The problem with making a mid or late war Grayson from the Buchanan "45" kit has several problems. None of the first 24 Benson-Gleaves were authorized to have and hence were not modified with the raised centerline platform for a 20-mm gun or had bridge wing 20-mm guns installed. The authorized 20-mm armament for this group of ships was only four mounts. So the navigation bridge isn't right for the Grayson. Further, the Buchanan "45" kit doesn't have the deckhouse for the second aft TT mount and that would take extra work over just using the new Livermore kit as a starting point. Also, the Grayson had a half shield canvas covered 53 mount. See the first two images, when Grayson was updated to the two twin 40-mm configuration at Pearl Harbor in June 1943, she had the "open" 53 mount enclosed again. A kit-bashing between the Livermore kit and Buchanan "45" kit may be doable or just hand-making the twin 40-mm tubs for the Livermore kit may be easier. But, the Buchanan "45" kit was a limited edition release and may be difficult to get at some point.
In 1945 Grayson was one of the Gleaves class units to receive the anti-kamikaze mod (two quad and two twin 40-mm mounts and two twin 20-mm ... before the bridge ... and two single 20-mm ... on the main deck). At this point anyway, NONE of the Benson-Gleaves kits will build the anti-kamikaze version out of the box (see the third image). Many of the configurations seen with this class will require modification to the basic kit to build an accurate model.
So after all that, I agree with Dick that the Livermore would be a better start for building a Grayson for either the early Pacific war period or during the mid-war period up to about May 1945.
Duh ... I reread your post ... don't post right after getting home from a long trip on an airplane. The answer to whether the Buchanan "45" kit would be the "best" starting point option for "any" mid-late war 5-TT Gleaves (or Benson?) ships is a ... it depends. There were differences between the Federal-built repeat-Gleaves units and those built by other builders. The major is the lower bridge deckhouse (at the 02 level) being squared off on on all but Federal-built units ... unless the New York Navy Yard modified the Federal-built ship after delivery ... which isn't available as an "out-of-the-box" part except on the Laffey (Benson) kit. Also, there is a WIDE variety of different configurations to the aft twin 40-mm tubs and Mk 51 (and a few Mk 49) directors seen on the aft deckhouse, the 20-mm tubs and the bridge wing 20-mm installation. So, it may be easier to use a Buchanan "42" kit (plus twin 40-mm mounts from somewhere) and modify it to the required configuration.
Thanks for your replies Rick. My only reason for asking the question was that after looking at Ed McDonald's beautiful Lansdowne build I was inspired to do a '45 Benson/Gleaves in the same Ms 22 scheme, but not the Buchanan, the '42 version of which I've already built, or the Lansdowne, since he just did it. It has become obvious that the choice of ships is not as simple as it seemed at first glance. After combing the internet and looking through the Classic Warships Benson/Gleaves book I think I may have found one in Hambleton DD 455. She was Federal built and I've found at least one photo of her with the 20mm tub added in front of the bridge (although I can't see the area where the 40mm's would have been added) and wearing Ms 22. If you could verify that I'm correct with her and point me in the direction of additional photos or info I'd be grateful. Thanks.
I need to ask you a couple of questions. Are you looking for ships to model more or less out of the box from the Buchanan "45" kit? AND does that ship HAVE to be in Ms 22?
Now then to answer your question about Hambleton (DD-455). Yes she was built by Federal SB&DD, but she had her bridge modified at New York Navy Yard after delivery to match the "standard" as desired in the repeat Benson-Gleaves units (the Laffey kit has this bridge). Ellyson (DD-454) .... see the images I posted way back on page one of these string ... Hambleton (DD-455), and Rodman (DD-456) were all modified in this way. They were delivered in an incomplete configuration and were all modified to the single quad 1.1-in mount configuration similar to Buchanan "42", except for the bridge deckhouse face at 02 level at NYNY. All served in the Atlantic as destroyers. When these three ships did get twin 40-mm mounts, they used the basic bulwark configuration seen on the Buchanan "42" kit with a few mods. I don't know if they later had the bulwarks modified to the Buchanan "45" configuration. In late 1944 these three ships were converted to DMS' units before going to the Pacific.
