Calling all Benson-class & Gleaves-class DD fans

Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts of all nations and eras.
DD, DDE, DE, FF, FFG, and DDR.

Moderators: BB62vet, MartinJQuinn, Timmy C, Gernot, Olaf Held, Dan K, HMAS, ModelMonkey

Post Reply
Rick E Davis
Posts: 3880
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Rick E Davis »

Stephen,

A couple of problems and suggestions. CHARLES F HUGHES was a BENSON class unit and BUCHANAN was a GLEAVES class unit. The stacks are wrong for C. F. HUGHES and some other details. Also, I believe DML is coming out with an early BENSON class with five 5-in mounts. Even if that is wishful thinking, the LIVERMORE kit has the half-shield/canvas top 5-in mounts needed for your build, but again LIVERMORE is a GLEAVES class unit. DD 421-422 and 425-428 were BENSONS and DD 423-424 and 429-444 were GLEAVES units.

I don't have really good stern/fantail area views of C. F. HUGHES, but I have these views of her sister HILLARY P. JONES (DD-427) taken in August 1943. These two appear to have been very close and were often in in the same yard at the same time for overhauls.

Image

Image

Image
mudrat00

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by mudrat00 »

Thankyou Mr Davis,
For the assist. I also posess a Laffey DD459 kit to rob the stacks from. I tried to acquire a Livermore to rob the Half shield
5 inch mounts from, but the place I get my online kits from was out of stock. I figure I can convert two 5 " guns and scratch
the canvas tops. I jut need to be sure of the location of all the gun tubs, as they do differ fom Hilary P. Jones.

It would be great if Dragon came out with an early 5 gun Benson, but you are talking to someone that has no luck at all.

Thanks for all you've done,
Stephen

http://www.stephenmudgett.com
falcon04
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:07 pm

Buchanan in Measure 22

Post by falcon04 »

The artwork in the Dragon "Buchanan '45" kit shows the well photographed MS 21 Tokyo Bay scheme, but also a MS 22 scheme. The U.S. Navy Camouflage Database also lists MS 22 for 1945 ( but not MS 21 :smallsmile: ).

Q?? When was the MS 22 scheme applied ? Any photos out there of Buchanan in MS 22 ?
Rick E Davis
Posts: 3880
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Buchanan in Measure 22

Post by Rick E Davis »

The short answer is that BUCHANAN never as far as we know, was painted in Ms 22 during the war. From the photos I have and what Steve Wiper has in his book on BUCHANAN, she was in Ms 12M until about December 1942 when she was painted in Ms 21. During her refit at Mare Island, which completed in June 1944, she was painted in Ms 31/3D. In early 1945 BUCHANAN was repainted into Ms 21 again and was so painted at the surrender. There were many other repeat GLEAVES units (DD-453 and higher hull numbers ... excluding repeat BENSONS) configured pretty much as BUCHANAN was after June 1944, that were painted in Ms 22 ... most were assigned to the Atlantic Fleet.

So depending on if you wish to model your kit after BUCHANAN or some other repeat GLEAVES in Ms 22, you are limited for accuracy to Ms 31/3D or Ms 21 for BUCHANAN out-of-the-box from the BUCHANAN 1945 kit, or you will need to select and modify as needed to represent one of the other units that was painted in Ms 22.

As an aside, many of the destroyer CO's and crews who fought in the late 1942 and early 1943 period never liked the dazzle schemes and some units repainted their fresh dazzle over back to Ms 21 as so as they could. The official end to the dazzle schemes was real late in 1944 or early 1945 (I forget the exact date) ... some units waited until they had a yard period to repaint and other ships crews were instructed by the CO to repaint the ship ASAP. The official instruction was that some DesRon's were to apply Ms 21 and some Ms 22 after the end of dazzle, but this wasn't always followed.
User avatar
Cadman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3635
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Plattsburg, Missouri

Re: Buchanan in Measure 22

Post by Cadman »

falcon04 wrote:The artwork in the Dragon "Buchanan '45" kit shows the well photographed MS 21 Tokyo Bay scheme, but also a MS 22 scheme.
I will take the blame for that. There are some photos of Buchanan in 45 that look like Ms-22, and some that are definitely Ms-21. We were still unsure at the time that the kit was getting ready for release so we left the Ms-22 on the box. It wasn't until after the kit was on the market that we were able to rule out Ms-22.
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com
falcon04
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:07 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by falcon04 »

Thanks, Gents. MS 21 with some "subtle" chalking / weathering / drybrushing / washing looks fine. I do like some of the dazzles, but NOT the one worn by Buchanan in '44.

