Don Bowen
Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I think no distinction is needed between Clemson and Wickes as we are looking at less than 100 tons, identical ranage and armament and maybe 1/3 of a knot in speed new. A distinction should be made between those flush deckers serving on the Asiatic station and those elsewhere. Asiatic flushdeckers were away from decent yards for so long they were basically unaltered from early 1930s (same as in WITP but remove DCTs) rig while the remainder had two banks of TT removed in favour of 6 DCT and 6 20mm. For simplicity due to all the different configurations, I'd still keep it one class but have the Asiatics as first version; then the 4x4",6TT,6DCT,6x20mm version (as first refit for Asiatics but starting config for all other FD DDs), then split them up into 6x3",6DCT 25knt 3 funnelled variant or APD (whichever were historically converted as such). Leave it to the player when the conversions take place by having refit date match the earliest for each variant.
I'm generalizing here as I don't think more than one or two Clemsons that actually served in the Pacific underwent the 3" gunned refit but why not leave it to the player to consider.
After you challenged me on the inclusion of 6-3in Flush Deckers in my V1.2 scenario I reviewed the history of every one that received the 6-3in modification (a list is in Friedman and is replicated below). I could not find any that served in the Pacific. They all were in the Atlantic and, once the U-boat was defeated, converted to other duties. As I recall some went to the Pacific but after conversion to APD.
The “Y” guns were authorized in 1918 – one to be added right away to all completed ships and two for ships still under construction. Unmodified Flush Deckers still had the “Y” guns (apparently two per ship) when World War II began. I can find no indication that the Asiatic Fleet units omitted them or that they were removed prior to the 1941 refits. I have seen some references to landing the second “Y” gun but can’t seem to find them now.
From Friedman (on the subject of the 6-3in modification):
“Of 71 active Flush Deck destroyers, thirteen in the Asiatic Fleet could not be converted to escort duty in the absence of any more modern units in that Fleet. Priority went to the Atlantic Fleet; two of its three DesRons (31 and 31) were finished by February 1941. They were followed by nine more ships of DesDivs 53 and 82 and finally the Decatur, DesDiv 66, and the four-ship DesRon 54 were scheduled to the fall. The last batch, which would have exhausted supplies of 3-inch/50 guns, was stopped by the outbreak of war, leaving a total of 27 conversions (DD 118, 126, 128, 130, 142, 144, 145,147, 152-155, 157-160, 199, 210, 220, 221, 223, 229, 239, 240, 245, 246, 341).
Ships not scheduled for refit were: the Dahlgren, Litchfield (DD 336, assigned to Submarines, Pacific and employed in convoying submarines through the Pearl Harbor defensive zone) and 20 units assigned to naval districts – DesDivs 70 (4 ships, 11th district), 83 (4 ships, 12th), and 80 (3 ships plus Allen, 14th) and DesRon 33 (9 ships, 15th). In September, in view of the lack of further 3-inch guns, the CNO ordered two sets of torpedo tubes removed as weight reservation for quadruple 1.1-inch guns. For the 15th Naval District he suggested the 3-inch conversion should any guns become available. The following January the ultimate battery of these ships was set at four 4-inch, 6-20mm antiaircraft machine cannon, and two triple tubes, plus (in common with the all-3-inch ships) six single depth-charge throwers (four 300-pound charges each), plus two depth-charge tracks (seven 300-pound charges each) and twenty four 300-pound charges stowed in the torpedo warhead locker. By this time the outbreak of the war had ended what amounted to a flush-decker FRAM program.
All this effort did not attack the single greatest problem of the flush decker, its inadequate steaming endurance. Winter escort service in the North Atlantic made a solution urgent and on 15 November 1941 CinCLant proposed the replacement of Number 1 boiler by fuel. This would increase the radius of the short-legged Wickes group by about 1,100 nm (650 for the Clemsons which already carried some fuel in way of the boiler rooms, hence could not carry as much in addition). BuShips preferred to remove Number 4 boiler for reasons of trim.
(General Board comment snipped)
The Secretary of the Navy approved this modification on 3 December, 1941 for the Atlantic Fleet (DesRons 27, 30, 31); it was soon extended to the Pacific Fleet as well, and ultimately included the DM and DMS conversions. By February, 1942 only the Asiatic Fleet destroyers (DesRon 29) were not scheduled for modification. The extra fuel made a considerable difference. According to an Atlantic Fleet data sheet of May 1943, a Wickes-class ships with three boilers could make 28 or 30 knots fully loaded, compared to 30 to 32 for a four-boiler ship; her cruising radios at economical speed (11 or 12 knots) would be 4,300 to 4,500 nm, compared to 3,200 to 3,500 for the unconverted ship, or 3,000 to 3,200 vs 2,000 to 2,200 at 75 percent power. These figures were based on a fuel capacity of 108,000 gallons (385.7 tons) for a converted ship, 81,800 (289.6 tons) unconverted. The improvements in a Clemson, which began with greater endurance, were less spectacular – 4,400 to 4,600 vs 3,900 to 4,100 nm at economical speed, 3,600 to 3,900 vs 2,800 to 3,100 nm at 75 percent power, on 128,000 (457.1 tons) vs 111,000 (396.4 tons) gallons.”
From this lengthy passage I have concluded that:
Very little conversion work was done to Pacific Fleet DDs – removal of two torpedo tubes in the last month or two of peace at most – not worth a separate class in my opinion.
The removal of two torpedo tubes AND of number four boiler was begun soon after the beginning of the war – the upgrade is set at 1/42 in our scenario.
After the removal of number 4 boiler there was no meaningful difference between Wickes and Clemson classes – either class name or “Flush Deck” would suffice.
|
Printable Version
RE: Radar for Old US Battleships - 
), I felt those involved with the OOBs did a pretty good job on the first pass. A few DC errors slipped through (ie, Basset class MSWs showed an ammo value of 25! DCs were not translated into patterns in this case.) If anything, for safety sake and to make up somewhat for ease of reammunitioning, perhaps lowering Rack ammo by 1 and DCT (throwers) by 50% (these are still individual DCs and as such are too accurate) is desireable.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread