The Ship Model Forum

I've never heard that B-G's were so designated and never heard that the majority were assigned to the Atlantic. In fact, I'm not aware that B-G's performed significant convoy duties. That's interesting. Do you have a source for that?

You're quite correct that DE's, and DD's for that matter, were ultimately only marginally effective in terms of U-Boat kills. The things you mentioned turned out to have greater impact. However, that didn't stop the Navy from designing and building more DE classes and shouldn't stop the "what if" designer from building a better DE. It is also clear from history that escorts (of any type) were vital in protecting convoys. No one will ever know how many U-Boat attacks were prevented by escorts simply being in the area and forcing the subs to keep their heads down without the escorts ever knowing about it. No one is suggesting that DE's did, or could have, won the Battle of the Atlantic single-handed, only that without them, the battle would have been much longer and bloodier.

Bob,

Take a look at http://www.desausa.org/action_damaged_timeline.htm for an idea of marginal effectiveness.

_________________
Russ

Hey there, Ive been following the thread with some interest. I decided to try my hand at 'digitizing' one of your designs Cliffy. What do you think?
USN DDL Scheme 2

_________________
-Abram
ModelWarships Gallery Page
Joslin Models Facebook Page

A rather impressive kill record there Russ.

Arizona, I think I'm in love!!!!! That looks friggin awesome! I still need to tweak the design a bit, mainly in the bridge. Thanks a ton man!!! If you want to do another one, pare down the 20mms, swap the 40mms for 3"/50 RF guns and their associated Mk-56 and Mk-63 directors and adding Mk-25 radars to the Mk-37 directors to bring the ship up to a late 40's fit. Maybe add SPS-6C and SPS-10 radars too? That still looks awesome man!

Completely off topic but I just noticed that this thread is actually advancing to new pages instead of goofing like all the others! Has the error been fixed or is this thread too old to be affected?

_________________
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

Too old to be affected - this thread was created in early January, rather than February, which was when the problem started.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Bob,

Friedman and Reilly discuss the use of BENSON-GLEAVES as Sea Control destroyers. The USN studied building more of them in modified form to perform that role in the Atlantic mid-war. The USN decided not to go that route and stuck with building the DE program (originally 1005 ships!!!). The DE program started before the USA got into the war as a requirement from the UK for lend-lease. For a time building DE's was the highest priority for the USN. The U-Boat successes in early 1942 put the fear of God into the Navy. The existing DE's were considered adequate for the job, they had heavier depth-charge batteries and a hedge-hog compared to any destroyer. My point is that adding three 5-in gun to a DE isn't going to help their ASW capability even if you grow them in size. Growing them in size, armament, and speed pushes the design into the size range of the BENSON-GLEAVES destroyers.

About 22 of the 96 BENSON-GLEAVES, of which only four out of the initial 24 built (DD421-444), were assigned to the Pacific theater. Until late in 1943 the main mission of the BENSON-GLEAVES units in the Atlantic were as convoy escorts. In 1943 many moved into the Med (along with DE's) to support the landings on Sicily and Italy where they were found lacking in the AAW support role and suffered. The early BENSON-GLEAVES units (and four SIMS class) did almost nothing but convoy escort or Task Force ASW screen in 1942. Some 12 units had "Mousetrap" installed for a period in 1943 as an ASW upgrade. In early 1944, as the war against the U-Boat shifted onto the backs of the numerous DE's (and CVE's) being delivered and vastly expanded ASW aircraft, some BENSON-GLEAVES units were shifted to the Pacific. More went to the Pacific as the war in Europe ended in early 1945.

The USN Post-WWII was very worried about Soviet mass-produced copies of the captured XXI technology and other advanced German designs swarming into the oceans in a war. The Soviet Sub threat didn't really grow as envisioned, but many projects were developed to counter them from modifying existing destroyers as DDE's ... 18 FLETCHERS, numerous GEARINGS ... and building new types. Also, fleet destroyers had two Hedgehogs added and improved sonars added to improve ASW. Many of the immediate post-war planned ASW weapons and sensors didn't achieve the design goals desired and newer weapons didn't really come on-line until the 1960's.

Rick,
Now, that's just great info! Good post and thanks for sharing. I'm guessing that for Friedman, you mean his destroyer design book (unfortunately, I don't own or have access to a copy of that), and for Reilly are you referring to "U.S. Navy Destroyers in World War II"? That one I could get for a short period and will do so.

Good observations. DE's were purpose built for the ASW task and were superior in that role to a generic destroyer because of their weapons fit, as you mention, as well as their maneuverability and having the latest sonar fits. You're also quite right that adding 5" guns or 40/20 mm's will not improve their ASW capability. It will, however, greatly improve their AAW capability and Cliffy makes the point that he's designing his SuperDE to be a better escort which includes the convoy AAW role. So, with that in mind and given that their were no "magic" (highly effective) ASW weapons to add, increasing the AAW fit does produce a better overall escort.

