The Ship Model Forum

Mike,

That is right ... separate "tubs" were installed at least initially by Bethlehem and the deck shape was "standard", the same, as best I can tell. Kalk shows the most common shape adopted intially. As the war progressed the shapes of the 40-mm tubs were altered and the deck was cut back when the Mk 51 directors were moved inboard.

After searching through here I found some great info on the McCalla. I want to build my Buchanan as the McCall are there any pictures of the port side in the camouflage used during the Solomons campaign?
Rob

Rob,

It depends on "when" during the Solomons campaign. McCalla would have been repainted into Ms 21 by about November 1942. I don't have any images of McCalla's portside as she appeared when commissioned. I don't know what to tell you what to do if you want to do her in Ms 12. Some people use a mirror image of the starboard side, which is close to what the starboard and portside views of Lardner (DD-487) show. There is some variation between the two sides and not being exact may well be the best way to handle the camo scheme.

Rick

Yes MS 12 is what I am looking at, of course I still have to map out the differences between the Buchanan and her, but that is half the fun right?

Thanks
Rob

Are there any close up photos of the new 20mm mounts found on the rear wings of the bridge of MCalla after her Jan. 1944 refit? They appear to be elevated off the deck of the bridge and surrounded by pipe railing. From the photos on Navsource, I cannot tell if the floor of the gunmount is round or shaped like the searchlight platform as found on the Buchanan. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Rick T.

Rick T.,

I think I posted these already ... somewhere.

Both images are close-ups of McCalla's bridge on 5 January 1944. The 1st image is the portside bridge wing 20-mm and the other image shows the starboard side 20-mm, cropped from the same photo. This "style" of bridge wing 20-mm installation was the "early" Mare Island Navy Yard type. By the time Buchanan was modified at Mare Island, they changed to the style you see on the Buchanan 1945 kit. Pearl Harbor Navy Yard installed a similar shape mounting platform.

Anyway, I think these will answer your questions. Elevated yes. Shape? Not sure how to define it.

Thanks, Rick. These photos are exactly what I was needing. You are certainly doing "yeoman's service" with all these detail questions. Please know we appreciate your time, knowledge, and efforts.
A bonus on one of these shots is also the detail of the ships horn on the funnel mount! Perfect!
Thanks again,
Rick T.

Regarding ms12 and mirror imaging, of the cammo from one side to the other that I have read about. Is there any photographic evidence?

Rob

Rob,

Mirror imaging of Ms 12 Camo is not the desired way. It just is that many times photos of a given ship is NOT available for both sides. It is a close approximation to mirror image for some ships. Here are two images of Lardner (DD-487) one of the Federal built Gleaves units that went to the Pacific. The two images were taken two months apart ... at delivery (Federal seemed to take delivery photos of their ships from the starboard side only ... why I don't know?) and after the New York Navy Yard completed her. They show the port and starboard sides, although not exact, both sides followed a "general" pattern. If you look at the photos of other Federal built Gleaves units built in this "block" ... DD-483 to DD-490 ... Federal did not apply the same style of Ms 12 patterns on all ships. One ship maybe similar to another, but they are not exact. The tricky part is figuring out paterns around the stacks and superstructure.

I'm not a Camo expert. But I don't think anyone will ding you for not having the "RIGHT" pattern on the missing side. These two images show that not being exact may be the most correct. Also, notice how the sun effects the contrast of this camo scheme.

Something else I wanted to illustrate. The third image is of Duncan (DD-485) that I scanned at NHHC dated 7 October 1942. This is why I doubt many ships were still painted in Ms 12 at the time of the November 1942 battles.

Thanks! It looks like the "pattern" on the superstructure funnels etc is a lighter shade than the hull sides? Sorry for the rookie questions, I am much better at late war German armor cammo! I am not looking to be exact, but want to have it look close. And I agree from what little I know, that the ships all seem to have been painted by the time the Fall came.
Rob

Rob,

If I remember right, the hull was painted with Navy Blue (5-N) and Ocean Grey (5-O), and the superstructure was painted Ocean Grey (5-O) and Haze Grey (5-H). Ms 12 was technically a graded scheme going from darker to lighter as you went up the ship from the waterline.

To read more about the Measures used and paints used, go to ... http://www.shipcamouflage.com/developme ... uflage.htm ...

Thanks, makes sense given how ships look at sea, One final question (well for now) after reading through the posts for the casual observer/builder are the differences in DDs 483-490 as they came from the builders small enough that I could get away with building the Buchanan kit for one of them. This build is planned as a "fun" break from some of my more AMS armor and aircraft builds, but I plan on trying to make minor changes once I settle on a ship at least as much as I can ID them from online pics.
Thanks, Rob

Rob,

Well the DD-483 through 490 were all built by Federal SB&DD and more or less followed the same configuration. But, there were refinements as the production "line" progressed. In total, Federal built the following 12 "repeat" Gleaves class units with the original round-faced bridge ... DD453-456, and 483-490. DD454-456 were modified by the New York Navy Yard with the squared off 02 deck bridge (below the navigation bridge level ... the Laffey kit has this bridge option) that was made the standard on all repeat Benson-Gleaves units except for Federal-built Gleaves units for some reason. Bristol (DD-453) was completed with 12 50-cal MGs much like the original 24 Benson-Gleaves units were modified to in mid-1941. DD454-456 and 483-488 were completed with a quad 1.1-in mount like the Buchanan kit as a temporary "medium" AA gun until the twin 40-mm mounts were available. DD489-490 were completed with two twin 40-mm mounts as was planned. So, in short DD483-488 can readily be built from the basic Buchanan kit, with minor changes that are not too extreme. DD489-490 can be built if you get a pair of twin 40-mm mounts and make some other modifications that came about with this upgrade and DEPENDING on time period for the model. I would suggest looking through the listed ships at some place like Navsource.org and check out their history at DANFS (linked at the bottom of each ship's page at Navsource) and see which ship is of interest and note any differences.

