Shipbucket

Erik,

admittedly I'm a fan of this class (great work Colo btw) but I think there might be some misunderstandings. This class was not topweight by a design mistake but by the later constant upgrades, mainly the heavy AA machine guns added to them. Of course quite a lot was attempted at only 1850 tons and the heavy tripods in retrospect seem to be an overkill for a DD but still this was a fairly early design, predating the Fletchers by quite a lot! Also don't forget that the Fletchers were not limited by any treaty (the first such USN DD class) while these ships were still regulated so in all fairness the only real critique against the porters is that their guns were not DP capable (exactly the reason why some of the units in the class were massively reconstructed with 5"/38 twin and single DP turrets).

Hope COlo will do some of those later conversions as well !

I need to revise the OP; Friedman states that the SOMERS class (and not the PORTERs) were "quite badly overweight" as built. This is surprising given the SOMERS seem less top heavy, at least in general. Apparently the PORTERs were fairly decent seaboats. I'll find the exact passage and quote it in the OP when I get home from the office tonight.

Thanks as always for the comments, and I especially enjoy the discussion and questions.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Maybe you'll get some motivation to do the SOMERS class as well ! Would be so nice to have those covered as well in Colo style. Unfortunatly I think that class is relatively badly documented (both drawing and picture wise) compared to other US ship classes.

Excellent series.

I'm personally hoping for the Sims-class...Hammann deserves to receive the Colo treatment!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

As noted above, the Porter's only real drawback was their single purpose guns, but think what the USN achieved on 1850 t (without overly cheating like some countries). The ships had 4 twin gun mountings, had two quadruple torpedo tubes, with re-loads,two heavy AA machine-cannons and two fire control for the main armament. The RN only had 4 twin gun mountings (also single purpose, in open backed mountings), but a single torpedo tube (no reload), a single auto cannon and single director for the same weight, and these are looked upon as some of the best looking pre-war British destroyers. The Porters are an unappreciated design, at least in my opinion and I thank Ian for doing them

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

Thanks guys.

A few more:

This is BALCH (DD-363) during the Battle of Midway on 6 June 1942, with Measure 21 camouflage. BALCH shows some interesting early war alterations, with the large pilot house glazing plated over in front and replaced with portholes. The structure of the pilot house remains unchanged, however - this would be cut back a la PORTER (DD-356) during BALCH's mid-1943 refit. Most interesting is the retention of the tall aft superstructure; most of the PORTER class ships would lose the three levels by late 1942. The aft 1.1" quad remains in its original position and a single 20mm Oerlikon has been fitted atop the aft superstructure (undoubtedly with one of the best sky arcs of any AA weapon in the fleet at the time). The screened speed light at this position has been moved down (likely to allow the 20mm operator to fire at targets approaching from the stern).

BALCH's foremast has been modified to accept the usual SC radar fitted to these ships, but has not yet received it. A Mark 3 Mod.2 "oblong" FC fire control set is mounted on the Mark 35 director.



Next is SELFRIDGE (DD-357) in April of 1944 after leaving the Mare Island Navy Yard, with Measure 32/22D camouflage. SELFRIDGE was heavily damaged at the Battle of Vella Lavella on 6 October 1943 by a Japanese torpedo; after a lengthy yard period at Mare Island, SELFRIDGE was almost completely rebuilt. Alterations included a new forward superstructure, with an enclosed "British" style pilot house (at the time a feature of the current-construction ALLEN M. SUMNER class), a completely new gun arrangement, and cut down funnels. The Mark 35 director was landed, along with all the Mark 22 twin 5" mounts. These were replaced with two Mark 38 dual-purpose twin mounts (originally designed for the ALLEN M. SUMNER class) and one Mark 30 dual purpose single mount. A Mark 37 director with a Mark 4 "FD" radar was fitted atop the pilot house. As rebuilt, SELFRIDGE (as well as the other PORTER units to receive this upgrade) nearly rivalled the new-built ALLEN M. SUMNER and GEARING classes for main gun armament. A quad 40mm Bofors mount sits in a superfiring position over Mount 51, with two twin mounts aft. These were controlled by Mark 51 directors in nearby tubs.

The radar fit is the standard late-war USN DD fit of SC-2 air search and SG surface search, with a Mark 4 "FD" ranging radar on the Mark 37 director. BK "ski pole" IFF antennas sit on the yards, with a TBS tactical radio antenna on the port yardarm.

SELFRIDGE was decommissioned soon after the Japanese surrender and scrapped in 1947.



All PORTER class drawings available here: http://test.shipbucket.com/drawings/sea ... ate=&view=

All USN destroyer drawings here: http://test.shipbucket.com/drawings?cat ... shipType=1

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Excellent work, I hadn't realised Selfridge had such an extensive rebuilding.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Awesome work!

_________________

MS State Guard - 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

The Official IJN Ships & Planes List

#FJB

It's rather incredible just how extensive the rebuilds are, though I do wonder why the USN opted to give them a mix of single and twin mounts instead of just three twin mounts in a Fubuki or Gearing like arrangement. The obvious answer sees to be "weight", but for a ship slightly larger than Fletcher and which has previously lost an entire superstructure and gun turret worth of weight I'm surprised there wasn't room for it. Or, that the USN simply didn't delete a torpedo launcher to make the necessary weight available for six guns, but seeing as this was 1943 and the USN was fresh out of the Guadalcanal campaign I can see the reasoning for keeping all her tubes.

All in all a fascinating rebuild, definitely worth the attention simply by being one of the most massive refits of any wartime destroyer really. Looking forward to more work.