BENSON/GLEAVES?-LIVERMORE?-BRISTOL? hist. summ. and questions .
January 2nd, 2009 From
>X-Authentication-Warning: ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu: mslrc owned process doing -bs
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:46:10 -0600 (CST)
>From: “Louis R. Coatney”
>X-Sender: mslrc@ecom4.ecn.bgu.edu
>To: consim-l@net.uni-c.dk
>cc: “‘mahan@microworks.net‘”
> “The Paper Modellers’ List”
> marhst-l@qucdn.queensu.ca, Mahan@microwrks.com,
> MilHst-L@ukanvm.cc.ukans.edu
>Subject: RE: BENSON/GLEAVES?-LIVERMORE?-BRISTOL? hist. summ. and questions .
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Reply-To: mahan@microworks.net
>
>On Fri, 5 Dec 1997, Francis.Timothy wrote:
> > I believe John Reilly’s book is pretty self-explanatory.
>
>I’ll check John again, when I can.
>
> > >As I noted, the previous one-stack SIMS class … of similar >
> > dimensions … seemed to have a superior armament. Why were there >
> > more BENSONs produced instead of SIMS?
> >
> > I don’t pretend to be an expert but a quick look in Friedman, and a
> > quick question of John Reilly, seems to indicate that:
> > a) the Sims were top heavy and overweight, a function of putting a lot
> > of stuff in the 1937 design.
>
>And, as I said, the BENSONs were topheavy too. See below.
>
> > b) they were heavily armed with guns and torpedo tubes with fleet combat
> > in mind–i.e. fleet support missions
> > c) the 1939 design Bensons, on the other hand, stressed depth charges
> > and automatic guns, reflecting a growing concern for convoy ASW and
> > defense from air attack–i.e. sea control missions
>
>But the SIMS had extensive ASW, and they had 40mm guns equalling BENSONs,
> too … with 3 more torpedo tubes, to boot. Did the BENSONs *two*
> (tall) stacks make them *more* topheavy? I think height is often
> overlooked as a de-stabilizing factor.
>
> > d) the latter destroyer was being built during the 1940-41 build-up of
> > the Navy, the Sims were not (too early). Plus we needed lots of these.
>
>Latter (and *slightly* larger), yes, but better? ??
>
> > e) the Fletcher’s are basically the successor to the Sims, these big
> > destroyers were freed from the space limitations of the arms control
> > treaties of the 30s.
>
>The BENSONs were heavier than the SIMSs, and their “ideal” 5-5″/10-tube
> prewar configuration was what the larger wartime (treaty-free) FLETCHERs
> could sport. The BENSONs also had … like the FLETCHERs … *two*
> stacks. Weren’t the BENSONs actually more like the FLETCHERs than
> the SIMSs?
>
>Lou Coatney, mslrc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu
> www.wiu.edu/users/mslrc/ (FREE game and model MONITOR and WWII DE)