- Cruiser FAQs
-
- Tone turrets
-
Posted By: Mike Connelley, not Billy Idol
<mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
Did any of the ships of the Pearl Harbor task
force have hinomarus on their flight decks or turret tops? I'm specifically
interested in the Akagi and Tone since I'm building them for the Nats
project.
BTW, I got the Aoshima Tone and it's quite
nice...I was expecting something more along the lines of their Soryu.
However, the hull forward of the superstructure is warped most noticably.
Any hints on how I might deal with this?
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: William Blado <wblad@msn.com>
Date: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 9:33 p.m.
In Response To: Tone turrets (Mike Connelley,
not Billy Idol)
No hinomarus (solid red disks) on carrier
flight decks except for the Midway Operation. Japanese Model Art publication
on the Pearl Harbor Striking Force shows no recognition markings on turret
tops of any of the vessels involved. This pub does show open landing circles
(NOT hinomarus) on Akagi(aft), Kaga(aft), and Soryu(forward).
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 11:19 a.m.
In Response To: Tone turrets (Mike Connelley,
not Billy Idol)
Akagi did not have a Hinomaru until after the
Coral Sea battle, nor did any of the other carriers.
If steam doesn't help try a blow dryer.
Attach the model to something straigth, heat the area to curve back and bend
it a little too far and let it cool in this shape (I use rubber bands to
keep the model in place).
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Ed Low <jlow@Bignet.net>
Date: Sunday, 10 December 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
In Response To: Tone turrets (Mike Connelley,
not Billy Idol)
There is a photo of Chikuma taken on Oct 26,
1942 which shows a Hinomaru painted atop her No. 2 turret (Page 529 of
Lacroix's Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War, or page 39 of Profile
Morskie - Tone). Whether it existed on the Tone and during the Pearl Harbor
raid is unknown.
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Mark J. <johnson53@llnl.gov>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:22 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Tone turrets (Ed Low)
Were those recognition symbols on a white
rectangular surround or a white circle?
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Ed Low <jlow@Bignet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Tone turrets (Mark J.)
It gets a little tricky talking about color
from a black-and-white photo. The photo is also quite blurred. However, I
have looked at the area of interest enlarged (in Photoshop) and it looks
like a grey circle surrounded by a white background. This would be
consistent with a red circle surrounded by a white background. Hard to say
if the background is round or square. However, it is consistent (location,
size, and color) with the Hinomaru (in much clearer pictures) seen on the
Mogami class ships (Maru Special # 122, page 9, 40, 41, and other photos of
this class of ships). My conclusion is that is it likely to be a red circle
surrounded by a white square i.e. the Japanese flag.
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Mark J. <johnson53@llnl.gov>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Tone turrets (Ed Low)
One more question, please. Was this symbol
painted on the furthest forward turret? (I'm not sure of the proper
terminology; what I mean is the turret nearest the bow of the ship.)
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Ed Low <jlow@Bignet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:59 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Tone turrets (Mark J.)
No, it was painted on turret #2 or the second
turret going from the bow towards the stern. The Mogami class all had their
Hinomaru in this same turret.
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Ed Low <jlow@Bignet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 7:22 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Tone turrets (Ed Low)
Actually, I retract my last statement i.e. it
was always on turret #2. The Hinomaru on the Mogami class (at least on the
Mogami and Kumano) are on their turret #1. The reason I looked it up was
because I was starting to wonder - "Why turret #2". I guess I
still do not know. There is another picture of a Mogami class cruiser where
both turret #1 and #5 looks like they both may have a Hinomaru on them.
Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this area can comment.
Re: Tone turrets
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Tone turrets (Ed Low)
Of interest is that recognition symbols
appears atop the turrets of Kongo and Hiei when they are returning from the
South Pacific in summer of 1942.
CA Myoko/Takao scuttlings
Posted By: David Outten <DMOutten@cs.com>
Date: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Was wondering if pictures of the post-war
scuttlings of the CA's Myoko and Takao by the British, I believe in the
summer of 1946 off Singapore were taken? And if so could anyone get me in
the right direction for viewing. The only post-war picture I have seen is
the much published picture of Myoko with the two German U-boats along her
starboard side.
Re: CA Myoko/Takao scuttlings
Posted By: Mike Yeo <ymike@singnet.com.sg>
Date: Thursday, 14 December 2000, at 10:29
a.m.
In Response To: CA Myoko/Takao scuttlings
(David Outten)
don't know if the pictures of the scuttlings
exist but I know of one picture showing the Myoko under attack by the USAAF
while she was at Singapore showing clearly the missing stern due to her
encounter with the USS Bergall. The picture appears in Pg.360 of
"Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" by Lacroix/Wells (Naval
Institute Press).
I've always thought the ships were scuttled
off Singapore but the book states that they were scuttled off Port
Swettenham in Malaya(today's Port Klang in Malaysia) in about 150m of water.
The book gives the following coordinates:
Myoko(scuttled 2 July 1946) 03deg05'06"N
100deg40'06"E
Takao(scuttled 29 Oct 1946) 03deg05'05"N
100deg41'00"E
Attention: Takao Lovers
Posted By: Randy
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 12:29 a.m.
Go to the Pit Road site and check out Takao.
It looks to me like Pit Road is covering all
the Takao bases: as built; 1941; 1942; 1944; Maya as an AA cruiser; the
works.
Maybe there is work for the bridges and masts
but it looks awfully good...what do you think?
Re: Attention: Takao Lovers
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
In Response To: Attention: Takao Lovers
(Randy)
Not to mention those new equipment sets.
I wonder if they'll include a degaussing
cable as they did on the Kimi/Kamikawa Marus and the I-400s. That would be
most impressive.
Re: Attention: Takao Lovers
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:54 a.m.
In Response To: Attention: Takao Lovers
(Randy)
Yes, the kit looks very good. I appreciate
the break in tradition with PitRoad where the bridge is on a separate sprue.
It makes sense for doing the entire class and is costlier for them to do so,
but we will wait and see if all the varaints you profess appear. My money is
on just the individual ships of the class appearing. It still is an
encouraging peak and I can hardly wait for their imminent appearance.
Link is provided for those who want to look.
Link: http://member.nifty.ne.jp/pitroad/pit85.html
Re: Takao Lovers
Posted By: Randy
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:41 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Attention: Takao Lovers
(Mike Quan)
It does appear that all vessels will be
appearing, if eventually.
Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Richard Dupree <jacdan2@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 13 November 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
I am in the process of modeling the IJN Heavy
Cruiser
Suzuya. I am curious to know if any part of
the deck was
painted white for identification purposes.
Any help on the
historically accurate paint job would be
appreciated.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: William Blado <wblad@msn.com>
Date: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 11:14
p.m.
In Response To: Painting IJN Cruiser (Richard
Dupree)
"Japanese Battleships and
Cruisers," of the MacDonald's Navies of the Second World War series,
states "the white colours on the top of the pagoda mast denotes that
the ship is under the direct command of the Commander-in-Chief, Combined
Fleet." I have never seen a photo of any ship type other than a
battleship with a white top. I have also read, but can't recall where, that
this was only an early war practice. I seriously doubt that a cruiser like
the Suzuya ever had a white top, but if you have a clear photo of Suzuya
with a white top, then go ahead.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 1:05
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
(William Blado)
I don’t think this is correct.
