The Ship Model Forum

No worries Dick. I'll just see how bad it is as I go along. It's simple enough to add some etch radar though, I think some test fitting sounds like it might be in order! Any extra info regarding radar/weapons fit and camou scheme circa Aug 42, would be most welcome.

thanks
Mike

Mike,

Could well be three 20-mm atop the aft deckhouse ... I took a very quick look. But, in looking again, it still looks like only two 20-mm guns (side by side), but I'm not 100% because some unauthorized additions did take place in 1942. Below are two images I downloaded from NHHC website of RALPH TALBOT (April 1942 configuration) and HELM (February 1942 configuration). I need better photos to be 100%. I guess I need to scan images of photos at NARA.

Friedman's "DESTROYER WEAPONS of WWII" w/Peter Hodges, printed early in 1980s; states that six 20-mm as of August 1942 was standard for the BAGLEY's ... so it would appear that the 20-mm armament during your period of interest would be six; two before the bridge, one abreast both sides of the stack and two atop the aft deckhouse.

In about January 1943 the survivors of this class started to have a single twin 40-mm mount installed in that aft deckhouse position and the 20-mm guns were repositioned to three forward of the bridge and one abreast each side and one aft of the stack.

I know that Dick has spent a lot more time studying this class and all 22 of the 16-tube USN destroyers, than me.

There are a few 1942 photos of Henley on Navsource. She had the bridge windows filled in and replaced by ports. At the time of the refit photos, she did not have the extra 20MM beside the stack, but it appears that she might have had them installed by the time of the Guadalcanal photo.

Thanks guys

I think I'm going with 6 20mm now. Should I stick with MS21 as well?

Do we think she had radars by Aug 1942?

thanks
Mike

The "Guadalcanal" photo at Navsource shows what appears to be an SC set at top of the foremast. No FD (MK-4) or SG are apparent. MS-21 should be the appropriate scheme.

Thanks Dick

Having only 1 radar will help simplify things, as will the MS21!

thanks
Mike

re: Conyngham DD-371
I posted this question on SN, but perhaps didn't word it as well as I should have. I would like to know if she carried #3 5" gun at Midway.

There is a January 1942 photo with the gun and a July photo without the gun.

I have references to a brief refit at Mare Island sometime shortly after December 41 and another reference to a refit at MI before July. Just from that information, I can't tell if the gun was removed at the first or second refit.

On the other hand, are those photos completion-of-work photos? In that case the gun is present after the January refit and absent after the June/July refit, and I have an answer.

Can our destroyer history experts draw a conclusion from standard practices for taking shipyard photos?

Thanks,
Rick

_________________
On the workbench:
1/700 HMS Swiftsure - Combrig
1/700 CGC Chelan - White Ensign
1/700 HMCS Forrest Hill - HP
1/700 Ulsan - Kobo Hiryu
--and dozens more

First off, yes the MINY photos are "completion of major alterations" photos. It was standard practice, actually was required (but not always done), to have photos taken post a major overhaul.

Second, although not a certainty, because the 53 mount could have been landed at say Pearl Harbor or somewhere else (even by a tender) without any major alterations other than adding a few 20-mm guns, I suspect the 53 mount was removed at MINY during her June-July 1942 overhaul. CONYNGHAM like the other Pacific destroyers were pretty busy in early 1942 and didn't have much time for yard periods, unless really needed alterations or repairs were required. A review of official records would answer the question, but I have not personally gone through her BuShips records at NARA.

I am building the Farragut class destroyers that were at the Battle of Midway Island and need help on the proper outfit for the Monaghan.

I have one source dated October 1942 that shows her with a 40mm tub and director aft of the second funnel and another 40mm tub in front of the bridge. Would this be correct for June 1942?

Thank you in advance!!!

Gus
Semper Fi

All the pictures I found do not indicate 40mm gun mounts at any time. In some cases the high angle of the 5" gun tubes might look like a 40, but these pictures rule that out.







I found other pictures, but they're pre-war. It looks like the tub(s) aft of the aft most stack are 20mm.
Likewise on the after deck house. I would think it more likely that she would have a quad 1.1".

I checked her war diary but there is no mention of anything but 5" and 20mm.
Navsource seems to be down right now so I can't check there.

Few of the pre-Benson class carried quad 1.1's. The Porter and Somers classes were built with them, and Shaw was rebuilt with one. I guess others are possible, but I don't currently know of any. The Porter and Somers classes were the only pre-Fletchers to have 40MM forward of the bridge at any time. The Farraguts carried either one twin or two aft of the second stack (and definitely none forward of the bridge). However, no US ships put to sea with 40MM prior to July of '42. The guns simply were not yet available.

