The Ship Model Forum

Thanks, Rick. That's exactly what I needed. No fuze setter on the mount.

I'm not sure I can answer your question. I don't have time to hunt for a close-up image of a Mk 30 5-in/38 open mount. But here is a rare view of an early BENSON-GLEAVES unit without a canvas cover completely covering the open mounts. Full frame with date and info and a close crop view.

I am planning on using the Black Cat open Mk30s on my pre war Benson. Should the fuze setter be present or did mount 53 and 54 have setters integral to the hoists?

Rick E Davis wrote:

Thanks a lot! The reproducer is really a new field for me. Honestly speaking, it's really hard to associate it with the loudspeaker for me.

For the issue of the K-guns...Thx for your detailed surveys? Undoubtedly, the early war period DDs are always confusing. I guess it might be available to suppose which ship possibly received 8 K-guns by checking their war diaries to see if they back to a yard around January 1941... However that was likely to happen in frontier bases as well.
I also noticed images of DD-442&443 showing both Y-gun and K-guns on them. It's quite disappointing to discover the lack of available pictures.

The information of Buchanan's modifications are located on: https://destroyerhistory.org/benson-gle ... &pid=48402.
With a title of "the Buke", that page shows the ship's fit outs during different periods. I suspect that the record is a speculation based on other Gleaves' fittings.

Pan

DavidP wrote:the 2 Benson Class drawings I have, DD-492 USS Bailey Booklet of General Plans 1942 & DD-616 USS Nields Booklet of General Plans 1942 show 6 throwers each on the main deck.

Yes, I agree with that. For the repeat-Bensons as they commissioned, 6 K-guns are typical. I don't have Bailey Booklet of General Plans, while I went through Nields', I confirmed that.

Pan

Pan,

First off, the "boxy" device with six portals are called "reproducers", a fancy name for loudspeaker. They were installed to be "louder" than the previous standard horn speaker. This came in useful for underway replenishment and for communicating with small craft during amphibious operations.

The issue of the early "BENSON and GLEAVES" class units (DD-421 through DD-444) being authorized eight K-Guns is debatable. EIGHT K-Guns were authorized in August 1941, and then reduced to SIX K-Guns in December 1941. None of the Repeat BENSON-GLEAVES class units were completed with eight K-Guns. I'm unsure of Friedman's comment that "a few BENSON's had eight K-Guns" installed in January 1942. I have come across no photos showing eight K-Guns in late 1941 or early 1942. Actually, I have several photos of the early BENSON-GLEAVES class units in January-May 1942 with a Y-Gun still on the fantail and NO K-Guns. However, there is a general gap in photograph coverage of these units during this period and a couple could have been modified. I have an image of one unit with only FOUR K-Guns in the Atlantic in May 1942. A "draft-Red-lined" April 1942 Armament Summary I came across at NARA, shows that DD-423, 430, 437, and 442 still had a Y-Gun. The same Summary has DD-421, 430, 433, 436, 443, and 444 had only four K-Guns. Also, this Summary has DD-426, 427, 428, 434, 435, 438, 439, and 441 had six K-Guns. Armament Summaries most times were NOT up to date since armaments were changing rapidly during the war and was reliant or data REPORTED to the beancounters producing the Summary. I suspect most (or all?) of these units had yet to get ANY K-Guns installed by January 1942. Only DD-427 and 438 had "printed" entries of Six K-Guns in the April 1942 Armament Summaries showing that they were installed prior to an earlier Armament Summary update. Several units do not have any K-Guns of a Y-Gun listed. Also, Pacific class units of the Original and Repeat BENSON-GLEAVES class units were directed to reduce K-Guns to FOUR in the Pacific as a weight saving for additional AA armament, but this doesn't appear to have been followed and apparently was rescinded at some point.

