Calling all USN 1,500 tonner-class DD fans

[Steve]

I would like to see replacement Shapeways/MM 700 scale stacks for the Gridley (Bagley) class. These would enhance the Midships kits (as the Benham stacks have done).

The Gridley and Bagley classes were very different ships. Their stacks were nothing alike. A unique stack would have do be designed for each class.

Yes the confusion between the appearance of the 4 Bethlehem Steel ships Gridley, Craven, McCall and Maury (380,382,400 and 401) and the 8 Bagley class ships (386 - 393) has always "confused" me. While the Midship kits for the Benhams have a correct ship listing, the 4 Bethlehem Steel ships are listed with the 8 Bagleys. So my request to Shapeways/MM should have been for the 8 Bagley class only. Then my next challenge will be to look for differences among those 4 Bethlehems and the Bagleys. I suspect it is external since the I believe the fireroom arrangement and boiler types are the same for all 12 ships. All that being said it still begs the question as to which ships had open uptakes and which were plated over. Time frame for all 12 ships would be early war appearance.

[Dick J]

The 4 Gridley's were all built by Bethlehem and had a totally different powerplant from the Bagleys. The stack was also radically different. While the Bagley stack was symmetrical port and starboard, the Gridley stack was not. Also, the Gridley's had very different air intakes for the boiler rooms than did the Bagley's.

[Steve]

The 4 Gridley's were all built by Bethlehem and had a totally different powerplant from the Bagleys. The stack was also radically different. While the Bagley stack was symmetrical port and starboard, the Gridley stack was not. Also, the Gridley's had very different air intakes for the boiler rooms than did the Bagley's.

Dick

Thanks - It all makes sense once I dug into Friedman's and Reilly's books and compared the power plant data. The Gridleys ran 4 higher pressure boilers (Yarrow) compared to the B&W and FW boilers on the others. The Benhams had one less boiler at a pressure higher than the Mahans and Bagleys. It is all about enthalpy and materials limits.

Steve

[ArizonaBB39]

I've looked through the thread and didn't find an answer to this question. I was curious how close just the hull is between the Farragut, Mahan, Bagley, and Benham classes. I looked at their dimensions on Navsource and it looks like you wouldn't be able to notice the difference between the four, in 1/700 at least. Were they pretty much the same? If so the hull I am designing could be used for any of the aforementioned classes. (See below link). I've been using the dimensions on Navsource and Destroyerhistory plus the booklet of general plans for the Cushing from the HNSA site.

https://www.shapeways.com/shops/joslinmodels

[Dick J]

Remember that the Farragut was the first post-flush-decker design, and so is a kind of transition design into what followed. The fore deck was a bit slimmer (less flare as you moved toward the bow) and the stern was a bit more pointed. Also note that the later ships were a foot wider and had more installed power to make speed.
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0535108.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0535109.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0535519.jpg
Compare to:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0536404.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0536815.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0537108.jpg
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/0537227.jpg
The Mahan's were moving toward a more transom stern. The Dunlap's were essentially repeat Mahan's, while the Bagley's repeated the hull and powerplant, trunking the two stacks into one. I am not sure how different the Gridley hull may have been, shape wise, but it was more lightly constructed. Also, the Benham's had an entirely different powerplant, but I don't know if that translated into any meaningful hull changes.

[ArizonaBB39]

Thanks Dick. That's good info

[Chris Decker]

All:

So, with all that is wrong with the kits (and I yield that there is a bit, but a story behind each error no doubt). Would there be any interest in doing a limited rerun of the Midship 1500 tonner kits? It would have to come with a new weapons sprue, since the old one is too worn out to run again. The weapons could be upgraded, and the instructions could be updated to take into account the many corrections. The main hull sprue would not change though. We could also include photoetch in the kit, since that is now "standard". Maybe, might, possibly include new stacks, if we put them on the weapons sprue.. if that makes a difference.

Thoughts?

