Calling all Benson-class & Gleaves-class DD fans

[PetrolGator]

I'm debating building the USS Barton as my next 1/700 DD. I've seen her port bow shot but do any other exist to help build a more accurate ship?

[Angeliccypher]

I am linking Fred's gallery here. He has done a lot of research on her and I believe has a bunch of photos that he could help you with.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

[PetrolGator]

I am linking Fred's gallery here. He has done a lot of research on her and I believe has a bunch of photos that he could help you with.

http://www.modelshipgallery.com/gallery ... /index.htm

Wow. Thanks!

[Rick E Davis]

To be honest, and Frank will acknowledge it, no one knows what scheme BARTON was painted in when she was lost. The only photos available of her are delivery photos taken on 29 May 1942. Even then there isn't a known photo of BARTON's starboard side. BARTON departed the East Coast for the Pacific on 23 August 1942. She was lost on 13 November 1942. At the end of October the Pacific Fleet CO ordered that all USN destroyers be repainted into Ms 21 when operations allowed. BARTON was pretty busy (as were all destroyers) once she arrived in the War Zone, but she was at Noumea from 31 October to 8 November. O'BANNON was at Noumea at the same time and it is known from records that the crew was ordered to repaint the ship during her down time (along with getting an extra 20-mm or two). My gut says BARTON was repainted prior to the battle at that time. But, I have not tried to review her War Diaries (if available for the first part of November) or other records for clues.

If you are modeling BARTON as she appeared in May 1942, there isn't much debate. Frank and most people who model BARTON apply the mirror image of the pattern on the starboard side as the best option. The only differences to BARTON from her delivery was the addition of radar (SC or SA to the foremast and FD (Mk 4) radar to the Mk 37 director. If you want to model her during her final battle 12-13 November, you may have some options as to her paint scheme.

[Timmy C]

Currently building Dragon's 1/700 Livermore at Tokyo Bay, and am unsure whether to use C27 or C49 for the O-1 midships superstructure level, just aft of the rear funnel.

C27 (bottom left): http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ore-Ce.jpg
C49 (top right): http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/sh ... ore-Cl.jpg

The instructions state "C49" but the diagram depicts part C27. Was C49 for an aft-torpedo tube configured ship?

[Rick E Davis]

Timmy,

I'm on the road, so I can't look at the kits. Which ship are you modeling using which kit? Many of the BENSON-GLEAVES class units as you know, have parts for a wide range of subjects. I suspect which GLEAVES class unit you are modeling will make a difference. If I know the ship, I can look for a photo of that area. But I may be slow in responding.

Rick

[Dick J]

Currently building Dragon's 1/700 Livermore at Tokyo Bay, and am unsure whether to use C27 or C49 for the O-1 midships superstructure level, just aft of the rear funnel. The instructions state "C49" but the diagram depicts part C27. Was C49 for an aft-torpedo tube configured ship?

Timmy, C49 was for the 10-tube Gleaves units (DD-423/424/429-444). C27 is the correct part for DD-453 and up. I am a bit confused as to which ship you are building. I thought that the Livermore kit was the '42 config. The Tokyo Bay kit was the Buchannan/Lansdowne one. If you are doing Buchannan or Lansdowne, C27 is the correct part. Livermore was a 10-tube ship and C49 would be the correct part.

[Timmy C]

D'oh! I meant the Lansdowne kit as Lansdowne herself. Long names starting with "L" make for a confused Timmy.

Thanks guys! C27 it is then.

[sandy]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me where I can get plans for a Benson (preferably, but the Gleaves would obviously be similar hull shape) class destroyer to build a model in a larger scale, 72nd or 48th?

I have looked quickly at the Floating Drydock plans but I can't find much with hull lines.

Having bought FD plans before and then on delivery finding next to nothing about hull lines (probably my mistake in misinterpreting the legend) I am keen to try and track down a good set.

Any help appreciated.

All the best
Sandy

[Russ2146]

For those interested, I have located the last report filed by the USS Barton, DD-599.
It is filed as an attachment to a report to Commander in Chief U.S. Fleet from Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet, dated February 14, 1943, on the Solomons Islands Campaign Battle of the Solomons, 11-15 November 1942.

The Barton report is authored by " Senior Surviving Officer, U.S.S. Barton (DD599)" and dated November 26, 1942. The stated Subject of the report is "U.S.S. Barton (DD599), Report of Action of November 12-13, 1942" It is only two pages.

The reports were located in the war diaries and action reports available online at Fold3.com. These are microfilm images from NARA and are unenhanced, meaning that if the typewriter (younger members of the forum may not remember those) needed a new ribbon, and the one used for this report did, it is reflected in the microfilm image. I am going to copy and attempt to enhance the clarity of the type.

