The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:19 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1085 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 55  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 249
Location: South Carolina
I recently acquired plans of USS Aaron Ward from The Floating Drydock. These are really neat plans with a lot of details. There are a couple of items that I am totally in the dark with. What are "water breakers" and "arbors", and what do they look like? As usual, Any assistance is appreciated.

Regards, Walt Haynes


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10883
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Arbors are the things on the bulkhead in this picture:
Image
(Picture courtesy of Tracy White from the Buckley thread)

They are usually put in the K-guns with just the flat head of the T sticking out of the gun, with a Depth Charge put on top.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 249
Location: South Carolina
Great!!! Now for the water breaks. Who knows what these are?
walt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10883
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
I'm assuming that they are the 1-2 feet high bulkheads that help slant the water away from the center of the ship - you can see them (if I'm thinking of the right things) on battleships a lot, especially on the forward deck.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 249
Location: South Carolina
No, These definately aren't the same as the "breakwater," as located on the foredeck of the Iowa class battleships. The plans indicate several small cylindrical devices stowed against the superstructure on the main deck just aft of the break in the deck. I have not seen these referred to in other destroyers, i.e.Fletcher Plans Book.Thanks, Walt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1777
Water Breakers, at least on Navy aircraft in the '70's and '80's, were basically any container storing quantities of drinking water. I don't know the exact size limitations, but they were usually not "single serving" containers. Perhaps that is what you are looking at here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3303
Walt

I don't know what they are, but are these the cylinder "things" referred to in the drawing? See attached image from a photo of Livermore (DD-429) ... the six(?) cylinders stacked three high on the bulkhead dead center of this image. When I first read your question, I thought that maybe they just put the note in the wrong location and were referring to the bulwark (I always thought was called a breakwater?) at the deck edge on the main deck to deflect water coming over the main deck. Then I read Dick's response and I'm not certain.


Attachments:
Waterbreakers.jpg
Waterbreakers.jpg [ 111.63 KiB | Viewed 3162 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 10:32 pm
Posts: 249
Location: South Carolina
Rick, I think that is exactly what the plans are showing. Thanks so much for your help.

Walt


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:21 pm
Posts: 233
Just conjecture based upon 20 years of shipboard experience, but the object shown looks like retrofitted ventilation. The square base is the ducting, the cylinder the fan and motor and the square top the intake designed to prevent water from being sucked in during heavy seas. The term breakwater might refer to that mushroom cap. The housing sits above an propulsion space. I bet the designed ventilation was inadequate and this upgrade provided to help cool the space.

_________________
Charles Landrum
USNA 1983
Norfolk, Virginia


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3303
Charles,

You could be right, but I'm not sure if this is the "original" style for this ventilator or one of several styles tried. It wouldn't be the first time different configurations are used on different ships.

I'm posting a couple of close-up images of the same area on a couple of Benson's images for 1) Meade (DD-602) on 7 September 1944 and 2) Caldwell (DD-605) on 3 march 1945. A different style of Mushroom ventilator is installed and a defector installed to protect it and I suspect crew members using the ladder in rough weather. :-} Deflectors of this general style were used on several Benson-Gleaves all along the superstructure on the main deck, most times with a roof over it.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1777
Those deflectors were often used to protect the access hatches for the engineering spaces. That is why you don't usually see them on Sumners and Gearings - they had the engineering space access inside the superstructure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:59 pm
Posts: 15
Location: North Carolina / USA
HI Guys,
I am a first time poster and have recently bought Dragon's 1/350 USS Buchanan DD484 1942 and all i can say is WOW !!!! This has got to be the best 1/350 plastic ship kit ever produced !!!

Now on to my question(s)

(1) I would like to build the kit as USS Duncan DD-485 during the Battle of Cape Esperance in October 1942 , what changes , deletions and additions need to be made to the kit to accurately represent Duncan at this time ?

(2) Are there any plans available of Duncan at this time period ?


Thanks for any help in this matter.


regards
JOEY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1777
Both were built by the same yard, as (obviously) successive hull numbers. There were only very minor physical differences between the two, the most visible of which was the height of the searchlight on the pedestal for the never-fitted second bank of torpedo tubes. Buchannan's searchlight was marginally higher than Duncan's. Photos of Duncan in the Pacific indicate she was in MS-21. This should be a VERY easy "conversion".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3303
To add a few images to Dick's comments.

The first image is a close crop of Aaron Ward (DD-483) and Buchanan (DD-484) building after Federal SB&DD started to modify them to the new standard for eventually two twin 40-mm mounts. Note that the second Torpedo Tube (TT) bank foundation is still in place. As far as we know, this was not removed on these two ships and explains why they have some differences in that area when compared with the sisters that followed at Federal SB&DD.

The second image is a close crop of the same area on Duncan (DD-485). Note that the aft TT bank foundation was not installed. The design change order deleting the second TT bank and 53 mount was implemented on Duncan early enough in her construction so that it was not installed.

I don't have any as completed images of Duncan, but the third image is of her sister Lansdowne (DD-486) and you can compare her with photos and/or the kit of Buchanan to see the differences at the time of completion. There are images on-line of Duncan that shows her early MS-12R camo scheme. But as Dick says, she was repainted to MS-21 by at least October 1942. There are images at Navsource.org and DestroyerHistory.org of this ship and whenever NHC goes back on-line with large images, they have several as well.

The fourth image is an onboard view of Lansdowne. Compare to the fifth image, an onboard view of Aaron Ward. You can see that this area is pretty much in the same configuration.

