The Ship Model Forum

Edit: Changed the title of this thread (left out USS Bagley) as the idea of building the two ships in parallel did not work for me in the end. I�ll get back to USS Bagley eventually

Not sure if I�m not overkilling myself with too many open projects, but...

It�s not often realized but when we are speaking about destroyers at the beginning of the Guadalcanal campaign, we are automatically speaking about the entire Bagley class. All eight members of the class were present in the vicinity of Guadalcanal from the very moment of the invasion on August 7, 1942, representing over 50% of destroyers within the invasion force. Six Bagley-class units (Bagley, Blue, Helm, Jarvis, Patterson and Ralph Talbot) got into contact with Vice Admiral Mikawa�s force during the Battle of Savo Island and two (Patterson and Ralph Talbot) were damaged in the fight. Of other classes, there were USS Wilson and Ellet (Benham class), Buchanan and Monssen (Gleaves class), Selfridge (Porter class) and Hull and Dewey (Farragut class) close to Guadalcanal and Tulagi, but only Wilson participated directly in the Savo Island battle out of these other classes.

The history of my Bagley-class research and build(s) is closely related to the one of Benham-class� USS Wilson. After dismissing the Midship kit as the starting point we had some initial discussions with Justin (Red Devil Designs) and then the actual work started with Matt (Kraken Hobbies), who created the first 3D attempts on Bagley already in 2021 and provided me at first with a test set of his Midships upgrade kit that was expanded to two full 3D printed models incl. waterline hulls - just this week.

This is how the 3D parts look like (I�m not showing complete sets for two ships here). The grey-coloured parts come from Matt�s older printer and the darker/blue-grey ones from the new 8k printer. Interestingly, the print layers seem to be more apparent on blue-grey parts, especially under LED light. Perhaps it�s because their vertical sides are so shiny. But details are definitely much sharper and crisper on those blue-grey parts. In the meantime, I prepared the design for a complementing PE set and had a prototype etched. After testing the fit an updated version of the PE sheet will be prepared and it is planned to become available at Kraken Hobbies in the not so far future. The sheet should include all necessary PE parts for all class members in 1942 incl. measured railings and radar variants. To be continued

One can never have "too many" projects!

Those parts look really good. Looking forward to seeing you work your magic on them.

Your photography shows the details splendidly.

Looking forward to seeing them come together!

Matt

Thank you both

I forgot to show one more component � the decal sheet providing DD-type hull numbers starting from 380 up to 408, i.e. Gridley through Wilson. However, it�s really hard to make anything of the photo, the white numerals on unevenly pale blue carrier are hardly noticeable.

Differences among Bagley-class members

As the Bagley-class members were all assigned to the Pacific Fleet even before Pearl Harbor, they were not modified for the Atlantic service (like e.g. some of the Benham-class were, adding shields to the aft 5in mounts, landing the aft pair of torpedo tubes and adding stowage for additional depth charges). As a result the Bagleys were still very consistent in 1942 across the class. There are no changes needed to the 3D parts to build any class member at that timeframe, the only minor exceptions being sealing a few portholes on Jarvis and reducing pilot house windows to circular in case of Henley. Still, there were some subtle differences among the 8 ships, no two ships were exactly the same.

I compiled these variations into this comparison table Bagley-class destroyers � Differences as of summer 1942 that I am now making available to help anyone striving to build a really accurate model of any of the eight ships in 1942. Many thanks to Rick E Davis for cross-checking it

The PE sheet contains parts to suit all of them as well as a few details towards later fits, like the SC-5 radar.

I am adding PE to the Patterson in the meantime, will show her when done with it.

Vladi, the 3D-printed kit looks incredibly well made. The gun pits bulwarks are thin and crisp and the 3D printed weapons seem amazingly detailed. The AA's and the depth charges racks/launchers look fabulous. If you add the ad-hoc designed PE's all the elements for a most successful build are complete. Am sure there will be (small) space for some old fashioned scratchbuilding too, there's always room for that .Am looking forward to see the WIP pics soon. Have a great start!

Fantastic work!

It must be very exciting to design your own kit... ; )
It is also very nice that other people will be able to build it too in the future. And they won't have to worry about accuracy!

Thank you, SG1 and Marijn! I totally agree, Matt did a great job on the 3D parts. I enjoy seeing his recent work on the Farraguts etc. and I am really happy I had it all provoked

There�s actually not too much to write and show about this build as it relies on our research that already went into the 3D and PE parts. As far as 3D parts are concerned, I added nuts for attachment to construction base / seabase to the bottom of the hull (there is a rather funny story related to that which I�d share later). I am currently about half-way through the PE sheet as can be seen below. Some corrections are being made to the PE design based on the actual experience and some previously omitted parts are being added.

I�ve been deciding whether a) to put most of the remaining PE in place first, then airbrush 5-N overall and then add 20-B to the deck by hand - or b) to spray the deck 20-B at this stage (all superstructures were still dry fit), then mask it and spray with 5-N, the remaining PE to be added at the end. I decided for the first option, the PE will also be better visible in photos for the instructions this way.

