The Ship Model Forum

Rick,
I'm in no hurry, this build doesn't have to be done until next April and that may not happen.
I am using the Livermore kit as the basis of this build and have it on order. It should be here sometime this next week.
The Warship Pictorial picture on page 19 is listed as "May31, 1942 out of Boston Navy Yard". It is a very clear picture with the exception being the bow camouflage hidden in a shadow. This would be the time period that interests me the most. That picture shows the different location of the aft 20mm's and that the forward 20mm tubs are a little different that what is supplied in the kit.

_________________
Gordon


"Then there was one patched-up carrier...."
Vice Admiral Thomas A. Kinkaid

Gordon,

I got back from my trip late last night. Last night I wasn't in much shape to hunt for images on Photobucket and Photobucket was giving me fits anyway ... another "improvement UPGRADE" to serve users by @#$%^&* everything up ... what a pain. Why the heck they change things when it is working fine to something with so many bugs it is hard to do anything with your image or find things like "settings". Sigh.

I had initial troubles with Photobucket searching to see if I had already uploaded this image (I have managed to upload the SAME image three or even four times) before uploading this image. But, I didn't see it. I don't have an image of GLEAVES portside, but this view shows the forward starboard view, is that the one you need? This view also shows to a degree what the pattern looked like on the bridge front.



However, there are some images of several SIMS-BENSON-GLEAVES class units in early 1942 on a website of photos a guy took during WWII at Halifax harbor. Here is a small cropped view from a screen save showing her portside (it should be dated June 1942 and NOT May 1942) from their website ... http://novascotia.ca/archives/virtual/e ... ge=English ... Notice that her pattern is pretty close to being a mirror image.

Rick,
Thanks for the picture. The clear bow shot is great and bridge detail is very helpful. This picture and the one on page 19 in Classic Warhips Pictorial #12 must have been taken moments apart at a slightly different angle. The hands on deck are in the same places and the signal flags
also look the same.
The other thing I noticed was the camo pattern on the stacks have striaght lines in a rectangle
shape and not curved or wavey.
The two pictures on NavSource show the port and starboard sides to be near mirror images like you say.
I will have to use some artistic license for the upper port side camo.

Thanks again for sharing your time and expertice for me. You are always very helpful.

_________________
Gordon


"Then there was one patched-up carrier...."
Vice Admiral Thomas A. Kinkaid

I probably haven't built a ship since the old Lindbergh mine sweeper back in the early 1960s. Been busy building HO resin freight cars, WW1 1/48 airplanes but recently decided to build the Buchanan and San Francisco in 1/350.

The Buchanan arrived this morning and I have the major parts put together. While reading this thread (which is like drinking our of a fire hose with the amount if information you guys have) I used Tamiya putty to eliminate the portholes in the hull. I also have the Warship Pictorial on this ship which is extremely helpful.

A couple of building questions...

I assume the major and minor parts are not glued down until after the major parts are painted. Am doing the 1942 version of the Buchanan so lots of masking or do you recommend brush painting the camo or a combination of both?

Also I assume too you remove the molded on ladders when using a PE set.

Thanks for any assistance,
Charlie Duckworth

Welcome back to the fold. Glad you've found this class-specific forum, but consider taking a look at any of the build logs in the "Picture Post" section of the forum and follow someone else's build from start to finish. You'll then have a good sense of how your skill-set might impact assembly and painting sequencing.

One quick tip on masking: once your mask is down, apply the color just masked over the edges of tape to prevent bleed-through of the new color you will soon be applying. Plan for some touch up, and make sure you have some very fine brushes for that purpose.

And yes, you'll want to remove any molded-on pieces that your PE will replace.

D-Boy
Thanks for pointing me the the picture post area, being new to this site I'd overlooked the in progress builds. I've already subscribed to two blogs on building the Buchanan or one of its sister ships.

Charlie

Hello guys, I’m new to this forum (posting). I am relatively new to scratch building but trying to jump in a little at a time. I am interested in building the USS Barton using the Dragon 1/350 Laffey. I read Mr. Davis’ post on page 8 and the reference to page 3 about moving the searchlight back to the aft deckhouse. I have a couple of questions about this modification. In addition to reconfiguring the tubs are there any other modifications (part B19) needed to accommodate the searchlight? Should it look similar to the forward edge of the deckhouse in the photo of the Woodworth on page 3? Is there anything that replaces the searchlight on the remaining pedestal?

I have done some research on USS BARTON off and on for several years. The last thing I added is on page 45 of this thread (... viewtopic.php?f=49&t=24483&p=598914&hilit=BARTON#p598914 ...) on BARTON's likely last camo.

Forgive me if I'm a little rusty on details of what I posted before about USS BARTON. We don't know too much about any changes made to BARTON from her "As Delivered" photos. Her Departure Report from Boston Navy Yard prior to heading to the Pacific indicated not much changed.

