Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

[snaphappy321]

Interesting development and explanation, although from the Fullam photos it looks like she had the 'joined up' 20mm tubs (in other words, attached aft of the 40mm clipping room).

It looks as though it was an SF thing. It could be that Fullam was refitted at Beth SF then passed on to Hunters Point for fitting out?

Were any other ships refitted or fitted out there? Many of the ship in Desron 24 to which Mullany belonged returned to the US in late 1944 for refit, these included Bache, Beale and Hutchins. It would be interesting to see if they were fitted with strakes? As navsource is down, again, I can't check any photos.

Roger, the Mullany will be in 1/48th scale.... although recent measurements show fitting it in the car may be problematic.

All the best
Sandy

Don't let the car stop you from building her in 1/48th scale!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You'll either need a truck or a trailer to bring her to the pond!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In that scale, I hope she will be RC!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where will you post your build? Have you heard of, or are you a member of the warship models underway site?

I'm currently posting my build of the Bennett on this site and warship models underway. It's a lot of extra work, but it's worth it. The guys on this site, especially Rick, have more knowledge about the details of how the actual ships were built and I can say without a doubt that I'm glad to be a member of such a fine group of modelers!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[sandy]

Hi Roger,

I am already on model warships underway. I built the French frigate Guepratte.

Using the chart on the destroyerhistory page showing the armament details/upgrades and picking those that had refits/overhauls in or around late 44/early 45 I cannot find any more ships than I posted above, plus the Beth SF ships with the strake.

I appreciate that the list shows armaments upgrades and not 'normal' refit time though.

Sadly navsource died again so I couldn't look in more depth.

However, the SF bay area seems to have been very busy in January 1945 as there are many pictures of ships after refit. I guess there was a big rush to get them back over the Pacific for Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

All the best
Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

I do not have a complete database of which yards did overhaul work on all the FLETCHERS during 1944-45. But I do have data from some from your list:

Overhauled at Bethlehem - SF yard:
DD-465 USS SAUFLEY, pictured October 44 with strake ... 31 August to 18 October 1944
DD-468 USS TAYLOR, pictured Jan 44, SF Bay area with strake ... 15 December 1943 to 26 January 1944
DD-471 USS BEALE, pictured at Hunters Point Jan 45 with strake ... 2 December 1944 to 18 January 1945
DD-478 USS STANLY, pictured with strake in SF Bay area Oct 44 ... 18 August to 12 October 1944

Others During 1944 and 1945 I know were overhauled at Bethlehem - SF yard (non-Bethlehem - SF built) before the Anti-Kamikaze mods:
DD-569 AULICK, doesn't appear to have gotten the strake ... 16 May to 19 June 1944

There likely were others including FULLAM and HUDSON that were overhauled at Bethlehem - SF that I have not yet cataloged.
DD-474 USS FULLAM, pictured in SF Bay area, Dec 44, with strake ... Don't know specific yard or dates yet
DD-475 USS HUDSON, pictured with strake in 1945, attached midships 20mm shields ... Don't know specific yard or dates yet

Anti-Kamikaze Mod units that Bethlehem - SF worked on:
DD-672 HEALY ... got strake ... 23 April to 10 June 1945
DD-528 MULLANY ... already had strake ... 30 May to 10 August 1945
DD-673 HICKOX ... got strake ... 8 July to 26 August 1945 (approx. departed yard about 3 September)
DD-674 HUNT ... got strake ... 8 July to 11 September 1945

Whether it was authorized or not, it doesn't seem to be a mod done by or required to be done at ALL yards to the class. Maybe it was a "tag" by Bethlehem - SF to "mark" the units of the class that THEY worked on.


All ships due for overhaul reported to Mare Island for removing ammo, etc. They were then assigned to a Navy Yard or a private yard depending on schedule and work required (normally decided well before they arrived in the area). Some private yards didn't have a drydock, so the ship may be assigned a period in a Navy or other drydock besides getting work done (sonar and/or dome replacement and general hull maintenance) at the assigned yard. Most (if not all) times the ship got her entire hull painted while in drydock. The bigger yards like Bethlehem had their own drydocks.


It is confusing, but Hunters Point ... first called Hunters Point Naval Dry Docks, then Hunters Point Navy Yard ... was renamed San Francisco Navy Shipyard at the end of the war. All ships were "SUPPOSE" to have post-mods photos taken. The private yards let the USN take the photos after they were done with the ship and an official USN inspection of the work was done (including a trial run). The ship would go to an USN Dock for provisioning the ship for return to service. The photographers could walk/drive down the row of docks to take the photos at the private yard or when the ship was at a USN dock. That is why these private yard overhauled ship photos have Hunters Point/SF or MINY labels on their photos. Unfortunately many ships didn't get photos taken during heavy volume periods or once the war ended. If someone didn't task the photographer with a task order, they did go out to take the photos.


As to the number of Overhauls in late 1944 into 1945, there are several factors in play here. "Normal" practice during the war was to "try" and have an overhaul about once a year "if possible". With the large number of FLETCHERS commissioned in 1943, there was a large number due for overhauls. Many of the earliest units also required major alterations to the latest configuration. Even though late 1944 through February 1945 was a heavy overhaul period ... the really heavy overhaul and REPAIR period was after the Kamikazes started doing their duty. Plus the fighting in and around the Philippines resulted in several FLETCHERS receiving mine damage. The yards in the San Francisco bay area were SO FULL of damaged ships of all varieties by June 1945, that repairs and overhauls for destroyers were assigned to places that until then had never worked on destroyers.

[sandy]

Hi Rick,

Thanks once more for the interesting information.

As you said in an earlier post, and notwithstanding the above altered ships, the strake may be a quick Beth SF identifier, just like the fully round 40mm tubs are an easily visible Sea-Tac one.

All the best
Sandy

[raggs]

Now that Navsource is back up for me I can post the following;

Sandy-
In an earlier question about the strakes on DD 683 & 684(SF Beth units) Navsource show both ships
with strakes according to the dates listed. Since they were both Beth SF units I can assume they were built & delivered in that config.

For non Beth SF ships-
Mare Island was the stopgap-everything ran downhill from here. Like Rick explains, work as handed
down to other yards. Not all yards got "man-o-war" refits, by '45 there was a need to expedite the
return of fighting ships to the front, so some refitters who refit your normal cargo, oilers and the like, now had Navy contracts.

Since Beth SF already had contracts to build destroyers, they could refit & rebuild them too. So I ASSUME, if it was a Fletcher/"strake wise" most work was done by Beth SF and signed off by one of the two navy yards. (Remember they're BUSY) Either that, or both yards took on Beths innovation eventually. I base that on the lack of strakes I've seen in Mare Is rebuild photos only.

Also, Rick alluded to drydocks. Beth SF didint have an "in ground" drydock. Although it might of had a YFD or some other such device, since they delt with CL or lesser. The main, in ground dry docks, were 4 at Hunters Point & 4 at Mare. So any cleaning and waterline painting "probably" would have been done there.

One other thing about the SF/late war photos, while Mare was content to snap most pics from cranes (which God knows were all thankful for) most of the Hunters Point/Beth shots seemed to been taken out-to, out-at, returning- from, the San Rafeal degaussing range. Hence not alot of air shots, but "chase boat" type shots like you showed in the Fullam '44 pic.



Paul

[snaphappy321]

Hi Everyone,
I have a little question about port holes in the forward deck house on WWII Fletcher's. It's hard to see them because of the life rafts and the angle of view in most photos. Looking at the starboard side drawings of the Sigsbee and Bennett I'm working with are just like the photos, the life raft blocks the view.

The deck structures I'm working with have three port holes on the starboard side and two port side and the location may or may not be correct either. The reason I'm wondering is because I just noticed the port holes in the bridge are spaced to far apart and now that I have it together it's going to be more difficult to fix than if I caught it before hand.

Here are a couple photos of the deck house and bridge.

