Aircraft Carrier FAQs

Topics:

Akagi, Kaga and Soryu - help!

 

Posted By: John R <j.p.redman@nationwideisp.net>

Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:11 a.m.

 

Is it just me or does the flight deck not fit properly?

Along the edges of the flight deck there are oblong protrusions which I guess are walkways. One of these, forward on the stardboard side, prevents the underside of the flight deck from locating on top of the superstructure.

Has anyone else noticed / fixed this?

Re: 1:700 Ryujo

 

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 10:41 a.m.

 

In Response To: 1:700 Ryujo (John R)

 

I sanded the top from the big block on the starboard side of the hull till the flight deck, including the deck edge walkways, would fit. This appears to be the best and most accurate solution.

 

Hasegawa 1:450 Akagi

 

Posted By: John R <j.p.redman@nationwideisp.net>

Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 3:24 a.m.

 

I picked up the above kit cheap a few years ago and intended to build it as a static model. That was until I discovered the Polish book, and concluded the basic kit needed too much work for this to be worthwhile. Just fixing the oversize torpedo bulges would involve major surgery, for instance; and the photoetch would be the wrong scale.

So instead, I'm going to be a great big kid and build it with the motor! Yay! And sail it through London on the Regent's Canal!

My question is, has anyone else built the kit (or similar) and how did it go? For one thing, it looks to me like a *lot* of water is going to come in via the shaft alley. If I stop it with vaseline or something, will that work? Or will surface tension keep it out?

As a last resort I can always just build it and see, of course, but if it's going to be a turkey even as a toy, I may yet put it back in the cupboard until I can be bothered to hack it about and build it up as a decent static kit.

 

Re: Hasegawa 1:450 Akagi

Posted By: Randy

Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 7:22 p.m.

In Response To: Hasegawa 1:450 Akagi (John R)

 

Pack the shaft alley with vaseline. Look on another site for an Akagi built from this kit, sorry I have forgotten the address. It can be built into an impressive model.

 

Re: Hasegawa 1:450 Akagi

Posted By: gary

Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:08 p.m.

In Response To: Hasegawa 1:450 Akagi (John R)

 

this kit builds into a very nice model the carrier planes are good i suggest that you water line her you will not be disapointed

 

Soryu captains

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 1:28 p.m.

 

Can anyone help with the following Soryu captains names? The dates are from the Soryu TROMS in Kojinsha No.6

From 15-9-15: Urase XXX - may be Gamase (or Kamase) Kazuta?

From 15-11-25: Kamizaka Kanae - Kamisaka (or Uesaka) Kanae?

 

Re: Soryu captains

Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>

Date: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 5:17 a.m.

In Response To: Soryu captains (Allan Parry)

 

I'm not sure, hard to read even for Japanese.

Maybe

From 15.Sept.1940 KAMASE KAZUTARI

From 25.Nov.1940 KAMISAKA KANAE

 

Re: Soryu captains

Posted By: Emmanuel <aecastro1@aol.com>

Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 3:02 p.m.

In Response To: Soryu captains (Allan Parry)

 

Soryu's only Captain was Yanagimoto Ryusaku. He served from Pearl Harbor Attack to the Battle Of Midway.

 

Re: Soryu captains

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 6:59 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Soryu captains (Emmanuel)

 

Yanagimoto was assigned on 6 Oct 1941. We are just trying to confirm translations of some of Soryu captains' names from 1937 onwards.

 

Re: Soryu captains

Posted By: Tatsuhiro Higuchi <higumail@green.ocn.ne.jp>

Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 8:57 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Soryu captains (Allan Parry)

 

Soryu captains here:

1st: Tomoaki Beppu/ 1937.

2nd: Kinpei Teraoka/ December, 1937~.

3ed: Keizo Ueno/ December, 1938~.

4th: Sadayoshi Yamada/ November, 1939~.

5th: Kanae Uesaka/ November, 1940~.

6th: Ryusaku Yanagimoto/ October, 1941~.

Sorry I don't know pronunciation of 5th captain's name. I think may be Uesaka, but his family name's kanji-word also Kousaka or Kamisaka can phonate. I'll search.

 

Revise of Soryu captains

Posted By: Tatsuhiro Higuchi <higumail@green.ocn.ne.jp>

Date: Friday, 15 December 2000, at 9:18 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Soryu captains (Tatsuhiro Higuchi)

 

I get new information of Soryu captains name from web mate. This info includes correct pronunciation of there names. Sorry, In last message some mistakes were existed.

1/ Akitomo Beppu-->16 August 1937 to 1 December 1937.

2/ Kinpei Teraoka--> 1 December 1937 to 15 November 1938.

3/ Keizou Uwano--> 15 November 1938 to 15 October 1939.

4/ Sadayoshi Yamada--> 15 October 1939 to 15 October 1940.

5/ Kanae Kousaka--> 25 November 1940 to 12 September 1941.

6/ Ryusaku Yanagimoto--> 6 October 1941 to 5 June 1942.

P.S Also Capt. Gamase (15 Oct 1940 to 25 Nov 1940) and Capt. Hasegawa (12 Sep 1941 to 6 Oct 1941) were existed. Now I make inquiry about correct pronunciation to fellow. I will post about there names.

 

Japanese escort carriers AA main armement

Posted By: daniel rastello <daniel.rastello@voila.fr>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 4:33 a.m.

 

AOSHIMA give us for the three kits (Taiyo, Unyo and Chuyo)an AA main armement made of 6 120mm guns.

Anybody can tell me if this armement was improved during the war in the same way than the Kaiyo one's (4 type 89 twin 127mm guns,two of they with anti-smoke shield)

 

Re: Japanese escort carriers AA main armement

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 11:19 a.m.

In Response To: Japanese escort carriers AA main armement (daniel rastello)

 

Taiyô was completed with four single 120mm HA guns. She received two more single guns in 1943 for a total of six. According to Fukui, Unyô was completed with six single 120mm HA guns of which the two forward mounts were replaced by 25mm mounts in 1944. Therefore, Chûyô was the only one completed with four twin 127mm HA guns instead of the single 120mm guns, both starboard mounts being covered against smoke.

However, there is much disagreement between the various sources, most of them claiming that Unyô also received four 127mm twin mounts in about 1944, but I could not find any hard evidence for this.

 

Re: Japanese escort carriers AA main armement

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 9:06 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese escort carriers AA main armement (daniel rastello)

 

Of possible help in the project----though usually not stated in most captions, the good starboard beam photograph you see often of TAIYO was taken on 30 August 1943 after her starboard prop had been smashed by a torpedo from Cabrilla earlier. So these photos show her armament in the fall of 1943.

 

Shoho air complement

Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmguire@j-aircraft.com>

Date: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 9:12 p.m.

 

I just received my new 1/700 Shoho in the mail today and have these questions. The instructions say not to use the Vals that come in the kit. From what I can gather it says to use all the Kates, Zeroes and 1 Judy. It also shows the aircraft in green on the box art. It was sunk in the Battle of Coral Sea, I think. Were the a/c painted green at that point? Were there no Vals? And finally, did most carriers at that time have only 1 Judy on board for recon?

 

Re: Shoho air complement

Posted By: John Lundstrom <jl@mpm.edu>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 7:30 a.m.

In Response To: Shoho air complement (Jeff McGuire)

 

According to the Japanese official history the Shoho sailed on 30 April 1942 from Truk with nine Zeros, four Type 96 carrier fighters (Claudes) and six Type 97 VT (Kates). One Zero ditched before the battle on 7 May. The Claudes were used primarily for ASW patrol. To my knowledge neither Vals nor Judys ever served as part of the Shoho's air complement.

 

Re: Shoho air complement

Posted By: David Fraser <atsuko@magma.ca>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 10:41 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Shoho air complement (John Lundstrom)

 

Does anyone have any information on how the aircraft may have been painted?

 

Re: Shoho air complement

Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmguire@j-aircraft.com>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 12:21 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Shoho air complement (David Fraser)

 

The instructions say that the Zeroes were gray and the Kates were mottled.

 

Re: Shoho air complement

Posted By: David Fraser <atsuko@magma.ca>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 1:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Shoho air complement (Jeff McGuire)

 

I wonder how the Claudes may have been painted. It would be interesting if they were in the pre-war goldish finish that some of them were in.

 

Re: Shoho air complement

Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmguire@j-aircraft.com>

Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2000, at 8:45 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Shoho air complement (David Fraser)

 

I'm going out on a wing here, but think they were. Although the gold finish is often disputed as individual's own perceptions due to the fact that most photos were in b/w. Jim Landsdale and Rob Graham are the experts on this subject.

 

Re: Shoho air complement

Posted By: David Fraser <atsuko@magma.ca>

Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 6:46 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Shoho air complement (Jeff McGuire)

 

I looked at the 2 Model Art books on IJN Fighters and IJN Bombers last night and though they had no information on the Shoho's aircraft they indicated that the Zuiho's Claudes and Kates were in metallic finish with a red stripe lengthwise down the entire length of the fuselage. Apparently, they were painted like this from 1941 until mid 1942. Hosho's planes were finished similarly.

 

To all Shinano builders

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 7:18 a.m.

 

If you want info about Shinano or if you would like to build a 1/350 scale Shinano-based on the Tamiya 1/350 Yamato kit, you should visit the site linked below. The guy who runs it, Yama, is extremely helpful and has loads of diagrams and English instructions to follow.

While you are there, take a look at his large scale IJN scratchbuilds - serious models!

Link: http://village.infoweb.ne.jp/~seasky/Bi-top.htm

 

Carrier Airgroups - help please

Posted By: John Sutherland <john.sutherland@amcom.co.nz>

Date: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 5:06 p.m.

 

Have any of you in your travels seen anything which would provide the

following information:

1. The breakdown of the aircraft (type/number) carried by the nine

Japanese carriers at Philippine Sea / Mariannas battle, preferably by

carrier. Some reference give a total of 473 (with no breakdown), but this

is 18 more than the theoretical maximum for the 9 carriers involved

(Taiho/Zuikaku/Shokaku/Zuiho/Chitose/Chiyoda/Ryuho/Junyo/Hiyo).

2. The same for Zuikaku/Zuiho/Chiyoda/Chitose at Leyte Gulf/Cape Engano.

3. The same for Kaiyo and Shinyo engaged on convoy escort work late war

4. The same for the Unryu/Amagi/Katsuragi late 1944/1945.

 

Re: Carrier Airgroups - help please

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 10:06 p.m.