After delivering these units from Federal, the navy stopped modifying the bridge since Federal was completing them with the aft configuration for eventually two twin 40-mm mounts and installing the temporary quad 1.1-in mount during construction. This is the series I have listed earlier ... DD-483 to DD-490. DD-483 through 488 served in the Pacific as only destroyers and DD-489/490 in the Atlantic before they were also converted to DMS units. The DD-483 through 488 group all had the same basic configuration seen with the Buchanan "42" kit as completed ... with some variations. As the SURVIVORS (DD-484/486/487/488) were modified to the two twin 40-mm standard, their configurations varied depending on WHERE they were upgraded at and when. Lansdowne (DD-486) and McCalla (DD-488) were very close to the configuration seen in the Buchanan "45" kit, all three being modified at Mare Island Navy Yard .... but at different times, with the most noticeable area of difference being the bridge wing 20-mm installation.
If you are willing to modify the 02 bridge deckhouse face ... not all that difficult of a chore ... or get a Laffey kit (maybe bash with a Buchanan "45" kit?) many more options are available. For much of the war, the Atlantic based units were painted in Ms 22 and offer opportunities for modeling in that scheme. The problem will be figuring out which ship had what twin 40-mm mount "tub" configuration and when. Some units kept a close version to the original configuration designed, as seen in the Buchanan "42" and Laffey "42" kit. But, the navy did not like the director locations and several ... and I do mean SEVERAL ... configurations were tried before the Buchanan "45" layout seemed to win. Buchanan upgraded pretty late to the two twin 40-mm mount configuration and Mare Island's layout had "won". Several Benson's (aka Laffey and her sisters) served in the Pacific from the start of their careers and some also got the Mare Island upgrade configuration.
On top of all this, I have some trouble figuring out which ships in the Pacific did got the Ms 22 or Ms 21 after the dazzle schemes were dropped. Photos are sparse for some ships of this dual class in that period. There were 96 units in this dual class. 24 were from the early original batch and were different from the Buchanan/Laffey kits ... Livermore would be a better choice. 20 were Square-bridge Gleaves-class units and they are way different from the Buchanan/Laffey kits. That leaves 52 units ... 24 repeat Bensons and 28 repeat Gleaves. 24 had the temporary quad 1.1-in mount, some of these were lost before getting the two twin 40-mm mounts. That still leaves a lot of units to dig through. You need to narrow down your parameters some for me to even suggest a specific ship or group of ships. I have not tried to map out which of these ships had what configurations as far as concerns the twin 40-mm tubs ... there was a world of variation going on in late 1942 into mid-1943. There are some REAL interesting looking units with one off configurations that would make fun projects, but they will require work beyond out of the box from the Buchanan "45" or any other kit. Classic Warships "Benson/Gleaves" Pictorial book shows many of the Benson-Gleaves configurations ... but not ALL ...
to Rick - thanks for thorough answer, just still not sure if submitted picture of Gwin�s 53 mount is in original configuration (i.e. without turret, open mount) or after turrets sides only disassembly as you mentioned. My english is far to be perfect, so possibly I did not get the point.
Is it possible to attach clear picture of open 5 inch mount or such configuration have not been applied to this class ?
Which kind of Cam.measure had USS Gryson on first and second attached picture ? And it seems, according to tle last pictures, that she retain mount 54 in original configuration, i.e. with convas on the top, till the end of war (July 45 minimally), isn�t it ?
By the way, your knowledge ot this class is excellent, did you ever think about writting the special book on this class ? Squadron Signal or better Publishing House ?
I believe in very good success with availability of all the Dragon plastic kits row that is not finished so far I believe.
