-
Navy Misc Info
-
- Topics:
- Personnel
Transport Disasters
- Good Source on IJN Cannons?
- Isshikirikko question
- Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo?
- Mavis or Emily Kamikaze missions?
- Battle of the Philippine Sea
(New)
- Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base
(New)
- carrier types req'd takeoff length
(New)
- Dinah and the IJNAF
(New)
- Flight suit color/material
(New)
-
-
- Posted By: Thomas Lund
<mailto:thlund@yorkref.com?subject=Japanese carrier decks>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2000, at 6:50 a.m.
-
- Hi guys
- Does anyone know of a good pic or
anything that shows how
the decks of Japanese carries looked ?
- Thomas
-
- Re: Japanese carrier decks
-
- Posted By: Bill Turner
<mailto:wturner@rclco.com?subject=Re: Japanese carrier decks>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 7:22 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Japanese carrier
decks (Thomas Lund)
-
- If you can find the Model Art
issue on Pearl Harbor, there are a number of photos of carrier decks,
especially the Akagi's.
- Three companies make 1/48 Japanese
carrier deck sections: Just Plane Stuff, Cutting Edge, and Carrier Deck
Accessories. I have all three, and the one by Carrier Deck Accessories
really is the best. The deck section is 12.75" by 11.25". What
really sets this one apart is the photo etch tie-downs: over 80 of them.
It also has a set of wheel chocks. Carrier Deck Accessories is in Tucson
(520/748-2992).
-
- Re: Japanese carrier decks
-
- Posted By: Roachie
<mailto:roachdas@dingoblue.net.au?subject=Re: Japanese carrier
decks>
Date: Thursday, 28 September 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Japanese carrier
decks (Thomas Lund)
-
- Hello again, Thomas. I recently
purchased a resin Japanese Carrier Deck section (approx.
13"x14"). Product: Just Plane Stuff, 1/48 Japanese Carrier
Flight Deck Kit JPS003. It's about 1/8" in ply. Instructions and
finishing tips (and photograph of model with finished item) included.
AU$44.00. I think there's enough info for what you would be after -
address on package is shown as Re: Japanese carrier decks
- 2021 Carmel Avenue,
Racine, Wisconsin, 53405.
-
-
- Posted By: Kevin A.
Lawton <mailto:kal5@dana.ucc.nau.edu?subject=Japanese Naval
Floatplanes>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 1:34 p.m.
-
- Hello everyone,
- I'm interested in finding any
information about the catapults used to launch Japanese recce.
floatplanes from battleships and cruisers. I have been collecting and
building 1/48 floatplanes, both Japanese and German. They look nice
when sitting on a beaching dolly, but most kits do not provide a
dolly. I am looking to create a diorama using a 1/48 Aichi E13A. Any
plans or photo graphs in any scale would be most appreciated. If any
one knows of any books containing plans of photos please e-mail me the
title and author.
- Happy modeling to all, Kevin
-
- Re: Japanese
Naval Floatplanes
-
- Posted By: Jim Broshot
<mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re: Japanese Naval Floatplanes>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 10:15 p.m.
-
- In Response To:
Japanese Naval Floatplanes (Kevin A. Lawton)
-
- Detailed catapult drawings
also in THE HEAVY CRUISER TAKAO (Janusz Skulski), "Catapult, No.
2 Model 3" 1932 - 1938 and
"Catapult, No. 2 Model 5" 1939 - 1945;
- Drawings of latter catapult
also in Skulski's THE BATTLESHIP FUSO.
- More general information in
JAPANESE CRUISERS OF THE PACIFIC WAR (Lacroix and Wells), including
Table G-1 "Characteristics of Japanese Catapults."
-
- Re: Japanese
Naval Floatplanes
-
- Posted By: Rob Graham
<mailto:reishikisenguy@aol.com?subject=Re: Japanese Naval Floatplanes>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
-
- In Response To:
Japanese Naval Floatplanes (Kevin A. Lawton)
-
- Kevin:
- I have a book on the Yamato by
Janusz Skulski, and I recommend it highly for its amazing artwork. The
catapults are cool, but to show the crane or the hangar, with the
wings folded, would be real cool, too.
- I also recommend the Hasegawa
1/72 kits with cats, as they are VERY nice, and I think you could
scale it up nicely.
- --Rob
-
-
- Posted By: Elephtheriou
George <mailto:elgeorge@otenet.gr?subject=The Japanese 'Centipede'>
Date: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 5:45 p.m.
-
- Konnichi wa,
although this issue has been posted before, about a week ago I got the
fabulous FAOW Special Issue about the Ginka from a very good friend
(Danke).
In it there is the drawing of the odd Ginka with the 16-18-20 20mm
cannons. The nick name for the plane is "Mukade" (in Japanese)
"Centipede" (in english).
The text says that there were 3 different ways to install the cannons in
order to cover larger area. One way, was to the left, the other forward
and the third, to the right. In all three occasions the cannons were
pointing downward to the front. Also, in the drawing, the cannon muzzles
are protruding from the bomb bay, resulting in a plane that looks like it
has many "feet" like a centipede.
Now ,if someone could come up with markings and painting, then we could
have a most unusual model.