I don't see where your comment about USS BUCHANAN having her quad 1.1-in mount removed and several 20-mm guns added in late 1943 (I assume this was prior to her upgrade to two twin 40-mm mounts) appears in DestroyerHistory.org, please provide where this is located. Removing her quad 1.1-in mount would be very unlikely, until being replaced with twin 40-mm mounts, unless completely destroyed. A centerline platform forward of the bridge would have required a yard period and there is no evidence that occurred before mid-1944. However, there is evidence that the bridge wing 20-mm guns were added prior to her 1944 overhaul. I have an image of USS LANSDOWNE (DD-486) dated 17 March 1943, showing the bridge wing 20-mm guns and a fuzzy image of USS BUCHANAN in July 1943, looking like she also have these wing 20-mm guns. But, both photos show no centerline platform installed forward of the bridge. LANSDOWNE only a month after this photo was photographed at MINY getting the two twin 40-mm mounts and a centerline platform forward of the bridge.

Hey guys,

I have some new doubts about the two classes� Here are the details.

Firstly, Mr. Norman Friedman informed that some DDs carried 8 K-guns in January 1942 in his book, however I didn�t find any images of this, while armament summaries seems not yet digitized at National Archives.
I wonder if somebody have detailed records of this.

Secondly, I don�t know the exact names of the boxy installations shown in the images below. Here�s a view of Woodworth�s Mk37 director(on 16 June 1944), which I referred to is circled in the center. Another one is something similar on McCalla�s foremast, January 5 1944� also been circled. Finally, distroyerhistory.org said Buchanan replaced her 1.1 inch mount with a single 20mm gun, and received a centerline 20mm mount on a platform constructed forward of the bridge, plus two more�on the after corners of the bridge wings late 1943. I couldn�t
find Buchanan�s images from late 1943 to early 1944, except a fuzzy picture in Farenholt�s cruise book, showing Buchanan en route Purvis Bay after the Kavieng Raid(Buke is the middle one). However, it seems impossible to figure out her modifications. Maybe you have better ideas and could help to confirm the upgrades in forward areas. The image I have is really not clear enough. Pan

cheyenovich wrote:

E9D5A67C-9233-416D-A3ED-7F02DB590FE6.png

I have been looking at this image for 25+ years, always focused on the Laffey but taking note of the Helena in the background. I have never looked at my hi-res copy of this close enough to realize there was a DD there!?!? Great spot! Just did something similar the other day while researching something, I love revisiting images and looking carefully in the background. Some of the best finds have not been the focus of the photographer.

Thanks for sharing,

Matt

Hi Rick,

Recently as I went through the photos of Laffey, I discovered something interesting. Here�s the famous view of her after Wasp was sunk�Laffey carried the survivors aboard, with Helena in the background.
When I enlarged the photo and tried to observe Helena, I notice the destroyer tied to her�The funnel shape, the unique camouflage, and the occasion of appearance all pointed out she should be Farenholt. The date was around middle September 1942, but it seems that there was still no SC radar antenna on Farenholt�s mast top. Maybe she didn�t have it installed until the overhaul at PHNY.
Anyway, the view of Farenholt is not clear enough�I can�t identify her yard, nor Helena�s mast details. It�s possible that the radar was installed, but not visible in the photo.

Pan

Dick,

Tom's "Aside Comment" was in response to the view of USS PRINGLE (DD-477) in the background of USS BUCHANAN that prompted a recall of his experience with a sailor that was onboard BUCHANAN. Because of PRINGLE's movements and crossed paths with BUCHANAN, that helped to narrow down the likely date and location of the USS BUCHANAN photos which had various dates in 80-G.

This image showing the aft part of USS PRINGLE illustrates the unique configuration of the three Aircraft-Handling FLETCHER's (DD476-478) that were modified to "Interim" Fleet Destroyers.

Fliger747 wrote:Ahhh... Pringle: Over a decade ago I was deadheading somewhere and an old vet was wearing a Pringle hat and I chatted with him briefly and he related being aboard when she was lost to a "Baka flying Bomb", looked like we got hit by an airborne torpedo!

Except, Pringle was a Fletcher class DD. http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0547723.jpg

Ahhh... Pringle: Over a decade ago I was deadheading somewhere and an old vet was wearing a Pringle hat and I chatted with him briefly and he related being aboard when she was lost to a "Baka flying Bomb", looked like we got hit by an airborne torpedo!

