Calling all Benson-class & Gleaves-class DD fans

[biggles2]

Thanks to Dragon's generosity (intentional or not) the Lafferty 1942 kit contains enough optional superstructure and funnel parts to build several early and late ships of both Benson and Livermore classes. So my Lafferty has become the Hobson in 1942 -43 camo, as pictured above. I have only two general pics of Hobson so I am relying mostly on my Buchanan book for detailing, although I realize details varied from ship to ship. On Buchanan's after superstructure (1942) with the quad 1.1 and Oerlikon there is, within the large splinter shield, and directly forward of the two guns, two tubs app. 4 -5 ft. in diameter, and 2 - 3 ft in height, and apparently nothing fitted in them yet at the time the photo was taken. Dragon would have you install a Mk 51 designator in each. I thought these target designators were only used with Bofors, but I may be mistaken. Were the Mk 51's used with the quad 1.1's, and were there two of them? I know the Oerlikons didn't require them.

[Rick E Davis]

Yes the Mk 51 was used with quad 1.1-in mounts. The question is which BENSON-GLEAVES class units actually had a Mk 51 director and when was it installed. The layout of tubs on the aft deckhouse shows the plan to install two twin 40-mm mounts and two Mk 49 directors as planned in late 1941.

The reason that the 40-mm mounts weren't installed on destroyers until 1 July 1942 was the lack of a director. The planned Mk 49 director development was delayed and the MK 51 director was an interim measure as was installing a quad 1.1-in mount. But, the Mk 51 directors weren't available for installation until 1 July 1942. So virtually all BENSON-GLEAVES units didn't have a director for the quad 1.1-in mount as completed. However, particularly for Atlantic-based units, Mk 51 directors started to appear on BENSON-GLEAVES units in September-October 1942. I think most (but not all) of the quad 1.1-in mount equipped destroyers involved in Operation Torch had a Mk 51 director installed. However, for the the Pacific-based quad 1.1-in mount BENSON-GLEAVES units it is uncertain if they ever got Mk 51 directors installed. It is hard to see in photos if a Mk 51 director was installed among the clutter on the aft deckhouse. Part of the reason is several units were lost early before a yard period and most others were upgraded with twin 40-mm mounts during their first yard period. Even the East Coast BENSON-GLEAVES units started to be upgraded to twin 40-mm mounts in early 1943.

However, please note that there was only ONE Mk 51 installed ... directly in front of the mount. Also, something that doesn't show-up in DML kits and was a common install on units with quad 1.1-in mounts, was a ready-use ammo cabinet where that other portside director was to be mounted just forward of the 20-mm gun. In the September 1942 photo of HOBSON, I don't see a director or the ready-use cabinet. The attached image shows an Operation Torch GLEAVES class unit (unknown which one) with a quad 1.1-in mount and a Mk 51 director (covered in canvas) and the ready-use ammo cabinet. By Operation Torch, HOBSON "likely" had a Mk 51 director installed. She may have repainted into Ms 22 as well, but not as likely.

[biggles2]

Thanks for the info Rick . As there is no structure higher than the splinter shield visible, whatever is there is up to speculation. On the side of practicality, leaving the empty tub on the port side would be a waste of space. Maybe replacing it with a double ammo locker would be more practical. BTW, could the 1.1's use the same type of ammo locker as the Oerlikons?

[Rick E Davis]

I assumed, but don't know for sure, that the cabinet forward of the portside 20-mm gun was for "ready-use" 1.1-in clips. Cabinets were used on the main deck on some destroyers for 20-mm magazines, so it could be for 20-mm magazines. So I wouldn't worry about what it is used for and photos don't show very well the layout on the deckhouse once the cabinet was installed. I have posted several images in this thread showing the deck layouts as completed (minus the cabinet) for units equipped with the quad 1.1-in mount.

I posted this image because it is the best one I have seen for this area showing a lot of the layout on the aft deckhouse.

[JABBA]

Is somewhere available drawings of hull and deck plating including dilation joint, water drainage from hull, various handling loop etc. ?

Only a few picture are available to me but Dragon plastic kits are very simplefied in this manners.

Any help is very appreciate.

Many thanks in advance.

JN

[Rick E Davis]

Such drawings for such "fine details" of construction would likely be available at the US National Archives in College Park, Maryland.

Unfortunately these drawings would be on microfilm and it is quite expensive to get a digital copy made of the full set. Paper copies of specific drawings without getting the whole set copied digitally can be made, but the best way to get them done is to go in person to the National Archives and go through the reels yourself.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Various Handling Loops"?

[robertandy]

Haven't had a question for a while because I have been moving, but now I am back at building the USS Wilkes. My question is about floater net basket. The GMM set has a bunch, but I only see at most 4 on Wilkes in the 1943-44, sooo anyone know?
Rob

[Timmy C]

GMM often includes extras, so go with what you see in the photos. That said, make sure they're photos that can confirm as best as possible the number and location of baskets!

[robertandy]

Thanks!
Rob

[robertandy]

Ok need some help here. I am closing in on my USS Wilkes project and as I was looking for the colors on the motor whale boats (two tone or not, looks like not, ie solid grey for 1943 on) and noticed only one boat, and it was on the port side? Am I seeing this correctly? Looks like even the davits are gone for the starboard one. Maybe Rick knows? Thanks, I'll post pics once I get this all done!
Rob

[Rick E Davis]

The BENSON-GLEAVES class units lost one boat as weight compensation. WILKES lost her starboard boat. Some other units lost the portside boat, not sure why which boat was removed.