MS 22 for some reason is one of the most pleasing schemes ( to me ) on a DD, CA, or CL - even when painted in the '45 revised colors.
Charles Landrum
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Charles Landrum »

A superb picture from Life of a canvas topped 5 in gun mount. I found it by searching "convoy". I have provided links to the larger images.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/647198aa9dfd82cd_large
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/5bbb8a6f8497e760_large
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/ec6c199dfea4b809_large

Image
Image
Image
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia
User avatar
DrDull
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:03 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by DrDull »

Nice pictures - another detail I had never noticed before was that the back side of the 20mm splinter shields were painted 'interior green.'
Charles Landrum
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Charles Landrum »

Actually that is zinc chromate primer. It is evident in other photos in the serious that the ship was using the transit to conduct corrosion control. Remember this was early in the war.
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia
User avatar
Sr. Gopher
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Sr. Gopher »

Still, a "style" that could be deadly.
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines
Rick E Davis
Posts: 3880
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Rick E Davis »

Charles,

A second try (I tried posting a long write-up and it disappeared). These images were posted about two years ago, but are still wonderful. I got curious as to the identity of the "Mystery Destroyer" that I went on a quest. I found an answer and worked up a draft article for Warship International, but the user fees that Getty-LIFE wanted to charge were way too much. Here is a shorted version of the article.

A series of images taken by the noted photographer, Dmitri Kessel, while he was onboard an unidentified destroyer as part of an Atlantic convoy heading for North Africa, that were posted on the Google-LIFE collection caught my eye and curiosity. The photos are not identified as to when they were taken or as to the mission/convoy involved. I really was curious about the GLEAVES class destroyer that most if not all of the photos had been taken from. This destroyer had an unusual configuration that I had not come across before at NARA or elsewhere. The ship had been modified for twin 40-mm mounts and Mk 51 directors, but had not been installed and two single 20-mm guns were installed in the bulwark tubs intended for the twin 40-mm mounts.

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/9ac4d8e927ea849b_large

Image

First off, I knew the destroyer was from one of the first group of GLEAVES class destroyers because of the canvas covered 53 mount and two quintuple torpedo tube mounts (see the images Charles posted). On this group of destroyers, the twin 40-mm mounts were not installed until late in 1942, many not until early 1943. Since, some of the photos in the series were taken in Casablanca harbor; they were taken after the invasion. One of the few ships that could be identified in the series of photos was the oiler USS Mattaponi (AO-41), which according to her DANFS entry said that she didn�t start convoy missions until mid-December 1942. Also, from the photos I have found at NARA in the BuShips files, the installation of the twin 40-mm mounts on GLEAVES class destroyers didn�t start until late November 1942. By deleting from my list the destroyers with two quintuple torpedo tube mounts from this early group that had either been lost or transferred to the Pacific, I had ten ships in a possible candidate list:

DD-429 Livermore
DD-430 Eberle
DD-432 Kearny
DD-437 Woolsey
DD-438 Ludlow
DD-439 Edison
DD-440 Ericsson
DD-441 Wilkes
DD-442 Nicholson
DD-443 Swanson

Another factor to consider was that the style of Mk 51 director platform seen on this mystery destroyer, an elevated platform immediately forward of the 40-mm mount, was an early style that was replaced with a different style in about April 1943. I knew that three of the above destroyers had this style of Mk 51 director platform and the twin 40-mm mounts installed by the end of December 1942. I decided that the most likely period for this convoy was early 1943.

My first effort at identifying this ship was to look at all the photos attributed to Dmitri Kessel in this series and attempt a cross reference. I found one destroyer that was identifiable; USS Wainwright (DD-419), which was a SIMS class destroyer that during the war was assigned as a DesDiv flag for BENHAM class and GLEAVES class destroyers. But, during much of the war, individual destroyers could be detached from their unit and tasked to escort with other destroyers in a convoy so it wouldn�t be unusual to see mixed ships. But, it was interesting that Wainwright had been rearmed with twin 40-mm mounts and appears to have the same style of elevated platform for the Mk 51 director.

Most of the other ships in the series were cargo ships or were too distant to identify which ship they were. I did note that there were two escort carriers without identifiable markings and they seemed to be in Royal Navy camouflage. I posted an inquiry on a ship modeling website forum with this photo and someone identified them as likely being HMS Stalker and HMS Hunter on their first cruise after they were delivered to the Royal Navy and prior to going to the UK for modification. Looking on line, I found that these two ships crossed the Atlantic as part of convoy UGF-6 departing the USA on 5 March 1943 and arriving on 16 March 1943 at Casablanca. These two ships departed Casablanca on 19 March for the UK. This narrowed down the potential dates of the photos quite a bit.

