Calling all Benson-class & Gleaves-class DD fans

[Sebastien Lausdat]

Hi
I am looking for a plan of the stations (body lines) to correct the stern.
if anyone can help me.
In advance, thank you.
Kind regards
Sebastien Lausdat
France

[Mike E.]

All:

Would anyone know where one might find a photo of the port side of USS Bailey, DD 492, while she was painted in the wild variant of Ms. 12 shown in the picture at the following URL:

http://ussbaileydd492.org/

This would be a great scheme for the new Dragon USS Laffey kit!

Many thanks for any help you can provide!

Mike E.

[Tracy White]

I can think of a place fairly close to you, but it probably won't be a quick search. Rick Davis might be able to help further.

[donalyah00]

Thank you for posting link to Bailey DD-492 plans!

I am wondering if 24"/12" searchlight and pelorus platforms supplied in kit on the navigating bridge deck have the right shape. I have checked several photos and the pelorus platforms appear to be solid, but they have lightframe structure in the Dragon kit. 24"/12" searchlight platforms shown on Bailey plans have also completely different shape than those supplied with the kit.
As there are not too many clear photos of the navigating bridge deck, would it be correct to assume that the platforms shape has been unified in the Benson/Gleaves class and looked as those depicted in available DD-492, DD-613, DD-616 and DD-618 plans?

Regards,
Marek

[Rick E Davis]

There is no guarantee that the GLEAVES class (Buchanan ... Federal-built) and BENSON class (Bailey ... Beth-SI built) bridge details were the same. Bethlehem had their own "way" of doing things for the BENSONS as did the Gibbs-Cox designed GLEAVES built by other yards. The bridge arrangements were changed for the dual-class throughout the war, particularly on the "repeat" BENSON-GLEAVES (DD-453 and after), when the bridge wing 20-mm replaced the 24-in searchlight. I would go by the photos you can find for a given ship at a given time period.

I don't have close-up on ship views of the bridge for BAILEY, but here is a bridge view taken on BRISTOL (10 January 1942) showing the 24-in searchlight.


Here is a view of BAILEY after her bridge wing 20-mm mounts were installed (2 July 1943).

[Mike E.]

All:

I just picked up Dragon's 1/700 kit of USS Laffey--which has to be seen to be believed. It is marvelous. I'm afraid that handling and painting the numerous small parts will sorely try my middle-aged eyes.

As best I can determine, she should be able to accurately portray USS Farenholt as she appeared in 1942, when Farenholt wore her unusual Ms 12 scheme.

There are a number of photos of the starboard side of Farenholt in this scheme online. See for instance:

http://www.ussjpkennedyjr.org/farenholt491/491com.jpg

http://www.ussjpkennedyjr.org/farenholt491/491DD.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0549118.jpg

But I've only been able to find one photo of the port side of Farenholt in this scheme:

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0549105.jpg

It would be useful to have one or two additional photos of the port side in this scheme, to clarify a number of details that are obscured by fouling in this photo (particularly in the vicinity of the bow).

Would anyone know where one can find other photos of the port side of Farenholt in this scheme (online or elsewhere)?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Mike E.

[taskforce48]

Mike,

Here is what I have at hand, maybe not exactly what you are looking for but good images none the less. I think I have another image somewhere of her port side scheme, give me a few days and I will see if I can dig it up.

HTH

Matt

[taskforce48]

While looking for the other photo that I have somewhere, I came across this. I have a better quality scan if you like just drop me a PM and I will forward it on.

HTH

Matt

[Tracy White]

Another resource perhaps:
http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... index.html

[Rick_H]

One more vote.

I just picked up Dragon's 1/700 kit of USS Laffey:

Wow!

If I can find another one in the Seattle area, I'd like to trade a couple of full hulls to someone who doesn't want the waterline hulls.

Rick

[Bigdaddy Mark]

Santa ordered me the Dragon 350 USS Laffey, and I have a few questions about Measure 21 and Testors paint.

First I don't have anywhere to mix paint, so I am looking for the Testors As Close As Possible colors.
For the 5-N does the Dark Sea Blue 1717 look right to everyone else? and for the 20-B how about RAF Dark Gray Enamel 2059?

Next is about life rings and fire hoses. should they be the standard colors, or should they be painted the same colors as the bulkheads?

Thanks

[Tracy White]

Go White Ensign and you don't need close enough.
If you want to stick with Model Masters that's one thing, but there are a number of places that mail order it, so there's no worries if your Local Hobby Shop does not stock it.

[Harry Dente]

Curious if the 20mm platforms alongside the after funnel on Farenholt would be the same as on Bailey. The 2 were built at the same time in the same yard but I know that's not a guarantee. Want to do Farenholt from the 1/700 Laffey kit and am trying to list the differences between the 2. May wind up doing Bailey though just because of the nice documentation on the website.