- Domo,
George
-
- Re: The Japanese
"Centipede"
-
- Posted By: John MacGregor
<mailto:JohnMacG6@hotmail.com?subject=Re: The Japanese 'Centipede'>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at 6:30 a.m.
-
- In Response To: The Japanese
"Centipede" (Elephtheriou George)
-
- FYI, in a British paperback ´(Nightfighter/Ken
Delve) there is the following - modified P1Y with 17 20mm cannons angled
downward - 12 forward-firing,5 rearward.30 a/c were to be modified for low
level attacks on B-29 bases in the Marianas. The idea was that a single
pass down the flight line would destroy the B-29s lined up there. The
sudden end to the war aborted this scheme.
-
-
- Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=242kg.
and 250kg Mounting Hardware>
Date: Friday, 9 February 2001, at 8:20 p.m.
-
- Is there any information that
details whether the mounting hardware for the Japanese 242kg. HE and
250kg. semi-AP bomb were the same? In other words, could a Val switch her
bomb loadout without also requiring a new set of mounting brackets? Any
citations would be great. Thanks.
- -jon parshall-
- Imperial Japanese Navy Homepage
http://www.combinedfleet.com
-
- Re: 242kg. and 250kg
Mounting Hardware
-
- Posted By: Barry Priestly <mailto:berry@operamail.com?subject=Re:
242kg. and 250kg Mounting Hardware>
Date: Monday, 12 February 2001, at 4:07 a.m.
-
- In Response To: 242kg. and 250kg
Mounting Hardware (Jon Parshall)
-
- There is a long and detailed
article available on the U.S. naval war college home page which goes in to
great length about switching bombs on Vals and torpedos on Kates; in
short, the answer to your question appears to be yes. The article is by
Dallas Woodbury Isom and is entitled 'The Battle of Midway: why the
Japanese lost'. It was apparently published in the Naval War College
Review of 'Summer' 2000.
- Hope this is of some help.
Cheers
-
-
- Re: 242kg. and 250kg
Mounting Hardware
-
- Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re:
242kg. and 250kg Mounting Hardware>
Date: Monday, 12 February 2001, at 7:56 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: 242kg. and
250kg Mounting Hardware (Barry Priestly)
-
- Actually, the reason I posted this
message is partly to check Isom's facts and sources, since I am in the
process of submitting a rebuttal to his article in NWC. As it turns out,
the day after I posted this question, I received an answer to it from an
ordnance expert in Japan. The answer is indeed yes.
- Thanks!
- -jon-
-
-
- Posted By: A. Sean G. <mailto:aseang@hotmail.com?subject=Pacific
Peashooter's in Action *PIC*>
Date: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Pearl
Peashooter (martin)
-
- Very limited use, yes. We're close
to the 59th anniversary to last combat use of the P-26. Nevertheless, P-26
guns were fired in action and kills were registered.
- Boeing contracted to supply a
batch of similar fighters to the Nationalist Chinese government. A total
of 10 Peashooters, designated Model 281 by Boeing and Model 248 by the
Chinese, were built for the Chinese in 1934. The company did not deliver
the airplanes until 1936, however, because of funding problems.
- The Boeings were delivered to the
17th Squadron, commanded by Wong Pan-Yang, a Sino-American volunteer from
Seattle, in time to be used against Japanese aircraft over Nanking in
1937. On August 15, eight of them attacked a flight of six Mitsubishi G3M
bombers and shot down all six without loss. Wong Pan-Yang in Boeing No.
1701 downed one and shared in the destruction of a second, while Los
Angeles­born Wong Sun-Shui in plane No. 1703 accounted for a
third. The rigors of combat and primitive operating conditions took a
heavy toll on the Boeing fighters, though, and by the end of 1937 none of
them remained operational. The 17th was re-equipped with Gloster Gladiator
biplanes, in which Wong Pan-Yang would bring his total score to five. Wong
Sun-Shui was credited with 8.5 victories before being mortally wounded in
action on March 14, 1941.
- The sole Boeing 281 sent to Spain
for evaluation was still at Barajas when the Spanish Civil War broke out
on July 18, 1936, and was hastily armed with two .303 Vickers machine guns
under the wings for front-line service with the Republican forces.
Operating from Getafe airfield, it saw considerable action against the
fascist rebels, on one occasion flying in formation with a Spanish Fury,
four Dewoitine D.372s, two Loire 46s and two Nieuport-Delage NiD-52s.
- Republican air strength at Getafe
was down to one Fury, one Dewoitine and the Boeing 281 by mid-October
1936. Then, on October 21, Ramón Puparelli, one of the Boeing fighter's
original test pilots, took it up to defend the airfield against three
enemy Fiat CR.32s, only to be shot down. Puparelli managed to bail out.
Some time later, the Spanish Republican government, which had never
actually bought the prototype, finally paid $20,000 to Boeing
representative Wilbur Johnson, through its embassy in Paris, for the 281's
use in combat.
- By the end of 1941, when the
United States became involved in World War II, the P-26 was considered a
flying antique. The last operational Peashooters in the Philippines had
been replaced by P-35As during the summer of 1941. The 12 remaining Boeing
fighters were transferred to the 6th Pursuit Squadron of the Philippine
Army Air Corps at Batangas Airfield on Luzon.
