1/144 Scale USS STODDARD (DD-566) - Kitbash, Revell FLETCHER

[BB62vet]

Tom,

I recall BUNKER HILL tied up to North Island NAS for years - we would pass her going in & out on outings. Can't recall when she was finally moved up to PSNSYD.

I have been working on the deckhouses of the model beginning with the after main deck and after 01 Level and now working on the main amidships deckhouse where there is a large amount of change involved from the original configuration. So, after a few days/evenings of work, here is where things are at tonight:

As you can see with the original 01 Level laid over the deckhouse, there is quite a bit of additional decking to be added to the original. I had bought a large sheet of styrene the correct thickness for replacing this entirely, but have decided that I will simply modify the kit deck with styrene additions as needed. This is what I've done on the after deckhouse 01 Level, as well.
Tonight's work included getting the necessary doors located and installed, as well as drilling holes for fire hose stations, etc. In my garage shop I've now got the black walnut display board assembled, finished, and put aside for when I can start working on the keel blocks (maple) - they will need to have their upper end shaped to the hull at the point of contact. Here is the display board:

In addition to the model work, I've also been trying to learn DSM 3D Mech. Design in order to make 3D resin parts - this along with Flinger747 (forum) who is way ahead of me in this endevour - so, we're sort of learning this in tandem, so to speak! This past weekend, I did additional CAD 2D work in MicroStation PowerDraft on the tripod mast & components in order to get them ready to be printed in scale with dual dimensioning so I can then eventually use this drawing for 3D parts design. There IS a method to the madness

Winter weather may be getting here this week, so that will be a drastic change from what we've been having in Piedmont NC up to this point.

[Fliger747]

Looks good Hank! I know Bunker Hill was in the PSNS "reserve Fleet' by say 1965-1966? The scuttlebutt was she had a twisted keel and would never sail again, after her considerable repairs.

Base look good, I haven't made a base yet for any of mine! WIP still I guess.

Cheers: Tom

[Rick E Davis]

An image that may be of use to Hank and those building a post-WWII FLETCHER with a Tripod Foremast.

The attached image shows the attachment point for one of the legs of the tripod mast. Something that doesn't show up well in most photos because of distance and shipboard clutter.

[BB62vet]

Rick,

Thanks!!! That does clear up the leg termination points quite clearly. I had totally forgotten about the small, curved leg attachments, etc.

Hank

[BB62vet]

Rick,

Thanks!!! That does clear up the leg termination points quite clearly. I had totally forgotten about the small, curved leg attachments, etc.

Hank

[Rick E Davis]

Part of what you see is likely the grounding straps installed to reduce corrosion between the aluminum tripod and steel deck. Also, needed for the proper function of the various antennas. While researching 1950's FLETCHER's BuShips files at NARA, I found out that the USN experienced corrosion bad enough that at least a couple of masts broken at the base!!! Additional strapping was installed as a preventative measure.

[Fliger747]

Interesting photo, looks like the portside winch has been removed? Also shows the size of the cleat (huge!) on the davits. For a 1:144 the detail at the base of the tripod might be a bit difficult, though not impossible.

Some of the early Fletcher's had at least partially aluminum superstructure, wonder how that worked out? Certainly wartime manufacturing logistics certainly suggested Aluminum was better utilized for aircraft.

Cheers: Tom

[Rick E Davis]

A good observation. When the Mk 2 Torpedo Launch System (TLS) for launching the Mk 32 torpedos was installed at frame 98 or 99 BY NAVY SHIPYARDS with the rail for reload trolleys, the boat winch was moved to where the 5-in practice loader was located between the midship and aft deckhouses. The 5-in practice loader was relocated to the starboard side below the Mk 15 torpedo tubes. The new location of the winch also helped with resupply.

However, there were at least two other methods used to provide Mk 32 torpedo reloads. The new standard was to install a rack for three Mk 32 torpedos with a crane near the launcher. Also, some of the destroyers with Mk 4 TLS, had them installed by tenders, and a wide variety of install locations resulted because they didn't want to move the winch.

