(The bulk of the general history of the Essex Class is from the Review of the DML 1:700 scale USS Essex, (Click for DML Essex Review; Click for DML Randolph Review), however, additional material was added from U.S. Aircraft Carriers, An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman, and Warships Perspectives Essex Aircraft in World War Two by Glenn H. Arnold by WR Press. Of course USS Hancock specific history is completely new.)
In the course of the greatest naval war in history, World War Two, in the Pacific the one class of warship that probably made the most impact in the victory of the USN over yhe IJN was the Essex Class aircraft carrier. Although submarine adherents will nominate the Gato/Balao Fleet boats for their extraordinary campaign of destruction of the Japanese merchant marine, that campaign denied the Japanese food, oil, rubber, coal, minerals, ore and every other sort of logistic requirement for mounting warfare. The seizure of Japanese controlled islands and maintenance of offensive operations was substantially aided by the submarine offensive but the backbone of the offense in the Pacific was the aircraft carrier. Of the US carriers it was the Essex Class that carried the allies to the shores of Japan. With 24 Essex Class completed of the 26 ships laid down, no fleet carrier has been built in such great numbers.
The development of the aircraft carrier for the United States Navy was largely guided by the terms of the 1921 Washington Treaty. The Royal Navy, which had truly pioneered the concept, already had constructed or was constructing a number of smaller carriers, which in the long run really hurt the development of the Fleet Air Arm. The status of the USN and IJN were different however, as neither power had invested any significant tonnage to aircraft carriers at the time of the signing of the Treaty. The IJN had the Hosho and the USN had the Langley CV1, which were both used basically as experiments and indoctrination, rather than as operational carriers. Both Pacific powers likewise wished to save capital ship hulls from scrapping, so both were granted two carriers over the established displacement in the Treaty, Lexington CV2 and Saratoga CV3 for the USN and Kaga and Akagi for the IJN. The small "training" carriers and the oversized conversions of battlecruisers and a battleship (Kaga) formed the training and operational base of the fleets of both powers throughout the 1920s and early 1930s.
For the USN the Ranger was its first attempt to build a carrier from the keel up. To cram as many ships into the allowable tonnage of the Washington and London Treaties as possible, the USN pared the shipís displacement to a bare minimum. It was determined that they could build five carriers of this size with the allowable tonnage left. In this design speed was sacrificed and protection was minimal in order to magnify one characteristic of Ranger CV4. That trait was maximum size of the air wing, and that became a characteristic that USN aircraft carriers have emphasized to the present day. Nonetheless, the Ranger was a failed design, as too much was attempted on too small a displacement. The next USN design was different. The Yorktown Class of 20,000-tons was a beautiful blend of speed with some protection, coupled with a large air wing. The only other carriers in the running for the best prewar carrier design were the Japanese Shokaku and Zuikaku, although RN devotees will undoubtedly advance the HMS Ark Royal as an almost perfect design. However, even with their near perfect blend of characteristics, the Yorktown design still did not have all of the characteristics that the USN wanted in a carrier. Operating under overall tonnage constraints as well, after the Yorktown CV5 and Enterprise CV6 there was only enough tonnage left over for one much smaller carrier, which almost seemed to mix Ranger and Yorktown characteristics. This became Wasp CV7.
The 1935 London Treaty contained a clause that if one of the signatories to the Washington Treaty and 1930 London Treaty failed to ratify the new document, then none of the signatories would be bound. When Japan refused to enter into the 1935 Treaty, the artificial restrictions, which had hamstrung warship design for the previous 14 years disappeared and navies throughout the world could add many items to their wishing lists. With the ending of treaty constraints, Congress approved the construction of a further 40,000-tons for aircraft carriers. The first carrier was a slightly modified Yorktown design, which became Hornet CV8, however for CV9, it was decided to rework the previous design to see if more could be squeezed out of it.
For the USN one of the prime items was new, larger more capable aircraft carrier. As good as the Yorktown design had been, it still did not have all of the characteristics sought by the navy. Now with no treaty restrictions to hamper and contain the design, the admirals could get the ship that they really wanted. However, even though there were no longer treaty restraints, there was another urgent constraint that impacted the design of new carriers and that was time. With the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and then China and militant Germany stirring in Europe, War Clouds were gathering and the USN needed to expand its capabilities quickly. Events overtook the design process. After war broke out in Europe in September 1939 and the situation in the Pacific deteriorated, Congress finally woke up and greatly expanded naval construction in 1940. CV9 was a beneficiary of the loosened purse strings.
