The Ship Model Forum

With the looming release of Trumpeter's 1/350th USS England, I figure it's a good time to start a thread for this class of ship. Let's talk about both the US and RN ships of this class.

Informational Links:
* Wikipedia Article on US Buckley Class ships
* Wikipedia List of RN Buckley Class (I.E. Captain Class) ships
* Shipcamouflage.com Buckley Class Camouflage Measure List
* USS England DE-635 Site

Buckley Class Gallery:
1/240th Revell:
* Somyot Khuptawathin Buckley Class (no hull number
* Chris Plum's USS Buckley DE-51

1/700 Pit Road
* Anyone?

Books
Anatomy of the Ship: The Destroyer Escort England by Al Ross
The Buckley Class Destroyer Escorts by Bruce Hampton Franklin
Destroyer Escorts of WWII by Davis/Shadell/Walkowiak (Warship's Data Special)
Destroyer Escorts in Action by Al Adcock (Squadron)

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Which can be easily converted to a J.C. Butler class DE...Just have to find a couple 5´ , from the spares box....

.

I plan to build the Buckley Class, USS Fogg DER-57. Upgraded after being hit by German accoustic torpedo in stern. Rearmed with 2, single 5" DP 38's in #1 and stern mount. Quad 40mm Bofor in x-position. Single 40's on bridge. Hedgehogs moved up 1 level where #2, 3" 50 cal was located. Six 20mm's amidships. No cut down of bridge needed like Ruderow and Butler. Painted MS-22. I am not the greatest modeler, but I think I can do this one. Several of England's crew were transferred to Fogg to accumulate points needed to be discharged. Regularly sailed from Casco Maine to Gitmo until points were accrued for discharge. Fogg participated in ASW training in the Carribean until decommissioning 27OCT47. If you built Tamiya's Fletcher you have the parts for the conversion.

_________________
Buckley

Trumpeter's England. Picture on box is England sailing up Delaware River to off load ammo at Ft. Mifflin prior to entering Philly Navy Yard for conversion to APD-41. The correct measures for England are as follows;
MS-21 8/19/43-8/26/43 Bethlehem Steel San Francisco prior to launch
MS-32 5/11/44-5/17/44 Manus, dry dock under availability
MS-11 1/9/45-1/12/45 Ulithi, painted solid color by hand using rags, rollers, brushes while riding at anchor in harbor.
MS13/14 6/25/45-6/29/45 San Diego again painted by hand while docked by order of Port Capt. to hide battle damage. I know the last 2 MS's do not follow Navy doctrine and are wrong for the time frames, but crew did the best they could under the circumstances using paint available. Engineers declared England TCL, total constructive loss. Decomissioned 1445 hours, 15OCT45. Sent to breakers 2 months later. Hope this helps. Sorry, it was MS-32 at Manus.

I apologize. The picture on the box is an excellent painting of her at sea. It is not the original graphic on the box, that Trumpeter used in announcing the release. The original box picture in the pre-release form can be viewed on England's web site. Click on Pictures 1944, third picture down. This is the picture I saw on the original release.

_________________
Buckley

TSM-5305 1/350 USS England DE635 Destroyer
Hobby Link Japan lists it for a July release, but keep in mind that dates can slip and that we see stuff AFTER it comes out in Japan!

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Does anyone have any specific info on USS Manning (DE-199)? That's the one I've decided to build because I dig her MS 32 scheme. I've got full broadside shots of her port and starboard and camo design sheets. I haven't dug into her too much but it looks as if she's the same fit as the England depicted in the kit.

-Devin

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley

My camera's in canada with the wife right now so no pictures from me. I'd meant to post some of my comments from another thread into this one but hadn't got around to it.

So here we go:

Kit generally is very nice. Fit is decent but a bit fiddley in some areas, and you will benefit by sanding down part edges and part bacl/undersides where the knocking pins are as in some cases flash will hinder good fit.

Detail is a tad inconsistant; the arbors for the K-guns (curved plates on poles the depth charges were mounted on to for launching) are oversized yet the ladders on the sides of the superstructure are virtually invisible. Overall though, it looks really nice pieced together.

