Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data

[Don Bowen]

I am currently working my way through US destroyers and am having problems finding data on depth charge capacity.

The standard Depth Charge load for a US Fleet Destroyer pre-war was 2 racks and 14 charges. This was increased during the war by the addition of "K" guns and more depth charges but I am having trouble finding out how many additional charges. My primary source (Friedman) is spotty - a little data here and there but not enough for a comprehensive rework.

I have virtually nothing on smaller US ships or any allied ship.

Does anyone have any information that would help??

If not, I will probably leave this alone. Matrix values for those ships that I can verify are quite good - within a charge or two. Leaving it alone also has the advantage of being faster!

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

I am currently working my way through US destroyers and am having problems finding data on depth charge capacity.

The standard Depth Charge load for a US Fleet Destroyer pre-war was 2 racks and 14 charges. This was increased during the war by the addition of "K" guns and more depth charges but I am having trouble finding out how many additional charges. My primary source (Friedman) is spotty - a little data here and there but not enough for a comprehensive rework.

I have virtually nothing on smaller US ships or any allied ship.

Does anyone have any information that would help??

If not, I will probably leave this alone. Matrix values for those ships that I can verify are quite good - within a charge or two. Leaving it alone also has the advantage of being faster!

Not much out there on this, for some reason DC ammo added wartime, outside of ready ammo, is rarely well documented in my experience so far. Most of the DC values were "educated guesses" because I changed the values (on racks) to represent patterns instead of individual charges dropped.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Not much out there on this, for some reason DC ammo added wartime, outside of ready ammo, is rarely well documented in my experience so far. Most of the DC values were "educated guesses" because I changed the values (on racks) to represent patterns instead of individual charges dropped.

You did a tretty damn good job, too. What I have found:

Early Farraguts carried 14 charges, 5 each in two stern racks and 4 in a ready-service locker. Calculated 5 paterns, you had 6.

Fletcher requirements specified 5 full patterns. They carried all their charges on deck as magazine space had to be dedicated to light AA ammo: Two 8-charge racks aft, each with a 5-charge reload rack. Each of the throwers was allocated 5 charges (stowed in a rack next to each thrower). Calculated: 5-6 patterns, in Scenario 15: six per rack and five per thrower.

I believe I am going to stop wasting time researching DC ammo and leave US destroyers as they are.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Not much out there on this, for some reason DC ammo added wartime, outside of ready ammo, is rarely well documented in my experience so far. Most of the DC values were "educated guesses" because I changed the values (on racks) to represent patterns instead of individual charges dropped.

You did a tretty damn good job, too. What I have found:

Early Farraguts carried 14 charges, 5 each in two stern racks and 4 in a ready-service locker. Calculated 5 paterns, you had 6.

Fletcher requirements specified 5 full patterns. They carried all their charges on deck as magazine space had to be dedicated to light AA ammo: Two 8-charge racks aft, each with a 5-charge reload rack. Each of the throwers was allocated 5 charges (stowed in a rack next to each thrower). Calculated: 5-6 patterns, in Scenario 15: six per rack and five per thrower.

I believe I am going to stop wasting time researching DC ammo and leave US destroyers as they are.

Great to see I was close. Aside from database flubs (data checker would have been nice eh, Pry?[;)]), 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.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Not much out there on this, for some reason DC ammo added wartime, outside of ready ammo, is rarely well documented in my experience so far. Most of the DC values were "educated guesses" because I changed the values (on racks) to represent patterns instead of individual charges dropped.

You did a tretty damn good job, too. What I have found:

Early Farraguts carried 14 charges, 5 each in two stern racks and 4 in a ready-service locker. Calculated 5 paterns, you had 6.

Fletcher requirements specified 5 full patterns. They carried all their charges on deck as magazine space had to be dedicated to light AA ammo: Two 8-charge racks aft, each with a 5-charge reload rack. Each of the throwers was allocated 5 charges (stowed in a rack next to each thrower). Calculated: 5-6 patterns, in Scenario 15: six per rack and five per thrower.

I believe I am going to stop wasting time researching DC ammo and leave US destroyers as they are.

Great to see I was close. Aside from database flubs (data checker would have been nice eh, Pry?[;)]), 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.

When I had good ammunition-load data I calculated a pattern as 2 or 3 charges from a "rack" and one from a thrower (or ahead throwing weapon). From what I can tell, U.S. Depth Charge patterns increased in number of charges from 4 at the start of the war to 9 late war. This indicates that not all weapons would be involved in each pattern or that the number of charges dropped would be less than maximum. Calculations using these rules-of-thumb produced numbers that almost exactly matched your original numbers for US DDs. I did reduce the first few classes (Farragut thru Gridley) to 5 for each rack but let the original numbers for subsequent upgrades. About to move on to US DEs, then to Form 1040.