In Response To: Carrier Airgroups - help please (John Sutherland)

 

Y'Blood's "Red Sun Setting" is the best and the latest that I'm aware of. While Barrett Tillman gives the authorized strength, Y'Blood appears to be closer. In the appendices, there is a carrier by carrier of each strength, and the losses that accumulated from June 15th up to June 19th. Taiho suffered 6 aircraft losses on the 15th due to lack of pilot training. They were 2 of each type and more were to follow as operational's. So, what you are looking at, is two sets of figures. One for June 15th and one for June 19th. This does not include losses to recon aircraft for the June 17th, 18th or 19th.

Sorry to muddy the waters........... If you desire a running account on Y'Blood's analogy, contact me off-line and I'll send you a copy.

 

Re: Carrier Airgroups, Question 1.

Posted By: Tom Hall <hall023038@aol.com>

Date: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 4:06 p.m.

In Response To: Carrier Airgroups - help please (John Sutherland)

 

Your questions are very good but there aren't

many good answers. For one thing, there is

a difference between quantities on paper and

actual quantities.

Minoru Akimoto says the 601 Koukuutai had

208 planes. It supplied the air units for

Taihou, Zuikaku and Shoukaku, but the

quantities for each ship I have not seen.

This was for the Marianas Battle. Barrett

Tillman places 214 planes on the three

carriers for the battle. He gives the

quantities of the planes, but no

breakdown by ship or hikoutai. Those

quantities are as follows:

80 Model 52 Zeroes

11 Model 21 Zeroes

44 B6Ns

70 D4Ys (including recon type)

09 D3A2s

It is not clear on what sources these aviation writers have based their numbers. Tillman says his numbers are "authorized strengths". The next issue of Asahi Journal covers Judy and her units. Please contact me

by e-mail if you would like ordering information.

 

Re: Carrier Airgroups

Posted By: Randy

Date: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 11:18 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Carrier Airgroups, Question 1. (Tom Hall)

 

I received or found the following information this past August directly from W.D. Dickson and have edited it for this site as appropriate; Dickson would have the final word but I believe this answers a great many questions.

"When I wrote the Shokaku article for WI in 1977 it was commonly thought that these records were gone-gone-gone. Those at central ministries were but much was captured and never translated. If you read and write Japanese you could probably find out everything: the number of aircraft and the names of the individual pilots. TAIHO was designed to carry 53 aircraft (24 A7M, 18 D4Y, 6 C6N plus 5 spares -- this is from memory but easily checked). Only D4Y were ready when she fought in Philippine Sea. Since her overall dimensions were approximately the same as the Shokakus but her hangar smaller she carried a small contingent on her flight deck so the distribution among the three ships was essentially equal. The Shokakus were given a nominal air group of 27 VF, 27 VB, 18 VT 3 VS. None of the Japanese carriers actually carried their nominal group (this can be said for the US carriers also -- the nominal air group for an ESSEX class CV in June 1944 was 36VF, 36VB and 18VT, but it is easier to hypothesize that the Japanese split their groups evenly since their groups were organized at the carrier division level rather than ship level. I wrote a book in the early '70s, "The Battle of The Philippine Sea," which had fairly detailed summaries of the air operations on all of the carriers and I think I do a fairly good job of reconciling the disparities among sources. By the way, the Japanese War History office gave me a different make up of all three air groups. It is discussed in one of the appendices. I backed into the number of aircraft which went down with TAIHO and SHOKAKU using the other numbers and feel reasonably confident of my numbers -- they shouldn't be off more than one or two airplanes. Tony Tully and I did some math recently on this very subject. TAIHO lost six aircraft in a deck landing accident after the 1st Mobile Force left Tawi-Tawi but before 6-19-44 so she was already 6 down when the fight started."

And a further fragment...

"...The curious thing about the Marianas, compared to say Santa Cruz, is there is little logistical reason for the nominal air group not to nearly match the actual. The air groups were just forming and their aircraft production should have met the requirements. The most interesting is the attaching of Vals to 601 Kokutai (all sources seem to agree there were Vals on the big three). There seems to be no operational reason for assigning these older planes to the three big carriers. The CVLs and HIYOs lower speeds meant they could not operate at full complement with the newer a/c types."

Therefore, it seems 225 aircraft would be nominal with the 6 lost prior to action, which would leave 219 aircraft absent any operational losses from Sho and Zui prior to June 19th. Y'Blood's book does not account for the 9 D3As onboard "...the big three..." and which seem -- by general consensus -- to have been there; are these then added to the 219 figure above for 228 aircraft total?

Does anyone have a copy of Dickson's Philippine Sea book? It must be one of the few I do not have. I would find his numbers very persuasive.

 

Re: Carrier Airgroups

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>

Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 6:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Carrier Airgroups (Randy)

 

This is what I compiled from various sources (but with NO breakdown as to number assigned to each carrier):

601 Kokutai

18 Jun 1944 1st Battle of the Philippine Sea

(Hata) 81 A6M 81 D4Y, 9 D4Y1-C 54 B6N

(Morrison)79 A6M 70 D4Y, 7 D3A 51 B6N

(Nomura)11 A6M2, 80 A6M5 70 D4Y, 9 D3A 44 B6N

(Francillon)10 A6M2, 76 A6M5,81 D4Y, 9 D4Y1-C 56 B6N

(Okumiya) 81 A6M 81 D4Y 54 B6N

(Profile #236) 81 A6M 81 D4Y,, 9 D4Y1-C 54 B6N

(The WP formatting doesn't transfer well, sorry)

 

Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: bob pienkos <bpink@worldnet.att.net>

Date: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 8:39 a.m.

 

What colors were the flight decks of the carriers Taiyo,Unyo,Chuyo. I've seen some representations of these ship models with wooden flight decks and or all gray flight decks. Which of these would be the correct or closest choice?

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 2:26 p.m.

In Response To: Japanese Escort Carriers (bob pienkos)

 

See link below for Taiyo and Unyo 1944 camouflage experiments.

Link: http://www.kamakuranet.ne.jp/~mad/camoe.html

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 7:48 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Allan Parry)

 

AFAIK all three Taiyô class carriers had wooden flight decks. The were probably not painted until camouflage was applied.

Allan, I really loved the camouflage schemes. I wanted to paint Unryû in camouflage colours and now I know what it looks like. Thanks a lot! BTW the grey colour in Chitose/Chiyoda is that lighter than IJN navy grey or the same colour?

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Sunday, 12 November 2000, at 8:33 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Frido Kip)

 

I should have pointed out that the Unryu camouflage drawing at Pit-Road is just one of the designs doing the rounds! I will send you the others.

 

Hinomaru on flight deck *PIC*

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <tennkats@hotmail.com>

Date: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 10:08 p.m.

 

Someone asked if hinomarus were ever drawn on the flight decks of IJN carriers other than the four carriers at Midway. I found an interesting photo in a Japanese site. According to the caption, the Japanese military periodical "Maru" published a photo of Zuiho's flight deck in its May 1999 issue. The photo was taken just before the Battle of Midway, and you can clearly see the hinomaru on the flight deck.

Link: http://homepage2.nifty.com/vanguard/intro/menu-list.htm

Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced here.

 

Re: Hinomaru on flight deck

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 10:20 a.m.

In Response To: Hinomaru on flight deck *PIC* (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Thanks for posting this. It is a very interesting picture! It matches the type Hiryu had, and possibly Soryu. But Akagi's appears to be "solid" or an "opaque" Hinomaru, and possibly Soryu's also. But Hiryu's is clearly this Zuiho type.

 

Re: Hinomaru on flight deck

Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>

Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 3:47 p.m.

In Response To: Hinomaru on flight deck *PIC* (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Thanks for the interesting picture. I am also particulary interested in this Japanese military periodical "Maru" which you refer to. I have not heard of it. Do you or anyone on this list knows about this periodical and in particular know where I might subscribe to it? In addition, can you also list the URL for the site from which this picture came from ?

 

Re: Hinomaru on flight deck

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <tennkats@hotmail.com>

Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 10:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Hinomaru on flight deck (J. Ed Low)

 

"Maru" is the name of a monthly periodical which specializes in military stuff. The often mentioned "Maru Mechanics" and "Maru Specials" are published by the same folks who publish "Maru." Unfortunately, I don't know of any sources from which we outside of Japan can subscribe to.

I did post the URL in my original message. Unfortunately, it doesn't take you directly to the pics. Once you get to the site, click "Talks & studies about warships" on the bottom left corner. Then go all the way down on the right side and click "2000.10.9", and that should take you to the Zuiho pics. If you have problems getting there, let me know.

 

Re: Hinomaru on flight deck

Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@qwest.net>

Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 12:06 a.m.

In Response To: Hinomaru on flight deck *PIC* (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

I know we have all talked a lot abt the Hinomaru on the flight decks of IJN carriers. I have noticed that they may have been on the upper deck/ protective shed for the Seaplane tenders like the chotise, and chyodia. But has any one figured out just why the IJN put them on the ships in the first place. Was it a decoration or did it serve as some pratical purpose such as an air identification symbol simmlar to the swastika on the bow of the capital ships of the Kreigsmarine fleet. Any thoughts???

 

Re: flight deck Hinomaru history

Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>

Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 6:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Hinomaru on flight deck (Matthew Greer)

 

The appearance of huge Hinomaru immediately after the Battle of Coral Sea brings to mind the landing incident in that action. A KATE unit was sent out at dusk to find the American carriers. After fruitless search, they returned and found their carrier, approached to land, and -as some senarios even suggest- given a waveoff by the American deck officer on the US CV! The Kana name on the rear flight deck just was NOT enough, thus the meatball.

 

Re: flight deck Hinomaru history

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 10:18 a.m.

In Response To: Re: flight deck Hinomaru history (David_Aiken)

 

This is an interesting fact. I hadn't realized there were no Hinomarus on Shokaku and Zuikaku at Coral 

Sea. There were of course similar circular recognition symbols on the flight decks as proven in some 1941 photographs, but this would explain the very large size ones are inspired by Coral Sea.

 

Re: flight deck Hinomaru history

Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>

Date: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 12:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: flight deck Hinomaru history (Tony Tully)

 

My sensei says the large white circles are on one end of the deck for a landing aid. The hinomaru was at another locale on the deck after Coral Sea.

 

Re: flight deck Hinomaru history

Posted By: William Blado <wblad@msn.com>

Date: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 12:57 p.m.

In Response To: Re: flight deck Hinomaru history (David_Aiken)

 

Open white circles on Japanese carrier decks are "Landing Circles." Some prewar American carriers also had these. Hinomarus are solid red circles used for recognition. The two markings are different in appearance and purpose. Don't confuse them.

 

IJN CV Ryuho

Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@qwest.net>

Date: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 8:38 p.m.

 

It has been a while since I posted any questions or comments on this board so here is my latest brain teezers.