Speaking of Tulagi / G'canal, some of you may find this circa 1942 chart of IBS I posted in another thread of interest.

download/file.php?id=145548&mode=view

Hi Rick?

Your information really helps a lot. I checked Buchanan's and Pringle's war diaries, which may have revealed the actual date.

On 13 July 1943, Pringle detached from Task Group 36.2 and arrived at Tulagi 1600 that afternoon. She left there with desron 22 the next day, at 1605... On the other hand, Buchanan entered Tulagi at 1617, 13 July, about a quarter later than Pringle. Buchanan left there the next morning, escorted the damaged cruisers en route Espiritu Santo and arrived on 16 July. She proceeded again on 17 July, this time headed for Noumea with Woodworth... and made it on 21 July. On 26 July, Buchanan finally entered dry dock ARD-2, where she finished reparation on 31 July. Another point is, on 24 August, Buchanan was also at Noumea.

According to the info above, I believe that the three images could only be taken on 13 or 14 July. As you pointed out, NARA's dates should be when higher command received the photos. Finally my doubts go to an answer.

And the "mystery" markings... unless we discover new images, it may be very hard to reach a conclusion... Well, I've decided to make things simple. It's more practical to build my Buchanan honestly with Ms12 mod camouflage, as she looked like during Battle of Cape Esperance.

Rick E Davis wrote:Pan,

I still think the "mystery" markings are more likely to be a scoreboard based on the shape and that the scoreboard was "expanded" at MINY during 1944 in that same location. But, who knows. There was no "standard" placement of scoreboards. In 1/700 scale, this "marking(s)" would be no more than a couple of "dots" anyway.

Dates on USN photos, especially taken in the forward areas and filed in the 80-G collection, should always be considered suspect without additional knowledge/research. The three images I have scanned at NARA that appear to have been taken at the same time and place, however they have two different dates ... 31 July 1943 and 24 August 1943. The dates on 80-G photos are more likely the date received by the USN Photo Collection Office or as turned in by the ship to higher command, unless the true date was written on the back of the original print. Checking Deck Logs and/or War Diaries would provide a better idea of when these photos were taken. I didn't note what ship the cameraman was onboard when he took the photo, which I normally provide unless the ship is unknown, which would narrow down the true date even tighter by cross checking when that ship (and USS PRINGLE in the background) was also at Tulagi. Her 13 July 1943 collision damage was repaired locally.

I neglected to comment about small cartoons applied on particularly 5-in mounts, this practice was fairly common, especially late in the war.

Pan,

I still think the "mystery" markings are more likely to be a scoreboard based on the shape and that the scoreboard was "expanded" at MINY during 1944 in that same location. But, who knows. There was no "standard" placement of scoreboards. In 1/700 scale, this "marking(s)" would be no more than a couple of "dots" anyway.

Dates on USN photos, especially taken in the forward areas and filed in the 80-G collection, should always be considered suspect without additional knowledge/research. The three images I have scanned at NARA that appear to have been taken at the same time and place, however they have two different dates ... 31 July 1943 and 24 August 1943. The dates on 80-G photos are more likely the date received by the USN Photo Collection Office or as turned in by the ship to higher command, unless the true date was written on the back of the original print. Checking Deck Logs and/or War Diaries would provide a better idea of when these photos were taken. I didn't note what ship the cameraman was onboard when he took the photo, which I normally provide unless the ship is unknown, which would narrow down the true date even tighter by cross checking when that ship (and USS PRINGLE in the background) was also at Tulagi. Her 13 July 1943 collision damage was repaired locally.

I neglected to comment about small cartoons applied on particularly 5-in mounts, this practice was fairly common, especially late in the war.

Thx Rick,

I got what you mean, however, maybe I didn't make it clear. I refer to the irregular shape before the canvas (I've pointed it out in the picture below). I compared the photos of Buchanan's and Lansdowne's bridge in 1943, it seems that their scoreboards were both on the bridge wings... though in 1944 the scoreboard is at where the arrow pointed, the shape was different. So I don't think the irregular shape is a scoreboard. I know that some sailors created interesting paintings on their ships, while many of them didn't leave official records. As an example, there's one on Wilkes' No.1 mount.

