Calling all USN 1,500 tonner-class DD fans

[Dick J]

I think you must have some wrong info in the first post Martin. I just saw the Freetimehobbies site, and I clearly see that all of the Midship plastic kits are in production, but some are out of stock. I just setting the record straight for everyone.

Chris Decker still owns the molds. He has indicated that he has no plans for any more production runs at this time. He is concentrating on releasing the former Classic line of resin kits under his own label, but they all require some updating. (Some of the earlier ones actually need much more, but probably won't get it.) Freetime bought all of the remaining unsold inventory of the Midships plastic kits. So, for now, when those are sold, they are gone.

[Sr. Gopher]

Oh, darn it.

[okes]

I recently purchased Midship Model's USS Farragut 1943/1944 version. Does anybody know of a backdating kit for this? I'd like to build it as originally built. Thanks.

[Quincy]

I recently purchased Midship Model's USS Farragut 1943/1944 version. Does anybody know of a backdating kit for this? I'd like to build it as originally built. Thanks.

This is the resin kit right? Navsource would be a good place to look for backdating your kit.




Bob Pink.

[Rick E Davis]

I have no idea if there are back dating sets for this kit. Is it 1/700 or 1/350 scale? Likely you will need to scratch-build whatever you will need. There were a fair number of alterations made from 1936 to 1943 including the loss of one 5-in mount. You could also check to see if Midships made a version of the kit in an earlier configuration. If so and you don't wish to purchase a whole new kit, contact Midships and see if they will sell you the parts you need.

Here is one of the class (the only pre-war view of the class I have), DD-354 MONAGHAN taken on 14 September 1936.

[okes]

Thanks, guys. I'll try Navsource and also printed out the picture. The Midship kit is 1/700 and it is mixed media. The hull and deckhouses are resin. Other parts are made of white metal, brass photoetch, and plastic.

[Steve]

Does the book by McComb on US DDs 1934-45 offer additional reference material and photos not covered in the Reilly and Friedman books?

[Rick E Davis]

Steve,

The answer is yes and no. Dave has laid out the mid-war destroyer programs that to me is the best I have seen. It always has been confusing keeping the individual classes of the "16 torpedo tube" destroyers straight. Dave has done a very good job with explaining the primarily engineering developments for the so called "gold-platers" (DD349-408) through the SIMS and BENSON-GLEAVES classes. Also, there are some very nice illustrations in the two volume set.

Reilly and Friedman generally cover the armament changes through the careers of these destroyers. Friedman covers more details of the design process and the impacts and limitations to upgrades required during WWII.

[Rick E Davis]

For Joe,

Here are some close-up photos of vents around the stack on the BENHAMS.

DD-406 on 5 May 1944


DD-407 on 5 February 1943


DD-407 on 26 July 1945


DD-408 on 1 December 1942


DD-408 on 6 March 1946

[desron48]

again sir.......THANK YOU.....these pics are very very helpfull....

joe

[desron48]

looks like i'll be busy for quite a long time.....

[Frank Fowler]

I have been looking at the US destroyers engaged during the Guadalcanal night battle of November 13, 1942. With the new Dragon 1/350 and 1/700 Benson/Livermore it is possible to build 4 of the 8 US DDs without much trouble (thanks to all the information in the Benson/Gleaves topic in this forum and the great information and photos provided by Rick Davis and others). Also, the two Fletchers can be built from the Tamiya kits in 1/350 and 1/700 with a few modifications.

The last two ships, Cushing and Sterett, are available in resin in both scales (and the Midship Models plastic 1/700 Benham class and Mahan class), but require several modifications. I wanted to discuss the Sterett in this post. There have been a few posts earlier in the topic with some questions that never really ended in an answer so I thought I would expand on those questions and get any feedback anyone wants to add. Cushing is well documented as to fit and Measure 21 paint prior to November 1942 with a number of great photos taken at Mare Island available.

First, concerning the paint scheme for Sterett in November 1942. I know in the Benson/Gleaves topic there is a lot of information concerning the ships that came to the Pacific in Measure 12 Modified being repainted to Measure 21 in the last few months of 1942, photos of Duncan show this repaint before October 1942. However, it appears that Sterett was still in Measure 12 during the battle and up to early February 1943. What is interesting is that it is not the same Measure 12 paint pattern as the ship had in early 1942 (see photos posted in this topic by Rick Davis). There are two great photos posted by Rick Davis and taskForce48 earlier in this topic showing Sterett in late 1942/early 1943 still in a hard edge angular Measure 12 Modified paint scheme.

