Calling all Benson-class & Gleaves-class DD fans

[2t2 crash]

for those building the USS Emmons, I've actually dove her and have some pictures. She still has live Mk IV depth charges in the racks, all three 5'' guns were intact the last time I dove her, and a 40mm Bofors still in place.

I was working on building an Emmons of my own but stalled out two years ago when I couldn't find references to the reels and minesweeping gear.

I love this place, time to finish my models and stop being lazy.

[Guest]

Hello

I have the project to modeling in 1/350 the USS Emmons for DDAY to Omaha Beach

http://destroyerhistory.org/benson-glea ... ussemmons/


I ask me which Dagons kit will be the best to start

_ Buchanan
- Livermore
- Benson 1945
- Laffey

for my little knowledge it seem the best will be Benson or Livermore
what do you think ?

what will be the transformation to make for making it ?

thnaks in advance to help me

Dominique

[Dick J]

No single kit has all you need. You will need the '45 fit, but Emmons had the bridge of the Laffey kit, the AA outfit of the '45 Benson kit (plus a few extra 20MM), and the funnels and center-section superstructure of the Buchannan kit. If you go with a single kit, use the Buchannan. It matches the 5" gun and torpedo tube config, and has the right funnels. But you will need to shave off the front of the lower bridge and update the AA outfit and electronics.

[Reid]

Hello everyone. I am heavily into the research and early building stages of a 1/48 Gleaves Class DD i got from Desron48 (West Coast Warship Services). I have a question regarding the aft super structure. Doe anyone how the length of it? I have a set a plans from Floating Drydock conflict with another set of plans by 3ft in 1/48 thats a big difference. I was hoping you guys might be able to clear it up.

OK... so now comes the less technical question! and most interesting in my opinion.
What Gleaves should i build? USS Meredith DD-434 or the USS Aaron Ward DD-483? I am absolutely fascinated by both ships. I'd like to build the Meredith as of June 1942 OR the AW (Aaron Ward) as of April '43 when she sank. The issues i am having in make a decision are from a personal point of view and a building perspective.
I also have a question regarding the armament of the Meredith. As far as i can find she wasn't fitted with a 1.1 when she sank... can anyone confirm that? That is also another reason i'd like the build her.
So here is a list of the Pros and Cons each ship:
Meredith:
Pros: great camo, no 1.1" AA, less mast clutter, nearly standard Gleaves, incredible story
Cons: no very unique, lack of info

Aaron Ward:
Pros: incredible story, no 1.1" AA, lots of 20mm guns, heavily modified bridge, only 1 set of torpedo tubes
Cons: Boring camo (for a Gleaves), lots of 20mm guns (it's a pro and con), hard to get exact details about modified sections

So I was wondering what you guys thought of each ship... here is a quick link to Navsource and Wiki for both ships....
Meredith:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/434.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Meredith_(DD-434)

Aaron Ward:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/483.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Aaron_Ward_(DD-483)

[Dick J]

I don't think that I would put much stock in Wikipedia as a source for accurate info on the ships. I am not sure if you are aware that Meredith received a refit in July of '42 that changed her configuration to match that of the Grayson after her June '42 Mare Island refit as seen here: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0543503.jpg At the time of her loss, Meredith had 9 20MM guns.

Aaron Ward's last refit gave her a configuration similar to that of Farenholt, as seen in this photo: http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0549104.jpg She had 7 20MM guns and 4 40MM guns. Of course, Aaron Ward had the Gleaves class round funnels instead of the Benson class flat-sided funnels seen on Farenholt. At the time of Guadalcanal, Aaron Ward did have a quad 1.1" mount, but of course, that was replaced by the 2 twin 40MM when she was repaired.

Meredith never carried a quad 1.1. Of the first 24 ships in the combined Benson/Gleaves group (DD-421 to DD-444), only DD-422 and DD-431 received quad 1.1's. However, this was not intended as a standard to be copied by the rest of this original group. Of the repeat ships (DD-453 and higher), a number of them did receive a quad 1.1 mount, but it was only a temporary measure until 40MM became available.

[Rick E Davis]

Dick gave you the summary of the configurations info for these two destroyers. Which configuration you do for each depends on WHEN in their careers you model them. I can't comment on which one you "should" build, that is your decision. In the interest of clarity and sorry, some redundancy ...

MEREDITH (DD-434) a GLEAVES class unit from the first series (prior to DD-444).

She completed (April 1941 after commissioning on 1 March 1941) in the then standard initial configuration of five 5-in, 10-TT, and six 50-cal MGs, but soon was modified to the Summer 1941 King Board configuration with four 5-in guns, 10-TT and twelve 50-cal.