The list below gives the names to the hull numbers of the Federal-built units and the commissioned date.

DD-453 Bristol , 22-Oct-41
DD-454 Ellyson , 28-Nov-41
DD-455 Hambleton , 22-Dec-41
DD-456 Rodman , 27-Jan-42
DD-483 Aaron Ward , 4-Mar-42
DD-484 Buchanan , 21-Mar-42
DD-485 Duncan , 16-Apr-42
DD-486 Lansdowne , 29-Apr-42
DD-487 Lardner , 13-May-42
DD-488 McCalla , 27-May-42
DD-489 Mervine , 17-Jun-42
DD-490 Quick , 3-Jul-42

Great stuff Rick thanks!!
Rob

I have a question in regard to the Dragon Buchanan model...

Parts A21 and A36, which goes where?

I removed both from the sprue without paying proper attention to which was which. Dose the rolled top edge that shows only on one side face out or in?

Thanks for all the help!

_________________
Timm Smith
Learn something new about the ship or your job every day. Ignorance is not bliss aboard a warship in wartime. Ignorance could cost the life of yourself, a shipmate, or the loss of the ship.
- Personal Information Booklet CV- 38

The side that is smooth should face outwards, and the side that has the "lip" running along its edges faces inwards.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

So given that there are pictures showing MS 21(?) labeled as being in October on these ships, yet some at least some if not all seem to have sailed in MS 12. When the heck did they paint them? Now admitedly my Navy experience has been on CVs and CVN for the past 22 years and under far different circumstances, and I have seen some big sections painted in port, but that is a big changeover from MS12 to MS21, in a war zone. Late September early October having some more secure anchorages? Or did some of the ones that did not arrive in theater until September arrive in MS21? Or as I have discovered doing armor research (a more difficult subject to research at times it seems) are the dates mis-labeled?
Rob

Thanks Timmy

_________________
Timm Smith
Learn something new about the ship or your job every day. Ignorance is not bliss aboard a warship in wartime. Ignorance could cost the life of yourself, a shipmate, or the loss of the ship.
- Personal Information Booklet CV- 38

Rob,

All good questions. I'm not a Camo expert and I only really got interested in the camo used on destroyers more as an aid in ROUGHLY dating images. Ms 12 SEEMS to have had different styles in use that varied with time. I have been curious to see if there was a way of dating the changes. No real luck at that so far. If I remember right, the decision was made in September 1942 by the Pacific Fleet Destroyers CO that all destroyers SHOULD be painted in Ms 21. Meanwhile, at the same time the Atlantic Fleet decided on Ms 22 as a standard. (Tracy White has a copy of the document on his website.) But, these were not the only authorized Camo Schemes in use. Ms 18 is one that makes an appearance on a few Fletchers and on the Leaders in the Atlantic ... why is not clear to me. Destroyers were repainted by the crew in more or less sheltered ports. In the Pacific "Forward areas" it appears that Santos was the most likely location. I don't know when any particular ship was repainted.

As an example: there has been a debate about when the early Fletchers repainted from whatever they were in when they departed the East Coast to Ms 21. Photos are readily available in January 1943 and some post the November battles showing Ms 21. Nicholas for sure and quit likely O'Bannon left the East Coast in Ms 18 and crew reports are that they repainted in the first week of November 1942. Ms 18 would be relatively easy repaint to Ms 21. Ms 18 had the hull in 5-N up to he deck edge and the superstructure painted in Haze (5-H), so all that was needed was to paint the superstructure in 5-N. The other Fletcher class destroyer to arrive at the same time as these two, Fletcher herself, is a mystery of what she was painted in when she left the East Coast. By January 1943 she was in Ms 21. It appears that the Fletchers that arrived after these three were ALL painted in either Ms 21 or Ms 22, which were then repainted in Ms 21. that is except for a couple painted in Ms 18 and they KEPT that scheme well into late 1943. I have found images of Radford departing the East Coast in Ms 22 and arrived in the Pacific still in Ms 22. I looked in her War Diary for other reasons, but did look to see if any mention was made as to when she repainted to Ms 21. From her arrival at Santos in mid-January until mid-February, Radford was quite active and there just doesn't appear to have been any time for a repaint until a downtime period mid-February at Santos.

These are Fletchers and the famous Benson-Gleaves units that fought in the Solomon Islands battles arrived earlier and were in Ms 12. More units of this dual-class arrived with the first Fletchers. I don't really know when they were repainted without a lot of research and that isn't my main focus when I do get a chance to get to NARA. But the photos seem to suggest that at least some repainted in about October 1942 to Ms 21. But, I have not found many photos for that time period, but I have not gotten through all these ships in the card catalog for the 80-G series either. The date on the image of Duncan is likely pretty accurate (exact day?, month likely) because it was identified as being taken by a specific ship that can be traced via War Diaries to when they were together. The authorized Camo Schemes were changed in I think mid-summer 1942 to the Ms 18/21/22 series, but it was awhile before they repainted ships. There are many photos of destroyers in Ms 12 in September 1942. By what date ALL of the destroyers painted out of Ms 12 to Ms 21 ... I don't really know.

Wow great work. For a non Cammo expert you sure seem to have a grip on the subject and are able to distil it well. I agree that Navy pictures seem to be more accurate as far as dates go, than Army (of any nation) or other branches, perhaps it is our love of logging every bloody thing we do from cleaning heads to bombing things that makes it easier!

Rob