I need to ask you a couple of questions. Are you looking for ships to model more or less out of the box from the Buchanan "45" kit? AND does that ship HAVE to be in Ms 22?
Yes Rick, that was my original intent. Although from your thorough response it has become apparent that that task is going to be far more difficult than I had originally imagined. As far as creating one of these ships, I have a little experience scratch building but don't know if I have the courage to go that way with a $50 kit. I also have the Laffey and Livermore kits and a kit bash would work as long as it's only a matter switching parts between kits so I wouldn't have to trash a whole kit just to get a couple of parts from it. I am personally not tied to any one particular ship, so that is not an issue. I wouldn't ask if I had the resources to do it myself, and it seems my photo interpreting skills leave much to be desired. I appreciate any help you can give in this matter, but don't go crazy, the only one that is going to look at my builds and know whether they're accurate or not in an area like this is me anyway.
If one of your concerns is modeling the flat-front 02 bridge deckhouse face, I'd encourage you to try the modification yourself. As Rick says it isn't all that difficult - I did it for my model of USS Ellyson (DD-454) and my scratch-building experience was next to nothing. I could send you some photos if you're interested. While considering the same issues (which base kit to use) I've decided to go with the 1945 Buchanan (not that hard to find, by the way, including directly from Dragon) for my next attempt at Ellyson after her conversion to DMS-19.
If one of your concerns is modeling the flat-front 02 bridge deckhouse face, I'd encourage you to try the modification yourself. As Rick says it isn't all that difficult - I did it for my model of USS Ellyson (DD-454) and my scratch-building experience was next to nothing. I could send you some photos if you're interested. While considering the same issues (which base kit to use) I've decided to go with the 1945 Buchanan (not that hard to find, by the way, including directly from Dragon) for my next attempt at Ellyson after her conversion to DMS-19.
Barry
Barry, I would appreciate seeing those photos. My E-mail address is pmm736@aol.com. Although posting them here might help out more people but that of course is up to you. As far as the '45 Buchanan kit goes, I bought two of them with the intention of building one and possibly selling the other in hopes that the anticipated rarity of a CyberHobby limited edition would drive up the secondary market price like some of their other kits.
I agree, if you could post the pictures here it would help a lot of other modellers.
Pete,
As of this afternoon, you can still get the USS Buchanan 1945 version from DragonOnlieUSA for $39.99, so it will be a while for the secondary market to take off.
I agree, if you could post the pictures here it would help a lot of other modellers.
Pete,
As of this afternoon, you can still get the USS Buchanan 1945 version from DragonOnlieUSA for $39.99, so it will be a while for the secondary market to take off.
I know, another example of me being a day late and a dollar short.
Pete - Maybe you're just way ahead of your time! I'll post a few pictures of my flat deckhouse face conversion later this evening. Barry
PeteM wrote:
sixman wrote:Barry,
I agree, if you could post the pictures here it would help a lot of other modellers.
Pete,
As of this afternoon, you can still get the USS Buchanan 1945 version from DragonOnlieUSA for $39.99, so it will be a while for the secondary market to take off.
I know, another example of me being a day late and a dollar short.
To those interested in modifying the standard Dragon Buchanan to represent other Gleaves class ships that had the flat face deckhouse (behind the 52 mount) here is how I handled it. Beginning with kit part A9
I used a razor saw and trimmed off the rounded front .
I used a piece of 0.010 styrene for the flat front
and used bits of styrene and wire to add the ready ammunition locker and other details. .
You also have to shave a bit off the top of piece A8 to remove the rounded front of the mating deck surface. After painting and a bit of weathering (not yet flat coated) it looks like this . Its really very simple. Rick posted a photo of Ellyson showing this feature back on page one of this topic.
I hope you give it a try. Barry
Last edited by Timmy C on Mon May 04, 2009 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:Reformated post to make text-photo relation clearer.
