The Ship Model Forum

Certainly you are most welcome aboard! A thread in Picture post/ works in progress would be very welcome! What part of China are you in, I have perhaps visited there a hundred times or more, though not in really recant times! Cheers: Tom

It must be a outstanding project! I did take some photo in progress, may post with finished work.

You have a fun project! As a young man I drilled on the reserve trying ship Whitehurst, DE 634, built alongside of England in San Fransisco, completed just ahead of her. Over in the scratch building section I have built and am building models of this ship first in 1:514 and now in 1:144. largely using 3D printing. For reference I mainly used the AOA book on England and "The Floating Drydock" CD Disk on DE's plus available information on the specific ship from NAVSOURCE as well as information kindly provided by Rick E Davis, probably the forum expert on these small ships.

Good luck on your project, do you have a thread going yet on for instance the "Works in Progress" part of picture Post?

Cheers: Tom

Hi David, I have already filled some holes, and thought these cracks could be blocked by PE parts to seen...will find out soon...

Hi everyone, I'm builing my Buckly destroyer escort as USS England, base on trumpeter 1/350 kit with some upgrade. For correct some issues about this kit, I collect lots of pictures, then I find this nice topic! I will research every reply, though it will be a challenge for my English reading. Below is my recently work:

As I stated, there were multiple sonar systems produced during WWII and models were constantly being upgraded. WHICH sonar and dome was installed are dependent on WHICH Destroyer Escort is being modeled and when it was built. Fixed domes were the norm earlier in the war (however several Old Flush-Deckers had RN retractable dome sonars installed until a USN 'Standard" was available ... that had a tendency to FALL off the destroyer) and stated so until more capable retractable transducer and dome sonars were available in late 1944. You ask which of two domes used --- which of probably a dozen different domes are you referring to? There were at least TWO different domes associated with two different Retractable Transducer-Domes being installed late in WWII on FLETCHER's. The early fixed sonar domes were "Budd-Type", but other improved domes were made to roughly the same dimensions.

I have not studied DE sonars installed. The research needed involves going through a huge number of boxes at NARA. It took me years to get through the boxes for FLETCHER Class (and more generic "Underwater Sound Systems") textual records from WWII through the post-WWII years up to about 1962. Out of 175 FLETCHER's built, I still have about a dozen that I don't have a firm ID on the sonar installed. In most cases, I know it was one of TWO options (frequency was different). I'm pretty sure that SOMEWHERE there was a Bean-Counters database spreadsheet during WWII of which sonar systems (like for radar and weapons) were installed on each ship in the USN (likely with a few errors). But, I have not found it. Even so, which dome was installed on a specific unit is seldom mentioned. Ships with sonars installed by a builder, installed the system and retracted the transducer and put a plate over the opening for launching. NORMALLY, the USN would install the dome during fitting-out in a drydock. What supply of domes that yard had at the time --- is a good question. Unlike the weapons and radar installed, which can be determined from photos easier than going through textual records (up to a point --- was it a SC-2 or -3, or -4, or whatever, you need textual records), there are far fewer photos of sonars/domes installed and which sonar is under the dome can't be determined.

If you really need to know which dome was used on a specific unit, go to NARA and pull that unit's BuShips file. That would be quicker than going through the files of 500+ DE's and class level files to try and find ALL sonars and likely few dome types were installed.

Rick:

Thank you for the reply. An interesting sidelight on the crystal bottleneck, such were considerations in a maximum industrial mobilization where what was available was ofter the determining factor. This was the reason for the TE's as reduction gearing production was another such bottleneck. It was the same reason many CVE's used triple expansion Uniflow reciprocating engines.

Until some relevant material might show up (ha) I'll go with a Fletcher unit.

Thanks again for the clarification of the complexity. Tom

Maybe I know which topic? The oil tank --- No, need drawings and research at NARA.

The sonar installed on BUCKLEY class DE's --- which unit? I don't have a database on Sonars installed on DE's, at least nothing that is complete. To date, the only DE I have studied and looked at drawings of, has been the EDSALL class OTTERSTETTER (DE-244). That unit because my uncle served on her in WWII. I made digital images copies of a 1943 BGP for OTTERSTETTER, but like many BGP's during early WWII, the sonar isn't shown or called out.

During WWII, there was a steady production stream of sonar systems that were upgrades/improvements (more power, etc) over the previous system being installed. Pre-war and into the first few months of the "active" war, destroyers were scheduled to have TWO sonars installed at frame 25, one on either side of the keel. But, once the war started and it was realized that a LARGE number of ASW equipped vessels were required and that the production of the specialized crystals required for sonars to work was the bottleneck, destroyers were directed to install only one system (portside). Besides DE's just entering production, types like minesweepers, etc that could fill the ASW escort gap in 1942, also needed sonars. There were a bunch of different systems in production (various systems classified as QCA/B/J/L/etc) and as I said, which sonar was installed depended on when a particular unit was completed and/or an upgrade done.

Some units got RN inspired retractable domes and transducers. Other sonar systems simply had a fixed dome over the transducer.

Bottomline, I have no idea of which sonar systems were installed across the DE fleet, much less for individual units. I guess using a typical QCJ/QCL dome as used on FLETCHER's is as good a guess as any. I have scanned pages of Weekly Overhaul Reports, which in some cases list which sonar system was installed. But, going through all those pages is a crap shoot, since I was focused on destroyers and not DE's (except DE-244). Late war, one of the newest and latest RETRACTABLE TRANSDUCER and DOME type sonars would have been installed in DE's.

Perhaps Rick E Davis knows? Photos and dimensions of the sound domes used on the Buckley TE DE's? Same units as used on the Fletchers? A small and not easily visible item on a model, but I would like to accurately reproduce this. I also have not as yet come across info on the various hull openings.

Interesting the above photo shows a torpedo cart stowed aft of the deck house.

Cheers: Tom

Of course the 1.1" on Whitehurst was replaced with the more effective quad Bofors, but cooling water was still needed. Generally various deck cargo, drums and other non essentials, were stripped if a serious combat mission was in the offing. Ships in the amphibious force sometimes had combustable and flammable materials on racks allowing a quick jettison overboard. The DE's were fitted with dual quad smoke generators which also were releasable overboard. On the APA there were drums of oil for the smoke units stored nearby, possibly the tank contained oil for the smoke generators? Did Fletchers have reserve smoke oil available?

I do notice in post war photos when the smoke generators were removed that the oil tank is no longer present. In the clearest photo when the quad Bpfors was removed (mid 60's) that the tank is not present, so possibly associated with either equipment?

Generally speaking, if a piece of equipment or tank, etc. is labeled specifically (such as "oil", "feed water") it contains exactly that - I too doubt that the cooling water tank/pump for the 1.1" quad above would have been stowed in an exterior (vulnerable) location. I wonder if it's possible that's a "lube" oil tank used for replenishing small oil cans, etc. for use in equipment maintenance.

This tank may be for cooling water for the quad 1.1-in mount, but I doubt it. I have not studied the design of DE's, but on FLETCHER's built with the quad 1.1-in mount, the cooling water tank and pump were located below deck under the mount. Since it apparently was labeled as OIL TANK, that is probably what it held. But, for what purpose I don't know.

The "drums" I was thinking that Tom was referring to were the drums of fuels for the ships boats and other fluids that they didn't want to store below decks as a hazard. The drums were located at the deck edge, for easy jettison. Like this installation on BENSON class destroyers (in this case pre-WWII).



These deck edge drum stowage seemed to disappear during the war. Where they were stowed I don't know. In this 1941 image, you can see the two drums (for gasoline and kerosene) were sitting on the deck awaiting stowage.

The mystery oil tank. Perhaps useful for aging torpedo juice?