Because of the need for a quick development of new carriers, the 20,000-ton Yorktown design was used as a baseline to which other desired features were added to substantially modify the smaller design. In 1939 work began on this new design. She was given a larger hull and flight deck to operate even more aircraft. A deck side elevator was added to the two-centerline elevators to increase the operational tempo of flight operations. This was first tried with Wasp CV7 and had proven to be successful. With two deck elevators and the side elevator aircraft could be cycled through the operational pattern much faster, making the new design capable of concentrating larger strike packages. As a result of the success of the side elevator the designers dispensed with a centerline elevator amidships, which had weakened the lightly armored hangar deck. When the preceding Yorktown was designed the navy was still operating biplanes. As newer monoplane designs joined the carriers, they generally were larger than the biplanes they replaced. This reduced the total number of aircraft that could be carried. A larger hull with a longer flight deck was needed. Additionally the navy wanted the design to accommodate another fighter squadron, bringing up total capacity to five squadrons.
The 5-inch/38 DP gun had been developed and this was worked into the design. To maximize deck space for aircraft operations, these twin mounts were worked into a four turret arrangement at the ends of the island with two in front and two aft of the islands with gun mounts two and three in super-firing positions. These provided surface defense of eight guns to starboard but to provide the same defense to port four additional open gun single mounts were incorporated into galleries off the port side. Those four guns along with the two twin super-firing mounts would provide an eight gun defense in that direction. It was determined that he two lower twin mounts would be unable to fire effectively to port because of their location and blast damage to the deck. To provide medium and short range AA defense, the new CV9 would be equipped with four quadruple 1.1-inch guns and up to forty .50 machine guns. The new design also changed the machinery arrangement. The older arrangement had been to place all of the engine rooms together and all of the boiler rooms together. This was more efficient for saving weight and allowing the plant to fit in a smaller space. However, the propulsion plant was subject to a lucky hit. If a torpedo struck an engine room, they were all likely to flood, rendering the ship dead in the water. The CV9 design alternated boiler and engine rooms. This arrangement got away from placing all of the eggs in one basket. By spacing out the engine and boiler rooms, the ship would still have steam if hit in an engine room. The price to be paid for this arrangement was a heavier plant and the need for more space within the hull. This in turn required a larger hull.
If you have ever seen the series "Military Blunders" on the history channel, you may have seen an episode in which the program classified the Essex Class carrier as a blunder because it did not have an armored flight deck. The program, probably produced in Britain, lavished praise on the Royal Navy armored deck carriers and savaged the Essex design. Of course the program never mentioned aircraft capacity or operational cycle rates in its presentation. In reality an armored flight deck was seriously considered for the CV9 design but was rejected because it would severely reduce the number or aircraft that could be carried. The Illustrious Class carriers might have had an armored flight deck but because of this they only carried a complement of 36 aircraft on a displacement of 23,000-tons. USN brass was adamant that they would not sacrifice massive strike power for the protection afforded by an armored flight deck. Instead the hangar deck was made an armored deck of 2.5-inches, with another 1.5-inch armored deck further down.
There has been an interesting contrast between the operational abilities between the British armored deck carriers and the wooden deck USN carriers in Pacific operations in spring 1945. "Task Group 58.1, composed of two U.S. Navy Essex-class carriers (each of 27,000 tons standard displacement) and two Independence-class light carriers (each of 10,600 tons standard displacement) carried about 280 aircraft. Of that total, about half were strike aircraft (dive-bombers and torpedo bombers). Task Group 57.2, composed of three of the Royal Navyís Illustrious-class carriers (each of 23,000 tons standard displacement) and one Implacable-class carrier (which was about a thousand tons larger than the Illustrious), carried about 235 aircraft. Of that total, approximately sixty-five were strike aircraft." (American & British Aircraft Carrier Development 1919-1941, 1999, by Thomas Hone, Norman Friedman & Mark Mandeles, at page 198) In other words, with a total displacement of 75,200 tons the USN force marshaled more than twice the number of attack platforms, the ship killers, than the 93,000 tons of RN carriers. The equations equaled 537 tons per strike craft for the USN and 1,430 tons per strike craft for the RN.