- Captain Jesus A. Villamor led the
P-26As of the 6th Pursuit Squadron, the only ones of their type to see
action in World War II, and they were flown with great courage by their
Filipino pilots. On December 12, 1941, Villamor brought down a Mitsubishi
G3M2 of the 1st Kokutai over Batangas. Lieutenant Jose Kare even managed
to shoot down a Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero with his obsolete Boeing on December
23. Generally, however, pitted against overwhelming numbers of superior
enemy aircraft, the Peashooters proved as ineffectual as their name
implied. The last surviving Filipino P-26s were burned on Christmas Eve to
prevent their falling into enemy hands.
Re: Pearl Peashooter
Posted By: martin <mailto:mgrant@hei.com?subject=Re:
Pearl Peashooter>
Date: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 2:22 a.m.
In Response To: Pearl Peashooter (A.
Sean G.)
Yup!
Great shot of a p-shooter! WOnder
how it would have done against the Claude? I heard that a few
"Peas" actually did combat against Zeros in the first few days of
the War. Anyone know anything about that??
Thanks
Martin
- Re: Pacific Peashooter's
in Action
-
- Posted By: Tony Feredo <mailto:aferedo@ibahn.net?subject=Re:
Pacific Peashooter's in Action>
Date: Tuesday, 19 December 2000, at 8:53 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Pacific
Peashooter's in Action *PIC* (A. Sean G.)
-
- December 12 maybe two days late
for the first aerial victory of a P-26. On December 10, 1941, Jose
Villamor flew a P-26, not from Batangas Field but from Zablan Field (now
Quezon City) and engaged Zeroes from the 3rd Kokutai over the Marikina
Valley. He was credited with flaming a Zero on this day. On the 12th,
Villamor was credited of shooting down a Nell. On December 14, Lt. Jose
Gozar was also credited of shooting down another Zero on this day and on
the 23rd, Lt. Jose Kare was credited with a Zero.
- If you tally the exploits of the 3
Filipino pilots they were credited of downing 3 Zeros and a Nell which
puts it to four Japanese aircraft being downed by the
"Peashooter". Ofcourse other Filipino pilots held their own
against the Zeroes but were just overwhelmed like Lt. Cesar Basa, the
first Filipino aviator to be shot down in combat on the 14th.
- As for these three pilots they
made history but two of these pilots I mentioned are being questioned by a
few who think their deeds were down by "two other Filipino"
pilots. Ofcourse, that is another discussion that could well question the
heroes of the air forces of my beloved country...
- Regards,
Tony
-
- Re: Pacific Peashooter's
in Action
-
- Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Pacific Peashooter's in Action>
Date: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Pacific
Peashooter's in Action (Martin)
-
- P-26 fans,
- There were 28 P-26s in the P.I.
when the P-35s arrived. The 3rd Pursuit entirely re-equipped with P-35s.
The newly arrived 17th and 20th Pursuit were issued a few P-26s as well as
P-35s which they operated for a short period. These were all replaced well
before the Summer of 1941. P-26s were used during the Summer and Fall of
1941 in a series of operational training courses as new pilots arrived.
USAAC pilots were sent to the P.I. directly from flight training with
little more than 200 hours flying time. Several batches of pilots arrived
and new courses were run for each batch. The pilots first got a few
flights in the A-27 which was essentially the same as the AT-6 they had
flown in training. Then they moved on to the P-26 and did real combat
training. Eventually they transitioned to the P-35 and P-40. By all
accounts these pilots were well trained when war broke out.
- Sixteen P-26s were operational
when war broke out. Twelve of these were operational with the Phillippine
6th Pursuit.
- Now for a slightly different take
on P-26s in combat. Thuis all per Shores/Cull/Izawa (Bloody Shambles):
- On December 10th four 6th Pursuit
P-26s scrambled and suffered no losses nor scored any victories. Lt Jose
Gozar reportedly had his guns jammed and attempted to ram an A6M.
- On December 12th 25 A6Ms of 3d Ku
sortied and some or all of them engaged 8 fighters identified as
"P-26s or P-35s". Capt. Jesus Villamor led 8 P-26s. He was
credited with a bomber and may indeed have shot down a 1st Ku G3M2 which
was lost. The rest of the squadron claimed 1 and possibly 2 A6Ms. One A6M
was claimed jointly by Lts. Geronimo M Aclan, Alberto S. Aranzoso, Manuel
Conde, Godofredo M. Juliano, and Antonio K. Mondigo.
Lt. Gozar who did not return was apparently also credited with an A6M.
- Lt. Gozar was killed, Lt. Mondigo
bailed out. Lt. Juliano's aircraft was riddled but he returned to Zablan.
Lt. Aclan was forced down at Maniquis Field. Another P-26 not part of this
formation was also shot down returning to base. Pilot was Lt Cesar M. Basa.
- 3rd Ku claimed eight victories!
But suffered no losses.
- After this only three P-26s were
air worthy. Grounded P-26s were apparently repeatedly strafed and the
Japanese claimed grounded aircraft that were already damaged beyond
repair.
