1/72nd Revell Gato Wolfpack

[jefftytoo]

Found out the gun was mispositioned. It was slightly too far aft. Have now corrected this and fixed the barrel clamp-down hardware on the A-frame gun support. Wasn’t happy with it before; better now.

[jefftytoo]

Lead weights now installed in Harder per Big Dave Welch’s written instructions. (Sure do miss that guy.) This is how he set up his own Gato with the same WTC of his own design that he made for me. I added a couple ounces more weight over his because my boat will be very top heavy compared to his, requiring a lot more foam and therefore some more keel weigh to counteract it. This is all just a big guess, of course, to give Steve Neill a running start when it comes time for him to do the installation and trimming. More weights may in fact be needed (there’s still plenty of room), or some already there might indeed wind up requiring removal. (They’re only glued in with a little silicone, so they’ll pull out fairly easily if that’s needed. Again, I only wanted to give Steve a head start for an easier time of it. I’ve also pre-cut a lot of foam for him, but he’ll have to trim it to fit around Big Dave’s WTC.)

[jefftytoo]

Ready for paint. Home stretch!

[jefftytoo]

Closeups of her stern.

[wlambing]

Aft draft marks are the wrong color. 'Sposedta be white numerals on black hull, fwd same until above waterline, then black numerals on gray hull. Why don't museum ships ever get painted correctly??? Have these people no shame????? Nice primer coat, though!!!

[oldsubs]

I am very interested in draft marks at the present. Where did you find official guidance for draft marks on museum ships?

As an aside, as this boat is to be a WWII boat in its proper livery, the draft marks need not be painted in a contrasting color and generally were not after the boat completed shakedown and headed out on patrol.

[jefftytoo]

Not to worry about the color of the draft marks. Yet. They’re raw metal, just glued on and not even primered. Positioning was achieved from boat-out-of-water reference photos. Though I see I’m now getting different direction on final coloring, my understanding (and my plan to honor at this point) is that during the war they were not painted any contrasting colors, but were the same color as the general camo livery in those locations.

[wlambing]

Jim,

I was commenting on the crap paint jobs on museum ships in general. I also was using the guidance of the WWII paint schedules and drawings we've seen over the years for these old girls. I haven't seen hard documentation regarding the draft marks, but I think the practice was to paint them in overhaul and then let them just fade over time. Even in war, you still need to be able to read your draft when alongside somewhere! Not faulting Jeff or Lars, just thought it looked funny and was trying to help. Having been so close to the real things early in my adult life, I have a thing about historical accuracy. Maybe I should just lighten up, but no, I won't, 'cos curmudgeons are needed in this day and age!!

Take care,

Bill

[jefftytoo]

Many thanks, Bill! I do want my Harder to be as accurate as I can make her. So you’re saying the wartime boats definitely had their draft numbers painted in contrasting colors? (Just trying to be clear. Not an issue yet; Lars won’t be painting till after Christmas.)

[chips]

USN Painting Instructions for 1943 Section 4-F: Draft marks shall be painted with white formula 6 over the underwater painting or black hull, black formula 13 above the boot topping over white or gray.

[oldsubs]

Bill--Please do not 'lighten up' It keeps us and others awake and alert.

chips--Thanks for the quote from the painting instructions. I have used the website shipcamouflage.com before but not for some long time. Having read it again I find I did not read far enough in the section on General Specifications.

I wonder if there was local of Type Commander (ComSubPac) guidance that allowed or directed that the Instruction not be followed. There was a time after shakedown during WWII that a sub did not have its number painted on the conning tower fairing as is evidenced in photographs. This is similar in my experience to the period in the early 1960s when there was a change to the regulations and submarines no longer had their hull numbers painted on their sails.

As usual, I welcome comments on stuff I think I know and corrections there to. I have been married long enough and have enough children/grandchildren to know I am not always correct.

[salmon]

Show me the money! I want to see war time photos that show the numbers painted in contrast colors speak louder than quoting a manual. I do not recall seeing photos of any depth markers in contrast during war time (which as well as my mind is working does not say much). Maybe, painting or touch up work on the subs they got painted over because it was not a concern, maybe like overall color schemes, some captains just did not follow recommendations. Anyways, show me a photo........

[oldsubs]

Have done a review of wartime photos of boats from Tambor's to Tench's and cannot find any with draft marks painted in accordance with the 1943 instruction except some when being launched. Thus I must conclude there must have been overriding directives that either allowed them to be painted over or directed that they be painted over.

Rebuttals are welcome. Going deep.

V/R
Jim

[jefftytoo]

Thanks, Jim. I’m with you and Tom C. on this. My Harder’s draft numbers will NOT be painted in contrasting colors. None of her wartime photos I’ve seen show them that way anyway.

[jefftytoo]

Update on USS Harder (SS-257) build:

For any of you Gato boat rivet counters interested, my original decision to replace the Revell kit’s provided 4” deck gun with a standard Navy 5” gun was based on this info. from the Floating Drydocks Warship Data Special pictorial booklet: Fleet Submarines of World War Two, as shown at the bottom of this post.

I know many of you are familiar with the esteemed Mr. Thomas Walkowiak and his work. He’s been a fantastic warship info. resource for a lot of naval modelers working with a variety of vessels and subjects—but especially subs. He lists his source for most of the material in this book as the National Archives, Naval History Division. Though I have seen him make some minor ID errors in his widely known indispensable sourcebook, The Gato and Balao Class Submarines Planbook, I had no reason to doubt his accuracy here.

However, our mutual good friend and submarine researcher extraordinaire, Jim Christley, got in touch the other day to relate to me that his own unimpeachable source told him that the gun in the photo (depicting Harder just before her final two patrols, a shot much scrutinized by me during my build) was indeed a 4”/50 gun, so the caption for it was simply wrong.

To me, Jim’s source sounded not to be trifled with: a Mr. Christopher Wright, editor of Warship International and expert in researching the National Archives on such minutiae. In fact, the man is currently writing a series on submarine deck guns, the second installment of which—covering the 5"/51—has just been released. Jim e-mailed him about my question and got this response:

"No doubt, the gun on HARDER is a 4-in./50. The caption is wrong. Go look at the sketches in OP 1112 Gun Mount and Turret Catalog, available online at www.maritime.org. I have to assume I would have found some trace of a 5-in./51 going on any other sub. But the physical layout of the gun in the HARDER photo makes it very clear it is a 4-in./50; look at the relative position of the handwheels for example.”

From the above-mentioned source, Jim created a comparison illustration for me showing the two guns in question: a 4"/50 Mk12 and the 5"/51 Mk18. He then went on to explain:

“What caused me to seriously question the 5" on Harder was a table in Mr. Wright's article listing which boats had the weapon. Harder was not on the list. I asked him if perhaps CDR. Dealey [might’ve] “worked a deal” to get one. As [Chris] combs through the BuShips and BuOrd records quite extensively, I feel certain he would have found reference to Harder getting one, [but didn’t].”

All of this, of course, made clear my urgent need to switch out the Shapeways aftermarket 5” gun I’d recently

installed on Harder’s foredeck with the kit’s original 4” gun—which I’d already built and spruced up with a few PE pieces prior to the first “switch.”

(See next post.)



The above photo came from:



And here’s the hardware comparison illustration Jim made for me: