Calling all Fletcher-class (DD-445) fans

[sandy]

I had the opportunity to have a look at the Floating Drydock book about Fletchers and noticed a couple of things, one of which relates to the USS Mullany, which I would like to ask about?

Firstly, I noticed on one or two photos of ships in refit in very early 1945 that some seemed to have extra 40mm ready use ammunition racks inboard of the waist 40mm against the funnel casing. One photo shows the canvas covers covering the racks. Was this a common modification ? Or does it seem to tie in with ships that had square(r) 40mm tub as opposed to those with more round tubs?

I also noticed that the aft funnel platform for the 40mm directors has a different form between ships, perhaps of different yards. Specifically the after bracket/outrigger seems to have varying patterns of lightening holes. Some have two holes, some have four. Again was this a yard variation?

Also, the support pole for this platform varies. Most ships appear to have a quite substantial pole which angles outwards from the funnel casing, and yet on 'most' Bethlehem SF built ships the pole appears a much thinner one and runs down vertically and is closer to the front of the platform. Iwondered if it was a weight thing, but many of the Beth SF ships seem to have had the Mk49 on the after funnel and yet had the smaller, vertical support pole.

Interestingly, from my point of view, while Bush and Ammen (based on photos Rick posted earlier) seem to have the vertical pole whereas Mullany seems to have an angled pole with its anchor point underneath the platform much further aft. Also, and it may be a trick of the light, but Mullany's after funnel platform seems to be of a different shape to most looking more in plan like the searchlight platform with angled corners around the director rather than the straight line fronted platforms with a nice curve around the director and the a sweep backwrds to the funnel.

The outermost bracket for the floater rack seems quite substanial and seems to stick out quite a bit implying that the platform isn't straight ?

The 'strange' shape (perhaps) of the Mullany platform is seen in these photos Rick posted earlier:-





and on the aerial photo on navsource of the Mullany in 1943.

Any thoughts or confirmation photos appreciated ?

All the best
Sandy

Edit: in fact, could it be that Mullany had a verson of the cut back searchlight platform like in the pictures of USS Luce in this thread ?

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=109308

[Rick E Davis]

One: While the Floating Drydock book is a fairly good source of info on FLETCHERS, the book didn't capture many variants in configuration for the class.

Two: Canvas covers over the ready-use racks was "standard" practice. Yes some units had ready-use racks on the stack. I think this was done to make up for the removal of ready-use racks on the outboard side (where the flap was) of the bulwark. That lessened the "crewman trap" area.

Three: Each builder seemed to have different cut-out holes in the 40-mm director platform support brackets. I suspect that the "official" drawings "didn't" specify how many holes to cutout, and left it to the builder or yard doing an update or major repair.

Four: The supports for the director platform was actually an issue. Finding something that added additional support while NOT blocking access was experimented with. Remember that MULLANY's photos show her at her late 1944-early 1945 overhaul and this angled pole bracket may well have been an alteration and that she could have (likely did?) have the same vertical poles seen on her sisters or the use of the angled pole relates to the next item below. No photos of MULLANY after her upgrade to the ten 40-mm configuration in July 1943 have surfaced ... yet ... to show what type of supports she had then. But, since you are building MULLANY in her 1945 configuration, it doesn't matter.

Five: 40-mm director platform on second stack. A little confusing for sure. First off AMMEN (DD-527) was completed in the four 40-mm configuration with searchlights on the second stack. When she was updated to the ten 40-mm configuration the the searchlights were moved to the first stack and waist twin 40-mm mounts installed and a new 40-mm director platform built "to the latest standard". MULLANY (DD-528) and BUSH (DD-529) were completed to the six 40-mm configuration. MULLANY being the first such unit completed by Bethlehem-SF. BUSH followed her. Look at the attached images showing aerial views of MULLANY and BUSH in May 1943 and TRATHEN (DD-530) in August 1943. The platform shapes are different. BUSH has the "standard" shape used on this platform from her construction onwards (see the TRATHEN image) that provides more clearance for movement of the 40-mm guns in elevation. MULLANY has a different shape that was their first shot at building this platform. So another oddball. Because MULLANY's platform is more "rounded/angled" on the aft side ... the floater net baskets (the straight style of basket) stick out more.

Only the Bethlehem-SI built units had the cutoff "former" searchlight platforms seen on LUCE as far as I know. At least that is what I have noticed in the photos.

[sandy]

Hi Rick,

Once again, many thanks.

It seems as though Mullany really is turning out to be, perhaps, slightly more oddball than many.

Of course, this means that some folk are going to say that the model will be "wrong" ... Wrong bridge, wrong aft funnel.

Technically, looking at the Mullany platform, it doesn't seem to restrict too much more the arcs of the twin 40mm and in fact may open up forward facing upper arcs a wee bit?

