The Ship Model Forum

Foundations for large guns were installed on both fore and aft decks. Several subs (e.g., Bluseback, Boarfish) were armed with both near the end of the war.

Ok, page 215 of Friedman's US Submarines Through 1945. Shots of Pargo and Aspro, both with 5" /25s fore and aft, a single 40mm forward of the bridge, and a twin 20mm on the cigarette deck.

Thanks for this info, Tom.

Well, the correct answer for accuracy is:
E.) None of the above

But, the old Revell kit (lately and incorrectly boxed as Liofish, previously Flasher or Wahoo) is probably your best choice. It’s really a Gato class like Flasher, not a Balao class like Lionfish was. You can fill in the limber holes with a black marker or cut them out (a very tedious process). The guns provided are rudimentary and both propellers have the same blade angle twist, instead of opposite screws. If you want, you can cut the blades off the hub on one screw and reglue them on the hub with the opposite twist. The basic hull shape is not bad, either. With some care, it can be made into something decent, on par with the other kits you mentioned. Back when this kit was the “only game in town” for a fleet boat, Nautilus Models came out with more much accurate accessories for the Revell kit. Resin conning tower fairwaters and wood decks. These are still available on their website.

The Lindberg kit is considerably off on several details. The decking is oversized and it is more like a Balao sail than a Gato. At one point Lindberg even put a rocket launcher with a rocket that looked like one from the old Destination Moon film on their Nautilus kit, about to be rereleased by Atlantis. I think Lindberg kits in general are all in the “looks okay, close nuff” school of plastic kits.

The Kit by Atlantis looks decent, but there are no railings around the conning tower fairwater platforms. Looks odd to my eye. At least the Revell kit has plastic railings.

As you know, much better kits in terms of accuracy are on the market. But if this is more or less for nostalgia, go with Revell.

Kit option question:

Of the "old school molds" of Gato/Balao class subs by Revell, Lindberg, Aurora-Atlantis, which one is preferred? Looking for a companion to my Aurora U-505 and I-19 kits. I suspect a new Trumpeter kit will look out of place.

Yes, gun foundations were present in both positions.

In 1945, USS Blenny SS-324, had 5/25 guns on fore and aft decks. One of the crew members provided me with a videotape from 16mm film of Blenny, using the guns on smaller targets. Not common, but such gunboats did exist.

I built a model from the old Revell Lionfish, which I heavily modified for the crew member, Frank Toon. Frank provided me with information, photos and the videotape. The model can be seen here:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery/ss/ss-324/178-td/Blenny-index.html

Here’s another couple of examples of gunboats, Cobbler and Blueback
http://navsource.org/archives/08/350/0834416.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/0832608.jpg

Yeah definitely wasn't the Narwhal or one-off Argonaut, definitely was something more "standard" like Gato. Frankly, might have read about it in the Time Life "War Under the Pacific" as maybe it was one of the high scoring/really aggressive US sub commanders who retro-fitted his sub. So like the Tang or Barb? But I guess the base question is whether or not it's feasible in the first place, which I think it is, because at very least they could choose a fore or aft position for their singular mount, correct? So meaning there's the underdeck reinforcement for a gun in either position, thus you could feasibly mount 2 if you had them? Digging a bit more, seems Friedman discussed this topic in his book so I'll have to have a look when I'm home from work!

I also remember reading about either Gatos or Balaos with 5"/25s fore and aft. They were referred to as gunboats.

Maybe you're thinking of the older Argonaut and Narwhal class, with two 6" guns? They'd certainly be the most heavily-gunned US subs in the war.

Not 100% sure where to put this, as I'm not sure if the sub in question was a Gato, or a Balao, or what, but what was the most heavily armed USN Fleet Boat during WWII? I seem to recall one that was armed with a deck 5" both fore and aft? Or maybe it was a 40 mm and a 5", along with the usual 20 mm on the sail? I think I recall the sub captains experimenting in the field with alternate AAA/armament arrangements, though not certain what was feasible (I mean, how easily could an additional 5" deck gun have been installed, was there even the reinforcement in the deck for the mount?)? I also seem to recall options, fore/aft, as to where the single 5" could go? So clearly you could do that, should you be able to procure an extra 5"? Anyhow, contemplating an armed-to-the-teeth what-if with an extra Gato AFV Club kit I have laying around.

Max,

You might be able to find some good information on the Pampanito drawing repository:

https://maritime.org/tech/drawings/

These two drawings show the exhaust system and the lists of pipes:

https://maritime.org/tech/drawings/engine-exhaust-arrangement_ss386-s4105a-67864alt1_5400-11-0168.jpg
https://maritime.org/tech/drawings/engine-exhaust-main-aux_ss381-s4105-67810_5400-09-0139.jpg

It looks like the exhaust pipes that come out of the mufflers (e.g. pipes C-25 and C-49) have an outer diameter of 16-3/8".

Jacob

The exact size? No. I searched through the manuals I have and could find no definitive number for the exhaust diameter.

But, you can probably derive a reasonable estimate from these photos. My guesstimate is 12-14 inches.

Would anyone know what the size of the exhaust ports were in diameter?
Thanks in advance.

I'd be interested in finding any articles or other online resources about the "art" of doctored naval photos. So far my searches have just turned up the general subject of military censorship during WW2 and what was allowed to be reported.

Interesting, it's surprising that they would airbrush the forward gun out.

If it was a 2A, wouldn't there appear to be less space between the gun and the fairwater from that angle? Similar to this:
http://navsource.org/archives/08/183/0825916.jpg

The amount of space between the two in the "Rock" photo is one of the things that made me think it had been altered. I believe I originally saw the photo--or one very much like it--in HT Lenton's "American Submarines." Don't have the book handy, but I do recall the photo leading me to chop the forward AA platform off a sub model I was working on at the time....

Edit: Just found this pic, labeled as USS Hake, on uboat.net which also seems to me to have the forward AA position edited out:

It seems much more likely to me that this is a boat with the "Mod 2A" fairwater that was mislabeled as the Rock. Mislabeling photos isn't unheard of. For example, this photo is often said to be the Barb:



Wikipedia says she's the Barb, and there are photos signed by Eugene Fluckey himself:



But if you look at the limber hole pattern, she is clearly not the [img]Barb[/img].

How sure are you that this photo is indeed of ROCK? As you note, the fairwater is intact (forward) on the photo -- all the photos I can find of ROCK show the forward platform cut down and prepped for 20mm installation. I personally have never seen evidence of censors retouching submarine fairwaters (though I'm sure it's possible).

Doing a little photographic detective work and looking for confirmation of my conclusion. This is a photograph from HyperWar labeled as the USS Rock, SS-274.


The picture indicates no AA armament platform at the front of the fairwater. NavSource has several other pics that show such a platform on Rock, including that she was launched with one in place. So that rules out this being Rock with a Mod 2A fairwater, which I think was discontinued before she entered service.

I have seen some photos taken at such an angle that it makes the forward AA platform almost disappear, but not quite this cleanly. Therefore, my conclusion is that this is a picture of Rock that has had the forward AA platform censored, for whatever reason.