[Rick E Davis]

Harry,

You didn't specify what time frame you are planning on modeling FARENHOLT, but I assume that you are looking at mid-1942. The quick answer is that from the images I have, FARENHOLT and BAILEY were near twins until they removed the quad 1.1-in mount and updated to two twin 40-mm mounts ... BAILEY was updated in August 1942 at New York and FARENHOLT was updated in January 1943 at Pearl Harbor to two completely different configurations.

I have not taken the time to do detailed comparisons between LAFFEY/WOODWORTH (Beth-SF) and FARENHOLT/BAILEY (Beth-SI) pairs, but the major configuration items for the two groups appear to have followed the same drawing plans. The units that followed these two groups at these yards started to change after these four were completed.

If you are interested in modeling FARENHOLT's unique camo ... you'll need some help from camo experts for color details. Frankly, in 1/700 scale, I would have a heart-attack trying to copy it.

[Harry Dente]

Confusing! Worse than Sherman tank production changes, I think. I'm looking at the plans from the Bailey website that are last updated May of 1942 so that must be pretty much "as built". So you are saying Bailey was modified before the battle of the Komendorski islands? I thought the refit was after that at Mare Island. That seems to be when she received a 3rd 20 forward, the 2 bridge wing 20s and the 2 twin 40s aft at least.
Also Devin Poore's build seems to represent the 20mm emplacements alongside the funnels differently from Ron Smith's build of Farenholt. Anybody have anything definative?

[Rick E Davis]

Harry,

FARENHOLT went to the Pacific with the quad 1.1-in mount and served in the war zone there with it. BAILEY completed (delivered May 1942, completed at Boston Navy Yard July 1942) just a bit later with the quad 1.1-in mount and was upgraded with twin 40-mm mounts on the East Coast (at New York Navy Yard with only four 20-mm guns) in August 1942. Remember that the twin 40-mm mounts were first installed aboard destroyers starting in JULY 1942 and that the quad 1.1-in mounts were only a stop-gap until the twin 40-mm mounts were available. BAILEY was upgraded again at Mare Island in June 1943 with the three extra 20-mm guns added (making for a total of seven) and had the two 20-mm guns forward of the bridge moved outward in new tubs. FARENHOLT had the twin 40-mm upgrade done at Pearl Harbor in December 1942-January 1943 along with the addition of the three extra 20-mm guns. I think I have posted images earlier in this thread of these two ships ... I don't have time now to look for where.

I don't know where the builds you are referring to are located ... I get lost looking through all the posted builds at Modelwarships.

[Bigdaddy Mark]

A few more questions on the USS Laffey.

I saw the picture of her where the captions states to note the searchlight. Am I seeing this correctly, was the handrails removed, or is it just my monitor is bad enough not to be able to see them. And if so does anyone have a good picture of the Searchlight for me to modify mine to?

Then and I'm sure this has been gone over a billion times, but I just can't find it. Does anyone have a proper rigging plan for this ship or even this class?

Thanks.

[Rick E Davis]

Mark,

I don't have good scans of LAFFEY herself (I keep forgetting to scan the images at NHHC, I'm unsure if NARA has the same photos), but I do have nice in yard photos of her near twin sister WOODWORTH. In looking at the on-line images of LAFFEY and comparing to the WOODWORTH images, it appears that the searchlights were almost mounted at deck level without an elevated platform. Remember that this area below the searchlight is where the exposed trunking angles down to the deck. The railings are the searchlight are close to the same height as the deck edge rails.

The two images below show WOODWORTH's Searchlight Platform on 13 August 1942 (1st image) when she still had a quad 1.1-in mount and on 16 June 1944 (2d image) taken from two different aspects and the installation does not appear to have been altered by that date.

As for the rigging plans for these ships ... bug Tim Dike ... he promised to post plans sometime ago.

Actually, I wonder about how many different configurations there are for the rigging over the period of the war?

[Bigdaddy Mark]

Those are outstanding shots! The second one answers a few questions. Like why the picture of the Laffey�s search light looked so different, or how people got from the plank to the after gun area. It shows the hand railing straight, so I don�t have to use that clunky looking tub. And it also shows a good overhead shot of the 5� practice loader.

Now if I can get my hands to do what my head wants I�ll be good to go!

Thanks.

[Bigdaddy Mark]

OK, before I start building the USS Laffey I saw this page, and thought I might like to try this paint scheme. I am asking if this was ever painted on the Laffey, or just an artists rendition.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0545909.jpg

If anyone can tell me that she was painted like this I will be all over it.

Thanks.