I don't think anyone is "avoiding" USS WILLIAM D. PORTER (DD-579) because of her "assault" on the USS IOWA with FDR aboard. Someone awhile back posted a copy of her incident and how it happened along with the aftermath. Here is one of the accounts ... http://bobrosssr.tripod.com/porterstory.html ... however there are several errors in this account about her loss. The aircraft that sank her wasn't "invisible" to radar because she was built from wood ... the aircraft was made from aluminum like most IJN aircraft.
With 175 units in the FLETCHER class, there are several other more popular units that attract modelers. WILLIAM D. PORTER was one of the kamikaze victims being sunk on 10 June 1945.
I don't have an extensive group of images of Wm. D. PORTER, but I do have a 24 September 1943 image that would more than likely was the configuration and camo she would have been in during the USS IOWA incident a few months later. There are a few other later images from 1944 and during her loss in June 1945 at Navsource.org ... http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/579.htm ...
In September 1943 she had only single stowage roller racks for the K-Guns 300-lb depth charges. She was completed with the extra 600-lb depth charge racks on the fantail and those would have been still in the same location. I don't have a good view of Wm. D. PORTER's fantail, but here is a view of a sister's fantail.
Excellent... I know pictures of the Porter are fairly scarce, and I've not seen that broadside shot of her before. I've picked up a couple of fantail pictures of similar ships, and I'll add yours to my fast-growing library. Much appreciated.
I'm not out to make a fanatically detailed model, but I do like to get my basic facts straight.
Hi Armstrong,
I'm building the USS Haggard DD-555 she was painted measure 21 also throughout her service in WWII, and I wish she were painted another measure as well. Any ship painted measure 21 (5-n and 20-b) looks dark and very bland and tends to hid many details on the models we build.
The older I get, the more I like Ms 21. It makes for an easy paint job!
Years ago I completed a 1/700 New Jersey with a fresh Ms 21 paint job and it does look very dark. The details are all hidden.
The good thing about Ms 21 is that it faded quickly in some cases so one can model a ship that has been out to sea a long time with a much lighter paint. Of course then one has to put up with all the perfectionists that criticize the paint.
Geno the Viking wrote:The older I get, the more I like Ms 21. It makes for an easy paint job!
Years ago I completed a 1/700 New Jersey with a fresh Ms 21 paint job and it does look very dark. The details are all hidden.
The good thing about Ms 21 is that it faded quickly in some cases so one can model a ship that has been out to sea a long time with a much lighter paint. Of course then one has to put up with all the perfectionists that criticize the paint.
Hi Geno,
I can agree with you on that point. It might make for a dark looking model, but it�s a lot easier to look at as well. I find the dazzle camo painted ships hard on the eyes, but I guess the japs had trouble as well and that�s the purpose!!!!
Actually, I've assumed she was in Ms21 on the basis of a single low-angle pic that doesn't show her decks, and it's a fairly distant shot and she might be in shadow. Looking more closely at that photo above, there does seem to be a fair amount of contrast between the colour of her sides and the colour of her decks. There's bloom on the left which makes the deck and side colours merge, but I believe the sun is generally behind the camera because the shadow of the bridge falls onto both her side and onto her deck.
She was commissioned in July 43. Would her paint have faded so much in the space of just two months?
Does anyone have a definitive answer as to her colour scheme in November 43? Or even just general information about Fletchers operating in the Atlantic around that time frame.
Another observation on that photo... The midships 40mm tubs appear to have open sides. Can anyone explain this?
Hi Armstrong,
I am not an expert by any means, but I am building DD-555 USS Haggard and she looks just like the Willie D. Notice the color of her hull. It is one uniform color with no stripes. Just above you can just see thetop edge of the boot topping. I can say with out a dought she is in Ms 21. The Haggard was struck by a kamlkaze 29 April 1945 and she still appears as she was after she was built. The photo of her crew patching her hull that day shows on difference in color from her 1943 images. Some of the Fletchers were repainted in service, but not all of them were.
Hi Armstrong,
I posted a reply but I was not logged in. I am using a cheap tablet and I could not copy and paste my message after logging in. You will see it in a few hours sorry!!!!!!!!!!!
Wm D PORTER would have been painted in camo Ms 21 as seen in the September 1943 photo for the November 1943 mission. FLETCHERS were designated to be assigned to the Pacific and at that time Ms 21 was the directed camo by the Pacific Fleet. In late 1942 and early 1943 if FLETCHERS were even temporarily assigned to the Atlantic (like for Operation Torch), they would be painted in the Atlantic Fleet desired camo Ms 22. But, that soon stopped because even if the FLETCHERS were assigned to temporary trans-Atlantic escort duties, it was always known that they would go to the Pacific eventually so why waste time repainting the destroyers. There were at least three FLETCHERS assigned to the British Home Fleet at about this same time period and they all retained their Ms 21 camo. Quite a few FLETCHERS performed convoy duties as part of their "shakedown" cruise. Also, during the summer of 1943 there was a crash program to install the forward twin 40-mm mounts and a CIC BEFORE the FLETCHERS went to the Pacific. They held up transfer of a few units completed to the earlier three twin 40-mm mounts until the mod could be scheduled ... during post-shakedown overhauls was a good time to do so. Wm D PORTER had just finished her upgrade to the five twin 40-mm configuration at Charleston Navy Yard and there was this mission to escort the USS IOWA and they needed destroyers to escort her part of the way (veteran destroyers were to escort her near Africa and PORTER was to head for the Pacific on her return ... but things happened) ... luck of being in the right place at the right time.