Based on what you said regarding Mullany's early (lets try this and see) platform and Luce's (let's try this and see) platform, both being Bethlehem ships, did any of the other builders have oddball platforms for early build six 40mm ships ?

All the best
Sandy

P.S. Would there be any chance of emailing me the full photo of Mullany from which you cropped the platform photo in your post please ? Thanks in advance.

[Rick E Davis]

Well it depends on what is oddball.

The East Coast Yards like Bath Iron Works and Federal ... and even Bethlehem-SI, worked closely with the USN and the class design agent, Gibbs-Cox and waited for either final drawings or got interim drawings for changes to work out the "problem" areas. "Most" of the other builders and Navy Yards followed suit. Bethlehem-SF and Bethlehem-SP (Bethlehem West Coast yards at San Pedro and San Francisco built 28 FLETCHERS) had a standard design that was a little different from the "official" USN Gibbs-Cox design, but still had to meet certain dimension requirements.

As for the director platforms on other FLETCHERS, I have not noticed much of a difference in the design/construction for most FLETCHER class builders. AKA, the platform type/shape isn't something I have tried to catalog. There was a minor adjustment to the platform from the first units built with the new platform at BIW and Federal, with a more of a taper to the platform to give the emergency con station a little more room. Even then it was very minor. See below. There was more changes in that the solid bulwarks gave way to simple railing, most times covered with canvas, than to the platform shape.

In other words, most of the FLETCHERS built from about May 1943 onwards were built with what looks like two basic types of director platforms. That adds up to a total of at LEAST 125 (likely closer to 140) out of 175 units were built or modified by USN yards to two close standard shapes. Look at the very first FLETCHER with the waist 40-mm gun mounts ... last image below ... USS GUEST (DD-472) ... completed in February 1943. Not much difference is there between her and DD-660 and DD-667. There was much more differences in the 40-mm mount bulwarks than the director platform.

Bethlehem had a habit of doing things "their way" if they could get away with it.

[sandy]

Hello again,

Yet more questions

I noticed on a good close up picture of the forward hull of the Mullany that there appears to be eyelets that run down the hull from the bow, in line with the deck sheer, but much lower than the deck (perhaps in line with the 2nd platform deck) ? Are these eyelets and if so what purpose did they serve ?

I also notice that Mullany, and other Bethlehem SF ships I now have pictures of, seem to have a 'support beam' attached to the hull under the midship 40mm platform, just slightly down from deck level. You can see this in the photos of Mullany in the posts just above this one. Again, was this a Beth SF only thing, and was there any reason for it, and was this 'beam' triangular in profile as it seems to chamfer downwards from above?

On later Fletcher, perhaps square bridge ships, was the aft O1 deck level at the end of the bridge structure joined to the fore funnel/vegetable locker superstructure deck by a walkway that extended all the way across, and hence encircling the mast, whereas earlier ships had a narrow walkway that passed on one side of the mast only ?

And, finally, were those oval hatches on the decks alongside the midships deckhouses the only access to the fire rooms and engine rooms, and if so, did the location stay the same all the way through the class ?

Thanks, once again, in advance,
Sandy

[Russ2146]

"I also notice that Mullany, and other Bethlehem SF ships I now have pictures of, seem to have a 'support beam' attached to the hull under the midship 40mm platform, just slightly down from deck level. "

You mean the boat booms that are like flat topped, (for walking), spars that are in their stowed positions in the posting of 3 September?

[Timmy C]

I guess any eyelets on the hull would be to serve as anchoring points for benches and such for hull painting and similar duties - at least, that how I've seen them used on modern ships like the Burkes.

[sandy]

Hi Russ,

I don't think it is a boat boom. It appears to be attached (welded?) to the hull.



If it was a boat boom, why isn't there one on other Fletchers built at other yards?

Hi Timmy,

Here is the photo of the eyelets. I did think about painting stages, but wondered why they follwed the line of the deck sheer unless it was for strength.



All the best
Sandy

[sandy]

Here is the deck platform around the mast I was talking about.



Looking at other photos there seems to have been some variation in this platform.

Sandy

[Russ2146]

No, that's not a boatboom. That's welded to the hull like some sort of protection against rubbing against something. Is that position the widest point of the hull, by any chance?

The eyelets are a puzzle. The purpose would be to attach something temporarily, but what, I don't know, if they run the length of the ship. At the bow they'd me handy for a line to pull a bos'n's chair , hanging from the deck, close to the hull.

[Rick E Davis]

The eyelets were a standard item for attaching ropes for work planks. They were there so repairing/painting the bow area of the ship would be easier as the sides of the ship curved inwards. They didn't go the full length of the ship, just the forward section with the most sheer.

The "strake" along the side likely was as mentioned intended to protect the waist mounts from glancing "encounters". Also, maybe they helped to add strength to that area. Note the circle indicates that it was installed during that overhaul period.

Yes there was variation in the walkways crossing over the passageway between the forward deckhouse and the midships deckhouse. It seemed to be more substantial as time went on.