Using the month of March 1943 as the date of this convoy and the unique configuration of the mystery destroyer I was able to narrow down the possible candidate ships. In looking at the first photo above, I noticed several features to the ship that were not common on all of the ships with two quintuple torpedo tube mounts. The style of canvas cover on 53 mount was a flat-top style seen on only a few ships, the amidships 20-mm bulwark tubs have unique reinforcing ribs, and that elevated Mk 51 director platform. From the photos I had scanned of these ten candidate destroyers, I was able to eliminate all but three based on when they had the twin 40-mm mounts installed and those unique 20-mm tubs.

The remaining three destroyers were;

DD-437 Woolsey
DD-438 Ludlow
DD-442 Nicholson

There were yard photos of Nicholson taken in April 1943. The particular photo below was taken from the same location at the back of the bridge as the first photo above taken by Dmitri Kessel. From this aspect the details are almost an exact match; the 53 mount and the 20-mm bulwark tub. The elevated Mk 51 director platform has been removed and the director relocated to the new inboard position. But, this was common on other units of this group in that period. The other two ships couldn�t be eliminated due to a lack of photographic evidence. So on to textual records.

Image

On my next trip to NARA I looked into the War Diaries and BuShips records for most of these three ships and Wainwright. BuShips records eliminated Woolsey since her twin 40-mm mounts were installed at New York Navy Yard during availability 14-24 February 1943. Ludlow was damaged during the North Africa invasion by an approximate 6-in size shell and was repaired in late November-December 1943. But, I couldn�t find a Departure report or any document that specifically said that twin 40-mm mounts were installed or what work was done. Nicholson had an overhaul period at New York Navy Yard 11-20 January 1943. I found no Departure Report or other documentation on the work done to her during this availability except that she still had six 20-mm guns and no 40-mm guns. So, the April 1943 yard period likely was when she had the twin 40-mm mounts installed.

Wainwright records indicate that she received her twin 40-mm mounts in early December 1942. But, the War Diaries indicate that Wainwright and her DesDiv mates were assigned to escort convoy UGS-6 not UGF-6.

The War Diaries for Nicholson were enlightening to the whole story and provide the likely answer. Nicholson as part of DesRon 13 was assigned to convoy UGF-6 that departed 6 March 1943. Her War Diary does indicate that Mattaponi was part of UGF-6 as well. As convoy UGF-6 approached North Africa, the convoy split with Mattaponi and Brooklyn splitting off to meet another convoy ... UGS-6. Nicholson and DesRon 13 continued with the rest of the convoy to Casablanca arriving on 16 March. On 18 March Nicholson and Bristol (DD-453) were dispatched to meet convoy UGS-6 as reinforcements. Convoy UGS-6 was repeatedly attacked by U-Boats as they crossed the Atlantic and had lost four ships. On 19 March, Nicholson came alongside Wainwright for instructions. Nicholson and Bristol continued with UGS-6 to Casablanca arriving on 21 March. DesRon 13 remained at Casablanca until 25 March when they departed with the westbound convoy CTF-64 which included Mattaponi. Nicholson went into New York Navy Yard as soon as she returned on 5 April.

I can�t be sure with absolute certainty, but I believe that the mystery destroyer is Nicholson. Ludlow is a possibility, but unlikely. An April 1943 photo of Ludlow has some of the features of the mystery destroyer and was part of convoy UGF-6 and in DesRon 13, but I found no connection to UGS-6 and Wainwright except in Casablanca harbor. At any rate these photos were taken during March 1943.
User avatar
Sr. Gopher
Posts: 1091
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:31 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Sr. Gopher »

I hope you don't mind me goofing off, but I have a question about that first picture: Is that sailor smoking near the torpedo tubes?!!?!?!??!?!