- Rick Dunn
-
- Re: Pacific
Peashooter--few more details
-
- Posted By: Richard Dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Pacific Peashooter--few more details>
Date: Thursday, 21 December 2000, at 7:10 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Pacific
Peashooter's in Action (Richard Dunn)
-
- To flesh out the comments
above(ref. Bartsch, Doomed From the Start, except as noted)
- The first P-40s arrived in March
41. The three squadrons then had 42 P-35s and 22 P-26s serviceable. On
July 2d they had 39 P-35s and 20 P-26s. 25 of the 31 P-40Bs that had
arrived were assigned to squadrons but temporarily unserviceable due to
lack of Prestone coolant.
- The operational training involved
about 3-4 hours on the A-27 and about 10 to 15 hours on the P-26 and up to
50 hours on the P-35 or P-40.
- One other bit of additional
information. In a message to Washington on December 12th the 5th Air Force
advised that immediately prior to war 16 P-26As were on hand and 13 were
operational.
- Rick Dunn
-
-
- Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Arrestor
Hooks>
Date: Friday, 6 October 2000, at 7:35 p.m.
-
- Hello world
- Does anyone have any information
about the colours of IJN arrestor hooks ? Natural metal, undersurface colour,
Barney purple ?
- Thanks in advance
- Grant
-
- Re: Arrestor Hooks
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Arrestor Hooks>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Arrestor Hooks
(Grant Goodale)
-
- Hello Grant,
- TAIC Report #28, Metallurgical
Examination of Japanese Aircraft Landing Hooks, gives details on the finish
of 2 Zero hooks and 1 Val hook. The latter was all steel and was painted
overall black. The Zero hooks had the aluminum hook shank painted in the
same hairyokushoku or gray-green paint as is found on the rest of the
exterior of the Zeros.
The hook itself at the end of the shank and the hook mount assembly were
steel and therefore painted black.
- The hook mount assembly can be seen
in the lower left photo on page 8 of FAOW 55 and in photo 166 on page 33 of
Aero Detail 7. Both photos show this component in an extended position which
was only the case when the hook itself was in the down position. Incidently,
Hasegawa incorrectly has molded this part in an extended position just to
the front of the hook wheel on both their 1/72nd and 1/48th scale Zeros.
Photo 170 on page 34 of Aero Detail 7 shows the mount in both its correct
color and position and also illustrates that when the hook was removed the
mount assembly would remain in place.
Ryan
-
- Re: Arrestor Hooks
-
- Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Arrestor Hooks>
Date: Friday, 20 October 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Arrestor Hooks
(Ryan Toews)
-
- Ryan
- Thanks for the info. From the
information that I have seen, gloss black seems to be a common colour for
the arrestor hooks. The A-J Press A6M book provides close up colour photos
of restored Zeros in museums. One of these is in Japan, I think. I would
guess that anyone restoring a Zero in Japan would be very careful about
colour accuracy and would also have access to documents and the people who
did maintenance on wartime Zeros.
- Again, thanks
- Grant
-
- Re: Arrestor Hooks
-
- Posted By: Ryan Toews <mailto:ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca?subject=Re:
Arrestor Hooks>
Date: Tuesday, 24 October 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Arrestor Hooks
(Grant Goodale)
-
- Hello Grant,
- Gloss black was generally used only
on parts made out of steel. Aluminum parts were, for the most part, painted
with red primer and then overspayed with the aircraft's camouflage color.
Unfortunately, almost all of the restored Zeros in the various museums
throughout the world have problems with their paint details and should not
be viewed as the final word on the topic.
- Ryan
-
-
- Posted By: Paul <mailto:Paulmicklos@prodigy.net?subject=Japanese
air to air rockets for zero>
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
-
- Hi guys
- I was wondering if any of you had
the stats for the air to air rockets used on the zero or the aireal bombs
the japanese used to drop on other planes. Mainly looking for range, and
dimentions of the bombs and rockets, any help would be nice,
- Thanks for your time.
- Paul
-
- Re: Japanese air to air
rockets for zero
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Japanese air to air rockets for zero>
Date: Monday, 11 December 2000, at 3:08 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Japanese air to air
rockets for zero (Paul)
-
- Paul
- Maybe I can be of a little help on
the bombs or at least one type. This data comes from a translation (Cincpac-Cincpoa
11198) of Japanese Air HQ explanatory notes on the Type 99 #3 Mark III bomb,
Mod 1. Date Nov 1 1943.
-
- In comparison to an earlier version
"the arming period of this bomb (the period necessary for the bome to
revolve 1000 rpm from the time of dropping) has been shortened and the bomb
will detonate at a time setting of 3 seconds while traveling at 240-250
knots."
-
- "The nose and body are welded
together, and the tail assembly is joined to the body by an adapter..."
- "There is a sheet-steel charge
cylinder 1 mm thick with clusters and yellow phosphorus inside the bomb
case..."
- length 693mm, width at widest point
147mm, weight of clusters 10.3 kg (144 units), burster charge 1.5kg, overall
wgt 34 kg.
-
- Tip of the nose green, second ring
silver, body grey, tail fin strut red.