First dose any one know when the CV Ryuho was commishioned. And second dose any one have a complet list of IJN capital ships that were active just prior to the Midway operation? Specifically I am looking for any major warships that were on the IJN's active roster as of the 1st of May 1942.

 

Re: IJN CV Ryuho

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 9:32 p.m.

In Response To: IJN CV Ryuho (Matthew Greer)

 

Completed March 31st 1935 as Taigei (Submarine Tender), then reconstructed and commissioned 

November 28, 1942 as Ryuho.

How far down are you asking on "Major" Warships in commissioned by May 1st, 1942?? Cruiser Level??

Sentai 1 - Nagato, Mutsu, Yamato

Sentai 2 - Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro

Sentai 3 - Kongo, Haruna, Kirishima, Hiei

Sentai 4 - Atago, Takao, Chokai, Maya

Sentai 5 - Myoko, Haguro, Nachi

Sentai 6 - Aoba, Kinugasa, Kako, Furutaka

Sentai 7 - Kumano, Suzuyu, Mikuma, Mogami

Sentai 8 - Tone, Chikuma

Sentai 9 - Oi, Kitagami

Sentai 16 - Ashigara, Nagara, Kuma

Sentai 18 - Tenryu, Tatsuta

Sentai 21 - Tama, Kiso

DesRon 1 - Abukuma

DesRon 2 - Jintsu

DesRon 3 - Sendai

DesRon 4 - Naka

DesRon 5 - Natori

DesRon 6 - Yubari

CarDiv 1 - Akagi, Kaga

CarDiv 2 - Soryu, Hiryu

CarDiv 4 - Ryujo

CarDiv 5 - Shokaku, Zuikaku

Plus these Carriers, Zuiho, Hosho

Hope this helps..............

 

Re: Forgot One

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Saturday, 4 November 2000, at 9:49 p.m.

In Response To: Re: IJN CV Ryuho (Allan)

 

CarDiv 4 - Ryujo, Shoho

 

Thankyou

Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@qwest.net>

Date: Sunday, 5 November 2000, at 6:40 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Forgot One (Allan)

 

Thankyou for the information abt the Ryujo and the capital ships. I'll tell you why I need the info I am trying to collect all the IJN's ships that were commishioned and still active "not sunk" as of the first of May. I plan on doing a fictious gatering of all the major warships just prior to midway in Hashirajima anchorage. I know it will not be historically accurate but I think it will make for an impressive and very large diorama. The scale I will be modeling the ships in is 1/700 scale. If possible I would like to have an accurate list similar to the one you provede me above only with ships still on the IJN's active roster as of the 1st of May 1942.

 

Re: Same Request??

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 7:58 a.m.

In Response To: Re: No Problem (Matthew Greer)

 

Isn't this the same request as November 4th??

 

Re: Same Request??

Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@qwest.net>

Date: Friday, 10 November 2000, at 8:17 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Same Request?? (Allan)

 

It is simmlar to the request on the 4th but this time I would like to have a list of the ships still considered by the IJN to be active as of the 1st of May. I know roughly abt what ships were commishioned by 1st of may but I don't really know for sure what ships had been sunk and which ones were still a float. Also if it is not to much trouble could you make the list to include the following ship types. CV,BB,CA,Cl.

Again I am very greatful for the information you have provided me. I would like to extend this offer. If you ever need a question answered abt Germany's participation in WW2 just ask me.

 

Aircraft Carrier Akagi

Posted By: John Waddell <DandJWaddell@aol.com>

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 8:19 p.m.

 

I am accumulating information for a large-scale model of Akagi, and I would like to know the best sources for scale drawings and photographs of this ship. What books might be considered worthwhile? Also, where can I find information

regarding her air group, in terms of unit markings and insignia, during the Pearl Harbor period? Any assistance provided would be greatly appreciated

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Akagi

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 11:02 a.m.

In Response To: Aircraft Carrier Akagi (John Waddell)

 

One of the best books on the subject is the Polish Monografie Morskie 2 'Akagi' by Skwiot and Jarski (ISBN 83 86208 01 5) which I believe you can order from www.pacificfront.com. Although it's in Polish it provides many good quality drawings and many pictures which will certainly be helpful.

Also a good source are the articles written by Hans Lengerer in Warship 1982 (Nos. 22-24), published by the Naval Institute Press and Conway Maritime Press, called Akagi & Kaga.

And then there's also the Grand Prix volume on aircraft carriers which is excellent but entirely in Japanese, but it contains many close up drawings.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier Akagi

Posted By: David Outten <DMOutten@cs.com>

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 8:53 p.m.

In Response To: Aircraft Carrier Akagi (John Waddell)

 

As far as her air group during the Pearl Harbor strike, "A6M Zero", Aircraft Number 59 by Squadron/Signal Publications list carrier air group markings April 1941-June 1942 as follows:

CarDiv-1 Akagi AI-101 (A6M)

AI-201 (D3A)

AI-301 (B5N)

Kaga AII

CarDiv-2 Soryu BI

Hiryu BII

CarDiv-5 Shokaku EI

Zuikaku EII

The remaining carriers followed the same numerical pattern for the three aircraft types. I don't know about the D3A's or B5N's, but the A6M's from the Akagi were white with black engine cowlings. They also had a red stripe that went completely around the fuselage between the cockpit and tail assembly. I hope this was some help to you John.

 

Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: David Outten <DMOutten@cs.com>

Date: Wednesday, 18 October 2000, at 7:58 p.m.

 

I'm interested to know how the the Order of Battle for the Hosho,Taiyo,Unyo,Chuyo,Kaiyo and Shinyo progressed thru the war. I've seen the OoB for 7 Dec 41 with Hosho in CarDiv-3 (training) and Taiyo CarDiv-4 (ref: "Japanese Warships of WWII", AJ Watts). I realize they were used primarily for training and aircraft transport, but were there any specific CarDiv's or likewise. I would much appreciate any assistance.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Paul Richards <c2water@vianet.net.au>

Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 8:36 p.m.

In Response To: Japanese Escort Carriers (David Outten)

 

In Mark Parillo's book, page 105:

The escort carriers amassed what can only be termed an incredible record under Grand Escort Headquarters. Taiyo was the first of these four carriers to complete its repairs. Along with a strong surface contingent, it departed Japan on August 8, 1944, with a convoy of ten merchantmen. Ten days later an American submarine sent it to the bottom of the Luzon Straits. Four weeks later Unyo,also onits maiden voyage since repairs, met the same fate in nearly the same spot. Shinyo differed only in meeting its doom in the Yellow Sea, for it, too, fell victim to a submarine on its maiden escort mission barely two months later. Kaiyo escaped destruction because further damage incurred while undergoing repairs forced it to stay in port until the war ended.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 11:19 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Paul Richards)

 

Regarding your post/quote from Parillo's book, a correction has to be made. His overview of the CVE's is not overly in depth, for it is not the focus of that book. Especially as pertains Kaiyo here:

"Kaiyo escaped destruction because further damage incurred while undergoing repairs forced it to stay in port until the war ended."

No, not at all. Kaiyo was operable and *serving* on convoy runs as late as December 1944. She was just simply *luckier* and wasn't nailed by submarine torpedo. She in fact passes Hyuga, Ise and Oyodo as they head to Singapore from Saigon shortly after Kimura's raid on Mindoro. In 1945, the Kaiyo is fully operational, and assigned to aircraft plane landing and take-off training duties in the Inland Sea. However, in March 19 raid on Kure, she takes a bomb which causes moderate damage. But this is repaired by early May, and May, June, July again sees her regularly sortieing to train aviators. It is while thus engaged she meets her end after first a mining on 24, than air attack on July 28, in Beppu Bay in late July.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 1:30 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Tony Tully)

 

What air units were assigned to this CVE's?? I have 931 ku assigned to a couple of them, but I don't believe that that is entirely correct. What is your thoughts on this??

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:51 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Allan Alsleben)

 

Regarding the Air Groups on the CVE's I know that your 931 Air Group is correct for TAIYO, I just confirmed it yesterday from my papers. In fact, on her last voyage, TAIYO has twelve Type-97 planes aboard. She is performing genuine convoy escort duty, and is not just plane-ferrying. Ironically, initially, in July, both Taiyo and Unyo had been on a large convoy to Manila, but were plane-ferrying. The Shinyo was with them, and to her fell the actual patrol duty.

It appears 931 is assigned to Unyo also, but the question mark for me is whether Shinyo and especially Kaiyo are also 931. Have not translated that part yet. But my guess is that Kaiyo is not 931, since she is in a plane landing-and-launching training role by then, and I don't know if 931 AG even still existed in July '45?

I can't really improve on the posting you made of the ship's order of battle. It seems right.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 2:31 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Allan Alsleben)

 

That sounds *almost* right, or was it `831'?, but I will check when I get home tonight. Its right there in one of my documents.

By the way, do any of you have any details on escort carrier Shinyo's sinking and casualties? I am specifically looking for how many survived and how many were lost. I know Captain Norie Ishii went down with her.

 

Re: Casualties aboard the CVE's

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 7:31 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Tony Tully)

 

With regard to casualties, sadly I don't have anything on Shinyo, but I might be able to help obtain them. Would you need Chuyo as well?? It would be better to make one request to Japan rather than two.

 

Re: Casualties aboard the CVE's

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 9:35 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Casualties aboard the CVE's (Allan)

 

I would be extremely grateful for any inquiry you could make. Yes, a confirmation on CHUYO's or especially TAIYO's loss/survivor account would be good. SHINYO is the most elusive, but really, other than knowing her skipper survived, I don't know TAIYO's either.

I don't know the nature of your inquiry---if possible, in SHINYO's case find out also if four torps really hit her and what time she actually sank. Thanks!