Certainly a possibility for boats fuel though i find no evidence of a coiled hose or other dispensing equipment nearby, and quite far from the boat. I presume during the war the TE's burned bunker crude which would not have been useful for powering the boat. That it's referred to as an oil tank rather than a Diesel tank may or may not mean anything.

Anyway, thanks, a good possibility that I had not considered!

Cheers: Tom

Likely it was fuel for the ship's boat.

Whitehurst and a number of the TE- DE's have an oil tank, maybe 50 gallons or so, on a stand on the main deck at the aft most part of the deckhouse, portside. Anyone know what this was used for?

Thx

Quite so, as to the relative air threat in the Atlantic theater, the FW Condor's were about the only air threat in the North Atlantic. For the Russian convoys Norway based Heinkels and JU88's were a considerable threat. Off Okinawa everybody was at threat, though the picket destroyers were especially at risk. At least the DE's were better armed than the DMS's converted from the four pipers.

Ship design is always a compromise, resources vrs. mission. Numbers are usually of importance. In a total industrial mobilization there are always bottlenecks. The TE DE's went around the reduction gearing bottleneck by using a turbo electric drive, which for the anti sub role also enhanced responsiveness and maneuverability.

The addition of the radar ranging to the MK 52 director was an advantage as the MK 51 relied on a manual range entry which was quite approximate.

The "selection" of installing a quad 1.1-in mount was made early in the production phase of the DE's. There was a finite supply of twin 40-mm guns and the BUCKLEY class (except for the first couple of units completed) and EVARTS class were directed to have the quad 1.1-in mounts. Ironically, pre-USN entry in WWII, production of quad 1.1-in mounts was pretty low rate. As war clouds came closer and realizing that Air Attacks were going to be a problem and finding and selecting a better option than the 1.1-in gun, was gong to take more time. Hence, production of 1.1-in mounts was seen as an interim solution. But, there were production issues with getting these mounts to the USN. The production and supply line to produce quad 1.1-in mounts, had been set at a peacetime production rate (36 units per year) much below what was needed. A key delay item, believe it or not, was a cooling pump for the mount. By the time quad 1.1-in mounts were available in large numbers, the twin and quad 40-mm mounts were coming "on-line". But, the 40-mm guns were supplied to higher priority units from carriers down to destroyers. And production of the mount continued for awhile, ending in December 1942 at 823 units. Which were no longer required for the heavier "fighting" ships, the quad 1.1-in mounts were installed not only on some DE's, but on a fair number of auxiliaries, many of which retained them throughout WWII.

The quad 1.1-in mounts were the least problem with ALL DE's lacking a good AA defense. The DE's were primarily intend as ASW escorts with Atlantic being the likely theater for deploying most of them. Even in the Pacific, DE's were not "intended" to be in "Main Fleet" engagements. As such NO effective AA Fire Control systems were installed beyond Mk 49 or Mk 51 local control directors for quad 1.1-in and twin 40-mm mounts. This was true for both the 3-in and 5-in armed units. The lack of a good fire control system on DE's was highlighted in the MED with effective German Air Assaults from multiple directions. Then with the Kamikaze attacks depleting the ranks of destroyers with loses or heavy damage requiring long repairs, DE's got put in more serious attacking aircraft engagements. As part of the Anti-Kamikaze program, besides installing a much heavier AA armament, a "better" (but not perfect) director was installed, the Mk 52 director (with a ranging radar) on the bridge.

Rather interesting that the TE's for the most part retained their 1.1" Chicago Pianos so late in the war. England carried hers till her end of active service (Kamikaze damage off Okinawa) and Whitehurst probably carried hers till her post kamikaze refit at Pearl Harbor. I had miss identified her 1.1" as a quad Bofors in my 1:514 model in the pre damage configuration. Having an older and relatively ineffective AA weapon must have been a little disheartening as the Devine Wind began to blow.

Indeed the destroyer in the background shows the same directional convention. Fortunately in printing props one can mirror them in the slicer. At this scale the blades are extremely thin and I destroyed several installing them.