I was at Charlestown Navy Yard Park myself on 13 June. I talked to the curator and he said that the funding for the final repairs to CASSIN YOUNG have been approved by the USN and will occur later this year. The USN/NPS have plans to use the same drydock for CONSTITUTION. I have visited CASSIN YOUNG several times in the past, but this was the first time I saw her in drydock. I took photos of her SQS-4 sonar dome (they even marked the frame numbers on the dome) and MK 2 Torpedo Launching System with the Mk 4 launchers for the Mk 43 ASW torpedo installed in 1955 (which I had neglected to photograph during previous trips). CASSIN YOUNG is the only USN unit left I'm aware of to still have these installed (KIDD and THE SULLIVANS never had it installed and BARRY and TURNER JOY had them removed during upgrades in the 1960s).
The new location for a single torpedo director was a post Korean War recommissioning mod. The operational types didn't like the re-location (limited forward director angles), but the Navy wanted to reduce top-weight and clear off the bridge. "Surface Warfare" torpedoes were a lower priority post-WWII.
The 40-mm guns were actually removed from CASSIN YOUNG in 1958 prior to decommissioning on 29 April 1960. The 40-mm guns seen were added after her becoming a museum ship.
Hi Rick,
Nice Photos as usual!!!!!!! The Cassin Young is quite a sight to see in dry dock. I took a lot of photos, but I didn't get a close up of the sonar dome and I didn't photograph the torpedo launcher as you did. I'm more interested in WWII Fletcher configurations, but the Cassin Young would be a good choice to model one day especially since she is so close. I guess the Bennett retained the two torpedo directors?
Yes BENNETT would have retained both Torpedo Directors in the bridge wings during her USN career. Maybe, a single director was relocated when she was updated for transfer to Brazil. I don't know.
I have read (almost all of) this thread with interest.
I have a question regarding something Rick wrote back on page 30 or so (sorry, no post number) regarding DD-528 USS Mullany as being the only square bridge Fletcher that retained the full size lower bridge house throughout her career.
If the sketch Rick produced back then is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it is) then DD527, 528 and 529 had their forward 40mm mounts and sponsons pushed further forwards than any other Fletcher. They also appear to have the 40mm directors mounted on curved sponosn that project from the front of the bridge.
There is a photo on navsource of USS Bush from the front and slightly overhead. Does anyone have an enlarged version of that photo so I can see the differences and the configuration of the bridge front, please?
I am interested in the Mullany as a future project due to this uniqueness.
Also, in the damage report after the Mullany's kamikaze strike, it mentions the destruction of mount 45 and its associated Mk49 director. Is this a misprint as by May, 1945 would the ship not have Mk51's.
Again on navsource there is an overhead photo of Bush from astern that seems (although it is quite small) to suggest that Bush, at least of the three, had a mk51 as mount 45's director.
Any help apreciated, and thanks for such an interesting thread.
The square bridge Fletchers were designed to have three 20MM forward of the bridge, one on each side of the O-1 level and one raised on the face of the bridge. The original square bridge config had the lower bridge remain at the full width from the back to where it met the face of the open bridge. The face of the open bridge was slightly narrower than the lower bridge leading to two very narrow bevels on the front corners of the lower bridge. DD's 527, 528, and 529 were modified as the prototypes for the 5-twin-40MM config, and yes, the forward 40MM were slightly further forward. They found that this made things a bit cramped, but not enough so to require re-modification of these three. (Wartime restrictions against work that was not absolutely necessary.) All later upgrades had the forward end of the lower bridge cut back, replaced by a narrow clipping room, and the front facet of the open bridge narrowed considerably. This allowed the 40MM to be moved slightly aft and eased the congestion.