 

Re: Casualties aboard the CVE's

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 9:54 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Casualties aboard the CVE's (Tony Tully)

 

Message is away........ Expect answer sometime early next week. Please contact me off-line as this source in Japan does not wish to be used as a go-pher. If the information is there, we'll get it. The National Institute for Defense Studies takes too long, up to 6 to 8 weeks. This source can provide me (If possible) the information within 72 hours, depending on availability.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: David Outten <DMOutten@cs.com>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 4:33 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Tony Tully)

 

I appreciate all help that has been generated from this post, but the CVL Hosho (CVE?) has been one not touched on yet. I know to start the war she was in CarDiv-3 and later participated in the battle of Midway, indirectly anyways. Was she in any CarDiv order of battle after Midway? Was she used like the other five escort carriers during the war, aircraft transport and convoy escort especially? Her speed shouldn't have been a problem, I believe she was rated for 25 knots.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 6:29 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (David Outten)

 

Hosho

12/ 7-'41 to 4/ 1-'42 - Attached to 3rd CarDiv with Zuiho

4/ 1-'42 to 6/20-'42 - Attached to 1st Fleet

This was during the Midway Operation

7/14-'42 to 1/15-'43 - 1st Air Fleet (Training)

1/15-'43 to 1/ 1-'44 - 3rd Fleet / 50th Air Group (Training)

1/ 1-'44 to 2/20-'44 - 12th Air Fleet / 51st Air Group (Training)

2/20-'44 to 4/20-'45 - Combined Fleet

4/20-'45 - Reserve Ship, 4th Class

Taiyo (Ex Kasuga Maru)

7/ 1-'42 to 8/31-'42 - Combined Fleet

8/31-'42 to 12/10-'43 - Combined Fleet

12/10-'43 to 10/10-'44 - General Escort Command

Sunk August 18, 1944

Unyo (Ex-Yawata Maru)

5/25-'42 to 8/31-'42 - Combined Fleet

8/31-'42 to 12/10-'43 - Combined Fleet

12/10-'43 to 11/10-'44 - General Escort Command

Sunk September 16, 1944

Chuyo

11/20-'42 to 2. 5-'44 - Combined Fleet

Sunk December 4, 1943

Kaiyo

11/23-'43 to 12/10-'43 - Combined Fleet

12/10-'43 to 12/10-'44 - General Escort Command

12/10-'44 to 4/20-'45 - 1st Escort Fleet

4/20-'45 to 8/15-'45 - Combined Fleet

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 10:33 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Allan)

 

Here's one for the experts.

In THE BATTLE THAT DOOMED JAPAN (Fuchida and Okumiya) the HOSHO air group for the Midway operation is given as "8 bombers." Francillon in an Aircraft in Profile on the Kate, gives HOSHO 8 Type 97 Carrier Attack Planes as of June 1942; and H. P. Willmott in THE BARRIER AND THE JAVELIN says HOSHO's air group for Operation MI was composed of 9 A5M4s (Claudes) and 5 "B4N1s" (sic) (Jeans). He bases this on the fact that survivors of HIRYU said they were overflown by an aircraft with fixed landing gear - which he extrapolates to putting Jeans on HOSHO. Hata and Izawa state that HOSHO had no fighters in April 1942 only six carrier attack planes.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 2:47 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group (Jim Broshot)

 

Hosho carried 8 Jeans at Midway. Her fighter squadron had been disbanded prior to this voyage. Her limited air complement was along purely for ASW purposes.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 10:15 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group (Mark E. Horan)

 

I greatly appreciate all of the information about HOSHO's air groups. Two points for idle speculation:

1. Was HOSHO big enough/fast enough to operate KATES?

2. If Willmott bases his conclusion that HOSHO carried JEANS for the Midway operation just because a HOSHO aircraft was sighted that had fixed landing gear, could HOSHO have been carrying Mitsubishi B5Ms, the KATE rival with fixed gear?

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group

 

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 9:41 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group (Jim Broshot)

 

You raise a good question. Especially since we should remember that the `planes with wheels" sighted 

comment is just from HIRYU's survivors when HOSHO's plane overflew them around 0630 5 June. When you consider that, we have to think of what *might* have looked like fixed wheels also. It may not be right, and this could be a red-herring. Do not Vals also qualify? I think the best clue would be whether or not Hosho's re-fit was designed to make her capable of training with field aircraft.

 

Re: Hosho and Zuiho

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 7:24 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group (Jim Broshot)

 

The BKS Volume 34 is unclear, but I've taken it up with John Lundstrom and Jon Parshall some time back. Hosho had 8 B4Y1 (Jeans) but Zuiho had 12 VF and 12 VT (So states V34). At first, I thought these were 2nd line aircraft, but both Parshall and Lundstrom believe that the 12 VF were A6M's from the reserve of the 4 carriers of Kido Butai and the VT were B5N, also from Kido Butai.

However, Captain Yoshida from NIDS states that they were "Claudes" and old "Kates" onboard Zuiho. This is one of those old frustrations that have never been worked out to my satisfaction.

Again, from NIDS recently, Captain Kitazawa stated that these were all instructors aboard Hosho and Zuiho and experienced personel but the aircraft not identified.

I don't expect anyone to touch this, because the first thing I would ask, What Source did it come from?

 

Re: Hosho and Zuiho

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 10:29 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Hosho and Zuiho (Allan)

 

Now we are talking about aircraft complements, does anybody know what aircraft Taiyô carried in 1942 whn she wasn't used on transport missions?

 

Re: Hosho Air Group

Posted By: Randy

Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 7:07 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers/Hosho Air Group (Jim Broshot)

 

You will also note that Okumiya's book assigns command of the Hosho bomber detachment to Irikiin Yoshiaki -- who would go on to be the man who launches a third torpedo into Hornet at Santa Cruz, is shot down immediately thereafter and dooms attempts to restore power to the carrier.

Just a historical note.

I believe the Jeans were the only aircraft aboard Hosho for the Midway Operation. I believe this is what Mark Horan has had to say in the past.

 

Re: Shinyo

Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 10:11 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (David Outten)

 

I missed one and that was Shinyo

1/20-'44 to 1/10-'45 - General Escort Command

This too was sunk sometime IIRC in December of '44. This ship had the 931st Ku aboard from 10/5 to 25-'44 for escort and anti-submarine patrol. The aircraft were B5N2 "Kates", 15 in number, if I remember correctly.

Taiyo was at Truk during the Battle of Eastern Solomons, in company of Yamato and the Destroyers Ushio and Akebono.

But as Tony was saying, these CVE's were firstly ferrying aircraft, then acting as cover for convoys.

 

Re: Shinyo

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 5:56 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Shinyo (Allan)

 

Allan is correct. I would add that Shinyo departs Imari Bay on Nov 13, 1944, as part of the gathering of HI-81 convoy. The convoy proper departs the Nagasaki vicinity off Goto Island on the morning of Nov 15th. The large army carrier Akitsu Maru is sunk that morning by USS Queenfish, and Shinyo herself exploded and sunk by submarine torpedoes from USS Spadefish an hour before midnight on Nov, 17th 1944. I have not yet found indications of her casualties or survivors figure, but her skipper Norie Ishii was lost.

If 931 Air Group was aboard on Oct 25, it seems reasonable that it may have been also when sunk. As far as I know, Shinyo did not change her duties in between the last convoy HI-79 and then heading south again for HI-81.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>

Date: Wednesday, 18 October 2000, at 10:46 p.m.

In Response To: Japanese Escort Carriers (David Outten)

 

as of 14 Jul 1942 reorganization

attached to Rengo Kantai

CVL Taiyo with 11 A6M and 14 D1A

CVL Unyo with 14 B5N

this from ZERO!

CVL Hosho was attached to the Main Body for the Midway operations with "8 bombers" (B5Ns)

I bet Allen Alsleben has a lot of data on this. :):):)

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Thursday, 19 October 2000, at 5:37 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Jim Broshot)

 

I'll check to Tony on this. All my information is packed for a move come the 28th this month. However, I'll review the board after I get settled and if no further response, I'll post what Monograph #116 has on the subject.

 

Re: Japanese Escort Carriers

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Thursday, 19 October 2000, at 10:41 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Japanese Escort Carriers (Jim Broshot)

 

I actually have considerable interest and have made much research into the Japanese Escort Carriers. You will surely find the TAIYO and CHUYO troms on our page interesting if you haven't already seen them. As for Orders of Battle, I can look them up. Prior to late '43, the CVEs were attached to local entities, while TAIYO served directly with Combined Fleet during the Guadalcanal operations. All were engaged in heavy plane-ferrying between Yokosuka and Truk. Then, in a nutshell, from memory, in November 1943, the CHUYO, TAIYO, and UNYO were attached to Grand Escort Command, and specifically tended to serve in the Second Escort echelon and convoy duty. However, CHUYO was sunk on Dec 3, 1943 by submarine. But KAIYO and SHINYO took its place, joining the roster. They remained in service till Grand Escort Command itself was abolished, just over a year later. By then, TAIYO, UNYO, and SHINYO had all been sunk by submarine. Only KAIYO remained, and attached I think to Combined Fleet's 4th reserve, was pressed into service in 1945 landing and training pilots. Thus the last operational carrier in that sense, and is still doing it when mined, then destroyed by air attack in Beppu Bay in July 1945. I will double check the details for you. I plan some pretty extensive posts about the CVEs soon.

 

Posted By: jon <jcr1@grapevine.net>

Date: Sunday, 15 October 2000, at 10:59 a.m.

 

Need help. I am building a 1/200 Shinano, converted from the Nichimo Yamato. I need good drawings of decks,armament,radars,fittings,equipment etc... What was the color of the ship? Was it camoflauged and if it was ,what were the colors?BTW, has anyone ever looked for or ever considered looking for the wreck? Should'nt be a problem to find or am I wrong.

 

Re: Shinano

Posted By: Randy

Date: Sunday, 15 October 2000, at 12:37 p.m.

In Response To: Shinano (jon)

 

Why don't you pick up Tamiya's newly tooled Shinano for details, colors and the like? She went down in about 12,000 feet of water and she'll be seen someday, I suppose.

 

Re: Shinano

Posted By: John Waddell <DandJWaddell@aol.com>

Date: Sunday, 22 October 2000, at 7:30 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Shinano (Randy)

 

Jon, I'm currently trying to obtain information on the Shinano for my own somewhat smaller (1/350) 

version. The box art on the Tamyia 1/700 release shows the ship painted in a medium green scheme. I honestly don't know if this is correct or not, as I've always read (and been told) that Japanese warships of the period were a dark satin gray color. As for detail information, the book "Battleships"

subtitled "Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II" by William H. Garzke, JR. does include a two-view drawing of the Shinano with a hull plan. I understand you are converting the Nichimo kit-Be advised that although the underwater hull configuration for Shinano was very close to that of Yamato and Musashi, there were noticable differences, particularly in the area of the bouyancy blister and the armour belt. If you are able to obtain any additional information on this subject not mentioned here, I would appreciate your contacting me as well. Good luck!!

 

Re: Shinano

Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 9:33 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Shinano (John Waddell)

 

Tamiya's 1/700 shinano is the most accurate model now in the world.

It depend on the formal drawing (I don't know who possesed it but SHIGERU MAKINO most possibly),

and using CAD drawing systems. So you may gauge it directly.

Colour scheme is also accurate. Since June 1944, Japanese merchantman adopted black-green and green camouflage

to fit the Phillipines or China-Indochina jungle because they must voyage shallow waters near the land to avoid submarine torpedoes.

After Marianas campaign IJN lost almost all their carrier based aircrafts, so they needed to keep their carriers in Inland-sea beside small islands.

Therefore the carriers painted same as merchantman on their side, and strangely painted on their flight deck. (It was a pattern imitating the small island's terraced farm fields, I think.)

