Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

Jimmy Conway · Post by **Jimmy Conway** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:45 am

Sleepwalker wrote:Yes, I have seen them - they are very useful, especcialy regarding hull plating. Now I'm waiting for my 1 mm styrene to start the work

Dear SleepWalker, we would be glad to see photos of your progress....anything more you need, let me know, and you can post some PM...please refrain from posting links to this site as they do not respect copyrights site published some views side from " Fletchers" and you can see some details there.......nice regards: Jimmy

Tony Bunch · Post by **Tony Bunch** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:22 am

Hi Guys,
Jimmy,
The Sumner that will some day be produced by Small World Models is still in its prototype stage; which means it won't be advertised till ready for public consumption. This could be a year or more from now. Dave wants to make available a complete kit for the RC or static modeler that will be a faithful copy of a Sumner Class DD. In 1/96 scale and the level of perfection Dave is capable will not avail a cheap model I can assure you, but it will be nice!
The Fletcher/Sumner hulls were virtually identical, but for the rudder arrangement. It would be easy enough to mount a single rudder and fill the holes/bosses for the hinged twin rudder arangement.
somebody correct me if I'm wrong here.
The steel plate at the forefoot of the Fletcher's Hull is supposedly for ramming submarines; according to the USS Kidd website.
Tony

ARH · Post by **ARH** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:02 pm

Jimmy, In larger scale there is a way of creating this corrigation effect, but for sailing models its not really practical, for static yes.
I thought about it when building Moffett but I did not have photo,s of such effects on the hull.

What you have to do is , mark out the hull, all 200 ribs, then each section were the plates meet horizontally.
When this is done you have to put very fine strips of styrene over the marked out sections, then plate the hull in litho plate, when set rub your thumb over the plates and they will indent giving the effect, a lot of work

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:36 pm

Here is a photo of the Strong. Is this what the stern 40 mm tub on the Fletcher in late '42would have looked like?
http://www.destroyerhistory.org/fletche ... ng_17.html

Rick E Davis · Post by **Rick E Davis** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:18 pm

Yes the Strong has a pretty typical fantail 40mm installation as fitted on about 40 Fletcher's. Most of these ships didn't keep it for long as they were upgraded to the standard 6-40mm (two twins amidships the #2 stack and one twin between #53 and #54) and only somewhere around a dozen Fletcher's went to war with the fantail twin 40mm in place. A few of the first fantail twin 40mm equipped Fletcher's tubs had a "kink" in the straight section on the port side. It looks like they had to go around a deck fitting that was either relocated or the tub bulwark was altered to avoid it in later ships.

Tony Bunch · Post by **Tony Bunch** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:13 am

Hi Guys,
Rick,
That fantail, "teardrop tub", was what was included but not for use on Tamiya's Fletcher; correct?
It is indeed NOT the correct size for use atop the aft deckhouse riser between Mt 53 and 54.
I ended up cutting a section out at the narrow end, thus shortening the teardrop tub to fit between the two mounts. The large end is still about 15% too large.
I might re-do this again......
This thread is rockin'..........

Tony

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:35 am

I just looked in the kit and see that part, B6. If i build the Fletcher as fitted during the Nov. '42 battles and into '43, is this tub right for the fantail twin 40? To a novice eye it seems close.
Ed

Ship Model Gallery · Post by **MartinJQuinn** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:00 am

ducati650 wrote:I just looked in the kit and see that part, B6. If i build the Fletcher as fitted during the Nov. '42 battles and into '43, is this tub right for the fantail twin 40? To a novice eye it seems close.
Ed

I believe it is - that's what I used it for on my Fletcher.

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:50 am

Thanks guys. I didn't have time to go into it earlier but I'm thinking about building a fletcher now that my first boat/ship modle( 1/35 elco PT495) is done. I have a Tamiya 1/350 Fletcher and GMM PE set that I bought when the kit and PE first came out.

I'm thinking about 3 ships- Fletcher, O'bannon and Nicholas. The time frame is either the Nov'42 battles in Nov or maybe a period up to early/mid '43.
I'm very new to all of this and have read this entire thread so many times my brain hurts.

Here is what I think I understand:

Fletcher- 2 2x40mm and 6 1x20 mm until Oct '42 to March '43 during which time she got another 1x20mm on the pilot house. She did not have depth charge storage racks on the fantail and the projectors had post type storage. Paint was Ms 18 or 22 until March '43 when it went to Ms21. The 7th 1x20 was in place prior to the March '43 paint to Ms21.

[I just re-read a post ,page 3, that said the fantail 2x40mm was added in Sept-Oct '42. Is that correct? Would it have had a tub added if it was a "field-install"? Would the pilot house 20mm have been added at the same time and been present during the Nov. '42 battles?]

O'Bannon- 1x1.1 and 6 1x20mm. Up gunned, probably between Ocy '42 and March '43, with 1 1x20mm on pilot house and 3 1x20mm without tubes on fantail. I thought the paint was Ms18 before Nov '42 but painted to MS21 (5N). However the destroyerhistory.org says:
"O�Bannon�s early colors were painted over the week before she participated in the Battle of Guadalcanal, 12�13 November 1942. She retained this all-gray appearance for the duration of her first tour, which ended with the collision with Chevalier in October 1943."

What all grey scheme?

Depth charges details are the same as Fletcher.

Nicholas- Same as O'Bannon except paint was Ms 18 during battles. Don't what or when it was painted to after that but I think by Aug. '43 she was Ms21. Anybody? Photos of her show 3 tub-less 1x20mm on the fantail in early/mid '43.

Do I have it close? Corrections welcome.

Rick E Davis · Post by **Rick E Davis** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:22 pm

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

Yes, the "tear drop" shaped tub included with the Tamiya Fletcher kit is intended for the fantail 40mm installation. The Jenkins and LaVallette also had this combination of the original high round shaped tub intended for the quad 1.1" and the fantail 40mm. None of the fantail 40mm guns were "field installed", it took a regular Navy Yard or builder yard to install it and the director (running power and control wiring to that location wasn't a field mod).

The Nicholas and O'Bannon were the first two ships in the class commissioned and carried the quad 1.1" (along with the Chevalier) throughout the period you indicted interest in (Nov 42 - mid 43). The Fletcher was the third ship commissioned and she completed with one twin 40mm in the high round tub intended for the quad 1.1" gun. During a yard period at NYNY, 22-30 August 1942, the Fletcher got the fantail twin 40mm installed just prior to leaving for the Pacific. All three of these ships had six 20mm guns when completed. The official policy when the fantail 40mm mount was installed was to REDUCE the 20mm guns to FOUR. However, there is no indication that the number of Fletcher's 20mm guns were reduced. The only extra 20mm guns spotted to have been added during this period was the one on the pilot house. It is not known when or where this gun was added, it was there by March 1943 based on a photo. The quad 1.1" equipped units (all of them?) got more 20mm guns as you indicated (pilot house and three on the fantail without a full tub - just two half tubs forward of the two outside 20mm guns), but when is not sure. But it seems reasonable that it happened early upon their arrival in the South Pacific.

The Fletcher DID have 600lb Depth Charge drop racks on the fantail. It was the 300lb K-guns that didn't have the storage racks at this time, she had the early post style reload D/C storage for the K-guns.

The Camo used by these ships during this period is open to debate and is NOT a settled matter. So, this is my opinion and I'm not a camo expert. It is known that the O'Bannon was repainted prior to the November 42 battles and that was verified by post battle damage photos found by Ron Smith. She was painted in Ms-21 at that time. Just before the O'Bannon left for the Pacific, she was painted in Ms-18 and apparently made it to the war zone so painted(?) before repainting (which only would have required painting the superstructure). The other two ships you are interested in are unknown as to when they repainted to Ms-21. It seems, in my opinion, that they had repainted by the same time as the O'Bannon. Just what they were painted when they left the East Coast is unknown. They had been in MS-12R when commissioned. Did they get repainted to Ms-18 like the O'Bannon or stay the same or get one of the other schemes??? At any rate, these ships were all likely MS-21 by early 1943. On my last trip to NARA, I scanned a copy of the Waller that is suppose to be taken in July 1943 in Ms-18 camo ... the only one in harbor at the time!!! I'm trying to verify this date.

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 9:59 pm

Thank you Rick. I just lost a reply that took me over an hour to write. I'll try to repeat the high lights.

Thanks for the information on the 40mm tube and install. A post said it was installed in Sept/Oct '42 and I think she was deployed in Oct so I had questions.

Thanks for the tip on the 2 half tubs on the Nickloas. I missed them until i went back and looked again.
I was referring to the 2 storage/reload racks seen in later boats that were located between the stern's roll-off racks.

Except for the O'Bannon the camo is a tough call. Here is how I see it.

There are some combinations of features on all three boats that at are possible and plausible but cannot be proven, so far, especially for the Nov'42 time frame. My goal is to decide what was plausible, decide how likely each feature was and to aviod anything that is know to be not possible. Does this make sense?

Here is how it seems to unfold to me:

O'Bannon:Known- Ms21, 1.1AAA, 6 1x20mm.
Possible- 3 1x20mm added to fantail prior to Nov'42 fight.
Possible- 1 1x20mm added to pilot house prior to Nov'42 fight.

Nicholas: Known-1.1AAA, 6 1x20mm, Ms18(Aug'42), Ms21(May'43)
Possible- 3 1x20mm added to fantail prior to Nov'42 fight.
Possible- 1 1x20mm added to pilot house prior to Nov'42 fight.
Possible- Painted Ms21 prior to Nov'42 fight.

Fletcher: Known-2 2x40mm, 6 1x20mm, Ms12R Stateside, Ms21(Jul'43)
Known-1 1x20mm added to pilot house by Mar'43.
Known- Photo (Mar'43) suggests Ms18 painted to Ms21.
Possible- 1 1x20mm added to pilot house prior to Nov'42 fight.
Possible- Ms18 prior to Nov'42 fight.
Possible- Ms21 prior to Nov'42 fight.

Are my "knowns" correct? Are my "possibles" possible? Which are the most likely?
If I had to pick odds for Nov'42:
60/40 likely for the 4 added 20mm for the O'Bannon. (Had time to repaint. Maybe had time to up-gun)
50/50 likely for the 4 added 20mm for the Nicholas. (If Ms18 may not have had time to repaint and possibly not up-gun either.)
60/40 likely for Ms18 for the Nicholas in Nov'42
80/20 likely for Ms21 for Nicholas in early '43
50/50 likely for the pilot 20mm on Fletcher. (Only needed to aquire and mount 1 20mm.)
80/20 likely for Ms18 for Fletcher in Nov'42.
60/40 likely for Ms21 for Fletcher in Nov'42.
90/10 likely for Ms21 for Fletcher in Mar'43.

What do you make of my assesment?
Thanks,
Ed

Rick E Davis · Post by **Rick E Davis** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:58 am

I can't comment on the "odds" for some of your possible configurations/camo schemes as to when. My own opinion is that the Fletcher units available for the Nov 42 battles likely were all painted Ms-21 ... my opinion. This is based on the O'Bannon information and that all photos (true they were taken after Nov 42) as early as January showed the "Cactus Striking" force of destroyers painted in a solid scheme ... likely Ms-21. I feel that the order went out to repaint all of the Fletcher DD's, in what became DesRon 21 (formed Mar 43), in early Nov 42. But, I have no proof.

I did goof in my last write-up ... the Nicholas was shown painted in Ms18 in August 42 not the O'Bannon ... my bad. It is kind of interesting that the Conway and apparently, if I can believe the dates provided, that the Waller were still painted in Ms-18 into August 1943. Both of these ships were in DesRon 22 and would have had a different "Commander" and maybe a different view on the best camo.

But, the Philip, also a DesRon 22 unit, (and ALL the other unidentified Fletcher's in the harbor) pictured with the Waller at the same time (noted as 25 July 1943) is in Ms-21. This would say that it was up to the individual ship Captain???

When any of these ships got the extra 20mm guns is not clear. I would like to go through the War Diaries for these three ships and see if they mention it ... some day. The pilothouse 20mm gun was added to production built ships by early 1943 and the DeHaven had TWO 20mm guns up there before she was lost. The 25 July photo of the Waller and Philip show that neither one has the pilothouse 20mm at that late date. They do have the centerline platform/tub in front of the bridge. It seems that this was a case where the frontline guys came up with the idea and the BuShips guys went along to make it a standard. BuShips came up with an elevated centerline platform/tub for a 20mm gun before the pilothouse 20mm was "offically" added to the armament. But, the early delivered units did not necessarily get fitted with this platform/tub. The fantail installation of three single 20mm gun became a standard based on a decision made in February 1943, after the three twin 40mm standard was decided. So, I don't know if the three 20mm guns added to the BIW Fletcher's with the quad 1.1" were added on authority of the local command or if authorized based on a policy change by BuShips? The BuShips guys were dragged kicking and screaming to adding more guns, therefore adding top-weight, to ships through-out the war.

A short-hand progress of the number of 20mm guns AUTHORIZED on Fletcher's appears to be ..

1. Units with quad 1.1" or one twin 40mm ... 6-20mm
2. Units with the fantail 40mm added making 4-40mm ... 4-20mm
3. 4-40mm units ... a single 20mm added on the centerline platform/tub making 5-20mm
4. 4-40mm units ... had the waist main deck 20mm battery increased BACK to two per side .... only now with the added gun being mounted forward of the existing 20mm instead of aft of it where the original 20mm was located. This increased the authorized 20mm battery to seven.
5. 4-40mm units with the round bridge ... had the pilothouse 20mm authorized making the 20mm battery eight.
6. 4-40mm units with the square bridge (only three ships) ... didn't have the pilothouse 20mm.

You can find photos of some ships in early 1943 progress from 4 to 5 to 7 and 8 20mm guns. The yard guys must have been kept real busy.

What a ship had when she got to the war zone, is a function of WHEN they departed from this progression and if they had a chance at an update along the way. Of course the "unauthorized" additions are always wild cards.

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:12 pm

Rick E Davis wrote:I feel that the order went out to repaint all of the Fletcher DD's, in what became DesRon 21 (formed Mar 43), in early Nov 42. But, I have no proof.

Hi Rick, just as a FYI, after the recent flaming I took over at SteelNavy I've been hitting the Seattle Archives up more for paint documents than my earlier projects. While the main goal is Pearl Harbor "era" documents, anything WWII I find is scanned in.

These are records for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and the 13th Naval District, so they probably won't contain records for DesRons that weren't administratively connected, but there may be fleet-wide orders that would help.

Unfortunately I had to reformat my machine last night and I'm behind on my posting... I didn't lose anything, but I don't have photoshop or Omnipage reloaded yet.. or even my HTML editing software.

That said, the only thing I found with a cursory examination that may be applicable is a September 1942 document from Adm Spruance (Pacific Fleet Chief of Staff at the time) that calls for Ms 21 for ships of the Pacific Fleet, although Task Force 8 is allowed to paint into Ms 16 at the TF commander's discretion.

It arrived at PSNS about a month after it was written, and the distribution list includes Comsoepac, Comtaskfor1, Comtaskfor8, Comtaskfor17, Comcrutaskfor 8, Comcrutaskfor 16, (no DD forces directly) as well as Navy Yards 8-10 (Puget, Mare, Pearl) and Naval Districts 11-14 (see link to 13th ND above).

I'll be motoring along on the paint stuff again soon I hope; what I have is posted here.

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:36 pm

Thanks for all the great data and opinion. I'm too new at this to have an opinion that is worth much.

I take it then that based upon your opinion that most were Ms21 at the time the O'Bannon was, that you do not think the Pervus Bay photo of the Fletcher in Mar'43 is showing her painting out of Ms18 to Ms21. The light areas above the main deck on the splash shields look out of place to me for a ship already Ms21. Am I being fooled bu lighting?

Thanks,
Ed

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 12:41 pm

I'm not familiar with the photo in question, but 5N chalks as it weathers and becomes lighter, so if there is a photo that shows a lighter section being painted over with darker 5N, depending on circumstances it's very possible it's simply fresh 5-N going over old.

But I'll defer to Rick and Ron Smith on that.

PS, OCR software's now installed....

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:05 pm

The photo, actually 2 photos, are in the middle of page 4 of this thread and posted by Martin Quinn. It was these that made me think the Fletcher may have been Ms18 until Mar'43.

If it is just repainting faded, chalked 5-N with fresh 5-N I guess that puts a new light on it for me.
Ed

Tracy White · Post by **Tracy White** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:10 pm

That looks a little light to be 5-N to me.

ducati650 · Post by **ducati650** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 2:56 pm

Tracy White wrote:That looks a little light to be 5-N to me.

So, any guesses as to what is going on in the photo. If the light areas are too light to be 5_N, could this be painting from 18 to 21?

Rick E Davis · Post by **Rick E Davis** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:45 pm

Tracy,

I'll leave the camo history to someone else. I try to make observations on the camo schemes used on ships as I search photos (something I never even bothered with years ago) and now that I'm doing some textual hunting as well, take note if anything is mentioned in the War Diaries or BuShip records. I did find something that may be interesting, there was an interesting note for the Hutchins (DD476). The Hutchins was Board inspected in late Jan when she was "suppose" to be done about 10 January 1943 (5-5", 2-40mm ... on the fantail, and 9-20mm guns). However, she had a report with like 24 pages of "problems" mainly due because she was one of the units originally planned to be catapult equipped and they had been putting her into fleet destroyer configuration since she had commissioned 17 Nov 42 (she only had the provisions for 4-5" guns to be installed then). Anyway, the Hutchins was back in the Boston NY from 20 Jan to 17 Mar 43 finishing up, with the only noticeable change being a tenth 20mm gun added to the pilothouse. One of the letters that came in during that period said that all destroyers were to be painted Ms-21 at time of delivery/completion. For many months before that a good number of Benson/Gleaves and Fletchers were being delivered in Ms-22. When they got to the Pacific they seemed to be repainted to Ms-21. But, it makes me wonder what she was painted in the 24 Jan 1943 photos taken of her at "completion". It is solid pattern not Ms-22 and looks gray or 5N ... I don't know?

It is interesting that there was a Fall 1942 directive to go to Ms-21 for Pacific fleet ships. That would seem to mean that the few Fletcher's in Ms-18 as late as August 1943 were out of step with that directive? Interesting.

DIBBER27 · Post by **DIBBER27** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:48 pm

Ed I know what your going thru. I'm the guy who started this topic with the same questions your asking. With all the great help I got from Rick and everyone else I finished my O'Bannon in MS21 using 5N with the 10 20mm and the 1.1 gun. I hope to get some pic posted soon. I'm still not to good at posting pic but this is one I used for my O'Bannon[/img]http://www.destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/ussobannon/43broadside.html It seems to be in the time period I was looking for Nov. 42. I had a feeling it wouldn't work but you can find the link on page one of this post.