[sandy]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the reply.

Regarding the strake, it was there right from the start as it appears in the May, 1943 photo. It also appears in a 1943 photo of DD532 Heermann, and in photos of DD533 Hoel and DD541 Yarnall which was why I wondered if it was a Bethlehem SF only thing?

Cassin Young, a Bethlehem SP ship, doesn't have it.

Also, looking at the close up photos of Mullany at the end of her January, 1945 refit, she doesn't appear to have the individual anti-slip panels on the deck, just painted lines.

All the best
Sandy

[sandy]

Hi,

I have checked through as many picures of Fletchers that I can find on destroyerhistory (navsource is, at least for me, down again) and the only ships I can find with the strake are fifteen of the batch of sixteen from Bethlehem Steel SF (excluding the first one, USS Abner Read), and the two later ones DD683 and DD684.

Many of the photos of the early ones are dated 1943 so it was something down during construction.

Curious and I wonder why Beth SF were the only folk to do it ?

All the best
Sandy

[Rick E Davis]

As I said before, Bethlehem - SF liked to do things differently if they could. If they deviated from official plans, they would need a waiver. None of the other Bethlehem yards seem to have needed to do this. I don't have a clue if this is intended to be a "rub strake" or a cover for something like a fuel line for the motor boats or a degaussing cable that needed to be routed outside the hull because of something else that Bethlehem did internal preventing it from being kept internal. This strake was retained on many units post-WWII when they were recommissioned for the Korean War even with the quad 40-mm mounts replacing the twin mounts. But they disappeared on units still active into the 1960s. And were removed from units upgraded with the 3-in RFG mounts.

By the way, ABNER READ had this "strake" as well after the waist twin 40-mm mounts were installed. So it appears that ALL 18 of the Bethlehem - SF built units shared this feature. May make a good identifier for narrowing down "mystery" photos.

[snaphappy321]

Hi Sandy,
I was looking at a photo of the Fullam DD-474 today that Rick gave me and I notice the strake just like you mentioned. The Fullam is a close sister to the Bennett that I�m building and they were built at the Boston Navy Yard in Boston, MA. The Fullam didn�t have it as built, but it was added near the end of 1944 as seen in the photos.
Fullam as built in BNY.

Fullam at Hunters Point 8 Dec 44.

What scale are you going to build the Mullany? It will be an interesting build that I'll be sure to follow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Roger DD-473/DD-555

[Rick E Davis]

Hmmm ... "San Francisco" and "Hunters Point" photos were many times taken of ships actually worked on by Private Yards in the SF Bay area. I wonder if FULLAM was overhauled at Bethlehem-SF Yard?

[raggs]

The strake is actually refered to as a "spray strake". Designed to keep water from splashing up
on deck. Notice how it starts after the breakwater bulwark. I imagine it was put there to keep
excess water from washing up around the clipping rooms and mid-ship 20mm's.

The San Francisco photo you reference above looks to have the same photo pattern numbers
from a Hunters Point photo (1977-44-S8). But doesnt reference the yard specifically.
There's good chance she was rebuilt at Beth SF if the strake is the identifying feature.

Paul

[sandy]

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

[raggs]

Sandy- here's my take;

"It looks as though it was an SF thing."
-It certainly does(the strake). My biggest question upon thinking about it is-if the Beth SF units were
launched in mid to late 43... WHY is the strake there in mid/late 44?

"It could be that Fullam was refitted at Beth SF then passed on to Hunters Point for fitting out?"
- I think more like the other way around, Beth did all the work, and HP gave her the gold star.

"Were any other ships refitted or fitted out there?"
Boatloads, pardon the pun. The Bay Area was a majestic hub of maritime activity, Beth SF being
no exception, they refitted & launched everything short of CA, BB & CV.

My 2 cents worth....

Paul

[sandy]

Hi Paul,

Just spent a wee while going through some photos on navsource and, so far, have found the following non Beth SF built ships that had a strake added in the SF area:-

DD465 USS Saufley, Federal Kearney built, pictured October 44 with strake at Hunters Point
DD468 USS Taylor, Bath Iron built, pictured Jan 44, SF Bay area with strake
DD471 USS Beale, Beth SI built,, pictured at Hunters Point Jan 45 with strake
DD474 USS Fullam, Boston NY built, pictured in SF Bay area, Dec 44, with strake
DD475 USS Hudson, Boston NY built, pictured with strake in 1945, attached midships 20mm shields
DD478 USS Stanly, Charleston NY built, pictured with strake in SF Bay area Oct 44

Also, as Rick mentioned, it looks like not only Abner Read of the Beth SF ships, but also Ammen, were completed without the strake when in two twin 40mm configuration, but gained it when upgraded to three twin 40mm by mid 1943. Mullany seems to have had the three twin 40mm from start, and had the strake from the start.

All the best
Sandy