The Ship Model Forum

Along the lines of a legitimate question: Navsource shows Whitehurst allegedly in 1947 in Measure 21 paint. This is obviously a WWII vintage photo as she is still sporting the torpedo tubes which were removed at Pearl Harbor after her Kamikaze damage. The post repair inclining photos, with the power cables installed show her in Measure 22. The question, as I currently don't have enough info for the power cable installation, is when was she repainted from Measure 21 to 22. Was it before the post damage conversion? Currently I have the aft 25 man rafts on the raised brackets as shown in the Pearl Harbor photos, in the Measure 21 photos they are shown standing at the rail as in photos of England.

An interesting ship, one of the reserve crew was Harry Balschusman, BM1, who as a young man was a plank holder on Hornet and aboard for the whole year she was in commission before being sunk off Santa Cruise.

Tom,

"Likely" USS WHITEHURST (DE-643) wasn't repainted to Ms 22 until her repairs at PHNY. The question would be what scheme was she painted in at the time of the attack? She was completed in Ms 21. But was she painted in dazzle in late 1944 (there was direction, dated 14 June 1944 ... http://www.usndazzle.com/ships.php?category=5&class=2 ..., for her to paint to Ms31/14D, but many ships never were painted with dazzle)? If so, was she repainted again in early 1945 to either Ms 21 or Ms 22? In either case for your modeling purposes of her "Post" PHNY repairs with cable reels that is moot, since she was clearly painted in Ms 22 after repairs.

Rick:

Thank you for the info, as she is currently configured she has the torpedo tubes, but those are easy to remove if I can find out some decent info on the cable spools. In the mid 60's both the spools and the 40 mm quad had been removed when she was operating out of Pier 91 in Seattle. That's where the BOGP at NARA would have been helpful, allegedly dated 1947.

Cheers: Tom

Question about the SL Radar domes, where these white or painted to match the ship colors? Anybody know what the material of the dome was?

Thanks!

The radomes were made from fiberglass (plastic) and they were NOT painted. Lead based paints would degrade radar performance. Most radomes appear to be white, especially for Atlantic-based units. I "think" that there may have been tinted radomes (but definitely NOT in all cases), particularly for Ms 21 painted ships in the Pacific, but I can not be certain from B&W images if it was a 5-N tint or something lighter.

Thank you Rick!

The radomes on ourt 747's were a fiberglass like material with static dissipating bonding strips of aluminum. There was some sort of paint on them, but certainly not any Marine type lead based concoction. Still looking at the many B&W examples of the era and no dark ones such as a 5N would be, so far. Slater does have a black one with small white stripes, but that's a current museum ship. Thanks for the info, I'll keep looking.

Regards: Tom

As it turns out a NAVSOURCE photo of Whitehurst in Measure 21, shows the SL Radome in 5N, Stain? USS Marsh, DE 699 was also fitted out similar to Whitehurst with the power spools. Several decent photos may allow a reasonable reconstruction of the post refit configuration.

Tom,

I suspect they used dyed plastic, rather than a coating/stain on a white dome. If one dug deep enough in Departure Reports and/or technical Reports, the item number for the domes used on the SL and other similar radars used on DE's, may provide clues about how many variants there were. But, those details during WWII can be very hard to find. And frankly, of little concern to modeling.

It took me a long time to document which models of the sonars installed on the 175 FLETCHER's during and after WWII. I still have about a dozen FLETCHER's that I don't have a firm ID for all their sonars. Most units had two or maybe three different sonars installed during the war. Post-WWII was somewhat easier to locate such info, that is until the last units still in service in the 1970's, of which some units may or may not have gotten the final sonar upgrade.

Rick:

Speaking of Sonars, I need to research the sonar for these DE's, though at 1:514 it's terminally dinky. But if I do construct a larger model, likely something that can be accurately replicated. I did find a dry dock photo showing the three blade prop and one of the rudders.



Note especially the way the rudder pivots and the direction of rotation of the props, which seems typical Destroyer practice.

Well, the props seem to turn outward -- which is very standard IMHO. The opposite would have been really uncommon.

_________________
"I've heard there's a wicked war a-blazing, and the taste of war I know so very well
Even now I see the foreign flag a-raising, their guns on fire as we sail into hell"
Roger Whittaker +9/13/2023

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Likely it was fuel for the ship's boat.

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

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

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.

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.

_________________
HMS III
Mocksville, NC
BB62 vet 68-69

Builder's yard:
USS STODDARD (DD-566) 66-68 1:144, Various Lg Scale FC Directors
Finished:
USS NEW JERSEY (BB-62) 67-69 1:200
USN Sloop/Ship PEACOCK (1813) 1:48
ROYAL CAROLINE (1748) 1:47
AVS (1768) 1:48