Battleship FAQs
 
Topics:
Another question about CL seaplane
Battleship Hiei
Yamashiro question
Battleship Hatsuse?
Ise as hybrid (again)
More Yamato Questions
Gakken books(Yamato),resins
Yamato decks ,etc
1/250 Yamato Kits
How well does Skulski...
battleships outfits
Battleship Hiei Profile
Battleship Kongo
Yamato
ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato?
Book out in Japanese
sunken Yamato wreck model
Looking for 1/200 Yamato photo etch parts
IJN Kirishima photos
 
Another question about CL seaplane
 
Posted By: daniel rastello <daniel.rastello@voila.fr>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 3:52 a.m.
 
Does anybody know if E13A "Jake" or F1M "Pete" had been on board of the pre-war class CL KUMA, NAGARA and NAKA during WWII?
 
Re: Another question about CL seaplane
 
Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 6:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Another question about CL seaplane (daniel rastello)
 
All Light Cruisers, Cruiser/Minelayers had the E7K2 embarked with one exception........ that being one of those had an E11A1. I would need to search to determine which one had the E11A1. At the start of hostilities, there were only 4 E11A1's available of the 17 produced.
This information would come from "Japanese of the Pacific War" by LaCroix.
 
Re: Sendai & Jintsu
 
Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 7:11 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Another question about CL seaplane (Allan)
 
It would appear that Sendai and Jintsu embarked the E11A1 during night operations during the Battle of Java Sea. After that, the E7K2 were embarked.
 
Re: Sendai & Jintsu
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 3:59 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Sendai & Jintsu (Mark J.)
 
According to Lacroix Ashigara carried one E11A1 only in February-March 1941 during her stay at Saigon. He does not mention the aircraft after that period.
 
Re: Laura Colors
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Sendai & Jintsu (Frido Kip)
 
By coincidence, I just snagged another issue of Fujimi's little gem of Laura (1/72nd scale) for only $18.00. The instructions include six versions of the plane and four paint jobs (looking at both kit issues); hate to keep you in suspense but I need to translate the instructions. But generally, they would be dark green over light gray, silver (or aluminum), black and a very rich blue over light gray (a la the Mavis once on this site).
I believe the CL to carry Laura was Kinu although it may have been Natori.
By the way, although this kit usually runs about $40.00 (I got lucky) I would strongly advise purchasing one -- it is a little jewel of a kit and is no longer available from Fujimi, AFAIK.
 
Battleship Hiei
 
Posted By: Bill Turner <wturner@rclco.com>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
 
I'm looking for detailed photos and drawings of the Hiei, in her final configuration (1942). I've got the various key reference books on the IJN which have a handfull of small drawings and photos of the Hiei, but I'm interested in large, detailed side profiles, drawings and/or photos.
 
Re: Battleship Hiei
 
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Hiei (Bill Turner)
 
There are not really easily found "large" photos, but there are a group of crystal clear 1941-42 pictures that will allow you to define details. Remember the "wrap-around" that goes around the (I think?)forward stack and makes it look different from her sisters. Also the quasi-Yamato style tower mast that was tried out on her to test the Yamato one. I will check my Hiei pictures
 
Re: Battleship Hiei
 
Posted By: Bill Turner <wturner@rclco.com>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Hiei (Tony Tully)
 
That would be great. I know some of the veterans from Marine TBF squadron VMSB-131, which attacked the Hiei after it was damaged the night before during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal.
 
Yamashiro question
 
Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmguire@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 3:08 p.m.
 
I just purchased the Yamashiro and after glancing at the all-Japanese intructions I'm left wondering. What color would the a/c be that were on board? Also, what would be the arrangement on board, there are supposed to be three on the ship but just one catapult, are the others just sitting on deck near it? The instructions are not clear. There are also several a/c with the kit. It includes to my best guess, Petes, Jakes, Alfs and one other I can't easily i.d., possibly a Glen. It calls for a specific bipe to use, but wouldn't that change depending on the phase of the war? If I model it at the time of it's sinking would it have been w/ out aircraft due to shortage? I know it's alot of questions, but you guys are smart.
 
Airplane! (minus Julie Hagardy)
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 1:15 a.m.
 
In Response To: Yamashiro question (Jeff McGuire)
 
According to the Fuso book, the following aircraft were carried:
E4N2 5/33 to 2/37
E8N2 "Dave" 4/38 to 12/42
F1M2 "Pete" 1/43 to sinking
According to the Profile Morskie book on the Nagato, thier colors are as follows:
E4N2 1938: overall silver, red tail, black cowl
E8N2 1941/42: brown/green camo upper, gray lower
F1M2 1943/44: green upper, gray lower
As far as the Skulski book shows, the planes were just kept on the quarterdeck while embarked. The majority of the photos of the Fuso shows her without any aircraft. As far as I know, the Yamato and Musashi are the only non-carriers in the IJN with below-deck aircraft storage (okay, those subs count too!). Anyway, my point is that if her aircraft are embarked, they have to be stored on the catapult itself or on a trolley on the rails on the quarterdeck.
 
Re: Yamashiro question
 
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
 
In Response To: Yamashiro question (Jeff McGuire)
 
I am not sure where the aircraft usually were, but its worth noting that 1941 shots of sister Fuso show all three stored on the quarterdeck beside the catapult.(Its often overlooked that Fuso's catapult was moved aft to match Yamashiro's in 1941). I think there was also a small hangar below the quarterdeck, but the wardroom is there also, so that would impact space.
 
Re: Yamashiro question
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Saturday, 25 November 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
 
In Response To: Yamashiro question (Jeff McGuire)
 
I'm no expert on a/c or colours, but I'd guess the Glen in fact is a Dave ("Nakajima E8N2 Navy Type 95 reconnaissance floatplane", according to Skulski's "Fuso" book). You're right about the different periods during which different a/c were used. Dave and Alf were used before Jake and Pete; in fact, Skulski says Fuso first carried the Nakajima E4N2 Type 90 (5-'33 - 2-'37), then the Dave (4-'38 - 12-'42) and finally the Pete (from 1-'43 on). Skulski gives colours, but of the E4N2 only!
I'd guess (but just guess!) that for Yamashiro, being Fuso's sister, roughly the same periods can be assumed(check when the BBs were reconstructed - then the a/c are likely to be changed too).
During the war the planes were carried on the quarterdeck by both BBs - there's a nice picture in "Fuso" during her damage-control righting trials showing her a/c on their deck trollies quite well. Drawings of the planes and trolleys are in the book too.
When underway to Surigao Strait Fuso was hit by a bomb which destroyed her aircraft. This suggests Yamashiro carried them too, but again I'm not sure. If she did they most likely are Petes.
 
Re: Yamashiro question
 
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Monday, 27 November 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamashiro question (Adm. Gurita)
 
Adm Gurita is right----I missed his post on the damage control pictures. The Skulski book on Fuso is a must for the details of the ships. But the sinking details appear to be reversed.
For more info, you might be interested in my article on Yamashiro and Fuso, at www.combinedfleet.com/atully00.htm Click the link there
 
Battleship Hatsuse?
 
Posted By: Brent <Brent_A_Theobald@notes.Seagate.COM>
Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at 10:53 a.m.
 
I am trying to find a brief history of the Battleship Hatsuse. All I know about her now is she was a pre-Dreadnaught vessel that was sunk by a Russian mine during the Russo-Japanese conflict around 1905. I'd appreciate it if someone could give me a little more info or a source for references.
 
