The Ship Model Forum

..

Cliffy,

I've been looking at your design sketches that you initially posted. One thing that strikes me is that I suspect that the equipment (guns, DC racks, etc.) you've drawn in is significantly underscaled (too small relative to the ship length). If true, this would lead to being able to visually place more equipment on the drawing than could actually be accomodated. For instance, the DC racks at the stern of some of the drawings look to be way too small and, if drawn to scale (made bigger), would then overlap some of the machine gun emplacements. You might want to pick your favorite arrangement and try re-drawing it to an approximately correct scale and see what happens. Also, there's some crowding evident. For example, 5" gun barrels that would overhang nearby machine gun mounts so that the barrels would be firing just a few feet from the heads of the machine gunners. While a 5" gun has nowhere near the blast overpressure of an 8" or 16", still that kind of proximity would not be desirable.

This raises the question of how much realism you want your designs to have. Some "what if" designers are happy drawing fanciful ships and not worrying about "real" factors such as cost, weight, stability, size, internal magazine volume, etc., while others want to design something that could, in theory, have been built. Where are you looking to operate on the "realism" scale? Just so I know how to comment. Some of my observations are on the technical side and would be of little interest if you're working on the "looser" side of the scale. Anywhere on the scale is fine - we do this for enjoyment!

Something to consider... The Buckley's were a bit smaller than what you're proposing for a SuperDE and yet were significantly less armed (3" guns versus your proposed 5" guns). This leads me to wonder why. Was it simply thought that the Buckley's did not need 5" guns or was there more to it? Two aspects come to mind. First, is the internal volume. The ships were small and may not have had the internal volume for the required magazine, hoists, etc. Second, is the weight. A 3" gun weighed around 8,000 lbs whereas a 5" (single) gun weighed 45,000 lbs! It may be that the Buckley's just couldn't take the weight of a 5" gun battery. If one or both of these factors is true, the question for you as a designer is whether adding 50 ft or so to a Buckley to create a SuperDE is sufficient to support a 5" battery. Other, more mundane, possibilities are that the Buckley's didn't have sufficient extra power to operate the heavier 5" powered mounts or, even more mundane, that production limitations just didn't provide enough 5" mounts to go around and the Buckley's were lower priority. I have no knowledge about this, one way or another, however, I lean towards weight/volume as being a significant factor. Even Fletchers were considered to be heavily loaded. So, your SuperDE may not be able to support the load/volume or maybe only a more limited number of mounts. Again, this goes back to the amount of realism you want in your designs.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Bob

Carr, thanks for the continued interest and you've raised some good points.

As far as the sketches go, they were just that. I was trying to work out my layout ideas and each one was drawn in maybe 2 minutes. I was speed sketching during the Chinchilla's nightly play session in the bathroom

As far as realism I'd like my designs to be as realistic as possible but a little artistic license is still nice every now and then.

The Buckleys were armed with 3"/50s but the Rudderows and Butlers were designed from the outset as larger 5" DEs. The last two classes differed only in propulsion plant types. The DEs were seen as underarmed when it came to AAW. 2 5"/38s, 2 twin 40mms and some 20mms were the initial layout. Later one the triple torpedo tubes were dumped and the 40mm complement was increased to 1 quad and 3 twins. Most of the class got this "AAW Upgrade" at the end of the war and postwar.

My original proposal was to make a larger DE based on the 5" Butlers with an extra 5"/38 and a higher speed to combat the newer late war U-boats. I wanted a decent AAW battery to provide better air protection for the convoys hence the addition of the extra 5" AND a Mk-37 director. A more effective director would add greatly to their ability to provide effective AA fire. I guess they border more on baby Fletchers or pre-war DDs then DEs.

I wanted to try and create a "next gen" DE as if they had continued development of the Butlers under wartime conditions. A more effective sonar and ASW torpedoes were to also be included in the new design. So if you were to make one based on those requirements how would you guys go about fullfilling them?


The DDL design was to be a "heavy convoy escort" based on the Atlantas which the USN felt in 1945 would be the best platform for a new ASW "hunter-killer" ship. They developed the Norfolks as the prototype of this concept but it proved too expensive in the postwar era. I rather liked this idea but wanted to try and combine it with the AAW capabilities of the Atlantas and use them for the convoys. I never intended that this ship class to be built in larger numbers than the actual Atlanta/Oakland Classes if not convertered directly from the existing ships. I saw it as a way to make them a more useful member of the fleet since AAW was the ONLY thing they could handle and were wofully underequipped to do much else. Giving them an ASW capability and a more refined AAW layout to reduce the topweight issues experienced in the class.