I have not been able to locate any war diaries from DD-599. Having looked at the war diaries of many other ships, I do not believe that a war diary was filed for the Barton for the month of November, 1942. The war diaries of other vessels were typed the month after the month of the diary or, in some cases, several months after the diary month. Therfore, the war diary for the Barton, had she not sunk so quickly, would have been prepared in early December, at best.

Those interested in a copy of the action report should send me a PM with your e-mail address.

[Rick E Davis]

Some ... many ... War Diaries during the late 1942 and early 1943 period were HAND-WRITTEN ... sometimes in pencil and are quite hard to read at times. This is based on my observation on viewing several War Diaries at the National Archives. It appears to me that not all War Diaries were microfilmed, some War Diaries at the Archives have a stamp saying "Copied on Microfilm". The formal War Diaries were suppose to be re-transcribed as type-written and forwarded up the chain. The info in individual units War Diaries was used to produce Squadron and higher level War Diaries. The War Diaries were suppose to follow a specific format, but many ships wrote them on standard Deck Log pages for sometime in the South Pacific. (As an aside; NICHOLAS produced their OWN preprinted War Diary format pages, which were not ideal for the purpose given that they filled in some sections and ignored others and wrote in small size and in margins to try and get everything in.) IF a ship was lost during the month, as you say there may not be any surviving copy for that month, unless someone grabbed it with other important documents when the ship was abandoned ... something that didn't happen often and certainly didn't for BARTON. The Battle Action Reports, which could be completed by survivors, normally fill in much of the actions of the engagement, but little before hand. War Diaries were suppose to NOT duplicate the Deck Logs and be basically "Journals" of the Ship's War Experiences. But, some COs simply entered nearly the same info as was on their Logs, others wrote excellent journals and documented what happened onboard of note (adding weapons), what other units they were with, etc. Reading one of these well written journals is a joy and you almost feel like you are there.

I know nothing about Fold3.com, but I suspect that they do not have ALL War Diaries that are available at the National Archives at College Park, MD. Getting copies of all of them and posting them on-line would be a huge task and EXPENSIVE.

Even with BARTON's War Diary entries for her last few weeks of existence, based on the FLETCHER Class destroyer War Diaries I have looked at trying to answer WHEN a ship (Specifically FLETCHER, NICHOLAS, and O'BANNON) did/if repaint, in early November 1942, it would be very hit miss. Painting whether as touch-up or a new camo scheme seemed to be considered as "routine". Adding a 20-mm gun was a big deal when you were being attacked by enemy aircraft almost daily. Some individual diaries written by crew members have provided better info on activities for a specific ship than that ship's War Diary.

It may be possible to get additional info about what activities destroyers were doing at a given time, by checking units they were with and the unit War Diary they were assigned to. I have tried Tender War Diaries with limited results about what repairs/alterations they preformed on a ship.

DANFS (NHHC version ... many times is the most updated version) has this for her actions prior to her loss:

BARTON was at sea with the task forces formed around HORNET and ENTERPRISE (CV 6) when the Japanese engaged these forces on 26 October in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands. BARTON screened HORNET during the attacks by Japanese planes that stopped that carrier dead in the water and uItimately forced her abandonment. Exhibiting "superb judgment and expert seamanship," Lt. Comdr. Fox maneuvered BARTON expertly; and his ship rescued 250 men from the stricken HORNET.

A few days after the battle, BARTON performed an unusual rescue operation. An Army C 47 had taken off from Henderson Field at 1930 on 20 October during an intense enemy artillery bombardment. Straying off course and becoming lost while attempting to reach New Caledonia or the New Hebrides, the plane ditched on a reef when its fuel ran out. Eight days later an Army plane discovered the wreck, and an Australian bomber dropped blankets, food, and cigarettes to the survivors. Three Navy PBY's arrived the following day and landed close to the reef in a rough sea.

The PBYs took on board the six crew members and 19 passengers from rubber rafts, but found that the sea state prevented them from taking off, and they radioed for help. BARTON reached the scene on 30 October and, despite the �extreme darkness and adverse conditions,� maneuvered carefully in the vicinity of the dangerous reefs. Despite the imminent threat of enemy submarines, BARTON rescued the stranded men without incident. The last of the PBYs to be unloaded collided with the destroyer and sank while being brought alongside. Some of its crew spent two and a half hours in the water before BARTON located them in the darkness and brought them on board. The ship reached Noumea on 31 October, and put her passengers safely ashore.

