The Ship Model Forum

Rick,

Exactly what I needed. Many thanks, and have a great 4th of July.

Mike Cavel

(Copied from the Calling all USS Benson/Gleaves class (DD) fans section)




A "brief" history might help. 16 ships (the Mahan class) were ordered for 1934. They had 5 guns which, because they were pedestal mounts, could not be fully enclosed - the ammo hoists were in nearby structure rather than internal to the mounts, and 3 quad tube banks. 12 ships were ordered for 1935. Two were modified Mahan's, (the Dunlap's) which replaced only the bow guns with base-ring mounts which incorporated the ammo hoists. Therefore they could be fully enclosed. That allowed the gun crew shelter of the Mahan's to be deleted. Additionally, the foremast was a pole rather than a tripod and the mainmast was deleted. The other 10 ships (ordered at the same time so they were NOT follow-ons to the Dunlap's) were to have only 4 guns and 4 quad banks of tubes. All of the ships mentioned so far had 4 boilers. The Mahan's and Dunlap's had 2 stacks. The Bagley's essentially trunked the two stacks into one which shows in the base of the stack where there are a forward and after pair of uptakes. This is why the trunking is so high up in this class. With the elimination of the #3 gun of the previous class, there was enough weight and space on the main deck for the 4 banks of tubes. Like the parallel Dunlap's, the forward guns were base-ring types and fully enclosed. However, since the Navy was paying big bonuses for speeds in excess of the contract specifications, Bethlehem asked for, and was granted, permission to build their two ships to a separate design. They made the hull lighter and increased the power and got their bonuses. So the 1935 ships were 2 Dunlap's, 8 Bagley's, and 2 Gridley's. For 1936, again 12 ships were ordered. Bethlehem got the contract for two of them and so repeated their Gridley design. The 10 Benham's had a new, higher power, engineering plant. But they also switched from 4 boilers to 3 more powerful boilers, making the trunking easier to do. An additional change was that on the Benham's, all 4 guns were the base-ring type, even though the after guns were left open. The 16 Mahan's all had the open-topped version of the MK-33 director. All 24 ships of the 1935 and 1936 groups had the fully enclosed type.

Now for the visual differences. The Bagley stack was symmetrical and as I previously mentioned, essentially trunked the two stacks of the Dunlap design into a single stack, all above the main deck level. The air intakes were under the base between the forward and after pairs of uptakes. A small deckhouse was under the center part. There was also a small structure, probably an air intake, at the very after end of the trunking. The Gridley stack was asymmetrical with the #1 and #4 boiler uptakes to starboard and #2 and #3 to port. So the starboard trunking had a long stretch between the two and the port side had very little between the two. The upper part of the stack was narrower than on the Bagley's but a bit longer fore-and-aft. The 4 air intakes were the curved-bell type (what you see Indiana Jones peaking out of in Raiders of the Lost Ark) and were positioned opposite their respective uptakes. (#1 and #4 to port and #2 and #3 to starboard) There was a small deckhouse at the after end of the stack forward of the tubes. The uptakes for the Benham's were again symmetrical, but because there were only 3 boilers, they joined at a much lower level. The transition to the slimmer oval funnel was the classic Gibbs and Cox design seen on the parallel leaders (Somers class) and the subsequent Gleaves, Fletcher, Sumner, and Gearing classes. The Benham's also had a somewhat larger deckhouse immediately aft of the stack. One minor bridge difference was that on the Gridley's, the wind baffles on the wings were on both the front face and the sides of the wings, like on the earlier Mahan's. On the others, they were only on the front face. Of the 10 Benham's, the first three had different air intakes on the deckhouse between the tubes than the last 7 did.

All received 20MM early in the war. The surviving Bagley's were able to add one twin 40MM mount on the after deckhouse superfiring over the #3 5" gun without deleting any tubes or guns. The lighter construction of the Gridley's began to tell after 2 years of hard war service when cracks started appearing in the main deck around the stack. Presumably, the weight of the repair/reinforcement ate up all the stability reserves, because the Gridley's never mounted 40MM, even after the removal of half the tubes. 2 of the 10 Benham's were in the Pacific and the rest in the Atlantic when the war broke out. The Atlantic units deleted the 2 after sets of tubes to increase the depth charge load and to enclose the after two 5" guns - otherwise they would ice up in the winter-time North Atlantic storms. (Full shield on #4, half shield on #3.) The four that transferred back to the Pacific in 1942 retained their Atlantic fit until their first Pacific refit or repair, when the shields on the after guns were again removed. The surviving Pacific unit lost the after tubes when 40MM were added.

