Next project Fly USS Jaccard-IJN Matsu!

[airbob]

This is the link for Red River Paper products for those that are interested in pursuing this...they also have one of the rare places where you can get metallic silver paper (inkjet printable)...:D
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/

[Don Boose]

Thanks for these useful websites, Bob.

Now, does anyone know of a U.S. source for A4 paper of about 0.2mm (.008-.009") thickness (equivalent to Wausau Exact Bristol 67 lb or Wausau Exact Index 110 lb)?

Don B.

[airbob]

This is the Jaccard hull that I stripped the red tiles off and have been replaced by Red River 37# Premium Photo Matte paper...much thinner than the above card stock that I used , as you can see compared with the earlier card stock hull... this gives a much cleaner "fit" and of course the coloring is much brighter...this was then "fixed" with a clear flat acrylic spray...I'm going to finish both these DE's this way....
http://www.clarksvegas.com/bob/galle...paper.JPG.html
http://www.clarksvegas.com/bob/galle...+pape.JPG.html

[Don Boose]

Very nice, the both of them!

Are you going to complete them both as Jaccard or change the numbers on one to match another, similar, DE with the same camo scheme?

Don B.

[Don Boose]

Bob – I earlier suggested that you could make one of the DE models into a ship other than the Jaccard by finding another DE of the same class that had the same camouflage scheme and then changing the numbers on one of the hulls.

It may be possible to do this, but the trick is in finding another ship with the same color scheme – and this may be difficult because the Jaccard had an unusual, and possibly unique, camouflage scheme: 32-33/3D. The “32” refers to Measure 32, a combination of three colors, light gray, ocean gray, and dull black, that at a distance gave the impression of a medium gray. The “33” refers to Measure 33, a combination of pale gray, haze gray, and navy blue, that at a distance gave the impression of a light gray. The “3D” refers to the pattern, in this case, a disruptive pattern designed for destroyers and illustrated by your two Jaccard models.

The problem is that Jaccard was chosen in October 1944 for a joint U.S.-British test of camouflage patterns and colors. For this test, the Jaccard’s port side was painted in Measure 33/3D and the starboard side in 32/3D. [Larry Sowinski and Tom Walkowiak, United States Navy Camouflage of the WW2 Era, Philadelphia, PA: Floating Drydock Press, 1976, p. 27].

At least one other ship was painted in Measure 32-33/3D. It was the Hodges, DE-231. Judging from photographs of both sides of the ship, the pattern was identical to that of the Jaccard, and the two sides were in the two different measures (32 and 33). Although the Hodges was a Rudderow class ship, it is identical in outward appearance to the Jaccard, which was a John C. Butler class. The Rudderows were TEVs (Turbo Electric Tandem drive) and the Butlers were WGT (Westinghouse Geared Turbine), but externally, they were identical (except for the minor changes that all ships undergo in the course of their service life).

The problem is that the camouflage pattern of the Hodges is the reverse of that of the Jaccard. Hodges port side looks just like your Jaccard’s starboard side and vice versa.

I’ve found two other ships that have the same 3D pattern as the Jaccard: Tinsman (DE-589) and Robert Brazier (DE-345) [Tinsman is a Rudderow; Brazier is a Butler]. However, Tinsman is in Measure 32/3D, so the port side would be darker than that of the Jaccard. The Brazier is in Measure 31/3D, so it would look darker than the Jaccard. The differences may not be significant at 1/400. [The various photos of the Jaccard, Hodges, Tinsman, and Brazier are in Al Adcock, Destroyer Escorts in Action, Warships Number 11, Carrolton, TX: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1997, pp. 33, 34, 39, and 40.]

Hodges: http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/231.htm
Tinsman: http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/images/0658901.jpg
Brazier: http://www.navsource.org/archives/06/images/0634501.jpg

Other DEs: http://www.navsource.org/archives/06idx.htm

And, there may be at least one other ship that was in the same Measure 32-33/3D as the Jaccard. I just haven’t found one yet.

For more on DE color schemes, including a photo of the Jaccard, see Destroyer Escort Central: http://www.de220.com/Camouflage/DE%2...20Patterns.htm

Don B.

[airbob]

Don,
WOW!,what GREAT research!....actually the problem of reversing the patterns port to starboard is simple....I have Photoshop and you just simply "flip" the color plates to arrange this reverse pattern!....that may be a great idea...actually I was planning on just letting the other DE hull "lie" and was talking about the completed "bones" hull of the "Matsu".....but you may have a great idea if I can strip this old stuff off of this hull without damaging it beyond recognition!

[Don Boose]

Thanks for the kind words, Bob.

Before you start peeling the sides off one of the models, maybe we can find a ship that will fit the patterns as they are.

In my previous posting, I left out one of the really great sources for info on WWII USN camo schemes: Floating Drydock (http://floatingdrydock.com/camo.htm )

Among other things, they sell for a modest price camo pattern sheets for all the Bureau of Ships patterns, including 32-33/3D. These show the pattern and the ships for which the pattern was designed. 32-33/3D is listed as for the DE-51 class, for example.

That sheet may make it possible to pin down the other ships in the 32-33/3D scheme. The pattern just says what the Navy Department put out, it doesn't prove what the actual paint job was for a particular ship. But it might lead to photos that would provide further evidence. I have ordered the 32-33/3D sheet in question and will continue to look at photos of DEs.

The whole issue of camo is tricky since there were so many variations -- the 31, 32, and 33 measures, for example, could be applied in a variety of colors, including green and brown, in addition to the sets of three that I indicated earlier. Even photos aren't proof, as black and whites can't show the hues (colors) and even color shots can be deceptive due to lighting conditions, weathering, and so on.

I don't want to be considered a fanatic rivet counter (or rivet color checker, as it were). I like to try to find evidence of how the prototypes of models actually looked (and what they did historically), but in the end, what is important is the pleasure the model gives to the builder, regardless of historical “accuracy.” Your beautiful models must give you a great deal of pleasure. I certainly have enjoyed seeing them under construction and I greatly admire the finished product.

Don B.

PS: Just out of curiosity, is one of the sides of your model in darker shades than the other? I can't tell from the photos.

[airbob]

Don,
....too late!....I already did strip the old hull down to the waterline...and have reversed the Pattern to reflect the DE 231 "Hodges" and have made changed the name of this pattern to reflect "Hodges"....by the way I also decided to sand these hull red areas to "smooth" them out...works pretty well...since 2 or more coats of acrylic make them real durable...I will make the DE 231 Hodges as well as the Jacccard...your suggestions were excellent, and we'll see how this experiment turns out. I have shown the "new" reversed pattern below the sanded hulls to reflect the DE "Hodges" ( need to move the "Hodges" name to center it:o)
http://www.clarksvegas.com/bob/galle...sters.JPG.html

[Don Boose]

Gosh. You sure do fast and high quality work, Bob. The sanded hulls look very good. It’s hard to imagine that the models are just a little over 9 inches long.

What kind of a printer do you use? I’m sure you have mentioned this elsewhere, but if so I can’t find the posting.

The Hodges is certainly a very worthy subject and I look forward to seeing it take shape. Among other events, the Hodges was part of the screen for the Rear Admiral Fechteler’s amphibious force (TG 78.5) transporting the 6th Infantry Division to San Fabian BLUE BEACH on 9 January 1945, during the Lingayen Gulf amphibious operation. They came under attack by suicide boats and aircraft that damaged several U.S. and Australian ships, including the Hodges, which sustained minor damage and no casualties when a Kamikaze plane hit the foremast. [Vice Admiral Daniel E. Barbey, MacArthur’s Amphibious Navy: Seventh Amphibious Force Operations 1943-1945, Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1969, p. 299; Samuel Eliot Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Vol. XIII, The Liberation of the Philippines: Luzon, Mindanao, the Visayas, 1944-1945, Boston: Little, Brown, 1959, pp. 125-126 and order of battle for TF 78, pp. 308-309; U.S. Navy Historical Center, “USS Hodges,” Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, “Hodges,” http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/h7/hodges.htm ]

Don B.

[Don Boose]

Bob -- Is it a coincidence that, having built a model of the Hiryu, you chose to model the Jaccard, which is named after Ensign Richard A. Jaccard who, as a member of Scouting Squadron 6 aboard USS Enterprise, participated in the sinking of the Hiryu? Don B.