The book 'SHINANO! THE SINKING OF JAPAN'S SECRET SUPERSHIP' by CAPTAIN JOSEPH F ENRIGHT with JAMES W RYAN

contains the midship section drawing of SHINANO. It shows the shape of its buoyancy blister.

The top of its is one meter below of YAMATO's, so more round shape than YAMATO's wedge shape.(The reason of this modification is because once SHINANO designed to be smaller draft than YAMATO. Three sets of 18-inch gun turrets were heavier than full flight deck 75mm armours.)

Japanese publisher GAKKEN's recent issue 'TAIHO and SHINANO' contains much useful drawings including body plan , AA-guns arrange and island(bridge) plan.

TAMIYA's 1/700 shinano, however still has many inaccurate details.

Ommited flight deck crew waiting pocket,

cutter boat(minesweeping float handling) deck under forward 12.7cm guns,

catwalk around the hangar deck

landing guide signal lamps

the plan of island(bridge) top is a supposition and ommiting binoculars(some remaining reports says there were 36 sets of binoculars).

TAMIYA's island is little longer toward the fore.(2-3mm in 1/700)

And my question is how Japanese covered the SHINANO's side opening of hangar deck, it's too wide to shut out the lighting outside at night.

Anyway the supership is still myth and labyrinth. Everyone can make his own correct SHINANO. Good luck too!!

 

Re: Shinano(addition)

Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>

Date: Monday, 23 October 2000, at 10:15 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Shinano (John Waddell)

 

Island support structure below the hangar deck is longer 2 meter forward and 2 meter afterward than at above the hangar deck(below flight deck).

There were quarter round fashion plate to soften the wave splash.

Tamiya's 1/700 shinano ommit them.

 

Re: Shinano

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2000, at 7:04 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Shinano (Yutaka Iwasaki)

 

If I may ask, since you have the Gakken on Shinano/Taiho, can you tell me if it has an account by any 

survivors or report of Taiho's explosion and loss? Or is there a good book in Japanese on the subject? I can arrange some translations if I know good sources. I have that Gakken, but are unable to make out its table of content.

 

Taiho casualties

Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>

Date: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 8:18 a.m.

 

In Response To: Re: Shinano (Tony Tully)

In Gakken's Shinano/Taiho, only Mr. JIRO KIMATA(researcher and writer) mentioned about this subject that the number of TAIHO crews is 1,751(perhaps except pilots). In same author's another book 'War history of Japanese aircraft carrier' TOSYO-SYUPPANSYA co.ltd 1977, he says the TAIHO casualties

officer: 28

sailor: 632

total 660

Also he says number of survivors is unknown, but TAIHO had more than 1,751 crews because certain number of temporary single AA guns gunner must be on board.

In same book, he also mentioned about escort carrier SHINYO.

the number of SHINYO crews is 948. That's largest comparing any other Japanese escort carrier. And he is not sure the SHINYO casualties, but he believes most of crew couldn't survive.

 

Re: Taiho casualties

Posted By: Richard Wolff <rrwolff@bpa.gov>

Date: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 12:14 p.m.

In Response To: Taiho casualties (Yutaka Iwasaki)

 

I have worked with Tony to translate sections of Mr. Kimata's "History of Japanese Aircraft Carriers" and have found it to be very authoritative. I was not aware that Mr. Kimata played a role in the Gakken work on Taiho & Shinano. Now that I check, I can see his name cited on the last page (line 18) of the Table of Contents. Do you have any information about how I might contact Mr. Kimata?

Regarding Taihoh's complement, Mr. Jyouji Hayashi gives the total as 2038, which I believe includes the aircrews but I'm not sure if it includes the extra AA gun crews. See www.kt.rim.or.jp/~kaliy/TAIHOU.htm for details.

 

Re: Taiho complement

Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>

Date: Friday, 27 October 2000, at 7:26 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Taiho casualties (Richard Wolff)

 

Richard Wolff 26 October 2000

how I might contact Mr. Kimata?

 

He gives his address on publisher's imprint page. I have 1993's his book, the same address with "History of Japanese Aircraft Carriers".

Taiho's complement, Mr. Jyouji Hayashi

www.kt.rim.or.jp/~kaliy/TAIHOU.htm

This table seemes including 134 aircrews.(still differ with KIMATA's)

For me, this table is some primary resources once to be used for budget estimtion or to lighten the responsibility of the officers.

The table's additional notations explains members can be appointed to multi post under certain condition, and the number of aircraft mechanic may be adjustable according to the number of aircrafts on board.

Much of Mr. KIMATA's information stand on the recollection of survivers, therefore real and in some cases contradict to the formal reports.

 

Re: Taiho casualties

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Thursday, 26 October 2000, at 10:14 a.m.

In Response To: Taiho casualties (Yutaka Iwasaki)

 

Thank You for the figures! I am familiar with Jiro Kimata's 1977 book, and indeed, have translated portions of it. Do you perhaps know of these periodicals called "Konnichi Wadai" he references for stories of the carrier's sinkings?

 

CV hanger decks again!

Posted By: Bob Reddy <bobkatr@msn.com>

Date: Sunday, 1 October 2000, at 8:13 p.m.

 

I have just gotten 2 books from Hobby Links Japan that have some information on IJN CV hanger decks.

KOJINSHA/MARU "MECHANISMS OF JAPANESE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS #2"

has side views (which include their hanger decks) of the following vessels - AKAGI, KAGA (both before and after reconstruction in the 1930's and a photo of AKAGI's raised aft elevator), SHOKAKU/ZUIKAKU (also has plan view of both hanger decks), TAIHO incl. plan view), SHINANO incl. plan view of single hanger deck), SORYU, HIRYU, UNRYU incl. plan view of hanger with a/c placement shown), RYUJO, HOSYO & JUNYO icl. photo of hanger deck construction during conversion to CV).

KOJINSHA/MARU "IMPERIAL JAPANESE NAVY PHOTO FILE #5"

Page 83 has a photo of AKAGI's raised elevator & page 104 shows KAGA's aft elevator during construction - a lot of internal detail.

I can hardly translate the ship names in the various drawings and photos. I wish I had a translation of the captions, never mind the body of the text.

 

Re: CV hanger decks again!

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 4:53 a.m.

In Response To: CV hanger decks again! (Bob Reddy)

 

I've been collecting these excellent publications also.

The most impressive I've got recently is the Grand Prix book on IJN aircraft carriers. 336 pages of drawings in mindnumbing detail!

All in Japanese though! I got mine from Pacificfront. For those into IJN CV hangar details - this is the book for them!

 

Re: CV hanger decks again!

Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>

Date: Monday, 2 October 2000, at 4:29 p.m.

In Response To: CV hanger decks again! (Bob Reddy)

 

Has anyone seen these new "Mechanism" series and the old ones issued in 1980's ? Are they the same ? In addition, does anyone know if the hardcover versions are any different (apart from the covers) than the paperback versions of these books ?

 

Re: Ship Mechanism books?

Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>

Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 10:47 a.m.

In Response To: Re: CV hanger decks again! (J. Ed Low)

 

While I cannot vouch for the content between the old series and new Mechanism series of books, I have 

seen both the hardbound and smaller, softbound books and the content is identical between these two. Which you should buy depends on how deep your pocketbook is and how good your eyesight is!

 

Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Harvey Low <harveyl@interlog.com>

Date: Friday, 15 September 2000, at 8:25 p.m.

 

Does anyone know where I can get a set of good plans for this famous carrier(1/350 or so)? I have most if not all the more general and smaller line profiles but require more details for a scratchbuild project. Many internet sites sell plans but unfortunately not for SORYU - which is odd given the fame of this ship. Many many thanks in advance.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: mposis <mposis@excite.com>

Date: Saturday, 16 September 2000, at 3:31 p.m.

In Response To: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Harvey Low)

 

Try:

http://www.pacificfront.com/

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Tuesday, 19 September 2000, at 3:00 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (mposis)

 

Good luck--there is a dearth of good plans for Soryu. Abe Taubman does have one at 1/144, but I've never seen it. I have noticed, though, that the smaller scale drawings of her have contained inaccuracies in placement of the port forward 25mm AA gallery. Head's up.

http://www.taubmansonline.com/

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Harvey Low <harveyl@interlog.com>

Date: Tuesday, 19 September 2000, at 3:56 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Jon Parshall)

 

Thanks Jon for the lead. The cost is $15 so that's not too bad given no one has seen them. The more important thing and what I need plans for, is reasonably accurate dimensions and hull contours. Once I get the plans I'll pass on an assessment - thanks.

I'm almost finished a scratchbuilt battleship FUSO but was lucky to have a few sets of large scale plans for that ship - not to mention the Anatomy of a Ship release. Too bad no one has produced a set of decent plans for some of the other major ships in ONE neat clean volume recently.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Thursday, 19 October 2000, at 1:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Harvey Low)

 

Jon's right about lack of plans. We scoured around for some for our Midway work. However, if you are modeling the carrier, I just came across a bit that will be relevant. There was a publication in Japanese at a friend of mine's which had Hiryu's flight deck scheme accurately. Thus, I was inclined to trust its Soryu ----- it shows Soryu with no "meatball" but instead, "hollow" white circles on both the bow and the stern atop the flight deck. Gus, if you are out there, you were also looking for this kind of detail. Anyway, the white circles have the white stripes of the flight deck passing right through them, so they are not "opaque". The one in the rear is smaller in diameter, and just fits inside the two outboard white lines on either side.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Harvey Low <harveyl@interlog.com>

Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 6:51 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Tony Tully)

 

Thanks Tony for your help! I will likely add a red meatball when I get to the stage of painting, as this seems to be one that is still inconclusive. As such, it adds color to the subject without making it entirely inaccuarate. What is certain is that it was "painted on" as opposed to the theory that it was a removable fabric material of some kind - which doesn't make sense from a practical point of view given carrier launching. I guess the best thing about this project and lack of "good" plans is that I can push the limit so to speak.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 10:12 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Tony Tully)

 

I must disagree. I've got two pictures of Sôryû when attacked at Midway and it clearly shows a meatball forward on a white square surface like Akagi. There is indeed another circle aft which is only a white outline.

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>

Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 9:30 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Frido Kip)

 

Yes, I know which photo you mean. But it was hard to be sure if lines went through it. We had gone back and forth on it. The front part is lighter, so it was hard to tell. I thought I saw one too, but its just what this book shows and made me reconsider. Hiryu appears to have "through it".

 

Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Saturday, 21 October 2000, at 5:29 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Aircraft Carrier SORYU (Tony Tully)

 

The photographs are indeed too far away to be sure.

 

japanese ferry-carriers

Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <frank_berger@directbox.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 12:27 p.m.

 

the US-NAVY used small carriers to transport single-engined planes over the atlantic and to their pacific bases! Did the japanese also use their small vessels to provide their units with new planes? If yes! - Which types were shiped? Only IJN

ones or also some IJAA planes ? Were only carrier planes shipped or also landbased interceptors like J2M or N1K1 -Js?

Did anybody knew about units shipped to their destination?

 

Re: japanese ferry-carriers

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 4:06 a.m.

In Response To: japanese ferry-carriers (Frank Chr. Berger)

 

I've sent you three photos which may be of use to you:

1. Unyo ferrying J1N1(Irving) planes.

2. IJA carrier Akitsu Maru.

3.Aircraft on Akitsu Maru.

 

Re: japanese ferry-carriers

Posted By: Bob <Bob5@home.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 7:07 p.m.

In Response To: japanese ferry-carriers (Frank Chr. Berger)

 

The IJN did indeed transport some IJA aircraft from time to time. However,later in the war,the IJA operated its own "navy" for transport purposes. In addition to some small unarmed submarines, the IJA 

also had a number of ships converted to aircraft ferrys. These included:

Yamashiro Maru- 11,000-tons

Nigitsu-Maru - 11, 989-tons

Kumano Maru-8,128-tons

Shimane Maru-11,800-tons

 

Re: Japanese Aircraft Ferrys

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 5:35 p.m.

In Response To: japanese ferry-carriers (Frank Chr. Berger)

 

Shoho, Zuiho and Kasuga Maru were used to ferry aircraft in the early going of 1942. They did not have a purpose built one until later. Those were:

Taiyo (Kasuga Maru)Commissioned 9/15/41

Unyo (Yawata Maru) Commissioned 5/31/42

Chuyo (Nitta Maru) Commissioned 11/25/42

Kaiyo (Argentina Maru) Commissioned 11/23/43

Shinyo (Scharnhorst) Commissioned 12/15/43

 

Re: japanese ferry-carriers

Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 5:15 p.m.

In Response To: japanese ferry-carriers (Frank Chr. Berger)

 

Al Alsleben would probably know more about this.

I do know that at the start of the Pacific War each IJNAF Air Flotilla had one or more merchants attached as aircraft ferries.

The IJN did not have the luxury of having spare carriers for aircraft transports. As discussed in Lundstrom's book the Fleet Carriers sailing for the Coral Sea had to divert because they were ferrying fighters to Rabaul (I think I hav that right).

 

Re: The Other Aircraft Transports

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 6:43 p.m.

In Response To: Re: japanese ferry-carriers (Jim Broshot)

 

The following below, were used to transport aircraft to various Koku Sentai's. These generic transports 

carried crated or fulling assembled aircraft on board. These were converted from merchant shipping;

Fujikawa Maru - 6,938

Goshu Maru - 8,592

Kamogawa Maru - 6,440

Kanto Maru - 8,606

Katsuragi Maru - 8,033

Keiyo Maru - 6,442

Komaki Maru - 7,469

Lyons Maru - 7,017

Mogamigawa Maru - 7,469

Nagoya Maru - 6,072

4 were reconverted back to transports, or in the case of Nagoya Maru, she converted to Submarine Tender.

 

Re: The Other Aircraft Transports

Posted By: Ron Wolford <wolfieeod@aol.com>

Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 7:20 a.m.

In Response To: Re: The Other Aircraft Transports (Allan Alsleben)

 

These ships were all stander merchant ships with no flight deck or other major modifications. I dove on the Fujikawa Maru at Truk and she still has Type O fighters disassembled in her front holes. I read somewhere that the Fujikawa Maru transported aircraft back and forth from the Home Island to Saigon and then on out to Truk and back to the Home Islands. I hope this help out.

 

Re: The Other Aircraft Transports

Posted By: Frank Chr. Berger <frank_berger@directbox.com>

Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 3:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: The Other Aircraft Transports (Allan Alsleben)

 

Above you can read "fulling assembled" - Did some of these ships have something like a fligthdeck? If there was a fligthdeck/wooden storage place - did it occupy the parts

between the islands or the whole length? How about lifts?

Any photos of IJAA planes on board available? Or photos of crated planes for diorama purpose ! If there were ships with

fligthdecks and hangars for ferry-missions - did they have some permanent carrierplanes (like Zeros) for selfdefence?

Or did the transports carry floatplanes for the same purpose?

 

Re: The Other Aircraft Transports

Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>

Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 8:58 a.m.

In Response To: Re: The Other Aircraft Transports (Frank Chr. Berger)

 

With regards to the "Other Aircraft Transports", they had no flight deck or anything resembling one. These were merchant ships converted to carry aircraft. Some were assembled while most were crated. But with the shortage of aircraft at various bases, Fleet Tankers were used also.

In February of '42 there was an acute shortage of aircraft. This was due in large part for the lack of spares. Serviceablilty was almost 50%. Tankers would leave the Empire with aircraft and return with oil. The "Aircraft Transports" also were used in like manner, depending on availability. This shortage would remain until after the Midway Battle. It was rare for a unit to be at full strength. There is much that can be said about the logistics of the Imperial Japanese Navy, but that's another story. The IJN never had a purpose built unit for the sole purpose of quality logistics, not on the scale that the US Navy had.

Case in point when the 5th CarDiv transported badly needed aircraft to Rabaul after April 26th 1942. There were only 9 in number, but the Tainan Sentai had only 24 aircraft at Rabaul. As to how many planes were servicable, I don't have those figures, but six seems to be my gut feeling. At any rate, those nine aircraft were sorely needed.

 

Kaga hangar deck configuration

Posted By: John R <j.p.redman@nationewideisp.net>

Date: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 9:09 a.m.

 

I'm working on the 1:700 Kaga kit and trying to figure out what the hangar deck *should* look like with the aftmost lift in the down position. The kit includes a box you're supposed to glue to the underside of the flight deck.

I can't believe this is how it would have looked but I can't find a clear reference photo to check. So does anyone know....

If they would have had sisal or canvas screens to keep the weather out of the large (ventilation?) openings in the after hull at hangar deck level?

How the lifts rose, i.e. was it by sliding up fixed rails which would be visible at all times, or were they supported from below, like a piston?

Did any IJN aircraft have folding wings at Midway or did that happen later? Did they fold them for storage only or when moving the aircraft to and from the hangar?

And finally: I'd like to show the entire air group spotted for take-off, but unless the planes are well overscale there's no way I can fit anything like 60 on the deck. Even if 9 of the 18 Zeroes were launched first, and the remaining aircraft spotted on deck after that, that's still 50-odd. How was this done? Did they spot the first couple of dozen and replenish the deck park from the hangar below? How far back would aircraft be spotted - all the way to the red and white stripes?

I have no idea where to look for this and I've searched hard...any help appreciated.

 

Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Monday, 4 September 2000, at 11:13 a.m.

In Response To: Kaga hangar deck configuration (John R)

 

First you should be aware of the fact that Kaga had three hangar levels aft, not just two. The elevator had four sliding beams or rails, two on each side, which were remarkable in that they could actually be raised one level above the flight deck! This was done so that the lower elevator level of the very unusual two-storey elevator could reach the flight deck. This lower elevator level was added so that she could service the third (reserve) hangar without interfering with operations in the normal hangars.

I do not possess a hangar layout of Kaga, but if she is anything resembling Akagi, then indeed the elevator was surrounded by walls on both sides and aft where workshops (or something like that) were situated. The elevator thus formed the end of the hangars. To me the depth of Hasegawa's hangar seems too high for the first hangar level.

All three aircraft types had folding wings. However, these were not as space efficient as American aircraft. The Kate bombers could fold half their wings inwards where they met on top of the canopy. Vals and Zekes had folding wingtips to reduce their wingspan to meet elevator sizes. The aircraft were stowed and transported to and from the flight deck in folded conditions (note that most elevators did not allow anything else).

Maybe the answer to the large number of aircraft is quite simple: Kaga probably did not launch 60+ aircraft at a single strike, but only about half which teamed up with Akagi’s planes. The remainder formed the second attack wave and so on. I hope someone of the aircraft fanatics can tell you exactly what was spotted on the flight deck at Midway or what time period you prefer.

 

Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 8:28 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration (Frido Kip)

 

Frido is basically right in all of his comments. I have internal plans of Kaga which show some of the particulars, and I will elaborate as I can.

1) You won't find photos of elevators down on Kaga, because the photographic record for Kaga stinks. There are two decent overhead shots of her that I like, but her elevators are up.

2) Her elevators used cables and counterweights for operation, so you would be able to see these weights in the side walls of the elevator well. There are illustratuons of this mechanism in a Japanese book entitled "Nihon no Kokubokan" that you can probably pick up from Pacific Front Hobbies.

3) The third, lower hangar that Frido mentioned is only for dis-assembled aircraft, It is serviced by a small rectangular elevator amidships that runs from the lower hangar down to this spares hangar. It is about 30' x 10' in size, so it couldn't haul an assembled plan up, but it was big enough to bring up a wing or a fuselage. Again, though, this smaller elevator did not penetrate to the flight deck.

4) A standard deck spot for Kaga would have been 30-33 planes max, assuming, say a 27-plane attack wing and 6 fighter escorts. Kaga had a 27-strong Kate wing at Midway (the biggest of the squadrons among the four carriers). The Zeros would have placed at the front of the spot, of course, as they need 250-300 feet of takeoff room. The Kates and Vals needed a bit more.

5) Japanese aircraft did have folding wingtips, but they were not all very space efficient. The Kate, as Frido mentioned, was relatively compact. Val was *not*, as she was a big airplane to begin with and her wings folded very near the tips. As a result, the middle elevator on Kaga (just forward of the bridge) is the only one big enough to handle the Val. So the Vals are parked amidships on both hangar levels, just aft of this elevator. Kates are in the rear, an Zeros are stowed in the front. The wings were folded at all times when in the hangar. Japanese hangars tended to have fairly low ceiling clearance (12-14 feet), so they probably couldn't unfold them when stowed.

6) Those large openings on the lower hangar deck level aft are not ventilation openings. They seem to be a sort of gallery structure for a walkway at that level. Japanese hangars were almost universally enclosed and protected from the elements--Shinano was the sole exception to this rule that I am aware of. I'm puzzled by those openings as well, as they seem space inefficient, but the photos of Kaga are crappy enough that it's tough to see what they were for.

7) The hangar space in way of Kaga's aft elevator is very narrow, so the elevator basically takes up the whole width. Aft of the elevator is the pilot's ready room area. Forward is aircraft stowage space. This space could be subdivided internally by usage of rolling metal fire curtains that were stored on large vertical rolls and could be cranked across the hangar space from one side to the other. There would have been one at the forward edge of the lift, so as to divide the hangar deck from the elevator well. I have no idea what these things looked like; I only know they existed.

8) The lower hangar deck in this area is also very narrow. There was nothing aft of it (except the bounding bulkhead); forward was aircraft stowage for Kates. Again, there would have been a fire curtain between the elevator well and the hangar. During spotting operations, of course, these curtains would have been rolled back.

 

Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 11:53 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration (Jon Parshall)

 

Thanks for your extensive comments. I've got a question for you. I’m puzzled by your elevator remarks. Up till now I was quite certain of the double aft elevator configuration, but your description makes me doubt. Unfortunately, I do not possess internal drawings of Kaga or adequate photographic evidence, apart from the very blurry en route to Pearl Harbor photograph with the elevator in the up position. I do have internal drawings of Akagi, but the level with the third hangar is missing and no small elevator is shown on the second hangar (or I’m looking in the wrong place), making it impossible for me to make any kind of conclusion. Furthermore, I believed that the unusual four protrusions at the sides of the rear elevators in Akagi and Kaga (not visible in any of the other carriers or the forward elevators) were prove of the double elevator feature. Can you shed any further light on this question?

P.S. I’m very interested in your internal drawings of Kaga. Only if it’s not too much trouble, could you send them to me by e-mail, I would be very grateful.

 

Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 12:53 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration (Frido Kip)

 

Well, now you've got me confused with this talk of "four protrusions" on the aft elevator. Huh? :-) I guess I don't recall anything unusual about her aft elevator, so I am clueless as to what you're talking about here.

As to the plans; I am working on getting them into electronic format, but that's gonna take a while. Send me your snail mail and I'll send you a set. Do you both pre- and post-refit? They're 11"x17", 7 sheets total, and the post-refit set were just recently translated into English for me by Yoshida Akihiko in Japan. At first glance they seem rather crude, but they actually have a fair amount of detail to them.

As far as access to Akagi's lower hangar deck, I'd have to take a look at my plans. Kaga may just be flat-out differnt than Akagi in this respect--they had learned a lot from doing Kaga's refit that may have suggested alternatives during Akagi's refit three years later. I'd need to check to make absolutely sure the that the aft elevator on Kaga did not go all the way down to the third hangar, but I distinctly recall staring at the plans and thinking, "Wow, this is weird", because there is clearly a different elevator to service this lower hangar. At first I thought it was a bomb/torpedo lift, but it is too big for that, especially when compared to the smaller lift to port of Kaga's midships elevator that is used for that same purpose, and that is clearly marked as such on the plans.

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 5:32 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Kaga hangar deck configuration (Jon Parshall)

 

Jon is correct in his analysis of the reserve aircraft hanger (level three hanger) & elevator. The plans (he send me a set) clearly indicate:

1: the reserve hanger is not serviced by the after elevator

2: the reserve hanger has its own elevator on the port side a little aft of amidships.

One comment on Jon's earlier comments. Kaga has a full length upper hanger (level one), a lower hanger aft serviced only by the aft elevator, and the resrve hanger (level three) serviced by the reserved hanger.

This later fact should eliminate all thoughts of reserve aircraft being available for combat roles, as the hager is not wide enough for assembled aircraft, and the elevator could not service them regardless.

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 6:47 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Mark E. Horan)

 

Hmmmm... that's not the way I interpret the plans, Mark. I think the lower hangar is clearly serviced by all three elevators as well. And the service elevator to the reserve aircraft hangar is on the *starboard side*. Go back and check. [See what you get for asking the "experts", Frido? We just argue amongst ourselves! :-) ]

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 8:11 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

Okay, I can't tell my port from starboard - you cot me there. But why the elevators servicing the lowere hanger deck? The middle and fore sections of the are all labeled as Maintenence, Ordanace Maintenance, stores, Wardroom, and enlisted quarters.

Or are the sections around the two forward elevators labeled "reserve Aircraft stores in fact aircraft and not stores? If so, it doesn't appaer that they go very far?

It looks like the fore lift might go to the lower hanger, but it is almost all crew quarters there?

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hangar

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 7:34 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Mark E. Horan)

 

Oh, I see what's going on; I was confused by your usage of the term "lower hangar deck" and thought you were referring to the *real* lower hangar deck (i.e. the second hangar deck down) and not what I'll call the "reserve hangar deck" or "reserve aircraft store", which is the third hangar down.

Both the "Upper" and "Lower" hangars are serviced by the three main elevators. The "Reserve" hangar is serviced by a single small elevator to starboard, amidships.

I'm intrigued, too, that only the forward elevator is shown to have an elevator well. That doesn't make any sense to me--the other two *have* to have wells.

Also, be aware, Mark, that even though the plans show the upper hangar deck extending aft of the aft elevator shaft, in reality it *did not* extend past the elevator. That space aft of the elevator is the main pilot's ready room, as relayed to us by Haruo Yoshino a few months ago. If you look at the photos of Kaga, it's clear that there is some sort of structure kind of hanging between the support struts, but it is also clear that it isn't tall enough to be an extension of the upper hangar--there wouldn't be enough clearance for a plane. This tends to back up Yoshino's statement that the space was used as a flight crew ready room (as distinct from the pilot's briefing area in the lower level of the island). Bottom Line: these plans are good, but they have to be used carefully.

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hangar

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 10:48 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hangar (Jon Parshall)

 

Okay Jon, where were we...

The aft elevators in both Akagi and Kaga differ from the other elevator(s) in that they have four small square shaped protrusions (forgive me if this is the wrong word for it), two on each side. They appear to cover openings in the flight deck which might have allowed the supporting beams of the upper elevator platform to pass through the flight deck.

There is clear prove of this unusual feature. I first saw it in the large scale drawings of Akagi in the Polish Monografie Morskie 2. I then also discovered them in the drawing of Akagi in Hans Lengerer’s article on Akagi & Kaga in Warship No. 22 (1982). Even more convincing, they are clearly visible in the overhead photograph of Kaga in the same article on page 134 (this picture is also shown in David Brown’s Aircraft Carriers on page 16 and in the old MacDonald pocket Japanese Aircraft Carriers and Destroyers on page 15). I’ve never seen anything like it, and I’m certain that none of the other Japanese aircraft carriers have them.

While I was looking for the correct page number of the picture I also found a transverse view of Akagi on the same page showing the aft elevator section, which appears to prove that the elevator could reach all three hangars. unfortunately the elevator is missing so I cannot confirm it’s double level configuration. Of course, Akagi may differ from Kaga in this.

What do you make of all of this?

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hangar

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 7:43 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hangar (Frido Kip)

 

By God, you're right. And I have no clue as to what those little bumps are.

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 6:23 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Mark E. Horan)

 

So the reserve hangar of Kaga serves (to the obvious extent possible considering the aircraft are broken down) the same function as the tricing of aircraft overhead in US carriers?

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 6:38 p.m.In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Randy)

 

Basically, although the USN could put intact aircaft aloft, that would apparently be the case. I'd love to see similar plans for the Akagi, Soryu, Hiryu, Zuikaku & Shokaku, and Ryujo.

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 6:56 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Mark E. Horan)

 

Let's talk offline; I can help with some of these. Soryu and Ryujo; uh uh. They are miserably documented, although I am trying to track down internal schematics of Soryu (for obviuos reasons). But I may have some stuff on Akagi and Zuikaku for you, and David Dickson sent me great internals of Hiryu,

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: John R <j.p.redman@nationwideisp.net>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 4:35 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Randy)

 

wow...amazing amount of detailed comment I wasn't expecting! thanks guys!

do we not learn from our hobby? I've read several accounts of Midway which castigate Nagumo for sending *half* the air group from *all* his carriers. Had he sent *all* the air group from *half* his carriers, the argument goes, he would have had the other two full air groups ready to launch against any surface threat and would therefore not have been caught with all four flight decks busy when the SBDs arrived.

It would appear though, that if no carrier could in fact spot more than half its air group, what he did was quite sensible. Sending two full deckloads would have entailed either splitting the strike into two smaller consecutive ones, or making the first half of the strike circle while the second half was brought up, spotted, launched, and formed up. This would have cost them fuel, reduced their range, and presumably entailed moving closer to Midway to launch, thus risking earlier detection.

Equally, any counterstrike against a surface force would have gone off more quickly from four decks and could have struck that threat while it was further away.

Of course, this doesn't excuse the disarming and rearming of the reserve spotted on deck, nor the very poor munitions handling (arguably not Nagumo's fault). Personally I reckon when he received sighting reports of ships to his east, he should have sent off half his reserves at least - armed only with HE, if need be - so he could at least hit them with something. That way, at no stage would every carrier be simultaneously exposed.

Of course this is all hindsight - we tend to forget that this kind of operation was ground breaking stuff in 1942.

 

Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 7:55 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (John R)

 

Yes, any book that argues the "launch a full strike force" argument was written by someone who didn't 

understand Japanese carrier operational doctrine, and/or the physical capabilities of the vessels themselves. While launching a strike force with HE weapons would have been suboptimal from an attack perspective, as a passive damage control measure (i.e. "at least these 20+ fully armed birds aren't sitting around on board any more") it would have potentially had a very large effect on the Japanese ability to deal with the damage to their ships.

 

Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 7:49 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Reserve Aircraft Hanger (John R)

 

I just checked my Akagi plans, and the lowermost reserve hangar aboard her is serviced by both the midships and rear elevators. The reserve hangar occupies the space between them. So it is conceivable that Akagi could have carried fully assembled aircraft down there, although in practice you wouldn't want to do so, becuase the longer elevator cycles would tend to militate against it

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 12:59 p.m.

In Response To: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

I once read somewhere that both Akagi and Kaga had double level rear elevators to speed up transfer times because of the triple hangar layout. This eliminated the need for another elevator, which would have absorbed valuable hangar space, despite the fact that only dismantled aircraft were to be carried there. Unfortunately, I could not confirm this unusual but typical Japanese feature in more reliable sources and now I can not even locate the original source.

I thought that it was possible but without further prove I more or less forgot all about it until I came across the mysterious picture of Kaga, at least I think it’s her, on route to Pearl Harbor on this site. In this picture a very vague and strange structure is seen on her flight deck. Remembering the suggested double elevator layout I took a closer look at the rear elevator in all my sources which resulted in my discovery of the bumps. I concluded that the double elevator story had to be true and that the lower level could actually be raised to the flight deck level.