-
- There are lots more technical
details but this may provide some of the info you are interested in. Range
can be inferred from the speed and time given above.
-
- Early bomb attacks (from Allied
reports) were from overhead with bomb dropping a/c flying in same direction
as attacker. Later (presumably with the bomb desribed above) attacks were
dives from the frontal quarter with the bomb "lobbed" by a pull up
before release. In a successful attack on a PB4Y in Western New Guinea in
May 1944 the Zeros approched from head on below bomber level, pulled up and
lobbed their bombs. The number employed suggested they were equipped with
the five bomb racks documented in the photos in Cincpac-Cincpoa Weekly Intel
Sum v. I #4 p 15-16.
-
- Hope this helps.
- Rick Dunn
-
- Re: Japanese air to air
rockets for zero
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re:
Japanese air to air rockets for zero>
Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 6:22 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Japanese air to
air rockets for zero (Paul)
-
- Paul
- Here are a few more items from the
report cited. On the center section are four rotation vanes as well as
suspension lugs on the top and bottom. Report gives details on alternative
fuzes and primers. Timer could be adjusted.
- A standard small model bomb release
mechanism is used but it is necessary to modify the tail arming vane before
use because it is not adapted to the release mechanism.
- Bomb could detonate on contact as
well by timing.
- Additional (or alternative ) info
from a U.S. intel report.
A Zero 21 was captured on Saipan with racks for five of these bombs under
each wing. These were said to weigh 32kg (70.5 lb). Length 24.5 in, diameter
5.75 in.
- "Of particular interest are the
bent tail fins and the additional spiral fines welded to the bomb body
itself. Ordnance experts have identifies these as the Navy incediary
(shrapnel) type 32 kg bomb intended for air to air bombing. The body fines
have been added to the standard bomb, apparently as an after thought, to
impart additional rotational effect and thus presumably increase accuracy.
It will be noted that nose plugs are fitted and tail fuzes used...This type
fuze can be set on the ground, for delayed action from five to twenty
seconds and requires a rotation of 1000 rpm before it can function. This
means that height of release would have to be at least 500 feet above the
bombers but more probably would approximate 1000 feet."
- Also according to this report
"The bomb is usually painted grey with a two inch silver band around
the nose, a one inch silver band on theend of the tail fins, and two red
lines diametrically opposite from nose to tail."
- This report also says there are 198
pellets (vice 144 in the Japanese report).
- Also the illustrations in the
Japanese report show the bomb both with and without the nose fuze in place.
The photo in the US report shows bombs on the rack without nose fuzes.
-
- Rick Dunn
-
-
- Posted By: Allan
<mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject='R' Area Air Force>
Date: Friday, 13 October 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
-
- Hello Members,
- Can someone give me the Japanese
name or phrase for the above? I seem to anything that closely resembles
the above. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
- Thanks for any and all
help........
- Al
-
- Re: "R" Area Air
Force/Geographic Codes
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
'R' Area Air Force/Geographic Codes>
Date: Saturday, 14 October 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
-
- In Response To: "R" Area
Air Force (Allan)
-
- Al
- The following codes (changed on
different dates) applied to the "R" Homen Butai. In Japanese
aeronautical publications, the use of letter alone was used to designate
the seaplanes of No. 958 ku or any seaplanes based near or in Rabaul
Harbor.
- R: Bismark Is.
- RA: Eastern New Guinea
RAF: Buna
RAI: Rabi
RAR: Natamo
RAU: Finschafen
RAW: Marcus Bay
RAX: Jacquinot Bay
RAY: Zungen Bay
RAZ: Father Bay
- RC: Northern New Guinea
- RD: New Georgia I.
- RMJ: Garove I.
RMZ: Rorengum
- RO: Kavieng
- RPH: Samo
- RQ: New Britain I.
- RR: Rabaul
RRF: Gasmata Air Base
- RWB: New Georgia I.
RWD: Vella Lavella I.
RWH: Shortland Harbor (Seaplane Base)
RWI: Tonolei Harbor
RWJ: Rendova Harbor
RWK: Shortland Harbor (2)
RWL: Wickham Anchorage
RWM: Munda
RWN: Kolombangara
RWO: Shortland Bay
RWP: Buin Anchorage
RWQ: Woodford I.
RWR: Arundel I.
RWS: Erventa Anchorage
RWT: Wana Wana I.
RWU: Bairoko Harbor
RWV: Visu Visu
RWW: Ramada
RWX: Tetipari
RWY: Vangunu I.
RWZ: Gatukai I.
- RX: Solomon Is.
- RXA: Kieta
RXB: Tulagi
RXC: Buka
RXD: Rose I.
RXE: Shortland I.
RXF: Santa Cruz I.
RXI: Guadalcanal Air Field (N.B. hence the "I Sakusen")
RXN: Guadalcanal I.
RXK: Deboyne
RXP: Buin Air Base
RXW: Gizo I. Seaplane Base
RXX: Rekata Bay seaplane Base
RXY: Maring Bay
RXZ: Ballale I. Air Base
- RZ: Phoenix Is.
- RZA: Takelau I.
RZB: Hollandia Air Base
RZC: Cook I.
RZD: Line I.
RZF: Misima I.