The bridge configs of the three prototypes were essentially identical, except that Mullany lacked the wind baffles that Ammen and Bush both had. Ammen left the midships 20MM in the original location (either side of the break in the superstructure) while Mullany and Bush moved them forward, closer to the waist 40MM. Mullany retained this uniqueness to the end. Ammen had her bridge altered to the "standard" config apparently when she was upgraded with the twin 3" mounts in the early 1950's. Bush was, of course, a wartime loss in this unique config. Many early square bridge Fletchers completed with MK-49 directors, which were complex and always in short supply. Mullany had one for her raised after 40MM mount which survived the 5-twin-40MM mod, but obviously did not survive the kamikazes. All her other directors were MK-51's. The other two ships appear to have had MK-51's all round after the AA upgrade. Having a mix of types was not at all unusual. Eventually, though, most MK-49's gave way to MK-51's, but wartime production limits could have prevented some of the changeovers.
Dick, provide most of the answer about the unique bridge configuration for these three FLETCHERS. A few minor additions.
The why these three received this, what became a "non-standard" configuration for Square-bridge FLETCHERS, is not completely known. The USN decided to authorize the replacement of the three 20-mm guns forward of the bridge on all FLETCHERS with two twin 40-mm mounts in June 1943 based on only a sketch of the installation. The original Closed (Round) Bridge FLETCHERS could be modified for the twin 40-mm mounts without any modification to the bridge, other than adding the Mk 51 directors atop the pilothouse and plans for their modifications were accomplished fairly quickly and approved for distribution. Several Round-Bridge FLETCHERS actually were modified in June 1943. For the Revised Open (Square) Bridge units the designers realized that the bridge needed to be modified or there would be an undesirable restriction on the aft pointing angles for the 52 mount. Also, happening at the same time and actually considered to be as or MORE important, the CIC was being installed on ALL FLETCHERS as soon as possible. Gibbs and Cox was doing drawings for the new five twin 40-mm mounts configuration w/CIC for the FLETCHER class, Boston Navy Yard was responsible for seeing that the new plans were accurate with no issues and were distributed, and an office at Pearl Harbor was designing the new CIC for the new layout. There was much back and forth as several design issues arose in rearranging everything. Pearl couldn't design the CIC on the 01 level of the bridge until the new layout was known, and Gibbs-Cox was extremely busy with all kinds of design work and Boston kept spotting problems in their design. Still from start to finish they had approved drawings done in a little over a month. Try that today.
Meanwhile, there was GREAT pressure from the Operational Commands in the Pacific to modify ALL FLETCHERS as SOON as POSSIBLE with the extra 40-mm guns and the CIC. These three FLETCHERS were assigned to Bethlehem Steel - SF yard for post-shakedown modifications (AMMEN had served a tour in the Aleutians and the others were new-built units) in late June and were ordered to be modified to the new configuration. Only trouble was there were no plans available. "Someone" at likely Mare Island Navy Yard authorized Bethlehem to modify these three ships to one of the several "alternate" plans floating around. BuShips was pushing back to Operational Commands demands to do the new configuration NOW, wanting a sound design that didn't need to be modified in the future. The official plans arrived at the West Coast yards a few days AFTER these three units completed their yard work and had departed to their assigned missions. As Dick said, it was decided to NOT modify the bridges for these three during overhauls in late 1944 - early 1945.
These three FLETCHERS were the first Square-Bridge units to complete modification to the ten 40-mm configuration. There were several units on the East Coast, particularly at Boston Navy Yard, that started to be modified to the new plans based on advanced DRAFT drawing sets that helped Boston to finalize the plans. The mod work for Square-bridge units took a lot more effort than what was required for the Round-Bridge units ... hence required a longer yard period.
As for the Mk 49 director on MULLANY in early 1945. The Mk 49 director was intended to be THE AA director for the FLETCHERS. But, because it never was successful, it was cancelled in September 1943. Many FLETCHERS with them installed, replaced the MK 49 with the Mk 51 director, which was intended to be a "temp" director. Whether to or not replace the Mk 49 directors was left up to the ship's CO. MULLANY had only one onboard and it wasn't replaced during her late 1944-early 1945 yard period and it was onboard when she was hit ... a Kamikaze replaced it. At one time one out of three FLETCHERS had one, two, or three Mk 49 directors installed (none were installed on the bridge). In February 1945, there were about a dozen FLETCHERS still with Mk 49 directors installed.