BARTON remained at Noumea until 8 November, when she sailed for Guadalcanal as one of the escorts for four transports of TF 67 under Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner. She rendezvoused with Rear Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan's TG 67.4 near the eastern end of San Cristobal Island on the morning of the 11th. Intelligence indicated that a major Japanese push was underway against Guadalcanal, and troops and equipment had to be landed by 12 November to meet the expected thrust.

So if BARTON didn't repaint to a "new" camo scheme prior to departing for Pacific (not real likely given her activities), the most likely period for repairs and repainting would be between 31 October to 7 November 1942. If BARTON's War Diaries (and maybe Deck Logs) are available at the National Archives, the October entries may have some insight on what was expected to be done aboard the ship (maybe which tender she was tied up to).

[Rick E Davis]

While I was at the Archives last week, I took some time to look into BARTON's available documentation.

Bad news, there were NO War Diaries available. I have to wonder if they ever survived. And there was nothing noting whether she was repainted in early November 1942. That didn't surprise me, work done in the forward areas seldom made it into the Central BuShips files for a ship. I didn't have time to try pulling her Deck Logs ... if there are any.

The good news is there was a pretty complete and remarkably well organized BuShips file for BARTON (DD-599). There was a Departure Report for BARTON's availabilities (looks like a series of two or three) between 29 May and 18 August 1942 at Boston Navy Yard. BARTON had a couple of trial periods and shakedown/training cruises where she then returned to Boston for additional work. BARTON departed from Norfolk for the Pacific on 28 August 1942, so there was no time for additional work. Several alterations were listed to be done, but were cancelled awaiting when she would be upgraded with two twin 40-mm mounts. The one question I had wondered about and I think someone asked, was whether her 20-mm tubs and guns forward of the bridge were relocated outboard as was done on many BENSON-GLEAVES units. The answer is no. That work was one of the alterations listed, but marked as deferred. She had the WIRING installed for a fire control director to control her quad 1.1-in mount. But, there was no mention of a Mk 51 director being installed. Again this doesn't surprise me, because from what I have observed on other BENSON-GLEAVES units is that the Mk 51 directors weren't installed for the quad 1.1-in mount equipped units until about September-October 1942. With the wiring in place, a Mk 51 director could have been installed by a tender in the forward area. No idea if it was. She also had the wiring installed to power the Mk 14 sights for the 20-mm guns, but the sights themselves were not installed. She did have the SC-1 radar installed. The installation of the FD (Mk 4) fire control radar on the Mk 37 director was not specifically noted beyond "completed installation of war-fighting equipment that was government responsibility". Which was the common wording used for installing radars and sonars. It does not appear that the Surface Search radar (SG) was installed.

The most interesting items I found were;

First, a full set of the five "Delivery Photos" taken on 29 May 1942 in the files. These photos were in excellent shape, better than the ones on the 5th floor. There still wasn't any portside views. I scanned all five, some appear to be near duplicates, but they are different. Many of these views have been published before, but the complete set in one place makes clearer just what WAS taken.












The second item and the one really new piece of info about BARTON's appearance, was in the Departure Report about her being painted at Boston Navy Yard AFTER she arrived there. Job Order # 1901 "Paint ship's hull from the waterline up" (Authorized on 9 June 1942) indicates that her Builder applied camo was painted over. Painted over into what is unknown and likely will remain unknown unless photos of her surface after June 1942. If I had to guess a Ms 12mod camo scheme more in-line with other BENSON-GLEAVES class units at the time (June 1942) at Boston Navy Yard, would be a likely "pattern style".

[Tracy White]

Job Order # 1901 "Paint ship's hull from the waterline up" (Authorized on 9 June 1942) indicates that her Builder applied camo was painted over. Painted over into what is unknown and likely will remain unknown unless photos of her surface after June 1942. If I had to guess a Ms 12mod camo scheme more in-line with other BENSON-GLEAVES class units at the time (June 1942) at Boston Navy Yard, would be a likely "pattern style".

I was there with Rick last week and I wish I'd thought to ask this then, but then again a public forum will spread the answer around more.

Was it known in June that she was Pacific bound?

We have multiple examples of orders stating, "the Bureau, ... advised the Building Yards to obtain the Fleet assignment of the vessel involved from or through the Prospective Commanding Officer in all cases in which this information could be obtained in time to allow timely ordering and application of the paint."