Unfortunately, although I flipped through the Macdonald book twice, I was
unable to locate the remark, on what page is it written?
The white tops were for identification
purposes and were used at the beginning of the war, although the pictures of
Ise and Hyûga in carrier-battleship layout also clearly show the white
tops, suggesting later dates. When a warship had an admiral on board this
was communicated by flags. If I remember correctly there was even a special
flag for the CinC.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: William Blado <wblad@msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 1:26
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser (Frido
Kip)
The quotation appears on page 12 and
accompanies a photo of KONGO with white top on page 13. All navies used
flags to signify the rank of the "Flag Officer" aboard a ship. The
white top was in addition to this. Photos of Ise and Hyuga as BB/CV hybrids
do indeed show light colored tops. These photos were taken in 1943. Action
photos of these ships under attack at Leyte Gulf in 1944 do not show white
tops. Perhaps they were only used in home waters. I have yet to see a photo
of a cruiser with a white top.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 5:56
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
(William Blado)
In addition to the photo cited by Ryan, check
out Lacroix & Wells "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific
War".
Photo 12.1 on p.615 shows Oyodo in mid-'43 at Kure with white rangefinder
tower. On IJN painting schemes, "The white rangefindertower was a
symbol of ships attached to the Combined Fleet...). Also, p.316, photo 7.5
shows Nachi leaving Paramushir for Kiska on July 10, 1943 with aft funnel
and rangefinder tower painted white. There's a couple of other photos as
well. I do believe the practice had ended in the last year of the war.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: William Blado <wblad@msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 9:24
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser (Dan
Kaplan)
Thanks for the heads up on the Lacroix and
Wells book. I've got it, but I hadn't read as far as the
Oyodos. I always
assumed the white on Nachi was camo for her mission to Kiska. The MacDonald
series book was first translated into English in 1963, before the Oyodo
photo was discovered in the archives. Japanese is a famously vague language
and the line about white tops indicating the ship was under the direct
command of the Combined Fleet C-in-C may be a translators error. So far as I
know, the Combined Fleet flagship was Nagato until Yamato was commissioned.
Kongo was never the fleet flag.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 8:06
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
(William Blado)
Keep in mind that white rangefinder tops were
not limited to BBs or CA/CLs. There's some pretty well known photos of
Zuikaku in 1942 with her rangefinder atop the island painted white as well.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser (Dan
Kaplan)
Had some #@%^& problems with my provider,
so please forgive me the late reaction. I did some research and indeed the
white towers were an identification mark for Combined Fleet ships, although
it appears to have been limited to large ships of cruisers upwards. It was
not a flagship marking.
Nachi was indeed painted white for the Kiska
mission and not for recognition purposes. Other examples of the white
camouflage for the Aleutian theatre are Kiso, Tama, Mutsuki class destroyers
and the converted seaplane carrier Kimikawa Maru.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tuesday, 28 November 2000, at 3:23 p.m.
In Response To: Painting IJN Cruiser (Richard
Dupree)
The best source for painting any of the
Mogami class cruisers is a photo from Warship International, Vol. XXI, No. 3
in Lacroix's article on "The Development of the A Class Cruisers in the
Imperial Japanese Navy". The air recon photo shows the Kumano (sister
ship to the Suzuya) in the Kavieng area on February 4, 1943. The roofs of
the foremost and rearmost turrets are both painted white for identification
purposes but no white is evident at all on the upper bridge.
As at this time the Kumano was the flagship
of Sentai 7 (RA Nishimura Shoji) she carries a white painted Admiral's barge
on the starboard side adjacent to the crane. She also would be flying a Rear
Admiral's flag.
I am unsure of what AA guns the Tamiya model
of the Suzuya has but in early Feb 43 the Kumano only had 2 twin 13 mm MG
mounts on the front of the bridge and 4 (2 per side) twin 20mm mounts beside
the funnel. No radar was carried.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 8:39
a.m.
In Response To: Painting IJN Cruiser (Richard
Dupree)
Usually, for all IJN capital ships, the main
gun director on top the bridge structure and the tops of the mainmast were
painted white for ID purposes. Around Midway, a Hinomaru upon a white
background was painted on the forward superimposed 8" turret of some of
the Suzuya class, though I'm not certain about Suzuya specifically. What
makes you think Suzuya's deck was painted white?
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Richard Dupree <jacdan2@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 15 November 2000, at 5:09
p.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser (Dan
Kaplan)
I believe you have answered my question.
While reading the
instructions on a Tamaya 1/700 model,
reference was made to
the "tops" being painted in white.
I mistook this for the
decks. Perhaps you could be a bit more
specific about exactly what part of the bridge and mast were white. The
instructions show that the top of the rear
mast on the
Suzuya was "black". I would like to
be historically accurate with the paint job. This is my first IJN ship, and
I have not done any research. Thanks for your
help.
Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 10:58
a.m.
In Response To: Re: Painting IJN Cruiser
(Richard Dupree)
I have to make a generalization about
Suzuya's paint job because I don't have a clear photo. Following a
generalization on the white for ID purposes for IJN capital ships, I would
say that the both the Type 95 director tower and Type 94 rangefinder tower
atop the main bridge (your parts B18 & B4) would be white. Actually, add
a drop of black to dull the white for scale effect. And yes, you're correct
in that the upper mainmast is black. What I meant to say is there is a white
recognition stripe (60cm wide for the real ship)painted just below the top
of the triad. The boxart depicts the location it pretty well.
Jap cruiser damage resistance
Posted By: Jukka Juutinen
Date: Sunday, 8 October 2000, at 11:30 p.m.
Why did Jap cruisers designers insist on
longitudinal bulkheads as that was a grave mistake in cruiser size ships?
D.K. Brown wrote in "Nelson to
Vanguard" that "that no wonder 10 of 12 hit in this area [engine
and boiler rooms] capsized".
Re: Jap cruiser damage resistance
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 5:09 a.m.
In Response To: Jap cruiser damage resistance
(Jukka Juutinen)
The Japanese persisted with these bulkheads
as it divided their machinery spaces. Thus damage to one space would not
result in a complete loss of power. In one instance at Guadalcanal a heavy
cruiser managed to escape an American battleline despite heavy damage due to
this feature.
Re: Jap cruiser damage resistance
Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>
Date: Tuesday, 10 October 2000, at 7:50 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Jap cruiser damage
resistance (Frido Kip)
IJN warship designers considered the
existence of longitudinal bulkheads was worse for stability
after they had faced the lost of heavy
cruiser KAKO or seaplane tender MIZUHO.
(According to the books by SHIGERU MAKINO,
MOTOMI HORI or SHIZUO FUKUI)
The report from heavy cruiser ATAGO(TAKAO
class) after it's lost(23.DEC.1944) concluded
"In order to rapid recovering of
stability, our longitudinal bulkheads in both boiler room and machinery room
should have water pathway with valves that controlable from both sides"
correction
Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>
Date: Tuesday, 10 October 2000, at 7:57 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Jap cruiser damage
resistance (Yutaka Iwasaki)
ATAGO lost 23.OCT.1944.
