The Ship Model Forum

Sooo...

The Benson and Gleaves were built on the same hull?

Sort of like the Gridley/Mahan-classes (different topside, but same hull)?

How similar is the hull between the Benson/Gleaves and the Gridley/Mahan?

MB

Actually the SIMS-BENSON-GLEAVES classes hulls are pretty much the same, with the same basic armament (the BENSON-GLEAVES classes boosted torpedo tubes to ten over eight in the SIMS class), the same bridge design, and they used the Mk 37 director. Prime difference being the power-plants. These destroyers and the FLETCHERS were suppose to be the "High-Speed" destroyers that the USN wanted, even with a reduced (over desired) number of torpedo tubes and each was an evolution or trial of different power-plant designs leading to the FLETCHER "big destroyer".

The previous BAGLEY-GRIDLEY-BENHAM classes were pretty close to the same hull, but a little shorter, with a completely different fire control director and bridge design, and they mounted sixteen torpedo tubes in four mounts. Three different power-plant layouts were used on each group. See the attached image taken in March 1942 at Pearl Harbor of a SIMS class unit (likely USS O'BRIEN) and a GRIDLEY class unit tied up together. You can see that the GRIDLEY is a little shorter.

The MAHAN's (and DUNLAP's) preceded that group and were about the same hull size with twelve torpedo tubes in three mounts, but different power-plants and layouts.

USN design in the 1930's was an evolution process. Suggest you read Friedman's USN Destroyer Design Book and Dave McComb's Osprey two-part USN destroyer books for more insight. I'm being very high level here.

This is sort of a loaded question, depending on how you define the "Gridley" class. It is more accurate to say that the Mahan, Dunlap, and Bagley classes had the same hull. They also had basically the same powerplant, with a few tweaks. On them, the upperworks, including gun numbers and torpedo tube layout, were the main difference. The 4 Gridley's were a Bethlehem variant of Bagley design, but had a lighter hull and different powerplant. The Benham class changed the powerplant, but kept a hull similar to the preceding classes. All these had a similar length. However, the next big change was to the Sims class. They kept the Benham powerplant, but the hull was lengthened by about 7 feet to accomodate the below-decks components of the MK-37 director system. (The MK-33 was entirely self-contained within the director itself.) The Sims also incorporated features intended to reduce wind resistance, such as the rounded deck-edge on the forecastle deck and forward shelter deck, and the rounded bridge face. There was a modest increase in beam of a few inches. The Benson and Gleaves classes were updated Sims class ships with improved powerplants. The Benson plant was the Bethlehem design and the Gleaves a Gibbs and Cox design.

Dick,

Dang. He was suppose to do his OWN homework project.

Thanks for the explanations.

I am just beginning to look into this, as a possible project to do a 3D/CGI Destroyer (with the option to be able to print it).

Even with the materials we have on all of these ships, it still seems to be insufficient at times.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

If you want/need plans for these units for CAD work, research at NARA (US National Archives) may be required to be accurate.

The USN development of destroyers during the 1930s was an evolutionary process. They ordered small batches of destroyers each fiscal year to restricted Naval Treaty limits (which kept tonnage and hence size of the hulls within a certain range) and because of the time required to design and build the ships, there was an overlap between building a new design and planning and ORDERING follow-on units. It took time to learn the lessons of the limitations of a new design and using that info in designing new destroyers. The treaty limits started to fall aside in the late 1930s and the size of USN destroyers grew. But the experimentation and evolutionary process continued. If the war in Europe had not started in 1939. There is a question about just how big the BENSON-GLEAVES-FLETCHER classes would have been and what the follow-on units would have looked like.

I am wondering how accurate some of the top/side views I find online are. So, the NARA source may be required (I suspect a fee will be required to get blueprints.

I would only be modeling to 1/350 scale, so not every tiny detail would be required (especially for my primary aim of 1/700 scale).

But doing a detail kit would require accurate blueprints.

I wonder where I can get blueprints of the IJN ships?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

At NARA you can get scans of many drawings or print copies of drawings on Microfilm. Their is a cost for getting paper drawings scanned on the large format scanner. Getting paper copies from those scans is something like $3-4 per linear foot. BUT, if you request a digital copy a full sheet is only like $3.50. You can print your own at a FedEx Office store or equivalent, if you desire paper.

Which drawings can and can't be scanned depends on the drawing. IF a drawing CAN'T be scanned, you can still take digital camera shots (without flash). Most of the paper drawings are from "Booklet of General Plans". They are kind of limited on detail at times and not every ship has a BGP available. The last configuration for the ship is normally the only BGP available. Sometimes BGPs simply can't be scanned and get good quality scans. The pre-WWII classes generally have ORIGINAL Paper drawings available. They scan really nicely ... if they have NOT deteriorated beyond scanning use. The individual ship drawings are normally ONLY available on microfilm. It takes patience and time to go through microfilm to find what you want/need. But, you can pick what you want to print out (digital copies weren't available the last time I checked). Having an entire microfilm file scanned, can cost a lot of $$$$ per ship.