Rick, you've sparked a thought for me that leads to a possible alternate approach to making a better ASW vessel. Since we have no "killer" ASW weapon to add, can we, instead, greatly increase the DC/Hedgehog pattern density for a single attack pass by adding more Hedgehogs and DC racks/projectors (as well as larger magazine storage for them)? It would seem reasonable to expect that the greater the density of pattern and the larger the area covered, the greater the odds of success. Is this too simplistic and I'm missing something?

As an aside, here's a quote from navweaps.com regarding attack success rates:

"In the first few months of the war only 5 percent of all depth charge attacks were successful. Normal combat conditions reduced that figure to 3 percent. Combat records showed that in early 1942 the lethal probability of a single depth charge pattern (barrage) was about 3 percent and five attacks would raise the chance of a kill to about 10 percent. The possibility of inflicting significant damage to a submarine was about 30 percent after five attacks. By the end of 1943, better weapons and tactics had improved these figures such that about 30 percent of all detected submarines suffered at least some damage and 20 percent were killed. By the last year of the war, at least 35 percent of all submarines attacked were being damaged while 30 percent were killed. In mid-1944, the USN was claiming an 8 percent kill rate with a single Hedgehog pattern. By the middle of 1945, that figure had risen to 10 percent.

In the Atlantic Theater, US surface ships sank 60 submarines, shore-based aircraft sank 54, ship-borne aircraft sank 32 and 40 were destroyed by bombing raids on yards and bases. In the Pacific Theater, surface ships sank 60 Japanese submarines, shore-based aircraft sank 3.5 and ship-borne aircraft sank another 9.5."

Regards,
Bob

That's outstanding! What program did you use to do that? You could hire yourself out to all the "what if" designers on the forum! Thanks for sharing that.

Thanks, I used a program called 'Paint Shop Pro'.

_________________
-Abram
ModelWarships Gallery Page
Joslin Models Facebook Page

This is a picture of the USS Whitehurst after it was re-Commissioned for the '61-'62 Reserve call-up. It comes from the crew website, http://WWW.de634.org
With reference to ASW, the ship retained its DC racks and K Launchers. The Mk 11 hedgehog was removed from the main deck behind the 31 Mount but two were added to either side of the 32 Mount on the 01 Deck.

It is also noted in the site that if one Hedgehog bomb struck a sub and detonated, it would cause sympathetic detonation of the other bombs in the pattern.

So, how about getting rid of the 32 Mount and placing a Mk 15 launcher in that spot?

"The Hedgehogs were loaded onto spigots in a 4 x 6 pattern pointing forward at slightly different angles. Each spigot had a firing pin which touched the cap of a small charge. The hollow mounting tube and the charge constituted a rocket assembly which fired the bomb portion of the weapon into the air. Twenty-four Hedgehogs were electrically fired in rapid succession so that they sank toward the target in a 3 dimensional pattern. At his station behind the shield, the operator, turning the hand crank, matched pointers on a dial which responded to signals from the Sonar Control Room on the face of the bridge superstructure. This action tilted the bed of the launcher so that the Hedgehogs could be fired within an arc that extended several degrees left and right of "dead ahead". Whitehurst was built with one launcher mounted on the main deck directly aft of Mount 31. In 1956, this launcher was removed and two launchers were installed on the 01 level on either side and slightly aft of Mount 32."


Left photo shows one of the first Mk32 Torpedoes. You can see a more comprehensive story at
DE220 Torpedoes Page


Photo on right was taken from the Whitehurst's starboard signal bridge looking aft. The Torpedoes are green and are stored inboard. The white launcher is visible on the deck near the lifelines. Torpedo in the left photo is on the launcher. The special davit, used to move the torpedo from storage to the launcher is clearly visible in both photos.



Comments of Tim Dorgan SM2 who served on Whitehurst in the ‘50s & 60s

“I was fascinated by the launchers for the torpedoes we had. They were two, pneumatically operated, rocker arms like the letter j and they flipped the torpedoes over the rail and over the side. They were launched butt forward and the movement when they hit the water would twist the propellers backward, this would fire the propulsion unit and the torpedo would take off on its hunt. I only got to watch one test launch with a dummy torpedo but it must have been one hell of an ASW weapon for its day.”

_________________
Russ

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.






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

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 sea control 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, ALL 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.

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 Yorktown, 4 to The Enterprise, and none to The Hornet. A very bad day indeed. The Powers 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

Here's the drawing!



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 Dealeys. 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...

_________________
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

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

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 Fletchers 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?

_________________
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, 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.

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

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

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.

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

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

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines

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

_________________
Russ

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.



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.



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....

_________________
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