The Ship Model Forum

Cliffy,

Been awhile. Anything new on this?

Well, I was just wondering, would these be plausible designs? Not to hijack your thread, Cliffy.[attachment=0]002.JPG[/attachment]
The bars with " x___" are Oerlikons, the bars with a dark shade on the top are twin/quad Bofors

Cliffy,
Well, they all had the galley in the same area, on the main deck ahead of the stack. Prepared food was carried from there to the ward room pantry and down the interior ladder to the forward First Platform Deck to the mess space for the enlisted folks.

Now, you need to allow for that as well as the fact that your torpedo room would also have a lot of people tromping through it to get from the after portion of the ship to the bridge structure and the mess deck. Believe me, the open main deck of a DE is not someplace you want to be during the winter in the North Atlantic.

How long are the tubes? Placed as you envision, can there be free passage through the space. One of my most vivid memories is standing in line for chow, starting back around the Quarter Deck area on the Slater diagram. The serving area was right at the bottom of the ladder down from the main deck to the mess area.

Russ

Russ remember I added a hull plug! Besides the torpedo room only has 2 tubes and 2 reloads pre tube stacked in very close proximity due to space. The galley and everything else is still there. So instead of it going stack, galley, bridge its now stack, galley, torpedo room, bridge. The new room fits inside the hull plug only, it doesn't spill over into the other spaces. Besides the plans aren't even to the same class. I know the DEs were similar but internal arrangements weren't necessarily the same.

Whoops, I was looking at the wrong drawing. Now I get it!!! :big_grin:

What don't you get?

I intend to build a whiff DE in 1/350.

Clffy's torpedo stowage and tube placement eliminate the galley on a DE. http://www.ussslater.org/decks/main.html

I don't get it. :puppy_eyes:

Ok, now you've gone and done it. My drawing board just expanded. But there's two AVP's and a post war Group 2 reserve DE ahead of it.

Unlike Cliffy, my DE Whiff will have a galley. Check out the USS Slater site main deck plan to see what I mean.

Whoops, I meant during 1946 or 7 ish in a war-time enviornment. I'm working on my own designs that will cover an area where there are few enemy aircraft: the extreme south Pacific. As of now, I only have Hedgehogs...

On many post-WWII ships that didn't get the new tripods, the USN installed heavy stays to brace the pole mast and at times installed some pretty large radars atop the masts.

Gopher,

I don't know to what time period you are referencing your "So what armament mix/ratios would be needed for nearly a full-time sub-hunter (DD sized)" question? In the immediate post-WWII era (1948-1953), the only ASW weapons that panned out were the introduction of more hedgehogs ... fixed to port and starboard and on some ships sacrificing a main gun mount for a trainable hedgehog. The trainable ASW mortar replaced the trainable hedgehog. K-guns and drop racks were still used, but in reduced numbers to save weight.

[quote="Russ2146"]Cliffy,
You have a lot of open deck space between Mount 51 and the forward deck house. Why not extend the deck house forward, put P&S hedgehogs on the 01 level just aft and the either side of the 40MM mount and the 20mm's behind them on either side. With the hedgehogs just aft of the bridge structure angled a little more P&S, you could get an incredible arc of projectiles.

Russ[/quote]

The DEs had very wet bow sections. That was the main reason the hedgehog's original position was deemed so horrible. I'm not sure if mounting them in front of the Bofors would work or not. There isn't a whole lot of lateral space on the bow and having the hedgehogs on the same level as the Bofors mount might cause problems.

[quote]Given that carriers preferred to pass fuel to other vessels from their starboard side (the fueling ship's Portside) why are you moving the whaleboat to port?[/quote]

The whaleboat was on the port side between the stack and bridge but since I added the deck house I had to move it and abreast the funnel was the easiest place to put it. I'm guessing the re-fueling station(s) was located elsewhere.

[quote]Other than that, it would be an interesting build. Would your 'history' allow for sufficient aluminum availability to allow a tripod foremast? The tripods on Sumner/Gearings were aluminum.[/quote]

I was considering a tripod mast but I wasn't sure if the space and weight was available given the mods I already performed. Pole masts worked just fine until the introduction of the heavier radars post-war. Adding one isn't a problem since she'd be repaired in one of the same yards that built the fleet DDs. I figure they'd be getting their tripods at that point to accommodate the new SPS-6As and other upgraded gear. The yard could easily fabricate one more mast and slap it on the DE. I'll look into making one. I just might add a SPS-6 to the DE now, hmmmm....

Cliffy,
You have a lot of open deck space between Mount 51 and the forward deck house. Why not extend the deck house forward, put P&S hedgehogs on the 01 level just aft and the either side of the 40MM mount and the 20mm's behind them on either side. With the hedgehogs just aft of the bridge structureangled a little more P&S, you could get an incredible arc of projectiles.