The sixth and final image is a midships close-up of another sister, Lardner (DD-487), that you can compare to Buchanan.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 7:39 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:31 pm
Posts: 3421
Location: Plattsburg, Missouri
The Duncan DD-485 was one of a group of Gleaves class DD's built to the same plans and as Dick pointed out, by the same shipyard. There main difference is the searchlight tower. The Aaron Ward and Buchanan used the shorter tower. Dragon just happened to include that alternate tower as part number 9. Use it in place of parts 10 and 11. That part is also correct for the DD-486 Lansdown, DD-487 Lardner, DD-488 McCalla, DD-489 Mervine, and DD-490 Quick. The plans I used to design the Buchanan are stamped with hull numbers DD-483-DD-490.

As for plans, Floating Drydock carries plans for some similar ships. I don't think Duncan was one of them. The Benson/Gleaves photo album by Classic Warships has plans for McCalla in 42. You can refer to the photos to get the slight differences.

One thing I have learned is that no two of these ships are exactly alike. Even those built side by side from the same plans have little differences. The class seems to evolve even as they were being built. Aaron Ward and Buchanan were both well on their way to having the prewar 5x 5" setup with the aft superstructure and 10x torpedo fit. But before completion the whole aft was reworked and the result was what we see now on the Buchanan. The gun tubs were intended to have 40 mm twins installed but they were in short supply. One thing that I should also point out is that those really cool Mk-51's shown on the instructions, were probably not installed on the Buchanan until the 40 mm guns were installed. There mountings were there, but it doesn't look like they were installed in 42. Those parts were supposed to be marked optional on the instructions, but we slipped up and forgot to do that on the final draft.

There are some photos on Navsource that you can go by, but avoid the Navy Yard Associates profile drawings as they are WAY OFF. They show Duncan as having 10x torpedos, a canvas covered #3 mount. 40 mm guns, SG radar, uncut bridge wings, and numerous other errors.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:59 pm
Posts: 15
Location: North Carolina / USA
Hi Guys,
Thanks for all the great info & pics . Can anyone tell me which of the squadron signal in action books covers the Benson/Gleaves class destroyers ?



Thanks
JOEY


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:31 pm
Posts: 3421
Location: Plattsburg, Missouri
I'm sorry to say that the one book from Squadron that covers the Benson Gleaves class DD's in action 3 is very inaccurate. There are numerous mistakes. I have a review in the book section on the main site. Most of their DD books have many errors and most could have been easily avoided.

Review here.

Image

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3303
Tim,

Something that I found in my recent research. It appears that the Mk 51 was used with some of the quad 1.1-in mount equipped Benson-Gleaves ships. The Mk 51 directors were not available in any great numbers until the summer of 1942. The USN would only install the 40-mm guns with an adequate director, which at that time were considered to be the Mk 49 and Mk 51. The Mk 49 was considered at the time to be the "ultimate" director for the 40-mm mounts, but was way behind development and didn't get installed in any numbers until January 1943. (The first Mk 49 installed on a destroyer I'm aware of at this time is in September 1942 on Saufley (DD-465)). Anyway, I noticed in photos of the Benson-Gleaves units being readied for the North Africa invasion in the September-October 1942 period that a director had been installed to control the quad 1.1-in mount. All the photos I have seen have canvas covering the director making postive ID almost impossible. At roughly the same time, I found in records that the three Fletchers with the quad 1.1-in mount had Mk 51 directors installed in the late 1942 to early 1943 period. The only other available option for a director on Benson-Gleaves units is the Mk 44 director. The Mk 44 was not very capable, but was used on at least some quad 1.1-in mount equipped DE's. The Mk 44 looks a lot like the Mk 51, but lacked the Mk 14 lead angle sight installed on the Mk 51 director. I'm pretty certain that the most likely director seen in these photos is the Mk 51.

The question is did any of the quad 1.1-in mount equipped Pacific Benson-Gleaves ships get a director for their mount? I have not found any photos that "clearly" show a director. Given where the director would have been installed, only close photos of the starboard side would show it. But, given what I read in the files for the three Fletchers with quad 1.1-in mounts, the ship CO's BEGGED for a director to control the quad 1.1-in mount. Local control of the quad 1.1-in mount was determined to be pretty worthless.

In other words, installing a Mk 51 director with a quad 1.1-in mount may well be valid in some cases.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 10:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 4:31 pm
Posts: 3421
Location: Plattsburg, Missouri
Rick E Davis wrote:
In other words, installing a Mk 51 director with a quad 1.1-in mount may well be valid in some cases.


Well we will just have to leave that up to the modeler until we can find proof. I will continue to keep my eye out for use of the directors with my favorite Pacific War Benson/Gleaves.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 18, 2008 7:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3303
I had intended to post this with the previous message ... oh well old age.

These two images are of Emmons (DD-457) on 9 October 1942, location not certain, but based on "style" of the modification circles used ... may be taken at Norfolk. If not Norfolk, then off New York is the next most likely location.

First image shows a near aerial side profile view and the second image shows a more overhead view with a circle (drawn on the original image) noting the, I assume, Mk 51 director. As you can see, the director covered in canvas is pretty hard to pick out in all the shipboard clutter of this configuration with the Searchlight being on the aft deckhouse. The Emmons and sister Macomb (DD458) were built by Bath Iron Works and are near twins. On many of the Benson-Gleaves built from and after DD-453 (the so called Bristol configuration) that did locate the searchlight on the aft deckhouse, the searchlight was relocated to aft of the second stack when the twin 40-mm mounts were installed. But, these two kept their searchlights in this location. The early group of Benson-Gleaves (DD421-444) with ten torpedo tubes had their searchlights located in this location as well. Made for a tight fit on the aft deckhouse with two twin 40-mm mounts, two Mk 51 directors, a searchlight, and the aft con station.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1085 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 55  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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