Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

[jepot]

Jetpot,

Sorry I missed your post earlier.

As for CONY (DDE-508), I have a couple of questions, when did your friend's father serve on CONY? As with most ships, the configuration changed over time of service. I have some images of CONY and sisters from the 1950-60s. The image you posted is most likely from the mid-1960s.

First off if you are really interested in scratch-building this model, it is fine to use the Trumpeter 1/350 scale THE SULLIVANS kit for "some" of your build (particularly if you desire a waterline version), but I would suggest for CONY to either start with the Tamiya 1/350 scale FLETCHER kit which has the proper bridge type or to "Kit-Bash" the two kits and use parts from both. Taking the bridge from the Tamiya kit and adding it to the Trumpeter kit would get you to the starting point. The bridge will still need to be modified, but starting with the "round bridge" will be much easier than trying to making a round-bridge from a square bridge.

The big hurdles you will have are in the equipment changes seen on the DDE version of the FLETCHER. The DDEs had two twin 3-in Rapid Fire Gun mounts, a Mk 56 Gun Fire Control System, a Mk 108 ASW rocket launcher (forward of the bridge), two hedgehog ASW projectors (port/starboard forward of the bridge) and depending on timeframe two triple Mk 32 ASW Torpedo Tube mounts. None of the listed items are available in any "plastic" 1/350 scale FLETCHER kit that I'm aware of. Finding all of these items as after after-market may be tricky.

The aft deckhouse area on the DDEs was a complete rebuild from the original FLETCHER deckhouses. I would have to find some drawings to show the differences.

Another possibility would be for you to get a resin model of a 1950's DDE and modify that kit as needed depending on the timeframe of your build. Ironshipwrights is the only firm I know of that currently has this kit. The price for this resin kit is more than for the base ship kit in plastic, but you will get almost EVERYTHING you need for the build in one kit. If nothing else, this link shows you the parts involved with this version of the FLETCHER class ... http://ironshipwrights.com/pages/Renshaw.html ... and the general layout.

As for your specific questions;
The Blue arrow is pointing to the starboard triple Mk 32 ASW TT mount ... there were two installed (one port/one starboard) from about 1962 onward.
The Thick Red arrow is that "stuff was there" ... "See attached image" of CONY in 1957 ... may have changed somewhat in the year you are modeling. See attached.
The thin Red arrow is the Mk 56 GFCS See attached.

Rick,

thank you very very much for the inputs! like i said folks here, specially you have made the thread all the worthwhile to read.

the ship im making is a 1960-67 era one like what i had in the picture; and yes the weapons are the biggest challenge- i have made a list of sources of the aftermarket weapons ( able gun, twin 3'50s, man the mk 56 and 32 i failed to pick out!) thanks to Carl M's help.

ah the deckhouses and other rebuilt areas are some areas i believe i can use some help from you if its not asking too much.

thanks also for answering my questions on the stuff, the mk32 and the FCS. now if i can only scratchbuild them and do justice.... and oh i unfortunately have a time limit so i will have to make do with my trump kit here.

thanks again Rick!!!

[sandy]

Hi Rick,

Many thanks for the photos. It looks like the Mullany is a go

Can I ask what sort of depth charge fit would be fitted to Fletchers by April 1945 ?

Would it be ashcans (300lb) on the rails and teardrop (300lb) on the throwers?

Plus, how many DC's were in the rails ? The rail stowage ? And the double thrower storage racks ?

All the best
Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

I never bothered to count the numbers of the teardrop depth charges that were carried before.

Initially the Drop Tracks on the fantail carried 8-charges (600-lb) and the stowage racks held 5-charges (for a total of 26 onboard). The Mk 6 K-Guns had 5-charges (300-lb) for each projector ... one on the Mk 6 and four stowed (three on the top rack and one below) for a total of 30 onboard.

When the new Mk 7 Teardrop depth charges were introduced a total of 36 charges could be carried in the drop tracks. Thus for the drop tracks on the fantail ... it looks like eleven were loaded on each drop track and seven in each reserve rack on the fantail.

AS for the K-Guns with double reload racks, with one depth charge on the K-Gun, I think that each rack could still only hold four ... three on the top shelf and one was kept underneath each rack (I assume they had to get the small crane out to bring it up to the top rack) along with the reload arbors, then there would be 9-charges per Mk 6 K-Gun. In the various yard photos, I don't see full loads installed yet, but this may have been because they had not finished loading all of them. So I don't know what was the "going-to-war" load out. Some FLETCHERS never did get the double stowage racks.

This would allow for nine total "volleys" of depth charges ... six K-Gun and four dropped charges spaced out.

[Zad Fnark]

Hi Guys,

You might find this interesting, if it hasn't been mentioned before.