The photo Rick Davis posted is dated 13 February 1943; however, this photo is dated incorrectly. Sterett finished repairs from damage received on November 13, 1942 by February 6, 1943 and was returning to the war zone having departed Mare Island on February 10, 1943. She was in Measure 21 after the overhaul/repairs as is well documented. I believe the photo posted by Rick is of Sterett sometime after the battle as the ship made its way back to the US for repairs. This is supported by the photo posted by taskforce48 on February 4, 2009 in this topic. This photo shows Sterett possibly at Mare Island undergoing repairs after the battle. The white circles on the photo denote shell hits documented in the same way as was done at Mare Island for the San Francisco after this battle and at the same time (San Francisco finished her overhaul and repairs a few days after Sterett). I also printed out several closeup photos of the damage to Sterett from the Navy's NAVSEA site a couple of years ago. These photos were from the damage report for the ship after the battle. These photos seem not to be available any longer at NAVSEA. The photos do show a hard edge angular Measure 12 pattern.

So I think we can conclude, anyway the best we can considering what we know about US ships at this time, that Sterett was still in Measure 12 during the battle. I think the colors were 5-N and 5-O on the hull with 5-O and 5-H for the weapons and superstructure. However, there does seem to be some very dark patterns on the forward 5" mounts and on the stack (maybe other areas also). These may be in 5-N (any thoughts?). Most of the detail battle damage photos also show what appears to be 5-O and 5-H for the upper works.

In his post on February 4, 2009, taskforce48 asked why the No. 3 5" mount was missing. This mount took a direct hit during the battle and probably had to be replaced. One of the detail photos shows a large hole in the side of the mount shield. When Sterett finished repairs and the overhaul the two 20 mm guns on the aft deck house were replaced by two twin 40 mm mounts. For weight reasons this required the removal of the half shield on 5" mount 3 and the full shield on 5" mount 4.

Another thing to be aware of if modeling Sterett during the November 13 battle relates to the top of the bridge around the main gun director (MK 33?). In the photo posted by Rick Davis showing Sterett on 26 May 1942 the railing around the deck the director is mounted on has canvas covered railing and two tall tubs of some sort. These things are missing on the later two photos showing Sterett after the battle. I believe that the way the radar was mounted to the face of the director caused the railing and tubs to interfere with the movement of the director so at least the tubs were removed when she received the radar on the director. The railings may still be there, but smaller and without the canvas.

If modeling the Sterett from the Classic Warships/Yankee Modelworks 1/350 Benham there are several modifications that must be made. The kit represents the Benham early in the war. Only the Benham and Ellet can be built from this kit as is. The remaining Benham class ships were modified prior to being sent to the Atlantic with the removal of two of the four quad torpedo mounts. For Sterett make the following modifications to the kit 1) remove the wind screen/railing from the top of the bridge in front of the gun director, 2) add the radar to the gun director, 3) add the 20 mm position aft of the stack (This location had two 20 mm guns and there are some good detail photos of this position posted earlier in this topic), 4) mount the search light directly on the deck house below, do not add the tower (this small deck house is on the center line of the main deck just aft of the forward two torpedo mounts), 5) remove the port and starboard aft torpedo mounts and add a solid bulwark at each deck edge, 6) remove the small deck house on top of the aft deck house and construct port and starboard tubs for two 20 mm guns, 7) replace the two open mount 5" 38 mounts in positions 3 and 4 with a canvas covered half shield for mount 3 and a fully enclosed shield for mount 4, remove and reshape the overhead protection at the aft end of the aft deck house that protects open mount 4 when mount 3 fires (this was not needed with the fully enclosed shield for mount 4; however, during the refit in February 1943 the overhead protection was reinstalled since mounts 3 and 4 returned to open mounts). I have just provided the general information concerning the needed modifications so as always take a look at as many photos as you can. These comments can also be used in building the resin and plastic 1/700 kits to represent Sterett.

Sorry for the long post, but since I retired earlier this year after 34 years as a Civil Engineer here in California I have much more time on my hands to devote to my hobby. I hope this information/conclusions are of help and I look forward to any comments.

[Dick J]

The kit represents the Benham early in the war. Only the Benham and Ellet can be built from this kit as is.

Something to be careful about. I have seen no close-in photos of Ellet during this time. Unless you have seen some, you are assuming that Ellet was modified identically to Benham. While that is not unlikely, without more info, this can't be guaranteed. (Refits were kind of spotty and the configs in a constant state of flux. A difference of a only a few weeks in the timing of them, even for close sisters, could change the whole outcome.) Do you know where an Ellet photo for the period can be located?

[Frank Fowler]

Hi Dick,
Sorry I don't have anything showing Ellet. I should have made it clear in my post that I was speaking in terms of a Benham class ship early in the war with all four of the quad torpedo tubes, four 20 mm guns, small search light tower on torpedo workshop deck structure, small deck structure still in place on aft main deck structure forward of 5" mount 3, and 5" mounts three and four open as depicted in the Classic Warships/Yankee Model Works 1/350 Benham kit. As I noted above (reference Friedman), Benham and Ellet were the only two of the Benham class not to go to the Atlantic before the start of the war. Since there was stability concerns with all of the ships with four quad tubes, two of the quad tubes were removed as weight offset for ASW upgrades on the Benhams transferred to the Atlantic. It does appear that Benham and Ellet were together throughout the early months of the war. You are correct that it may only be possible to build Benham out of the 1/350 kit since there are no photos of Ellet.