Re: correction
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 11 October 2000, at 3:01
p.m.
In Response To: correction (Yutaka Iwasaki)
So the Japanese themselves considered these
bulkheads less effective then they had hoped. That does explain the adoption
of unit machinery in the Matsu/Tachibana class destroyers.
Thanks for this fascinating contribution,
P.S. I know very little of the loss of
Mizuho, other than date and cause, do your sources have more information?
Re: correction
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Thursday, 19 October 2000, at 10:49
a.m.
In Response To: Re: correction (Frido Kip)
This from my trom on our site:
After leaving Yokosuka for the Inland Sea on
1 May' 1942,
"Sunk: At 2303 the same evening, hit in
port side by one torpedo of two fired by USS DRUM (SS-228) in a position
bearing 220 degrees, forty miles from Omae Zaki. A fire broke out and the
tender assumed a list of 23 degrees. Despite strenous efforts to confine the
flooding which appeared successful, the flooding worsened three hours after
being hit. Abandon Ship was ordered after 0300, and at 0416 she sank. Heavy
cruiser TAKAO had arrived and rescued Captain Okuma and 471 officers and men
, but 7 officers and 94 men were lost. Among the survivors 17 were severely
wounded, and 14 slightly wounded."
I was however, unaware that a report existed
that her centerline bulkhead contributed to her loss, but that seems
reasonable. It would mean she rolled over, and this caused her loss after a
prolonged damage control fight. Note: the side of the tender struck is not
given in most sources, but USS DRUM's report does.
Re: Jap cruiser damage resistance
Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 9:56 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Jap cruiser damage
resistance (Frido Kip)
It seems that the bulkheads offered
advantages when sustaining hits from surface fire. That was always the
anticipated "decisive" operation of the Combined Fleet. However,
when hit below the waterline by a torpedo, the bulkheads caused the flooding
to be localized to the damaged side which would make the ship more likely to
capsize.
Re: Jap cruiser damage resistance
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 12:49 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Jap cruiser damage
resistance (Grant Goodale)
Typical naval architecture isolates all
boiler and engine and engine rooms with both transverse and
longitudinal
watertight bulkheads. Takao thus had 12 boiler and 4 engine room watertight
compartments. Eliminating the longitudinal bulkheads would do little or
nothing to improve stability. Any slight list cascades water to the lower
side, with in the case of a large wide compartment, catastrophic result. The
value of a longitudinal bulkhead is to limit the scope of damage preserving
the functionality and number of undamaged spaces.
IJN Myoko camouflage colours *PIC*
Posted By: Mike Yeo <mikeyeo@bigpond.com>
Date: Monday, 2 October 2000, at 12:15 a.m.
Saw this pic(see attached) of the IJN Myoko
in Singapore in 1944. I'm interested in modeling this ship in this pattern.
Does anyone have any idea on the colours used for the camoflage? Any
information appreciated.
Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced
here.
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Monday, 2 October 2000, at 1:45 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours *PIC* (Mike Yeo)
Do you have the portside pattern?
And make sure you shear off the stern, the
camouflage didn't appear until after her damage!
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2000, at 4:55 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours (Randy)
There is a good photo of the Myoko without
her stern at CombinedFleet site listed below.
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: Mike Yeo <mikeyeo@bigpond.com>
Date: Monday, 2 October 2000, at 5:15 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours (Randy)
unfortunately I don't. All I have are the
pics from Nihon Kaigun. Do you know what the port looks like?
I didn't know the pattern only appeared after
the damage was done. In this case what was she painted in before *that*
voyage? Overall Grey?
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Monday, 2 October 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours (Mike Yeo)
In case you’re interested: the picture was
taken in September or October 1945 after the surrender. The submarines are I
501 and I 502.
Myôkô was hit aft on 13 December 1944 by US
submarine Bergall. She lost her stern on 17 December 1944 in heavy weather
while under tow. She was then taken to Seletar, Singapore and used there as
a floating AA battery.
The camouflage was only applied in 1945 and
probably consists of white or light grey over the standard Japanese navy
grey. It is, however, possible that greens were used as it was a local ‘in
port’ scheme. Before her damage Myôkô was painted in the standard
Japanese navy grey.
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: Mike Yeo <mikeyeo@bigpond.com>
Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 7:05 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours (Frido Kip)
the story in NihonKaigun reads a little
different. Anyway the camouflage looks a little dark, Doesn't really
look
white/light grey to me. But if she was in overall grey before her last
voyage then i guess thats good enough for me as thats when I want to model
her in.
I've included a link to the story of the
Myoko/Bergall encounter
Link: http://www.combinedfleet.com/atully07.htm
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Thursday, 19 October 2000, at 11:00
a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours (Mike Yeo)
Re: Camouflage painted when?
Though Myoko's camouflage was definitely
painted some time after her arrival in Singapore on 2 November 1944, and
thus, after her damage at Leyte and probably also by Bergall, it might be
misleading to associate it that way. In other words, with being laid up.
There is some strong hints that operational HAGURO was also so painted, and
it is known that TAKAO was. My personal opinion/theory is that the pattern
was painted on ships based long-term in Johore Strait, which the MYOKO,
HAGURO, TAKAO, and ASHIGARA all were. Its probably a 1945 pattern devised by
Fukudome and 10th Area Fleet command, and thus likely, in Feb 1945 or so. I
have no indication that ASHIGARA was so painted, but seems likely. In fact,
since ASHIGARA has been found and is to be salvaged apparently, maybe we can
find out!
Re: IJN Myoko camouflage colours
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2000, at 3:51 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Myoko camouflage
colours (Mike Yeo)
I meant that she had white OR light grey
patches on top of her overall navy grey scheme, this is the dark colour in
the photo.
Best photoetch for IJN CL
Posted By: Joe
Date: Monday, 12 June 2000, at 8:02 p.m.
I'm thinking about taking my Tamiya Kinu (Nagara
class,early war) out of the closetto work on, my question is what is the
best PE set to get for it? I know Tom's and GMM have sets, which is the
best? Also, would it be wise to invest in any Skywave accessory sprues for
boats, weapons and the like?
Re: Best photoetch for IJN CL
Posted By: John Sutherland <john.sutherland@amcom.co.nz>
Date: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 10:44 p.m.
In Response To: Best photoetch for IJN CL
(Joe)
Firstly - best of luck, these kits need a LOT
of work. I Know, I have just finished building the Sendai form the Jintsu -
the kit was not accurate even for the Jintsu.
You will need Skywave kits E-5 (for the main
arnament at least and some boats), and E-2 for other bits and pieces. If you
make the Kinu late war then a sprue of E-7 or E-10 may be useful. You may
also wish to replace the floatplane using E-3.
Essential is Lacroix & Wells Japanese
Cruisers of the Pacific War to guide you. First class reference with plenty
of drawings.
Re: Best photoetch for IJN CL
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dave@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Tuesday, 13 June 2000, at 6:11 a.m.
In Response To: Best photoetch for IJN CL
(Joe)
When given the choice, I always choose GMM.
Tom's stuff is very good, but the GMM stuff is great. It's a bit more
expensive, but well worth it in the final result.
Aoshima Tone and Akizuki
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Monday, 22 May 2000, at 1:57 p.m.