Then in early 1942 either before or after she transitioned to the Pacific with her DesDiv 22 sisters (DD-433, 434, 435, and 436) and USS HORNET, some of her 50-cal MGs were replaced with 20-mm guns ... likely four. Records are fuzzy, but this is what is seen in surviving photos for DesDiv 22 destroyers.

As Dick said in July 1942 MEREDITH was upgraded to the temporary approved armament for the DesDiv 22 destroyers with nine 20-mm guns ... and the GRAYSON photos at Mare Island are the best available for this configuration. GRAYSON was modified at MINY, whereas the other three sisters were modified at Pearl Harbor, but likely followed the same plans. MEREDITH was lost in this configuration. There is a DML 1/700 scale kit of this configuration.


AARON WARD (DD-483) a GLEAVES class unit from the repeat batch (DD-453 onwards).

She was completed in the standard configuration for the earliest of these units, four 5-in, one quad 1.1-in mount in the starboard "tub" of the two "tubs" intended for twin 40-mm mounts once they were available (a 20-mm was in the portside tub), five 20-mm guns, and 5-TT. And yes the bridge was modified somewhat as well.

In late 1942 AARON WARD was upgraded at Pearl Harbor with two twin 40-mm mounts (replacing the quad 1.1-in mount), seven 20-mm guns, and 5-TT. Her version of this upgrade is different than her sisters modified stateside. You would need to study photos to understand. No plans of this version are available as far as I know.

Now then as for your question about the length of the aft deckhouse, I have not studied the plans for the BENSON-GLEAVES class comparing the first batch to the repeat batch in detail. You didn't provide whether the two plans "scaled" out a 3-ft difference or if the plans provided dimensions. Most plans available showing the overall ship, don't give dimensions like for the overall deckhouse length. But they do show the frame numbers which for this class would be 21-in apart.

I have very limited number of plans for the BENSON-GLEAVES class destroyers. But here is a main deck view for MAYO, a first batch BENSON class unit that should have the same size aft deckhouse. And below that is a profile view, I don't have a deck view of this ship, that shows the length of the aft deckhouse. Both show that the aft deckhouse length is roughly frames 129 to 163 ... which should be roughly 59.5-ft (actual could be 60-ft or 59-ft to the outsides fore and aft of the deckhouse). My drawings are from Booklet of General Plans at the National Archives, and these overall "Assembly" drawings may not be dead-on. There is a vent (and sometimes cabinets) that appears against the aft bulkhead on some drawings at different periods in time that could account for the length difference depending how the show-up on the plans you have

On this page at HNSA, there are plans for two late version BENSON-GLEAVES units ... DD-616 NEILDS (Benson class 1942) and DD-618 DAVISON as a DMS conversion (GLEAVES class 1958) ... http://www.hnsa.org/doc/plans/index.htm ... they are different from either MEREDITH or AARON WARD (late production repeat BENSON-GLEAVES units), but may prove useful. Both of these plans also show the aft deckhouse sits between frames 129 and 163.

[Reid]

Great! Thank you so much for you help guys! I have been over this entire a thread a few times and found it be very helpful. I have been looking closely at the pictures of the AW and it looks like there is a small shack just forward of the 1st stack and aft of the mast any ideas on what this is?

The only reason I asked why which ship i should build is because I am so torn between these 2 gallant ships. If i had the time i'd build em both. I was just curious to see what you guys thought of the both ships to help me make a decision on which to build. I would be very content building either ship... that is my only dilemma.

[Rick E Davis]

I'm assuming you are looking at AARON WARD's post-upgrade with two twin 40-mm mounts.

Forward of the bridge was a small deckhouse extension with the centerline 20-mm gun platform atop it, likely a clipping room for the forward 20-mm guns. Note that this platform was merged with providing a walk around for the bridge wings ... not many BENSON-GLEAVES class units had such a thing and none were the same.

As for the object aft of the mast and before the stack, likely a locker of some sort. Lockers for various purposes (potatoes to foul weather gear) varied in locations around most destroyers.

[Reid]

Thank you very much the clarification guys! I am sure i'll been back soon with a lot more questions... and a lot of silly ones too.. HEHEHE

[desron48]

reid.......

have you decided what ship your going to build??

joe

[Reid]

Hey guys! So I decided I will have a go at building the Meredith. I have managed to get some more research done to clear up a few small questions I had that helped me make my decision. I came across this interesting photo in my research as well.