But seriously, where does everyone find these photos!!!??? I look every day for about 2 hours.
Current builds:
Hobby Boss 1/700 Type VIIC U-Boat for my AH

Planned builds:
3 more 1/700 AH submarines
Doug Fritz

Re: USS Laffey & Buchanon Dragon Models

Post by Doug Fritz »

Dragon's assembly instructions for both the Laffey and 1942 Buchanan kits show what looks like Mk 51 AA directors and tubs fitted just forward of the aft 20mm and 1.1" AA guns. Is this correct? Most of the photos I can find of Benson and Gleaves class ships seem to show no directors until the 40mm guns were fitted, but it is hard to see this area clearly.
Thanks,
Doug
User avatar
Dick J
Posts: 1992
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: USS Laffey & Buchanon Dragon Models

Post by Dick J »

Doug Fritz wrote:Dragon's assembly instructions for both the Laffey and 1942 Buchanan kits show what looks like Mk 51 AA directors and tubs fitted just forward of the aft 20mm and 1.1" AA guns. Is this correct?
In general terms, you are correct. Most of the class with the 1.1's carried no directors. Some had the foundations for the MK-51's, but still no directors. Some built with the basic foundations changed to a raised foundation before actually installing the MK-51's. Reviewing the available photos of the two you reference, I can see no evidence that either carried directors with the 1.1's. Of course, Laffey was lost in that config, but Buchannan eventually upgraded to the 40MM - with the directors. Rick Davis might have more.
Rick E Davis
Posts: 3880
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Rick E Davis »

The BENSON-GLEAVES were actually configured for Mk 49 directors (look like R2D2) like the FLETCHERS as the PLANNED FC Directors for the 40mm (and 1.1-in) guns. But, Mk 51 Directors were substituted and actually ended up being the standard.

The DML assemble view showing TWO Mk 51 directors with the single 1.1-in mount and single 20-mm on the aft deckhouse is WRONG. From what I can tell from photos, all 26 BENSON-GLEAVES configured with quad 1.1-in mounts were completed without a FC director installed ... only local control. Which is reasonable, since the MK 51 directors were not available until the summer of 1942 and all the units with the 1.1-in mounts were completed prior to July 1942. HOWEVER, I have found several BENSON-GLEAVES units prior to the North Africa invasion had a single Mk 51 (or the simpler Mk 44) installed for the quad 1.1-in mount atop the Mk 49 foundation ring. There never was a Mk 51 for the single 20-mm gun. They do appear to have installed a ready-use ammo cabinet in the location for the port director position. Of course once they started to install the twin 40-mm mounts both Mk 51 directors were installed ... the locations for the directors evolved with time.

The Pacific BENSON-GLEAVES units with the quad 1.1-in mount are a different matter. All arrived in the Pacific without a director as best I can tell. I have not seen a CLEAR photo showing a Mk 51 director installed for the quad 1.1-in mount on Pacific based units. But, because BUCHANAN and a few other units were equipped with the quad 1.1-in mount for a long period of time (through-out 1943 at least), I have to believe that a Mk 51 director was installed on them as well. I just can't prove it and even if and when I get into the textual records for these units, I'm not sure the work done by forward tenders will show the additions.

Somewhere in the older posting of this chain, thee are images of the various Mk 51 director installations. It appears that the Mk 51 directors were either mounted direct to the deck or on a platform installed on the Mk 49 foundation ring (this ring is what you see in photos and on the DML kits).
Doug Fritz

Re: Dragon Kits of Laffey and Buchanan 1942

Post by Doug Fritz »

Thanks DickJ and Rick. I was fairly certain that the kit instructions were wrong and you have confirmed it.
Doug
Charles Landrum
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Charles Landrum »

Courtesy of Life - a Turkish Gleaves anchored in Hampton Roads for the 1957 International Naval Review honoring the 350th Anniversary of Jamestown.
http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/dff7ae306ba071d1_large
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia
User avatar
MartinJQuinn
Posts: 8572
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by MartinJQuinn »

The new 1/700 Livermore/Monssen 1+1 kit arrived the other day. They are spectacular! Hard to believe they are actually 1/700 (well, other than the size). Since I already have Livermore's big brother in 1/350, I'm curious to see what other Gleaves class kits can I make to go along with Monssen?
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery
User avatar
Dick J
Posts: 1992
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Dick J »

repost from main forum
ArizonaBB39 wrote:Ok, so Ive been doing some 'research' on these ships as I just bought the Dragon Livermore DD-429. I was wondering what the differences between the two classes were? Some ships look identical between the classes. Ive looked at the kit reviews on the main site, showing some differences like the funnel shape, but what other differences are there?
The main difference between the two was the powerplant. The Benson's plant was a Bethlehem design with a single reduction gearing arrangement. The Gleaves class had a Gibbs and Cox designed double reduction gear plant. Since Bethlehem was the "lead yard" for the initial batch of 8 ships, the Bethlehem plant was to be installed in all 8, including the last 4, which were built by navy yards. The next batch of 8 ("lead ship" Livermore) were built to the Gibbs and Cox design (as were the intended final batch of 8 ordered the following year), but the Gleaves and Niblack from the Benson group, built by Bath Iron Works, were allowed to follow the later design. Officially, the first 8 were "Benson's" (with a footnote on the Gleaves and Niblack) while the later 16 were "Livermores". Only later were the Gleaves and Niblack acknowledged as officially part of the "Livermore" group, making Gleaves the true lead ship. This is why they are sometimes referred to as the Gleaves/Livermore class.