The Midships kits are kind of a mixed bag. They had only one type of stack for the Bagley's and Gridley's, mixing features of the two. So neither is quite right, but it is much closer to the Bagley type. The Benham stack also has issues. The after armament is shifted too far forward so the tubes are all jammed up together without sufficient room to rotate properly. The after guns and deckhouse need to be moved aft to un-jam things.

I hope this helps.

I have not yet finished the entire thread yet.

But it seems my celebration of scoring these kits is a bit premature and a mixed-bag.

Yes, the kits' details are astonishing.

But you would think that the "idiots" at Midship would have done a bit better research if they would going to put in the CAD work (to be fair, working in CAD is 1000's of times faster than previous methods of creating model masters, or cutting molds). I know that this is what is holding me back.

My basic ship vocabulary needs to be updated to modern ships (as it is basically based upon sailing era warships of the 18th - 19th centuries (prior to The ACW). I can recognize a few terms, and guess what a few others are, and even if I know what the words mean, I have no image in my head for a specific thing to go with it.

The fit issues are most disappointing to hear about, given the difficulty of fixing some of them (gun rotation, specifically).

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

If part of your terminology reference is concerning "pedestal" vs "base ring" mounts for the 5", here is a brief explanation. A pedestal mount is basically mounted on a single, central post or bearing, much like the old kids merry-go-rounds. Because it was a simple post, there is no way to run a hoist or anything else through the center because that is the main support for the mount. This has obvious implications for the amount of weight that can be supported by such a small structure. Similarly, the MK-28 and MK-33 directors were supported on a single, central post and suffered the same limitations for weight growth. On a base ring type, the weight is supported on a wider ring, allowing more weight to be carried. Not only was the weight better distributed, but there was a much higher mechanical advantage in the lever action caused by firing the guns, greatly reducing stress. Also, the center of the ring can be hollow allowing shell hoists to be extended below the mount into a lower handling room. There were some versions of the base ring type without hoists, as in the models used to arm some of the merchant ships, but most had the hoists.

MatthewB

Here was my "quick and dirty" take on the Midship model destroyers for what it's worth.

http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=153097

Also, some notes I made for another frustrated destroyer builder, again, for what it's worth.

Hull – Typically, the bow curves aft where it meets the waterline like a Japanese destroyer. This should be a straight line and can be easily fixed with a small piece of styrene and some thick superglue as filler. Allow to dry and sand to the correct shape.

Forward Superstructure – The proportions appear incorrect. The forward 5” mount is too far forward and the superstructure extends too far forward. Remove the gun mount base and the superstructure locating ridges. The aft bulkhead of the superstructure (Parts A27 & A28) should align with the aft bulkhead of the structure on the main deck aft of the forecastle break. There should be a walkway around this as well. Thick card (such as 3 X 5 index cards) or thin plastic sheet works fine. Cut a rectangular piece effectively extending the forecastle deck aft. This also provides a deck to mount the rear portion of the forward deckhouse. If photo-etched details are used, there will be railings and ladders down to the main deck here. With a good broadside photo or drawing, use a pair of dividers to establish the deckhouse length relative to the forecastle deck length. It varies among the classes but seems to be 50% or less. I definitely shortened the Dunlap deckhouse but can’t remember if I did the same with the Bagleys (very similar to the Gridleys) or if simply getting the aft alignment right worked. Once the forward deckhouse is located, you can locate the #1 5” mount (by eye). The next issue is the pilothouse/bridge structure (Parts A31 & A32) is also too far forward. There is considerable open space between the bridge structure and the #2 5” mount on the actual ship but MidShip has this area very close. Remove the mounting ridges from the deckhouse deck (but wait, as they say, read further). Again, look at your photos and drawings and see where the bridge structure is relative to the forecastle break. MidShip would have it entirely forward of the break but it appears to me to be further aft. I believe the aft bulkhead on each deck level should be directly above one another forming a straight vertical line on the Gridleys. Why wait before removing the mounting ridges? If you replace the deck with thinner stock this is a non-issue. Also notice the 20mm tubs appear too far forward, closer to the #2 5” mount rather than about halfway between the bridge superstructure and the 5’ mount. If you remake the deck (Part A26) you can correct this easily and help with the height issue as well. A new deck (Part A39) for the pilot house isn’t a bad idea either. All the MidShip variants have a solid bulwark aft where it should be pipe railing with flag bags.

