Calling all USN 1,500 tonner-class DD fans

[David Sandifer]

Thank you, David, for the Mk51 director identification.

[Rick E Davis]

Actually, it depends on the destroyer in these two classes. In going through my scanned images, the pre-war small platform for a RDF antenna was replaced with either a platform for a single 20-mm gun (giving the destroyer six 20-mm guns) or with a Mk 51 director (giving the destroyer four or five 20-mm guns). In 1944 installing a Mk 51 forward on the pre-war built destroyers without forward twin 40-mm mounts, was done for a variety of reasons. Mostly the main reasons were as a backup to the main Fire Control Director failing and to help engaging multiple targets approaching from different directions. To make this possible, the Mk 51 directors (already installed for the aft twin 40-mm mount(s)) and the destroyer's fire control system were integrated together so the Mk 51 director could control 5-in gun mounts, which they couldn't do earlier.

What I don't understand is why one configuration or the other wasn't made "standard" for these two classes. A 20-mm gun mounted forward on an elevated centerline platform for "direct" forward fire was a desirable function in addition to the two 20-mm guns behind 52 mount, but wasn't done across all units of a class.

So basically, depending on which unit you are modeling, studying images would tell you which configuration is needed.

[David Sandifer]

Thank you, Rick. As usual, I'll print, cut, and paste your information into my notebooks.

[Rick E Davis]

Valdi,

I went to NARA II, College Park, MD, this last week for the first the since 2019. I pulled the range of "suspect" USS WILSON (DD-408) color images, 80-GK-430 through 434. Another view of USS WILSON (DD-408), 80-GK-435, was so poor that I didn't scan it from a previous visit at NARA II.

Here are what I found. Yes they are images of USS WILSON taken from USS WASP (CV-7). 80-GK-432 (broadside view) and 434 (bow-on view) are images that have been "available" before, but reproduction has been either small or poor in nature, and documentation almost non-existing. The only copy of 80-GK-432 at NARA is a copy negative, which reduces the overall quality of the image. See first image. But, this image verifies that the image you had located before is USS WILSON. Image 80-GK-434, a bow on view, is a 4x5 transparency and provides better details than the History 101 color image made from the 35-mm slide copies of the 80-GK collection at NARA made decades ago. See the third image.

The "new" images in this quest, is 80-GK-433 and 80-GK-430. Image 80-GK-430 is a view of USS HOUSATONIC (AO-35) taken from USS WASP, which may have a bearing on dating the other images of USS WILSON. See fourth image below. The prize image 80-GK-433 is another broadside view of USS WILSON likely taken at the same time as 80-GK-432, only is a 4x5 transparency (not a copy neg) and doesn't obscure the bow. But, is on the blue side. See second image below.

There wasn't any image of 80-GK-431 at NARA, so what it may have been of is unknown at this point.

I can't be absolutely positive, but the hull number on image 80-GK-433 does appear to be "408". Which, helps to verify that these three images of USS WILSON are orientated in the correct direction. It isn't always possible to be certain that an image has been scanned in the correct orientation without numbers or letters in the view. All of these views were taken at some distance from the subject and represent "small" images within the total Full-Frame view, so resolution details aren't as sharp as would be desired. Plus, color film used was likely "slow speed" and motions of the ships "blurs" the images.

As for the dates of these images. The likely time frames would be as USS WASP and her Task Force were traveling from Norfolk to the South Pacific. As far as I know, when the photographer aboard USS WASP with color film came onboard is unknown. Other 80-GK transparencies taken onboard USS WASP while she was at San Diego in June 1942 and during "Crossing the Equator" ceremony in July 1942, indicates he was at least onboard at those times. Which brings why the view of USS HOUSATONIC may be important. USS HOUSATONIC was assigned to the Atlantic and wasn't part of the USS WASP Task Force 37 as it traveled from Norfolk to the canal to the South Pacific. HOUSATONIC was only recently on active duty and her early tastings were hauling fuel oil from the Gulf Coast to various ports along the Caribbean and East Coast. Likely these two crossed paths while TF 37 traveled to the canal and were at the same port. I didn't have time to check Deck Logs and War Diaries to get a date. But, the dates of these color images are probably in the June-July 1942 timeframe.

HOUSATONIC DANFS entry;

Shakedown training in Chesapeake Bay ended 10 March, and Housatonic joined Service Force, Atlantic Fleet. During the remainder of 1942 Housatonic carried fuel oil and aviation gas from the Gulf of Mexico to ports on the Atlantic Coast and in the Caribbean. A shortage of escorts necessitated the oiler's proceeding alone through waters infested with German submarines which were making many kills at that time. In July, the fleet oiler performed her first fueling at sea, servicing carrier Ranger, cruiser Augusta, and six destroyers engaged in ferrying Army P-40 fighter plans aboard the carrier from Port of Spain to Akkra on the Gold Coast of Africa. Fuel from Housatonic enabled this group to return to Port of Spain without stopping or putting into any port during the entire voyage.

[Vladi]

Hello Rick,

this is absolutely fantastic, THANKS SO MUCH!

