Calling all Benson-class & Gleaves-class DD fans

[ar]

I should have written more clearly.
I was referring to the HF/DF type FH4 (British equipment) as fitted on the Harding.
The photo of the Herndon shows American type HF/DF DAR.
My question was to the fitting specifically of FH4, and NOT DAR.
The correct phrase should be HF/DF and not RD/RF.

I can not put a number to how many Benson-Gleaves units had the RD/RF gear at the foremast. I believe this was common on DE's. In a quick survey, I found at least one other ship so configured, Herndon (DD-638) in October 1943 (see attached image). As you can see she was also one of the units equipped with Mousetrap. I'm sticking my neck out here, but I would guess that maybe only one ship out of a DesDiv or DesRon would have been so equipped and then only on those ships NOT expected to be engaging enemy aircraft. I didn't see any ships of the class assigned to the Pacific so equipped and believe it would be limited to ships assigned primarily to ASW duties. May have only been an experiment of sorts. The photos I have found of the Benson-Gleaves class are kind of spotty in coverage, but most seem to have had an Air Search radar installed. Herndon was completed with an Air Search radar before getting RD/RF gear. New York Navy Yard was pretty good at taking photos of mods ... but not of EVERYTHING done. Norfolk Navy Yard photos are sparse and Boston is so/so.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303 ... 9Oct43.jpg

[dan shepard]

Rick,
Thanks for even more information on the Frankford. You have given me more help than I had hoped for. A friend of mine, also a tank modeler, is also working on a Benson so this froum has helped him out too.
Dan

[Rick E Davis]

OK another one ... Earle (DD-635) ... she was assigned to DesDiv 30, DesRon 15. Note, that the installation must have occurred before this yard period since there are no change "notes" at the bottom of the photo. I'm guessing these installations happened in early (Spring time) of 1943. Sorry it is HF/DF gear ... I'm guessing that the installation of the British gear was for evaluation purposes. This isn't my area of expertise ... still learning the electronics gear. I had noted this "strange" equipment at the masthead that wasn't "normal" for radar, but didn't give it much thought.

That accounts for one ship in all four DesRon units commissioned after the pre/early war DesRon units (7, 10, 11, and 13) that were not assigned to the Pacific and were used primarily for ASW/Convoy Escort duty. Kind of interesting if this was the idea to have one ship out of a DesRon equipped for this mission?

[Timmy C]

[random observation]

Buoyant Life net stowage baskets...so that's what they officially called them.

[Rick E Davis]

Al,

Here is a close-up image of the mast head on Harding from another angle. For me it was hard to tell the difference between the two types of gear from the first larger image of Harding.

[ar]

The photo of the Earle shows not an FH4 but the American DAR.
Very much doubt that Installation of RN HF/DF FH4 on the Harding was for evaualation reasons, as type DAR was developed directly from type FH3 and FH4 equipment, and not the other way around.

OK another one ... Earle (DD-635) ... she was assigned to DesDiv 30, DesRon 15. Note, that the installation must have occurred before this yard period since there are no change "notes" at the bottom of the photo. I'm guessing these installations happened in early (Spring time) of 1943. Sorry it is HF/DF gear ... I'm guessing that the installation of the British gear was for evaluation purposes. This isn't my area of expertise ... still learning the electronics gear. I had noted this "strange" equipment at the masthead that wasn't "normal" for radar, but didn't give it much thought.

That accounts for one ship in all four DesRon units commissioned after the pre/early war DesRon units (7, 10, 11, and 13) that were not assigned to the Pacific and were used primarily for ASW/Convoy Escort duty. Kind of interesting if this was the idea to have one ship out of a DesRon equipped for this mission?

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p303 ... 3Sep43.jpg

[Rick E Davis]

I really don't know why the USN would install the RN FH4 HF/DF system on the Harding. But, I would think that an operational evaluation would make sense. Since I don't know anything about the relative performance of the USN DAR and RN FH4 systems, I don't known if the FH4 had better performance that the USN wanted to evaluate. It may be that just the antenna from the HF/DF is being used here. One of the main keys to how well this kind of system will work is the antenna.