With war looming, 72 repeats were ordered. Of these, only the ships built by Bethlehem had the Bethlehem plant. All others received the Gibbs and Cox plant. Externally, the difference showed in the shape of the funnels. Also, the Bensons did not cover the trunking forward of the forefunnel and aft of the after stack, with a deckhouse, unlike the Gleaves class in which both trunkings were covered. The difference was more than just semantics. The proper replacement parts for repairs depended upon the manufacturer, so both types had to be maintained in the spares inventory. It was this, more than any obvious superiority of one plant type, that led to the Navy rejecting Bethlehem's request to design their own plant for the Fletcher's built in Bethlehem's yards.
Rick E Davis
Posts: 3880
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

Post by Rick E Davis »

The 96 BENSON-GLEAVES dual class are difficult to define easily as to standard configurations. These ships were delivered from before WWII into 1943 and were updated several times. As has been mentioned, look through this string of postings for many examples.

Besides the power-plant and different shaped stacks, there were other sub-groups based on when they were ordered/built, which builder produced them, and when key armament items (40-mm and 20-mm guns) were available. The original BENSON-GLEAVES group (DD421-444) were built/completed with five 5-in/38 mounts (except for the last couple completed), ten torpedo tubes (TT) and six 0.50-cal MG's. In mid-1941 these units had the original searchlight tower removed and DD421-428, and 431 retained five 5-in/38 guns, but lost 5-TT and had more MG's added for a total of ten. The balance of the early group, DD429-430 and 432-444, had the 53 mount 5-in/38 removed, retained 10-TT, and had 12-MG's. The previous open mounts received a half shield with a canvas top (Mount 53 on four gun units). Surviving units started to have six 20-mm replacing the 10-12 MG's in early 1942. Two twin 40-mm mounts were added starting in December 1942 into early 1944 on surviving units. There are other variations included with-in this group like the only DesDiv of the original group to see early service in the Pacific, DesDiv 22 (DD433-436), were authorized to have nine 20-mm guns like the MONSSEN kit.

The Repeat BENSON-GLEAVES units, DD-453 and after, followed the same power-plants, stacks, and basically the same layout. But, many, many, many details varied between builders and as change notices were incorporated ... check photos. Twenty-four of the Repeat units (from DD-454 on in ORDER of completion) were completed with a temporary quad 1.1-in mount in the starboard tub intended for a twin 40-mm mount. A single 20-mm gun was installed in the port tub ... this gave the ships a total of five 20-mm guns. Once the twin 40-mm mounts were available in July 1942, the authorized armament for repeat units was four 5-in mounts, two twin 40-mm mounts, four 20-mm single mounts, and 5-TT. The original group units were slowly standardized to the same except they retained 10-TT.

In late 1942 a fifth 20-mm was authorized and added in front of the bridge on an elevated platform ... FOR THE REPEAT UNITS ONLY. A short-while afterwards two more 20-mm guns were authorized in the bridge wings of Repeat Units for a total of seven 20-mm guns ... except for the twenty Square-Bridge units where the two additional 20-mm guns were added amidships. The original group retained an authorization for only four 20-mm guns. Some units updated in 1943 at Pearl Harbor got some strange looking modifications to these standards that looked nothing like sister ships modified stateside. This was the authorized armaments for the remainder of the war until the Anti-Kamikaze program came into being in April 1945. Of course some units were converted to DMS starting in late 1944. Many times, sister units in the same DesDiv were closer in configuration than to other units that were built by the same builder, but not assigned to the same Div. Many features were modified for the dual-class as lessons were learned ... example the location of the Mk 51 directors for the 40-mm mounts were relocated several times to get to a satisfactory location.

I really recommend that you seek out reference books and look through the Navsource and Destroyer History Foundation websites
... http://www.destroyerhistory.org/benson- ... index.html ...
Post Reply

Return to “Destroyers and Frigates”