The Ship Model Forum

Here's a general question about not only these ships but also some others including the Fletcher class destroyers...

What is that side piece (for lack of the actual name) along the outside edge of the main deck above the sheer strake starting aft of the forecastle deck. I asked earlier about these parts as I had removed them from the sprue of my Dragon Buchanan kit and didn't know if the rolled edge faced out or in. This part seems to fit the Benson/Gleaves class, flowing from the height of the forecastle forward and then tapering down to the main deck aft. On the Fletcher class the main deck doesn't step down but this part in question is still there.

My guess would be to break up wave action?

_________________
Timm Smith
Learn something new about the ship or your job every day. Ignorance is not bliss aboard a warship in wartime. Ignorance could cost the life of yourself, a shipmate, or the loss of the ship.
- Personal Information Booklet CV- 38

Waterbreak or Breakwater Bulwark, I believe is the proper term. As you suspected, it was intended to "reduce" the impact of waves breaking over the deck in the midships section. On some ships it got a dual purpose as a splinter protection bulwark for guns (20-mm mostly) mounted on the main deck.

Here is a question on MS 21. I was having thoughts on how weathered the overall MS 21 ships that were painted in theater looked. It could really be an interesting scheme if the weathering was done correctly. I have yet to find many color pics of a worn out MS 21 scheme do you folks know of any? I am still leaning towards an MS 12 for my Buchanan kit, probably AAron ward, but the B&W pics of that worn out scheme I see keep calling me back to it.

Rob

I'm not a camo expert or paint expert. But, the general wearing for Ms 21 varied by how long since the paint was applied and I would guess by who and HOW it was applied. If the paint was applied in a yard by spraying during an overhaul and some care taken on prep (drydocking with a hull cleaning and painting) ... the new coat would last longer and look more uniform. The ships that were repainted by the crew at a forward base by hand brushing (maybe some spraying), such as a Ms 12 camo being painted over to Ms 21, likely would not be as well covered. I don't have color images for many WWII destroyers (I have yet to go into the color files at NARA), but B&W photos seem to show a "chalky" appearance to the 5-N paint, particularly the hull. Most of the images I have scanned for Benson-Gleaves units have been fresh from the yard and won't answer your question. I have some after service views of Benson-Gleaves in the Atlantic in Ms 22. For a Gleaves class destroyer not just fresh out of the yard in Ms 21, look at the October 1942 view of Duncan I posted a page or two back. Here are a couple of views of Fletchers where I was looking for views of these ships in the 80-G series. Both of these images have been published before.

I know that the view of Sigsbee (DD-502) was taken in June 1944 based on her War Diary entries as to when she operated with and was refueled by the ship taking the photo. I had wanted to date this view and took the extra effort to go into her War Diary. The view of Ringgold (DD-500), I think was taken at the same time (that could be Sigsbee coming up behind Ringgold). I didn't dig into Ringgold's War Diary, but she operated with Sigsbee at the time and the set-up and weather conditions look similar.

Ringgold looks to be in better shape than Sigsbee. Sigsbee had an overhaul at Pearl Harbor December 1943 into January 1944, so this could reflect about five-six months of wear and tear. In either case the accessible superstructure is in pretty good shape.

Also, as you can guess, wave action would wet and/or leave salt or wear the paint. I can't tell you what is the best way to model your ship. I have seen guys use washes to good effect and even efforts to "model" peeling/scraped away paint.

I found an old National Geographic article from, 1944 that has some color pictures, but none showing worn MS 21. Maybe someday more color pics will show up! Edited to add: I think I may try a technique I recently used to weather a 1/35 German Panzer IV that was all over Panzer grey, coupled with another I saw in an old issue of Scale Auto enthusiast to make junked cars. The first is the fairly common technique of painting sub assemblies slightly different shades of the base color, the second would be to paint parts of the hull in the previous scheme and then dabble rubber cement on and after the top layer of paint is applied pull off the rubber cement using tape leaving the previous area the base color. In 1/350 though it would have to be much more subtle than on a Panzer or 1/25 car. I guess partice on scrap would be in order. I do know I have sure been enjoying this project and reading all the threads here!

Thanks

Rob

That might be a way to go, I am going to try a modified method for paint chipping. I read an airplane article where the builder wanted to show heavy weather on his plane, he painted the first color silver to replicate the aluminum skin, then after he painted the color called for he sprinkled rock salt in the wet paint and let it dry. When the paint was dry he brushed the rock salt away leaving a random pattern of paint flakes and it worked out very well. I am going to try it for areas like the bow only instead of rock salt I am going to try a salt grinder, not a fine as table salt but it might be a little more in scale than rock salt. I am experimenting with different airbrushing techniques to achieve the look of faded or "chalking" 5-N to enhance the look of MS-21, along with MS-11 the most boring of the paint schemes used by the USN.


On a separate note, I inquired about the Aaron Ward's refit after damage sustained at Guadalcanal and Rick Davis posted some good shots showing what I thought was a unique refit but while doing some other research I came across a photo of the USS Farenholt in the same fit. At first I thought it was the Aaron Ward just mislabeled but after close examination the ship has flat sided funnels so it could not be the Aaron Ward. If you look closely you can even make out "491" on the bow, were any other ships of this class given the same treatment?


