rig and he was the first to use it!"
-story taken from here: http://bobrosssr.tripod.com/475hist1.html The Hudson was a valiant ship and crew that did more than enough to help win the war, hope I did a decent enough job to honor these sailors and the Hudson.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0316.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0317.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0318.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0319.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0320.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0321.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0322.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0323.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0325.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0326.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0327.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0328.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0329.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... CN0330.jpg

[MEGADETH9mm]

here's a couple closeups of the Hudson, which i failed to provide last posting:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... close1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... close3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... close2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/s ... close4.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_H ... 547502.jpg

[Secondo]

Well done, I always like models that carry a particular feeling with them

Now I have a pair of questions concerning USS O'Bannon: as my second Fletcher hull is on the slipways, I had to decide which ship I could represent, without modifying too much the basic Revell kit.
I wish to build O'Bannon as she was when this photo was taken, in August of 1943



There are two "dark spots" concerning her armament and the Measure she was wearing. She surely had an additional 20mm on the flying bridge, but I don't know if the 1.1" quad mount was still on board, or if it had already been replaced by the Bofors. Also, the fantail area is a bit mysterious, it seems there could have been another gun tub there.
About the Measure, I have read that she was wearing Ms 14, but I know that the other ships of her Squadron were in Ms 21, and it seems unlikely that her painting was different from that of her sisters...

[Rick E Davis]

By August 1943 O'Bannon was painted in Ms 21 ... likely was repainted the first week of November 1942. Nicholas, O'Bannon, and Chevalier retained the quad 1.1-in mount at that time. Chevalier was lost with it and the other two were updated to the standard five twin 40-mm mount configuration in late 1943. All three of these ships had additional 20-mm guns added after arriving in the South Pacific. Nicholas and O'Bannon arrived with six 20-mm guns and Chevalier had an elevated centerline 20-mm platform/gun added just prior to heading to the Pacific, giving her seven 20-mm guns. All three received four additional 20-mm guns ... one atop the pilothouse and three on the fantail. The fantail arrangement was similar ... BUT NOT EXACT ... layout as was seen on later FLETCHERS and there wasn't a full bulwark around them. I'm on the road right now, but I'll try to remember to post an image of the fantail of one of these ships with the three 20-mm guns.

[Secondo]

By August 1943 O'Bannon was painted in Ms 21 ... likely was repainted the first week of November 1942. Nicholas, O'Bannon, and Chevalier retained the quad 1.1-in mount at that time. Chevalier was lost with it and the other two were updated to the standard five twin 40-mm mount configuration in late 1943. All three of these ships had additional 20-mm guns added after arriving in the South Pacific. Nicholas and O'Bannon arrived with six 20-mm guns and Chevalier had an elevated centerline 20-mm platform/gun added just prior to heading to the Pacific, giving her seven 20-mm guns. All three received four additional 20-mm guns ... one atop the pilothouse and three on the fantail. The fantail arrangement was similar ... BUT NOT EXACT ... layout as was seen on later FLETCHERS and there wasn't a full bulwark around them. I'm on the road right now, but I'll try to remember to post an image of the fantail of one of these ships with the three 20-mm guns.

Many thanks, I knew you would have been the one to save me So, it seems that it's going to be a really interesting -even if not extensive- conversion work.
We should point out that Revell offers only the Bofors, also for Chevalier: the other Fletcher builders, be warned about that fault...

[MEGADETH9mm]

Well done, I always like models that carry a particular feeling with them

Now I have a pair of questions concerning USS O'Bannon: as my second Fletcher hull is on the slipways, I had to decide which ship I could represent, without modifying too much the basic Revell kit.
I wish to build O'Bannon as she was when this photo was taken, in August of 1943



There are two "dark spots" concerning her armament and the Measure she was wearing. She surely had an additional 20mm on the flying bridge, but I don't know if the 1.1" quad mount was still on board, or if it had already been replaced by the Bofors. Also, the fantail area is a bit mysterious, it seems there could have been another gun tub there.
About the Measure, I have read that she was wearing Ms 14, but I know that the other ships of her Squadron were in Ms 21, and it seems unlikely that her painting was different from that of her sisters...

those guys are hauling *ss!

[Sauragnmon]

I wonder if you could find O'Bannon's tabulated record of movement or something, that might give you an idea of her timing on refits and equipment.

[Secondo]

I wonder if you could find O'Bannon's tabulated record of movement or something, that might give you an idea of her timing on refits and equipment.

The DANFS article should be avaiable, I'll check it out ASAP However, I feel I have already enough material to proceed; I found the photos of the fantail of Nicholas with the 3 Oerlikons, which I suppose was the same arrangement as O'Bannon, and this dark spot is gone
I just have a doubt about the radar antenna that had to be on top of the mast, I hope it was the SC...