Re: Battleship Hatsuse?
 
Posted By: Tony Williams <autogun@globalnet.com>
Date: Wednesday, 18 October 2000, at 3:30 p.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Hatsuse? (Brent)
 
"The complete encyclopedia of battleships and battlecruisers" by Tony Gibbons has data and a description of the Shikishima class battleships, including Hatsuse, and a colour side-view painting of Shikishima measuring around 5 inches long.
 
Re: Battleship Hatsuse?
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Hatsuse? (Brent)
 
The Japanese battleship "Hatsuse" had a very brief career. She was laid down under the 1896 "Ten Year Naval Expansion Programme" at Armstrong, Whitworth & Co., Elswick, on 10 January 1898. She was designed by Phillip Watts and was similar to the British "Formidable" class. She was launched on 27 June 1899, and her trials took place on 18 January 1901. Before sailing to Japan she represented the Emperor at Queen Victoria's funeral.
When the fleet was reorganized on 28 December 1903 she was incorporated into the 1st Squadron, 1st Division together with the other six modern battleships, flying the flag of Rear Admiral Nashiba Tokioki.
On 14th May 1904 Admiral Nashiba put to sea to relieve another Japanese blockading force outside Port Arthur. Nashiba had with him the battleships "Hatsuse" (flag), "Shikishima", and "Yashima", the cruiser "Kasagi", and the despatch-vessel "Tatsuta". On the morning of the 15th he reached Encounter Rock and continued N.W., till he was about 15 miles off Port Arthur. Here Nashiba proceeded to patrol to the E. by N. across the mouth of the port. This course brought him straight into the midst of a minefield laid by the Russian minelayer "Amur".
At 10.50 the "Hatsuse" fouled a mine and she began to heel over with her steering engine compartment flooded and her port main engines useless. Only minutes later the "Yashima" was also struck (and later sank). By 11.30 the "Kasagi" was alongside the "Hatsuse" but the battleship's stern-walk was under water, and she was heeling four degrees. A hawser was passed and the "Kasagi" was just hauling in when the flagship struck another mine. Her funnels fell; her mainmast broke off; her upper deck flew into the air, and in a minute and a half she had gone down with her ram high out of water. The loss of life was appalling. The "Tatsuta" and "Kasagi" managed to save the Admiral and Captain Nakao with 21 other officers and 313 men. 38 officers and 458 men went down with the ship.
Principal source: Sir Julian S. Corbett, "Maritime Operations in the Russo-Japanese War".
 
Re: Battleship Hatsuse?
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Tuesday, 17 October 2000, at 1:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Hatsuse? (Brent)
 
Hatsuse was one of six pre-dreadnought battleships (Fuji, Yashima, Shikishima, Hatsuse, Asahi and last but not least Mikasa) that formed the main battle line of the IJN in the Russo-Japanese war. She was a sistership of Shikishima; the sisters could be distinguished by their three stacks, the other four having two. She was, like all six, built in Great-Britain - in her case, by Armstrong. Laid down in 1897, she was launched 27 June 1898 and completed in January 1901. At 14,850 tons normal load, she carried the usual 4x12in main guns, 14x6in, 20x12pdr., 8x3pdr. and 5x18in torpedo tubes. She could reach 18 knots at 14,500 SHP. During the 1904/05 war the Japanese usually had the Russian Far-Eastern squadron bottled up in Port Arthur and patrolled outside that harbour. Then too they adhered rather strictly to their habits, inducing a Russian officer to lay his mines in their usual patrolling route. On 15 May 1904 both Hatsuse and Yashima struck those mines, Hatsuse two if I remember well. She sank quickly, but Yashima very nearly was saved; she sank under tow, just off Sasebo.
Source: "Japanese Battleships, 1897-1945" by R.A. Burt (it has one picture too), and some bits of memory. Source on the battle of Tsushima: "The fleet that had to die" by Richard Hough (a quick glance through it shows no mention of Hatsuse at all. She sank too early).
I'm curious too - is there more info?
 
Ise as hybrid (again)
 
Posted By: Fred Carbon <fcarbon@sundyne.com>
Date: Thursday, 21 September 2000, at 10:14 a.m.
 
Hello , I am building (mostly scratchbuilding it) the Ise (Hasegawa) in the hybrid version (1943).
I have some questions to ask :
What type of catapults was mounted (it seemed that they are longer than the standard installed on IJN ships)
May be it is because Ise was supposed to use the D4Y Judy and E 16 Paul. I only find 2 pictures of a E16 launched by Hyuga during trials. Do you know if there are others photos showing planes on these BBCVs ?
I saw on a pic showing Hyuga (port) during trials .It seems that the original crane housing at the stern was not removed.The only drawings I have are all starboard view.
All pictures of Ise/Hyuga are starboard side or show them sunk (difficult to see something).
Is there other drawings or pics showing the port side to confirm if this housing was still in place?
I heard about a 1/200 plan (from MYCO-japan) showing Ise in 1945.Does somebody own an sample ?
I ordered one a while ago (6 mounths) to Pacific Front but I ‘d like to know the wait will be worth.
References used :Gakken 26, Kojinsha N°2 (Fuso-Hyuga) , Model Art « IJN waterline kits » and « japanese floatplanes »,PSM 94 /4 , US NARA pics , » IJN Warships » by Jentschura , «Hybrid warships, the amalgation... » »US bombing survey » color movie.
I am collecting all references on these ships as hybrid. If you know other references, do not hesitate to inform me.
 
Re: Ise as hybrid (again)
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Thursday, 21 September 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
 
In Response To: Ise as hybrid (again) (Fred Carbon)
 
I agree that the 1943 photo of Hyûga still has the bumb of the seaplane crane. There are two more port photo's of Ise under air attack at Leyte Gulf. Both are shown in Whitley's Battleships. The interesting thing is that the second picture is so large than a vague bumb can be seen aft. Although it is too vague to be certain, it's nonetheless exactly where it should be so I think the bumb was still there.
You are right about the catapults. They are the longer Type 1 No. 2 Model 11 catapults that were only installed in the two carrier-battleships during their conversion, and in the battleships Yamato and Musashi and the cruisers Agano and Noshiro, according to Eric Lacroix. They were longer, measuring 25.6m instead of 19.4m for the standard Kure Type No. 2 Model 5 catapult and were capable of launching aircraft up to 5,000kg instead of 4,000kg. They were installed to meet the demands of modern high-speed aircraft.
 
Re: Ise as hybrid (again)
 
Posted By: Sami Arim <sami@akol-yoshii.com>
Date: Thursday, 21 September 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
 
In Response To: Ise as hybrid (again) (Fred Carbon)
 
Plastic ship modeler magazine had an article some time ago with drawings on the Ise as hybrid version. I don't have it in hand at the moment, but if you can locate the article it is very informative to build the Hasegawa kit.
 
More Yamato Questions
 
Posted By: Jon Ryckert <corsair@grapevine.net>
Date: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 10:11 p.m.
 
I have some more questions about the Yamato and maybe some of these are dumb. If anyone should know the answers, you guys should be the ones to ask.
First one, what is the metal band wrapped around the conning tower between decks III and IV? Is it for reinforcement?
Second, are all antenna platforms perforated? Skulki's drawings don't show any perforation but I have seen a drawing somewhere that does show at least one being perforated.
Third, in Super Illustration Battleship Yamato, the 60cm searchlight base is recessed into the signal yard and the signal yard is perforated. Skulki's drawings show no reference to either of those.Which is correct?
These are the only real references I have to go buy since I do not yet have the Gakken books and any help would be appreciated
 
Re: More Yamato Questions
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, in Istanbul (not Constantanople) <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 2:30 a.m.
 