Vladi

[Lethal215]

Rocks protruding from the water look more like a geographic feature in Casco Bay than Hampton Roads. Haven�t been in the Roads in 30 years, so don�t remember much. Quick look at the nautical chart and anchorages don�t pop up any distinctive shoals that would look like those. Color in the HOUSATONIC pic seems lighter, more crisp, similar to the bow shot of WILSON. Per the HOUSATONIC WD and port calls listed in the WH, and the WDs for ships of TF-37, the only time any ship of TF-37 could have taken the picture of HOUSATONIC was between May 26 and Jun 3, 1942 when she departed for Boston then Portland. TF-37 departed June 5. Window for WILSON is probably accurate. She was with WASP all the way to San Diego arriving June 19. Force renamed TF-18, workups with WASP off SD then departed for Tongatabu with transports July 1. Fueled from WASP July 9 and 15, heavy seas noted, arrived Tongatabu July 20.

[Steve]

Does the Midship kit (07) generally represent the arrangement of the prewar Mahans? No AA such as 50 cal mounts are shown for example.

[taskforce48]

Does the Midship kit (07) generally represent the arrangement of the prewar Mahans? No AA such as 50 cal mounts are shown for example.

Steve,

It captures the essence, but it's wrong on a few points.

I do have a few images of early units running trials where the platform and .50 cals forward of the bridge are absent as is the cowling on the forward funnel. But they were added very soon after that.

HTH,
Matt

[taskforce48]

Howdy all,

Anyone have any photos or have details on how the Farragut class would have appeared around 12/7/1941? All photos I have are from commissioning till about 1939 then pick up again in early 42. I know in 1941 due to the King Board that changes were happening, so major points I see change between 1939 and 1942-

- Crow's nest and 24" searchlight disappear from the foremast
- MT53 aft the funnels changes out for 20mm's
- Searchlight seems to drop from lattice platform to pedestal(Dewey & Monaghan seems to have kept the tower for a bit)
- Mainmast cut way down in height
- Boats reduced

So what did they look like on 12/7/1941, USS Dewey in particular? 5-5/38's? 4-6 - .50cals? MS1? # of boats?

Thanks in advance!

*EDIT*
Partly answered my own question on armament after posting

Matt

[taskforce48]

Looks like very little prewar changes were made to the Farragut's at Pearl Harbor in late 1941. At least two units(the far left one being Farragut or Dewey based on visible "34" on the hull) were in MS-1 and still retain the foremast 24" Searchlight and platform as well as the lower row of forward portholes in the Autumn of 1941. Question is, is that MS1 demarcation line on the upper part of the director, or is it canvas cover?

[Rick E Davis]

Matt,

As you state, December 1941 was a period of change. The destroyers were last in line for King Board mods, particularly the ones in the Pacific Fleet. The active duty destroyers in the Atlantic which were already at "War", had mods done by then. The "veteran" destroyers were busy with training and escorting during late 1941.

I tried to find a "plan" for mods to the destroyers in the King Board Mods files at NARA, without much luck. But, not exactly related to armament changes, I had come across a report dated 10 March 1942, for radar upgrades to the Pacific Fleet destroyers as of that date. Likely most of the data was only up to date as of 1 March. Images of the list are below. In a many cases mods to add radar were done when armament changes were being done.

You can note that for the FARRAGUT and some of the MAHAN Classes and even some Leaders, they really lagged behind in having radar(s) installed. Look at the column for "Mast Alterations" and then "Foundations - Rearrangements" and "Preliminary Wiring". It is a pretty good guess that None of the FARRAGUT class had been altered much by December 1941. Even as of early March 1942, a few units for the FARRAGUT class had yet to have any radar mods done; note USS HULL (DD-350), USS MacDONOUGH (DD-351). Photos I have show that USS MONAGHAN (DD-354) had a MINY overhaul/upgrades (including 20-mm guns) done in February 1942 (reflected in the chart), and USS ALWIN (DD-355) had an overhaul at MINY in March 1942 (reflected on the chart as being only 25% done by the date of the report). Even for units listed as having "preliminary work done", few actual radars have been installed.

Note that the units from DesRon 2, which returned to the Pacific after the attack, have had at least one radar (SC or FD) installed.

[taskforce48]

Awesome, thanks Rick!

Will go a long way into helping making this accurate

Matt

[Vladi]

Happy to make available a comparison table Bagley-class destroyers � Differences as of summer 1942, hope you will find it usefull. Many thanks to Rick E Davis for cross-checking it!

The comparison table is a side-product of a Bagley-class project in collaboration with Matt / Kraken Hobbies. My build log is available at 1/700 USS Bagley & USS Patterson at Savo (Kraken & Vladi�s).

Comments welcome!

[Vladi]

FYI I�ve updated the Bagley comparison table with a few more rows. The new items are marked by a different colour in the leftmost column. Enjoy!

[Vladi]

Hi guys, another minor update to the 1942 Bagley class comparison table. Anyone ever noticed there were two options where the mainmast was located?