-Chris

[ArizonaBB39]

All:

So, with all that is wrong with the kits (and I yield that there is a bit, but a story behind each error no doubt). Would there be any interest in doing a limited rerun of the Midship 1500 tonner kits? It would have to come with a new weapons sprue, since the old one is too worn out to run again. The weapons could be upgraded, and the instructions could be updated to take into account the many corrections. The main hull sprue would not change though. We could also include photoetch in the kit, since that is now "standard". Maybe, might, possibly include new stacks, if we put them on the weapons sprue.. if that makes a difference.

Thoughts?

-Chris

If we're talking the plastic kits I am interested.

[Chris Decker]

Sorry, yes, the plastic kits.

-Chris

[Vladi]

Chris, with all the improvements you mentioned (incl. new stacks...!) I am sure it will be of interest to many. I would be interested, too, I need 1-2 of the Bagley class but do not want to venture into too much scratchbuilding. Otherwise we will all have to wait until someone makes a new mold (or 3D print or who knows what...) - with the ever-growing number of new offerings on the market I am quite sure it will eventually happen

[MartinJQuinn]

All:

So, with all that is wrong with the kits (and I yield that there is a bit, but a story behind each error no doubt). Would there be any interest in doing a limited rerun of the Midship 1500 tonner kits? It would have to come with a new weapons sprue, since the old one is too worn out to run again. The weapons could be upgraded, and the instructions could be updated to take into account the many corrections. The main hull sprue would not change though. We could also include photoetch in the kit, since that is now "standard". Maybe, might, possibly include new stacks, if we put them on the weapons sprue.. if that makes a difference.

Thoughts?

-Chris

I would guess there is a market for upgraded kits. For the guys who already have the original kits in their inventory, you should consider a smaller 'upgrade set' with corrected weapons, stacks, etc. I'm sure some people won't want to buy a whole new kit if they can just get the upgrades.

[MatthewB]

All:

So, with all that is wrong with the kits (and I yield that there is a bit, but a story behind each error no doubt). Would there be any interest in doing a limited rerun of the Midship 1500 tonner kits? It would have to come with a new weapons sprue, since the old one is too worn out to run again. The weapons could be upgraded, and the instructions could be updated to take into account the many corrections. The main hull sprue would not change though. We could also include photoetch in the kit, since that is now "standard". Maybe, might, possibly include new stacks, if we put them on the weapons sprue.. if that makes a difference.

Thoughts?

-Chris

Well... I would be interested, but would want to punch (meant in the nicest way possible) you since I just spent a fortune acquiring about 12 of the old Midship's kits.

But having newer kits available would be good, great even.... I could then buy enough for the entire class of each.

The new stacks would be important. And some better turrets (It would be really nice to include sculpted blast-bags).

If you are doing the new weapons parts in CAD, it is possible to get someone to do sculpted blast-bags/bloomers for the turrets in an application like Mudbox or ZBrush (Hello.... I have these) so that the resulting parts actually looks like sagging cloth.

Many of the earlier things I did for 3D printing were Organic shapes (Dark Ages and Fantasy Soldiers - Bodies, Cloth, etc.), and applications like Maya, 3ds Max, ZBrush, Mudbox, etc were/are used to create these things. These applications are also excellent for doing straight-line/hard-edge work as well, since it better allows you to control the tessellation when exporting to .stl. And, they allow you to keep precise count of the polygons on a model (which Solid-Modeling applications can lack).

MB

[Mike W]

I'm just revisiting my Midship models kits of USS Henley and USS Mahan and is it me or do the 5 inch guns look overscale? Also my Henley's funnel has disintegrated , so I've just been spending time fixing that and sticking on the model to help hold it together.

thanks
Mike

[Mike W]

Any ideas anyone? Are the Midship weapons badly overscale, as I suspect they are? I've had a quick look at 3D Modelparts and they have a set of 5 inch guns for the Farragut an Mahan classes and the fully enclosed turrets used on later destroyers (like the Fletchers), also Mk 33 directors. So, it looks like I can upgrade the model's weapons and directors. Were the Mahan's and Henley's directors Mk 33's, and if so were they open or enclosed?

thanks
Mike

[Dick J]

Were the Mahan's and Henley's directors Mk 33's, and if so were they open or enclosed?