Here's another discussion on the details of the Fletcher class -- specifically the USS Kidd.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval- ... class.html

Lots of pics, inside and out.

Ed-

[sandy]

Many thanks, Rick.

[sandy]

Hello again,

I was wondering about manning levels on late war Fletchers, specifically how they would be manned when at action stations during an air attack? How many men would be where ?

Specifically, would the gun captain be visible in the hood on the five inch mounts ?

How many men man each twin 40mm? I have found a manual that specifies manning for the quad 40mm so I am assuming for the twin there is a gun captain, trainer, pointer, two primary loaders (on mount) and two secondary loaders (off mount). Was there also a telephone talker ?

How many men man the 20mms? Gunner and loader, presumably for each mount but again was there, for example, a telephone talker for each mount or maybe just one for each two waist guns and maybe one for the fantail three guns? Would there be loaders replenishing the ready use boxes from magaiznes below decks?

I guess the Mk51's have two men at each, operator and talker?

Would the torpedo tubes be manned, and would the depth charge racks and throwers be manned, or the searchlight platforms ?

Plus, how many folk would there be visible on a square bridge bridge ? Captain (maybe), action OOD, lookouts, talkers, visual signalmen, flag signalmen, etc ?

Any help greatly appreciated. I realise that this isn't a strictly technical question, but I am hoping to fully man my model of Mullany during its kamikaze air attack.

All the best
Sandy

[Russ2146]

Actually, this is a great question.
As a quicky, I went through historylink101.com pictures. One point, if you see head phones, the man is on the sound powered phones, the talker. At the same time, if you see an overly large helmet, that is a telephone talker. These aren't all Destroyer photos
The caption under this first one says it probably the "O'bannon", 1943

[sandy]

Thanks for the quick reply, Russ and a nice set of photos.

But, em, so what is the difference between a 'talker' and a 'telephone talker' ?

[Russ2146]

They're the same thing, but its not using a telephone as you might know it. There's a headset (earphones) and a small chest plate with an arm and mouth piece. The chest plate hangs on a strap that goes around the neck and the arm is adjustable at the chest plate and the mouth piece so that you can position the mouth piece in front of your lips. The headset won't allow the use of a regular size helmetso they had well oversized helmets that would accomodate the headset and actually gave better side and back of neck protection than the regular helmet. There's a guy in the next to last picture wearing one. He's standing back against the flight deck.

If you want, tomorrow I can scan and post a pictore or two of the phone rig. Or, you can find drawings of the phones at http://www.hnsa.org/doc/pdf/basicmilita ... ements.pdf , Page 100

I think it would be extremely difficult to model.

[Rick E Davis]

The number of men manning the mounts would depend. The 5-in mounts crews were inside, except for the gun captain and yes he would have his head out most of the time during a real battle. The twin 40-mm mounts had a crew of about seven plus two at the director. The torpedo tubes mount may have the operators/TMs at the controls during an air assault, but maybe not ... depends on instructions for "man your guns or battle stations". The same would go for manning the depth charge batteries. I think most 20-mm guns had two men at each gun, with other individuals (likely two per barrel) bringing more ammo as needed beyond what the ready use lockers could hold (which wasn't much). On the bridge there would be at least two lookouts (maybe more) per side and I'm unsure of just how many others there would be on the bridge ... two crew per Mk 51 director a torpedo director operator per side, search/signal light operators, etc.

These photos show a FLETCHER (USS COTTEN, DD-669) on shakedown/training with what appears to be a fully manned crew layout.

[snaphappy321]

Hi Rick,
Very nice photos as always!!!!!!!!

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[sandy]

Regarding manning, interestingly, when I posted in the History section about deployment of ships off Okinawa someone posted up this link:-

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/onl ... ickets.htm

In it, there is some talk about the 20mms and a 'group captain' who, I am assuming, was maybe a senior rate in charge of the 20mm groups:- port and starboard waist two guns and fantail three guns.

[sandy]

Returning briefly to the depth charge question...

In the top photo of the rails with the Mk9 tear drop charges in it, what mark of rail is it ?

Looking at pictures, am I correct in saying that for the 600lb charges the top horizontal rail was raised to the boltholes at the top of the vertical section?

And for 300lb ashcan and 300lb Mk9 the uper rails were lowered to the position in the photo to allow for the 'standard' 17.46 inch diameter charge?

All the best
Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

Sandy,

I don't track Marks of Depth Charge Drop Tracks used on a given destroyer (they were all pretty much the same with modifications for number and which model of depth charges were carried, but here is a link to a manual on the various Marks of Tracks at the HNSA.ORG website (Check these guys out for a lot of misc info/manuals) ... http://www.hnsa.org/doc/destroyer/depthtrack/index.htm ...