I suspect the biggest issue will be the stack. The MidShip Gridley instructions would have you use the stack for a Bagley which is clearly incorrect. You’ll have to decide how close the options are (I’ve been working on one out of brass tube and styrene for the Benhams for a while now).

The space for the four torpedo tubes and the aft deckhouse (Part A29 & A30) is very tight. It’s worth laying this out carefully before gluing anything. I think I remember the aft deckhouse as being too far aft making the space between the #4 5” mount and the depth charge racks too close. If you’ve replaced the forward superstructure deck(s), you may replace (Part A15) as well.

I’m not a fan of most of the detail parts provided but that’s just me. You know what you like and I don’t. Use the (detail) parts you’re most comfortable with.

Good luck with your efforts,

Mac

The Pedestal v Ring Mount I basically understood, from looking the Midship kits, where I looked at the construction of the turrets, and said to myself "How did they get ammo to this thing?"

So, I sort of inferred what was being discussed.

What I am not seeing in my head is a "Crew Shelter."

Is that just the enclosure of a turret that is on a pedestal?

What does it have to do with an Ammo Hoist?

More questions to follow later (The Midship builds are a ways off, save for one that I can build "as is" - whichever destroyer build requires the least correction), as I begin to look into the various different kits.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

If I took a picture of a hull, could you annotate it to show me what you mean?




Again... I am pretty sure that I understand this one (could probably figure it out), but if I took pictures of the forward deck and superstructure, could you annotate it to illustrate what needs to be done?




And, here is where I begin to suffer from terminology.

By the "forecastle" do you mean the raised deck of the bow?

And what is a "forecastle break?"

I know what a forecastle is on a Napoleonic Ship (which typically did not have them), And assuming it is the same thing on a Destroyer, then what is the "break?"

Also, I can't identify a bulkhead on one of these.

I know what a Bulkhead is (Structural divider of a ship's hull, dividing the hull into longitudinal compartments with a latitudinal structural "wall").... So... I need a map.



This has to do with the forward superstructure being too far forward?



Signal flag bags?



OK, now we are somewhere that I know something about (Stacks/funnels).

I know that some of these destroyers had an oval funnel, and some have a flat-sided, rounded-rectangular cross-section. And one seems to have a rounded rectangular, but the sides are slightly pushed in (concave inward).

I can make a stack for any of them in about 20 minutes on CAD to have 3D printed for around $15 (I will need to check the price depending upon material).

But with one printed (or, parts printed for one), then I can get molds made of it pretty easily).

I would just need a reference photo to work from, and some hard dimensions.

If this is an issue, then it is something I would really like to do, as I am having some issues right now that have made it difficult to do my normal work, and something to make it seem like I am being productive would be welcome.




Thanks very much for this rundown. If I get the kit out, then read this with the parts in from of me, then it will probably make more sense.

I have gone through the thread enough to see the walkways (catwalks) around the stacks (can't recall if they were to port or starboard, but that is easy to find out by just going back through the thread).

Also.

I have ungodly amounts of photo-manipulation, CAD, 3D Design, CGI, and Drafting software.

If I can get my head around the description here, I will try to get some photos of the kit to show specifically where these alterations need to be made.

I will just need some help in making sure that I have the right things shown.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

MatthewB

I will send PM.

Regards,

Mac

PS "Crew Shelter." Typically a three sided structure with a roof, much like many bus stop shelters. It was the small structure aft of the #2 5" mount and forward of the bridge on Mahan class destroyers. Not found on subsequent classes due to the change in gun mounts where the gun houses were larger and provided shelter for the crews.

If the mount was fully enclosed, it would shelter the crew, so no additional shelter was needed. However, on the open mounts and those with only a partial shield on the front of the mount (forward guns on Farragut and Mahan classes) some other place of refuge from severe weather was needed. On the Mahan's there was a structure attached to the front of the bridge for the crew of #2 gun, the forward end of the space underneath mount #2 was shelter for the crew of #1, the structure between #3 and #4 sheltered those crews and#5 crew in the space below #4. Because this was vertical structure adjacent to the guns, these structures were convenient places to locate the ammo hoists. The hoists would be at the point closest to the gun while shelter would be behind that. Some of the crew shelters had to be eliminated to compensate for the wartime AA increases. But some shelters, like the forward ones on the Mahan's survived.

Aha!

OK.... Now I can "see" what these things mean.