AMMEN had her bridge modified to the standard as she was being overhauled for recommissioning during the Korean War, before she was modified to the 4-Gun configuration. The rational why her bridge was modified had as much to do with the poor condition of that area on the ship and she was "repaired" to the standard. MULLANY needed less repair work in that area and retained the bridge for some reason. With the forward twin 40-mm mounts being replaced with two Mk 10/11 hedgehogs, there really was no reason to change her bridge.
Thanks very much for the information and taking the time to reply.
I assume there are no drawings available for these three ?
Also, I have viewed as best I can the online drawings of DD629 but I can't quite work out the internal arrangements for the bridge area. Was the CIC in the bridge or was it lower down in the hull ?
Here are a few images of the bridges on USS AMMEN (DD-527), USS MULLANY (DD-528), and USS BUSH (DD-529) during WWII. You can see the differences in the bridge fronts. The first Square-bridge units experienced vortex problems on the new bridge design while in the Aleutians and several different vortex generators were tried on different units of the class.
The CIC was located in the 01 level below the Navigation Bridge on Square-Bridge units. Some of the earlier Round-bridge units put their "first" CIC's where ever they could find space.
DD-527 AMMEN in January 1945
DD-528 MULLANY in January 1945
DD-529 BUSH on 16 Jun 1944
I have not found any "direct overhead views" of any of these units during the war, but I did figure out where they were located in overhead views of the Reserve Fleet at Charleston Naval Shipyard in 1947.
In this close-up, you can see the difference in the spacing of the 40-mm mounts to the 52 mount and the location of the Mk 51 directors on the bridge. Compare the differences with the two "standard" Square-bridge FLETCHERS tied up next to them.
Thanks very much, Rick. Great photos. I was thinking about a Mullany in 48th scale ....
Do you think there was much more of a problem with the 'A' arcs of mount 52 with the 40mm mounts being that bit further forward?
I would imagine if mount 52 was firing much abaft the beam it would get pretty unpleasant on both the 40mm mounts and the open bridge no matter what their location?
Do you have any other photos of Mullany about that period, and know what her camouflage scheme would have been?
The photos I have of MULLANY during WWII mostly date from January 1945 and after when she was painted in Ms 22. I'm pretty sure that MULLANY was painted in Ms 21 when she left SF Bay in July 1943. There are reports of MULLANY being painted in dazzle (Ms 31/1D) sometime in 1944, but no photos have surfaced of her in that scheme. Most of the same photos I have are on Navsource ... http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/528.htm ...
Warning, there are photos of MULLANY dated "9 July 1943" on the originals at NARA, but the photos were actually taken at the same time as other photos taken on "9 January 1945". A review of the photos show the configurations are the same on both sets of photos (even the Mk 37 director is pointing in the same direction), only they appear to have been taken by different photographers at the same time from different aspects.
Are there any specific areas of MULLANY you need more detail of? What timeframe do you plan on modeling MULLANY?
My plan was to build her on the day of the kamikaze strike, 6th April, 1945.
I see that she had the RCM mast/antenna aft. Was the 40mm platform and the director platform modified in any way to allow for this 'mast'? (moved aft for example) and whether she had the teardrop shielding or the elongated 'D' shape?
I was also wondering what the structures are on the side of the 45 mount, like inverted cowls extending down to the deckhouse?
But in many other espects, bar the bridge, she was a 'standard fit' late 44 refit Fletcher ?
Thanks in advance for any further help.
All the best
Sandy
Last edited by sandy on Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
sandy wrote:
and whether she had the teardrop shielding or the elongated 'D' shape?