Speaking of the Bassets, they need a new icon. These were trawlers and do not deserve the sleak lines of icon 324.

[Ron Saueracker]

Yeah. Use the ones used for Isles class trawler or something.

[CobraAus]

Speaking of the Bassets, they need a new icon. These were trawlers and do not deserve the sleak lines of icon 324.

new icons Basset

Cobra Aus

[Don Bowen]

Light armor added to all destroyers. DC ammo adjusted for initial versions of most modern DD - 14 charges in two rack. Change not made in those classes with DCT added or in upgrades post 12/41 as I could find no data to support it.

Sampson (last of the pre-Flush Deckers)
(412) New Class added with 1940 armament modifications
(1526) Upgrade added for AA

Flush Deck
(264) Name changed to Clemson, Weapon #5 changed to 3/23 AA gun, Depth charge ammo adjusted.
(410)-(416) Deleted (positions will be reused)
(1314) Upgrade date changed to 1/42, 4th 4in replaced, Speed reduced to 30 knots, Endurance increased to 4400, Depth Charge Ammo Adjusted. Upgrade set to Manley (1319)

Ballard (AVD)
(262) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1355) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1356) Depth charge Ammo adjusted, upgrade set to Manley (1325)

Manley (APD)
(307) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1319) 10/42 Upgrade. Armament re-oriented for Four 3in/50 (not three at this time), Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1325) New Upgrade 3/44 (primarily to receive the Ballard conversions). 3in/50 reduced to three, Minor AA changes.
(1515)-(1521) Deleted

Gamble (DM)
(310) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1320) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.

Dorsey (DMS)
(312) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1321) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1322) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.

Farragut
(265) Reduced DC ammo to 5

Porter
(266) Depth Charge Ammo reduced to 5

Mahan
(268) Five 5in version reinstated, DC ammo reduced to 5.

Somers
(267) Dc ammo reduced to 5.

Bagley
(269) DC Ammo reduced to 5.

Sims
(270) DC Ammo reduced to 5.

Gridley/McCall
All: Name changed to Gridley

Gearing
(1324) Added late war Radar Picket Upgrade, 6/45.

DEs
Found almost nothing worth changing. Considered renaming the Butler class as Rudderow or perhaps John c Butler but talked myself out of it. Based on data in Friedman I increased the Depth Charge ammo for all classes:
1 Hedgehog (8)
2 DCR (10)
8 DCT (5)
The figure of 14 full patterns was specified for some units but I believe that was in the Atlantic. Also added Belt and Deck armor.

Next: Form 1040

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Light armor added to all destroyers. DC ammo adjusted for initial versions of most modern DD - 14 charges in two rack. Change not made in those classes with DCT added or in upgrades post 12/41 as I could find no data to support it.

Sampson (last of the pre-Flush Deckers)
(412) New Class added with 1940 armament modifications
(1526) Upgrade added for AA

Flush Deck
(264) Name changed to Clemson, Weapon #5 changed to 3/23 AA gun, Depth charge ammo adjusted.
(410)-(416) Deleted (positions will be reused)
(1314) Upgrade date changed to 1/42, 4th 4in replaced, Speed reduced to 30 knots, Endurance increased to 4400, Depth Charge Ammo Adjusted. Upgrade set to Manley (1319)

Ballard (AVD)
(262) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1355) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1356) Depth charge Ammo adjusted, upgrade set to Manley (1325)

Manley (APD)
(307) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1319) 10/42 Upgrade. Armament re-oriented for Four 3in/50 (not three at this time), Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1325) New Upgrade 3/44 (primarily to receive the Ballard conversions). 3in/50 reduced to three, Minor AA changes.
(1515)-(1521) Deleted

Gamble (DM)
(310) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1320) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.

Dorsey (DMS)
(312) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1321) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.
(1322) Depth charge Ammo adjusted.

Farragut
(265) Reduced DC ammo to 5

Porter
(266) Depth Charge Ammo reduced to 5

Mahan
(268) Five 5in version reinstated, DC ammo reduced to 5.

Somers
(267) Dc ammo reduced to 5.

Bagley
(269) DC Ammo reduced to 5.

Sims
(270) DC Ammo reduced to 5.

Gridley/McCall
All: Name changed to Gridley

Gearing
(1324) Added late war Radar Picket Upgrade, 6/45.

DEs
Found almost nothing worth changing. Considered renaming the Butler class as Rudderow or perhaps John c Butler but talked myself out of it. Based on data in Friedman I increased the Depth Charge ammo for all classes:
1 Hedgehog (8)
2 DCR (10)
8 DCT (5)
The figure of 14 full patterns was specified for some units but I believe that was in the Atlantic. Also added Belt and Deck armor.