Thanks
Roger DD-473/DD-555

[Russ2146]

I suppose it depends on time frame, but I just looked at the Sigsbee Vessal Booklet dated 1944 and it looks like you have an extra porthole on the Stbd side of the deck house. The Port side looks right.
I'm looking at the main deck plan. http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/dd502.pdf
On Stbd side the door and the porthole fwd of the door are correct but the next porthole aft is at the fwd side of the fwd life raft support. That is the Captain's cabin, I think.
No more on the port side because the interior compartments are CIC and radar.

At the Navigating Bridge level, there are 11 portholes in the semi-circular forward bulkhead. The port on either side, where the bulkhead straightens on the sides, are in the water tight doors.

[snaphappy321]

Hi Russ,
After my earlier post, I zoomed way in on a couple photos of the Fullam Rick gave me and like you're saying, I only see two on starboard and two on port. Although on the port side they're not as close as on the deck house I got from CNC Models.

The bridge has the correct number of port holes they're just too far apart. After I do some plastic surgery and add the hatches to the bridge it will look much better.

This kit is like any model kit on the market. If you don't do careful research you end up with a lot of mistakes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Roger DD-473/DD-555

[snaphappy321]

Hey Russ,
I have the Sigsbee plans and I just looked at them again with the link in your post. I don't think I ever noticed the port holes before like they just stuck out to me now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The two port holes on the port side of Sigsbee look just like the deck house I have. The photos of Fullam's port side show that they are further apart than on the Sigsbee's plans . I guess it may be just another difference between the shipyards that built them.

Thanks Russ for making me look at the Sigsbee plans again. I have them printed out and I'm using them on my build. Amazingly I over looked the circles that represented the port holes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[sandy]

I do not have a complete database of which yards did overhaul work on all the FLETCHERS during 1944-45. But I do have data from some from your list:

Anti-Kamikaze Mod units that Bethlehem - SF worked on:
DD-672 HEALY ... got strake ... 23 April to 10 June 1945
DD-528 MULLANY ... already had strake ... 30 May to 10 August 1945
DD-673 HICKOX ... got strake ... 8 July to 26 August 1945 (approx. departed yard about 3 September)
DD-674 HUNT ... got strake ... 8 July to 11 September 1945

Whether it was authorized or not, it doesn't seem to be a mod done by or required to be done at ALL yards to the class. Maybe it was a "tag" by Bethlehem - SF to "mark" the units of the class that THEY worked on.

What would appear to be interesting is that Healy, Hickox and Hunt all had the strake 'attached' further forward (abreast the quad 40mm sponson) during the anti-kamikaze modification whereas the ships that already had the starke and were then modified kept the strake in the original place (aft of the quad 40mm sponson).

All the best
Sandy

[sandy]

Hi Rick,

Just a further quick query?

You mentioned, and I can see that, DD527 Ammen retained the aft location for the two 20mms and their shield, but did DD481 Leutze also keep them there?

All the best
Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

Well, LEUTZE retained the midships 20-mm gun locations that the Aircraft-handling FLETCHERS had.

I don't know why these locations were retained and not moved to the "standard" places. I suspect that PSNY had likely already installed some or all of the bulwarks and gun foundations prior to suspending construction for a few months in 1943 and didn't want to do extra work to relocate them. LEUTZE ended up taking the longest to complete from keel laying to commissioning for any units in the FLETCHER Class as it was.

[snaphappy321]

Hi Rick,
I have a question about the bulwark around the Mk-51 gun directors on the pilot house roof of the Bennett? If you or anyone that has an answer could look at my post of Sept 26, 2012 I would appreciate it very much.

My mistake happened when I scaled the height of the bulwark from the Sigsbee plans. Then instead of looking at the beautiful port side view of the Bennett I used a photo of the Fullam and after I made them I noticed the mistake after looking at the Bennett for something else.

Since then, I have looked at a lot of round bridge Fletcher's and see many variations between them. Some were like the Sigsbee and Fullam, but I haven't seen many like the Bennett. I know there mush be many like the Bennett, but would any photo show it better than the one I have? Some had no bulwark at all just railing in the shape of the gun director platform.

