Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans

[Rick E Davis]

Jindrich,

You ask a difficult question ... there are few overhead images of and I have none without the canvas cover in place ... the best I can do for an "overhead" 53 mount without the canvas cover is this image of the 53 mount on Gwin (DD-433). Unfortunately, the Gwin at this time had the half mount shield removed. I have several views of Gleaves units with the canvas covers. There was some variation to how they were covered, but this is a good view of Grayson (DD-435) ... this is a bonus shot showing the aft deckhouse layout for the four 20-mm guns mounted there on the four ships in DesDiv 22 in mid-1942.

[graham]

Rick
Great photo the first time I have seen how the one of 9-20mm bensons was arranged. I assume that the other five 20mm where 3 on B gundeck and the other two aside the aft funnel ?
Did they have 5 or 10 TT?

Graham Murdoch

[graham]

OK I looked at photo again Look Before posting stupid Question !!!!!! yes 10 tubes !!!!

Graham Murdoch

[Dick J]

The 9 20MM were located as follows: 2 before the bridge, 1 to starboard of the forward funnel, 1 ea on either side of the after funnel, and the 4 in the photo. Check out this photo of Monssen. (I know it is labeled "Meridith", but it IS Monssen.)

http://users.bigpond.net.au/elliget/aus ... c00326.jpg

[Rick E Davis]

I thought I had posted these before, but apparently I didn't. To add to Dick's comments.

Grayson (DD-435) at Mare Island Navy Yard on 10 June 1942. The Flush-Decker next to Grayson has an interesting configuration as well. The staggered height/superimposed amidships centerline 20-mm gun tubs are rare to the class. Kilty (DD-137) and Kennison (DD-138) both assigned to the 11th Naval District (San Diego) DesDiv 70 are the only photos I have found with this configuration. I think this is actually Kilty in the photo, she was at Mare Island for an Availability (2-17 June 1942) at the same time as Grayson (May-June 1942). But, it could be another ship as well. It is also possible that other members of DesDiv 70 ... Crane (DD-109), Rathburne (DD-113), and Crosby (DD-164) ... could have been similarly modified and no photos have surfaced ... yet. These five ships seem to have few WWII photos available. Several (3 out of 5) of the ships from this DesDiv were converted to APD's in 1943 and that could explain the limited number of images. Another photo search project at NARA.

[Stratboy]

Man these are great pics! I finally finnished my Buchannan so thanks guys for the help, now I will have to wait until I get home from my next deployment to build another!

Rob

[DrDull]

Congratulations on finishing, Rob. Will you be submitting photos to the gallery? I'm just about finished with my model of Ellyson (DD-454). I have a question for the group - especially those who are most familiar with the DML series of Benson/Gleaves models. I want to model Ellyson after her DMS conversion. Which model do you think would be the best starting point? I'm thinking that the Buchanan 1945 would be the best since it has the late war AA refit, but the fact that the Laffey (?) kit has both the Gleaves stacks and the squared off bridge option included makes it a possibility. Opinions? Barry

[Tim Jacobs]

For those interested in the Mayo DD-422 or Plunkett DD-431, Rick E Davis has an article in the newest issue of Warship International (Volume 45 No. 4, pgs 317-328) titled "The Unique Armament and Configuration of Mayo (DD-422) and Plunkett (DD-431) in WWII."

http://www.warship.org/

[Stratboy]

Well Barry, unfortunatley the current "down turn" (gotta love THOSE nice sounding words) has put off the digital camera for awhile. My wife and I want to get a decent one when we do so maybe later. I owe a ton of pictures to forums all over the net! Someday I will get a camera and then spend a solid month taking pictures!!

Rob

[graham]

DickJ
Thanks for sorting me out on the 9-20mm I must admit I didn't know of this layout
Again great Photos Thanks for posting them.
Just as interesting is the four strack along side what I like about this from you always learn something

Graham Murdoch

[Jabba]

to Rick - thanks a lot for excellent shots, I still hope for possibility to discover turret picture withou canvas in close future. My dream is to built USS Livermore without turret top canvas only with supporting frame as well as one class representative with pure open mount.

By the way, picture of Gwin´s 53 mount is original configuration without turret or after its disassembly as you mentioned ? I am not sure due to visible side railing what indicate me more sifisticated status then only turret side disassembly.

But, I am not specialist, this is just my opinion.

Very appreciate your comment.

best regards

Jindrich Nepevny

[Rick E Davis]

Jindrich,

The original Benson-Gleaves units (DD421-444) were built or at least intended to be built with five 5-in mounts. The 53 and 54 mounts (3rd and 4th mounts counting from the bow) were open mounts and the other three were fully enclosed. In the summer of 1941 the USN modified these first 24 Benson-Gleaves units (a couple of those not yet finished were completed to the revised configuration) to better equip them for North Atlantic operations and to reduce top-weight and add AA guns. The nine destroyers in DesRon 7 (DD421-428 and 431) retained five 5-in guns, but only five torpedo tubes The other 15 units (all Gleaves units) had mount 53 removed and retained ten torpedo tubes. In both cases the mounts formerly open, 53 if still installed and 54, were given the open top enclosure (with a canvas cover) to better protect the crews in the North Atlantic. When DesDiv 22 units transferred to the Pacific, they had the canvas covered mounts. Since there wasn't the same harsh weather in the Pacific, some of these four destroyers had the enclourse removed. I think that some of the DesDiv 22 units were lost before the enclosure was removed. Grayson is one of the units documented by photos with the canvas covered enclosure removed and she was the only unit of DesDiv 22 to survive the war.