Next: Form 1040

So, are the Asiatic Clemsons different than those at PH, West Coast? The Clemsons not with Asiatic fleet were modernized as per our converstion at the outset of game.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
So, are the Asiatic Clemsons different than those at PH, West Coast? The Clemsons not with Asiatic fleet were modernized as per our converstion at the outset of game.

At this point - No Sir. I must admit that I remember discussing the 6-3in variant but not a pre-war 4-4in/6 TT variant. They say the memory is the second thing to go.

According to Friedman, the upgrade was authorized on December 3, 1941 for those Atlantic Fleet units not converted to 6-3in. The 4-4in/6 TT upgrade was set in January, 1942 and conversion of all Pacific Fleet (except Asiatic Fleet) units authorized by February, 1942. The only ship in the Pacific that were converted pre-war appear to be Allen (converted on recommissioning in 1940) and (if I recall) one or two ships then used for training.

If you have specific conversion dates I'd love to get them.

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Don,
I just started on that book you found, “Ships for Victory,” and I may have found something of interest that may help in recreating US merchant ships.

Damn - mine has not arrived yet and I'm beginning to worry that it may be lost in the mail.

On pg 21 it mentions that by 1942 91.8% of merchant ships would be 20 years old, and on the same page that “most of the dry-cargo vessels were of 10 to 11 knot speed.”

Now, on pages 27-28 it mentions that the C1, C2, & C3 “sorts” were used to classify ships after 1939. I had been under the impression that all ships in the game fell into one of these categories, but apparently using the Cs to classify the December 1941 merchant fleet would be incorrect, at least for about 90% of them. Is there any way to come up with hard data on which ships predated the 1939 reforms? The Cs are well documented, but the preC ships would be considerably slower and maybe even somewhat smaller.
bs

ps. btw, 10% of 12/41 AKs and all AKs built later would be Cs, though.

Yes - there is a book called Merchant Fleets 1939 which gives tabular data on all merchant ships over 2000 tons in existance in 1939. Includes speed but not endurance. I have a copy and Matrix used it heavily in creating the original merchant OOB. They did an excellent job but generalized the ships into a half-dozen classes (like Japan). We will split them out (like Japan).

The US Maritime Commission, which came up with the C1, C2, etc. designations, was the 1930s successor to the old U.S. Shipping Board.

pps. what's a "Hog Islander"?

A Hog Islander is a World War I Liberty Ship built at the Hog Island shipyard. There were also "Submarine Boat" and "West Coaster" variations built at a shipyard owned by the Submarine Boat Company and to a general design at several west coast yards.

Don
How would you classify the pre-1939 ships? If I undrstand it correctly, before the regulations of 1939 the mercships weren't very regulated - probably even more classes than the erratic Jap merc fleet. (However, the book's hazy on this. In fact, it's an excellent source on the brass and shipyards, but it's a little weak on the ships themselves.) Probably the best bet would be to use the old generic AKs for pre1939 vessels. Maybe a few more prolific classes could be injected for flavor. Are the Hog Islanders unique enough to warrant a sepparate class?
bs

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bstarr

Don
How would you classify the pre-1939 ships? If I undrstand it correctly, before the regulations of 1939 the mercships weren't very regulated - probably even more classes than the erratic Jap merc fleet. (However, the book's hazy on this. In fact, it's an excellent source on the brass and shipyards, but it's a little weak on the ships themselves.) Probably the best bet would be to use the old generic AKs for pre1939 vessels. Maybe a few more prolific classes could be injected for flavor. Are the Hog Islanders unique enough to warrant a sepparate class?
bs

We've already defined a number of pre-USMC classes. These include Hog Island WWI Liberty Ships - Type A (cargo) and Type B (passenger), West Coaster WWI Liberty Ship, a World War I standard Tanker, early Navy transports (based on Henderson), Lake Type Coasters, a non-navalized President Class transport, and a large freighter of the Luckenbach line (for which we happened to have good data). Also a couple of dozen British, Dutch, Australian, Canadian and Philippine ships of various ages.

Not all types of course but a good representative sample. The large World War I building program dominated cargo fleets during the 1920s and the USMC types came in during the 1930s. We could have merged all the U.S. World War I Liberty Ships into one group but we have three and would have four if I could find good data and an icon for the Submarine Boat variety.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
So, are the Asiatic Clemsons different than those at PH, West Coast? The Clemsons not with Asiatic fleet were modernized as per our converstion at the outset of game.

At this point - No Sir. I must admit that I remember discussing the 6-3in variant but not a pre-war 4-4in/6 TT variant. They say the memory is the second thing to go.

According to Friedman, the upgrade was authorized on December 3, 1941 for those Atlantic Fleet units not converted to 6-3in. The 4-4in/6 TT upgrade was set in January, 1942 and conversion of all Pacific Fleet (except Asiatic Fleet) units authorized by February, 1942. The only ship in the Pacific that were converted pre-war appear to be Allen (converted on recommissioning in 1940) and (if I recall) one or two ships then used for training.