Best if you go to NARA II at College Park, MD in person. Hiring someone will cost more and you may not get what you need and/or end up with way more than you need. I'm not sure if you can just request copies directly from NARA staff via E-Mail/written. Besides, it is fun going through lots of drawings in one trip in person.

I have no idea where you can get IJN ship drawings.

Question about the Gridley.

How hard would it be to convert a Gridley to a Benham?

I notice that the two were similar in many respects (but am too stupid to be able to piece things together without pictures).

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

DickJ can fill you in better than me, but the stack was the main visual difference, with some bridge differences as well. Midships Models made a set of destroyers in 1/700 scale that were suppose to allow you to build any one of the BAGLEY-GRIDLEY-BENHAM destroyers. But, there were accuracy issues with the kits in trying to get there. The BENHAM class had direct linkage to the BAGLEY class, whereas the GRIDLEY's were based on a Bethlehem design built to the same specs.

It will also depend on when and what configuration you are looking for. Like every other pre-WWII (heck even units built during the war) there were constant changes going on. Plus units in the Pacific and Atlantic were treated/modified differently. The Atlantic based units lost a pair of torpedo tubes as early as 1941 to boost ASW, while the Pacific units retained all four TT mounts unit 40-mm guns were available to upgrade them. Early WWII was a period of rapid changes going on with 20-mm guns replacing 50-cal MGs and measures to reduce weight that helped in lowering the overall profile. Not necessarily done the same way on every unit in the class.

By mid-WWII, the BENHAM Class had two twin 40-mm mounts, while the super weight critical GRIDLEY Class never did get 40-mm guns. The GRIDLEY's were considered to be a failure.

I have attached a couple of "small" views just to show "typical" major mid to late war differences between the GRIDLEY and BENHAM classes.

I don't have time to go down through unit by unit the differences in the Four GRIDLEY class and Ten BENHAM class during WWII.

A "brief" history might help. 16 ships (the Mahan class) were ordered for 1934. They had 5 guns which, because they were pedestal mounts, could not be fully enclosed - the ammo hoists were in nearby structure rather than internal to the mounts, and 3 quad tube banks. 12 ships were ordered for 1935. Two were modified Mahan's, (the Dunlap's) which replaced only the bow guns with base-ring mounts which incorporated the ammo hoists. Therefore they could be fully enclosed. That allowed the gun crew shelter of the Mahan's to be deleted. Additionally, the foremast was a pole rather than a tripod and the mainmast was deleted. The other 10 ships (ordered at the same time so they were NOT follow-ons to the Dunlap's) were to have only 4 guns and 4 quad banks of tubes. All of the ships mentioned so far had 4 boilers. The Mahan's and Dunlap's had 2 stacks. The Bagley's essentially trunked the two stacks into one which shows in the base of the stack where there are a forward and after pair of uptakes. This is why the trunking is so high up in this class. With the elimination of the #3 gun of the previous class, there was enough weight and space on the main deck for the 4 banks of tubes. Like the parallel Dunlap's, the forward guns were base-ring types and fully enclosed. However, since the Navy was paying big bonuses for speeds in excess of the contract specifications, Bethlehem asked for, and was granted, permission to build their two ships to a separate design. They made the hull lighter and increased the power and got their bonuses. So the 1935 ships were 2 Dunlap's, 8 Bagley's, and 2 Gridley's. For 1936, again 12 ships were ordered. Bethlehem got the contract for two of them and so repeated their Gridley design. The 10 Benham's had a new, higher power, engineering plant. But they also switched from 4 boilers to 3 more powerful boilers, making the trunking easier to do. An additional change was that on the Benham's, all 4 guns were the base-ring type, even though the after guns were left open. The 16 Mahan's all had the open-topped version of the MK-33 director. All 24 ships of the 1935 and 1936 groups had the fully enclosed type.