Given that carriers preferred to pass fuel to other vessals from their starboard side (the fueling ship's Portside) why are you moving the whaleboat to port?

Other than that, it would be an interesting build. Would your 'history' allow for sufficient aluminum availability to allow a tripod foremast? The tripods on Sumner/Gearings were aluminum.

Russ

So what armament mix/ratios would be needed for nearly a full-time sub-hunter (DD sized)

The Mk 35 torpedo was a dud and the fixed Torpedo Tubes slowly went away. Friedman writes about the Mk 35 and post-WWII ASW in general, particularly the problems with long-range ASW weapons. The USN tried a lot of stuff in the late 1940's and early 1950's, of which much didn't meet requirements. We didn't have much success with deployable long-range ASW weapons until about 1960 and even then ASROC and DASH had problems.

The only FLETCHERS to have the fixed tubes were the eighteen 2-Gun (SCB-7) DDE conversions. I believe some of the earliest SHERMAN class DD's had the fixed tubes mounted on the 01 deck behind the bridge and first stack.

Well, Atlantic ships would rely on the 20mm more than those in the Pacific. The Germans, (other than a handful of them), were not the suicidal type of people. For your case, yes, a 4 battery mount would suffice.

In my late-40's super BB WIP, I have taken the 20mm and reduced the number to 10 twin mounts. But, that would be in the Pacific.

Don't know if I mentioned it or not but here's a short history of the Mk-35.

We all know about the Mk-24 "Mine" or FIDO; the first air droppable acoustic homing torpedo. By 1946-47 we improved on that with the Mk-34; again an aircraft version. Both of these were small and very short ranged (a few miles). No ship launched version existed yet. By 1950 the [i]Fletchers[/i] were fitted with 4 new fixed 21" tubes for the Mk-35 which was developed directly from the Mk-34. The Mk-35 was designed in 1946 but not introduced until 1950. Given my extended war scenario, pushing that back a few years is fine. The Mk-35 was meant to be a long range weapon (7+ miles)though so they scaled it up from 19" to the standard 21" and increased its length significantly. Even so it was still too short to fit in the standard Mk-14/15 trainable tubes in use in the fleet so the new fixed tubes were introduced. The Mk-35 was also wire guided at least initially until it got to its search area where it was turned loose to find its target. I haven't been able to find any write-ups yet as to its effectiveness but its still logical to see it employed, at least on a small scale, given the need for better ASW weapons/tactics in the Atlantic; especially in my scenario.

Opinions on the 20mm battery? Four or six mounts? I'll be updating them to twin mounts once the UPS man deliveries a load of PE. I know everyone was losing faith in the 20mm late in the war, particularly against the Kamikazes but what about normal attacking aircraft? I figure they'd be useful, if for nothing else, to take out mines and small boats. I'm really leaning towards only 4 mounts, 2 bow, 2 stern and nix the amidships guns all together. If I up them to twins then 4 mounts should be more than enough. Thoughts?

Cliffy,

Very nice! I look forward to seeing a build of this. I'm fascinated by the homing torpedos. I know little about them so I'll have to do some research. I enjoy threads like this that offer entertainment, provoke thought and discussion, and educate.

Regards,
Bob

Alright I've found my ship! The USS Oswald A. Powers (DE-542), named for a ENS Powers, a member of VT-3 (CV-5) at Midway and one of the 10 planes that did not return; only TWO returned to The [i]Yorktown[/i], 4 to The [i]Enterprise[/i], and none to The [i]Hornet[/i]. A very bad day indeed. The [i]Powers[/i] was one of several DEs that were suspended following the end of the war and were subsequently scrapped incomplete. I'll remedy that and have her in commission as planned in 1945. To facilitate the modifications I'll have her get torpedoed during the battle for Iceland, limp back to the States, and get re-built as the lead ship of the modified Butler Class. The rest of the new class will be built from the keel up or modified on the slipways with the new mods. Several DEs ate a U-Boat torpedo and survived to be repaired so the events are more than plausible.

This project is coming together now :big_grin:

Here's the drawing!

[img]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/Artwork/ButlerDESketchScan.jpg[/img]

Mods:
-25' Hull plug inserted in between the funnel and bridge structure allowing for sufficient internal hull space for an emergency diesel generator and more fuel oil. Above decks the plug allows a deck house extension to be be added housing two fixed 21" torpedo tubes (staggered) for Mk-35 long range homing torpedoes with 2-3 reloads per tube, 6-8 total.
-Two fixed Hedgehogs mounted atop torpedo deck house (about 25-30 degrees off the center line) with reload lockers. Two reloads for each mount.
-Mk-56 director atop the bridge to control the 5"/38s.
-One quad and two twin 40mm Bofors installed in place of the triple torpedo tubes.
-Whaleboat re-located to port side of the funnel.
-Funnel 20mm mounts moved aft of whaleboat and reduced to two mounts.
-ECM mast added abaft the funnel with one TDY-1 jammer ala DD-445 Class.
-Radars upgraded to SC-2 and SG.
-Added supports to 20mm mounts that hang off the superstructure.