What I really find interesting is that the USN would install HF/DF equipment IN PLACE OF the Air Search radar on what at the time were still front-line Benson-Gleaves destroyers. The use of HF/DF on DE's made sense given their primary ASW mission, but to not utilize an Air Search radar on a modern MULTI-MISSION destroyer doesn't make sense. On Fletcher's, the USN installed a tall main mast late in the war for a HF/DF and ECM antennas on some units.

At any rate, finding that at least four Benson-Gleaves units had HF/DF equipment installed in place of Air Search radar in 1943, is an interesting chapter to the technical history of the class.

[ar]

I have to admit a mistake in using the term DAR. I should have written DAQ.
In September 1943 the destroyer Greer was fitted with FH4.
The last photo that you have posted states that the antenna is a DAK. Have not heard of this one, and my first instinct would be to believe that it is an error, however.....
Evaluation of FH4; went operational in January 1942, and full reports would have been passed to the USN straight away. A gap of about twenty months therefore seems wrong. There is some other reason.
For Atlantic escort work, HF/DF was more important than an air search radar, and some considered it more important tnan ANY radar.
You mention Fletchers fitted with a mainmast to carry HF/DF equipment late war. I am not aware of this. Is it possible to post a photograph?
Thank you.


ar

I really don't know why the USN would install the RN FH4 HF/DF system on the Harding. But, I would think that an operational evaluation would make sense. Since I don't know anything about the relative performance of the USN DAR and RN FH4 systems, I don't known if the FH4 had better performance that the USN wanted to evaluate. It may be that just the antenna from the HF/DF is being used here. One of the main keys to how well this kind of system will work is the antenna.

What I really find interesting is that the USN would install HF/DF equipment IN PLACE OF the Air Search radar on what at the time were still front-line Benson-Gleaves destroyers. The use of HF/DF on DE's made sense given their primary ASW mission, but to not utilize an Air Search radar on a modern MULTI-MISSION destroyer doesn't make sense. On Fletcher's, the USN installed a tall main mast late in the war for a HF/DF and ECM antennas on some units.

At any rate, finding that at least four Benson-Gleaves units had HF/DF equipment installed in place of Air Search radar in 1943, is an interesting chapter to the technical history of the class.

[dick]

Really fascinating close up detail of Earle's mast. Out of curiosity what was the purpose of "Truck Lights" and why were they so named?

[Rick E Davis]

Al,

The type of Mainmast on Fletchers I'm referring to is one I think you are familiar with. I have not figured out the different types of mainmasts on Fletchers yet, but they did seem to follow a progression. In late 1944 the need for ECM and jammers to counter new weapons required new ESM/ECM equipment which were not well suited for installation on the foremast (too many radios and radars with interference worries). Also, I don't know if the "fighter direction" mission didn't require additional equipment. So, a mainmast was installed with the first ones being fairly short and not well "populated". Then in about January-February 1945 a fairly tall version mainmast with a tripod support was installed on several Fletchers. I will admit that I'm going by a reference book somewhere that said that the antennas on these tall mainmasts were for ESM ... including HF/DF functions, well at least DF function ... and ECM and don't know if this is completely accurate. After awhile a shorter stepped mainmast with different ECM equipment antennas was used ... seen widely on the Anti-Kamikaze modified Fletchers. I'm no expert in identifying the various antennas used on the mast. I would guess that these were NOT intended to perform the same mission of the FH4 and/or DAQ or DAK or whatever in the Atlantic in detecting submarine communications.

The five images below show:

Image #1 ... Charles Ausburne (DD-570) in September 1944 with the earlier short mainmast.

Images #2,3, and 4 of three different ships ... Mullany (DD-528) in the process of installation (note the uninstalled arrays are hanging on the deckhouse), Heermann (DD-532) with what looks to be the same full installation going on Mullany, and Morrison (DD-560) with a slightly different arrangement of antennas ... as examples of this tall mainmast.
I can be wrong, but I take the rotatable array midway up the mast is at least a limited HF/DF antenna.

Image #5 of Kidd (DD-661) in August 1945, with one of the late war versions of mainmast.

[Rick E Davis]

Something further of interest on Earle (DD-635). This image is of Earle in December 1944 ... her DAQ/DAK was relocated to a new mainmast.

[Rick E Davis]

Dick,

These "lights" have been labeled differently on different photos. Most often they are called "Vertical Fighting Lights". Truck Lights could be a miss spelling for Trunk Lights as well.