Now for the visual differences. The Bagley stack was symmetrical and as I previously mentioned, essentially trunked the two stacks of the Dunlap design into a single stack, all above the main deck level. The air intakes were under the base between the forward and after pairs of uptakes. A small deckhouse was under the center part. There was also a small structure, probably an air intake, at the very after end of the trunking. The Gridley stack was asymmetrical with the #1 and #4 boiler uptakes to starboard and #2 and #3 to port. So the starboard trunking had a long stretch between the two and the port side had very little between the two. The upper part of the stack was narrower than on the Bagley's but a bit longer fore-and-aft. The 4 air intakes were the curved-bell type (what you see Indiana Jones peaking out of in Raiders of the Lost Ark) and were positioned opposite their respective uptakes. (#1 and #4 to port and #2 and #3 to starboard) There was a small deckhouse at the after end of the stack forward of the tubes. The uptakes for the Benham's were again symmetrical, but because there were only 3 boilers, they joined at a much lower level. The transition to the slimmer oval funnel was the classic Gibbs and Cox design seen on the parallel leaders (Somers class) and the subsequent Gleaves, Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing classes. The Benham's also had a somewhat larger deckhouse immediately aft of the stack. One minor bridge difference was that on the Gridley's, the wind baffles on the wings were on both the front face and the sides of the wings, like on the earlier Mahan's. On the others, they were only on the front face. Of the 10 Benham's, the first three had different air intakes on the deckhouse between the tubes than the last 7 did.

All received 20MM early in the war. The surviving Bagley's were able to add one twin 40MM mount on the after deckhouse superfiring over the #3 5" gun without deleting any tubes or guns. The lighter construction of the Gridley's began to tell after 2 years of hard war service when cracks started appearing in the main deck around the stack. Presumably, the weight of the repair/reinforcement ate up all the stability reserves, because the Gridley's never mounted 40MM, even after the removal of half the tubes. 2 of the 10 Benham's were in the Pacific and the rest in the Atlantic when the war broke out. The Atlantic units deleted the 2 after sets of tubes to increase the depth charge load and to enclose the after two 5" guns - otherwise they would ice up in the winter-time North Atlantic storms. (Full shield on #4, half shield on #3.) The four that transferred back to the Pacific in 1942 retained their Atlantic fit until their first Pacific refit or repair, when the shields on the after guns were again removed. The surviving Pacific unit lost the after tubes when 40MM were added.

The Midships kits are kind of a mixed bag. They had only one type of stack for the Bagley's and Gridley's, mixing features of the two. So neither is quite right, but it is much closer to the Bagley type. The Benham stack also has issues. The after armament is shifted too far forward so the tubes are all jammed up together without sufficient room to rotate properly. The after guns and deckhouse need to be moved aft to un-jam things.

I hope this helps.

Since this part of the discussion has shifted from the Benson/Gleaves classes, I have copied it to the Calling All 1,500 tonner (USN DD) fans! posting.

Someone needs to compile this thread as a booklet.

It rivals the Ospreys for Tonnage of Information.

If I had the technical chops in the vocabulary, I would already be compiling it into a document, and annotating the images.

It is amazing that I have become so captivated by the WWII Destroyer.

The Battleships get all the glory and press, but it really seems like it was the smaller ships of WWII (Destroyers particularly) who did all the actual freaking work.

Same thing with the HMNS/RN, Kriegsmarine, and the IJN (although with the Kriegsmarine, it is more the U-Boat at the beginning of the war).

Back to reading the thread (still only on page 7)

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Photo a Barton at Santa Cruz, courtesy of Fred Branyan via Roger Torgeson. Photo is from the US National Archives, NARA II

_________________
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

The NARA number for the photo above is 80 G 33921

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

Question about the Laffey.

This photo:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0545903.jpg

Shows the Laffey's searchlight without a railing tub. The others in the class(es) I have seen showed an inverted cone-shaped railing (no doubt intended to help the operator aim it, if it was not being pointed from a searchlight director).

The rest of the photos show the Laffey without this railing.

And since it was sunk so early in the War (relatively), there do not seem to be especially many photos of her.

Am I correct in thinking that she can be built without that railing?

Also, in the Dragon 1/700 USS Laffey (DD-459) kit, there are two different patterns of 20mm, and what looks to be either Twin 40mm or Quad 1.1" tubs on the aft deckhouse where the #3 5"/38 turret would have been (had it had "five" such guns).

This seems to indicate that the second hull in the Dragon kit (they come with Two DDs in it) is for a different ship, yet the kit does not seem to identify this other ship.

Hobby Search says that this ship is the USS Woodworth (DD-460). But I would prefer to built her as the USS Farenholt DD-491.

This conversion looks like it might require re-building the bridge (The rounded level 02 looks like it was squared off, and a ready-ammo locker placed under the pilothouse)

Also, this photo (Early 1943):

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0549104.jpg

Looks like the Farenholt has a Quad 1.1" mount on the Port side on the Aft Deckhouse.

Re-building the aft AA gun tubs is not a problem (the PE kit from Flyhawk is pretty flexible in how it can be applied, plus I have a lot of .0075" styrene, and even thinner parchment that can be used for constructing splinter shielding), but what went in it, and the plan of the Gun-Tubs and splinter shielding is what I don't know.

The Photos of the Farenholt from Aug 1942:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0549105.jpg

Looks like it has a pretty big gun tub back there, but I cannot tell if what I see sticking up is a 20mm barrel, or if that is something else BEHIND the Gun Tub, and there is something else mounted there.