If you have specific conversion dates I'd love to get them.

Also, remember ALlen is not a Clemson, she is actually a Tucker class destroyer, and should be handled differently than the Clemsons.

Also, since I notice you are calling them Clemsons and not Flush Decks, are we separating out the Clemsons from the Wickes?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
So, are the Asiatic Clemsons different than those at PH, West Coast? The Clemsons not with Asiatic fleet were modernized as per our converstion at the outset of game.

At this point - No Sir. I must admit that I remember discussing the 6-3in variant but not a pre-war 4-4in/6 TT variant. They say the memory is the second thing to go.

According to Friedman, the upgrade was authorized on December 3, 1941 for those Atlantic Fleet units not converted to 6-3in. The 4-4in/6 TT upgrade was set in January, 1942 and conversion of all Pacific Fleet (except Asiatic Fleet) units authorized by February, 1942. The only ship in the Pacific that were converted pre-war appear to be Allen (converted on recommissioning in 1940) and (if I recall) one or two ships then used for training.

If you have specific conversion dates I'd love to get them.

Also, remember Allen is not a Clemson, she is actually a Tucker class destroyer, and should be handled differently than the Clemsons.

I have Allen as a Sampson class - the second group of Tuckers. Friedman gives excellent data on her 1940 upgrade. She and three flush deckers being recommissioned from reserve were to have 2 banks of TT and the aftermost 4in gun replaced by 3in AA guns. Only Allen was so modified. The other three (Conner, Stockton, Conway) went to Britain as part of the 50 and were not actually modified. A second upgrade was then designed that replaced all of the 4in with 3in and used for Atlantic Fleet units in 1941.

Also, since I notice you are calling them Clemsons and not Flush Decks, are we separating out the Clemsons from the Wickes?

You got me there. I was going to use the name "Clemson" as that is what I was used to. I do NOT have a separate Wickes class - primarily because the replacement of #4 boiler by extra fuel effectively removed the difference between the two classes (and this upgrade happened right after the start of the war). I guess I'll change the name back to Flush Decker. Does kind of look funny in a list of classes when all the rest are the class leader.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
So, are the Asiatic Clemsons different than those at PH, West Coast? The Clemsons not with Asiatic fleet were modernized as per our converstion at the outset of game.

At this point - No Sir. I must admit that I remember discussing the 6-3in variant but not a pre-war 4-4in/6 TT variant. They say the memory is the second thing to go.

According to Friedman, the upgrade was authorized on December 3, 1941 for those Atlantic Fleet units not converted to 6-3in. The 4-4in/6 TT upgrade was set in January, 1942 and conversion of all Pacific Fleet (except Asiatic Fleet) units authorized by February, 1942. The only ship in the Pacific that were converted pre-war appear to be Allen (converted on recommissioning in 1940) and (if I recall) one or two ships then used for training.

If you have specific conversion dates I'd love to get them.

Also, remember ALlen is not a Clemson, she is actually a Tucker class destroyer, and should be handled differently than the Clemsons.

Also, since I notice you are calling them Clemsons and not Flush Decks, are we separating out the Clemsons from the Wickes?

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.

Oh...I was under the impression that many of the west coast DDs were already refitted to 4"/6TT config a war's start. Then simply have all start as Asiatics and go from there.

[Don Bowen]

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.

[Ron Saueracker]

Well, there we have it. Excellent library you have. I want one too.[8D]

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
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.

I prefer using a name over Flush Deck. Either Clemson, as that is the larger group and all are almost identical, or Wikes/Clemson.

[Tankerace]

I like the Wickes/Clemson idea, it covers both aspects.

On the Allen, you are right. Its just for War Plan Orange I make no distinction between the Tuckers, though I do have Connor and Stockton as their own separate class from the Caldwells, thanks to the twin 4"/50 on the bow.

Ooh, how about 4 piper? [:D]

US DD classes are difficult, because Friedman, Jane's, and Conway's all list them differently. But, since I am using the Jane's convention for naming (considering its fromt he time period), and for WitP we are using mor emodern, I guess Sampson would be more appropriate.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I like the Wickes/Clemson idea, it covers both aspects.

On the Allen, you are right. Its just for War Plan Orange I make no distinction between the Tuckers, though I do have Connor and Stockton as their own separate class from the Caldwells, thanks to the twin 4"/50 on the bow.

Ooh, how about 4 piper? [:D]

US DD classes are difficult, because Friedman, Jane's, and Conway's all list them differently. But, since I am using the Jane's convention for naming (considering its fromt he time period), and for WitP we are using mor emodern, I guess Sampson would be more appropriate.

But my Gridley/McCall has been lumped to Gridley....[:(][;)]