The Ship Model Forum

My USS The Sullivans 1/350 from Trumpeter came in mail yesterday.
I started the old Revell 1/306 The Sullivans a couple days ago as a "fun"
relaxing build.


Heres both, Revell in progress and Trumpy in box.---John

Hello there, sorry to begin by saying this question is about the splash camo displayed on the DD445 USS Fletcher that at the moment is only a maybe build in 1-350.
I've had a good look round and while not greatly bothered by painting this blue splash looking camo on the flank and superstructure, I have also noticed just about everyone else has painted the same copied design, which is great, and please don't get that wrong, but is there yet another camo this ship wore ?
With the Tamiya instructions there's a drawing without camo just a basic 3/4 colour up and down type of thing, and I'd like to escape from the ''same as everyone else'' look and in the same breath know this is how its suppose to look, I can't imagine for a single moment that this ship wore only 2 designs, the up and down colour (hull, superstructure and deck) and the splashing blue on both flanks and upper structures of this ship. Has anyone got another camo for this ship ?
Look forward to your reply.

For accuracy it depends on ship configuration, how much modification you want to do to the Tamiya kit (or for that matter the Trumpeter kit), and time period modeled. Also, using the basic Tamiya FLETCHER 1/350 scale kit, there are only a limited number of ships that can be modeled out of the box ... FLETCHER, RADFORD, JENKINS, and La VALLETTE with one twin 40-mm mount; FLETCHER, JENKINS, and La VALLETTE with two twin 40-mm mounts; and NICHOLAS, O'BANNON, and CHEVALIER with a single quad 1.1-in mount (not in the box but readily available from other kits ... aka DML BENSON-GLEAVES kits).

All of these were initially painted in a Ms 12 Mod camo ... varied from ship to ship.

Several, and it is difficult to nail down which ones exactly, were painted in Ms 18 ... NICHOLAS, O'BANNON and maybe FLETCHER ... in August 1942. Others, CHEVALIER, JENKINS and La VALLETTE, were painted in Ms 22 for the North Africa invasion (November 1942) in September/October 1942. In the Pacific, all were eventually painted in Ms 21.

The survivors were updated to the five twin 40-mm mounts configuration and this is where modifications to the kit or bashing with a Trumpeter kit is needed. Once with five twin 40-mm mounts, the ships were painted in Ms 21 or one of the Ms 31/32/33 dazzle schemes.

Go look and read the FLETCHERS thread in the Calling all ships fans forum.

Many thanks for a quick response, as for accuracy may I shy away and say, I'm bothered but not that worried so long as the model looks good ''to me'' and I am my own worse judge.
Having seen many fine finished Fletcher's on the board, I just wanted something slightly different for myself.

I know how you feel. I'm building the 1/144 kit and am going to be stuck with the as launched camo which I'm not looking forward to doing. Lots of masking here.

_________________
Any ship larger than a Destroyer is a waste of metal.

les, you might try reaching out to Kenny Loup of Gators Masks. He does produce masks for the Fletcher's Ms 12 mod scheme in 1/350 (and 1/700, if I'm not mistaken). It may indeed be possible for him to up scale it for the 1/144 kit. Worth an e-mail to see, anyway. He did some custom work for me a while back (flight deck stripes and markings for the Trumpy 1/700 Saratoga), so I know he does things on request.

EDIT: I just checked the site and I see that he does have the 1/144 scale masks in his catalog. At $17 can you really go wrong?

http://www.gatorsmask.com/index.html

_________________
On the ways:
1/350 AFV Club LST

Ms 12 masks ... that is cheating!!!

Yup!

_________________
On the ways:
1/350 AFV Club LST

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4030/462 ... c2d8_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/462 ... f136_b.jpg
After thinking long and short about the camo of this Fletch I've decided to do my own thing, the hull dark sea grey with Humbrol matt 104, the superstructure Tamiya TS-81 again with Hum 104 decking and all surface is now Revell matt 78.
While people might say I don't know the difference between rat :censored_2: and rice crispies its basically what I feel looks good for me.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/462 ... 84d2_b.jpg
This is my first 1-350 scale since I can remember, and boy is it big, while only a destroyer, this 13 incher is normally the full size of a battleship in 1-700 and getting use to paint and back to free-hand painting is proving to be a pain, with the weather being so hot, and I hate being hot, I just switch off which for my build isn't a bad thing, I'll be taking my time with this model as to be honest I've slightly lost the plot regarding its build.
Almost forgot - over on modelshipwrights there's an old write up on Fletcher 1-144 with loads of pix showing the PE as well, might be worth a look, Les.

Looks pretty good! Did you use a pencil to mark off the pattern? I think I saw a little of it in one of the pictures, so you might want to go back with a soft eraser to rub that out.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Yes, a few pencil marks were left behind, at this early stage everything will look a little tatty, but please don't stop reminding me.

Looks good to me Alec!





Bob Pink.

Alec,

As a friend, I have to tell you. I'm sorry, but I have to. It looks good. It must be all that practice at 1/700, but it looks good. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it, whether you like ot or not. I would have knackered that pattern.

Russ


Different class but in colour

_________________
Russ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SSDjH3lcfs
Yet another question, this time about blast bags, would this ship carried and wore blast bags ? Some actual photo's show without, at a guess it'll probably be one of those things, and maybe also depending on the rough sea, a guess like I said.

When faced with something like that, I just go with what I see in the picture because I can know for sure that it happened. Since pictures show her without blast bags, then we know FOR SURE that there were times when she didn't carry them - however, if you don't have pictures showing her with blast bags, then we can only conclude that she MIGHT have carried them. So, to be safe, go with what you DO know - that is, no blast bags.

For me, I would personally say that she probably did have them on at some point while wearing that camo scheme, and might put the bags on just for fun.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

The USN found that the "seals" on the 5-in/38-cal mounts leaked sea water to such an extent that the water impacted the wiring, circuits, and other components on the mounts. Throughout the war the USN tried different solutions to solve the problem. Various patterns of bloomers were tried, but had short lives. As best I can tell from the records I have seen, bloomers started to be installed on FLETCHERS in early August 1942 (STRONG had them installed the first week of August 1942). As completed, FLETCHER did not have bloomers on her guns as you can tell from the photos. She likely had bloomers installed during her yard availability the end of August when the fantail twin 40-mm mount and Mk 51 director were installed. She definitely had them in the South Pacific. I don't know, but if I had to take a guess, FLETCHER never had bloomers while she was painted in Ms 12.

Thanks for that, Rick! I had thought there were something that existed long before mid-1942!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

In 1946 the ship was given to Mexico.
I see via Navsource that she will be returning to Mobile Bay for restoration.
Navsorce has photos from a condition inspection. The awesome thing is that Mexico appears to have made no equipment upgrades. She appears to be in WWII fit, other than missing 20MM guns (The mounts are still there) Check it out http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/574.htm

_________________
Russ

Actually JOHN RODGERS was transferred to Mexico in 1970.

Yes she is still in basically WWII configuration (minus TT mounts).

But, the initial effort (2006-2007) to return her to the USA was a fisco and the costs mount for her being tied up to a private pier in Mexico, is/was the subject of lawsuits, and the cost of towing is quite large. I had read that a new group was trying to save the ship, but have not seen any details. Any effort to save John Rodgers will need a lot of money at this point.

To bad that Paul Allen isn't interested in WWII Destroyers.

_________________
Any ship larger than a Destroyer is a waste of metal.