Also I did a quick mock up of the camo scheme... what do you guys think? This is based off John Barrett's illustrations

it seems kinda plain toward the stern in my opinion.

[Rick E Davis]

Don't trust John Barrett's illustrations for accuracy!!! The illustration you have has SEVERAL MAJOR errors for MEREDITH (biggest MEREDITH DIDN'T ever get twin 40-mm mounts!!!). Check out the images available at NHHC's website for MEREDITH at ...

.... http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-u ... /dd434.htm ...

It looks like Barrett used this photo for his camo illustration, but not the ships actual configuration.

Also, here is a portside view of her sister GRAYSON (DD-435), these would be better guides on the "general" pattern for the Ms 12mod scheme MEREDITH was painted in.



Here is one of the last known photos of her sister MONSSEN (DD-436) before she was lost. It was taken by a HMAS ship in the Coral Sea area.

[Reid]

Oh yes I agree... The profiles r horrifically inaccurate!!! I just painted the camo over his illustration to get an idea of how it will look.

The only 2 photos if Meredith only show the port side which I draw up as above. I think I will be using the photo of the Monssen as a reference for the starboard side along either the extra 20mm by the forward stack.

[desron48]

plans are drawn up by one mans idea how the ship looked like....then someone else draws up a set.....that is where the problems come up.....who's right or who's wrong.....but photo's don't lie....

joe

[Tracy White]

but photo's don't lie....

They can, and they often don't tell the whole story, either.

[Rick E Davis]

Joe,

Barrett's illustrations are drawn to a single configuration that may represent a particular ship in a class and then used for multiple units by simply changing the hull number ... unfortunately for people wanting to use them as a guide they aren't correct. there is no excuse for making drawings this far off when there are photos and technical info and in many cases original drawings at NARA. Further, as Tracy said, you have to be careful that the photo isn't miss labeled or miss dated. The official photos in 80-G at NARA can be full of errors on the captions in dates and identities. A little checking can many times ID a photo and maybe even verify the date.

Reid,

If you look at the GRAYSON and MONSSEN photos ... the starboard and port side views show the patterns are close the same (in mirror image) on both sides. I was actually surprised to see that on two different ships. So I suspect you wouldn't be too far off mirroring the pattern seen on the portside to the starboard. Otherwise no views of her starboard have surfaced as far as I know.

[Reid]

Rick I agree! It seems almost lazy to not take the time to accurately represent the ships that are being shown especially when there are sources that are very easily accessible!

Also that is very interesting that they just mirrored the camo. Thats a sharp eye you have there!

[Dick J]

If I ever get around to doing Meredith, I will probably mirror the camo, simply because of the lack of photos of the starboard side. However, even though those Gleaves units shown above mirrored the camo, other DD's, like the Hammann, did not. That is part of the problem with the camo of this period - too little real standardization.

[PeeJay333]

Fellow Destroyer Fans,

I have been following the "Calling all Fletcher Class Destroyer Fans" thread for some time now, but had not run into this one until it came up on a Fletcher-related search. The pre-war destroyers had been a very foggy region in my destroyer documents and plans which, for the most part, went from the four pipers to the Fletchers, although I do find an Ed Wiswisser drawing of a Benson class destroyer in my archives, which I got many years ago.

It was after correspondence with Dave McComb regarding his Osprey series destroyer books and purchasing his book, "US Destroyers 1934-45: Pre-War Classes (Vanguard)" that these classes really came into focus for me and my interest in these classes was rekindled. I have subsequently done some research on the Destroyer History website, bookmarked and downloaded numerous photos from Navsource, a few plans from NHSA and found a number of pre-war camouflage patterns for application of Measure 31 to these ships. This site is amazing, and I have again been reminded of the wealth of knowledge possessed by Rick Davis and his willingness to share his extensive collection of photographs.

No Benson-Gleaves project underway yet, as I am just in the beginning of a Fletcher project. I will , however, continue to 'lurk' here with great interest in your many excellent projects and the ever expanding database on the Benson/Gleaves ships.

PeeJay

[Tracy White]

...found a number of pre-war camouflage patterns for application of Measure 31 to these ships.

Welcome aboard! Just a quick correction, the dazzle schemes didn't come about until 1943, and weren't a pre-war scheme.

Camouflage measures didn't exist until January of 1941, and up until that point everything was #5 Standard Navy Gray with the exception of ships they were experimenting with. Measure 3 is similar to the prewar colors, but it is incorrect to say (such as Squadron's Destroyer Camouflage book suggested) that the prewar scheme *was* Measure 3.