RZG: Rossel I.
RZJ: New Guinea
RZK: Madang
RZL: Salamau
RZM: Lae
RZN: Wewak
RZO: Samarai
RZP: Port Moresby (1)
RZQ: Port Moresby (2)
RZY: Cape Ward Hunt
RZZ: Vermadoe Is. (Abau)
- IHTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: "R" Area Air
Force
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Saturday, 14 October 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
-
- In Response To: "R" Area
Air Force (Allan)
-
- Hello Allan:
- On August 28, 1942, the 8th Fleet
Command created the "R-Area Air Force," equipped with seaplanes
to make up for the dire lack of landplane bases. Two improvised airgroups
were created from the squadrons of four seaplane tenders (Chitose,
Kamikawa Maru, Sanyo Maru and Sanuki Maru; sometime later an additional
seaplane tender squadron, based on Kunikawa Maru, joined their ranks)
under the command of Jojima Takatsugu, CO of the 11th Seaplane Tender
division. This group was initially composed of 30 Petes, 9 Jakes and 11
Rufes. Jojima based his forces at Shortland and utilized Rekata Bay, 135
miles northwest of Henderson Field, as a forward base.
- Regards,
- Randy
-
-
- Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Sinking
of USS Peary>
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 3:43 p.m.
-
- Hello world
- I was reading Peter C Smith's Val
book and came across something I don't understand. On page 79, during the
Dec 26 attack on Port Darwin, he states that "... she was attacked
again, this time by Japanese float-plane torpedo-bombers ..." (???).
- I know that there quite a few
errors in the photo captions, mostly in the form of calling photos of
Zeros "Vals". Is this another error or was there really a
float-plane that could launch a torpedo attack? If it is in error, does
anyone know the type of a/c that carried out this attack?
- TIA
- Grant
-
- Re: Sinking of USS Peary
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Sinking of USS
Peary (Grant Goodale)
-
- Hi Grant:
- Actually, Smith does not say Peary
was attacked at Port Darwin on December 26, 1941.
- But your point is well taken.
Peary was still up in the Manila Bay area with Pillsbury when she was
attacked on the 26th. I presume her action report made the original
statement about "floatplane torpedo bombers."
- However, somewhere on this site
there has been some discussion of this 'Val' book and Smith. This author
is -- for my money -- quite good but he can be frighteningly careless in
his writing and, unfortunately, this book is riddled with errors. Some are
minor or editorial but some are real whoppers. On page 88, the picture is
actually of HMS Dorsetshire and so the entire caption is misleading. On
page 87 we see HMS Cornwall settling by the bow to port and we know
Dorsetshire upended and sank by the stern -- these are easy facts to
obtain, not to mention that frequent confusing of Zeroes with Vals
throughout the text...ah, well.
- To answer your questions I am not
aware of any floatplanes which would have been capable of attacking Peary
with torpedoes and I am not aware of the types of aircraft which attacked
Peary on the 26th but I would suspect the bombers were Lilies or Betties
(do you like those plurals?).
- Randy
-
- Re: Lillies carried
torpedoes?
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 6:29 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Lillies carried
torpedoes? *No Text* (Phil)
-
- Hi Phil:
- I never thought they did.
- But the Peary was attacked by high
flyers on the 26th and torpedo bombers two days later.
- Smith's book on the Val really
started a confusing exchange with his poor research.
- Whether Peary was attacked on the
26th by Army or Navy aircraft (and I believe it to be the latter) is not
known.
- Also, the type of torpedo carrying
aircraft which attacked Peary on the 28th along with the Mavis' is
unknown. But is also likely to be Navy aircraft.
- Randy
-
- Re: Lillies carried
torpedoes?
-
- Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re:
Lillies carried torpedoes?>
Date: Thursday, 7 December 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
-
- In Response To: (Randy)
-
- Morison in THE RISING SUN IN THE
PACIFIC covers this incident at pages 196 - 197. He's not much in
identifying aircraft types but does have valuable details.
- PEARY and PILLSBURY were attacked
off Corregidor on 26 Dec 1941 by "45 planes"
- On 28 Dec 1941, PEARY was spotted
and trailed by a 4 engine flying boat (MAVIS?) which made one bombing run
- Later the same day three more
"big bombers" (also called "clumsy patrol bombers")
(flying boats - MAVIS?) attacked each dropping 2x 500lb bombs
- Then a "torpedo plane"
attacked, dropping two torpedoes, followed by a second "torpedo
bomber" which dropped two more torpedoes. This was followed by a
final bombing attack by one of the patrol bombers.
- My guess is that these planes are
all MAVIS's as the MAVIS could carry bombs or two torpedoes.
- And probably from Toko Kokutai
which had a detachment operating out of Davao at this time.
-
- Re: USS Peary and Mavis
Units
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
-
- In Response To: (Grant Goodale)
-
- Hi Grant:
- Wait! there's more.
- It would appear that the attack to
which Smith is referring to actually occurred just south of the island of
Basilan in the Sulu archipelago beginning on the morning of December 28th.