Another benefit of the USN design was the open hangar configuration. Except for the trunking underneath the island, the hangar had roll up doors ringing it. These could be opened for ventilation and this also allowed aircraft to be warmed up on the hangar deck. They could be warmed up there and would be ready for flight after a quick trip up the elevator. That would not be possible in an armored box design, as exhaust fumes and fuel vapor would create an extensive risk to the ship and crew. The USN arrangement was capable of a much greater cyclical operations rate than that of their British cousins. This allowed for much greater strike concentration. The huge number of aircraft that could be packaged into a single strike, reduced the loss rate as they would overwhelm defenders. There was a greater loss rate on smaller strikes as defenders would take on smaller numbers and could concentrate fire on the attacking aircraft. Compounded over a campaign and the very large USN air complements could continue to fight long after air groups were reduced to combat ineffectiveness through attrition.
The design for the new carrier was finally approved on February 21, 1940 and the class name ship, USS Essex CV9, was ordered in July. However, more design work and modifications were made before the start of construction. In May three more of the class were ordered, followed by another four through Congressional action. The original Essex and the earlier ships in the class were 872 feet in length, and were later to be called the Short-Hull Essex. As finished, the ships of the short-hull variant had a single quadruple 40mm mount on the forecastle underneath the front edge overhang of the flight deck. It was quickly discovered that this bow AA position was almost useless as its field of fire was extremely constricted because of the overhang of the flight deck. The solution was to lengthen the bow and cut back the forward edge of the flight deck. An additional sixteen feet was added to the design with a lengthened bow and a stern sponson for two quadruple Bofors mounts. Dramatically, the above water shape was completely changed. Gone was the rounded shape of the short-hull variant and in its place was a more dramatic and lengthier Clipper Bow cutwater upon which a squared off forecastle deck rested. By lengthening, widening and squaring off the forward tip of the bow, two quadruple Bofors could be fitted, rather than one and by lengthening the hull by 16 feet to 888-feet OA and reducing the forward edge of the flight deck by 11 feet, these mounts had a clear field of fire.
As constructed, the bulk of the Essex Class were in the long hull category. The 888-feet long-hull variant was found on Ticonderoga CV-14, Randolph CV-15, Hancock CV-19, Boxer CV-21, Antietam CV-36, Shangri-La CV-38, Lake Champlain CV-39 and the seven of the class completed after the war, Leyte CV-32, Kearsarge CV-33, Oriskany CV-34, Princeton CV-37, Tarawa CV-40, Valley Forge CV-45 and Philippine Sea CV-47. Because of the huge size of the Essex Class program, not all of the carriers could be built at once. Some carriers already approved with a designated hull number and name would have to wait in line until a slip of sufficient size was available. This would not happen until the launch of the ship already occupying the building slip. USS Hancock had to wait for the USS Lexington CV-16 to be launched before she could be laid down.
USS Hancockwas originally to be named Ticonderoga. She was laid down at the Bethlehem works at Quincy, Massachusetts on January 26, 1943, as soon as the USS Lexington CV-16 was launched to clear the slip. Hancock was launched on January 24,1944. Since the ship was being built in Massachusetts, the John Hancock Insurance Company offered to launch a bond drive to pay for the ship, if the Massachusetts carrier could be renamed to Hancock. CV-14, building at Newport News was to be named Hancock, so the Navy switched names between CV-14 and CV-19 to take advantage of the Insurance Companyís offer. The bond drive sponsored by the John Hancock Insurance Company not only paid for the construction of USS Hancock, but also raised enough money to pay for her first yearís operating expenses. On April 15, 1944 the USS Hancock was commissioned, the first of the long hull Essex class to join the fleet.
In August 1944 Hancock, along with Ticonderoga and Franklin joined the fast carrier force of the Pacific. On October 24, 1944 after the invasion of the island of Leyte, Hancock was part of Task Group 38.1. Rear Admiral John S. McCain commanded the task force, which also included Wasp, Hornet, Monterey and Cowpens. Bunker Hill was also assigned to the force but that ship was detached the day before to steam to Ulithi to pick up more fighters. Hannah, along with the rest of TG38.1 were also on the way to Ulithi for R&R, when reports came in about heavy Japanese naval forces advancing towards the Philippines, through the Palawan passage. TG38.1 was 600 miles to the east of the 3rd Fleet when Halsey recalls them. It was the other three Task Groups of Halseyís fleet that attacked Kuritaís center force in the Sibuyan Sea, as TG38.1 was still trying to close Halsey from the east. That evening Halsey sped north after the Japanese decoy force of carriers was spotted to the northeast of the Philippines with Hancock and TG38.1 still following. The next morning air attacks ravaged the Japanese carriers and when the first reports that Japanese forces were east of Samar, Halsey ordered TG38.1 to turn around and head for Leyte, 300 miles distant. Because Hancock, along with the rest of TG38.1 was out of position, the Hannah didnít get into strikes on Kuritaís or Ozawaís forces.