USS CASSIN YOUNG is preserved in this configuration.

[BB62vet]

Rick,

Thanks - good historical FLETCHER class info!! In the case for 1960s era STODDARD, she did not have those mentioned alterations. The boat winch remained on the port side, amidships without change. The 5" practice loading machine had already been moved up on the 01 Level, centered between the two new Mk. 32 triple torpedo tube mounts, this probably occurred in her mid-50s overhaul. New torpedo loading cranes (2 - one each side) were installed just aft of the torpedo tube mounts. Our quarterdeck remained open without any obstructions and I believe she was decommissioned in 1969 in this configuration. Her last yard period in 1967-68 in Long Beach was mainly maintenance and repair and only involved small modifications to existing equipment. The only real changes I recall were to her at-sea refueling stations - some newer, quick-release connections were installed. We were in the drydock with INGERSOLL (DD-652) at the same time; I think she had similar work done during that yard period.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Very interesting details, such a numerous class as the Fletchers resemble a large family more than peas in a pod in their diversity. Do very many Fletchers have the rudder modification?

Cheers: Tom

[Rick E Davis]

I didn't get into it above, because it would get to be more involved that I had time to use, that there was a big difference between the Atlantic based and Pacific based FLETCHER's for Mk 32 torpedo launch systems. The Atlantic Fleet opt'd to schedule installation of the Mk 2 TLS during overhaul periods or other short-term Availabilities. The Pacific Fleet in the timeframe that the Mk 32 torpedoes were joining the operational Fleet, was operating in areas of CRISIS off SE Asia. They wanted improved ASW weapons ASAP and having supplies of the Mk 32 torpedoes, but no launcher, couldn't wait for Mk 2 TLS equipment to be sent to forward area yards like in Japan. Besides, the Mk 2 TLS was still in short supply with production schedule around SCHEDULED OVERHAULS. Plus, the DDE's based at Pearl Harbor had priority and Fleet Destroyers based on the West Coast were left naked. So, enterprising minds in the Pacific Destroyer Fleet decided to copy the design of a launcher used during development of the Mk 32 torpedo. A single pair of Drop Rails off the fantail. This was NOT the optimal launch point from the ship, the best location was from midships and over the side. The interim launcher was fabricated at Sasebo Naval Facility, Japan.

What happened was that about half of the Pacific Based FLETCHERS in about 1955 had this "interim" TLS known as PMGL (Poor Man's Gravity Launcher (system) ) installed and actually kept it for a number of years even after. Altering the boat winch location wasn't an issue.

The movement of the 5-in practice loader to the former Mk 15 TT mount location actually didn't occur until the early 1960's. The introduction of the Mk 32 triple ASW Torpedo Tubes started entering the fleet in 1957. However, many HIGHER priority units were in the pipeline before the FLETCHER FLEET DESTROYERS, including all the destroyers involved in the FRAM program. If the Vietnam War had not happened, there was a good chance that the FLETCHER's in the Active Fleet would have been phased out by about 1964 (and actually were from the Atlantic Fleet). So meanwhile, the Mk 15 torpedo tubes were kept as weight reserve. As an aside, on the 4-Gun FLETCHER's there was a weight saving measure of removing the outside pair of torpedoes from the Mk 15 TT mount and blanking off those tubes. This happened in 1957-58 time period, something that could be done by tenders without a yard period and wasn't done on the 5-Gun FLETCHER's (partly because the 40-mm guns were being removed).

The first FLETCHER to have the Mk 32 triple ASW TT mounted was USS HAZELWOOD as part of her DASH Experimental Install in 1957. The DDE's started getting the Mk 32 TT shortly afterwards, but the remaining FLETCHER Fleet Destroyers didn't get them installed until about 1960-62. That was when the Mk 15 TT was removed and the 5-in practice loader relocated.