First off BARTON was one of four units built by Beth-Quincy; DD-598 through DD-601, BANCROFT, BARTON, BOYLE, CHAMPLIN. Of these four, BANCROFT and BARTON are near twin sisters in configuration initially anyway. But, since these units were built by Bethlehem, they were pretty close in configuration to other units built by that corporation AT THE SAME TIME PERIOD. To answer your question about the searchlight, the attached images of USS BANCROFT, USS BARTON, and USS BOYLE taken at the time of their deliver should answer your question. You can see that the searchlight is on a platform mounted atop four supports with cross braces. I'm a little confused about your question of "what replaces the searchlight on the remaining pedestal?". There wasn't any pedestal on the middle deckhouse, only the 20-mm ready use ammo stowage boxes were located there.

I hope that helps.

Thanks Rick. Sorry I wasn't clear on the last question. I meant to refer to the space that was formally occupied buy the searchlight, the area I circles in this photo of the Murphy.

Chers

Scot Chiasson

Scott,

Yes as best I can tell that is the way BARTON was configured in that area without a searchlight platform located there.

Original plans for the BENSON class (and Repeat-BENSON class) had a second torpedo tube mount located there on a platform that straddled the stack uptakes. When the design was revised eliminating the second TT mount and the structure for supporting the TT mount, they never put a full deck over the uptake. See the first image. As you can see in the MURPHY image you posted, there is a small locker at the aft end of the midships deckhouse/stack uptake ... actually pretty much a standalone structure ... that was used to install 20-mm ready use boxes atop it and with a gangway connecting to it from the midship deckhouse and on to the aft deckhouse. "The Gap" between the aft stack and the locker was used to stow a lot of "stuff" like rafts, etc ... depending on the ship and crew. Eventually they "standardized" by putting the searchlight in that area so that the aft deckhouse wasn't as crowded ... at least on most SURVIVING units. BARTON was lost before she got twin 40-mm mounts.

The GLEAVES class always had a full deckhouse over the uptakes even though it was an unusable space. See second image.

Great info. Thanks again Rick.

V/R

Scot

Hi!

Can anyone give me info what the camouflage is called and what year depicts? (see pics)

Thanks in advance

Okay...I got it!

Hey guys.. I made it to the 8th page, and didin't quite see the answer to my question.

So I want to convert the Livermore Kit into, the Midway version of the Monssen, and or the Gwinn. As I look through the Nav source website for the Gwinn, Livermore, and monsenn it looks like these had five 5" guns, with 2 of them the canvass type in the rear of the ship.

Livermore here

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0542902.jpg

USS Monssenn here

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0543601.jpg

Gwinn here

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0543309.jpg

The livermore kit only comes with enough canvass covered gun house to make 1 of them.

Some of the later pics show that the "5th" gun had been removed, so I am thinking it was removed during the Mare island refit in 43?

But point being that in order to make the Gwin, and the Monsen an accurate Midway ship, I will need to convert one of the hard top 5" guns over to canvass top? I think I can do this, with some "green stuff" modeling putty if necessary, but want to make sure I need to do this.

Thanks,

GG

NO, NO, NO ... The Midway GLEAVES class destroyers only had four 5-in mounts. The GLEAVES 1942 kit is a good start for the four DesDiv 22 units that transferred to the Pacific (DD433-436) in March 1942 with USS HORNET.

The photos you reference were taken as COMPLETED before King Board mods in mid-1941.

In mid 1941 the King Board for AA armament for the FLEET called for modifying the original BENSON-GLEAVES classes to one of two configurations; DesRon 7 ... DD421-428 and 431 ... retained five 5-in guns, ten 50-cal MGs, and one torpedo tubes mount (initially anyway). The remaining GLEAVES class units were modified with four 5-in mounts, twelve 50-cal MGs, and two torpedo tubes mounts in the same basic configuration and then were upgraded as the GLEAVES 1942 kit with six 20-mm guns by around the time of Midway; they were ... DD-429, 430, 432-444. After Midway the DesDiv 22 units were authorized to have a special configuration of nine 20-mm guns. Prior to Midway, it really depends on the specific unit and time frame ... they started out with twelve 50-cal and gradually replaced 50-cal MGs with 20-mm guns or replaced all at one time. Many units had mixed 50-cal and 20-mm batteries in March-May time period.

Photographic coverage of DesDiv 22 units in early 1942 is pretty spotty, but records show that they were "likely" upgraded with six 20-mm guns prior to Midway. However, some units could still have had a mixed 50-cal MG and 20-mm battery. I have gone through some more yard records at Pearl Harbor navy Yard recently, maybe I can narrow down the exact armament (a MAYBE) for specific unit(s) that you plan on modeling.

Here is a photo of GWIN during the Doolittle Raid before her 50-cal MGs were replaced with six 20-mm guns.



Here is a photo of an East Coast 4-Gun Original GLEAVES class unit that would be typical of the DesDiv 22 units (minus GRAYSON at MINY during the battle) during the Battle of Midway (camo may vary).



Here is a photo of GRAYSON with the post-Midway nine 20-mm battery (note censored radars)

Rick, Thanks for the clarification. And Pics!