In Response To: More Yamato Questions (Jon Ryckert)
 
You're ahead of me...I only have the Skulski book. Consider drawing A3. Only the top of the conning tower is heavily armored, where as the stuff below it isn't. I'm guessing that the metal band is to keep the armored part securely in place Since the lower part of the Missouri's armored conning tower isn't accessable, I haven't seen that part on the Missouri. Sorry I can't help you more.
 
Re: More Yamato Questions
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: More Yamato Questions (Jon Ryckert)
 
Really tricky "Yamato" questions but I've consulted a number of Japanese books and perhaps I can be of some help.
1) This metal band wrapped around the conning tower is probably a riveted joint. Gakken's "The Battleship Yamato 1/100 Super Scale Model" shows an identical band around the lower part of the tower structure (between decks III and IV), and vertical bands can also be seen on the barbettes.
2) With antenna platforms I assume you refer to the small platforms that usually mounted a Type 90 wireless antenna. Yes, these were apparently perforated in the same manner as the signal platforms (see "Super Illustration Battleship Yamato" page 57). There is a good photo of the "Musashi" in the Gakken book, see "1", page 98 and this clearly shows the perforation.
3) I don't think that the signal yard was perforated in the same manner but it probably had some form of anti-skid device. As for the recesses for the 60cm lamps, I have only been able to find these recesses on the Gakken model (see the above, plus issues 11 & 20). Since Mr. Hara Katsuhirô, certainly the leading "Yamato" expert, is involved with these Gakken volumes I believe that you should trust this series.
If you are really interested in the "Yamato" class battleships, then perhaps the big (and expensive) books by Hara can be something for you. Visit http://www.ateneshobo.co.jp/
Hopefully I have not confused you too much.
 
Gakken books(Yamato),resins
 
Posted By: Jon Ryckert <corsair@grapevine.net>
Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 9:04 p.m.
 
I'm new to this scratchbuilding thing, so I have a few questions.
1. Where can I find the Gakken books on the Yamato?
2. What is the best and cheapest resin and RTV mold that a person can buy or give me some alternatives.
3. This may require alot of typing on your part,so don't hold it against me. What is the best way to do my own photo-etch parts and is it possible for someone like me who has no experience with it to do it in relief-etch? Your help and input is greatly appreciated.
 
Re: Gakken books(Yamato),resins
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, in Istanbul (not Constantanople) <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 8:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Gakken books(Yamato),resins (Jon Ryckert)
 
Dude, get off of my cloud! :^) Sounds like we have exactly the same plans. I going to try to do a little etching myself for stuff like the bridge windows and maybe the wind baffels, most definately for the grilles by the aft boat cranes too. Anyway, there's a good how-to on the warship page (www.warship.simplenet.com) in the "Features" section. There's another good article at:
http://home.att.net/~ward.shrake/modeling/models.htm
If you attempt to reconcile the two ways without leading to a mental meltdown, then you ought to be fairly well off to start. I'm sure it'll take a bit of trial and error, and I haven't actually tried myself, but it doesn't -sound- too hard! Worst comes to worst, I can do the art work and have some company somewhere do the etching.
As for the Gakken books, you can get them from HLJ (theoretically, I've had mine on backorder since April!) and from Pacific Front Hobbies (www.pacificfront.com). At this point, I think I'd recomment Pacific Front.
I far as resin goes, I'm in the same boat as you. I was just going to go down to the local craft store, pick some stuff up and see what happens. Like the deal with the etching, I haven't tried this yet since I'm poor. I'm a brand new grad student (astronomy) and haven't started to get paid yet, so I'm still in penny-pinching mode.
While the Gakken books are great and grand (I want them too) I'd want the Skulski book more for scratchbuilding. Apparently it's going to be re-printed in England first and White Ensign Models is taking a pre-order list that's apparently already quite long. It will eventually be made available in the states again of course, I just don't know when. My copy is starting to show signs of wear, so I'll pick up a new one too.
P.S. Know where I can get a small lathe that I can use to machine new gun barrels?
 
Re: Gakken books(Yamato),resins
 
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 11:37 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Gakken books(Yamato),resins (Mike Connelley, in Istanbul (not 
Constantanople))
 
There are several lathes suitable. My son bought a cheapy for me on an internet auction. But buying one for gun barrels only seems unnecessary. For years I turned them by chucking brass rod or tube in a power drill secured to the work bench, then hold a small file to the spinning brass, if necessary supporting the barrel with a finger. Polish with 600 grit paper. After two practice barrels the next ones should be perfect.
 
Re: Gakken books(Yamato),resins
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, in Istanbul (not Constantanople) <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 12:07 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Gakken books(Yamato),resins (William Burdick)
 
I currently do something similar with my dremel to turn all sorts of things. However, I think I've done that too much and now everything I chuck into it doesn't spin straight but wobbles around real fast. Not that anything's loose, it's just that I think the collet or something is shot so thing's don't chuck in straight. I thought I ought to use something meant for the task, and something where I have precise control over the tool...more so than with a file. I'll give it a go and see how it turns out. My brother's dremel still seems to be okay. Thanks for the help.
 
Yamato decks ,etc
 
Posted By: Jon Ryckert <corsair@grapevine.net>
Date: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 7:53 a.m.
 
In Skulski's book on the Yamato, he says that deck XI(air defence platform) has a linoleum floor on it. Is that the same type and shape as that of the aircraft deck? What are the white objects on the main deck around the 25mm mounts? I've also have seen these in drawings and a picture of them can be found in Garzke & Dulin's Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II(page 58). Can anyone tell me of a source of shipfittings for the Yamato in 1/96 and of books and reference sources on this ship.
 
Re: Yamato decks ,etc
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 11:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Yamato decks ,etc (Jon Ryckert)
 
Interestingly enough, there's no mention of the linoleum on pgs 70 or 74, where you'd expect to find them. You can assume that they used the same sized squares as on the aircraft deck at your own peril.
By white marks, do you mean the little white rectangles seen in photos on pg 26, and mentioned in drawing C15/8 on pg 85? It seems that the drawing is in error relative to the photos. The right photo is nearly overhead, and as viewed from the bridge, the white rectangles are all 5 degrees apart (notice how they get farther apart towards the bow). The bright line along the port edge of the deck is the metal drainage waterway, made more reflective since it's wet (same reason the wood deck is so dark and the metal on the bow is so bright too). Even in those areas, you can sort of see the rectagles.
I've seem 1/96 scale fittings for Yamato from one of those RC ship web sites...can't remember which one, but they sell big fiberglass hulls for RC ships and also some other Yamato parts.
 
Re: Yamato decks ,etc
 
Posted By: Jon Ryckert <corsair@grapevine.net>
Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamato decks ,etc (Mike Connelley)
 
Thanks for the reply. The white object(they look white in the picture) can be found on the foldout page (outboard profile,April 1945) between pages 121 & 121 in BATTLESHIPS, Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II. I'm guessing that they are mattress padding for more protection since they are around the triple 25mm mounts on the main deck between turrets #1 & #2 and also off to the sides of the aft 15.5cm turret. By the way, you wouldn't happen to know of any errors in Skulki's book that recent discoveries have shown to be incorrect.
 