I think it's just great that you prepared a class table on details for all to access. Good for you, Vladi.

Continued great work.

Thank you, Dan. Just a small payback to this wonderful community, whose members don�t hesitate to share their knowledge and experience with others.

"Knowledge is nothing if not shared"

A quiz question: what is the ship shown above? (and why)

Ever heard the story of the jumping submarine off Guadalcanal?

While on a night watch, USS Bagley was physically ambushed by a IJN submarine. The vessel breached the waves, jumped nearly a hundred feet into the air while furiously scratching the port side of the destroyer�s hull with its rapidly rotating propeller. Still in midair, the submarine flipped over the forecastle and fell back to the sea, missing the destroyer but leaving another scar on Bagley�s starboard side amidships. It all happened so quickly that only one watchman saw it, but no one believed him as he had to drink his preserved rum rations to relieve the enormous stress and fear. It�s only now, over 80 years later, when the previously classified photos of the damage were released. In fact (and not because of this mishap while attaching nuts to the bottom of her hull for attachment to construction base / seabase), I decided to put the USS Bagley part of this dual build on hold for this very moment in order to complete testing the PE parts ASAP so that I could hand them over to Matt for production. But Bagley is definitely on my list, so I�ll be back on her one day.

Clearly propellor damage indeed...

Vladi wrote:Ever heard the story of the jumping submarine off Guadalcanal?
It�s only now, over 80 years later, when the previously classified photos of the damage were released.

"..the prompt intervention of the onboard repairing teams hid the damage to the enemy, historians and researchers"

Indeed, an international conspiracy, never revealed even by Japanese survivors...
I always wondered why there were so few photos of Bagley at the time of the Guadalcanal invasion!

I quickly went to look up the history of the Uss Bagley on Wikipedia.




Despite the fact that such secret things do not appear, the history of this ship is very interesting.

Yeah, very interesting what information surfaces even after over 80 years, right?

Completed testing the PE fit of Patterson today: all the torpedo handling equipment as well as life raft racks, ladders (except access to the navigating bridge, as it is still dry fit for easier painting), hose reels etc. are in place. Also all the tiny specks on the mainmast. Radar antennae and TBS are ready but not attached to the model as these will be sprayed silverish grey.

She lacks her two Lewis machine guns atop the searchlight tower as of yet, we noticed them too late for the prototype PE. They will be part of the final PE sheet along with some adjusted and other newly added parts, e.g. rudder for the whale boat. Now I need to prepare the updated PE for production and create some instructions.

Vladi wrote:Radar antennae and TBS are ready but not attached to the model as these will be sprayed silverish grey.

Interesting. I choose to paint the SC radar on my 1/350 Laffey silver, and I got dinged at the 2021 IPMS Nationals for that (bumped me from a 2nd to a 3rd). When I asked Rick Davis what the protocol for painting of radar screens was, he said this:

Rick Davis wrote:The answer is, the USN used varnish not paint on the antenna reflector and supports to retard corrosion because lead based paint messed with the electrical properties of the FD (Mk 4) RADIO DETECTION and RANGING set. When it was noticed, particularly in the South Pacific, and complaints forwarded to BuShips (Bureau of Ships) that bright sunlight really reflected and showed off the antennas (hence the location of the ship), they came up with a stained varnish. I came across this issue in correspondence in my FLETCHER class research. It was kind of an aside that I thought was interesting, but I didn�t bother to scan the letters because who would care. Little did I know the question arises about once a year or so. I couldn�t find it again if I tried. And NO I don�t know what the varnish color was. My guess is from appearances, it was close to 5-O � halfway between 5-H and 5-N to satisfy both Ms 22 and Ms 21 CAMOUFLAGE schemes. But, I have no idea if multiple varnish colors were developed and used.

When I asked Rick if he knew WHEN the varnish started being used, he said:

Rick Davis wrote:The short answer is no. It was adopted on the production line in I believe early 1943 at some point during the Spring. The newer BENSON-GLEAVES-FLETCHER�s and adding of radar to most all older destroyers didn�t show-up until roughly the Solomons campaign, so wasn�t a big issue until then. And from photos, revarnishing wasn�t something that was apparently done on ALL or any operational units. It could be that forward bases and tenders did it. But, I suspect unless the antenna needed to be replaced, it didn�t happen until a regular overhaul or major repairs were done stateside.

Not that you are going to run afoul of an IPMS USA judge anytime soon, but I know you are interested in accuracy, hence my post.

Hi Martin, thanks for the point. Yes, I asked Rick some time ago, too, and got a very similar answer. So, in fact, we don�t really know exactly how the anetennae looked like in 1942, just that they mostly appear quite light on photos. I think that they would not appear as "pure" silver, no metal would look like that if exposed to elements on sea, plus the scale effect. Thus I am thinking about grey tinted with a bit of silver.

Maybe just a very light grey. Even a glossy varnish is going to weather quickly. Any glinting is unlikely.

Ok