GG

I put the answer together pretty quickly last night and I need to clarify some. I need to say that JUST WHAT the AA armament of the DesDiv 22 units was at Midway is still an unknown. What I know is that several of the units were listed as having two-four-six 20-mm guns and some 50-cal MGs at that time frame. In an ideal world the destroyers of this DesDiv SHOULD have done what was done in the Atlantic and removed ALL the 50-cal MGs once the authorized number of 20-mm guns were installed ... in this case six. But, photos of a couple of units taken in May (or June) 1942 show either four and eight 50-cal MGs or six 20-mm AND six 50-cal MGs installed. A couple of us guess that this was a case where the ships and the Pacific command at Pearl agreed, that having as MANY as possible AA guns was a good thing so the 50-cal MGS were left on until the requested and Authorized Interim configuration of nine 20-mm guns was installed. The nine 20-mm configuration was authorized on 11 May 1942, but getting that done in a timely matter when these units were being tasked escorting USS HORNET was difficult. At the time of Midway, GRAYSON was in fact being overhauled and modified at MINY.

In any case you would be best to start with the LIVERMORE 1942 kit and add the 50-cal guns to reflect the unit you are interested in. But, figuring out what each unit DID have exactly the first week in June 1942 may not be possible given what is known and from existing images. I have not dug into the official records for individual units of these four to see if more light can be shed on just when 20-mm guns were added.

Here is a recent photo I came across at NARA recently ... a better version of one available on Navsource ... of MEREDITH (DD-434) it looks as though she has four 20-mm guns and eight 50-cal MGs. The date provided on the 80-G mounting card should be considered as NO LATER THAN, the dates are often wrong. Armament Summary said at this time that she had four 20mm and six 50-cal MGs. Close-up photo of MONSSEN taken in May 1942 shows this same configuration and I suspect that the MEREDITH photo may well have been taken in May as well. What USS GWIN had at Midway is TBD until photos or textual info fills in the unknown.

USS MEREDITH (DD-434) and two close-up cropped views. The four 20-mm guns are installed two forward of the bridge and two on the aft deckhouse in between two 50-cal MGs. There are eight 50-cal MGs; two atop the pilothouse, one on each side of the second stack, and four on the aft deckhouse.







Here is the aft deckhouse view of a drawing showing where the six 50-cal MGs were located on the aft deckhouse. Below the drawing is my sketch version of this layout showing how the tubs for the added 20-mm guns "appear" to have been enlarged on these destroyers. This should give you an idea of what changes/additions are needed for the LIVERMORE 1942 kit to "accurately" represent on of these units.

Hi Rick,
I've tried to read as much of this thread as possible, and your research is awe-inspiring. I am hoping to modify a Dragon 1942 Laffey into a 1944 or early 1945 Coghlan DD-606 for a former ship's officer. It appears that her extra anti-kamikaze armament was added in or around July 45 and I don't want to have to scratch build too much, therefore I am shooting for an earlier date.

Would it be safe for me to use the MS-22 scheme? And can you confirm that I can make a Coghlan from the Laffey?

Thanks much,
Gary

First off USS COGHLAN (DD-606) spent the war in the Pacific and as far as I know didn't wear Ms 22 until her June-July 1945 overhaul and mod where she had her torpedo tube mount replaced with two twin 40-mm mounts. She kept her aft twin 40-mm mounts instead of getting the "full monty" Anti-Kamikaze mod of two quad 40-mm mounts. There are images of this June-July 1945 configuration available on Navsource under DD-606 thread.

When commissioned she was painted in Ms 21. I don't know if she got painted in a dazzle scheme in mid-1944 or not.Unfortunately, COGHLAN has few to no images "available or found yet" of her between commissioning and her June-July 1945 overhaul. She was suppose to be painted in Ms 32/6D by direction, but several ships never did get painted in dazzle before the order went out to go to Ms 21 or Ms 22, and as I said, no photos have surfaced of her in 1944. She did according to DANFS, get overhauled at PHNY in March 1944 and that would have been a good time for her to be repainted in dazzle. That may have been when she had her tubs altered as well. At any rate it would appear a safe bet that she was in Ms 21 until at least March 1944.

You didn't say when the former officer aboard COGHLAN served aboard her. That may help you decide on your kit option and configuration for your model.

In looking at her sisters that do have photos and her 1945 appearance, the 1945 BENSON kit "may be" a better starting point. There were differences, between that kit and what COGHLAN looked like (for example, the bridge deckhouse on COGHLAN had the flat face below the navigation bridge and BENSON had a rounded face). But, at some point COGHLAN and her sisters had the aft deckhouse 40-mm gun tubs altered from what is seen in the LAFFEY kit to what is seen in the 1945 BENSON kit. COGHLAN was THE first destroyer to get twin 40-mm mounts installed!!! The LAFFEY kit doesn't include twin 40-mm mounts.

Thanks Rick! You're right, there aren't too many pictures of her on the web. I've seen the Ms 21 and the Ms22. The officer, G.R. Graham was onboard for 2 years, ending in 45, and was one of the first to come home after the war. I don't believe he was onboard for the Aleutian campaign but was for the Ormoc Bay landings. My wife will ask him if he prefers the early configuration or the anti-kamikaze. He has some fascinating stories about being under attack.

Anyway, thanks again. I really appreciate the details.
Gary