Depending upon your source a Kawanishi Mavis sighted and attacked Peary
and then brought in 3 additional Mavis'. These four aircraft harassed
Peary for two solid hours beginning at 2:20 in the afternoon. Then -- and
here is where there is further disagreement -- first one and then a second
bomber swooped in to drop two torpedoes each, all of which missed Peary.
- So we are seeing Smith telescope
and alter the substance of three attacks. Not to say they are particularly
germaine to the story of the Val but he certainly confused us here.
- Can anyone shed some light on
Mavis units operating in the area and time these attacks took place? and
the possible identity of the 'torpedo bombers'?
-
- Re: USS Peary and Mavis
Units
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Sinking of USS
Peary (Grant Goodale)
-
- Hi Grant:
- Wait! there's more.
- It would appear that the attack to
which Smith is referring to actually occurred just south of the island of
Basilan in the Sulu archipelago beginning on the morning of December 28th.
Depending upon your source a Kawanishi Mavis sighted and attacked Peary
and then brought in 3 additional Mavis'. These four aircraft harassed
Peary for two solid hours beginning at 2:20 in the afternoon. Then -- and
here is where there is further disagreement -- first one and then a second
bomber swooped in to drop two torpedoes each, all of which missed Peary.
- So we are seeing Smith telescope
and alter the substance of three attacks. Not to say they are particularly
germaine to the story of the Val but he certainly confused us here.
- Can anyone shed some light on
Mavis units operating in the area and time these attacks took place? and
the possible identity of the 'torpedo bombers'?
-
- Re: Toko and Kanoya
Strengths?
-
- Posted By: Allan
<mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Toko and Kanoya Strengths?>
Date: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Toko and
Kanoya Strengths? (Randy)
-
- Hi Randy,
- NAV 88 - USSBS 424:
Toko Ku had 12 H6K with 4 in reserve, but 6 were at Legaspi, while the
other 6 were at Arakabesan, Palau.
Kanoya Ku had 54 G4M1 with 18 in reserve, but the main force was still at
Taighu, Formosa while an 18 plane detachment was at Davao(Monograph 116 -
Page 122). There is some disagreement over whether some or all were G3M2
that were sent to Davao. This is not clear.
- NAV 116 - USSBS 601
This NAV merely states the progress of the 21st Koku Sentai of which Toko
and Kanoya were a part of. There is no mention of an attack by any of
these units, but then we all know that it did happen. The same with NAV
88.
- HTH - Al
-
- Re: Toko and Kanoya
Strengths?
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Friday, 8 December 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Toko and
Kanoya Strengths? (Allan)
-
- Hi Allan:
- OK, with the Mavis detachment at
Palau obviously out of the picture and the Mavis detachment at Legaspi
some 500 miles from the area of Peary's attack where does that put us?
- An attack by a single plane
followed up four hours later by further attacks...it does fit with range
and cruising speed capabilities of the Mavis and an assumption of their
having been launched from the Legaspi area.
- And with Davao some 260 miles --
as a crow flies -- from the area of Peary's attack could the Betty
detachment have been brought into play? and possibly coordinated as well?
- Such are speculations. Any
comments?
- Sincerely,
- Randy
-
- Re: Toko and Kanoya
Correction
-
- Posted By: Allan
<mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Toko and Kanoya Correction>
Date: Saturday, 9 December 2000, at 6:23 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Toko and
Kanoya Strengths? (Randy)
-
- Randy,
- Jim Broshot corrected me on the
attack on Peary. The attack I was thinking of, was the attack on
"Heron", not Peary. As Jim mentioned, 4 Toko Ku
"Mavis" attacked Peary, then the RAAF added their two cents
worth. Heron was under continuous attack and brought one down in the
process.
- My apologies for the error.
- Al
-
- Re: Sinking of USS Peary
-
- Posted By: Jim Broshot <mailto:jbroshot@socket.net?subject=Re:
Sinking of USS Peary>
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Sinking of USS
Peary (Grant Goodale)
-
- BLOODY SHAMBLES - VOLUME I (Shores
et al) states USS Peary was attacked on 28 Dec 1941 while en route to
Java, off the west of the Celebes by FLYING BOATS! :):):) 4x Toko Kokutai
H6Ks (type of weapon - bomb or torpedo - not mentioned). She was not
damaged but had already been damaged by bombs while in the Philippines.
She was then misidentified as hostile by USN PBYs and attacked later by 3x
Hudsons from No. 13 Squadron RAAF and damaged by a near miss.
-
-
- Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=FS
Colors to CMYK or RGB? How?>
Date: Tuesday, 23 January 2001, at 4:28 p.m.
-
- I'm trying to nail down the right
colors for some digital zero models I'm working on. I've read the material
in the research section, and studied the color chart in the zero special
research section, and looked a lot of Jim's postings. I believe I'm
starting to get a grip on the historical colors used... but only by their
FS numbers! I don't actually know what they looked like. Does anyone know
of a reference online that would give (digital) color chips for the FS
colors the IJN used? The color chart in the zero research section has some
of the colors, but not others. I'm particularly looking for
FS24077/24052/24094/24077/36307. What are my options here? Should I buy
the FS color book and try to scan them in? I'm certainly not
scanner-savvy, that would probably result in the entire lot being
off-color.
- Can anyone point me in the right
direction?