As can be seen in the photo of the Bennett the bulwark is like a can that is very tall. I don't know how the operator would get inside to operate the Mk-51? There is probably a hatch for the person to crawl into it, but it's not visible. Does any one have a photo of what it looks like?

Thanks
Roger DD-473/DD-555

[Rick E Davis]

The bulwark shields around the pilothouse rooftop mounted Mk 51 directors is one of those areas where each individual yard had their "own" method in building it. The ship's CO can influence such things as well. Many of the round-bridge units had a solid bulwark at least on the forward side. But, as weigh saving, several units used only rails with or w/o a canvas cover. A quick look in my records shows that SIGSBEE had her forward twin 40-mm and Mk 51 directors added at Pearl Harbor Navy Yard. FULLAM was upgraded at Mare Island Navy Yard. BENNETT had hers added at Hunters Point Navy Yard. In looking for other "round-bridge" units so upgraded at HPNY, I only found two others ... CONY (DD-508) and CONVERSE (DD-509). Unfortunately, the best photos of this installation is the one of BENNETT's bridge, which shows that the top edge goes all the way around. I can't see an opening in the bulwark in any views of these three destroyers. In some cases for Mk 51 director "tubs" on other ships in other locations, they added rungs to the outside of the bulwark and the operator had to climb "up and over". But, given the location and the danger involved with that method of entry atop the pilothouse (one bad slip could make for a long fall), I suspect that there is an opening at the bottom of the bulwark with the top edge going all the way around. No need for a door/hatch, just an opening.

Sorry, but that is all I can comment on about this area.

[PeeJay]

Just a brief note to state what an amazing thread this is. I built a Fletcher while in college from "THAT" (the Lindbergh) kit. Ran it free running for a while on the kit-supplied steering cam mechanism and nearly lost it when she encountered a stiff wind and couldn't turn into it. She just kept heeling until she began taking on water.

I was recently inspired when I found a copy of "USS Kidd, On Deck" with many terrific detailed photos. Since then, I have been surfing a number of FLetcher builds and websites and came across this thread. I am leaning toward the USS Van Valkenburgh, DD 656, named after the CO of the Arizona during the Pearl Harbor attack -- partly for her history of making it unscathed through numerous Kamikazi raids, while shooting down a number of planes and coming to the assistance of other vessels that did not fare so well, and partly for her measure 31 camouflage.

I have scanned through much of this thread, but need to do some in depth further study. I have found some really great builds and techniques to inspire me, and the depth of information on this thread is awesome.

PeeJay

[snaphappy321]

Thanks Rick,
I'm fortunate to have such a nice close up photo of the Bennett. I suspected that there wouldn't be a better image than the one I already have. I'll just wing it and make a small openning at the bottom facing about 45 degrees toward the center of the pilot house roof.

Thanks Again,
Roger DD-473/DD-555

[sandy]

Hello Roger,

While this may not be of help regarding Bennett, there is a photo of Aulick from navsource that may help with internal bits and bobs for the bridge top Mk51 'tubs' on round bridge ships.

It is a photo taken down from the Mk37 director of the damage Aulick suffered around mount 52.

Funny there should be mention of Van Valkenburgh as, for various reasons, I may not now be building Mullany but a dazzle camouflaged Fletcher instead and Van Valkenburgh looks like one of the nicer ones with the 9D scheme, however, Leutze looks like the candidate with is 16D scheme.

All the best
Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

PeeJay,

You are in luck. I found a nice series of images of VAN VALKENBURGH (DD-656) taken during February 1945 from USS NEVADA (BB-36) on my last trip to NARA, which I was glad to find since she was one of the FLETCHERS had few photos of. Here are the five images, arranged more or less from bow to aft. I still don't know what the antenna is on the aft stack ... it appears to be a radio direction finder.

Rick

[snaphappy321]

Hi Rick,
Amazing photos!!!!!!!!!!!!! What would we do without you and the trips you take to NARA!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for sharing!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[snaphappy321]

It is a photo taken down from the Mk37 director of the damage Aulick suffered around mount 52.
Sandy

Hi Sandy,
Where can this photo be found?

Roger DD-473/DD-555