The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Wed Aug 05, 2020 4:50 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Since there is a topic for just about every other USN DD class, I figured I'd add this one. From Farragut to Benham, this is your home for the first modern USN Destoryers, the 1,500 tonners (The Sims-class was a slightly longer and heavier design, and already has it's own thread here).

For more on the 1,500 tonners, click on this page, which is part of the Destroyer History Home Page.

Available 1,500 tonner kits, starting with 1/700:
USS Farragut, by Midship Models (retooled CW resin kit)
USS Hull (Farragut-class), by Niko Models (resin)
USS Mahan, by Midship models. In both pre war and early war fits.
USS Cassin, by Midship Models
USS Dunlap (upgrade Mahan class), by Midship Models
USS Drayton, by Samek Models
USS Gridley (Gridley-class), by Midship Models. The same kit has been also released as Henley (Bagley-class), Benham and Stack (Benham-class).

Kobu-Hiryu also had a series of 1/700 USN 1,500 DDs available, some of which can be seen here. As far as I know, these are all out of production.

1/7/09 EDIT: FreeTime Hobbies is listing all the plastic Midship DD's as "discontinued".

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Here are the 1,500 tonner kits available in 1/350:
USS Hull (Farragut class), by Commanders/Iron Shipwright
USS Conyngham (Mahan-class), by Commanders/Iron Shipwright
USS Maury (Gridley-class), by Commanders/Iron Shipwright
USS Ellett (Benham-class), by Commanders/Iron Shipwright
USS Gridley, by Yankee ModelWorks
USS Bagley, by Yankee ModelWorks
USS Benham, by Yankee ModelWorks

The YMW kits are the reworked Classic Warships kits. If anyone knows of any kits I missed, feel free to post them.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Surprisingly, with the release of all the Midship Models Mahan and Gridley/Bagley/Benham class kits, I haven't seen too many of these kits built up. As part of the Trident Hobbies now defunct "Admirals Club", I received all 8 of these kits when they were first released (I've since sold all but two). My impression of them was "early Skywave". I had started on the "Gridley" kit a few years back:
Image
Image

I ran into some fit problems, and then when I tired to re-prime the model after filling and sanding, ran into a painting disaster, which required an oven cleaner bath to fix. After some further review, it seems like you can't really build a Benham class kit from these kits, as the kit doesn't come with the proper stack. Which is a pity, as I wanted to build USS Lang in her unique Ms12R pattern. Others more knowledgeable than I reported some other omissions, while I also found the instructions a bit lacking. While this was an ambitious effort by Midship, perhaps the reason not too many built examples are showing up are due to the issues with the kit.

I briefly had the Commanders 1/350 resin Hull and Conyngham, but have since sold those kits, but they looked pretty decent in the box, aside from the usual issues with small parts from this manufacturer. I have not seen any of the YMW kits, and can't comment on their quality/accuracy.

So, 1,500 tonner fans - here is a chance for you to talk about these USN DDs, which helped hold the line the first months of the Pacific War, until the more modern Benson/Gleaves and Fletcher classes could come into service.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 2125
Location: Monson, MA.
The Midship kits are a real PITA for fit problems. And, yes you're right, the Benham stack isn't even close to what it should be. I was working on the Benham herself a couple of years ago and gave up on her due to sheer frustration.
Hopefully Niko will come out with one and satisfy our needs.


Bob Pink.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:13 pm
Posts: 26
Location: Sunrise Florida
Martin what I did was used the weapon sets from the midships kits and the trunks from Kobo-Hiru USS Blue kit and made my stack from brass
I would rather clean up this kit then struggle to get the Midships kits bridge to fit
I will post a pic tomorrow to show ya'll the results
gerry

_________________
Anytime Baby


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:41 am
Posts: 2125
Location: Monson, MA.
GERARD wrote:
Martin what I did was used the weapon sets from the midships kits and the trunks from Kobo-Hiru USS Blue kit and made my stack from brass
I would rather clean up this kit then struggle to get the Midships kits bridge to fit
I will post a pic tomorrow to show ya'll the results
gerry



Cool, I would love to see what you've done. :thumbs_up_1: :thumbs_up_1:



Bob Pink.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Due to commitments with home, holidays, work etc, I've been in a bit of a modeling 'rut' lately and haven't gotten near the workbench on a regular basis in about 2 months, and haven't finished model since the end of the summer. Wanting to work on a smaller project to get me moving again, I've decided to go back and try and finish my 1/700 Midship Gridley - which, I noticed, that FreeTime Hobbies now lists (along with all the Midship injection molded DD's) as 'discontinued'.