Frustratingly slow going today (stressing over two eBay Auctions I can't afford to spend the money on, yet can't afford to live without them - rather overly dramatic of me. One of them is the Salt Lake City I have been looking for, which would give me all of the ships to do the Battle of Cape Esperance. And the others will allow me to do the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.

But I already spend the $100-some odd on the Midship Destroyers, when I will need just as much for these last four ships.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

OK... I have assembled some photos of what I THINK is the issue with the stack on the Benham (and a few other destroyers in the 1,500 ton class(es)).

Here is an image of the USS Sterett, a Benham class destroyer stack showing the cross-section:



The Midship kit contains parts B33 & B34 that make this cross-section. And they go with part B35 for the base.

BUT....

Here is an image for the same kit Midship makes (USS Stack DD-406), specifically of the part I will soon reference (the trunk*)


The Midship kit goes not seem to have this part. *The Trunk that joins the rectangular base of the stack with the elliptical top portion of the "USS Stack's stack" itself.

It looks like it is missing this trunk that goes from the rectangular base to the cylindrical stack itself.

Also, I checked the height of their stack...

Guess what?!?!?!

It is too short by exactly the height of the trunk:


Here is the USS Stack


And here is their kit's side-view:


Notice their kit's stack doesn't even come up to the top of the wheelhouse.

Whereas IRL, the USS Stack's stack came up level with the fire-control turret/range-finder.

That is exactly the height of the trunk that is missing.

I am going to go ahead and do a 3D Model of that trunk, just in case that IS what is wrong with the kit.

I can have it finished by tomorrow morning (assuming I don't fall asleep, since it is almost 1am).

But it should only take me about an hour or two to get the part designed, and then it will probably take about 4 hours to print (assuming I use the high res printer - I have having to finish parts with a lot of filing).

Then.... I just need to find someone who can make a mold of it.

So... I HOPE that it is just that part.

If someone thinks it is something else, then please let me know.

Also... I have found a few pictures of Benhams that have a stack that is a flat-sided oval in shape, but they still have this rectangular-to-oval trunk-connector.

So... I can make a connector for each type.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Another issue with the Midships kit is that the trunk base is split into left and right strips as if the base was some sort of spider with small legs. The left and right parts of the uptakes merged shortly after emerging from the deck and so this structure should be mostly filled in below the part you are calling "the trunk". You can see that on the overhead photo of USS Stack that you just referenced. Also, what you are calling "the trunk" is what I referenced in my earlier post as being "the classic Gibbs and Cox design":



I am curious which ships those could be. The Benham's all had the oval stack seen in your overhead of USS Stack. If you are talking about DD-400 or DD-401, they were the second pair of Bethlehem ships and were Gridley's not Benham's.

Gotcha.

But isn't it pretty trivial to fill in that gap?

I cannot find any images of how it converges, and deck clutter seems to obscure the base of the stack.

So, If I can create a stack that incorporates these two things, then would that be the correct stack for the Benham?

I really want to get on with this, since it is such an easy digital build.



Oops... Yes...

So, then... I need to make one (the connector trunk) for these guys, too, since they also suffer from having too short a stack that lacks this part?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

The Gridley stack was far and away the most complex of the bunch. Neither Midships stack comes even close and it will take far more than a "connector trunk" to duplicate this. The structure below the "trunk" is not symmetrical and is hard to describe. Photos are difficult to decipher.

Contact me offline for some shots that help sort out the Benham stack base. dick_jensen_44@msn.com

I built the stack of USS Wilson and USS Ellet (both Benham class) like that:







I combined parts 7, 8, and 35.

USS Wilson
USS Ellet

_________________

But I thought we "agreed" that the Benham stacks had an elliptical (rounded) cross-section, and not the flat-sides oval cross section???

While the above "fix" does correct the height issues, as well as the base issues (although I thought there were still gaps in the port/starboard sides of the base trunk). It still leaves out the connection trunk between the rectangular surface of the base, and the oval (whether elliptical or flat-sided oval) cross-section of the upper-stack.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Hi Mathew,
you are right. The shape of the funnel of my models is wrong. I had not noticed that when I made them. Also the base is not correct. I had difficulties finding photos of the ships I had built, especially Ellet. Ellet should be in the fit she was during the Doolittle Raid, Wilson during Savo Island.

Cheers,
Lars

_________________

Gentlemen,

This was my first attempt at a Benham from the Midships kit.

The recent discussion spurred me to another stack attempt here.

Best Regards,

Mac

That looks good!

_________________

I'll second that!!




Bob Pink.