I can not prove or disprove this theory, unfortunately, and believe me I would love to prove such a spectacular oddity. Maybe only Akagi had it, but then the picture must be of Akagi and not Kaga. As far as I know, no other pictures show the rear elevator in the up position.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 2:15 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Frido Kip)

 

The supposition that "the lower level could actually be raised to the flight deck level" to me is a complete impossibility. We're not talking about The Transformers here! :-) I know the shot of Kaga you're talking about--she's bow on to the camera, and in heavy seas, and it appears that there's some sort of heavy derrick or crane on her aft flight deck. And that's what I think that structure is. I dunno; but it sure isn't some osrt of double elevator.

Actually, Akagi and Kaga were both faulted for having slower elevator cycles than their newer compatriots, which further impacted their operational cycles.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Wednesday, 13 September 2000, at 9:32 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

Maru Special indicates that at the time of completion, both Akagi and Kaga had a "double decked" rear elevator. There is also a photo of Akagi (pre-refit configuration) with her rear elevator in an "up" position clearly showing it to be "double decked."

Unfortunately, Maru Special did not elabourate if both ships kept the "double decked" features of the rear elevator after their major refit. However, the photo of the Kaga en route to her air raid on Pearl Harbour, although unclear, does seem to indicate that at least Kaga kept her double decked feature of her rear elevator. The structure on the flight deck of Kaga en route to Pearl looks identical to the double decked rear elevator seen on Akagi's photo in Maru Special.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>

Date: Thursday, 14 September 2000, at 12:07 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Thanks for the heads-up. Which issue (#2) and which page on the photo. Really curious to look it up.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>

Date: Thursday, 14 September 2000, at 7:20 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Dan Kaplan)

 

I found the photo (looking at the book, I also found a photo of Kaga with the double deck elevator prior to her refit) in Maru Special special edition on "mechanisms of Japanese carriers" pages 63 and 64 in the chapter on flight and hangar decks of Akagi and Kaga. The original is out of print but it was re-issued recently. It's available at Hobbylink Japan.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Friday, 15 September 2000, at 7:59 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Well, having now seen the Maru Special photo, and looking at that vidcap of Kaga on her way to Pearl Harbor, I'd have to say that Frido was right and I was oooooh-so wrong; Kaga carried a double-decker elevator. I'm still having trouble grasping the utility of such a thing, but there it is! :-)

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>

Date: Friday, 15 September 2000, at 12:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

This is conjecture but the potential utility is that two aircraft can be loaded on to the elevator at a time i.e. from the two lower deck hangers. They still need to be unloaded one at a time but if the elevators are slow, this does help a bit.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Friday, 15 September 2000, at 2:43 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (J. Ed Low)

 

That implies that the elevator up/down cycle was distinctly longer than the load/unload cycle. Weird. By the time of the war, these two components were about the same for the newer carriers

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>

Date: Friday, 15 September 2000, at 5:41 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

You are right, in biological science, we call this "the rate limiting step" i.e. if it takes much longer to move the elevators up and down than to get the planes on them, then putting two planes on and having to go up one more level to unload the plane on the lower elevator would be counter productive.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>

Date: Tuesday, 19 September 2000, at 5:12 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (J. Ed Low)

 

I know that this is a little late but I actually found another (and clearer) picture of Akagi's double-deck elevator. It is on page 38 of the pictorial Monografie Morskie - Akagi. It shows a picture of Akagi's deck looking towards the stern from the bridge. There are Type 3 and 12 aircraft on the deck. The rear double elevator is clearly visible, raised with the lower part flushed with the deck.

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Wednesday, 20 September 2000, at 10:26 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (J. Ed Low)

 

I'll be damned. I own a copy of that book, I have no idea why I never noticed this picture before. The elevator is pretty clear, especially now I known what it looks like.

Thanks for pointing it out to me!

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Thursday, 14 September 2000, at 7:53 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Tennessee Katsuta)

 

Well, that's what I get for shooting off my big mouth. Tennessee, is it possible for you to scan that Maru Special pic and post it or send it to me? I'd really like to see it. Thanks!

 

Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Saturday, 9 September 2000, at 9:00 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

As there is no prove of the double level elevator, you’re probably right. Nonetheless, I’ve decided to keep an open mind in this as the Japanese have proven again and again to come up with solutions which appear totally ludicrous to us. Who knows what we will learn tomorrow...

 

Re: Slow elevators

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>

Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 7:25 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi Reserve Aircraft Hanger (Jon Parshall)

 

Jon commented on Akagi and Kaga having longer cycle times on their elevators. It is, of course true. As a not e of possible interest, this problem was hardly unique to the IJN. In every navy the design of the elevators was progressively improved with the idea of decreasing the cycle time (down-to-down or up-to-up).

In the IJN, Akagi and Kaga, sentemental favorites in the Fleet, have much longer cycle times than the newer carriers (Hiryu, Aoryu, Zuikaku/Shokaku).

In the USN, this same situation existed between Lexington/Saratoga and Ranger in comparison with Wasp and Yorktown/Enterprise/Hornet. Lex and Sar had notoriously poor clcye times, and only one good elevator to boot, which is why they always had an extensive deck park by nightfall, even on slow days! They were both scheduled to get new (read faster) elevators at their next refit, but neither ever did.

The RN faced the same problem with their older carriers Hermes, Eagle, and Furious. The cycle time of Hermes bordered on the absurd, requiring more time to move 12 aircraft (which couldn't all be ranged anyway) than the newer carriers took to move 30+!

As the war went on, these carriers with lousy cycle times were phased out of anything important whenever possible. The elevator problem is the reason Sar was always the odd ship out throughout 1943-45 - she could not service aircraft fast enough during a fight.

 

Posted By: Aaron Pfau <puffer@ilm.com>

Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 1:23 p.m.

 

I'm looking for any and all visual reference for the Akagi Carrier. Does anything exist in color besides paintings? I've found lots of b&w aerial and harbor photos, but they're blurry and don't show much detail.

I saw the threads below as well for the deck, very cool.

I'd also love to see some pics of models people have built of the Akagi as well! I'm currently collecting research for the Hase 1/700 model.

Any leads greatly appreciated!

 

Re: Akagi

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 1:54 p.m.

In Response To: Akagi (Aaron Pfau)

 

You should purchase Gakken Pacific War Series #14, which has 1/200 scale models of Akagi and Hiryu. Nice color pics, and good detail. Surf to Hobbylink Japan (http://www.hlj.com) and use their "Advanced Search" to look at all the products from Gakken. Like I say, it's Volume #14, and it'll set you back about 1800 yen. Worth it.

 

Re: Akagi

Posted By: Aaron Pfau <puffer@ilm.com>

Date: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 1:02 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi (Jon Parshall)

 

Thanks Jon! I ordered that book today. That whole series of books looks fantastic. I wish they'd publish more books like that in the US.

 

Re: Akagi

Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>

Date: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 3:07 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Akagi (Aaron Pfau)

 

There's also a Polish booklet on the Akagi in the Monografie Morskie series by M. Skwiot and A. Jarski simply named Akagi which contains many large size drawings which may be a great help in detailing. If I remember correctly you can get it at www.pacificfront.com.

 

CV AKAGI Deck Markings *PIC*

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>

Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 6:18 a.m.

 

Please refer to this very nice rendering by Bob SUMERALL illustrating the AKAGI deck markings posted on the Battleship Row sister site dealing with the Battle of Midway (Incredible Victory).

Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced here.

Editors Note: The link is no longer active.

 

Re: CV AKAGI Deck Markings

Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>

Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 9:59 a.m.

In Response To: CV AKAGI Deck Markings *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

 

That's off the cover of the Polish A.J. Press book on Akagi. It is, I think, a very accurate drawing (the plans are terrific as well, although Bob Sumrall is rumored to be coming up with a new, better set).

 

Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>

Date: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 10:13 a.m.

 

Please note that this painting of CV KAGA under attack was done in 1942 by Griffith Baily COALE based on eye witness accounts at the time. We have no other contemporary renderings and, therefore, this source is the best available.

It would appear that, at the Battle of Midway, CV AKAGI had a deck hinomaru on a white square background (as did CV SORYU, but the leading edge of the white square, in this case, appears, somewhat "pointed" and not at right angles to the deck). CVs KAGA and HIRYU appear to have had the deck hinomaru with a white circular outline and runway stripes painted through them.

Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced here.

 

Re: KAGA Deck Hinomaru Details

Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>

Date: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 4:45 p.m.

In Response To: KAGA Deck Hinomaru Details *PIC* (James F. Lansdale)

 

Considering this seems to exactly mimic the known B&W photo of Hiryu, it would seem to be fairly indicative of the true state. Why someone would come up with the white lines through the red disk unlesss someone indicated this was the way they saw it? Wjy would Hiryu have the circle without the red?

 

Resin 1:700 Ryuho

Posted By: John R <jpredman@nationwideisp.net>

Date: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 11:30 a.m.

 

HLJ just sent me the resin kit - the first resin number I've bought - by (I think) Pitroad, and very slim and elegant she is too.

However, there's no flight deck, just a plain rectangle of plastic card which looks way too thin but is approximately the right size. I can't read the instructions (Japanese) to know what I'm supposed to do with this.

Has anyone else bought this kit, does mine have a bit missing, and if not, what do I do? I'm reasonably skilled and could certainly make a flight deck but I don't want to unless I have to.

 

Re: Resin 1:700 Ryuho

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 4:53 a.m.

In Response To: Resin 1:700 Ryuho (John R)

 

I too was surprised when I bought my first resin IJN carrier. All that money and no flight deck?!

You should have a deck outline drawing with your strip of plastic. I traced through the drawing onto the plastic and then cut it out. I use a scribe cutter to mark the deck planking and other deck markings.

If you're interested you can see pics of my Ryuho at the PIT- ROAD website (see link)

 

Re: Resin 1:700 Ryuho

Posted By: John R <j.p.redman@nationwideisp.net>

Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:46 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Resin 1:700 Ryuho (Allan Parry)

 

Thanks for tip. Could you repost the PitRoad link? I missed it somehow but would love to look at your built-up kit.

Was surprised to see how elegant she looks. Probably from playing "Carriers at War" too much, I'd formed the impression (from only seeing her in profile) that she was a bit like Ryujo, i.e. quite small and squat. I was agreeably taken with the reality.

 

Re: Resin 1:700 Ryuho

Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>

Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:54 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Resin 1:700 Ryuho (John R)

 

my fault with the link,here it is now!

I too was impressed with the Ryuho-both the ship and kit.I'm sure you will find it a satisfying build. I've built most of the resin IJN CVs now. They are all really impressive kits. I've just finished the Hi-Mold Chiyoda kit, with it's superb etched brass deck.

I,ve amassed loads of info on IJN CVs now (deck camouflage, photos, detail. etc) so if I can help, contact me.

Link: http://www.kamakuranet.ne.jp/~mad/allan.html

Return to Navy Ships Message Board