Again, I'm concentrating on the DDE design for now as I have plenty of DD kits I can use and have yet to obtain an Atlanta or other suitable cruiser class to use as a base.

Again I await your input gents. I'm enjoying this thought experiment immensely as well.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

OK, it's apparent that the DE's could carry at least 2x5" and with your 40 extra feet it would seem reasonable to believe a third 5" could be installed. I'm on board with that. It's odd though, that the class that followed the Butler, which was the Dealey, returned to 3" guns. I wonder why? Were the 5" guns considered a failure (the guns were good but the mount/size/weight/stability/whatever may have been deemed a problem) or was there some other reason? Maybe someone out there knows?

Looking at photos of DE's with 5" guns, the guns appear huge relative to the ship. Your sketches definitely have them undersized (and, yes, I understand that those were quick and dirty sketches - no problem with that!).

One striking note about the entire series of actual DE classes is that they were all essentially the same hull. If you're shooting for a fairly realistic and logical development I would suspect that the hull would have been given a "plug" to lengthen it rather than a new hull design (the time and effort to design new hulls would have been devoted to carriers, cruisers, destroyers as higher priority). This would mean that the beam would remain unchanged. Hence, the longer length would adversely impact maneuverability. Therefore, I would suggest minimizing the increase in length. Maybe only an additional 20-25 ft to minimize the loss of maneuvering? In other words, just barely enough to accomodate one extra 5" gun.

Also, I would think that the flush deck design would not be modified since that would require a redesign in internal arrangements. So, I would suggest sticking with the flush deck.

I wonder about the arrangement of the one 5" gun on an elevated platform (the 01 level). Considering the weight, I wonder if that might cause a stability issue? The Rudderow and Butlers had their 5" guns on the main deck. Of course, there was no need to raise them with only two mounts but still, stability would have to be a concern. As an alternate what about sticking with two 5" guns on the main deck and instead adding 2-4 more 40mm mounts in the extra space gained by the plug? That might be a more effective AAW fit, anyway. You give up the heavier hitting power of the one 5" for surface combat, however, DE's were rarely exposed to surface combat in the escort role. Or, maybe add a midships Hedgehog or two? I don't really know the technology of the Hedgehog as far as how effective it was.

Regards,
Bob

I agree about the DE hulls being essentially the same. The 5" DEs were about 300' in length with the first of the DEs being about 20' shorter. The Buckelys had a plug inserted and I beleive the Butlers had another. I could forsee another 25' plug in the Butler hull being viable as long as the beam was modified as well to maintain the ratio.

My question is, with the extra weponry, electronics, etc... would the existing 12,000 SHP plant and generators be enough? My other proposal of a modified Fletcher either already in service or a new construction would use an "off the shelf" hull and powerplant reducing costs and design time. I'm not sure though if it would be necesary to jump up to a ship of that size with less manuverability though. Could a more powerful plant/generators be installed on the Butlers if needed? Im not sure if there is extra hull space or not.

Guess it might help to illustrate the situation as well. Yes they will be escorting convoys in the Atlantic. The convoys will be hugging the coastlines as much as possible to remain under air cover to negate the U-Boats as much as possible. However given the proximity to German held territory the air threat is also high so an increase in the AAW armament is seen as a major concern for any new escorts. The 5"/38 was definetly the better of the AA guns of the time so I wanted to try and include either an extra mount or at the very least a Mk-37 director to make better use of the 2 mounts already installed. These convoys will be escorted mainly by the small CVEs and the DEs and maybe pre-war DDs. Save for the small airwings of Wildcats, there isn't a whole lot of effective AA coverage there.

I think the best course to take with these DEs would be to increase their length by around 25-30' and their beam accordingly to maintain their ratio, add the extra 40mm mounts and a Mk-37 director. Would that add too much topweight you think? Again the powerplant comes into play. Would these additions require more electical power than they could put out? If so would it be easier to just dump the equipment into a Fletcher hull or take the time to rework the DE hull?

I don't know and I know you're not an naval engineer but that question has been bugging me throughout the whole design process here and since I'm striving for the most realistic design as possible its really got me in a bind. Can anyone with the engineering knowledge shed any light on this sitaution, PLEASE?!