Through the first half on November Hancock continued to support US Army forces on Leyte and was damaged by a near miss by a kamikaze. Another Val kamikaze made an attack on Hancock but was knocked down before she could get close. On January 21, 1945 Hancock sustained her first significant damage. As an Avenger was landing an unreleased bomb fell from the plane onto the deck across from the island. Fortunately no other aircraft were parked nearby and Hancock regained operational status within hours. However, it was still very costly in terms of personnel, as 50 men were killed and 75 were injured. On March 20, 1945 Hancock had another near miss from a friendly source. The destroyer USS Halsey Powell was alongside the Hancock, refueling from the carrier. Debris from a Zero kamikaze hit the destroyer and jammed her steering. The tin can headed toward the Hannah, which fortunately managed to avoid a collision.
Hancock was at Okinawa and along with many other USN ships was hit by a kamikaze off that island. A single aircraft hit the flight deck and piled into aircraft spotted on the forward flight deck. The bomb carried by the kamikaze exploded on the port catapult. The carrier could still recover aircraft but lost another 61 killed and 71 wounded. Hancock retired to Ulithi and then back to Pearl Harbor. Hancock rejoined the fast carriers at the end of the war and immediately after the war took part in Operation Magic Carpet in transporting troops back home. In May 1947 USS Hancock was placed into reserve but this would be a mere nap as she had thirty more years of life and two wars ahead of her.
From commissioning until May-June 1945 Hancock wore Measure 32/3a modified dazzle pattern camouflage scheme. This scheme consisted of Light Gray 5L, Ocean Gray 5O, and dull black (BK). After her refit at Pearl Harbor, she was in Measure 22, false horizon, and later Measure 21, overall navy blue (5-N). Another unique aspect about the color and markings of the Hancock was in the manner of the aircraft markings for her air group. Although pre-war carrier aircraft complements had a very ordered and colorful markings developed that distinguished the aircraft from one carrier to the next, when prewar yellow wings gave way to gray and then blue wings, the standardized aircraft scheme was dropped. In 1942 aircraft markings really didnít matter that much as there were so few carriers operational available and those numbers dwindled as 1942 progressed. In 1943 the situation changed as seven carriers of the Essex Class joined the fleet. Seven more, including Hancock, joined in 1944 and five more in 1945. In 1943 an unofficial aircraft marking scheme was adopted. Each carrier designed its own aircraft markings for wings and tail that would mark the aircraft for that carrier. These markings took the form of white geometric patterns. The markings developed for the aircraft of Hancock followed that same pattern. The tail of each aircraft at the upper tip to midway down the stabilizer is one diagonal white stripe. On the upper wings the diagonal white line is at the wing tips. You can see the exact pattern on page 59 of Warships Perspectives Essex Aircraft in World War Two by Glenn H. Arnold by WR Press.