That will teach me. I just checked your overhead view and although Mullany has the ant-kamikaze refit and the after superstructure was rebuilt it still appears to have the teardrop, as does the Ammen alongside.
MULLANY was in the more or less "standard" five twin 40-mm mounts configuration when she was hit by Kamikaze aircraft. The differences would be related to the different ways that the builder did things like building bulwarks.
The first few images should answer your questions about the aft twin 40-mm mount installation. Note that MULLANY has had a passageway installed on the starboard side of the tear-drop bulwark around the 40-mm mount. When she got this, I don't know, but it would have been there in April 1945.
sandy wrote:I am assuming mounts 53 and 54 are locked on their final bearing and give an indication of the angle and direction of attack ?
The problem is that the impact in this case was on the side opposite to the direction of the guns. Kamikazes often attacked from multiple directions simultaneously. This could have been such a case, or the plane could have "popped up" at the last minute and pulled back down into a vertical dive (a not uncommon tactic). You would have to find the actual battle damage report, or action report, to know which.
The captain's action report says that the plane crashed in from the port side.
He mentions it commenced its dive when it bore 330 degrees relative (I ma not sure what that means).
However, the terrible deck and hull damage is on the starboard side, where you would have expected the impact to have been, and yet from the report, it was on the other side.
Strange.
All the best
Sandy
Last edited by sandy on Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
The site doesn�t allow copy and paste, but all the photos are scanned at high resolution into software that can be zoomed in and scrolled around the photos with amazing clarity. Click on the link and type in Charleston Navy Yard and click search.
They have 35 pages of images and documents. Click on a thumb nail image, then click view full screen, under the image are the controls to zoom in, scroll back and forth and up and down. I looked through all of them hoping to find an image of one of the Fletchers I�m building. There are many images of Fletcher and other class destroyers from WWII. I hope you find a ship you�re modeling!!!!!!!!!!!
sandy wrote:The captain's action report says that the plane crashed in from the port side. He mentions it commenced its dive when it bore 330 degrees relative (I am not sure what that means). However, the terrible deck and hull damage is on the starboard side, where you would have expected the impact to have been, and yet from the report, it was on the other side.
330 degrees relative means that the aircraft approached from 30 degrees to the left of the bow. Relative bearings are a compass circle with the tip of the bow at the 0/360 degree point, no matter what course the ship is on. However, the after guns are not pointed that direction. The fact that he said "it commenced its dive" could indicate a rather steep approach from above. If the dive was within 30 degrees or so of the vertical, the plane could hit the deck anywhere on the ship no matter what direction it originally approached from.
I have one of those trival questions that only a bored mind comes up with. If a DD was transiting from say Ulithi to Mare Island to deal with battle damage would she have retained her depth charge load, or would she have carried a reduced load, or no load at all? For this scenario I'm assuming that the ship is transiting solo. Any photo evidence that is know of?
thanks,
Bruce
Bruce
OSC USN-Ret
Currently on the building ways:
1/144 USS Stevens DD-479
1/144 USS Cook Inlet AVP-36
1/144 USS Walke DD-416
1/144 USS Preble DDG-46
If the damage was very bad, and if the ship had to be dry-docked at the forward area and "major temporary repairs" done just to keep the ship afloat, then I would expect that removing excess weight and explosives would be called for. If the ship received topside damage but little to no hull damage and could sail or her own power, then they may well be kept onboard. There is a famous picture of HAZELWOOD steaming "home" with NO BRIDGE down to the main deck and is a real mess. But, her depth charges are still at the K-Guns and half of her drop track depth charges are still there.
The Cassin Young is quite a sight to see in dry dock. 
I took a lot of photos, but I didn't get a close up of the sonar dome and I didn't photograph the torpedo launcher as you did. I'm more interested in WWII Fletcher configurations, but the Cassin Young would be a good choice to model one day especially since she is so close. I guess the Bennett retained the two torpedo directors? 