I tend to suspect it isn't a 20mm, because I don't see the gun-shield for the 20mm, which usually would show up when the gun is in that position.

Can anyone help me sort out the back-end of the USSS Farenholt, please?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

OH!

And in the Early 1943 image, it looks like she is in Ms. 21, when previously she was in Ms. 12 Mod.

And what colors are those in the Ms 12 Mod from Aug 1942?

Are they the typical 5-S, 5-H, and 5-O?

When was she painted in Ms 21?

What Measure would she have been in at the Battle of Cape Esperance (Oct 11/12, 42)?

Is it possible that she was painted into the Measure 21 by this time?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

That photo from Navsource shows the Spotlight mount in the rightmost of the image, on the ship's centerline.

The Spotlight was mounted where the second set of TTs were, before they were removed to make way for the additional AA guns.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew,

You are asking a lot of questions here and difficult to answer in a short post. I can't do that right now, nor post images as illustrations.

But, to start; The Repeat-BENSON and Repeat-GLEAVES (four 5-in mounts and one quint TT mount) were completed from DD-454 had two tubs on the aft deckhouse designed for twin 40-mm mounts when they became available (in July 1942). But since 40-mm mounts weren't available, the 24 units completed before July 1942 had an interim quad 1.1-in mount on the STARBOARD side tub and a single 20-mm gun in the portside tub.

The photo of FARENHOLT you reference dated May 1943 (actually was taken in February 1943), shows her AFTER she was upgraded to two TWIN 40-mm mounts.

FARENHOLT as completed was painted in an experimental paint scheme of several colors. I'm unsure when she was repainted into Ms 21.

The 1/700 scale DML LAFFEY kits are designed to represent early Repeat-BENSON class units. Both LAFFEY and FARENHOLT were from these group ... HOWEVER they were built at two different Bethlehem yards. So there are some differences.

Be careful how you split up the classes. The Benson/Gleaves group can be split into 5 major groups. The Benson class was designed by Bethlehem shipbuilding. These ships had the flat-sided funnels. The first 6 were from the original batch ordered after the Sims class. Of these 6, 4 were built in Navy Yards to Bethlehem's design. All 6 had the rounded bridges at both the upper and lower levels, and had 5 guns and 10 tubes. As part of the war-emergency build up, repeat Benson's were ordered. All were built by Bethlehem in their various yards. All had 4 guns and 5 tubes. And all had the squared-off front to the lower bridge.

Two of the original Benson/Gleaves order were designed by Gibbs and Cox, starting with the USS Gleaves. 16 more of the 5 gun 10 tube pre-war Gleaves class were ordered. But again, repeat Gleaves class ships were ordered as part of the war-emergency build up. The first of these had the rounded upper and lower bridges, but that soon gave way to the squared-off front to the lower bridge. The last 20 Gleaves class units eventually went to a fully squared upper and lower bridge configuration. Both groups of repeat Gleaves class had 4 guns and 5 tubes. So the 5 groups I referenced are the 1. Original Benson's, 2. Repeat Benson's, 3. Original Gleaves, 4. Repeat round-pilothouse Gleaves, and 5. Repeat totally square-bridge Gleaves.

Why this is important is because the inverted cone shape railing was on some of the early repeat Gleaves class units. Laffey was a repeat Benson. You can't simply mix the features from one group to another.


Prior to the availability of the twin 40MM guns, a number of repeat Benson class and repeat Gleaves class units were fitted for the mounts, but didn't have the mounts themselves. So as a temporary measure, a quad 1.1 was fitted in the starboard tub and a single 20MM in the port tub. The exact shape of the tubs varied from one yard to another, and Dragon supplied a couple of variants in their parts. You will need to research to get the right one for the right ship.


A number of repeat Benson and Gleaves class units that were damaged at Guadalcanal were repaired and modified at Pearl Harbor. Farenholt and Aaron Ward were among them. During the repair, the AA was upgraded. Twin 40MM were finally installed and a raised 20MM placed before the bridge. This centerline tub had a clipping room underneath it and the tub itself was connected to the bridge wings. This mod was not the final config approved by BUSHIPS, and so the bridge was later modified to the accepted late-war standard. However, this non-standard mod was only done after the ships had served in the 1942 Guadalcanal actions. This wasn't the config at Cape Esperance.

It is possible that some ships repainted in MS-21 just before they arrived at Guadalcanal or soon after. Duncan appears to have been in MS-21 when lost. But the documentation for many other ships is not that complete. This is still a hot topic for discussion elsewhere.

I keep meaning to ask this, but what is a Clipping Room?

Is this a room where they pack the shells (20mm and 40mm) into the clips or magazines for the guns?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16