As mentioned earlier, it doesn't seem that you can build a Benham class ship from these kits, due to the incorrect funnel. I'm not 100% sure if you can build a correct Gridley class either, so I'm going to take a stab at completing her as a pre-war Bagley class ship. Yeah, nothing like a simple project...Anyway, has anyone compiled a list of corrections for the Midship kits? From past conversation with other modelers and from comparing the kit to photos and drawings the past few nights, here's a few things that seem to need some attention:

It looks like the part that the pilothouse sits on isn't deep enough - the aft end of the pilot house shouldn't touch the back of the platform, but does. Also, there are platforms running from the around the forward superstructure where the break in the forecastle is - those are missing from the kit. There also appears to be a catwalk from the midships deckhouse to the funnel, but I can't find any good pre-war overhead photos or drawings that confirm this.

These seem to be pretty easy fixes - anyone have any other glaring issues with these kits they can point out? Here's a few photos for illustration:
Attachment:
File comment: Pre-war photo of Bagley
bagley_profile.jpg
bagley_profile.jpg [ 115.68 KiB | Viewed 10104 times ]
Attachment:
File comment: Photo of the rear of Bagley's forward superstructure, starboard side
bagley.jpg
bagley.jpg [ 93.68 KiB | Viewed 10138 times ]

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1807
Hi Martin,

There are a number of other errors with the kits. I have started masters to mold my own funnels (all 3 styles), but then, I started when the kits came out and haven't finished with the detailing yet. Other issues include the fact that all of the after armament is compressed forward. I like to make things turn on a kit and one of the reasons is that if there is no room to actually turn, then the part is too big or is improperly positioned. The correct position for the aftermost 5" should be similar to the position on the Mahan kit (closer, but still off) or the Pit-Road Benson/Gleaves. Once that is positioned, the after superstructure should be moved aft allowing more room for the TT to be shifted as well. Also, the Benham and Gridley classes had a small deckhouse between the funnel and the TT, which the kit does not provide. The Bagley's had a small deckhouse between the forward and after uptakes, UNDER the main part of the funnel. The whole bridge is too close to the #2 5" gun and that puts the 20MM tubs too close to the #2 gun. (Needs about .080 more deck between the 5" and 20MM without which the #2 gun can't turn.) The blast deflectors protecting the lower 5" crews from the superfiring guns don't reflect the actual design, with roughly 3 panels - one angled up from the after end of the deckhouse and then the triangular side panels that tilt up on either side. There are other small issues, but this is enough to give you another headache.

BTW, the Benham/Gridley/Bagley kits are closer to accurate than the Mahan/Dunlap/Cassin series.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Thanks Dick...that should keep me busy (or not building) for a while.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Dick J wrote:
The Bagley's had a small deckhouse between the forward and after uptakes, UNDER the main part of the funnel.


Well, a set of plans for Bagley (in 1/96 scale) from Floating Drydock showed up yesterday. Nice set of plans - I see the deck house you were talking about. Unfortunately the plans don't come with with a overhead view, only a profile view, so I can't really get a good handle on where the deck house sits on the deck. Can anyone point me to a overhead drawing of the Bagley's? I didn't find one in Friedman's book.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 13, 2009 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1807
Absloutely clear photos of the deckhouse are hard to come by. A couple on Navsource give some hints, though. (Ralph Talbot 19-N-11487 and Henley 19-N-28724) It appears that it was roughly rectangular and barely projected out from under the stack, if it stuck out at all. I have seen a reasonably good photo somewhere, but haven't been able to put my hands on it right now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Dick J wrote:
Absloutely clear photos of the deckhouse are hard to come by. A couple on Navsource give some hints, though. (Ralph Talbot 19-N-11487 and Henley 19-N-28724) It appears that it was roughly rectangular and barely projected out from under the stack, if it stuck out at all. I have seen a reasonably good photo somewhere, but haven't been able to put my hands on it right now.


There are other plans available on Floating DryDock for the Bagley class, but I'm not dropping 30 something bucks for plans for one 1/700 DD! I'll check those photos out, thanks.