[PeteM]

Speaking of Grayson, did she receive the same mods as Buchanan? Will the DML/Cyber Hobby 1945 Buchanan kit work for her? I can't seem to find any late war photos or information.

[Dick J]

Grayson was one of the first 24, and thus had the assigned "ultimate battery" of 4 5" and 10 tubes. Buchannan was one of the "repeats" with an assigned ultimate battery of 4 5" and 5 tubes. Grayson's #3 mount (originally #4) was either open or canvas topped. The #3 on Buchannan was fully enclosed. The Livermore kit would be the better starting point for Grayson. However, for the "45 apearance, neither kit is totally satisfactory. You need a mix of features from each.

[PeteM]

Grayson was one of the first 24, and thus had the assigned "ultimate battery" of 4 5" and 10 tubes. Buchannan was one of the "repeats" with an assigned ultimate battery of 4 5" and 5 tubes. Grayson's #3 mount (originally #4) was either open or canvas topped. The #3 on Buchannan was fully enclosed. The Livermore kit would be the better starting point for Grayson. However, for the "45 apearance, neither kit is totally satisfactory. You need a mix of features from each.

Thanks Dick. I should have realized by that second TT bank that Grayson was a 'Livermore'. So as a general rule would it be possible to model the late war version of any of the 5 TT ships from the '45 Buchanan kit?

[Rick E Davis]

Pete,

The problem with making a mid or late war Grayson from the Buchanan "45" kit has several problems. None of the first 24 Benson-Gleaves were authorized to have and hence were not modified with the raised centerline platform for a 20-mm gun or had bridge wing 20-mm guns installed. The authorized 20-mm armament for this group of ships was only four mounts. So the navigation bridge isn't right for the Grayson. Further, the Buchanan "45" kit doesn't have the deckhouse for the second aft TT mount and that would take extra work over just using the new Livermore kit as a starting point. Also, the Grayson had a half shield canvas covered 53 mount. See the first two images, when Grayson was updated to the two twin 40-mm configuration at Pearl Harbor in June 1943, she had the "open" 53 mount enclosed again. A kit-bashing between the Livermore kit and Buchanan "45" kit may be doable or just hand-making the twin 40-mm tubs for the Livermore kit may be easier. But, the Buchanan "45" kit was a limited edition release and may be difficult to get at some point.

In 1945 Grayson was one of the Gleaves class units to receive the anti-kamikaze mod (two quad and two twin 40-mm mounts and two twin 20-mm ... before the bridge ... and two single 20-mm ... on the main deck). At this point anyway, NONE of the Benson-Gleaves kits will build the anti-kamikaze version out of the box (see the third image). Many of the configurations seen with this class will require modification to the basic kit to build an accurate model.

So after all that, I agree with Dick that the Livermore would be a better start for building a Grayson for either the early Pacific war period or during the mid-war period up to about May 1945.

[Rick E Davis]

Pete,

Duh ... I reread your post ... don't post right after getting home from a long trip on an airplane. The answer to whether the Buchanan "45" kit would be the "best" starting point option for "any" mid-late war 5-TT Gleaves (or Benson?) ships is a ... it depends. There were differences between the Federal-built repeat-Gleaves units and those built by other builders. The major is the lower bridge deckhouse (at the 02 level) being squared off on on all but Federal-built units ... unless the New York Navy Yard modified the Federal-built ship after delivery ... which isn't available as an "out-of-the-box" part except on the Laffey (Benson) kit. Also, there is a WIDE variety of different configurations to the aft twin 40-mm tubs and Mk 51 (and a few Mk 49) directors seen on the aft deckhouse, the 20-mm tubs and the bridge wing 20-mm installation. So, it may be easier to use a Buchanan "42" kit (plus twin 40-mm mounts from somewhere) and modify it to the required configuration.

[PeteM]

Thanks for your replies Rick. My only reason for asking the question was that after looking at Ed McDonald's beautiful Lansdowne build I was inspired to do a '45 Benson/Gleaves in the same Ms 22 scheme, but not the Buchanan, the '42 version of which I've already built, or the Lansdowne, since he just did it. It has become obvious that the choice of ships is not as simple as it seemed at first glance. After combing the internet and looking through the Classic Warships Benson/Gleaves book I think I may have found one in Hambleton DD 455. She was Federal built and I've found at least one photo of her with the 20mm tub added in front of the bridge (although I can't see the area where the 40mm's would have been added) and wearing Ms 22. If you could verify that I'm correct with her and point me in the direction of additional photos or info I'd be grateful. Thanks.

