Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

[snaphappy321]

Looking good Cody,
Did you decide on the 40mm guns and directors yet? I see you still have the 20mm gun tubs below the bridge.

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[whaynes]

Guys, I'm finishing up my Yorktown and want to get back to the "little boys" again [so many 20mms!!]. I want to model USS Kidd as she was in 1944 with her Measure 31/10D camoflage. What was the weapons configuration during that time? Thanks for your help.
Walt Haynes

[Rick E Davis]

In 1944 while painted in dazzle camo, KIDD would be in the six 40-mm configuration with ten 20-mm guns ... three 20-mm guns before the bridge.

[codythecatt]

Looking good Cody,
Did you decide on the 40mm guns and directors yet? I see you still have the 20mm gun tubs below the bridge.

Roger DD-473/DD-555

Rodger,

Waiting on those a bit ... slaving away making sure I've got my 5"ers done right! Got them assembled but the camo drawings from Johnson are not completely accurate for the Leutze so I am having to use photographs for references. Look at the pics ... look at the piece ... double check the pic ... ad nauseum ... then on to the port side of the gun and repeat! I must be spatially challenged since it takes me a whole evening to do a single gun.

Almost finished with the 2nd gun now! Of course I'm goofing off today since it is my birthday. (and it's snowing like crazy!!!! Yippee! Perfect B-day!)

[whaynes]

Rick, 3 20mm up front, 2 at waist, port and stbd., and 3 on fantail; twin 40mm each side of aft stack and on aft deckhouse? Right? Thanks
Walt

[Rick E Davis]

Walt,

Sorry, I was going to edit the earlier post with an image of KIDD taken in 1944, once I got to my other computer. But, forgot. I'll still try to post the image later.

Yes that was the layout for KIDD's 40-mm and 20-mm guns. That was how she was completed and remained in that configuration until her refit in Dec 44 to Feb 45. She was one of the last FLETCHERS to be upgraded to the ten 40-mm configuration.

[whaynes]

Thanks, Rick. Picture would be appreciated.
Walt

[Rick E Davis]

Here is a view of USS KIDD (DD-661) on 12 June 1944.

[snaphappy321]

That's a great photo of the Kidd Rick, I love it!!!!!!!

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[Cliffy B]

Likewise!!! That's Cali in the background right?

[SeanF]

Based on the camoflage curve at the bow, I think that's Tennessee. It looks like there's a destroyer parked next to her, and the dazzle schemes are blending together a bit making identification difficult. Now, the destroyer does happen to be painted in a scheme very similar to California's.

- Sean F.

[Cliffy B]

Proof the camo works! I'd have only seen the BB were I looking through a scope Maybe it is BB-43 but that little dark spot under Turret I makes me think its BB-44 since 43's dazzle was just 5-L and BK and 44's had 5-L, 5-O, and BK, right? The spot is noticeably darker than the curvature of the bow so that's why I'm going with 5-O. Its black and white though so...

[Rick E Davis]

It's TENNESSEE with, I think, USS COLAHAN (DD-658) alongside her based on the few configuration markers I can see (life rafts near vertical on main deck fore and midships) and an extra panel on her camo and dark panel at the stern (not standard with Ms 31/16D) which looks to match the attached image dated from September 1944.

[SeanF]

My best guess is there might be some glare coming off a portion of Tennessee's hull bulge. The patches of black in the superstructure and at the stern are consistent with Tennessee; however, the forward half of the front two turrets should also be black but do not appear to be in this photo. Perhaps there have been some modifications? In any case, the patch of black at the bow doesn't match either California or West Virginia, leaving Tennessee as the only remaining option (unless one of the others had a re-paint we weren't aware of!)

The hard-to-see destroyer reminds me of a shot where several Zerstorers were moored next to a German BB, and it's nigh impossible to figure out just how many ships there are.

- Sean F.

[snaphappy321]

Hi Rick,
Have you ever come across a drawing of the Mk-9 depth charge with dimensions on it? A couple guys including myself, are trying to make them in 1/96th scale, Any Held would be greatly appreciated. Here's about the best photo I've found of the Mk-9. It's a cut away that shows that the three rings are not made of some type of round stock. They are shaped like an ellipse.



Roger DD-473/DD-555

[Rick E Davis]

A quick look at the HNSA website comes up with this document for the Mk 9 ... http://www.hnsa.org/doc/depthcharge9/part2.htm ... on page 15 are some dimensions depending on which Mod of the Mk 9 ...