Can anyone tell me if the quality of the
cruisers Tone and Chikume and the AA destroyers of the Akizuki class
recently made by Aoshima are any good. Or are the older Fujimi kits better?
I only have the latter onces, which are nice. To obtain the Aoshima models I
have to order them abroad as they are not available in my country.
Re: Aoshima Tone and Akizuki
Posted By: Joe
Date: Thursday, 25 May 2000, at 6:20 p.m.
In Response To: Aoshima Tone and Akizuki (Frido
Kip)
The Aoshima kits are pretty good, far
superior to the old Fujimi kits. I believe Tone's anti-aircraft armament is
somewhat innacurate but her sister ship Chikuma's is right. While neither is
Skywave or Tamiya quality, I reccomend them.
Re: Aoshima Tone and Akizuki
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2000, at 8:57 a.m.
In Response To: Aoshima Tone and Akizuki (Frido
Kip)
I can't speak to the Tone/Chikuma, though
every review I've read has had high praise for them as being superior to the
original Fujimi issues. I can say that the Aoshima Akizukis are vastly
superior to the Fujimis. I have and am building several. The hull forms are
much more delicately molded and captures the the shape near perfectly,
especially the bow. Treaded deckplates and no linoleum tie-down strips. The
various kits offer correct funnel ventilators and masts between early and
late models; ditto 25mm AA mountings. A Leviathan weapons sprue is included.
The only drawbacks to perfection would be the
lack of hull portholes, degausssing cables, and the molded on depth charge
racks, all of which can be easily corrected. The 10cm turrets are superior
too but lack detail, I also think they are just a tad too flat. Conversely,
I find the turrets on the older Skywave DD sprue are just a little too high
too my eye when compared to photographs, though they are more detailed.
These kits are a superior build out of the box but can be improved even more
with a good PE set and the new Gakken book on the Akizukis as a reference
guide - it has a lot of detail/photos for each of the 6 war survivors.
Diahatsu Landing Craft on Cruisers
Posted By: John Sutherland <john.sutherland@amcom.co.nz>
Date: Saturday, 13 May 2000, at 8:16 p.m.
Lacroix says that Nagara in her last refit
was converted to a fast troop ship and as such provided with a 13m Diahatsu
landing craft and a "special" 10m freight lighter. No indication
of where these were carried, but assumably given the size they were either
on the top deck where the catapult was and / or the main deck beside the
"cut away" area.
However, my question is how did they get
these heavy lumps on and off the ship?
They would seem to be too heavy for boat
davits. Did Nagara re-embark her aircraft crane removed with the catapult?
This would cover Nagara, but what about those
14m Diahatsu Landing Craft that Kitikami and Ooi (Oi?) embarked in place of
the nos 7 and 8 torpedo mounts? Neither of these ships ever had a crane
(they never had a catapult and aircraft) so if they embarked a crane - what
pattern was it? Note - Kitakami did embark a 10 ton crane ex Chiyoda in 1944
but we are talking 1942 here.
Comments? Suggestions?
Anyone know of a source of 700 scale
"special 10m freight lighters"? Could that be the funny shaped
boat on the supplementary set that now comes with T/H/F/A kits?
Re: Diahatsu Landing Craft on Cruisers
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2000, at 9:10 a.m.
In Response To: Diahatsu Landing Craft on
Cruisers (John Sutherland)
I was thumbing thru Lacroix & Wells and
came across additional information. Late war modifications for CL Naka
included embarking 4 of the 10m freight lighters (shohatsu) for transport
& landing operations. These are apparently similar to the 14M, just
smaller at 6.52 tons with a 60 hp gasoline engine and capable of carrying
3.3 tons of cargo or 35 men. Similarly, Isuzu embarked 2 as did Nagara. All
indications are that Naka & Isuzu retained their aircraft handling
cranes and I was under the impression that Nagara did as well.
Oi & Kitakami embarked 4 of the 14m and 2
of the 10m lighters after conversion. 30 ton capacity aircraft cranes were
taken from Chitose, then under conversion to a CVL, and installed. The
Chitose/Chiyoda conversions begain late '42.
The Skywave/Pitroad set for IJN BBs carries a
number of freight lighters, though, I can't remember which ones.
Re: Diahatsu Landing Craft on Cruisers
Posted By: John Sutherland <john.sutherland@amcom.co.nz>
Date: Wednesday, 24 May 2000, at 12:01 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Diahatsu Landing Craft on
Cruisers (Dan Kaplan)
Your thoughts on Nagara are in-line with
mine. Lacroix & Wells suggests the crane was removed when the catapult
was landed, but I think either that is not correct or it was re-embarked.
L&W gives Nagara as embarking a 10m and a 14m.
The info on Oi and Kitakami confuses me.
According to L&W the outfit you described was part of the proposed 1943
conversion which, according to L&W, never eventuated. (However I have
seen other references, eg. Watts, which said it did). Kitakami did get the
30ton crane in 1944 when converted to a Kaiten carrier.
However, from mid-42 (aug/Sep) they carried 2
14m replacing the nos 7 & 8 tubes. This was too early for any cranes
from Chitose or Chiyoda so how did they get them on/off board? I am assuming
they embarked an aircraft handling crane similar to Nagara but this would
have required rear mast modification. Oh for a photo!!!
Tenryu and Tatsuta - AA configuration
Posted By: John Sutherland <john.sutherland@amcom.co.nz>
Date: Saturday, 13 May 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
The Hasegawa Tenryu kit gives 4 twin 25mm
sighted in front of the furst funnel on the raised centreline structure and
between the 1st and 2nd funnels similarly raised. In addition there is a 3in
single on the quarter-deck.
Jentsura shows only the 3in with a twin 13mm
on the quarterdeck aft of the 3in.
Lacroix says there were 4 by 25mm twin
mounts, one pair forward and one pair aft. In addition, Tatsuta received a
fifth twin mount after the loss of Tenryu and they do not say where. There
are no diagrams in Lacroix that I have found of the configuration.
Anyone help out here?
Anything else that needs to be "acurrised"
on the Hasegawa kit?
Re: Tenryu and Tatsuta - AA configuration
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Saturday, 3 June 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
In Response To: Tenryu and Tatsuta - AA
configuration (John Sutherland)
The AA configuration of the light cruiser
"Tatsuta" can be seen in the book "Drawings of Imperial
Japanese Naval Vessels" ("Nihon Kaigun Kantei Zumenshû"),
vol. 2: "Cruisers/Minelayers/Gunboats" ("Jun-yôkan/Fusetsukan/Hôkan")
by Kinushima Shôichi (Tôkyô: Model Art Co., 1990). Still available I
think from HLJ.
The drawing shows the "Tatsuta" in
1944 and she had 10 - 25 mm (5 × 2): two twin mounts abreast the first
funnel, two more between the first and the second funnel, and the fifth twin
mount on the quarterdeck (where the single 8 cm gun was previously mounted).
Chikuma Deck Material
Posted By: William Burdick <maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Monday, 27 March 2000, at 6:52 p.m.
What was deck material on the O1 or High
Angle Gun Deck of Chikuma/Tone, linoleum or metal. Kulski shows metal on
Takao, was Chikuma same?