Re: Yamato decks ,etc
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, rinning with scissors <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 8:45 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Yamato decks ,etc (Jon Ryckert)
 
I know there are a few manini errors, like a missing light here, something else there. The 1/100 scale models in the Gakken books show red and green on the port and starboard navigation lights at the base of the forward 4.5m rangefinders, and also little red squares on the bottoms of each 25mm AA tub. I don't recall mattress anti-splinter protection, but one model also has the emergency rudder that the Yamato had on her last mission. Duane Fowler, who knows more about discrepancies in the Skulski book than me (heck, it just plain knows more!), said that among other things the recent dives showed that the support bars for the ensign staff is incorrect. Overall, the Yamato wreck is, well, a wreck and it's fairly hard to get a good look at the interesting stuff. Well, you can some here to Hawaii and take a look at two of her shells...that's fairly interesting!
 
1/250 Yamato Kits
 
Posted By: Robert Hernandez <combatmagnum@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
 
I have noticed that there are two (that I know of) 1/250 scale IJN Yamato kits. One is by Arii, the other is by Doyusha. Does anybody know if these are good kits and which would be better? What are the draw backs if any?
 
Re: 1/250 Yamato Kits
 
Posted By: jay everett <jaynbeth@ticnet.com>
Date: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 6:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: 1/250 Yamato Kits (Robert Hernandez)
 
I have been working on the Otaki/Arii kit for a while now. My impression of it is like looking at an old Matchbox model airplane kit. The shapes are fairly accurate, but...
Advise #1: Buy stock in Plastruct or Evergreen Plastics. Buy K&S brass tubing stock also.
Advise #2: Use the hull, it seems fairly accurate. On all else, verify with research. Pay particular attention to deck layouts and equipment positionings. Remember, the tooling for this kit was cut about 20 years ago and there has been a lot of research and discovery made since then. Overall though, it stands up fairly well.
Advise #3: Buy the following at a minimum:
Yamato by Skulski, Maru Mechanic, Gakken books (all 3), Battleships of the Axis & Neutrals..., by Garzke & Dulin/USNI
Prepare yourself for conflicting detail information. Best advise is to use Skulski's book when in doubt, unless direct photographic evidence counters. A specific exception to this is in Gakken Book #20, which contains the reproductions of the "new-found" superstructure blueprints provided as a foldout. Be careful with the photographs unless you can read Japanese. Photos of the Yamato are mixed with the Mushashi.
Advise #4: Be prepared to spend a lot of time and money. Console yourself with the knowledge that you will not have to correct as much stuff as the 1/200 scale guys and will have a bigger boat than the 1/350 scale Tamiya kit.
 
Re: 1/250 Yamato Kits *PIC*
 
Posted By: Yama <fwkx3106@mb.infoweb.ne.jp>
Date: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 1:09 a.m.
 
In Response To: 1/250 Yamato Kits (Robert Hernandez)
 
Hi.
When Doyusha is compared with Arii, I will recommend Arii as you ( the product of 1/250, Yamato, ).
Sales time is newer with the product of Arii than Nichimo1/200Yamato.
But, Doyusha'sYamato is older than Nichimo1/200Yamato.
Arii'Kit is being made by the newer research. (It is not as much as Tamiya'Kit with being disappointed.)
Because a point to improve is known, I can tell it to you in the E-mail.
The large model of the warship of I.J.N isn't announced in Japanese web-site very much.
Therefore, I pay respect to the American modelers.
Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced here.
 
How well does Skulski...
 
Posted By: Jukka Juutinen <Jukka.Juutinen@ps1.pspt.fi>
Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:57 p.m.
 
describe machinery and other internal detail of the Fuso in his Anatomy of the Ship book? Does it list data such steam pressure, Temp etc.? What about stability data?
 
Re: How well does Skulski...
 
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
 
In Response To: How well does Skulski... (Jukka Juutinen)
 
Unfortunately, Skulski does not provide machinery & other internal data. Mostly, it is general characteristics, along with data from armament & armor. Much as in the style as his previous books. I'm assuming you're referring to the sort of mechanical & design detail as provided by Lacroix & Wells in "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War".
 
battleships outfits
 
Posted By: Fred Carbon <fcarbon@sundyne.com>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 8:37 a.m.
 
Can somebody tell what was the purpose of the spaced metal sheets in front of most pagoda structures. These sheets are obvious on KONGO,HARUNA and are located just under windows in most of cases.It seems that this outfit was installed in 1940/41 (just see MUTSU in 39 and 41-the highest plateform).Was it an wind deflector or a splash deflector (installed at more than 25 meters)?
Second question :Does the book "AXIS BATTLESHIPS" contains lot of informations about the 12 IJN BB's (number of pages,drawings photos)?
 
Re: battleships outfits
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: battleships outfits (Fred Carbon)
 
To answer your other question, please look up read 1090 Garzke&Dulin´s "Axis Battleships of WW Two" through the search option above in which I’ve already discussed this book thoroughly, at least when I assume that this is the book that you are referring to as you did not mention the authors.
 
Re: battleships outfits
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 9:18 a.m.
 
In Response To: battleships outfits (Fred Carbon)
 
These were deflectors that would deflect the wind generated by the ship's movement upwards parallel to the bridge windows. This served to prevent rain and spray from striking the windows. Sort of a elaborate bug deflector such as some people mount on the front hood of their car or truck.
 
Battleship Hiei Profile
 
Posted By: Bill Turner <wturner@rclco.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
 
I looking for a good fold-out line drawing or color profile of the Hiei, particularly as she looked as of her sinking in Nov. 1942. I know her bridge structure was somewhat different than the other 3 ships in the Kongo class, being a "test bed" of sorts for the Yamato's bridge structure. I know three Marine airmen veterans who flew TBF torpedo attacks against the crippled Hiei the day after the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. I'd like to get a good profile of the battleship for them.
 
Re: Battleship Hiei Profile
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Hiei Profile (Bill Turner)
 
There are numerous sources for this profile of Hiei (pronounced Hee-ay-ee): Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers, Maru special, Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945, Hasegawa's model kit instructions, Evans and Peattie's Kaigun. Good luck and I hope you have interviewed these gentleman for their experiences; it is extremely inportant to preserve their recollections for history, IMHO.
 
Re: Battleship Hiei Profile
 
Posted By: Bill Turner <wturner@rclco.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Hiei Profile (Randy)
 
Thanks for the info. Randy. I've been very fortunate to talk to these guys in-depth. Two of them were crewmen on the actual TBF attacks on the Hiei. Another crewman I know very well did a painting for me years ago of a TBF making a torpedo run on the Hiei. I was named after one of the pilots credited with a torpedo hit on the Hiei (he was later lost). My current model project is a TBF from their squadron.
 