In September, Pacific Fleet Confidential Memo 34CM-42 was circulated with orders for the Pacific Fleet to paint in Measure 21. It references a couple of earlier documents I haven't found yet, so I don't know what their distribution was like. The earlier documents I linked to were spread to pretty much all of the yards, regardless of what ocean they were on, but 34CM-42 was just addressed to "PACIFIC FLEET" with copies (at the bottom left) to the west coast Yards and docks (NY8-10 is Puget Sound, Mare Island, and Pearl Harbor; ND11-12 are the 11th through 14th Naval Districts, which is essentially the west coast and Hawaii). Nothing there that really points to the east coast yards getting notifications. Doesn't mean anything, but it could be part of a pattern.

[willsdad96]

Rick,
First, thank you for everything you do. Your knowledge, perseverance, and patience and thoroughness in answering posts and willingness to share is unequalled. I have printed out this entire forum as well as the Fletcher one! I spent 25+ years doing similar work (rivet counting on photos, etc...ie: original research) on Railroad passenger cars for the SPH&TS along with Coachyard and other model importers so I have a real appreciation for what you do.
The Benson/Gleaves/Livermores, along with the similar Sims, have always been my favorite class. Going back to an old post, (along with this most recent), I am doing the original 4 "Gleaves"; Gwin, Meredith, Grayson, and Monssen as they were through Midway. Those 4 really were workhorses then and it's not surprising 3 were lost. Unfortunately, DML left out the 12 50cal version in their 1/700 models and until your posts, I really couldn't make out just what was going on since clear photos of that period are difficult to find.
To add to your info; it appears as though the 6 50cal mounts on the aft deckhouse were fairly evenly spaced as-built but what makes the APPEAR not is that the aft-one on both sides was pushed further out of centerline. Studying the builder's photo of the Bristol DD 453, you can see that in the aft-most "3" on the starboard side. There's a couple of pretty good shots, one dead broadside, of the Meredith in the Atlantic showing the spacing but as she turns, the spacing appears to change. Also, your other 3 photos in that post seem to support that...looking at shadows etc. I agree that it appears Monssen replaced the center 50cal with 20mm mounts prior to the May 1942 photo; the tub looks larger. The Meredith also appears to have received the same treatment by June 1942 (photos of her in Fiji compared to the Atlantic). The mounts are no longer evenly spaced, however. It also appears she has replace her forward 50 cal with 20mm mounts as well.
My question to you is, how do you suppose these ships were armed at Midway?
Again,
Thank you
Chris C

[Rick E Davis]

Chris,

It took awhile, but I found enough info in various official records to determine WHEN each of these four destroyers got their authorized "unique" nine 20-mm configuration. GRAYSON (DD-435), which of course missed Midway, was modified at MINY in May-June 1942 to this configuration. The remaining three were modified at Pearl Harbor Navy Yard AFTER the Battle of Midway. I found the necessary info about their upgrades in the Weekly Overhaul Reports submitted by Pearl Harbor Navy Yard to nail down the specific dates for when these three modified.

DD-433 GWIN ... 26 June - 2 July 1942

DD-434 MEREDITH ... 6-15 August 1942

DD-436 MONSSEN ... 26 June - 2 July 1942

As for what the armament for these four were prior to this, it isn't clear. Armament Summaries are not reliable. There are a few photos of MEREDITH and MONSSEN that seem to point to four 20-mm guns replacing four 50-cal MGs on a one for one basis leaving eight 50-cal MGs. An entry in one Weekly Armament Summary for GWIN and MONSSEN calls out two 20-mm and eight 50-cal MGs, at the same time as photos show that GWIN had four 20-mm and eight 50-cal MGs. I lean to believing that the likely armament for all prior to the nine 20-mm guns mod, was four 20-mm and eight 50-cal MGs. I have to go by photos when there isn't a reliable textual record. Many of the additions of 20-mm guns in the Pacific ... west of the WEST COAST ... are not noted in official records. Pearl Harbor does note their work, I found, in the Weekly Overhaul Reports, which helps to find those changes. In the Atlantic Fleet there was a gradual replacement of the 50-cal MGs to 20-mm guns in a pattern that seems to have been the directed local policy. The most common first step seemed to be to replace the two MGs before the bridge and the two atop the pilothouse were replaced by TWO 20-mm guns before the bridge. The Pacific Fleet didn't remove any MGs until it was replaced by a 20-mm gun. I still have no idea of when or where the destroyers in DesDiv 22 replaced some of their MGs with 20-mm guns. Were any replaced before they transferred to the West Coast? Were they installed in their brief yard repair periods on the West Coast before the Doolittle Raid?