[Rick E Davis]

O'BANNON's air search radar didn't change from her commissioning until her overhaul/refit to five twin 40-mm mounts in late 1943. So, the photos of her from that time frame should be fine.

Here is a view of O'BANNON reportedly taken on 20 June 1943 and a blow-up of the fantail area that to me shows the 20-mm guns located there are at least roughly in the same configuration as the ones on NICHOLAS. (Note: the original print cuts-off as seen ... dang)

[Secondo]

All right, the radar was surely the one that I hoped for, as I have two SCs but only one SC 4 that I need for my Killen. Concerning the fantail, I will submit photos of the most probable arrangement that I will work out before to start glueing anything
It's strange to see that the searchlight platform's canvas and the blast bags were not dyed.

[PeteM]

Gentlemen, I'm trying to located photos or drawings of the raised centerline 20mm tub on square-bridge Fletchers. I've found 1 or 2 close ups (including 1 of Abbot several pages back) but would like to get some other looks before attempting to replicate it. One other question: it appears (in the long distance photos I've found) that these tubs fairly standard. Is this so?

[Rick E Davis]

Pete,

Commonality depends on which type of bridge ... round or square. The Round bridge units appear to have used the same platform (I suspect that this platform is the same or close to the one used on BENSON-GLEAVES as well). The square bridge units had some development and builder differences over time. There were problems experienced with the new open bridge layout, so there were several different modifications made to the platform-bridge mating trying to fix the problem.

Without going back and finding it ... which ship are you modeling again? I have some close-up photos of various units and may have drawings of the platforms ... at least the ones used on BIW built units.

[Dick J]

Actually, some round-bridge types had an alternative config for the raised 20MM.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0557510.jpg

compared to

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0551402.jpg

Round or square, you need to find pics of the actual ship to be absolutely sure.

[PeteM]

Pete,

Commonality depends on which type of bridge ... round or square. The Round bridge units appear to have used the same platform (I suspect that this platform is the same or close to the one used on BENSON-GLEAVES as well). The square bridge units had some development and builder differences over time. There were problems experienced with the new open bridge layout, so there were several different modifications made to the platform-bridge mating trying to fix the problem.

Without going back and finding it ... which ship are you modeling again? I have some close-up photos of various units and may have drawings of the platforms ... at least the ones used on BIW built units.

Rick, I have a small aftermarket kit to convert the Tamiya Fletcher to a square bridge unit. My plan was to keep the forward 20's rather than change the molded on tubs to 40mm tubs, but am willing to have a go at scratching the center line 20mm tub. I figured I could also scavenge the midship 40mm tub/clipping room (if necessary) and aft 40mm tub/structure parts from a Trumpy Sullivans kit. After looking through photos on the Destroyer History site to narrow down my choices I went to Navsource to find some more detail if possible. I've pretty much narrowed down things to either the Brownson (DD518), Hazelwood (DD531), Hoel (DD533) or Mc Cord(DD534). I've got no real tie to any of them and whichever I can get the most evidence for. I appreciate any help you can give me.

[Rick E Davis]

All of those were Bethlehem - SF built units, except for Brownson, which was a Bethlehem - Staten Island built unit. So the photos of anyone of them will hold up for all of them. But, except for Abner Read (DD-526), the Bethlehem-SF built units were upgraded to the five twin 40-mm configuration prior to going to the South Pacific. However, Brownson (DD-518) and Daly (DD-519) from Bethlehem-SI did serve in the South Pacific for sometime in the three twin 40-mm and ten 20-mm configuration. However, I see a problem for you. When they went from three 20-mm guns before the bridge to two twin 40-mm mounts, except for three square bridge units ... they had to cut-back the bridge for the 40-mm mounts. The conversion kit you are going to use is representative of the POST CONVERSION to the twin 40-mm mounts. To be correct for the three twin 40-mm mounts and ten 20-mm gun configuration, the 01 deck bridge deckhouse would need to be made larger and the Nav bridge needs to be modified.

Look at the drawings below and the images to get an idea of how things differed. The bridge-platform interface was different on these ships. It appears to me that the Bethlehem-SI units looked more like Abbot than Hazelwood. Oh, I have no idea of why Brownson's 20-mm tub has been cut open (or was it damaged and is being repaired?) like that.

DD-531 Hazelwood on 24 June 1943


DD-518 Brownson on 13 September 1943


DD-629 Abbot fitting-out in April 1943


Drawing of DD-629 Abbot's bridge with 20-mm guns


Drawing of DD-650 Caperton's bridge with the twin 40-mm mounts.

[PeteM]

Thanks Rick for taking the time to share your knowledge. Looking at the drawings you posted I can see the size difference between the pre- and post-refit deck houses, and that difference shouldn't be too hard to make up. However I can't seem to make out the modifications to the navigation bridge that you mentioned. Can you shed some light there?