Destroyers for Bases -- ** DNF **

For equipment under the Allied Lend-Lease programs of WW2.
Runs December 1st to January 12th.
GB Leaders: lancfan, justin1980
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Destroyers for Bases -- ** DNF **

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

HMS Campbeltown, Atlantic Escort


The predecessor to, and template for, Lend-Lease, was the Destroyers for Bases agreement of September 1940, which transferred 50 Wickes-class destroyers to Britain and Canada in exchange for access to bases. I'll not go into those details.

The USN's Wickes-class flush-deck, four-piper destroyers were designed for WW1; many were put in reserve after that but reconditioned prior to WW2 to fill the need for small local patrol ships. At least two of the Wickes-class would go on to earn fame in WW2 -- the USS Ward for firing the first shot of the Pacific War sinking a Japanese mini-sub off the entrance to Pearl Harbor, and HMS Campbeltown (ex USS Buchanan) for blowing the docks at St Nazaire during Operation Chariot.

The 13th ship transferred under Destroyers for Bases was USS Buchanan (DD-131), launched and commissioned in 1919. She was decommissioned in 1922, recommissioned in 1930 and spent 7 years in the Pacific before being decommissioned again for 2 years. Brought back again 1939 she ended up on Neutrality Patrol and other duties off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. She was handed over to the Royal Navy in September 1940 in Halifax, renamed HMS Campbeltown, part of the Town-class. She worked as an escort in the Atlantic and the Western Approaches before being selected, in early 1942, for Operation Chariot, the raid on St Nazaire.


I have already built Campbeltown at St Nazaire, this model will reflect Cambeltown on escort duty.


Here is the basic kit, Mirage Hobby's #40607 - 1/400 HMS Montgomery ca late 1942 -- and the box from my previous build of Campbeltown.

Image


Montgomery reflects a typical flush-decker in RN service, but not Campbeltown. Nonetheless, Mirage Hobby has I think 5 of these Wickes-class kits, all based on the USS Ward and including extra, different sprues to make whatever specific model is desired. That leaves lots of extra parts when done as seen below.

Image


Here are the obligatory sprue shots.

Image

Image


Here is some photo-etch from Gold Medal Models (generic 1/400 and USS Ward) and White Ensign.

Image

Image


Here is the primary reference for the build.

Image


And here are others of interest, but not used here.

Image

Image

Image

Image


As noted above, the AOTS book is my primary reference -- it has drawings for Buchanan (as-built and prior to transfer) and for Campbeltown (on initial refit and for Operation Chariot), but the most complete are the first and last. There is commentary in the text about additional changes to Campbeltown not shown in the drawings -- whether these were during scheduled refit or during repairs from collisions is hard to tell. Also fogging the picture is that she may have been allocated to the Dutch Navy for a short period.

Anyway, Montgomery is not Campbeltown and will have to be retrofitted; this is not unusual as many Town-class were unique. Unlike all other Town-class destroyers, only Campbeltown's 4th (rear) stack was shortened. The main armament would be three 4in/50, one 12pdr HA, two triple-torp tubes, a single DC thrower on each side, and two 20mm guns mounted mid-41 or later.

I have no pix or drawings of the 20mm mounts and do not know the precise configuration or location. The AOTS says "… fitted in pedestal mounted, octagonal tubs arranged en echelon just forward of the aft deckhouse." Frankly these sound more like the arrangement of the aft position for Operation Chariot than for Montgomery, which has two-squarish tubs mounted well forward. I shall have to ponder this, I've about exhausted my researches into it.


So, here we are. Wifey and I are going on "vacation" the 1st week of December, so this is up as a placeholder. I will be taking a few models along -- it is a "vacation" after all, and will try to get some work done in that week. The rub is that I have certain fixed "ways" I work on ships and traveling workshops isn't one of them -- this is further complicated by the Western Approaches paint scheme and me not taking many paints along.