The Farragut and Mahan classes had open-topped MK-33 directors. The later Dunlap, Bagley, Gridley, and Benham classes had the fully enclosed MK-33 directors. As a quick rule of thumb, except for the two Dunlap's, of the above listed classes, two funnel ships had the open-topped directors and single funnel ships had the enclosed ones. However, the Cassin and Downes were rebuilt with MK-37 directors after Pearl Harbor. Also, some time during the war, Cummings received the enclosed version of the MK-33. Henley was a Bagley class ship.

[DavidK]

I'm looking for any help I can get on details of the Perkins' configuration details for early-mid 1942. Specifically, when was her fifth 5" removed (I have two photos that seem to show it did actually get removed before she was sunk in 1943), what was her light AA fit - I doubt she had the two twin 40mm's that Midship Models put on their 1942 Mahan kit (very few ships had those in early 1042). I saw one reference indicating that she received new radar in Hawaii early in 1942 before sailing to join the ANZAC forces operating from Australia. If any other things changed, e.g. lifeboat positions or number, depth charge racks, torpedo tubes,... I'd also be interested in knowing that. I couldn't find a detailed history of her operations that would have pointed to an extensive yard overhaul, but it seems like she had some changes made...

Thanks.

Dave

[Dick J]

No US DDs had 40MM in early '42. They were not available until after July of that year, and then in limited numbers at first. A check of NAVSOURCE and NHHC shows her #3 5" gun had been removed by February of '42. By the time of her loss, she did have the 40MM - apparently installed around August or September of '42 (according to DANFS). I don't know of any photos of her on completion of that refit but NAVSOURCE has some from August of '43.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/377.htm

https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... 66837.html

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/destroy/dd377txt.htm

[DavidK]

Thanks Dick. I'm thinking that when they removed the middle 5", they probably did something to up the AA barrel count, and agree completely that it wasn't 40mm that early on (pre-Feb 1942), so anyone out there know what she did get? Maybe some more 20mm mounts in the vicinity of the removed 5" or something?

Dave

[Rick E Davis]

PERKINS went to the West Coast in January 1942 and had the amidships 5-in mount removed and four or five 20-mm guns added (I think only four ... two forward of the bridge and two on the aft deckhouse ... there is another object forward of the aft deckhouse 20-mm guns, that maybe a 50-cal MG???). Go to the NHHC link that Dick provided, the February 1942 image taken by USS TANGIER (AV-8), can be downloaded in Hi-Res version for you to study in detail. I have notes for PERKINS with details on her movements in early 1942. But, I don't have them available right now.

[DavidK]

PERKINS went to the West Coast in January 1942 and had the amidships 5-in mount removed and four or five 20-mm guns added (I think only four ... two forward of the bridge and two on the aft deckhouse ... there is another object forward of the aft deckhouse 20-mm guns, that maybe a 50-cal MG???). Go to the NHHC link that Dick provided, the February 1942 image taken by USS TANGIER (AV-8), can be downloaded in Hi-Res version for you to study in detail. I have notes for PERKINS with details on her movements in early 1942. But, I don't have them available right now.

I hadn't realized that the Feb 1942 image was available in such a higher resolution (I had the image in much lower resolution 740x600), and much is clearer to me now than it was before. Thanks for pointing that out. That hi-res image has almost nine times as many rows and columns of pixels, so nearly 80 times as much information as the version of the image that I had.

I also see something forward of the aft deckhouse and sitting slightly higher than the two 20-mm guns. It might be another 20mm oriented in such a way that the shield is turned so the camera only saw it edge on and it merged with the barrel...?

Dave