Re: Battleship Hiei Profile
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 11:14 a.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Hiei Profile (Bill Turner)
 
Pacific Front Hobbies carries a number of Miyukikai plans of warships. Among them is a 1/200 scale plan of Hiei in 1942. I haven't seen it, but there are probably others on this site who can tell you more about them. Pacific Front also carries a cheaper 1/300 scale plan of the same year for Hiei.
Pacific Front can be find at www.pacificfront.com
 
Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Tony Feredo <aferedo@ibahn.net>
Date: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
 
Was the Battleship Kongo built in Britain (by Vickers???) or was it only patterned after a British design?
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 8:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: Battleship Kongo (Tony Feredo)
 
The battleship Kongo was built by Vickers in England in 1911 so that the Japanese shipyards could have an example of the latest in dreadnaught construction from the world's leading navy to study. Her sisters were each built in Japan.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Friday, 14 July 2000, at 8:45 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Mike Connelley)
 
Hi: 
It seems Mike was reading from Watts and Gordon as I was posting below; properly Kongo was laid down on 1-11-11, launched 5-18-12 and completed on 8-16-13. As Mike stated this was to allow naval and private constructors in Japan to study and profit from the latest techniques and capabilities of the British. Her design put a stop to the "Lion" Class and forced a redesign of the very similar Tiger for Great Britain
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 12:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Randy)
 
I would like to make a few comments.
First, Kongô was laid down on 17 January 1911, not on the 11th. She was indeed ordered in England, as part of the 1910 fleet replenishment programme, to obtain the latest dreadnought technology from England. Japan used the gained knowledge from Kongô and her three sisters to design her first super dreadnought Fusô.
There are considerable discussions on whether HMS Tiger was influenced by the Kongô design or not, but most sources agree that this was not the case. However, as many of these sources are actually English, they may have been biased.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Saturday, 15 July 2000, at 12:57 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Frido Kip)
 
Hi: Most of the sources I have seen felt Tiger was influenced by the Kongo design. Dr. Parkes specifically mentioned the influence of Kongo upon the overall layout Tiger and the cancellation of further construction of the Lion class.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Sunday, 16 July 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Randy)
 
This is getting interesting. I hope you will allow me to continue this line a little further.
I did some digging and noted that opinions differ greatly on this subject.
Watts & Gordon agree entirely with Parkes, as does Breyer in his Battleships and Battlecruisers. However, they were probably both influenced by Parkes’ book. On the other hand, Conway’s All the Worlds Fighting Ships states that Tiger was not influenced by Kongô as there are no Admiralty records to support this, and instead suggests that Kongô was based on Tiger. John Roberts in his book Battlecruisers does not mention Kongô at all and makes it clear that Tiger was a straight development of the Queen Mary, the latest Lion class variant.
Abe & Chihaya in their Warship Profile on Kongô tell a slightly different story. Kongô had originally been designed as a 12in battlecruiser in Japan. But when details of the Lion class became known, it was realised that the Japanese design was outclassed. Therefore, help was sought in England to upgrade the Kongô design to the latest dreadnought standards. Vickers designed a completely new battlecruiser, basing it on the Lion class, but using her own ideas and those in Japan. When Japan found out more on the new British 13.5in gun, she decided to change the armament to 14in guns. Abe & Chihaya do not mention any influence by Tiger, making this conclusion unlikely. In fact, they only mention Tiger because she adopted a similar turret layout.
Therefore, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. D.K. Brown is his recent book The Grand Fleet mentions that the ship covers of the Tiger reveal that a 3in belt was fitted below the main belt based on experience gained in the Russo-Japanese war which he states to be the ‘only indication that Tiger was influenced by Kongo’. He corresponded with Lars Ahlberg - who had investigated the matter thoroughly using Japanese material - and concluded that both ships were probably ‘individual end products of similar lines of thought’ and did not really influence eachother. As both Japan and Vickers had access to British naval thinking and vice versa this is not unlikely and is probably the only correct conclusion.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 5:05 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Frido Kip)
 
It so happened last night that I ran across an article in Warship No. 5 by John Roberts entitled, "The Design and Construction of the Battlecruiser Tiger." He writes of the memo outlining the design of Tiger (dated July 31, 1911) as including certain characteristics of the design of the Iron Duke (itself worked out in the first half of 1911). One of these characteristics was the increase in the caliber of the secondary battery from 4-inch to 6-inch. Moving now to Parkes, we are treated to an explanation of the circumstances which led to the adoption of the 6-inch battery in the Iron Duke. This letter, dated June 27, 1909 and addressed to Sir Philip Watts, discussed the justification for a 6-inch battery and led Watts to draw up plans for an alternative scheme of armament for what would become the Iron Duke. Recall that Parkes had described Kongo as a battlecruiser edition of Erin; Erin was compared approximately to Iron Duke and the immediately previous King George V with regard to most of Erin's overall layout and construction. Returning to Robert's Warship article, he states there is no evidence of any connection between Kongo and Tiger other than additional armor worked into Tiger's design. This statement puzzles me, as I mentioned before, because Kongo preceeded Erin, the Iron Duke class and Tiger in construction and service (and, indeed, was contemporaneous with the King George V class) yet we are treated to the assertion that Kongo had little -- if any -- influence upon the design of Tiger. Again, without Brown's book I can not conclude my comments nor do I exclude the possibility of parallel solutions but it seems to me Kongo remains at the head of an evolutionary trend which lead to Tiger. You are right, this is quite interesting; I look forward to your comments.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Randy)
 
Unfortunately I'm too busy at the moment to give an adequate reply to your fascinating remarks, but I will come back to you as soon as I can. This topic is indeed becoming more and more interesting, I have to catch up on English warship development again.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Frido Kip)
 
With interest I have followed your pursuit of the design of the Japanese battlecruiser "Kongô", and since my name have been mentioned in this discussion and because it is a topic of interest to me, I though I could add some comments.
It is correct that I some years ago discussed the origin of the "Kongô" with Mr. David K. Brown and that I also discussed the matter with Messieurs Takasu Kôichi, Abe Yasuo, Nakagawa Tsutomu, and Yokoi Tadatoshi all familiar, I think, to the readers of the journal "Ships of the World".
In short the Japanese Navy at first intended to order a domestic design of about 18,000 tons with ten 12" guns (armoured ship "I", a design that was later altered), but it soon became clear that while the foreign navies entered the "super-dreadnought era" the Japanese were not even fit for the "dreadnought era". Consequently the Japanese decided to "import" the technology by ordering a super-dreadnought battlecruiser from Britain.
On 1 December 1909 the Chief of the Navy General Staff Vice Admiral Ijuin Gorô and Deputy Chief Vice Admiral Fujii Kôichi offered the Prime Minister a plan to build eight armoured cruisers of 28,000 tons. The design was again called "I" and Vice Admiral Matsumoto Kazu insisted on ordering a high-speed ship abroad as it was impossible to build it in Japan. On 5 May 1910 the Navy Minister Saitô Makoto revised the existing shipbuilding plan and submitted a draft which suggested the construction of the "8-8 Fleet". This was approved in December and the plan included four armoured cruiser, including "I" (later "Kongô").
In June 1910 offers were received from Armstrong and Vickers (Britain) and finally the order went to Vickers partly because of the dubious activities of the Mitsui Bussan (Vickers representatives in Japan). However, Vickers had just laid down the "Princess Royal" and the chief constructor of Vickers, T.G. Owens (later known as Sir Richard Thurston), was enabled to draw lessons from her design. The "Kongô" design as offered by Vickers was promoted by Kondô Motoki (Chief of the Basic Design Section 1900-1909). This design was for a 12" ship but it was later modified to 14", largely thanks to the naval attaché in London, Katô Hiroharu. This change was probably made in the autumn of 1910, immediately before the signing of the official contract with Vickers in November.
It is perhaps curious, but never did I encounter the name of the "Tiger" when we discussed the origins of the "Kongô". This led me to the conclusion that "Tiger" and "Kongô" were two completely different designs ("Tiger" by Watts and "Kongô" by Owens). But apparently the "Kongô" was influenced by the "Lion" design since the "Princess Royal" was a Vickers built ship and Owens was the chief constructor of Vickers. But as Nakagawa says: "Since the process of the design alteration remains unknown, no definite statements can be made."
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Thursday, 20 July 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Frido Kip)
 