So sorry MS 21 is the paint used on Wm D PORTER. And yes the Navy Blue paint did fade and "chalk" fairly quickly. If you can find a photo of a brand-new destroyer and then a photo taken after that ship's shakedown cruise the shade difference is quite noticeable. Also, many times the hull will look much more faded than the superstructure. So you can play games making the Navy Blue look lighter/streaked from at sea duty to have a less "brand-new" appearance. Also, you can selectively "touch-up" some areas with yellow primer around the ship to show crew maintenance of worn areas.
Yes Wm D PORTER's amidships waist twin 40-mm mounts lacked a bulwark. It is a long story, but there were safety issues with this waist installation and several different schemes were tried on various destroyers before it was settled on a standard design ... well sort of standard. Here is a Close-Crop of PORTER's waist tub ... there were rails installed instead of a solid bulwark. The rails actually extended out past the side of the ship to give the crew a place to go instead of being crushed by the mount.
An outstanding response: thank you very much, and well worth waiting for!
The colour is a shame but yes, I'll fudge it and paint her faded. I've never been one for finishing models in pristine, fresh-out-of-the-works condition anyway.
As to the 40mm tub, I've seen many pics of ships both with and without the solid sides, but that blow-up showing the railings is priceless.
I don't have any more questions right now, but as I commence the build I'm sure many will occur to me. It will be slow going as I split my time between two countries and can't carry the model with me, but I don't see much sign of this thread petering out. Again, my thanks for the info to date, and I'm sure I'll be back again sometime soon.
Hi Everyone,
I am using the USS Sigsbee plans for my build; they are very good for general construction; although they don't show very much detail of the 5" Gun Housings. The gun turrets from my kit are too wide, but at this point I'm not going to change that aspect of them. I have been searching for drawings of the single gun housings to scratch build the hatches on the front of the turret. I have tried to determine their size by looking at photos, but when I convert the estimated size to 1/125th scale they look too small.
Does anyone know if drawings of the 5" single gun housing with dimensions are online? I have found a great set of drawings with dimension�s for the Quintuplet torpedo launchers, but nothing on what I'm currently looking for. I could buy a complete set of plans in 1/96 scale for the Fletcher from the Floating Drydock for $33 dollars, but I don't know if the plans would show what I'm looking for.
Hi Rick,
The Haggard�s amidships 40mm mounts are just like the �Willie D� you posted pictures of a few weeks back. Take a look at these crops from the pictures you gave me of the Haggard and see what you think.
You can see some type of hand rail on the top edge of the shield, but it doesn�t go all the way around the front of it. The front looks like it�s made out of canvas if you really look closely at it. I came to this conclusion after looking at the picture of the Haggard just after she was hit by the kamikaze 29 April 1945. Notice that the middle section of the 40mm shield is removed. I don�t think it was necessary for it to bet removed for the repairs being done on the hull unless it was removable in the first place.
Also take a look at the aft 40mm mount. Notice how high the bulwark goes on the splinter shield, it�s not far from the top.
As you mentioned it�s because the floater baskets were mounted higher than usual, but I have never seen one like this before. This is a picture I found online, the bulwark is probably no more than six inches above the compartment below it.
"You can see some type of hand rail on the top edge of the shield, but it doesn�t go all the way around the front of it."
Its not a handrail. If you look at the last picture you posted, you see that the rail was to enable the lacing of canvas to the edge of the tub, which hung over the ammo racks on the inside of the tub to cover the shiny brass ammo shells stored in the racks. you only find this where there are racks on the inside of the spinter shield, there being no need where there are no racks. The purpose of the canvas was to prevent sunlight from reflecting off the brass as it was found that such reflections were like a signal mirror in attracting aircraft.
The canvas covers over the ready use ammo clips served several purposes besides hiding the shinny brass. The canvas covers were water proof and kept the ammo relatively dry and protected the ammo from any flash sources.
There were all kinds of variations to the FLETCHERS with eleven builders. But, I don't think that the bulwark extension was "removable". The official records I looked at for the FLETCHER class discussing the waist installation for the twin 40-mm mounts talked about several different methods tried to provide more space for the gun crews. PSNY had come up with the method seen used on FRANKS and HAGGARD as modified/completed by PSNY. BuShips specifically directed that this method was unacceptable. Partly BuShips was trying to "standardize" this installation and Gibbs and Cox and the East Coast yards had come up with a solution to prevent injuries. Apparently, and I had not noticed before the photo you highlighted, HAGGARD at least had the solid bulwark "sponson" removed and railing installed to keep anyone from going overbroad. It looks like the floor of the "sponson" was left in place. Some FLETCHERS had the outbroad section of the bulwark on a hinge so that it could be dropped down during action stations. DD-556 HAILEY completed after HAGGARD was built with a drop-down section.