Re: Chikuma Deck Material
Posted By: Harry Ohanian <oharry@erols.com>
Date: Tuesday, 28 March 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
In Response To: Chikuma Deck Material
(William Burdick)
I believe it was linoleum with the brass
caps. Some of the photos I have seen in the Mechanism of Japanese warships
book looks like linoleum. An expert on Japanese WWII vessels also has told
me that it was linoleum and has some wartime photos in his collection which
show linoleum on the Tone/Chikuma cruisers
Re: Chikuma Deck Material
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 March 2000, at 7:43 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Chikuma Deck Material
(Harry Ohanian)
As surprised as I am, I have to concur. I've
been under the impression that none of the IJN CA's carried linoleum on
their 01 deck but a quick look at Maur Special #44 on the Tone(s), p.9
carries a very clear overhead shot of the Tone at anchor. The ship is shown
from D turret all the way aft. The altitude at which the photo was taken
appears to be only a few hundred feet up. The main deck next to D turret is
clearly a different material (linoleum) from the surrounding steel and shows
regularly spaced tie down strips (brass)as would be expected. The surprise
is on the 01 deck rising right aft of D turret next to the bridge
superstructure and running to the first portside 12.7cm AA mount. It's the
same shade as the main deck and has the same, equally spaced, transverse
lines indicating tie down strips. The area is not under any shadow so
there's no mistaking it.
While I don't read Japanese, there's no
readily identifiable date protocol in the caption. It is grouped with
another photo from 1942 but they do not depict the same scene. Based on the
other overhead shots I've seen, I'm guessing that this phot was likely taken
just prior to the start of the war or during '41-'42.
Now I'm going to have check out all the other
CA's photos out of curiosity.
Re: Chikuma Deck Material
Posted By: Harry Ohanian <oharry@erols.com>
Date: Monday, 3 April 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Chikuma Deck Material
(Dan Kaplan)
Just returmed from the Western Ship model
Conference and exhint 2000 that was held on the Queen Mary Hotel located at
Long Beach Harbor, Long Beach CA. At that meeting I met a fellow modeler who
is Japanese and he shared some of his refernce book material with me. They
were Japanese and I am sorry I didn't get the names. However, in his
reference books there was some overhead and off the beam photos of the Tone
as well as the Chikuma and they showed linoleum from the fore to aft part of
the 0-1 deck. I don't know the date of the photos so I cannnot at this time
state with any degree of confidence that the linomeum was present at later
times.
IJN Kinu
Posted By: joe <jaci@lehigh.edu>
Date: Saturday, 12 February 2000, at 5:10
p.m.
Today, I visited among the largest hobby
shops I've ever seen. Shelf after drool-inducing shelf packed with cars,
tanks, trains, planes and, of course, ships. I think they stocked Tamiya's
entire waterline series! Regrettably, no resin ships though. Anyway, lacking
any sort of willpower I picked up the IJN Kinu, a Nagara class light
cruiser. I always thought these tired old ships were cool for some reason.
Anyway, I've heard Tamiya's 5500 tonners are pretty well done, but I have
little in the way of sources for the ship. My questions are as follows:
-At what time period is the ship depicted?
The instructions give no clues, but judging by the lack of anti-aircraft
armament and linoleum deck I'd say she was early war or pre-war.
-How is the accuracy of the kit?
-Any tips on embelishment? Does anyone make a
PE set that would be compatable? Are the 'strips' on the linolium deck
overscale?
Re: IJN Kinu
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 February 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
In Response To: IJN Kinu (joe)
You made responding easy; I was going to
respond to you on SMML. For some of the background on the 5500 tonners, and
available injection kit versions of these ships, see the postings of Nov.
15-16th below on this list. The Tamiya versions are very well done, very
accurate down to the degaussing cable on the war versions. Both Tom's
Modelworks and Gold Medal models make PE sets for IJN CLs.
The Kinu has both the degaussing cable and
light AA: this is pretty much an early war version. According to Lacroix
& Wells " Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War", Kinu did not
receive significant wartime modifications until mid-1943.
Mogami Plans
Posted By: William E. Burdick
Date: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 9:02
a.m.
Pleased to find this message board. Have
built a few IJN models since USN service at Yokosuka in 1955-56.Work in wood
and brass only. The process of construction is the pleasure, not the
product. Would like to start Mogami @1:200 have Mogami plans purchased at
Japanese hobby shop in 55 but those plans not accurate or detailed enough
for first quality work. Seeking source of plans comparable to Kulski's
Yamato and Takao books.
Re: Mogami Plans
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 16 December 1999, at 9:35
a.m.
In Response To: Mogami Plans (William E.
Burdick)
In the absence of a Gakken book on the
subject, and without knowing if you have a Miyayuki set of plans, I can only
suggest Lacroix and Wells "Janese Cruisers of the Pacific War" as
a reference. There is a well-detailed chapter on the Mogamis with detailed
diagrams based on the authors' up-to-date research but, no drawings to
scale. Also, try contacting Pacific Front Hobbies and see if Bill Gruner can
suggest anything.
Re: Mogami Plans
Posted By: William Burdick <maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Tuesday, 18 January 2000, at 9:25 a.m.
In Response To: Mogami Plans (William E.
Burdick)
Thanks PacFront says can do.
1/700 Tone/Chikuma
Posted By: Kevin Pryor <kpryor@mail.millikin.edu>
Date: Monday, 22 November 1999, at 12:21 a.m.
I'm considering for my next project a 1/700
Tone/Chikuma class cruiser and need some help. For references, I already
have "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" and that should be all
I need, but is there anything else out there I should look into?
Also, what kits of these two are available?
Are there any major inaccuracies that need correction? What fit do they
represent (I'd prefer Pearl Harbor, but am open to other options)? Are there
any specific photoetch frets or are only generic sets available?
Any input would be most welcome. Thanx =^)
Re: 1/700 Tone/Chikuma
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 22 November 1999, at 7:58 a.m.
In Response To: 1/700 Tone/Chikuma (Kevin
Pryor)
Funny, I'm hoping to build the Tone myself in
the near future. Aoshima issued its own versions of these two kits about
two+ years ago. I've not built them but both reviews in Plastic Ship Modeler
and in Navismagazine praise the quality of these kits; a vast improvement
over the Fujimi versions. I believe the Chikuma is in the early war fit and
the Tone is a late war fit. If I recall correctly, the Navismagazine article
questioned some of the AA placements but also had only the Model Art vol. 2
(and maybe a Maru Ship) as reference. GMM and Toms' have issued IJN heavy
cruiser PE frets and each has ship class specific details. My preference is
the GMM fret.
Having all the above references and some, I
think you can take the Lacroix/Wells book as gospel. There is a Polish
language monograph series that has been issued over the last few years and
one of these softcover books focuses on the Chikuma/Tone with 1/400 and
1/700 scale drawings. More like a cross between the Model Art and the Gran
Prix Shuppan/Tamiya Random details. Check with Pacific Front Hobbies.
Obviously, real photos from a Maru Ship or Kojinsha can only help.
It is my observation that in addition to the
above, having the appropriate Gakken book, which offers a beautifully
detailed 1/100 model as its subject, is the best modelers reference for a
real 3D view of any ship. Unfortunately, no Gakken book devoted to the
Chikuma/Tone has yet been issued but there is one on the Takao class. It
woud probably serve very well for general "feel" and IJN heavy
cruiser details.