It is interesting that by 1945 the USN considered the Essex design to be outdated and definitely overloaded. Even though the new Midway Class was considered a far superior design, when the big Midways entered service after the war with larger air wings than the Essex Class carriers, it was observed that aircraft could not be launched or recovered any more efficiently than they had been with the Essex Class. Although the Essex Class traces its ancestry to the Yorktown Class and was a prewar design, it provided an optimum platform for operations of the piston powered aircraft of the time. Although considered obsolescent in 1945, the members of the class had more than two decades and two wars ahead of them in which to serve. (Aircraft Carriers of the World, 1914 to the Present, 1984, by Roger Chesneau; American & British Aircraft Carrier Development 1919-1941, 1999, by Thomas Hone, Norman Friedman & Mark Mandeles; The Essex Aircraft Carriers, 1996, by Andrew Faltum; Essex-Class Carriers, 1988, by Alan Raven; U.S. Aircraft Carriers, An Illustrated Design History, 1983, by Norman Friedman, Warships Perspectives Essex Aircraft in World War Two, 2002, by Glenn H. Arnold by WR Press)
The Dragon Hancock
The box lid of Randolph states that the kit contains 536 parts, which is a sixteen-part increase from the DML Essex. However, that increase in parts was minimal compared to the parts increase in the DML Hancock. With Hancock DML has jumped the parts count to 640, 104 parts more than in their Randolph kit. I havenít counted the parts but I believe them. Remember guys, this is a 1:700 kit. How many kits in that scale have parts counts in excess of 500 and now 600? Why does the Dragon Hancock have so many parts? Two reasons jump out, the kit is very comprehensive and Dragon packs a shipís load of options into this kit. The kit of USS Randolph was as she appeared in 1944, as she was commissioned. The Hancock on the other hand has optional parts for her 1945 appearance, after twin 20mm Oerlikons and additional 40mm mounts were fitted.
Dragon includes a lower hull, so you have to decide whether to build it as traditional waterline or full hull. Dragon provides a hangar deck with the kit and the hull has all hangar doors open. The rolling hangar doors are separate pieces. So your next decision is whether you will build the Hancock with hangar doors open or closed. Although it would be nice to have the hangar door detail on the hull sides, I think more modelers will probably opt for the open hangar appearance. Dragon provides optional flight decks, both of which are different from those found in their Essex, as well as different from the DML Randolph. One is clear plastic and the other is the traditional solid opaque deck. Some modelers may want to display most of the aircraft in the hangar with wings folded and being maintained by the ground crews. Others will want to build the kit in the traditional manner with aircraft on the opaque deck with maybe a few on elevators or visible on the hangar deck through the hangar openings. Some parts are provided in optional formats. This kit comes with not one, but two brass photo-etch frets! Deck pyramid antennae are found as solid plastic pieces and also as folding brass structures on the enclosed fret. Further, Oerlikon galleries can be chosen from the plastic parts or from the second brass fret. The side elevator has optional parts. There is one solid piece with the support structure underneath as part of the piece and an optional flat elevator where you add brass parts for a delicate and intricate support structure. Some radars are found in plastic and in brass. The F6F Hellcats, SB2C Helldivers and TBF Avengers come with separate wings, so you chose to build them with wings extended for flight or folded for storage. Aircraft decals feature 72 of the blue outline insignia worn in the late war period. As to which parts to use, Dragon leaves that to you. The USS Hancock is another amazing DML 1:700 kit and is significantly different the releases of USS Essex CV-9 and USS Randolph CV-15.
Although there are significant differences from the DML Essex and Randolph kits, all three kits share some common parts. The Hancock is a late war long hull Essex and shares more common parts with the Randolph than with the Essex, which was a short hull Essex. The hulls of Hancock and Randolph are identical but the Hancock flight deck is longer than that in the Randolph kit. There are basically six major parts to the hull: the upper hull, the lower hull, the forecastle, the hangar deck, the clear plastic flight deck and the opaque flight deck. Two of these, the lower hull and the clear flight deck are optional pieces. The main hull is one piece with reinforcing ribs at the bottom. Both the upper and lower hull pieces mate well together. If you assemble the kit as full hull, there will be a slight seam to fill but because the parts fit so well together, this will be fairly easy work. Dragon has crammed a lot of detail on the hull sides. The hull for the DML Hancock is indeed longer than the DML Essex. This is because it is a Long-Hull variant of the class. Also the bow has a completely different design in plan and profile between the two kits with the heavier and more elegant clipper bow in the Hancock. Normally the sides of a hull can be rather featureless but not so with the DML Hancock. There are all sorts of strakes, piping, side ventilator grills, bilge pumping ports, not to mention the most attractive features, the numerous open hangar doors. If you are building your Hancock in waterline format, there is no base plate but with the support structure inside the hull, that piece is not necessary. You may consider using a pin-vice to drill out the portholes, which incidentally, have eyebrow detail. One note about the hull, on the starboard side forward the hull has a support structure/sponson that extends out from the hull. This was to support the outer end of a hangar catapult. However, Hancock never received a hangar catapult. The only members of the Essex Class to be fitted with this feature were the Yorktown, Intrepid, Hornet, Franklin, Bunker Hill and Wasp, all short hull members of the class. In reality the hangar deck catapult was infrequently used as the air currents along the hull and the lower level of the catapult compared to flight deck catapults, made their use much riskier for plane and pilot. Hancock was not given the outboard catapult support, so this feature would be an error on the Hancock hull. Of course it can be easily removed and the area where it was attached sanded smooth. In addition to the extra length of the hull and completely changed bow appearance, two additional parts, both Oerlikon galleries, are found attached to sprue inside the Hancock hull. Dragon is using every centimeter of available space in the sprue design to find accommodation for all of the additional parts in Hancock.
