Click on Image to Enlarge
________________________FULL RES__
Prior to that, she carried semi-shielded, prewar-type (surface engagement only) 5-inchers forward, on both main deck and 01-level (right, at left), plus a third, unshielded in a fantail tub (right, top-right) - as seen on Bibb 11/27/41 and circa-1943, respectively. Along with single, open-mount (DP - surface/AA) 3-inchers on the forward 02-level and aft in elevated tubs, port and starboard, this was remarkably heavy main armament: more than a Rudderow- plus Edsall-class DEs, combined (though of course with fewer smaller AAs). But never twin-5" turrets: these were only ever carried - again, during WWII - by the (only 255-foot) Owasco class - the kit box, in both artwork and text asserting: "One of the great fighting boats (sic) of World War II..." on its side-panel (not shown), is consistent with this class.
Of such disagreements between box art and contents are repop generic names like "Coast Guard Cutter" born - though I don't think this indicates mistaken art, but likely changes to the mold itself:
Click on Image to Enlarge
____FULL RES_____FULL RES_____
Regarding the bridge face, admittedly during WWII Bibb and most if not all her sisters did have it cut back substantially (see below) - but not all of it: above and below the viewports, prominent shielding remained, as a wind-deflector and open bridge wings, respectively. In fact, the appearance generally mimicked that of contemporary US cruisers - following much the same wartime evolution - with the Treasuries particularly resembling "mini-cruisers" just prior to- and early in WWII (right), as did WPG-32 Campbell (top-left) in May, 1940, WPG-34 Alexander Hamilton (top-right and right) on 12/27/41 and WPG-36 Spencer (bottom-left) in June, '42.
This earlier, full-bridge "mini-cruiser" look is already my favorite - as is their typical early- to mid-war fit, aft:
Click on Image to Enlarge
FULL RES
Still, for a while during early-to mid-WWII these ships were just crammed with "pointy bits" - far more striking than the mold's late/post-war depiction - and likewise for (at least) a few wartime paint schemes, already found:
Click on Image to Enlarge
___FULL RES__________FULL RES____
A light, low-contrast splinter-type pattern (right) - clearly evoking, if not duplicating exactly, an RN Western Approaches type of camouflage - is first seen on Spencer (top-right) in November, 1942 and the identical portside pattern on WPG-35 Ingham (bottom-right), in an undated wartime pic. And Duane, on 3/21/42 (right, at left-top and -bottom) exhibits what is undoubtedly the corresponding starboard-side pattern - or if not, then certainly "close enough", in pattern, tones and visual effect.
Only one example of later-war camouflage (so far) was found:
Click for FULL RES
Note she still carries open-mount 5-inchers - though it was in 1944 that the Treasuries began to lose these, in favor of the single-5" gunhouse(s) - and twin-40mms in lieu of the single-3-inchers - as depicted in the Hawk kit. And note it is only by now (and possibly in one or two examples above) that the bridge been cut back to (nearly) the boxy conn depicted in the Hawk kit - though the O2-level remains very short, and superstructure still massive, ahead of the pilothouse. And there is still a prominent wind-deflector strip along the "wing", as well as splinter shield, and deflector, atop the pilothouse. This fit - minus all the guns, in favor of the kit's (decent) 5-inch turret and (offensively lousy) twin-40mms - would be the easiest to build: essentially you would just have to chop off the extra 02-superstructure length.
However, in any case the kit will hardly look more than toylike without significant, additional detailing - in which case you might as well add back all the open-mount guns, and even slap a more cruiser-like bridge face back on there, while you're at it. Again, that would be my preference, at this point.
Either way, you can see how this little kit cold easily be upgraded - just like the Hawk LST - into something far more impressive than first meets the eye!
Cheers,
-Matty
Responses