Re: 1/700 Tone/Chikuma
Posted By: Kevin Pryor <kpryor@mail.millikin.edu>
Date: Monday, 22 November 1999, at 5:14 p.m.
In Response To: Re: 1/700 Tone/Chikuma (Dan
Kaplan)
Thanks for the info. I have some previous
experience with the old Aoshima kits (some of those were bears, not as bad
as fujimi's old stuff…) and am glad they revised it. This Thanksgiving I
should be in Des Planes where there's a Japanese bookstore that has a bunch
of Gakken books, including the Takao one. I know I'm probably going to pick
up some, as I was most impressed by their Kongo special. I haven't any
experience ordering from Pacific Front, but I know they're probably the best
game in town.
One of the things I would like to do is try
out White Ensign's IJN Antiaircraft photoetch. I saw built up examples at
the Warship site, and I'm looking for a way to destroy my vision ;^) Has
anybody here used this set?
IJN Jintsu
Posted By: Chris <cgbert@acay.com.au>
Date: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 4:43 a.m.
Im very new to the net and IJN. Not really
knowing where to start. Have seen a waterline 1/700? scale model of a light
cruiser, 'Jintsu 1943'. Would like to start (yet another hobby interest),
with a model of this ship. The hobby shop that has this model on display,
can't give me any details. Can anyone help with this kit or a similar (old
style light cruiser) kit?
Re: IJN Jintsu
Posted By: Kevin Pryor <kpryor@mail.millikin.edu>
Date: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 4:57 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Jintsu (Chris)
Another possibility (although it's not really
an old-style light cruiser) is Tamiya's Yubari. Although a little soft on
the hull details, the kit is an absolute delight for a beginner and has more
than enough detail to be satisfactory out of the box. Tamiya did an
especially good job on the triple 25mm AA, a major weak point of other
injection kits. It even comes with a display stand!
Re: IJN Jintsu
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 10:21 a.m.
In Response To: IJN Jintsu (Chris)
Welcome to the wonderful world of Japanese
aircraft and ships!
There is an IJN Jintsu kit by Fujimi in
1/700, but my understanding is that this kit is mediocre at best. Perhaps
someone with more expertise in this field can explain to you in more detail
as to what is wrong with the kit.
If you are interested in the other older IJN
light cruisers, a good kit(s) to begin with will be Tamiya's 1/700 Kuma and
Nagara classes. They are half sisters to the Jintsu, and these kits are much
better than the Fujimi's kit. I myself have just got back into ship
modelling, and I started bulilding the Tama, a Kums class cruiser from
Tamiya, and it's a beautiful kit. So, if you are impartial to the Jintsu,
the Tamiya kit may be a good starting point.
I hope this helps.
Re: IJN Jintsu
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 15 November 1999, at 3:26 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Jintsu (Tennessee
Katsuta)
Tennessee has it right. But first, the very
brief history lesson. The IJN constructed 14 light cruisers, collectively
known as the 5500 tonners, in the 1920's as part of the IJN expansion
program. They were designed to act as destroyer squadron flagships and as
flotilla leaders for mass torpedo attacks. They came in three sub classes or
flights. Flight I (Kuma, Tama, Kiso, Oi, Kitakami) and Flight II (Nagara,
Isuzu, Natori, Kinu, Yura, Abukuma) were nearly identical with their
distinctive three funnel arrangements except for the larger bridge
structures of the Nagaras. Flight IIIs (Sendai, Jintsu, Naka - another 3
were cancelled), had improved & enlarged bridgeworks, re-arranged
boilers that resulted in four funnels, and relocated mainmast and catapult
arrangements compared to earlier flights. All were upgraded thruout the
1930s. Jintsu, Naka, and Abukuma received new clipper bows (instead of the
spoon bows of the originals) after collisions. Oi & Kitakami were
converted to torpedo cruisers with 10 banks of quad torpedo tubes.
Three injection manufacturers' have issued
kits in 1/700. Tamiya, world class in scale and accuracy, has released all
of the Flight Is except Oi & Kitakami, and all of the Flight IIs.
Skywave/Pitroad, easily Tamiya's equal and then some, has released Oi &
Kitakami - 2 excellent kits. Fujimi/Seaways, very distant in terma of
quality, accuracy, and detail when compared to Tamiya and Skywave (due to
the age of the molds - now 25-30 Years), has the identical releases as
Tamiya, along with the Flight IIIs as well. There is no 1/700 injection
model of the Abukuma.
Generally speaking, the Fujimi hulls
(including Jintsu), are accurate for scale ,thought the portholes and deck
detail is oversize. The superstructures and other parts are cruder and
overscale. It makes a good starter model and can be dressed up with care and
some photoetch. The Tamiya's are much more accurate, have better fit and
build up very well right out of the box.
Re: IJN Jintsu
Posted By: Chris <cgbert@acay.com.au>
Date: Tuesday, 16 November 1999, at 3:00 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Jintsu (Dan Kaplan)
Many thanks to all who answered my enquiry.
After making local investigations, I
discovered my local model car shop has a reasonable collection of
kits.Taking your advise I bought a Tamiya model of the Natori. I'm hoping
that 1/700 ships do not become too adictive , as I allready do most of the
other 'Traditional' hobbys. Anyway thank you all once again,I'm off to dig
out my only other model ship , the Revell Emden.
Re: IJN Jintsu
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN Jintsu (Chris)
I'm doing Fujimi's Jintsu now. Actually, it
will be Sendai, circa 1943.
This kit is hurting but if you like
researching, kit-bashing, PE, resin, and
a little work she really looks good. I've
always liked the last of the 5,500 tonners. If you want details about
construction, get back to me and I'll let you know. It is not one of
Fujimi's better efforts, sorry to say.
Re: Takao class cruisers
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Sunday, 3 October 1999, at 9:14 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Aoshima Nagato (Scott
Woelm)
If you are interested in Takao class cruisers
in 1/700, there's a rumour that Pitroad is releasing them in the near
future, and Aoshima will be either re-tooling or making a brand new mold for
their Takao. So, you may want to hold off in buying (the old) Takao kits for
a while...I hope the rumour is right!
Nachi question
Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmcguire@cyberlodge.com>
Date: Monday, 16 August 1999, at 10:19 p.m.
I just started painting on the cruiser Nachi.
My question is were the decks above deck level, i.e.;the launch area and
bridge deck areas gray or the brown color? My guess is they are gray but
want to know for sure.
Re: Nachi question
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Tuesday, 17 August 1999, at 8:41 p.m.
In Response To: Nachi question (Jeff McGuire)
Unfortunately, none of my sources clearly
state from what material the A.C. launch deck and bridge deck were lined
with. However, from what I can gather from drawings and models built by
Japanese modellers, I believe the A.C. launch deck was painted IJN ship
grey. The rail tracks used to transport float planes were made of steel. The
bridge deck area may be lined with linolium(therefore brown).
I hope this helps. I ordered Gakken's book on
Takao class(which is an improved Myoko class) cruisers, and there is bound
to be a photo of a large scale model of a Takao class cruiser. Once I get
the book, I may be able to give you a more definitive answer.
IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice Admiral Mikawa
Posted By: Scott Woelm <woelmwx@skypoint.com>
Date: Saturday, 7 August 1999, at 12:43 p.m.
In the book, "A Battle History of the
Imperial Japanese Navy"
[Dull 1978], the IJN CA Haguro is referred to
as "pink painted"
(page 333, for those of you keeping score at
home).
Was the ship actually painted
"pink" (ala' the fictitious U.S.S.
Sea Tiger in the film, "Operation
Petticoat"), or did that term
mean something else?
Next question. Does anyone know if Vice
Admiral Gunichi Mikawa
survived the war?
Re: IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice Admiral Mikawa
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Sunday, 8 August 1999, at 5:58 a.m.
In Response To: IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice
Admiral Mikawa (Scott Woelm)
Mikawa seems to have survived the war. There
is a letter from him about Savo reprinted in THE JAPANESE NAVY IN WORLD WAR
II - 2nd Edition (Evans, 1986). This book is an anthology of articles by
former IJN officers about the Pacific War which mainly appeared in the
United States Naval Institute PROCEEDINGS. Mikawa was asked to comment on
the chapter about Savo.
Re: IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice Admiral Mikawa
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice
Admiral Mikawa (Jim Broshot)
He survived the war. He lived to the ripe,
old age of 93! I'll get the details as I recall them. Thanks guys.
Re: IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice Admiral Mikawa
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Friday, 2 June 2000, at 1:39 a.m.
In Response To: Re: IJN CA Haguro, and, Vice
Admiral Mikawa (Randy)
Mikawa died in 1981, one of the last major
IJN players to depart the scene.
IJN Kinu(Fujimi
Posted By: Graham Walker <katzcom@freeuk.com>
Date: Monday, 31 May 1999, at 11:37 a.m.
Hi can anyone tell me what year this kit
represents, I am wanting to model it as 1942, any web sites? any info?
Re: IJN Kinu(Fujimi
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 5:56 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Kinu(Fujimi (Graham
Walker)
Get any of the Tamiya 5500 tonners, you won't
regret it. It you have a Fujimi kit, keep it for the future or practice.
You'll make it work right
but the work isn't worth it.
Re: IJN Kinu(Fujimi
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <Kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 2 June 1999, at 4:06 a.m.
In Response To: IJN Kinu(Fujimi (Graham
Walker)
The Fujimi IJN Kinu kit represents how the
Kinu appeared in 1941-43. However, Tamiya also does the Kinu(1941), and INMO,
it's a much better kit than the Fujimi kit. You may want to consider getting
the Tamiya kit, because it will be a lot of work bringing up the Fujimi kit
to the Tamiya kit standard.
Re: IJN Kinu(Fujimi
Posted By: C.C. Cheng <cheng.150@osu.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 1 June 1999, at 5:41 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Kinu(Fujimi (Graham
Walker)
According to my experience, the old 1/700
kits are always inaccurate in many details. You can said that those kits are
always mixed representation.
I am building 1/500 cruiser Haguro. The major
reference book I use is Eric Lacroix and Linton Wells II's¡§Japanese
Cruisers of the Pacific War". You can find the book review in this page
http://www.skypoint.com/members/jbp/book0598.htm
It¡¦s really a heavy book, 882 pages. All
the modifications of IJN cruisers are sketched and depicted in it. Hope this
help.
Kagero 1/200
Posted By: Alpaslan Ertungealp <alp_ert@mail.matav.hu>
Date: Monday, 19 April 1999, at 10:55 p.m.
Recently I purchased a 1/200 scale Nichimo
Kagero kit. I'd like to update some of its parts. Are there any update parts
available for IJN ships in 1/200 (resin, photo-etch, etc.).
I also need information on Kagero's (and
possibly other Kagero class ships')armament at different stages of her/their
career(s) (preferably in the form of scale drawings).
Re: Kagero 1/200
Posted By: C.C. Cheng <cheng.150@osu.edu>
Date: Saturday, 24 April 1999, at 6:46 a.m.
In Response To: Kagero 1/200 (Alpaslan
Ertungealp)
There are some 1/200 photo-etch update part
of IJN ship's rails(Gold M.M.) and ladders(Aber). You can check these in
http://www.hobbyweb.com
IJN Furataka
Posted By: Graham Walker <katzcom@freeuk.com>
Date: Sunday, 11 April 1999, at 8:48 a.m.
Hi can anyone point me to any plans for
furataka after 1939, I am wanting to know where the doors were located.
Re: IJN Furataka
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Monday, 12 April 1999, at 1:26 p.m.
In Response To: IJN Furataka (Graham Walker)
Unfortunately no relevant plans of the "Furutaka"
are included in "Nihon Kaigun Kantei Zumen Shû" ("Plans of
Ships of the Imperial Japanese Navy") compiled by the Society of Naval
Architects of Japan and published by Hara Shobô Co., Tokyo, in 1975, nor
are any plans included in the five volume set "Gokuhi Nihon Kaigun
Kantei Zumen Zenshû" ("Complete Works of Confidential Drawings of
Japanese Maval Vessels") published in 1975-84 by Ushio Shobô K.K.,
Tokyo.
Some details can however be found in
"Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War" by Eric Lacroix &
Linton Wells II (U.S.N.I., Annapolis, 1997), "Gunkan Meka: Nihon no
Jûjun" ("Warship Mechanisms: Japanese Heavy Cruisers") # 2
in a four volume set published by Maruzen Co., Tokyo, 1980-82, and
"Nihon no Jun-yôkan" ("Japanese Cruisers") by Mori
Tsunehide (Grand Prix, Tokyo, 1993). Apparently Lacroix & Wells II have
copied some of the drawings made by the Japanese historian Ishibashi Takao.
I would also like to recommend the plans made
by Miyukikai (3-20-6 Minamimaioka Totsuka-ku, Yokohama-shi Kanagawa-ken,
Japan 244). I believe three plans of the "Furutaka", as she
appeared in 1941, are available (#036, 037, & 038). The scale is 1/200.
The catalogue (simple) from Miyukikai is free and a sample copy (of plans)
can be sent on request, see address above.
Japanese Battleship, Cruisers Fate
Posted By: Shaharom <shaharome@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1999, at 6:12 p.m.
Hi..I would like to know what happen to the
Japanese Battleship and Cruisers after being abandoned (
Allied Strike ) at
their port at Japan mainland..What is the name of the ship?..What happen to
them?..Scrap or being repaired to meet atomic test or be a Japanese Self
Defence Force?..
Re: Japanese Battleship, Cruisers Fate
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1999, at 7:00 p.m.