Now, a couple of detail quibbles for people building England herself. The searchlight platforms on the bridge level did not have splinter shields; they were canvas covering two-bar railings from that point aft as you can see in this picture (NHC) of her forward superstructure following a kamikaze attack. Trumpeter molds this as a solid piece. For most modelers simply painting this a slightly different shade may suffice.

This photo also brings to light two other details tha this kit has incorrect (FOR ENGLAND; at least one is correct for many other Buckley class). First is the missing watertight door forward of the above mentioned platform. Second, notice the different shape of the structures outboard and aft of the 45 degree bulkhead (where the kill markings are painted).. the kit has the simple "half round" visible at the rear of this but is missing any of the details forward of them. I've got the Anatomy of the Ship book for England on order so hopefully I'll be able to say what this area looked like from above better soon.

Another comment on fit of the upper bridge area (aka flying bridge). The deck (piece A20) is a little undersized forward and there will be gaps. The aft bulkhead (A19) is a little oddly shaped at the outboat edges... do NOT attempt to true this up with a sanding stick or file as the upper portion is supposed to flare out slightly.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

I've only seen the one picture on her Navsource page but it looks almost out-of-the-box exact to the kit. The one caveat I can think of is the searchlight platforms; railings or splinter shields?

_________________
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 one of the photos I have of her. I got them both from this page (which has some cool photos that make me want a John C. Butler class DDE kit!).

It's so hard to tell from that photo, but if no one had told me they might not be splinter shields, I never would have doubted they were. Not great quality photos to be sure, but I can't make out any paint or lighting variations that would make me think canvas.

-Devin

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley

I ordered the kit, and I'll post some pics here as soon as I get it.

I'll probably do my kit in MS 21, I put MS 32/10d on my USS Boyd, and can't take ot anymore. I don't really want to model the USS England, but can't find any resources other than Navsource and Destroyer History. Any ideas? TIA

_________________
"It is best to remain silent and let others assume you are dumb than to speak up and remove all doubt"

http://nssavannah.wordpress.com/

Took a few photos of some work I did this evening.

First is a close-up shot of the bow of the waterline plate. I removed some of the raised portion that sets up inside of the hull as it was keeping the plate from mating flush with the hull. It took removal of more material than I thought it would, but all in all it was a five minute process.



The second photo just shows the mating of the hull to the waterline plate. The red is where the liquid cement seeped through the joint. I’ll be filling any gaps and sanding the hull smooth before doing some plating effects, so it’s not a concern.



The next two photos show the main deck laid into the hull. You can see that there is a minimal gap between the hull sides and deck. The hull sides also stand a bit proud of the deck, which actually works out well for leveling it all out - the thin sides sand easier than the entire surface of the deck. The only thing that is in the way of a smooth sanding of this area is the molded-on chocks. They look decent and if I can save them I will. I have some resin chocks around here, though, and I may use those.




The final shot just shows how the kit looks after 10 minutes worth of work.



-Devin

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley

Devin, thanks for the pictures you have posted. I also have the kit. I told myself that I would not start it until I have the GMM PE in hand. We will see if that happens.

Again thanks for the pictures, now I know what to look for when I start my kit.

Gordon

Hey Devin, you might not need to worry that much about the joint between the main deck and the hull sides; that was where the railings went, not the edge. So it'll serve as a handy guide and the railings will cover the joint most likely.

Here's about what two nights gets you:



Sorry for the poor lighting; my camera was with my wife up in Canada this weekend and by the time we got back from the airport the best lighting was in the bathroom =P

White rectangles in the deck are where I'm filling in the pits for the cable reels provided as I'm going to use those provided in the GMM set Loren will be working on soon.

I wound up cutting off most of the alignment lines on the underside of the midships superstructure deck as they messed up alignment slightly and I wanted a better fit.

By the way, for those that want to be first in teh gallery, no worries from me... I'll be waiting for the GMM set before I finish the thing, and I want to try and determine what England's dazzle scheme looked like at the time of her killer sub run. No documentation as to which pattern or measure she was on, just a grainy starboard side shot.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Good to know. I sort of suspected those superstructure alignment lines needed to go. That was a huge issue on their Essex kit; well intentioned, but they just don't work.