Thanks a ton Barry. Your photos certainly reinforce Rick's (and your) assertion that its a pretty simple fix. I don't see any reason for not trying it. Doing so will certainly expand the number of subjects that fit my criteria.
I guess the next step is to locate photos of ships that show the area of the 40mm tubs. So far I've been unable to come across any.
Here is a view of the "earlier" Mare Island Navy Yard style of the bridge 20-mm installation (these views on McCalla that would be very close to Buchanan, but I don't know about the Ms 22 scheme). Compare to the Buchanan kit for the later style Mare Island Navy Yard bridge wing 20-mm installation. There was a raised platform for a search light in this location (the navigation bridge that comes with the Laffey kit has this search light platform), and they "simply" extended it and installed the 20-mm gun with railing (many times it appears the railing was covered with canvas). Several of the Pacific coast built units (Bensons) and units transferred to the Pacific were modified with this type of early style. I suggest that you look through Navsource and DestroyerHistory.org photos of Benson-Gleaves units and when you find some possible candidates ... I'll see what photos I have for them.
The beauty of the DML kits and the variations seen with the dual-class, any kit-bashing between kits doesn't have to leave an unusable kit. Another destroyer can likely be found to build from the other parts.
Thanks Rick. I did notice the difference in the bridge wing set up of McCalla's 20mm's, and thought it might make for an interesting variation to model. It is a possibility even though as far as I can tell she never wore Ms 22 (haven't seen any photos and Shipcamouflage.com doesn't list it). But then I do have a second '45 Buchanan that I can use to build one of those if I ever come across one. I have been looking tonight and came across the Knight DD-633 and Earle DD-635. I have photos of both in Ms 22 and both have had the late war mod as far as I can tell (the center line 20mm tub is there but I'm having difficulty making out details in the area of the 40mm tubs. I haven't had a chance yet to compare what I can see there to the Buchanan parts, but to me anyway they seem to be possibilities. Your thoughts?
Grayson was built with open mounts in the # 3 and # 4 (with five gun mounts) positions. In June-July 1941, the # 3 gun was removed and a half shield added to the # 4 (now # 3) position. In the June 1942 modifications seen at Mare Island Navy Yard, the half shield was removed. Then the half shield was re-installed during the next major upgrade in June 1943.
The first and second images show Grayson in the Ms 21 scheme that was common in late 1942 through 1943.
I don't have a good view of the half shield mount without the canvas cover looking down into it. Here are a few side views of an early open-mount and the best half-shield mount view without the canvas cover.
Knight and Earle were built by Boston Navy Yard and there were differences. But, they can be made without too much trouble (in my opinion). The aft deckhouse arrangement on Earle (first image) was different from Buchanan, but revision involves a little cutting and adding sheet plastic bulwarks. It all depends on how much work you want to put in it. The bridge wing 20-mm guns on the Boston-built Gleaves units stayed within the navigation bridge bulwark ... appear to be mounted direct to the deck ... and the bulwark was cut down some. The second image shows the bridges of BOTH Knight and Earle (lucky they were both in this same photo) and you can see the minor differences.
Rick, thanks for all your work and I apologize for pounding you with all these questions. Now I promise just one more for tonight. How much did the Emmons and Macomb, which were Bath Iron Works ships, differ from the Federals? They appear, to my eyes anyway, to be very similar to the '45 Buchanan after the late war refit (and before the DMS conversion, obviously).
And BTW, I think I've decided to take a shot at building McCalla as well after seeing the good photos of the bridge wing 20mm you posted. There's a lot of good stuff there, including flag bag detail and the mounting points for the foremast stays.
Pete - I'm sure someone else will point you to it as well, but there is an excellent article by Alan Raven on building McCalla in Model Ship Builder. I'm not sure exactly how many issues the article spans, but I know the last part was published in Issue #28 (March/April 1984). I think first part appeared in Sept/Oct 1982 issue (#19). Barry
. 
. 
. Its really very simple. Rick posted a photo of Ellyson showing this feature back on page one of this topic.