There are some great photos of Benham at Midway, but I have not seen any photos of her after that up to her loss in November of 1942. The photos show Benham with four 20 mm, four quad torpedo tubes and no radar. I believe Ellet was upgraded in October 1943 with the two twin 40 mm bofors, four 20mm, and two quad torpedo tubes. I am wondering if or when Benham and/or Ellet received radar (fire control and/or air search) and if they received the two additional 20 mm guns for a total of six as in the rest of the class. I find it hard to believe that they would not have received radar at some point before the Guadalcanal battles since most photos of the other early classes of destroyers show some type of radar, but no photos. Was the stability issue such that the two additional 20 mm guns were never added aft of the stack on the Benham? I wish we had good photos or other information for these two ships to answer these questions.

[Frank Fowler]

I have to post a correction to some of the above in my last post. I took a another look at the Midway photos of Benham and she did have an air search radar at the top of the mainmast; however, no fire control radar.

[taskforce48]

Hi,

Trying to nail down some final details about the USS Monaghan (DD-354) in her fit as lost. I have narrowed down that she was painted in Measure 31 Design 7d, I assume using photos of the Farragut would give me the pattern right? I am also trying to figure her radar fit, I assume she would have had a SC-2 on the mast and the big question, a Mk 4 on the FC director or a Mk 28 like seen on the USS Aylwin (DD-355)?

TIA
Matt

[Mike W]

Until now I've not bothered with the Midships kits but i've just picked up the USS Henly (DD391) pretty cheap. I've heard there are many errors with these, so i hope I've chosen one of the better ones. It looks like the kit is correct in general appearance (I have a photo of her in Feb 1942, which matches the kit outline) and the main part sprue is reasonably well moulded and defined. The weapons sprue on the other hand looks like a crude (modified) copy of a Skywave sprue but that's Ok, as I have plenty of spare Skywave bits.

First off, are there any problems I should know about, regarding this specific kit.

Secondly, what changes were made from Feb 42 to August 42, when she was involved in the Guadalcanal actions? Stuff like weapons fit, radar fit, camouflage etc?

thanks
Mike

[Rick E Davis]

On the Midships plastic destroyer kits, beware the fit for some joints ... dry fit before gluing to check for any trimming/modifications necessary. On several of the Midships destroyer kits, the box art was accurate, but some items/parts were not included in the kit. So, careful study is required. Read the postings earlier in this thread, I think DickJ gave a breakdown on the stack configuration issues with the kits in this series of "16-tube" destroyers (one kit was suppose represent three classes).

As for her configuration in August-October 1942 prior to her loss, her February 1942 configuration is likely her last configuration, unless an extra 20-mm or two were added. Photos of HELM and HENLEY in February 1942 show four 20-mm guns ... two before the bridge and two atop the aft deckhouse. Photos of units updated later in April 1942 (BLUE and PATTERSON) show two additional 20-mm guns added abreast the stack (one per side). I could see these being added to HENLEY after the February 1942 refit by August 1942 ... actually I would think it quite likely ... since it didn't require a major refit. If I remember right, these waist 20-mm guns/tubs are missing from the kit. The BLUE (DD-387) yard photos show this configuration well.

Unfortunately I don't have many images of this class, none during this period, all are pre-WWII or in 1945.

If you have not seen it, look at Navsource.org website for HENLEY (DD-391) ...
... http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/391.htm ...

OR

Naval History and Heritage Command's (NHHC) website, they have links to photos for most of the class on this page (and most times load faster than Navsource right now for some reason) ...
... http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/shusn-no/dd-no2.htm ...

Also, you could check out other sister BAGLEY class destroyers photos, there are additional photos showing the class configuration during this period ...

DD-386 BAGLEY
DD-387 BLUE
DD-388 HELM
DD-389 MUGFORD
DD-390 RALPH TALBOT
DD-391 HENLEY
DD-392 PATTERSON
DD-393 JARVIS

[Mike W]

The kit is interesting as it depicts 3 20mm guns on the rear deckhouse, should this really be just 2 20mm? The picture captioned Off Mare Island, Feb 1942, is what the kit resembles. The kit does actually have a couple of parts which look like possible waist tubs for 20mm guns, it will be easy enough to check these during construction.

Any ideas on radar fit? To me it appears entirely possible that she could have had a SC and SG radars on the mast and a (Mk 4?) fire control radar on the director. I would also assume unless anyone can say otherwise that was was in MS21 at that time.

thanks
Mike

[Dick J]

I'll have to check my photos to see if I have Henley at that time. I am not sure how much you want to correct on the kit, because there is so much room for improvement. Everything aft of the stack has been compressed forward, jamming it all up and providing no room for turning the tubes, etc. I am at work now, and will respond with more after I get home.