Tom,
As for Rudder Mods, I'm not sure what you are referring to? The lengthening of the rudder started out as an ASW improvement mod to reduce the turning radius of the FLETCHER DDE's in 1949-50. It was found successful and extended to ALL 82 of the recommissioned FLETCHER's during the Korean War mobilization and ALL of the 18 DDE's.

[Fliger747]

Rick:

Thank you for the clarification of the extent of the rudder modification, I hadn't been aware that it was so extensive, number wise. The original Fletcher's has a tactical radius North of 800 yards, right in the same identical league as Missouri and Alaska. So Hank's Stoddard would have the extended rudder?

Cheers: Tom

[Rick E Davis]

Yes, all of the FLETCHER's recommissioned after WWII would have the extended rudder. About the only thing the USN did to the rudders after introduction of the longer rudder, was to make the rudder "skin" thicker because of damage from "pre-mature" depth charge detonations.

[BB62vet]

Tom,
I may have to put you "on report" - this rudder thing is going to now involve yard monkeys and welding!!! LOL

Here is a photo of STODDARD in the drydock in Subic Bay, PI in 1966 for stbd. shaft bearing replacement:

(photos courtesy of Robt. Schutte)
I'll now need to see how the kit rudder compares to the 1968 BoGP and make alterations, as needed.

Hank

[Fliger747]

Pretty notable oil can smashing above the waterline, but not below. Wonder if that area was reinforced with some heavier STS plating?

Floating dry dock?

[BB62vet]

Pretty notable oil can smashing above the waterline, but not below. Wonder if that area was reinforced with some heavier STS plating?
Floating dry dock?

You know, I actually don't recall the drydocking at all - we were in for a week and then back out to continue on to the Tonkin Gulf - I had no direct involvement other than line tending - was in 1st Div. (SA at the time) and working on the boat deck (01 level).

As for the oil canning or not, I don't think the FLETCHER hull was anything other than 1/4" plate steel. The frames, however, I haven't looked into as to size or location, etc.

Hank

[Fliger747]

I believe the midships by way of the machinery spaces had 20# plate, where you can see the riveted butt straps and lack of oil canning. There may have also been 2# STS deck in their area as well. The idea was to give some protection against aircraft strafing. I imagine R.E.D would know for sure.

[Rick E Davis]

I can't remember where, but I think it was in Willie's build, there was a long discussion about oil canning and thickness of the steel plates on FLETCHERS. I looked at the BIW FLETCHER class Engineering Drawings DVD and found that the underwater hull plates were thicker and that the plates above the waterline were thicker amidships over the machinery spaces. USS STODDARD's oil-canning would look this bad due to her not having had a "re-skinning" done fore and aft during a recent overhaul. That is why you can find images of a specific ship with oil-canning and others with little during their career. Likely it wasn't done recently on STODDARD because the USN knew they weren't going to keep her in service for much longer.

[Fliger747]

Reading through Friedman's US Destroyers book on the Fletcher's wasn't very revealing on this point of use of thickened plates for splinter resistance. The "Jist" (term implying considerable uncertainty) was that the general board desired use of 20 and 30 # plate by way of machinery and control positions. As the ships became increasingly crowded with more equipment, later ships may have had such plate reduced for weight control, especially topside control positions. Other top weight modifications included reducing the height of the MK 37 director. Some do, some don't.

As to practical as opposed to nice to know, for modelers, mostly we can only be aware of some of the possibilities for platng and for an individual ship observe carefully the arrangement and condition of external shell plating. Certainly heavier plating below the waterline keeps weight in the ships in the right place and possibly more useful structurally than "ballast" as was employed in the Bensons.

A lot of fun of modeling, if not often seen in the finished product, is learning about these ships!

Tom

[BB62vet]

Thanks Rick/Tom for correcting me on the FLETCHER 'Skin' thickness. I looked over the sectionals on the BoGP and I do think the machinery spaces, esp. had a slightly thicker plate steel than the majority of the ship's hull surface.

Knowing how these ships were built IS an interesting sideline to the modeling hobby!!

Hank