Someone provided me a chance to view a set of plans (but they were not free to be posted) for the typical layout for the twelve 50-cal MGs and I tried my best to hand-draw the layout somewhere earlier in this thread (or maybe it was in a ship specific build?). The aft two MGs (one port, one starboard) were indeed set outboard more so than the other four MGs. The reason appears to be because the aft con station needed the room.



I have not tried going through official drawings at NARA to see if there are any surviving plans of the earlier BENSON-GLEAVES class with 50-cal MGs. I finally made it through ALL of the paper drawings (mostly they are Booklet of General Plans drawings) for the FLETCHER class and was surprised at what I found in a few cases.

[willsdad96]

Wow,
Thanks again Rick. Your drawing of the 20mm placement on the aft gun-house is pretty much what I was thinking, based on the photos. I've shaved off enough 1/700 splinter guards after all! (12 - saving them to add to various gunhouses. I could see the forward ones were set back from the front of the gun-house but couldn't tell how far...now I know.
I think I'll do 2 versions of the Gwin as she's unique...she was with the Hornet with all 50cal and also has good documentation of the 4 20mm mounts version...and she retained her open 5" 38. I'm also doing 2 or 3 Sims from the DML kits as well.
Chris C.

[FRED BRANYAN]

BARTON ETC

Gentlemen

My power is down so I am using my daughters lap top.

I built the 1/350 Barton referred to by Angelic Cypher earlier.

My research indicated that Fore River Measure 12 ships built in 42 had very similar or identical patterns on both sides. Massachusetts, San Diego and San Juan tend to confirm this conclusion. For that reason I flipped on the computer the starboard side photo from the beam seen on many sites and used it for the port side pattern. Needless to say until I read the last 2 pages of this site I was not aware of the re paint job.

I have a theory on what the new paint job may have looked like. Please see the San Diego photos on page 9 of the calling all Atlanta class page. That ship got a new paint job mainly on its hull, although there appear to be some navy buue patches on the lower superstructure similar to Bartons. Otherwise the superstructure paint scheme remained as originally painted until 43. When and where it got this paint job I do not know although it was after the 1/42 new ship photos. If San Diego got this paint job at the Boston Navy yard, in a similar fashion to Barton, it may have beena similar pattern. Where and how this theory can be confirmed I do not know. By the way I contacted the Boston Navy Yard about a year ago looking for Barton photos, they said they had none, however if anyone lives close it might be worth a personal visit to see if they have San Diego paint photos or info. The photos Martin Quinn put on the other site for me came from NARA and a crewman. Fore River sister San Juan did not get such a re paint job.

I have decent Santa Cruz photos showing every DD with Hornet except Barton. Barton appears in 2 photos at a distance. No camo details are visible.

Fred Branyan
fredb1048@aol.com
,

[NCMac]

Gentlemen,

I'm working on a pre (US) war USS Gleaves from the old Skywave kit. Can someone tell me what the piece of equipment is on the forward platform of the uppermost bridge deck? I understand the staff with navigation or station keeping markers(?) (it's on the WEM photoetch fret) but there appears to be something more. See this photo: "USS GLEAVES (DD-423) as completed 27 May 1940. Note the use of mushroom vents." on page 20 of this thread.

Thank you,

Mac

[Rick E Davis]

Fred,

I don't disagree about the likely camo Ms 12mod "pattern" that Quincy applied when they completed BARTON. The fact is the Departure Report says she was repainted during the USN fitting-out at Boston Navy Yard. We don't know what style of camo this would be, but it likely would still be a Ms 12mod scheme. I have enough photos of BENSON-GLEAVES units worked on at Boston during May to July 1942 to have an opinion of the general "style" of Ms 12mod that yard "liked" to apply (actually this style goes back to at least March 1942), unless they were trying an experimental scheme/pattern.

These views of BAILEY (DD-492) taken on 19 July 1942, LIVERMORE (DD-429 on 11 May 1942, COWIE (DD-632) on 3 August 1942, and EDISON (DD-439) all fit into the general patterns being applied at Boston Navy Yard during that period. I could put up about a dozen destroyers with this same "style". None were exactly the same, but there is a certain "sameness" to the patterns.











Until someone finds a "lost" photo of BARTON before 1 November and after 1 July 1942, we won't know for sure what pattern was applied to BARTON at Boston NavyYard in June 1942. After 1 November 1942 ... my "gut" says she was repainted into Ms 21 along with a couple of the FLETCHERS at the same place at the same time.

[Rick E Davis]

Mac,

Here is what I think you are asking about. I believe it is an early torpedo director and the navigation lights mast. The arrangements atop the pilothouse was changed quite a bit over the years. But this layout appears to have been used on the earliest BENSON-GLEAVES units.