Can we talk? While perusing my library regarding an entirely different subject I came across an article by Alan Payne -- no mean authority -- about Kongo in Warship No 19. He noted the Japanese cancelled their design for an improved 'Aki-class' dreadnought upon the construction of the obviously superior 'Lion' class; presumably this occurred between late-1909 and mid-1910. In October 1910, Japan placed an order with Vickers for a private design rather than an Admiralty design. While Payne mentions the design of Kongo and (Erin [a private design herself]), he writes, "There can be no doubt, however, that Kongo was mainly an improved Lion..." (an Admiralty design) and that the "...Admiralty made no admission that Tiger's design was in any way connected with that of Kongo...." Further, he writes, "Tiger in fact had improvements lacking in Kongo" (without mentioning, however, the main battery of Kongo). My reading of Payne's article indicates that he is referring to Tiger's increase in speed and range. His intent between these statements is to discredit the notion that Kongo influenced Tiger and he quotes from a (he suggests) dubious "Jane's Fighting Ships" article which asserts Tiger was redesigned "...to embody... improvements (of) Kongo..." to buttress his position. But a study of this Jane's article raises as many questions as it answers; most of these questions, in my opinion, favor Kongo. He specifically writes the repositioning of 'Q' turret was wholly independent of the design of Kongo and the inclusion of the 6-inch battery is "...arguable..." with respect to Kongo. His opinion is that there was likely a great deal of parallel development. Frido, in reference a previous comment of yours, I have to wonder if perhaps the British were a tad cranky about the design of Kongo...superior as it was to Tiger. I would now add this thought to my previous concerns regarding the timing of the building of Kongo and Tiger. This is becoming more interesting to me by the moment. It also feels something like a tennis game...back and forth, back and forth.... At this point my opinion of design lineage goes something like this (with apologies to ship types and excluding other designs which do not, apparently, concern this issue): Lion class/King George V class/Erin/Iron Duke class/Queen Mary/Kongo class/Tiger. I am looking forward to your comments...Randy
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 11:23 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Randy)
 
Weekend! Finally time to pursuit this subject further. I had already come across Payne’s article so you will find it included in the comments below. The following arguments are rather extensive so I hope it will fit on the page.
Erin -> Kongô
As Erin’s design was actually started in 1909 (Breyer, Battleships and Battlecruisers) it preceded Kongô’s design despite the fact that she was laid down and completed later. This is the reason why Kongô is sometimes referred to as a derivative of Erin (Watts & Gordon; Preston, Conways Fighting Ships). However, this was not the case. Kongô was definitely based on the Lion class (see below). However, it should be noted that as both ships had been designed by T.G. Owens of Vickers, they had similarities. For instance, experience with Erin’s limited dimensions, caused by Turkish harbour restrictions (Breyer), may have benefitted Owens in designing a more compact and economical design.
Lion class -> Kongô
The Japanese had turned to Vickers and Armstrong because of the appearance of the Lion class, which was superior to their domestic design (Abe & Chihaya). They requested an improved Lion type battlecruiser, which would have to meet certain specified requirements in armament, armour layout, speed and range (Lacroix, The Imperial Japanese Navy). T.G. Owens, having access to Princess Royal building at Vickers, came up with the smallest and most economical design which was consequently chosen (Lacroix). Comparing Lion with Kongô clearly shows that Kongô was based on the Lion class design, although improved to include Owens’ personal ideas as well as Japanese requirements (such as the new bow). Most sources agree on this point.
Tiger -> Kongô
Only Preston (Conways Fighting Ships; Battleships) suggests that Kongô was based on Tiger. However, no such mention is made in any of the Japanese design histories (Chihaya & Abe; Lacroix, Ahlberg, etc). In fact, Tiger was designed after Kongô was laid down, making it simply impossible. The first British designs to surface are dated July 1911 and the final design was only accepted in December 1911 (Roberts, Battlecruisers). Therefore, it can be definitely concluded that Kongô was not based on Tiger.
So did Kongô influence Tiger?
If I understand correctly, Parkes stated that the Lion class was halted and a redesign was made to incorporate changes. The four Lion class units were actually laid down at regular intervals (Lion 1909, Princess Royal 1910, Queen Mary 1911, Tiger 1912), no delay being experienced. As you know, Tiger was laid down 1.5 years after Kongô. All this time, the Admiralty had been aware of Kongô’s design features due to her close ties with Owens and Japan, in fact these close ties had revealed to Japan the details of the Lion class in 1909! Moreover, Tiger was completed in a shorter time than Kongô and no mention has been made of a redesign in British sources (Roberts, Warship 5/6 and Battlecruisers; Brown, The Grand Fleet). Therefore, the theory that Tiger was redesigned during construction (Jane’s) is absolutely wrong (Payne, Warship 19 confirms this point).
We are actually looking at the wrong ship. Queen Mary, the third Lion class unit, was laid down two months after Kongô. Had the Admiralty decided to improve the design because of Kongô’s superiority they would have redesigned her, not Tiger. It is highly unlikely that the Admiralty had decided to incorporate improvements in the next battlecruiser and complete Queen Mary to the current design. They changed the armament of the Orion and the Lion classes from 12in to 13.5in at the last moment (Roberts, Battlecruisers), necessitating an entire redesign, so they would certainly not have hesitated to redesign Queen Mary if they had thought it necessary. But they didn’t.
Although this already suggests that Tiger was not directly influenced by Kongô, a few more points can be made. The absence of any reference to Kongô in Tiger’s ship covers is the most important. One wonders if the Admiralty deliberately left these remarks out, but they did mention that the 3in strake below the main belt was based on Kongô, making this unlikely (Roberts, Warship 5/6; Brown, The Grand Fleet; Payne, warship 19). The mentioning of this strake proves that the Admiralty had access to Kongô’s design, so the absence of any further remarks on Kongô is noteworthy. Instead, it appears that most of the changes made to Tiger were based on evolutionary improvements made to the Iron Duke class battleships, which directly preceded her.
So why is it mentioned in several sources that Kongô led to Tiger? It’s doubtfull that naval observers like Jane overlooked the overall similarity between Kongô and Tiger when they appeared. As Kongô was completed first, Tiger was simply considered to be a copy. However, if one remembers that both ships had been based on the same Lion class design there are actually only four improvements in Tiger which could have been based on Kongô:
1. Main gun layout
2. Tripod foremast
3. 6in medium gun battery
4. Improved armour scheme
Speed and range can not be considered improvements based on Kongô. Although officially as fast as Queen Mary, Kongô was in reality somewhat slower, hardly waranting an increase in speed in Tiger, which had in fact been caused by Churchill becoming First Lord in 1911. He wanted more speed, based on Fisher’s ideas (Roberts). Kongô had a considerably larger range than Queen Mary, while Tiger had less! Other similarities such as the triple funnel layout could be directly traced to the Lion design.
So this leaves the four above mentioned aspects. It’s difficult to compare Tiger’s armour scheme with that of Kongô as I don’t have an extensive description of Kongô’s armour layout. Kongô’s belt was actually one inch thinner than Queen Mary and Tiger, so no improvement was made here. However, the above mentioned strake of 3in below the main belt was definitely an improvement based on Kongô. The tripod foremast had been introduced in Iron Duke and consequently was also adopted in Tiger. They were fitted to allow the installation of fire control gear (Brown). Japan did not start equipping battleships with such gear until 1916 (Lacroix). The 6in medium gun battery was the result of prolonged discussions which eventually led to their adoption in the Iron Duke class in 1910 and consequently also in Tiger (Brown; McBride, Warship 1993). It was adopted instead of the 4in gun to counter larger destroyers and the increased torpedo range. It should however be noted that the 6in battery in Kongô was not based on British ideas, but had already been installed in the Kawachi class, for basically the same reason. It is possible that the British were influenced by Japanese believes at this time, but they adopted the battery in Iron Duke and Tiger because of the increased threat, not because Kongô carried it.
This leaves the main gun layout. It was used in Kongô as it provided the third gunmount with far wider arcs aft and resulted in a better machinery division, making the layout superior to Lion (Abe & Chihaya). It’s not clear why the turret was not positioned superimposed aft, but maybe the hull was too narrow. Tiger on the other hand had originally been designed with B and X turrets superimposed, except for design C which placed the third turret more forward as in Kongô to allow for a revised layout of the internal bulkheads in order to provide space for the aft torpedo room (this design consequently had less beam as in Kongô). The Admiralty favoured the C design as it was impossible to put the two rear turrets out of action with a single hit. Thus, even though the layout may have been adopted by Watts because he had seen it before in Kongô, it was hardly a deliberate copy.
Therefore, unless some definite prove to the contrary will emerge, it is my believe that Kongô had only some influence on Tiger (and Tiger had none on Kongô). They do indeed appear to be similar developments.
 