Thank you gentlemen!!!

Your comments kinda of confirm what I have come to believe and that is the 40mm guns were not added until sometime AFTER the Battle of Midway Island campaign. Thus, all the Farragut ships at Midway would be identical in their weapons outfit. . .is that more or less a correct assumption?

Thank you all for your time and assistance!!

Gus
Semper Fi

Almost no one asks for info on the FARRAGUT class.

The FARRAGUT class din't get 40-mm guns (one twin mount) until starting in about October-December 1942. Some units were updated at Pearl Harbor and others at West coast yards like MINY. Interestingly, some FARRAGUT destroyers received the Mk 49 director instead of the Mk 51 for the twin 40-mm mount.

Specific to MONAGHAN (DD-354), here is her configuration post refit in February 1942 ... likely her configuration during the Battle of Midway. Her next refit was in September-October 1942 when she got a twin 40-mm mount. I do suspect that MONAGHAN would have gotten an Air Search Radar at Pearl Harbor prior to the battle. Note that the SIMS class destroyer (DD-415 O'BRIEN) and the MAHAN class destroyer (DD-370 CASE) in the background have SA radars installed.






Here are some images of sisters to compare with and/or add different details and possible changes after February 1942.

Great shots Rick! Are they all in MS 11 or MS 21?



Bob Pink.

By this date they would be 5-N. Whether it was called Ms 11 (w/5N) or Ms 21 by the time of these photos, I don't know.

Thank you ever so much for the pictures, Rick!!
Monaghan is important to me in that my Uncle, Gustavo Villanueva, went down with her Typhoon of '44.
I will never build a 350 or large, thus must do my best to make my 700 scale as accurate as possible. My Uncle is still on board her. . .
Gus
Semper

You guys remember those absurdly named midships DD's and even worse fitting kits? Well, I now understand why those of you who have built them up ranted, raved and screamed about them so much. I just completed a "Benham" as the USS Henley. Almost nothing fits right on the kit necessitating so much modifying and scratch-building as to make me seriously think about burning the other 9 midships DD kits I have.....but not quite. The one thing I can honestly say that WAS GOOD about them: They really challenge your ability to make parts adaptable yet still keep their accuracy. In some respects I think I succeed and in others, not so much. All-in-all I must say that these kits have taught me the 2 greatest modeling lesson I've learned thus far:

1. If you are really serious about improving a skill set and building technique, you need to practice them on projects that are NOT straight forward or simple and don't be afraid to experiment a bit.

2. Build and paint in multiple sub-assemblies. For some of you this is a "duh" statement but I've done final assemblies and painting on most of my small ships with the mods and etch already attached. You lose a LOT of definition even after just ONE coat of paint in 1/700 scale and 2 or 3 coats just destroy intricacies. I thought I was hallucinating and did not follow this hunch on the Henley build, attempted to be extra careful with the paint and STILL ended up covering a lot of my hard work. SO, that settled it, I'm completely changing my build style and I must say.. so far... with my Nagara build... it is WORKING WONDERS! I'm so happy I actually learned something helpful.



I'll get some photos sent in sometime. Heck, I still have to photo my Amatsukaze and finish the Nagara while I'm at it.


edit: oh yea, one more thing I wholeheartedly encourage - Use Photoetch by the bushel basket load. Cram as much of that yellow metal on as you possibly can. Make your model CHOKE on the stuff.

_________________
The closer the correspondence between a man's perception of reality and reality itself, the greater the man. - Renato Constantino

I agree with you that these kits are a real headache! Maybe a manufacturer could cast accurate funnels for Benham, Gridley, Blue, etc. and make them a little more tolerable to build! A pipe dream I know.





Guest

Agreed!





Bob Pink.

Hey everyone,

Just wanted to ask you all your opinion, I see I asked this question almost 4 years ago. Attached is a photo(Courtesy of Rick Davis) of the USS Sterett DD-407, I believe taken just after the Nov 13th battle off Guadalcanal. Her MS-12 is slightly perplexing, I know guessing colors from Black and white pictures is not an exact science as much as a guess but a couple of things stand out.

1st: Pattern is slightly unusual for what was seen for MS-12(m), I know, what wasn't an unusal Ms12 pattern
2nd: The colors on the stack seem much darker than the 5-O/5-H that should be on it
3rd: The lighter color on the hull seems too light for 5-0 when compared to the darker grey on the upper works


Any thoughts?

Matt

_________________
In the yards right now:
USS Utah AG-16
On Hold
1/350 USS Portland CA-33 1942
1/350 Trumpeter Texas with a twist