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

At least four others had something similar, for a time. DD's 602, 607, 608, and 619.

Dick is right about the four listed units that had a similar looking configuration/appearance. But, none of these had a true walk-around to the bridge like Aaron Ward and Farenholt.

There were several "oddballs" in the Benson-Gleaves family. In some ways ... being oddball with these ships is normal.

DD-422 Mayo had a prototype walk-around installed on her bridge in October 1941 and retained it through the war.

Pearl Harbor Navy Yard seemed to have a track record of following the "legal" configuration as far as authorized armament goes, but not in the way intended by BuShips. They modified several destroyers in the Benson-Gleaves and Fletcher class to unique configurations in early 1943.


DD-483 Aaron Ward (Gleaves) had an elevated centerline 20-mm platform with a shelter-house below the platform. The platform also served as a walk-around for the navigation bridge.
DD-487 Lardner (Gleaves) also had an elevated centerline platform with a shelter-house below the platform, except the platform did not have a walk-around connection to the navigation bridge.
DD-491 Farenholt (Benson) same as Aaron Ward with a different style of platform that stepped down from the navigation bridge level.

Lardner (DD-487)


Pearl Harbor could have modified other units with "mock" walk-around bridges, I just have not found photos of them.

The units in DesDiv 27 (DD-602, 607, 608, and 619) were all modified to a similar configuration at Puget Sound Navy Yard in September 1943. The strange part is they were three Benson class units built at two different yards and one Square bridge Gleaves. They had an elevated centerline platform for a 20-mm gun over a smaller a shelter-house than the Pearl Harbor modified units, that was faired into BUT NOT open to the navigation bridge. Because Edwards was a Square bridge unit, she didn't have bridge wing 20-mm guns, so this pair of 20-mm guns were added amidships.

Frazier (DD-607) and Meade (DD-602)


Edwards (DD-619) and Gansevoort (DD-608)


Gansevoort (DD-608) show that there was no opening to the navigation bridge.

This is great stuff, when I was a kid I so wanted to join the Navy and serve on destroyers and have kept my love of them so this is just neat info to me. Even though I'm a squadron guy who has only sailed on carriers for the past 20+ years I have yet to build a flat top, (though I do mostly planes and tanks) only destroyers and a couple cruisers as far as ships!

Rob

I just watched 'The Caine Mutiny' again and I am wondering about the layout of the ship. The ship DMS 18 in the movie appears to be very similar to a Benson/Gleaves class destroyer. Where in the ship is the space that the officers meet with the large green covered table. And when the Captain leaves and climbs the stairs where does he go? Where is the officers mess?

Thanks!

_________________
Timm Smith
Learn something new about the ship or your job every day. Ignorance is not bliss aboard a warship in wartime. Ignorance could cost the life of yourself, a shipmate, or the loss of the ship.
- Personal Information Booklet CV- 38

Timm, the green table was in the officers wardroom that was located on the main deck level below the forward superstructure
aprroximately below mount 52. The ladder from the wardroom
led up to the captain's stateroom. The complete plans for the
a Benson Class DD in PDF format can be found at :http://www.hnsa.org/doc/Index.htm
Click on destroyer.

Jim aka snipechief

Hi to all

Would the forthcoming USS Livermore kit be the best of the Dragon Benson/Gleaves kits to use as a basis for USS Kearny at the time she was torpedoed in October 41?

thanks

Steve

I have a question about the portholes on the hull sides on the Dragon Buchanan kit. for a Solomons campaign Lansdowne, should they be filled?
Rob

Yes, but you will need some 50 cal guns and need to fabricate 4 more gun tubs for the aft superstructure and two for the top of the bridge. See attached.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com

Yes. Check out her Navsource page;you can see that they weren't present.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

That's what I though I was just making sure I didn't have poor picture quality on my monitor that kept me from seeing them. Thanks!
Rob

Rob,

It appears that all of the Federal built Gleaves class destroyers from Aaron Ward (DD-483) on were built without hull portholes. It appears that they were not built with them installed, not just plated over. The repeat Gleaves class units that Federal built before these ships (DD453-456), had at least some portholes installed.

Ahhhhhh let the filling and sanding begin!
Rob

Good morning,

they had portholes! There exists a photo of Aaron Ward along with Buchanan on the slipway, with clearly visible portholes. I asked Timothy Dike about this and he said they where plated over before they went to the Pacific.But take care , I prepare the build of Buchanan in her 44 refit and it seems that a few portholes where opened again ( Warship Pictorial ) . There is a foto of Buchanan on the day of japanese surrender with some visible portholes too.

Best regards

Marc

Both Aaron Ward and Buchanan had all portholes plated over in 42-43. In 44 Buchanan had at least one port hole opened back up. Some of Buchanans twin sisters didn't seem to have any portholes ever opened up. Other ships such as Laffey clearly show that she kept her portholes open. So consult photos of the ship you want to model before you fill or drill.

_________________
Timothy Dike
Owner & Administrator
ModelWarships.com