Depth Charge Case Mark 9 has a maximum length of 27.625 inches and a maximum diameter of 17.640 inches. A support ring, 1/2-inch-diameter, is secured to the nose or forward end of the case by eight brackets. Eight fins are secured along the after end and are set at an angle of 20 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the case. The rotation of the case as it sinks is due to the fins and improves the underwater trajectory. A shroud or support band is fastened to the outer edges of these fins. When the depth charge is installed in a release track, its weight is carried by the support ring and shroud resting on the lower rails of the tracks.

Depth Charge Case Mark 9 Mod. 1 differs from the Depth Charge Case Mark 9 only in the details of construction. The case is of stamped shell construction which is welded circumferentially rather than the "orange peel" fabrication welded fore and aft. None of these changes has any effect on the handling, operation, or characteristics of the depth charge.

Depth Charge Case Mark 9 Mod. 2 differs from the Depth Charge Case Mark 9 chiefly in that the tail shroud is replaced by two rings and the angle of the fins to the longitudinal axis of the case has been reduced from 20' to 3'. The tail rings, the nose ring and nose ring supports have been made oval in cross section to reduce water resistance. The loading hole has been redesigned to facilitate loading the case. The nose of the depth charge case is weighted with 40 pounds of lead. These changes give the Depth Charge Mark 9 Mod. 2 a terminal sinking velocity considerably greater than that of the Depth Charges Mark 9 and Mark 9 Mod. 1.

Then on the webpage Part 2 with the second half of the document on pages 46 and 47 are some dimensions for the arbor that held the charge ... http://www.hnsa.org/doc/depthcharge9/part2.htm ... looks like they were 28-in or 31-in long (tall when standing on a deck) depending on Mod used. It appears that the overall length of the weighted version is 3-in longer. If you are anal enough and want to scale out the different lengths ... go for it. Otherwise roughly 28 or 31-in long and 18-in dia. is close enough.

[snaphappy321]

Hi Rick,
28-31 inches long and 18 inches in diameter is close enough. In 1/96 scale it will be very small. We're not trying to make a real one, just something that looks good enough.

Thanks
Roger DD-473/DD-555

[Bill Gormley]

I recently picked up Tamiya's 1/350 scale FLETCHER kit and I'm exploring options that will allow me to stick fairly close to an out of the box build. I understand this limits me so I'm focusing on FLETCHER, RADFORD, JENKINS, and LA VALLETTE.

1. Are there photos of RADFORD, JENKINS or LA VALLETTE that show them in their initial MS 12 Mod schemes?
2. Are there any photos of them in the MS 31/32/33 dazzle schemes they wore later on? I like the grubby look of WATTS (see below) and would like to know whether this scenario is plausible for FLETCHER, RADFORD, JENKINS or LA VALLETTE
3. I'm also tempted to model the photo of JENKINS below. Would big modifications be required to the kit? Also, what scheme is it wearing? It looks like MS 21 to me but then what is appearing where the 5-N Navy Blue is chipped/peeled away?

Thanks for any help.

[Bill Gormley]

Oops - I posted this here rather than under the FLETCHER section. Moderator can you please move this where it belongs?

[Rick E Davis]

Bill,

I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, assuming you will be working with the i/350 scale Tamiya kit and wanting as close to "out-of-the-box" as possible.

1. Are there photos of RADFORD, JENKINS or LA VALLETTE that show them in their initial MS 12 Mod schemes?

Sort of. There are photos, but not necessarily all around views (both side views for RADFORD and JENKINS). These early FLETCHERS only had the Ms 12mod scheme for a short time.


2. Are there any photos of them in the MS 31/32/33 dazzle schemes they wore later on? I like the grubby look of WATTS (see below) and would like to know whether this scenario is plausible for FLETCHER, RADFORD, JENKINS or LA VALLETTE

There are a few photos of them in dazzle, but not many. However, building a model from the Tamiya kit for the late war configuration would require a lot of scratch-build and after-market parts. Kit-bashing with a Trumpeter 1/350 scale THE SULLIVANS kit may help you with reducing at least some of the configuration conversion.


3. I'm also tempted to model the photo of JENKINS below. Would big modifications be required to the kit? Also, what scheme is it wearing? It looks like MS 21 to me but then what is appearing where the 5-N Navy Blue is chipped/peeled away?

USS JENKINS in late 1943 would be quite doable from the Tamiya kit. The Tamiya kit has the fantail twin 40-mm mount and tub. JENKINS was unique and had a Mk 49 director instead of a Mk 51 for the fantail 40-mm mount, but it would be fairly easy to scratch-build. The centerline elevated platform before the bridge isn't in the kit, but can be scratch-built. Also, you would need to add a 20-mm gun atop the bridge. As for her camo in the photo, she is in a well worn Ms 21 fadded and touched-up with fresh paint.