I want to keep this thing with as little after market as possible. A PE set, L'Arsenal balsa life rafts, figures, and maybe their 1.1" gun. I was going to replace the forward gun splinter with thin styrene or brass, but with it mounted it looks thin enough.

Oh! What do people plan on doing about those molded-on arbors? They just don't look right to me, so I'm sanding them off. I might scratch a few and replace them, but I'm unsure.

-Devin

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley

Hey Gordon; me too, I just know Loren's going to include cable reels and their base plate's not going to be ANYWHERE near as thick as Trumpeter's!

I'm probably going to leave the arbors on for this build. I thought about it quite a bit, and I think that yes, they are overscale, but with a VERY LIGHT wash they might not look so bad. If a PE set came with the actual plates I might think more about replacing them, but I don't think I could easily scratch build anything less overscale. Maybe just chisel off the tub portion and replace it with thinner rod.

I plan on doing at least three of these so the first one's going to be a little less mucked with. I'm going to put more effort into detailing and fixing the flying bridge.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

I found a picture of the railings I mentioned above... Navsource's DE-18 Gilmore page shows them on the sixth photo down (listed as #DE 18 1625 45 but another book source lists it as 19-N-80082) and you can see they're inboard a bit, right about where the deck seam is.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Tracy, nice photo of the railings. Actually I believe all ships had an inset like that. I know the ones I served on did - I specifically remember it because it was a pain in the @#$@*!! to paint that part of the deck.

I did very little tonight. Glued together the forward forward and main superstructure pieces.

First two shots show the main superstructure body snapped onto the main deck. Actually these locator lines on my kit are working perfectly. Who woulda' guessed? The rear bulkhead has some major gaps, though, as does the seam between the 01 level and the top of the bulkheads. The majority of the details in these areas are doors and those arbors, though, so I may end up sanding them smooth and then using PE to replace the detail.




The last photo for the evening shows the front of the forward superstructure. This piece fit amazingly well considering how bad the rear piece on the other assembly did. Almost no filling on this assembly will be required, and the join line with the deck is nearly invisible even without glue.



Not sure if I'll have much time to work on this tomorrow night. I have a writing deadline coming up and I have to concentrate on that.

-Devin

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley

ACtually, the main deck lines worked for me; it was the ones on the bottom of the deck above that I removed on the amidships superstructure. I had fit similar to yours until I did so and sanded down the glueing surfaces.

My forward superstructure fit fairly well; let me know how the deck piece fits on yours. I chose to glue the two halves, then the deck, then the forward piece... it left me with a .030" gap on one side

Could be completely my fault though. I was more concerned with the fit of the deck.

Here's a shot of my main deck with the reel alignment pukas filled in with sheet styrene. Note too the filled-in ring-shaped sink hole left from a massive knocking pin on the other side.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Did a little more research on K-guns and arbors tonight.
About 1/4 of the way down this page is a section on the Mk 9 depth charges that also talks about the K-guns and has a good photograph of empty mounts on the bulkhead of USS Inch DE-146 (Edsall Class). Given that they stockes some arbors at the actual K-gun I think I'm going to try my hand at scratch building some to see how they turn out.

I haven't found anything that lists the thickness of the arbor rod but a previous version of the Y-gun was 6 inches... which, if I divide by 350 gives me .017" or .020" rod since I don't feel like shaving off .003"

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

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

Ah, I see now. I needed those mounting strips on the 01 level deck because I couldn't figure out how the dang thing fit otherwise. Some of my issues with that rear bulkhead come from my use of sanding sticks, I'm always knocking parts out of square with those things. I really need to invest in a larger bodied and finer grained steel file set for such work.

What thickness of styrene did you find worked best to fill in those cable reel mounts? (You know, I really wish I had filled those things before attaching the deck).

And one thing to remember for the next build: glue on the main deck BEFORE the lower hull or waterline plate. The deck snaps in pretty snug, and then you can run liquid cement from below and inside the hull to cut down on any glue overflow or smudges on the top where they're visible.

-Devin

_________________
We like our history sanitized and theme-parked and self-congratulatory, not bloody and angry and unflattering. - Jonathan Yardley