The hangar deck also provides a good snug fit. Even if you are building the model with hangar doors closed, youíll still need to fit that parts as it has the quarterdeck that will be seen no matter which way you choose to build the model. I might be wrong, but I seem to recall that Ray D. Bean, international man of mystery, charter member of the cabal of consultants, stated in a message that the hangar deck did not have much detail. Ray, if you didnít post that, you have my apology for my faulty memory, however, if you did say that, than I disagree. I believe that the hangar deck has a significant amount of detail, from the deck pattern, to the fittings at the stern to the solid island base on the starboard side that features the stack trunking. I think that it is a very nicely done part that creates a strong desire to show it off with various aircraft in stowed positions. The forecastle piece has some nice detail, including , splinter shields and bases for the forward two quad Bofors positions, anchor chain plates and anchor chain, open hawse and various fittings that appear to be closed chocks. This is part of B Sprue. Although the hangar deck and elevators are the same parts with Hancock and Essex, the forecastle part is completely different from Essex but identical to Randolph.
As I mentioned there are two decks. The clear plastic deck has a smooth featureless finish so as not to obscure the detail of the hangar deck below. Of course using this piece will emphasize the activity and detail of the hangar deck below. On the other hand the more traditional opaque deck is rife with detail. The deck detail is very minute and is outstanding. Deck planking is very finely done and does not appear to be oversize as commonly found in many kits. The deck detail even includes tie down strips with individual tie down positions. There are a series of small solid deck plates for the location of arrestor wires and in a difference from Essex, two flight deck catapults that represented the final catapult arrangement adopted for the class. As tempting as it is to use the clear deck to display the fine hangar deck, it will be a very difficult choice not to use the highly detailed standard flight deck. Both opaque and clear flight decks for Hancock are different than those found in the Essex and Randolph kits. The DML Randolph was criticized for the short flight deck included in that kit. The Randolph was built with a short deck but this was lengthened at some time before she entered into Pacific operations. The flight decks of the long-hull members of the class were shortened to allow better fields of fire for the bow and stern Bofors mounts. However, it was later decided to restore the longer deck. Since the Mk51 directors on the forecastle would be masked by the longer overhang of the lengthened deck, these Mk51s were moved to the forward corners of the flight deck. Additionally Ticonderoga and Hancock had cut-outs in the port side of the flight deck to allow placement of a third Mk37 director. Both ships subsequently had these cut-outs covered over as they posed a threat to flight operations. The DML Hancock kit provides a longer deck than the Randolph but it does not have the Mk51 tubs on the forward corners. There is also no cut-out on the port side. A photograph of Hancock taken after the June 1945 refit, still shows the ship without the Mk51 tubs on the deck corners and with them still on the forecastle. This raises the question as to whether the flight deck of Hancock was increased in length during the war. If the presence of Mk51s on the forecastle and not at the flight deck corners indicates the shorter deck, than Hancock appears not to have her deck lengthened. In any event, Iím sure that the Essex Experten will expound upon the subject.
Sprues C and D
On sprues E, F, G and H youíll find a host of different island decks, platforms and other fittings, such as the tripod mast and stack cap. Almost every deck or platform has underside detail in the form of the supporting beams. The decks and islands are concentrated on sprue E and H with the 40mm side tubs concentrated on sprue G. As with the hull galleries, many of these island galleries have detailed carley floats in place on the bottom surface. For sprue E most of the parts are used for Hancock but two bridge decks, including the square bridge/platform are not. New bridge parts for Hancock are found on sprue H, which includes the round bridge/platform. Sprue F only uses a couple of gun galleries.