[robertandy]

I figured you would have the answer Rick thanks, and since the pictures I have from Navsource are a bit grainy, do you know if they stopped painting a different color below the waterline on whaleboats on some ships? Sure looks like it, but it is hard to say for sure.
Rob

[Rick E Davis]

The photos I have of WILKES shows the ship's boat all one color matching the camo applied in that area.

[robertandy]

Thanks Rick!

[Rick E Davis]

This has been a reoccurring question ... what camo was USS BARTON (DD-599) painted in when she was lost on 13 November 1942 or assuming she was still in the camo she had when delivered, what was the pattern on her portside not shown in "as delivered" photos. I found in BARTON's BuShip textual records that she was noted as having the contractor painted pattern painted over by the Boston Navy Yard in July 1942. So knowing what her "as delivered" portside pattern looked like was not relevant. But no photos of her in this "new" pattern had surfaced, so it was a mystery as to what the pattern looked like. I assumed given that in July 1942 the East Coast Navy Yards were still painting destroyers in Ms 12mod, that that would be the scheme, but the exact pattern could be almost anything called Ms 12mod.

Well awhile back Fred Branyan shared with me some images he had come across at NARA II that were taken on 26 October 1942 during the Battle of Santa Cruz when USS HORNET (CV-8) was sunk. HORNET had five SIMS class and one BENSON class destroyer escorts during that operation. The BENSON class escort was BARTON. In research he had done some 20 years ago, when all he could get were photocopies of photos, he had spotted a two stack destroyer in several photos which had to be BARTON. Unfortunately these photocopies were not the best res and the image sizes of the destroyers are pretty distant and QUITE SMALL. Anyway, based on his 80-G numbers for the images he had, I pulled and searched through five boxes in this 80-G range of photos. I found the ones that Fred had found before and a couple more besides. One of the ones Fred had found and one that I found elsewhere in this series of boxes, were the best that I could scan of BARTON and although NOT THE BEST images possible, provide some clear insight into what her "second" Ms 12mod pattern looked like on 26 October 1942.

Below are the "raw" scans that I made from these very small images, fortunately one shows her portside and another shows at least a limited view of her starboard side.





In an effort to see the pattern a little better, I have played with the contrast some and here they are.





These are not very clear, but the pattern appears to be similar to the general style of Ms 12mod being applied by Boston Navy Yard during about April to July 1942. I counted some dozen BENSON-GLEAVES units painted by Boston and a few more by New York Navy Yards, in similar Ms 12mod patterns. For an idea of what this style looked like, below are two images of USS BAILEY (DD-492) which was fitted out by and likely painted by Boston Navy Yard (she was delivered in a different pattern) after delivery from her builder and at the same time as BARTON. The first image shows her starboard side and the second image is a "FLIP" of the same image to show what this pattern would look like on the portside. The image of BARTON's starboard side in photo 80-G-34774 just isn't good enough to clearly show the the "EXACT" pattern applied, but there are hints. The general layout as seen on BAILEY seem to be close, not exact, but close to BARTON's portside. Unfortunately neither image, 80-G-33958 and 80-G-34774, are good enough to show the pattern on the superstructure on BARTON in any detail. Also, I have no idea if BARTON had "matching" mirror image patterns on both sides.





These photos show that some 2.5 weeks before her loss, that BARTON was painted in a Ms 12mod pattern. Now then what BARTON was painted in at the time of her loss is not known. The first week in November 1943, several destroyers were being repainted into Ms 21 as was directed at the end of October 1942. Whether she had been repainted in Ms 21 depends on if there was time for her to be repainted given her operational routine. Her Deck Logs and War Diary for November 1942 went down with the ship, so textual records don't help.

At any rate for anyone wanting to paint BARTON in a "known" pattern she wore while in action in the South Pacific, they can make a better "guess" than before. This would certainly be more accurate than using her "as delivered" pattern.

[DANIEL MARAMBA]

Hi guys I just built my uss benson dragon kit, it is one nice build but I have one problem why are there sooooooo many extra parts

Please inform me I'm not sure if I built the model right, but it's still fixable I haven't glued anything on the decks and hull
Thanks

-DANIEL FROM THE PHILIPPINES

[Timmy C]

That's normal for a Dragon kit. Because plastic is cheap, they rather just mold a lot of parts on a single sprue and give you multiple sprues, even if you're using only a few parts from each. This saves them from having to make new or more molds for each kit.

[DANIEL MARAMBA]

That's normal for a Dragon kit. Because plastic is cheap, they rather just mold a lot of parts on a single sprue and give you multiple sprues, even if you're using only a few parts from each. This saves them from having to make new or more molds for each kit.

Thanks you Timmy that informed me I love dragon kits thank you thank you

Ps how can I use those extra parts now.

[Tracy White]

If nothing else save them in your "spares" box for future projects...

[MartinJQuinn]

Re-posting this from the Main Forum:

Finescale is doing a D-Day group build and I was thinking of building a plane, tank and ship cycle (the normal routine) dedicated to that topic. It appears that the destroyers of Desron 18 earned their supper supporting the landings at Omaha. According to a USN publication on the subject each DD there was a Gleaves class. DML's Livermore (a Gleaves) is equipped for Med service in 42/43. Would major changes be required to have it serve it to a ship of the same class supporting Overlord a year later?

Eric