[jepot]

Jetpot,

The aft deckhouse area on the DDEs was a complete rebuild from the original FLETCHER deckhouses. I would have to find some drawings to show the differences.

.

Rick,

any chance you got some drawings or pics which can show me what and how to modify? thanks!

[Rick E Davis]

On my last trip to NARA, I pulled DDE-508 CONY's Drawings/plans folders and there weren't any for her in the DDE configuration. What drawings are available at NARA can be hit-miss deal. I also pulled files for DDE-465 SAUFLEY, which was in "similar" configuration to CONY. But the blueprints were fairly poor and I only took digital camera views of SAUFLEY. But at least the drawings show the mid-1960s configuration. The other drawings/plans I have are for earlier configurations or the three FRAM II versions (DDE-446, 447, and 449) and are of no help to you. I have made a close-crop profile view of an earlier DDE drawing I have that gives you the differences in deck heights on the aft deckhouse.

I don't know if you are well versed in reading drawings. I'm an engineer and these drawing make perfect sense to me. But I know some people don't understand them and can't translate to a 3D image in their heads to see what the area looks like. You'll have to do some scaling from these images to figure out the relative height of the raised deckhouse area over the torpedo room.

Profile view of the Aft Deckhouse area on the first FLETCHER Class DDEs before the fixed Mk 23 Torpedo Tubes were installed.


Profile view of SAUFLEY showing the aft deckhouse area and the deck height differences over the torpedo room.


Maindeck view of SAUFLEY showing the wider than the WWII configuration of the aft deckhouse area and the in the deckhouse Torpedo room.


The 01 deckhouse level view of SAUFLEY directly above the deckhouse area shown on the above main deck view. This view shows location of the twin 3-in RFG mounts and misc deck items with identifications for most. SAUFLEY's configuration may differ from CONY for the same timeframe, check photos from the 1960s if possible.


Midships view on SAUFLEY centered around the second stack showing how the aft deckhouse area flared out from the original midships deckhouse at the second stack and combined into it into one solid deckhouse from behind the bridge to the aft 5-in mount (there was a cross-deck passageway between the forward deckhouse under the bridge and the long aft deckhouse). This view gives you a good idea of the shape and size of the platforms that the Mk 32 Torpedo Tubes were installed on.


Here is a portside view of CONWAY (DDE-507) (outboard) and WALLER on 30 July 1958 I found on this trip showing this area from this angle.


A close-crop view of the previous starboard side CONY photo showing the section of the deckhouse over the torpedo room that is higher than the remaining deck.

[jepot]

rick,

every bit of help is appreciated, thanks! i usually browse through ship plans so ill try my best to dissect and digest the line drawings you posted- again thank you very much!once the project gets somewhere ill post a pic or two.

again thank you very much!

[sandy]

Hi,

Does anyone know what the training limits were for the five inch mounts on the Fletchers?

Specifically I would like to know whether mount 3 could fire over a forward arc if it was elevated above a certain angle (presumably to clear the aft funnel), but could not fire if below that?

Also, could it fire aft if elevated above a certain angle (unpleasant for the twin 40mm and director crew) ?

Thanks in advance.

Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

In general the answer would "technically" be that it would be possible for 53 mount to fire forward at a very high angle (I'm guessing something like 45 degrees). But likely the safety cams wouldn't allow it at the azimuth aspects in-line with the mast/stacks. Too much risk. After HUTCHINS' 53 mount was removed at Santos to replace the 53 mount that had hang-fired on NICHOLAS in May 1943, HUTCHINS went to Pearl Harbor for a replacement. At Pearl Harbor they did several mods besides replacing the 53 mount including installing waist twin 40-mm mounts. When they had post-overhaul trials and test firing of the 53 mount, there was an accidental firing of the 53 mount forward (if the cams were installed/functioning properly that SHOULDN'T have been possible) destroying the aft stack and 40-mm director platform killing several sailors in the process. It would be almost impossible for 53 mount to fire over the aft twin 40-mm mount/director. I'm not sure there is even enough room for the mount to train in that direction even with the gun elevated to the max. In other words at the high angles involved to clear obstructions in those directions, very little would be gained.

The limited arcs of fire for guns installed in this location on USN and other navies destroyers was why many destroyers removed this gun as weight compensation to allow other installations. FLETCHERS had a little more length with better training arcs and weight reserve to retain the gun.

In most cases, the training limits for firing can been figured out by noting obstructions preventing firing at that aspect.

The SUMNER (and GEARING) classes were designed to allow the aft 53 mount to fire forward at a high angle over the mast to provide for a forward firing of all six guns in that direction during tactical LONG-RANGE surface attacks. Not sure it ever was used tactically.

[sandy]

Thanks very much, Rick.