The experipement continues it seems.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

What is it with everyone wanting to build new hulls for ships?!?! How about turning to the Wickes/Clemson class DDs, especially when considering that there were plenty of hulls, and also that it is more economical to do this than to have to hire crews to scrap each destroyer. Just yank off the structures on the top, and replace with the desired design. Ok,maybe it's not that simple, but it's better than starting from scratch right?

Just as a thought of these destroyers, the design original wasted tons of space.

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

We're not talking about creating a new hull! We're talking about either inserting a plug into an existing hull or using an un modified existing hull.

As for using the old 4-pipers, one major drawback, their machinery was ANCIENT compared to anything built during the war and didn't have nearly enough reserve space/weight to mount any of the newer weapons.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

hmmmm...so I guess that the 4-pipers should have been scrapped from the outset of the war, or sold off to Britain or in my case, be used as escorts for the South Americans sending supplies to the USN... Sorry for the run-on sentences, I just need to get ideas down fast

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

Like I said before Gopher, go find some of Freidman's books on the specific ship type you're interested in and read up on them. You'll find all you need to know about them.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

The sequence (or, rather, partial sequence from later in the war) of actual DE classes, as you're probably already aware, was:

Buckley, 306ft x 36ft, 3" guns
Cannon, 306ft x 36ft, 3" guns
Edsall, 306ft x 36ft, 3" guns
Rudderow, 306ft x 36ft, 5" guns
Butler, 306ft x 36ft, 5" guns
Dealey, 314ft x 36ft, 3" guns

So, the hull was unchanged until the Dealey which, in real life, was the first post-war DE. Again, odd about the return to 3" guns.

I've gone about as far as I can in offering technical thoughts. You'll have to find someone who knows naval engineering, propulsion systems, and actual class performance to get much more info. Failing to find such a person, you're free to make your best guess.

That said, here's what I'd suggest...

1. Lengthen the hull by 25 ft but leave the beam as is. Adding a plug is easy from a construction viewpoint and has been done many times on many classes of ship. If you modify the beam, you've created a new hull and the Navy just wouldn't (and, in reality, didn't) do that. Again, depends on the degree of realism you want to adhere to. If you really want to increase the beam do it with an external hull blister rather than an actual widening of the hull. This has been done, in reality, on occasion.

2. Stick with 2 x 5" guns, main deck mounted, one forward and one aft.

3. Leave the propulsion system alone. I don't even know whether the Fletcher and DE's had the same system or not (presumably not). If they were different, it would probably be unrealistic to expect to be able to fit a DD system into a much smaller DE hull. Again, just speculation on my part. You decide. I know you're stuck on this point and you really want more speed but greater speed just doesn't seem that critical for a DE. You'll gain some speed by lengthening the hull (don't know how much) so maybe let it go at that.

4. Use the extra plug length to add your favorite combination of 40mm, 20mm, Hedgehog, torpedos. Maybe a midships Hedgehog and however many 40mm's will fit?

5. Keep the flush deck.

Good stuff!! Keep it coming.

Regards,
Bob

Alright Carr, thanks for all of the help man. I appreciate it IMMENSELY!

I believe I'm over-thinking this.... Time for some more drawings.

I'm going to scan a detailed line drawing I have of a Butler Class DE, print out a copy and start sketching various layouts on some tracing paper. I'll post up what I come up with.

One last question though, could a Mk-37 with a Mk-25 radar theoretically be installed atop the bridge with some mods? What about a Mk-56 (the 3"/50 RF directors)? Both would have been available but weight is the issue. I think a Mk-56 might be a better option. They could be used to control a 5" mount as well as a 3" and they were radar equipped. I think that would sufficiently improve their fire control capabilities. I'll go with a Mk-56. It's more plausible then the giant and heavy Mk-37. That solves that problem

I'm also going to add some fixed torpedo tubes for the Mk-35 ASW homing torpedo in the main deck superstructure; 2 per side with 2 or 3 reloads per tube. Might build the superstructure out to the edge of the hull to allow for better clearance of the tubes since they'll be at weather deck level instead of the 01 deck.

I'll see about adding a SPS-6/10 combo for radars as well. Need to check fleet introduction dates first for those 2 sets. If not they'll get the standard SC-2 and SG combo.

How about one or two single 3"/50 RFs and 2 twin 40mms? I wonder if the weight differences would be too much....hmmm.....

I'll see what I can come up tonight. Thanks again!

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

When you're discussing capacities of DE's, I haven't noticed much attention paid to the power plants. The following is from DESA:

All WWII era Destroyer Escorts fall into one of the following design groups.