I know what you�re telling me about the canvas cover is true as can be seen in the photo I posted yesterday. I have read the crews account of the kamikaze attack on the Haggard at their web site. The crew jettisoned everything they possibly could from the crippled ship to keep her afloat including all types of munitions and even the 5 inch practice loader. That section of the shield was probably removed as it was not considered necessary after the attack as was anything that was not bolted down to her deck.
Thanks Again
Roger DD-555 soon to be DD-473 as well!!!!!!!
Hi Rick,
With the BuShips trying to standardize gun mounts, would the quad 40mm mounts on the Bennett be round in shape tike the overhead picture of DD-550 USS Capps you posted. I think I have seen some that were squared off. The reason is I ordered a nice PE set from John Haynes for the quad 40mm set up it has round shell holders to fit a round mount like I�ve seen on bigger ships. I hope I can use it on the Bennett.
First off BuShips didn't standardize any Gun Mounts ... that was BuOrd responsibility. BuShips standardized the installation location and stuff like the shape and dimensions of the bulwarks and ammo storage associated with a given mount on a ship type. I'm confused if you are asking about the mounts or the bulwarks that surround the mounts. I'll try to address both with the photos below.
The Quad 40-mm Mod 2 mounts (as were twin and singe mounts) were basically all the same per BuOrd directions. Refinements were done to the mounts as time passed (the covers at the front of each twin 40-mm pair seen below the barrels was added mid-war to protect/water-proof some of the mounts electrical drives and controls) and late in the war a "light-weight" Quad 40-mm mount was introduced call the Mod 4. Some destroyers are mentioned as receiving the Mod 4 during the Anti-Kamikaze refit, but I'll be darn if I can tell the differences. "Light-weight" changes had more to do with changing the drive motors than shaving weight on the mount itself. None of the Quad 40-mm mount platforms that I'm aware of were true square in shape and they were not round in shape either. They had clipped corners if you will in the back to make it easier to rotate in the bulwark "tub" without making the tub larger. Also, the destroyers did NOT have shields on the mounts. See the photos below.
How then you are asking specifically about BENNETT ... I don't have any overhead views of BENNETT after her Anti-Kamikaze mod at PSNY. As a matter of fact I don't have any "good" overhead views for any of the FLETCHERS so modified by PSNY. But, every yard worked from the same standard drawings for the Anti-Kamikaze Mod. There were slight variations in bulwarks from yard to yard and there was at least one change to the "standard" design ... they added additional ready service ammo. Also, some units (one out of three) received the Mk 63 GFCS while the rest retained the Mk 51 directors for the quad 40-mm mounts. In the first photo of KIMBERLEY (DD-521) ... June 1945, she was one of the earliest units completed with the mod and she has THREE "standalone racks" in the ready-service ammo "bays" in the bulwark around the mount. This was fairly quickly changed to FOUR "standalone racks" in the ready-service ammo "bays" as seen in the second photo of HAZELWOOD (DD-531) ... September 1945. There were also some variations to the equipment layout on the director deckhouse just forward of the quad 40-mm mounts (look at photos of KIDD and you can see her layout is different from the two destroyers below), but most units appear to be laid out as seen below.
KIMBERLEY (DD-521) on 26 June 1945 and HAZELWOOD (DD-531) on 27 September 1945.
Hi Rick,
I�m sorry; yes I was referring to the Bulwark and the ready-service ammo �bays�. Thanks for putting up with me; I really need to brush up on my naval terminology. The photo�s you have been supplying are going to be a great help. I can�t thank you enough. Here is a photo of the 1/96 scale PE I was telling you about from John R. Haynes.
The picture is not the best, I don't have the one I ordered yet. John's fittings and PE are some of the best available in 1/96 scale.
Hey everyone I just got my order from John Haynes today. Check out the photos of the gun tub PE, they�re much better than the image I posted yesterday. This set is meant for a ship other than a DD, but I will be able to use most of it and maybe I�ll need another one!!!!!!
The set cost 11GBP which equals $18.34 USD. Even with the British pound is worth more than the dollar this price is very fair for such a fine product. All the PE made by John in 1/96 scale is .010 thick and highly detailed. The best part is that I placed the order on a Sunday morning and he shipped out the entire order the next day. I received the order today only twelve days after placing the order!!!!!!!! I will be starting my new build thread very soon I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone awhile back posted a copy of her incident and how it happened along with the aftermath. Here is one of the accounts ... http://bobrosssr.tripod.com/porterstory.html ... however there are several errors in this account about her loss. The aircraft that sank her wasn't "invisible" to radar because she was built from wood ... the aircraft was made from aluminum like most IJN aircraft.
:wave_1
I will be starting my new build thread very soon I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!! 