I goofed a few things in the drawing
-Forward 20mm mounts beside the bridge will be reduced to one per side.
-Starboard 20mm mount abaft the funnel will be moved forward abreast the funnel. Port mount was displaced aft due to whaleboat.
-Might cut the 20mm battery smaller again and leave only 2 below the bridge and the 2 on the stern. The 20mms lost their effectiveness by 1945 and beyond anyway.


So there you have it, enjoy! Thanks to all for their comments.


Any thoughts, ideas, comments, etc... are appreciated as always!


PS, I found out some info on the post-war [i]Dealeys[/i]. They were designed in an attempt to build an emergency mobilization asset that could be constructed in a very short time and as cheap as possible. Hence the 3"/50s and a single engine/single screw engineering arrangement. Apparently they weren't totally successful at least according to Friedman...

I only picked up on this thread today, but I do have a few observations.

1. The Benson/Gleaves class as "sea control ships": The class was officially divided into two funcional groups (as opposed to the design division based on powerplant, ie Benson vs. Gleaves). The first 24 were officially "fleet" DD's". That is why their "ultimate battery" retained all 10 tubes. The 72 "repeats" were eventually (shortly after the first few were delivered) designated for "sea control", sacrificing 5 tubes for more 20MM and more depth charges. However, operationally, the two groups were used interchangeably - as [i]sea control [/i]types, since there was no real US "battlefleet" in the Atlantic. Continued construction of the class as sea control units was proposed, but was rejected on the grounds that it would put too many different DD/DE types in production at the same time, slowing the cumulative output.

2. Which DE's were designed for 5" guns: Technically, [i]ALL[/i] of the WW-II types were designed for 5" guns. However, production of the guns couldn't ramp-up in time and all of the new DD's (as well as CV's) were needing single 5" so the first DE's received 3" mounts as an "interim" armament. Later in the war, a few of the earlier types were upgunned to 5", including at least one diesel boat. But for the most part, a mass upgunning wasn't undertaken because the gain wasn't enough to justify the diversion of weapons and shipyard capacity. (The Dealy's probably reverted to 3" mounts because of fire control concerns. The twin 3" had blind-fire capability with on-board radar and a DE-type director, while the available "low-tech" single 5" of the time did not.)

3. The single-funnel design with 50,000 HP: Technically feasible, and in fact, was used on the Benham and Sims classes of DD's. However, they had concentrated boiler plants, which allowed the single funnel. Reversion to the single funnel would probably come at the cost the alternating machinery, making your new ships more vulnerable to a single torpedo hit.

4. Larger hedgehog patterns: Again, technically feasible, but this would come at a cost - magazine space. History shows that the existing hedgehog, well handled, could be lethal consistently. (ie. USS England) Increasing the size of the pattern would deplete the magazines more quickly. Increasing the magazine size to compensate would increase the size of the ships, making them more expensive and less maneuverable.

5. The need for increased DE AA in convoy defense: Actually, totally unnecessary. If a convoy were to necessarily stray into a hot enemy aircraft zone, it would have been defended accordingly. The Benson/Gleaves units would have joined the convoy, and probably have brought in at least one CVE for fighter cover. (Increased AA for anti-kamikaze measures is a different topic.)

Once you increase the escort size to 350' and at least 3 5" guns, you might as well save the design resources and build more Benson/Gleaves units. Perhaps you might improve them a bit with twin rudders, or other detail improvements, but the size and capability parameters of the units you proposed were already being matched by the existing DD's. That alone would have killed the proposal on production grounds. In fact, as I mentioned, ships of that category were proposed (the sea-control Benson/Gleaves type) and were themselves rejected for just that production reason.

Actually there were several Special ASW versions of the DE's during the 1950's that experimented with different equipment and the Mk 15 HH in the # 2 mount location was one of the more common alterations. Friedman's Design of Destroyers book discussions the various configurations tried/deployed.

Here are some examples:

COOLBAUGH (DE-217) and SPANGLER (DE-696) were two of the originally 3-in armed BUCKLEY class units re-armed with two 5-in mounts in 1945. Note the high-bridges and how their configurations changed from 1948 to 1955.

[img]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303/TincanREDavis/DE217x20-12Aug48.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303/TincanREDavis/DE696x30-10Oct55.jpg[/img]


TWEEDY (DE-532) and LEWIS (DE-535) were two of the more extensively modified ASW DE's re-built to different designs.

[img]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303/TincanREDavis/DE532x30-2Apr52.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303/TincanREDavis/DE535x30-Aug54.jpg[/img]