Anyway, Buchanan's case is simply my personal guess... Oh well, would you happen to have any info of the photo below? NHHC said its' taken on July 31, 1943, while Buchanan broke her bow on July 13, during the battle of Kolombangara... I have some doubts about it. If NHHC is right, it's over two weeks when Buchanan got the chance to enter a dry dock for reparations (That would show how hard the Solomon Islands Campaign is) ... And at that time, the irregular shape had appeared on the director.

Rick E Davis wrote:Pan,

Actually what you think is a "badge/mascot", is actually canvas around the rangefinder of the Mk 37 director.

I have three different views of USS BUCHANAN (DD-484) taken at the same time, but none are close-up or high enough res to clearly see the Mk 37 director due to distance from the camera of the photos. However, this image taken from a more forward quarter aspect shows that the "object" is not on the side of the director, but is hanging on the rangefinder.

The attachment zDD484x25crop-31Jul43.jpeg is no longer available

Also, this in yard view taken at MINY after her summer 1944 overhaul was repaired shows the canvas cover of the rangefinder opening in the Mk 37 director is outsized and looks very baggy.

The attachment zDD484x34crop2-23Jun44.jpeg is no longer available

Pan,

Actually what you think is a "badge/mascot", is actually canvas around the rangefinder of the Mk 37 director.

I have three different views of USS BUCHANAN (DD-484) taken at the same time, but none are close-up or high enough res to clearly see the Mk 37 director due to distance from the camera of the photos. However, this image taken from a more forward quarter aspect shows that the "object" is not on the side of the director, but is hanging on the rangefinder.
Also, this in yard view taken at MINY after her summer 1944 overhaul was repaired shows the canvas cover of the rangefinder opening in the Mk 37 director is outsized and looks very baggy.

Hi Rick?

I�ve read this topic in detail, which greatly enriched my knowledge.What a wonderful forum!

Recently I'm building some 1/700 desron12 tincans, and I noticed your photo about Buchanan (the last picture, shows buke's foremast on 24 August 1943). It seems there�s a mascot on the side of the Mk37 director. I'm certain that it's neither the ship's scoreboard (shown on the bridge wings) nor the "Scrapperoos" symbol (not appeared until the Rabaul strike). I really wonder if it's an early version of desron12's symbol or just the mascot of buchanan herself.

Do you have a clearer version of the photo, or any ideas about buchanan's mascot? I tried to search on navsource and NHHC, but they didn't show this photo.

Thanks,
Pan

Rick E Davis wrote:Matthew,


Here is a view of USS BUCHANAN ... 24 August 1943 ... even at this date, she still doesn't have a SG radar installed but does have a stovepipe BL antenna (installed on port yardarm)

The director barbettes on the destroyers only had anti splinter plating? Not sure but probably 20 lb plate max? This would allow for a fairly simple closure as opposed to those on the heavily armored battleship conning towers. Top weight was quite critical in these ships. It would be interesting to see drawings or photos of just how these worked. Alaska CB1 had similar viewing slits on her aft MK 37 Barbette but she probably could have allowed a heavier plating.

Best regards: Tom

Guest Wrote:

No. 2. In this picture of the same ship there seems to be 2 extra objects around the director base (5 as opposed to 3). Am I seeing things or is there actually something there and what could it be?

The objects located on the outer surface of the Main Battery Director barbette are called "peep holes" although that's a rather generic term. Those are actually either round or oval openings or viewports in the sides of the barbette, more than likely equally spaced on either side of the barbette. They are very similar to the ones that originally were located on the conning tower of the IOWA class in that that they have angled openings to deflect possible incoming rounds or shrapnel from close bursts. These ports have covers which can be lowered to close off these ports when needed. As the picture is still a bit distant, I can't tell if those ports have retractable (geared) covers or hinged covers. The inside opening is thus smaller than the outside due to the angle of the opening.

Hope this helps,