There are two K sprues on which most of the armament is found. On these two frets are found another version of the 5-inch/38 DP twin gun mounts but the parts on the K frets are smooth sided and donít appear to have the detail found on the gun houses on the L sprue. As far as the gun barrels for the twin mounts, they donít appear to be quite right as they appear to have a raised ring near their muzzles. The four open single gun 5-inch/38 mounts feature fuse positions on the left side and the peculiar front grill work design. They are good effort with enough detail to satisfy most modelers but the separate gun barrels appear a might too short. Bofors mounts are fair and the Bofors guns have the recoil mechanisms but the barrels are on the heavy side. Each 20mm Oerlikon consists of two pieces, a separate barrel and a combined pedestal and gun shield. The guns themselves are oversize but do have shoulder rests. The combined pedestal/gun shield has a problem on the front of the shield. An injected plastic 20mm shield will never have the thinness of brass parts and that is true with these parts. Because these small parts are plastic, the shields are too thick but to complicate the process of thinning them down, each shield has a small hump on the lower outside face of the shield that should be removed, preferably by sanding, if you use the kit parts. These guns appear to be the only noticeable weakness in the kit. In large part they are overly large and thick because injected plastic parts can never achieve the same thinness as photo-etch or finely cast resin parts. Accordingly, Essex Class Maniacs may consider replacing them with resin and/or brass after market sets. Other parts found here are anchors, ships boats, radar arrays, signal lamps, binnacles, separate carley floats, gun directors and the smallest of the other fittings. The two K sprues are identical among Hancock, Randolph and Essex.
Frets M, N and P
Brass Photo-Etch Fret
The Dragon Hancock comes with a very comprehensive set of decals for the ship and aircraft in the kit. The sheet is very well done and of high quality. For the aircraft you receive 76 national insignia all in the same blue outline design found in late 1943 and thereafter. For the ship you receive various patterns of solid and dashed lines for the deck markings, elevator outlines for the two centerline elevators, national flags & jacks in two sizes and of course the large number 19 for the deck numbers. The registration of the colors and location of insignia is spot on and as a whole, the sheet constitutes a first class effort. Instead of providing a separate sheet of peel off labels for the display stand as in Essex, the stand labels for Hancock are found on the decal sheet. A very significant bonus with the Hancock kit decals is the inclusion of the Hancock aircraft diagonals.
The Dragon instructions provide one folding sheet printed on both sides, which form basically six pages divided by the folds. Page one portrays all of the parts that you should receive in the kit so it is easy to make sure that all of the sprues, fret and sheet are there. One very important point is illustrated on this first page. Not all parts on every sprue are used for the assembly of Hancock. On page one of the instructions, Dragon shows all plastic sprues found in the Hancock kit. Parts that are not used are shaded in light blue. Page two has a paint matrix which shows which paints are needed in three different lines of paints, Aqueous Hobby Colour, Mr. Colour and Model Master. Dragon provides an assembly guide with icons provided in a key for actions to be taken at certain stages of assembly. Text in six languages describes the meaning for each icon. Also found on this sheet are assembly modules for the different gun mounts, gun directors and some other parts. The next three pages provide a step by step assembly sequence with some insets included for subassemblies. Every step is clearly laid out by professional drawings and the icons found on the key on page two. The last three pages provide profiles for both sides and plans for the camouflage scheme Measure 32/3a worn by Hancock in 1944 through early 1945. Profiles and plans are provided for Measures 22 false horizon and 22 navy blue schemes worn in 1945. Additionally, aircraft paint schemes are shown with the Hancock aircraft marking system to help place decals. Provided in the kit.
The Dragon USS Hancock CV-19 is a superb 1:700 scale kit of a Long-Hull Essex Class carrier. The DML Hancock is an outstanding buy for the money when you consider that it comes with so many options, over 600 parts, two photo-etch frets and comprehensive decal sheet, which includes specific Hancock markings. Additionally, this is not a re-pop of the DML Essex although the bulk of the Randolph parts are used. Other than the hull, which is the same as in the Randolph kit, the largest parts, consisting of the solid flight deck and clear flight deck are different. Although there will be no doubt discussion of the flight deck included with the Hancock, this kit provides superb versatility. Other long hull, long deck Essex class carriers can be built. Since the hull side 40mm tubs are separate, 1944 or 1945 fits can be replicated with the addition of Mk51 positions at the forward corners of the flight deck. If anyone has the Hasegawa Hancock, a look at the photographs of the DML Hancock will convince them of the quality of the DML effort.