Re: Battleship Kongo
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Battleship Kongo (Frido Kip)
 
Hello Frido: Thank you for a fine and perceptive analysis. Allow me to respond. I possess all the references you cite except for that of Roberts and D. K. Brown and will proceed on that basis. Since I have not seen his book, I can not comment at all about Roberts. As you have written, it is possible Watts & Gordon and Breyer were influenced by Parkes although I do not consider Parkes to be a poor reference. Parkes describes Kongo as a battlecruiser edition of Erin. And while "...details of Tiger (may have been) settled before Kongo's design was complete..." as Anthony Preston writes in Conway's, what disturbs me is the fact that Kongo was definitely constructed and completed well in advance of Tiger. Abe and Chihaya mention the disposition of the main battery in Kongo, relating it to the Lions specifically as a rationale for a similar design for Tiger. As I read their work (page 269, paragraph 2), Tiger was not mentioned as an influence upon Kongo because they are stating Kongo to be an influence upon Tiger! That Tiger was a development of the Lion/Queen Mary groups is not disputed. Another interest is the adoption of additional armor, a 6-inch secondary battery (a first for RN battlecruisers, I believe) and the quest for additional speed which Tiger paid for in additional tonnage. Without the benefit of Brown's "The Grand Fleet," I can only speculate as to whether the 3-inch additional belt armor represents an attempt to restore the depth of armor which had been removed in Erin, Parke's stated antecedent of Kongo. I would like to see the work of Ahlberg; I can imagine these fine vessels as the product of parallel thinking. However, I admit further investigation of ship's covers may resolve this issue; additionally, I would like to know why Tiger was built so much later than Kongo. An explanation of these issues may cause me to revise my opinions. But without further clarification I must lean to the influence of Kongo upon Tiger rather than the other way around.
 
Yamato
 
Posted By: William Tan <wtts@netaddress.com>
Date: Thursday, 15 June 2000, at 8:59 a.m.
 
Can someone tell me if Yamato have ever dock in Singapore or Malaya...?
 
Re: yamato
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Thursday, 15 June 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
 
In Response To: yamato (William Tan)
 
Skulski in THE BATTLESHIP YAMATO notes that
"1 May 1944: YAMATO was the first unit to join the other ships of the Combined Fleet at Lingga anchorage, south of Singapore."
"9 Jul 1944: Both battleships [YAMATO and MUSASHI] left Japan and hurried south to Lingga anchorage
"16 Jul 1944: Arrived at Lingga anchorage and underwent training. The surface force there was immediately alerted.
"18 Oct 1944: Left Lingga anchorage
"22 Oct 1944: Arrived at Brunei. After refuelling YAMATO and MUSASHI left to make a daring dash eastwards through the Philippines to launch an attack on the enemy at Leyte Gulf."
"25 Oct 1944: "...After the battle YAMATO returned to Brunei Bay in Borneo, but not for long because of air raids by the Allied forces. The Navy ordered her to return to Japan.
"16 Nov 1944: Escorted by destroyers YAMATO left Brunei for the Inland Sea."
On a map I find in the British Official History THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN - VOLUME I, LINGGA ISLAND is located south of Singapore at the eastern entrance to the Strait of Malacca.
This seems to be the closest these ships got to Singapore or Malaya proper.
 
ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: Fred Carbon
Date: Tuesday, 13 June 2000, at 8:08 a.m.
 
Hello, glad to know there is a IJN forum .
I am fascinated by the japanese BB and in particular the ISE and HYUGA as battleship/carrier. I have the GAKKEN book and the Kajinsha Maru n°2 on these ships.But the big info missing are the details of the flight deck at the stern (supports and may a little deck).How was fitted the plateform for the rockets launchers and additional AA guns around the flight deck?
What was the colors of the 3 tones camo at the end ofWW2?
Does somebody know the references of the pictures coming from US and NAVY archives showing the two sunken ships?
Is there any picture of the demolition of these ships after the war?
Last but not least D4Y planes were supposed to be on ships between mid43 to mid 1944.Is there any picture of this plane or other during the trials of this ship during this period?
 
Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Monday, 19 June 2000, at 7:50 p.m.
 
In Response To: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references (Fred Carbon)
 
I have a 1/260 scale drawing from a box set (sorry I cannot read Japanese) which I purchased many years ago and the ISE/Hyuga was one of the ships. There are clearly five large supports (two on the side and one towards the stern) holding up the flight deck. In terms of the smaller AA platforms, there appears to be six platforms on each side two larger ones towards the bow and two towards the stern each fitted with triple 25 mm. The two smaller platforms in the middle have something on them which I cannot ID in the drawing, maybe the rocket launchers. Its a mirror image on the other side. Each of these six platforms on each side have a support under them which extends down about two decks before they merg with the hull.
 
Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: Harry van Baal <Harry.vanBaal@GEP.GE.COM>
Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2000, at 4:50 a.m.
 
In Response To: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references (Fred Carbon)
 
Built my Ise based on the relatively detailed box art of the HASEGAWA 1/700 model.
Unfortunately couldn't find any proof of it's actual accuracy and hope that the illustrator used "reliable" references.
 
Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: Fred Carbon
Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2000, at 10:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references (Harry van Baal)
 
I have the same idea but the box art shows 6 supports for the flight deck and all drawings only 5 (2 per side and one at the end of the stern).
I still dream of a photo showing the stern like the box art.
 
Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: V. Tapasanan <tvidya@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 June 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
 
In Response To: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references (Fred Carbon)
 
I am not sure that you have the latest Gakken book on Ise/Hyuga in hands. it has a very nice model nad details of afterdeck.
 
Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: Fred Carbon
Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2000, at 2:38 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references (V. Tapasanan)
 
My Gakken book is the number 26 ( hope it is the latest coming right from Japan 2weeks ago). There is one technical drawing (seems to be the 1943 version of the deck)so all details for the supports of AA guns (added in june 44 and rockets launchers (added in september 44)are missing .There is also a nice CAD drawing based on the 41 version (the pagoda tower was a little bit different)but again I do not really see how was fitted all the supports and the deck between the fligt deck and the original deck of the BB.
So I am still looking for references, this always the pain ... of the modeler.
 
Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references
 
Posted By: Sami Arim <sami@akol-yoshii.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 June 2000, at 10:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: ISE/HYUGA as hybrid references (Fred Carbon)
 
Plastic Ship Modeler magazine had an article about the subject. I don't remember which issue, but you can contact them thruogh warship website and try to find the specific issue.
 
Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato?
 
Posted By: Siggi <DerSteppke@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 19 April 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
 
I want to know if there are any photos or drawings of the sunken Yamato.
I heard that the ship broke in two peaces in a dept of 300 meters. Is that true?
Thanks for your help and excuse my bad English.
 
Book out in Japanese
 
Posted By: Duane Fowler <dlfowler@uscg.net>
Date: Friday, 21 April 2000, at 11:09 a.m.
 
In Response To: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato? (Siggi)
There is a book out now in Japanese with photos and story from the 1999 expedition by Titanic, Inc. to the wreck. There are several good photos although nothing earth shattering. There is a close up of one of the tripple 25mm AA shields, as well as the underside of the one of the inverted turrets. Nothing much for the modeler except one photo that shows something that all models I have ever seen (and even Skulski's book) get wrong. This book is not the quality of Ballard's books and all the text is in Japanese so if you're not a true Yamatoholic, it really isn't worth it.
What I would like to see is Dr. Ballard consider searching for the Musashi!
 
Re: Book out in Japanese
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Book out in Japanese (Duane Fowler)
 
Ballard apparently did consider looking for Musashi, but couldn't get a decent enough sinking position for her. At least that's what Chuck Haberlein told me a few weeks ago. I personally think she'd be a fine wreck--probably not as beaten up as her sister, although her bow may have broken off on the way down; it had been seriously weakened by progressive flooding and had developed a structural break.
 
sunken Yamato wreck model
 
Posted By: JPModeler <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>
Date: Thursday, 20 April 2000, at 7:21 a.m.
 
In Response To: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato? (Siggi)
(wreck model and map - Japanese)
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/html/soku_11.html
(wreck model construction report - English)
http://www.tamiya.com/english/news/yamato_tv/yamato_tv.htm
Now the model at Kure Maritime museum, Hiroshima prefecture Japan.
http://www.hiroshima-cdas.or.jp/kure/kaiji/index.html
Another photos
(English Report)
http://titanic-online.com/yamato/index.htm
(Japanese Report)
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/html/soku.html
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/html/soku_01.html
:
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/html/soku_10.html
 
Requiem for Battleship Yamoto
 
Posted By: JPModeler <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>
Date: Thursday, 20 April 2000, at 7:41 a.m.
 
In Response To: sunken Yamato wreck model (JPModeler)
 
(additional link)
http://lenpal.globaldrum.com/seizure/e040598.htm
 
Re: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato?
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Wednesday, 19 April 2000, at 8:33 p.m.
 
In Response To: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato? (Siggi)
 
There is a rough drawing (not to scale) of the wreck as it appeared to a 1985 expedition in THE BATTLESHIP YAMATO (Janusz Skulski) It does not appear to have actually broken in two.
There has been a much more recent expedition to the site in 1999, and I believe the website with some photos was posted to this list last year.
 
Re: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato?
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 19 April 2000, at 10:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato? (Jim Broshot)
 
Hi, gentlemen.
My understanding is that the Yamato's wreck was video taped and televised in Japan, and the hull was indeed broken in two.
 
Re: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato?
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2000, at 2:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Are there any photos of the sunken Yamato? (Tennessee Katsuta)
 
I was just watching the video of the Japanese documentary of the expedition the other morning, as a matter of fact (God, I had forgotten how funny Japanese commericals were when I lived there). Ahem. Anyway, yes, she is indeed broken in two, and then some. Her bow lies upright on the bottom but is raggedly broken off just between #1 and #2 main turrets. #2 turret lies in the mud right behind the bow. The stern section, some 180 meters of it, lies upturned some distance away. There is a large circular hole blown in her bottom under either the 6.1" magazine or #3 main turret; I couldn't make out the thread of discussion very well; my Nihongo stinks these days. But the video also had a very interesting animation of her sinking, which distinctly showed *two* magazine explosions (one fore, and one aft) breaking her into pieces. The forward one basically pulverized the midsection of the ship. Pieces of her superstructure lie all through the wreckage field.
You can see a few of the pics from that expedition here: http://www.titanic-online.com/yamato/index.htm
and also here:
http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/
Neither does justice to the video, although this link (http://www.tv-asahi.co.jp/yamato/html/soku_11.html) does show the model they made of her on the bottom for the documentary, and shows how the wreckage is oriented. It should be noted that this view of the wreckage is pretty wildly at variance with the drawing Skulski prepared for his book on Yamato. Given the photographic evidence from the 1999 expedition, I am inclined to believe the more recent expedition's work, and disregard Skulski's drawing. He made his from the original 1985 expedition which found Yamato, and my impression is that they didn't have very much time on the wreckage site.
 
Looking for 1/200 Yamato photo etch parts
 
Posted By: Jeremy Cher <rastaman1305@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 12 April 2000, at 11:16 p.m.
 
Bought the 1/200 Nichimo "Yamato" a couple of months back. Also have the Arii 1/250 Yamato(which i haven't started at all). Must say i'm s sucker for big ships and..... countless headaches but the Arii model is way much better in detail than the Nichimo. Was wondering if anyone of u guys have information where i can source for photoetch parts for the 1/200 Yamato especialy on the cranes, radars, etc. i note GMM has only the railings. Any info much appreciated
 
Re: Looking for 1/200 Yamato photo etch parts
 
Posted By: Rick Marelius <rcmarelius@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, 13 April 2000, at 10:22 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Looking for 1/200 Yamato photo etch parts (Jeremy Cher)
 
GMM does have a 1/200 Yamato/Musashi set. I have one that I bought a number of years ago when I got the Nichimo kit, and it does have the radars, cranes, catapults, floatplane dollies and a few other goodies. I understand that Loren has updated (or will soon) the set to his latest standard of relief etching. The listed price is $80. Check it out at:
http://goldmm.com/products.htm
Tom's has a set in work, but no word on a release date or price. Maybe you can email them and get an answer. Their site is at:
http://www.tomsmodelworks.com /
Look under 'Specialty Brass Sets for box scale kits'
 
IJN Kirishima photos
 
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Monday, 10 April 2000, at 5:25 p.m.
 
Hello All:
This week on the US Naval History Center's photographic branch website,there is a new display of pictures of the IJN Battleship KIRISHIMA showing her in the 1930's configuration and in the late 30's - wartime configuration. Check the site thru the link below. (Thanks to Ed Grune for the lead to this site.)
Link: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-fornv/japan/japsh-k/kirishma.htm
 
Re: IJN Kirishima photos
 
Posted By: Conrad Holm <conrad_holm@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 17 April 2000, at 7:06 a.m.
 
In Response To: IJN Kirishima photos (Mike Quan)
 
Good to see some "new" Kirishima photos on the web. I have been searching for historical info and photos of the Kongo class, primarily of WW2-vintage, in order to build myself a complete 1/700-display of these ships. And why the Kongo class? I guess it's because of their battle record and long history. But clear and detailed WW2-pictures of these ships are few and far between. Any ideas on how to get my hands on good copies, or even originals? Even good line-drawings would help a lot. Their superstructures in particular were all quite different, and the detailed differences have been rather hard to determine so far...
 
Return to Faq