by Rick E Davis » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:15 pm
The Squadron Books may have a few useful photos, but their "facts" and plans need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go to this page on this website and go to the "Books" link and read the reviews for Squadron's Destroyers Pt. 2 and Pt. 3.
...
http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/reviews.html ...
Pt 2 comments:
My biggest gripe with this book is this plan and elevation labeled as the USS Cushing. This is not correct for that ship, and it calls into question other views in the book. The Cushing had two 20 mm gun in front of the bridge not three as shown. Also there were no twin 40 mm guns installed as is shown on the plans. There should be 20 mm guns in place of those and there was another 20 mm mount where the gun director is shown. Interestingly the specifications listed list the armament of the Cushing list five 5"-38 cal guns instead of the four shown. Perhaps this is a simple mistake, but with good plans of the Cushing available, and photo's on both Navsource.org and the Naval Historical Center site this should never have made it into print.
Pt 3 comments:
My favorite feature is the centerfold with the color drawings of the destroyers in plan and elevation. Don Greer has done a nice job in showing the ships in their camouflage colors. However I notice the the USS Laffey is drawn wrong. The Laffey never carried the twin 40 mm guns shown in the drawing. She carried one single 20 mm gun and one quad 1.1 gun on her aft superstructure right up to her loss on November 13th 1942. The Buchanan is also drawn incorrectly. The illustration shows her with exposed funnel trunking under her 36" searchlight platform. She also did not have the squared off front on the structure under the bridge. The bridge wings also lack the notches where the 24" searchlights are mounted. This is disappointing that such obvious errors have crept into this book. An otherwise great rendering is ruined by using the wrong views.
The photo's give a general idea of what each class was like and how they were modified throughout the war.
A plan and elevation is provided for the Benson, but does not appear to match her at any time during her career. The elevation drawing appears to be copied from the AD Baker III's drawing of the McClanahan that appears in US Destroyers An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. The plan view looks OK for the above mentioned McClanahan, but the aft twin 40 mm guns are drawn undersize and appear smaller than the single 20 mm guns.
I have always been a big fan of these books and have most of them. But with all the errors in this book I can not recommend it for a good reference. It is poorly researched and misleading. With a retail price of $9.95 it is a nice collection of photo's but the plans and class identification are a big disappointment. Available from your local hobby shop or direct from Squadron Mail order.
Besides these comments, these two books mix up which units were in which class. They are cheap books, but there are better references out there. Going to Navsource is a better way.
The Squadron Books may have a few useful photos, but their "facts" and plans need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Go to this page on this website and go to the "Books" link and read the reviews for Squadron's Destroyers Pt. 2 and Pt. 3.
... http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/reviews.html ...
Pt 2 comments:
[i]My biggest gripe with this book is this plan and elevation labeled as the USS Cushing. This is not correct for that ship, and it calls into question other views in the book. The Cushing had two 20 mm gun in front of the bridge not three as shown. Also there were no twin 40 mm guns installed as is shown on the plans. There should be 20 mm guns in place of those and there was another 20 mm mount where the gun director is shown. Interestingly the specifications listed list the armament of the Cushing list five 5"-38 cal guns instead of the four shown. Perhaps this is a simple mistake, but with good plans of the Cushing available, and photo's on both Navsource.org and the Naval Historical Center site this should never have made it into print.[/i]
Pt 3 comments:
[i]My favorite feature is the centerfold with the color drawings of the destroyers in plan and elevation. Don Greer has done a nice job in showing the ships in their camouflage colors. However I notice the the USS Laffey is drawn wrong. The Laffey never carried the twin 40 mm guns shown in the drawing. She carried one single 20 mm gun and one quad 1.1 gun on her aft superstructure right up to her loss on November 13th 1942. The Buchanan is also drawn incorrectly. The illustration shows her with exposed funnel trunking under her 36" searchlight platform. She also did not have the squared off front on the structure under the bridge. The bridge wings also lack the notches where the 24" searchlights are mounted. This is disappointing that such obvious errors have crept into this book. An otherwise great rendering is ruined by using the wrong views.
The photo's give a general idea of what each class was like and how they were modified throughout the war.
A plan and elevation is provided for the Benson, but does not appear to match her at any time during her career. The elevation drawing appears to be copied from the AD Baker III's drawing of the McClanahan that appears in US Destroyers An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. The plan view looks OK for the above mentioned McClanahan, but the aft twin 40 mm guns are drawn undersize and appear smaller than the single 20 mm guns.
I have always been a big fan of these books and have most of them. But with all the errors in this book I can not recommend it for a good reference. It is poorly researched and misleading. With a retail price of $9.95 it is a nice collection of photo's but the plans and class identification are a big disappointment. Available from your local hobby shop or direct from Squadron Mail order.[/i]
Besides these comments, these two books mix up which units were in which class. They are cheap books, but there are better references out there. Going to Navsource is a better way.