[Dick J]

Webster's has this as one of the definitions for "truck":

"A small wooden cap at the top of a flagstaff or masthead usually having holes for reeving flag or signal halyards."

With this definition, "truck lights" could be an appropriate designator for mast lights, whether the "fighting lights" (colored ID lights) or the maritime white masthead lights.

[ar]

Thank you for putting up the five photos.
Those of the Fletchers do not show any HF/DF antennas, but radar intercepts and jammers.
May I refer you again to Naval Radar by Friedman. I strongly recommend that you obtain a copy. Also, if you do not already have it, US Naval Weapons, by Friedman. Both titles are mandatory reading for any person seriously interested in the appearence of US ships, and will help greatly in understanding what you see in photos.
On the question of the DAK, perhaps David Baker can help, as he is without doubt pre-eminent when it comes to knowing configeration, equipment and fit of US ships.

[taskforce48]

Could Cyber Hobbies/Dragon 1945 Buchanan more or less be accurate for a Aaron Ward at the time of her sinking? I know she had the twin 40's and the bandstand 20MM platform in front of the bridge but I can not find if she had the 20MM's mounted on the bridge wings and as to what she was painted, I assume MS-21?

Thanks
Matt

[Rick E Davis]

Matt,

The Aaron Ward started out being a near twin to Buchanan when they were commissioned. But Aaron Ward was updated at Pearl Harbor Navy Yard in December 1942 - January 1943 and emerged with a "unique" configuration for a "standard" two twin 40-mm mounts and seven single 20-mm guns. I found several photos of her off Pearl Harbor post the upgrade at NARA, but they were of poor quality. Here are the best images, that have been published before, but without the markings dating the photo. As you can see, she had a combo walk-around navigation bridge/elevated centerline platform for a 20-mm gun with a deckhouse built below it. Yes she had bridge wing 20-mm guns. One of the most interesting features are her Mk 51 platform "towers". The third image is a close-up from a poor image that shows the shape of the bridge wing 20-mm gun "sponson" and the "open bridge" arrangement.

The Buchanan was updated at Mare Island at least a year after Aaron Ward to a more "standard" configuration. (If there is such a thing as a "standard" configuration for Benson-Gleaves. )

[taskforce48]

Rick,

Thanks for the awesome info! I was hoping you would be able to help clarify the questions I had. I have never seen those photos before and the only reference to the fact that the AW had been modified was photos and description of the wreck. I would assume the area under the elevated 20mm was a clipping room like added to some of the Mahan's or just enlarged ready service lockers? Again thanks for info and pics, this would be a very interesting build, so many variations, so little time to build them all!

Matt

[whaynes]

Has anybody made a decision about posting rigging details from Model Ship Builder as discussed in a previous post? I'm about ready to start on Buchanan and am hopeful for a little help.
walt

[Anthony P]

This is an excellent thread, and I am very grateful to all participants for the information given.

I am wondering whether your knowledge extends to the post-war careers and fit of ships of these classes. To be more specific: In 1950, USS Ludlow DD 438 and USS Eberle DD 430 were transferred to the Hellenic Navy, where they served honorably until 1971-72 under the names of Doxa (Glory) and Niki (Victory).

Pictures of the ships can be found in the official Hellenic Navy page (links: http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/images/oldSh ... i_D-63.jpg and http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/images/oldSh ... a_d-20.jpg)

I have acquired the USS Buchanan-1945 version, which I thought would be the best to start with. The Hellenic Navy site lists the ships' armament while under the Greek flag as 4 5" 38's, 4 quadruple and 2 double 40mm's, 6 20mm's, Hedgehog and depth charges, which to my limited knowledge seems close to a 1945 fit.

My question: does anybody know whether the ships, as transferred in 1950, still retained their 1945 radar fit? Were any other changes made before they were sold? I do know that the ships returned to the States in 1954 for a general refit, which I assume might have included a radar updating.

I also assume the ships were mothballed from 1945 to 1950.

Any comments and suggestions would be more than welcome!

Anthony

[Cadman]

Has anybody made a decision about posting rigging details from Model Ship Builder as discussed in a previous post? I'm about ready to start on Buchanan and am hopeful for a little help.
walt

I am scanning the pages as we speak. I will have something posted in December.