[Rick E Davis]

Pete,

I need to ask you a couple of questions. Are you looking for ships to model more or less out of the box from the Buchanan "45" kit? AND does that ship HAVE to be in Ms 22?

Now then to answer your question about Hambleton (DD-455). Yes she was built by Federal SB&DD, but she had her bridge modified at New York Navy Yard after delivery to match the "standard" as desired in the repeat Benson-Gleaves units (the Laffey kit has this bridge). Ellyson (DD-454) .... see the images I posted way back on page one of these string ... Hambleton (DD-455), and Rodman (DD-456) were all modified in this way. They were delivered in an incomplete configuration and were all modified to the single quad 1.1-in mount configuration similar to Buchanan "42", except for the bridge deckhouse face at 02 level at NYNY. All served in the Atlantic as destroyers. When these three ships did get twin 40-mm mounts, they used the basic bulwark configuration seen on the Buchanan "42" kit with a few mods. I don't know if they later had the bulwarks modified to the Buchanan "45" configuration. In late 1944 these three ships were converted to DMS' units before going to the Pacific.

After delivering these units from Federal, the navy stopped modifying the bridge since Federal was completing them with the aft configuration for eventually two twin 40-mm mounts and installing the temporary quad 1.1-in mount during construction. This is the series I have listed earlier ... DD-483 to DD-490. DD-483 through 488 served in the Pacific as only destroyers and DD-489/490 in the Atlantic before they were also converted to DMS units. The DD-483 through 488 group all had the same basic configuration seen with the Buchanan "42" kit as completed ... with some variations. As the SURVIVORS (DD-484/486/487/488) were modified to the two twin 40-mm standard, their configurations varied depending on WHERE they were upgraded at and when. Lansdowne (DD-486) and McCalla (DD-488) were very close to the configuration seen in the Buchanan "45" kit, all three being modified at Mare Island Navy Yard .... but at different times, with the most noticeable area of difference being the bridge wing 20-mm installation.

If you are willing to modify the 02 bridge deckhouse face ... not all that difficult of a chore ... or get a Laffey kit (maybe bash with a Buchanan "45" kit?) many more options are available. For much of the war, the Atlantic based units were painted in Ms 22 and offer opportunities for modeling in that scheme. The problem will be figuring out which ship had what twin 40-mm mount "tub" configuration and when. Some units kept a close version to the original configuration designed, as seen in the Buchanan "42" and Laffey "42" kit. But, the navy did not like the director locations and several ... and I do mean SEVERAL ... configurations were tried before the Buchanan "45" layout seemed to win. Buchanan upgraded pretty late to the two twin 40-mm mount configuration and Mare Island's layout had "won". Several Benson's (aka Laffey and her sisters) served in the Pacific from the start of their careers and some also got the Mare Island upgrade configuration.

On top of all this, I have some trouble figuring out which ships in the Pacific did got the Ms 22 or Ms 21 after the dazzle schemes were dropped. Photos are sparse for some ships of this dual class in that period. There were 96 units in this dual class. 24 were from the early original batch and were different from the Buchanan/Laffey kits ... Livermore would be a better choice. 20 were Square-bridge Gleaves-class units and they are way different from the Buchanan/Laffey kits. That leaves 52 units ... 24 repeat Bensons and 28 repeat Gleaves. 24 had the temporary quad 1.1-in mount, some of these were lost before getting the two twin 40-mm mounts. That still leaves a lot of units to dig through. You need to narrow down your parameters some for me to even suggest a specific ship or group of ships. I have not tried to map out which of these ships had what configurations as far as concerns the twin 40-mm tubs ... there was a world of variation going on in late 1942 into mid-1943. There are some REAL interesting looking units with one off configurations that would make fun projects, but they will require work beyond out of the box from the Buchanan "45" or any other kit. Classic Warships "Benson/Gleaves" Pictorial book shows many of the Benson-Gleaves configurations ... but not ALL ...

[jabba]

to Rick - thanks for thorough answer, just still not sure if submitted picture of Gwin´s 53 mount is in original configuration (i.e. without turret, open mount) or after turrets sides only disassembly as you mentioned. My english is far to be perfect, so possibly I did not get the point.

Is it possible to attach clear picture of open 5 inch mount or such configuration have not been applied to this class ?

Which kind of Cam.measure had USS Gryson on first and second attached picture ? And it seems, according to tle last pictures, that she retain mount 54 in original configuration, i.e. with convas on the top, till the end of war (July 45 minimally), isn´t it ?

By the way, your knowledge ot this class is excellent, did you ever think about writting the special book on this class ? Squadron Signal or better Publishing House ?

I believe in very good success with availability of all the Dragon plastic kits row that is not finished so far I believe.

best regards

Jindrich Nepevný
Prague, Czech Republic