GMT - Diesel electric tandem motor drive - short hull 289' 5"
TE - Turbine electric drive, 3" guns 306'
TEV - Turbine electric drive, 5" guns 306'
FMR - Fairbanks Morse diesel reverse gear drive 306'
DET - Diesel electric tandem motor drive - long hull 306'
WGT - Gear turbine drive 306'

You might want to check out this page, it has some very informative charts. Look at the difference between the shaft horse power produced by the power plant types.
http://www.desausa.org/de_by_class.htm

I spent some time on DE 219. It was built with 3" /50's but converted to 5" /38's very quickly. It was a TE. It is my understanding that the TE's and TEV's could handle the 5" mounts but the diesels could not. Here is where you get into wartime availability of machinery and the priority of a DE getting a turbo-electric and 5" mounts compared to some other priority for those TE/TEV's or the manufacturing capacity they would utilize. The TE/TEV were GE

_________________
Russ

Thanks Russ, that was exactly what I was looking for!!!! This site is full of useful info for this project, you're awesome!

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Well, if you want to make a if you want a sort of slightly mini escort DD to be on a Fletcher hull, an armament similar to it should be in place. I'm guessing that No. 2 5 inch gun mount would be replaced by a Hedgehog system. No. 3 mount would be replaced by a quad 40mm. All light AA weapons on the main deck be moved up and replaced by ASW weapons. Torpedos are pointless, so I would guess that they be replaced with Hedgehogs on pivoting mounts.

Again, just getting ideas out before I lose them

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

Oh I still intend on making an ASW Fletcher. They'll be converted to help augment the DEs as the war in the Pacific winds down. My knew DEs will start coming online in 1945, right before the fall of the UK and continue to be built for at least 2 more years depending on attrition and/or another design, but we'll save that one for another time So many ideas, so little time...

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

Well, once a tin can sailor......
Read this page: http://www.desausa.org/ernie_pyle_aboard_a_de.htm

You should hear the props spin when a DE crests a wave.

_________________
Russ

Great site, Russ. Lots of good info. Thanks for the heads up.

Note the large increases in some of the SHP yet the speeds (I assume trial speed is top speed) only increase a few knots.

Right, maybe because it now carries two 5"/38 mounts, plus ammo

_________________
Russ

The USN had an "ASW Destroyer" in WWII ... the BENSON-GLEAVES class were designated as "Sea Control Destroyers" and most of the class spent the war in the Atlantic. Also, the old Flush-deckers were converted to "ASW Escorts". These two groups were the "high-end" ASW platforms in the war with speed and heavier armament than the DE's, Frigates, Corvettes, etc. All DE's were designed to be equipped with two 5-in/38-cal guns, they received 3-in guns because 5-in guns were needed for higher-priority warships. At the end of WWII, several 3-in gunned DE's were re-armed with 5-in guns.

Frankly, most of the schemes you are discussing would have been of little effect. Ship's are limited in how much armament and equipment that can be carried unless the desire is to see them flip over in heavy seas. ASW warships grew in size after WWII due to larger more powerful sensors, plans for larger long-range weapons, and the need to have a more stable platform for them. If the war had gone on and the XXI type were deployed in numbers ... code-breaking, HF/DF and ASW Aircraft would eventually have had a greater impact in reducing their effectiveness. We built so many CVE's, that each convoy/task force could have had a couple or more. Long-range aircraft (B-29's based in many areas around "Fortress Europe") would have struck at German Bases. Carrier Strike Forces would have struck at will along the coasts of Europe.

Germany and Japan were doomed from the start no matter how "advanced" their technology was. Hitler was in love with big and nearly useless weapons that if built took too much effort to build and were available only in small numbers. The German A-Bomb research and design wasn't going to work based on review post-WWII, at least not in any size that could be delivered to a target. The biggest limiting factor for both countries was a shortage of resources ... oil, iron, etc. Russia and Germany initially had a non-aggression pact because each wanted to get stronger before attacking the other and because they had to watch for an attack from the other direction. Stalin wiped out his Generals a few years before the war and realized he needed more "leaders" and the early battles showed the poor leadership in the Soviet Army. Until experienced troops and commanders came from the mini-war with the Japanese, the Russians were hapless. By attacking Russia, Germany hoped to secure enough oil to carry on and destroy the USSR. Germany had a finite number of males and was running short (as were most Western countries), but the Soviets had millions. Germany didn't have the equipment to invade Britain in 1941 and would have paid a price if they tried.

hhmmm...you just can't get around all of these points can you? Or Can you Mike???

_________________
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines