Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

[Sten Ekedahl]

To help you decide on a time period, take a look at Ship camouflage.com's camo chart for the Fletchers.

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/fletcher_class.htm

You can build her in Ms. 21, 22, or 31/2C; a dazzle scheme. The other two are simple overall blue or blue and gray schemes.

Ms. 31/2C
http://www.shipcamouflage.com/DesignShe ... DD-445.jpg

Hope that helps some.

-Mike

Forgot to mention that I have seen this too. Will be a great help in deciding.

[Rick E Davis]

Sten,

To put some dates on HARRISON's configuration history:

HARRISON was delivered/commissioned on 25 January 1943 in the then standard two twin 40-mm mounts configuration. She was painted in Ms 22 at the time.



HARRISON went to Charleston Navy Yard and after a period of shakedown training, was upgraded there and finished by 28 April 1943, to the next standard configuration with three twin 40-mm mounts and eleven 20-mm guns. HARRISON was painted in Ms 21 for some time and likely was painted in a dazzle camo scheme in 1944.



HARRISON remained in this configuration until a refit in late 1944 (Modified 24 Nov 44-12 Jan 45 at Mare Island Navy Yard) when she was updated to the standard five twin 40-mm mounts and seven 20-mm guns configuration. At this same refit, HARRISON's Mk 4 radar on the Mk 37 director was replaced by the Mk 12/22 pair of radars. Also, an ECM mainmast was installed aft as seen in the image above. SHe had her K-Gun storage racks doubled with the newer tear-drop depth charges.







HARRISON was really only in the four 40-mm configuration for about three months and saw no action in that configuration. The Tamiya FLETCHER kit (1/350 Scale) has the fantail twin 40-mm option, but the twin 40-mm mount position between #3 and #4 5-in mounts (the 53 and 54 mounts) will need to be redone and scratch built.

HARRISON saw most of her action with the "Little Beavers" in the six 40-mm configuration. Here it depends on what you want to do about scratch building or kit-bashing. If you buy a Tamiya and a Trumpeter kit, you would have most of the parts you need. Pick whichever hull you want to use and put the right components for your build and modify as needed. The twin 40-mm mount position between 53 and 54 mounts will still need to be scratch built, because neither kit has the right version. The forward bridge elevated platform for a 20-mm gun will need to be scratch built as well.

HARRISON was upgraded to the ten 40-mm configuration pretty late in the war. But by kit-bashing the Tamiya and Trumpeter kits together, you can build this version with less scratch building than the six 40-mm version. The Trumpeter kit has the "Mare Island" type 40-mm mount "tub" between the 53 and 54 mounts as seen in the view above. Also, the midships main deck 20-mm mounts bulwarks were modified to the configuration provided by the Trumpeter kit. HARRISON wasn't upgraded to the Anti-Kamikaze configuration with two quad 40-mm mounts.

The choice is yours. Once you make a decision, I may be able to furnish close-up images of either HARRISON or one of her sister destroyers modified at Charleston Navy Yard in the six 40-mm configuration or her 1945 Mare Island configuration.

[les]

Thanks for the pics Rick. Now that I'm filling up my drive, you've forced me to buy a thumb drive just for the destroyer pictures. Keep 'em coming.

[Sten Ekedahl]

WOW! Thank you Rick. That was very helpful. All that remains for me now is to study all the details (and color schemes), pick a date and start aquiring a kit (or two), a good PE set and all the necessary extra details/conversion parts that I will need for this build. However it will be a while before I can get started since I will get a dog delivered Wednesday next week. It's a four year old male lagotto romagnolo (looks like a cream colored medium sized poodle) that I will take over from friends of mine that unfortnately are unable to keep him. It'll take some time for him to bond with me and get used to his new home (and me getting used to taking care of a dog), so I don't expect to do much modeling for the next couple of months.

[AussieBuilder]

Not sure if this has already been posted, but here's a link to the History Channel "Battle of Leyte Gulf".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hei7O05_4g

The USS Johnston was what made me first take an interest in the Fletcher class.

[Rick E Davis]

Sten,

A couple of more minor points that I forgot last night.

C. Lee Johnson in his book "USN FLETCHER CLASS DESTROYERS IN WWII DAZZLE CAMOUFLAGE", has HARRISON listed as being "reported" in Ms 31/2C during some point in 1944. But, he states that he never has found a photo of her in dazzle. I will say that several of the veteran destroyers and their CO's that fought in the Solomon Island campaigns and in the area of the South Pacific (DesRon 21,22, and 23), didn't seem to much like the dazzle schemes. Too much work to keep the camo scheme "nice" and they just thought it made it easier for enemy aircraft to see them like they had painted a bullseye on the ship. I have read and heard that even when their ship was painted to the new scheme as directed, it didn't last long and was repainted to Ms 21 that they had before.

Depending on how much effort you wish to put into this project (a couple of months gives you time to plan), the 5-in gun mounts on the Tamiya kit are under scale and the Trumpeter kit mounts can be difficult to assemble. You may want to look at L'Arsenal replacements for the weapons ... 5-in, 40-mm and 20-mm. There are other suppliers as well, like WEM, but I'm familiar with L'Arsenal 1/350 scale equipment replacements.

[BCBilly]

Were quad 40s too heavy to be retro fitted amidships ?

[Sten Ekedahl]

Sten,

A couple of more minor points that I forgot last night.

C. Lee Johnson in his book "USN FLETCHER CLASS DESTROYERS IN WWII DAZZLE CAMOUFLAGE", has HARRISON listed as being "reported" in Ms 31/2C during some point in 1944. But, he states that he never has found a photo of her in dazzle. I will say that several of the veteran destroyers and their CO's that fought in the Solomon Island campaigns and in the area of the South Pacific (DesRon 21,22, and 23), didn't seem to much like the dazzle schemes. Too much work to keep the camo scheme "nice" and they just thought it made it easier for enemy aircraft to see them like they had painted a bullseye on the ship. I have read and heard that even when their ship was painted to the new scheme as directed, it didn't last long and was repainted to Ms 21 that they had before.

Depending on how much effort you wish to put into this project (a couple of months gives you time to plan), the 5-in gun mounts on the Tamiya kit are under scale and the Trumpeter kit mounts can be difficult to assemble. You may want to look at L'Arsenal replacements for the weapons ... 5-in, 40-mm and 20-mm. There are other suppliers as well, like WEM, but I'm familiar with L'Arsenal 1/350 scale equipment replacements.

Thanks for that "heads up". With fifty years experience of modeling I'm not afraid to tackle any difficulties. My current project is a 1/350 Arizona which is probably one of the most difficult things you can attempt, especially since it is my first ship model, having exclusively done 1/72 aircraft before that. I have a WIP thread going on this site on the Arizona build. The (non-existing) quality of that kit means that it will be at least 50% scratch-building and aftermarket parts. But with a lot of good advice from a master ship modeler in our local model club and learning from all the expert builders on this site, I have no doubts I will be able to pull it off.

[Rick E Davis]

BCBilly,

Check earlier pages in this thread where the Anti-Kamikaze Mod for FLETCHERS is discussed. Only about one in three FLETCHERS actually had the ShipAlt 578 Anti-Kamikaze Mod (two quad 40-mm mounts replaced the forward TT mount and the midships twin 40-mm mounts) done by 1946. During the 1950's, FLETCHERS recommissioned for the Korean War that didn't receive the 4-Gun Mod, received the revised ShipAlt 578 with the forward twin 40-mm mounts being replaced by Mk 10/11 hedgehogs, updated radars, and maybe a tripod foremast.

[BCBilly]

Thanks Rick will do. My father in law served on the USS Radford during the war.

[Rick E Davis]

BCBilly,

RADFORD was one of the FLETCHER's to be modified to the Anti-Kamikaze Mod. RADFORD and her sisters DesDiv 42 (FLETCHER, RADFORD, JENKINS, AND LA VALLETTE) were all modified, but were not completed until after the end of WWII.

Here are all of the configurations RADFORD had in the war zones of the Pacific.

RADFORD as she looked in the South Pacific about January 1943


RADFORD on 24 August 1943


RADFORD at Mare Island Navy Yard after her upgrade to the standard five twin 40-mm mounts configuration.






RADFORD after the war. This image came from Navsource.org, I have yet to find an original photo to scan ... actually I haven't found an original photo for any of the DesDiv 42 destroyers.

[BCBilly]

Thanks Rick. He was a signalman. These are great pictures. Thank you again !

[ar]

Dear Davis,
Thank you for posting the photos.
The one showing Radford on the 24th of august 1943 shows something that not only have I not seen before, but is a complete surprise to me. Would never have believed it without seeing the photo, and then the obvious question, how many others were so fitted?
Still so much to learn.
Question, do you know the name of the ship from which the photo was taken?
A Raven

[Rick E Davis]

Alan,

I assume you mean this photo.



Short answer is that I don't know which ship is in the foreground. The caption on the card at NARA didn't provide that information. I'm guessing you are wondering about the 20-mm on the forecastle. I suspect it is one of the auxiliaries used by the USN in the area, maybe even one of the flushdecker conversions, but it doesn't look like the typical deck layout for one. I don't recognize the deck arrangements with any other ship off the top of my head. I have wondered about this photo. Looking in RADFORD's War Diary was of little use since their are a large number of ships present and no clue if she would tie up to this ship.

Here is a close-up of the camera/film code seen in the corner. I don't know anything about these codes. Note that what I suspect is the 20-mm Cooling Tube has been attached to the stanchion.



The same photographer took photos of other ships that day. Here is a view of NICHOLAS (DD-449) taken from the same location only a little off the starboard bow.



I'll forward the images to Dave for his opinions.

[Tracy White]

Not a flushdecker, I can confirm that.

[Dick J]

Short answer is that I don't know which ship is in the foreground. The caption on the card at NARA didn't provide that information. I'm guessing you are wondering about the 20-mm on the forecastle. I suspect it is one of the auxiliaries used by the USN in the area, maybe even one of the flushdecker conversions, but it doesn't look like the typical deck layout for one. I don't recognize the deck arrangements with any other ship off the top of my head. I have wondered about this photo.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/048/0404822.jpg

I think that the bow is possibly Honolulu.

[Tracy White]

I'd agree. I happen to have a higher-rez scan of that shot:

Honolulu20mm.jpg (10.56 KiB) Viewed 2478 times

Note the cooling tube...

[Rick E Davis]

The photgrapher must have been standing atop turret # 1. I was puzzled because if the photo was taken from a bridge, the main guns should have shown.

The only photos I had of the BROOKLYN class had two 20-mm guns installed on the bow by the summer of 1943.

Interesting, mystery solved.

[Frank Fowler]

I know this can't be answered, but could the photos of Radford and Nicholas dated August 24, 1943 be misdated? Could they be from July 6 or 7, 1943 right after the battle of Kula Gulf? There seems to be a lot of crew on deck in the Radford photo and while not as many, still several on the deck of Nicholas. Both of these ships stayed behind at Kula Gulf to rescue survivors from the Helena and brought them back to Tulugi. The Radford photo reminds me of the photos of Laffey loaded with Wasp survivors.

As a side note I met a former crew member of Radford a few years ago. He was already 90 or so. He had vivid memories of pulling Helena survivors out of the water on board Radford. His name was/is Jim Ramsey. He also told me that he had attended a couple of Helena reunions and that former Helena crew members still remembered him. He was born in Arkansas and was friends with my father's family. Jim came to LA in the 1930s looking for work and when war came he was working in an exempt industry. He joined the Navy anyway and was assigned to the Radford. In 2003 or 2004 my father and mother were out here in Central California visiting me from Arkansas and my father wanted to go see Mr. Ramsey. Mr. Ramsey and his wife had retired from the refrigeration and real estate businesses in the LA area and had moved to their horse ranch in Santa Ynez, California. His wife was ill at the time of our visit and she soon passed away. Mr. Ramsey was still a tall cowboy at 90. Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey had two sons, one played quarterback for UCLA and won a Rose Bowl in the 1980s. He also played a few years in the NFL. The other son was a LA fireman and at one time was a fire boat captain. Since my father passed away in July of 2005 I have lost contact with Mr. Ramsey and don't know if he is still alive. His life story was very interesting.

[Dick J]

That idea fits well with this photo:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0544602.jpg
Note the man standing on the aft end of the raised 40MM tub in both photos. This is the Navsource caption for the referenced photo in this post: "Radford steaming into Tulagi Harbour in the Solomans with a deckload of survivors of the cruiser Helena, and with the wounded filling all available space below, 5-6 July 1943."