EDIT: I did find pictures of the Helm and Blue on the Destroyer History homepage, and this page on the Bagley-class, all of which show the deckhouse under the stack to some extent.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Midship Mahan 1942
PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:59 am
Posts: 697
I'm working at assembling an almost OOB "generic" Mahan 1942 from the Midship kit. I have yet to determine a "typical" configuration for the aft 20mm locations. I believe the best arrangement is to place 2 -20mm (P/S) in the area vacated by the No. 3 - 5" mount and the final 2 - 20mm on the raised crew shelter forward of the No. 4 - 5" mount. That makes a total of 8 - 20mm. I believe the addition of the twin 40mm mounts came later during the war and "displaced" all 4 - 20mm on the aft superstructure. Any advice will be appreciated.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Midship Mahan 1942
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Steve wrote:
I'm working at assembling an almost OOB "generic" Mahan 1942 from the Midship kit. I have yet to determine a "typical" configuration for the aft 20mm locations. I believe the best arrangement is to place 2 -20mm (P/S) in the area vacated by the No. 3 - 5" mount and the final 2 - 20mm on the raised crew shelter forward of the No. 4 - 5" mount. That makes a total of 8 - 20mm. I believe the addition of the twin 40mm mounts came later during the war and "displaced" all 4 - 20mm on the aft superstructure. Any advice will be appreciated.


Looking at photos of the Mahan, it looks like she is carrying only 20mm up through October 1942. The Midship instructions would have you put a pair of twin 40mms in place of the no 3 mount, which I believe is incorrect.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:21 pm
Posts: 3204
Location: equidistant to everywhere
MartinJQuinn wrote:


Which Lexington kit is that?

_________________
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.


Last edited by MartinJQuinn on Fri May 29, 2009 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
converted images to links


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
chuck wrote:


The Imperial Hobby Productions 1/700 resin Lexington class battlecruiser kit. I did a build up review for this site, which can be found here.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3390
Some images of USN 1500-ton destroyers taken sometime in mid-1941 to about January 1942. The mounting cards for a couple of these said they were taken on 6 December 1941 ... but someone had written a note saying that was unlikely because of the ships in the photos with Enterprise (CV-6).

I have a question for the Camo experts ... these destroyers appear to be lighter in shade than Enterprise, are they in 5-S??? They are not in Ms-1 or peacetime grey.

DD-382 Craven supposedly taken in January 1942 ... is this 5-S camo???
Image

DD-397 Benham in about December 1941 give or take a month or two ... alongside ENTERPRISE. I ID'd this "unknown" destroyer from the name on the life preserver ring.
Image

An unknown Mahan class destroyer coming alongside ENTERPRISE at about the same time as Benham.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 pm
Posts: 1340
Location: Troutdale, OR
Howdy,

Just wondering if anyone can help confirm a couple of details about the USS Sterett DD-407, I was given this photo of her a few years back and it wasn't until I actually started looking at it to build her as she was at Guadalcanal did I notice what I was looking at.
Attachment:
Sterett Mare Island.jpg
Sterett Mare Island.jpg [ 148.23 KiB | Viewed 10671 times ]


A very different verion of MS12(mod) than previous more well know photos like this one
Attachment:
sterett2.jpg
sterett2.jpg [ 149.98 KiB | Viewed 10650 times ]


Few questions now:
#1: What kind of radar director is on the front of the gun director?
#2: Where is the #3 5 inch gun mount?
#3: When did the #4 5 inch get uncovered?
#4: Is this the paint scheme she would have been on 11/13/42 or is this some post battle repaint job to get her back to the states? It doesn't seem to follow standard MS12(m) patterns.
#5: Does anyone have any detail photos that are not as dark that would give better indication of 20mm tub shapes and such?


Thanks in advance everyone!

Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 11172
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Given the markings indicating shell hits, I suspect #3 mount was removed so that they can assess and access the damaged area for repairs.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 7005
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
Rick E Davis wrote:
I have a question for the Camo experts ... these destroyers appear to be lighter in shade than Enterprise, are they in 5-S??? They are not in Ms-1 or peacetime grey.


Enterprise was in Ms1 (5-D) at the time. The Ship Camo site says Craven and Benham were Ms21 in 1942 - could they be 5N here?

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group