The good news about this GB is that one of my "projects" is to do a half-dozen of these ships, so my next one will be USS Buchanan at transfer, then as-built, giving me a history of one ship in four periods. I have a couple other ideas for others.
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

Update:

I forgot this one, it wasn't on the shelf where it should have been. It's a good flush-deck ref, but not for Campbeltown. It does however have a number of photos of Montgomery at various times and configurations, and a good scale drawing of a 1943 configuration. A good reference if you build the Mirage Hobby HMS Montgomery. It's also a good reference on USN camo schemes worn by flush-deckers, although not for British/Canadian ones.

Image
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
lancfan
Avro's Rivet Rhapsodizer
Posts: 8755
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 3:55 pm
Location: Nelson, Lancashire

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by lancfan »

Thats looks like a very good kit John but I don't envy you all that PE :shock:

David.
David.

If you forget the past, you may lose the future.
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

lancfan wrote:Thats looks like a very good kit John but I don't envy you all that PE :shock:

David.
Fear not, very little will be used. The large set is a generic 1/400 scale naval set more useful for railings and ladders than anything because it has a lot of modern vessels. The other two "flush-deck" sets contain many parts not needed for this particular build.
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases - ** DNF **

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

One problem with this kit stems from the flush-deckers themselves, being long and narrow, shallow draft, sleek. The kit has a two-part hull, but if you attempt to glue it together first you will then find it too narrow at deck level and that the decks do not fit inside (enabling one to pry/wedge them in) but lay on top.

The trick is to tape the two hull halves together, with the two deck pieces fitted and taped on, then run a bead of 'hot' glue, like Tenax, along the hull to hold it together. That pretty much makes sure of the correct fit.

Image

Image

That having dried, I took the decks off and further reinforced the hull join from the inside. Tomorrow the decks get glued on and we can begin real work.

As I am not at home, I don't have all my toys with me. I have not made a proper work stand to hold the hull, but then I do not expect to be fitting delicate stuff this week so it can roll around if it wants. I decided to not drill out the port holes as I usually do; I didn't feel like doing it and I'm thinking of a different effect to try. Last, I haven't remade the prop shafts with brass shafts, etc, so that will wait until I get home and then I can do some hull painting. I'm a bit out of sequence here.

OTOH, I have taken a good look through the AOTS and have gone through the kit to annotate what will be used and what will not, or rather, what will come from a different MH boxing, at least as far as superstructure goes. I'll point these out as I go.
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
ShaunW
NOT the sheep
Posts: 26118
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 6:11 pm
Location: Pontefract West Yorkshire

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by ShaunW »

Now this is something different and though I'm not a ship modeller, two things primarily make me think of lend-lease - ships and tanks, not aircraft for some odd reason. I can learn something about flush deck destroyers then as I know nothing and have never even heard the expression - I have of course heard of the famous Campbeltown and the St Nazaire action.

This looks like it will be a very involved build and there is a lot of patience testing PE there - best of luck.
Doing - Tamiya 1/35th Universal Carrier.

Work is the curse of the modelling classes!
IPMS#12300
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

A few days working on & off and here we are.

Image

I have had the Montgomery instructions, the AOTS book, and a pile of different kit parts to play in. From that, I have created what I believe to be much of HMS Cambeltown on Atlantic convoy duty. While the basis for the plastic is the Montgomery kit, I have made numerous modifications to create the much-earlier Campbeltown configuration.

The aft deckhouse is now correct. Several markings, fittings, etc, on the decks have been removed. The bridge is correct but not yet complete, I have a bit more study to do. The midship deckhouse is likewise now correct, but not yet complete - there is some question of the exact configuration of the forward part of it. The funnels are correct and reflect the unique Campbeltown configuration of 3 standard and the last one shorter - others had all but the front one cut down.

The next week will be spent putting little bitts & bollards & lockers & hatches & thingies on the decks, you can see some photoetch watertight doors already, plus finishing up the superstructure. Then I can get down to basic painting before I start adding smaller details, photoetch, etc.

I am pleased with my progress and I really like these Mirage Hobby kits.
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
AndrewR
In the basement lab
Posts: 23913
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 4:13 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, The Great White North
Contact:

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by AndrewR »

Some very painstaking work there John :)
In marked contrast to my own build... :-D

Cheers

Andrew
Up in the Great White North
ShaunW
NOT the sheep
Posts: 26118
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 6:11 pm
Location: Pontefract West Yorkshire

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by ShaunW »

Great work John and yes, very painstaking. I'm looking forward to seeing this one evolve.
Doing - Tamiya 1/35th Universal Carrier.

Work is the curse of the modelling classes!
IPMS#12300
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

Nothing has happend since Friday, except I researched some of the strucrural changes and know where to go from here.

I plan to get some work done tomorrow and hopefully can continue that ....
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
jssel
Still crazy after all these years
Posts: 11975
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by jssel »

I have not tackled a ship model before. Watching with interest. It all looks so easy :ha:
Besting 60 years of mediocre building of average kits in the stand off scale
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

Well, what little I have done at the bench has been on Campbeltown.


Image

Image

I'm about done putzing around on the deck and structures. Stacks are up, with steam pipes, and covers. I have populated the deck with raised access doors, and various stowage boxes, to include the refrigerator. The aft deckhouse has details. The white rings on the deck are for the two torpedo mounts retained. The bridge is close to done, the white strips at the back are flag boxes. I've thrown a quick coat of paint inside the bridge so I can close it up - it will have glassed windows.

About all I need to do is get the signal bridge mounted, do the prop shafts, and propeller guards -- that'll mean I can start to paint this much and start some pre-assembly of details.

I've been back & forth through my refs, finding inconsistencies and gotten hung up on some of them which is why this drug out.

Anyway, progress is being made ….
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
ShaunW
NOT the sheep
Posts: 26118
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 6:11 pm
Location: Pontefract West Yorkshire

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by ShaunW »

That looks really rather good John. Getting hung up on inconsistencies etc is the story of my modelling life at the moment :grin:
Doing - Tamiya 1/35th Universal Carrier.

Work is the curse of the modelling classes!
IPMS#12300
User avatar
JohnRatzenberger
Why is he so confused ?
Posts: 15708
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 3:42 pm
Location: Living on a sandbar - Nags Head, NC.

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by JohnRatzenberger »

Just a little work today. I got the new prop shafts made and mounted. Mirage tries really hard to get thin, scale parts, and does, but they are fragile. Both prop shafts broke taking them off the sprue, which isn't all that bad, as I usually, and did, replace plastic shafts with metal. I got the signal bridge on. I laid out where the boats will go, relocated one torpedo mount and added bitts/etc accordingly.

I did forget the propellor guards, other than that it is time to paint. I spent about an hour trying to determine the correct scheme and colors. I have a 1943 Admiralty manual, but that is too late for Campbeltown, so I had to back search some other things. The ship was in a two-tone Western Approaches scheme -- white with light sea blue 'splinters'. I think I'm ready and have al the WEM paints on hand that I require. One good thing I found is that smaller craft, destroyers and down, usually did noit have a boot stripe, well they had one but it was overpainted in camo colors - that's one less masking.
John Ratzenberger :???:
It's my model and I'll do what I want with it.
User avatar
AndrewR
In the basement lab
Posts: 23913
Joined: April 5th, 2011, 4:13 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, The Great White North
Contact:

Re: Destroyers for Bases

Post by AndrewR »

ShaunW wrote:That looks really rather good John. Getting hung up on inconsistencies etc is the story of my modelling life at the moment :grin:
Full ahead, and damn the torpedoes... :)
Up in the Great White North
Locked

Return to “The Lend-Lease Equipment GB”