In Response To: Japanese Battleship, Cruisers
Fate (Shaharom)
The following Battleships and cruisers were
at home waters and met the following fait:
Battleships
Nagato-minor damage and afloat-atomic bomb
test at Bikini Atoll
Haruna-sunk at Kure Harbour-scrapped in 1946
Ise-sunk at Kure Harbour-scrapped in 1946
Hyuga-sunk at Kure Harbour-scrapped in 1946
Heavy Cruisers
Aoba-sunk at Kure Harbour-scrapped in 1946
Tone-sunk at Kure Harbour-scrapped in 1947
Myoko-damaged but afloat at Singapore-sunk by
the British in 1946
Takao-damaged but afloat at Singapore-sunk by
the British in 1946
Light Cruisers
Sakawa-afloat with no damage-atomic bomb test
at Bikini Atoll
Kashima-afloat with no damage-used to bring
back Japanese servicemen to mainland Japan, then scrapped
Oyodo-capsized at Kure Harbour-scrapped in
1948
Kitakami-damaged but afloat-used for
repair/service of other ships-scrapped in 1946
None of the capital ships were permitted to
survive because at the time, the Allies had no intentions of letting the
Japanese retain any military power. The Allies insisted the Japanese have
some military power only when the Korean War started. Incidentally, the
destroyer Nashi(a Matsu class destroyer) which sunk in 1945 was salvaged and
recommissioned as the escort Wakaba for the Japanese Maritime Self Defence
Force in 1951.
I hope this helps.
Re: Japanese Battleship, Cruisers Fate
Posted By: Hiroyuki Takeuchi
Date: Wednesday, 7 April 1999, at 10:19 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Japanese Battleship,
Cruisers Fate (Tennessee Katsuta)
Also, some destroyers and corvettes were
handed over to the Chinese (ie Taiwanese) navy as a part of post war
compensation and remaind in service for a while. Some surviving carriers
were used to transport Japanese soldiers and civilians from overseas, too (LSTs
were provided by the US forces for this purpose as well. My father came back
from Shanghai on one of these.)
Some corvettes (kaibo-kan) were retained and
used by the Maritime Safety Agency (equivalent to the Coast Guard). One of
them, was moored in a pond in Tokyo and used as a community meeting place,
but it was scrapped last year despite pleading from many citizens to
preserve it, as it was the last IJN vessel that fought WW2.
By the way, the battleship Mikasa, the
flagship in the famous battle in the Sea of Japan during the Russo-Japanese
War, can still be seen in Yokosuka.
Japanese CL "Abukuma"
Posted By: Marian Holly <MAROALEKIT@msn.com>
Date: Saturday, 6 March 1999, at 1:51 p.m.
I would like to build 1/700 model of this CL
for the reason she participated in Pearl Harbor attack and further major IJN
operations. I understand there is no kit of this ship. Can I basically build
any CL of "Nagara" class ?
Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Saturday, 6 March 1999, at 7:15 p.m.
In Response To: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
(Marian Holly)
All Nagara class cruisers had differences
characterizing each ship, so you can`t simply substitute one Nagara class
for another. The reason why both Fujimi and Tamiya failed to come out with
an Abukuma kit is because Abukuma was the only Nagara class with a
differently shaped bow. While the rest of the Nagara class( and for that
matter, the Kuma class )had the so called "spoon shaped bow",
Abukuma had the "Double curviture bow" seen on IJN Heavy cruisers.
If I am to do this conversion, I would use
the Natori kit from Tamiya, because it's a very good kit, and Natori and
Abukuma's seaplane/catapult deck were identical.The seaplane deck of other
Nagara class ships were quite different from these two. You will have to
reshape the bow, and make minor modifications to rest of the ship. A good
reference is Model Art`s "Drawings of Imperial Japanese Naval Vessels
Vol.2". I hope this helps.
Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
Posted By: Marian Holly <MAROALEKIT@msn.com>
Date: Sunday, 7 March 1999, at 7:20 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
(Tennessee Katsuta)
your information is EXTREMELY HELPFUL
confirming what i suspected. I'm just getting to this matter
(japanese
planes are my major interest), and see that good references in english are
the problem. I just recently obtained Grand Prix book by T.Mori about IJN
cruisers and as it's 100% japanese could not figure out anything about
"Abukuma". Are you saying that MA Drawings Vol.2 contain something
about "Abukuma?" That would be great as I have both volumes on
order (including Tamiya "Random details").
What would you generally suggest in terms of
IJN WW2 references meaning which books should I be after?
Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
Posted By: Paul <pesnbrg@marin.k12.ca.us>
Date: Monday, 15 March 1999, at 7:57 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
(Marian Holly)
I've been scratch building Japanese warships
in 1:200 scale for many years. Tennessee has given you some excellent
sources. Some of these can be purchaced at the present time. Both the Takao
and Yamato publications are very very good and the Model Arts warship
drawings, while not great for my scale, are fine your 1:700. These are all
available at: Hobbylink Japan: www.hlj.com
Go to their home page and browse "books
and magazines." I think you'll find their pricing to be pretty
reasonable. Another good source for things like Maru Specials and other
older publication is Pacific Front Hobbies in Washington State. You can't
order through their website, but you can email them. Their website is:
www.pacificfront.com
Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Sunday, 7 March 1999, at 6:21 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Japanese CL "Abukuma"
(Marian Holly)
I'm glad to be of assistance to you. I too am
primarily an aircraft modeller and I only occasionally dabble into 1/700
ships, so there are plenty of full time ship modellers who can give you a
good advice as to which books to get. So take my advice, if you want to know
what a part time ship modeller who only does 1/700 uses as a reference. I
won't get into non-Japanese books because I'm sure you are aware of them
already.
The Model Art books on IJN vessels drawings
contain side view drawings of all ships in the book. Vol.1 is on battleships
and destroyers, and vol.2 is on cruisers(including Abukuma) and auxillary
ships. All major ships have a plan view as well.They announced vol.3 on
carriers a long time ago, but unfortunately it never materialized. These
books are adequate for 1/700 modellers.
Model art also released two books, one on
cruiser Takao and the other on Yamato. They are more than adequate for 1/700
modellers. Takao however is represented in its pre-war configuration only.
These two books may still be available.
Model Art's latest release, the 1/700 scale
model IJN Warships Handbook covers just about every IJN ship models in
1/700, but there aren't many drawings, and it's not too usefull if you don't
read Japanese.
Tamiya's "Random details" by T.Mori(
unfortunately he recently passed away) has many usefull drawings of closeups
of various IJN ships. As you may be aware, T. Mori released a few books of
his own before he passed away. I heard that his friend and colleague is
planning on releasing a book(s) based on Mr.Mori's unreleased drawings and
articals.
Other various "once available but hard
to get now books" are Maru Special peridicals. They were published by
the same company that published the famous Maru Mechanic. They had Maru
Special periodicals(bi-monthly, I believe), which covered few ships (often
sister ships i.e. Zuikaku and Shokaku) per issue with Japanese text and many
photos and drawings. They also had special issues where one book covered one
class of ships( i.e. one book on battle ships, one on carriers, etc.).These
are long gone but who knows, they might reissue them like they did the Maru
Mechnics. If you see them floating around, I strongly recommend that you buy
them.
Monthly modelling periodicals such as Model
Art and Model Grafix cover IJN ships fairly regularly with reasonable
drawings and photos. I also know there are two or three Japanese periodicals
that are dedicated solely to ships( kind of like the ship version of the
Koku Fan).
I know there are hard core IJN ship
enthusiasts in Japan who research and publish books on IJN ships, but they
are extremely expensive( we're looking at few hundred dollars) and they are
more for large scale(like 1/200) modellers.
I hope this helps. I know there's a lot more
but as a part time ship modeller, what I mentioned is more than adequate for
me.