- Micah Bly
-
- Re: FS Colors to CMYK or
RGB? How?
-
- Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Re:
FS Colors to CMYK or RGB? How?>
Date: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 9:55 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: FS Colors to
CMYK or RGB? How? (Pete Chalmers)
-
- Peter, thanks for the info. I
downloaded the Munsell program, and am running it in emulation (I'm on a
mac). Half the problem solved. :)
- Now, I need to track down the FS
color book. Does it have the XYZ of all the colors? I can't seem to find
this book anywhere online. Is there somewhere special I should be looking?
- Sorry for all the newbie
questions.
- Micah Bly
- PS: Does Aotake have a FS
equivalent?
-
- Re: FS Colors to CMYK or
RGB? How?
-
- Posted By: Pete Chalmers <mailto:pchalmers@carolina.rr.com?subject=Re:
FS Colors to CMYK or RGB? How?>
Date: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 8:10 a.m.
-
- In Response To: FS Colors to CMYK
or RGB? How? (Micah Bly)
-
- Here's a way that might work.
- (1) the FS595 "book" (
The loose-leaf pages, NOT the fandeck ) which I have has what is known as
"Appendix I FED-STD-595A Change Notice 7" which is a 12 page
listing of the tristimulus values for the FS595 colors, which include the
3 " X Y Z " values for " illuminant C " ( light from
an overcast sky @ 6770 degrees Kelvin.
- (2) The Munsell website has some
downloadable software which allows you to input these values. For example,
FS24201 is as follows:
- X = 18.23
Y = 18.95
Z = 14.11
- When input, this generates a color
block which sure looks exactly like 24201,
- and the following values:
- Munsell: 5.72Y - 4.91 - 2.27
- RGB : 141 - 133 - 107
- CMYK : 20 - 23 - 33 - 24
- The software is available at :
- http://munsell.com/Download.htm
- You can also input Munsell, RGB,
or CMYK.
- You can also use the conversions
to input into Jasc Paint Shop Pro 7 ( super software which is 98 % as good
as Adobe Photoshop and costs under $100, and has a great usenet group
frequented by the techies from Jasc ) or whatever your software preference
is.
-
- Re: FS Colors to CMYK or
RGB? How?
-
- Posted By: Pete Chalmers <mailto:pchalmers@carolina.rr.com?subject=Re:
FS Colors to CMYK or RGB? How?>
Date: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 10:20 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: FS Colors to
CMYK or RGB? How? (Micah Bly)
-
- Yes, it has all the colors.
- Most folks buy the FanDeck, which
does not have the tristimulus values. Most on-line sores sell this, as it
is the most useful.
- Here's the IPMS take on ordering
direct - you might also do your own search via "GOOGLE" - imho
the best search engine.
- http://www.ipmsusa.org/FS595Purchase.html
-
- Re: FS Colors to CMYK or
RGB? How?
-
- Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Re:
FS Colors to CMYK or RGB? How?>
Date: Wednesday, 24 January 2001, at 10:46 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: FS Colors to
CMYK or RGB? How? (Pete Chalmers)
-
- Thanks again. I've been looking
all morning, and I can't find anyplace online that sells it. I've been
using google too. I must not have the right keywords. Anyway, looks like
I'll be sending money to Uncle Sam and then waiting 6 weeks.
- I don't suppose anyone wants to
help me out by giving me those X,Y,Z numbers for a few FS numbers until my
book arrives? I'm not sure what I have to barter with, maybe a little
Japanese->English translation?
- Micah Bly
- Personnel Transport
Disasters
-
- Posted By: Tom Hall
<mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Personnel Transport Disasters>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 11:08 a.m.
- Does anyone happen to know what
type of plane or what unit's plane carried Hiroyoshi Nishizawa to his
death?
- Same question, but for Admiral
Koga. (Yes, Yamamoto Isoroku Shireikan's successor also died in a
transport plane.) Was the
Koga plane shot down, or was it a non-combat loss?
- Re: Personnel Transport
Disasters
-
- Posted By: James Holloway
<mailto:fholl46282@aol.com?subject=Re: Personnel Transport
Disasters>
Date: Monday, 12 February 2001, at 3:18 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Personnel
Transport Disasters (Tom Hall)
- Sirs, according to research by
Henry Sakaida, there is evidence that Nishizawa was a passenger in Ki 21
Sally. either being used as a hack by the Navy, or an Army plane
requesting Navy personnel to help with over water navigation. Sincerely,
James Holloway
- Re: Personnel Transport
Disasters
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
Personnel Transport Disasters>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 12:19 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Personnel
Transport Disasters (Tom Hall)
- Hi Tom
- I do not know about the NISHIZAWA
transport, but I am fairly certain Admiral KOGA was lost on board an
Emily.. It was lost in bad weather and probably not shot down.
- IHTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
-
- Posted By: Tom Hall
<mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Personnel Transport Disasters>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 12:38 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Personnel
Transport Disasters (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Thank you very much.
- Do you have any idea what the
route of
the Koga plane was?
-
- Re: Personnel Transport
Disasters
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
Personnel Transport Disasters>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 1:45 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Personnel
Transport Disasters (Tom Hall)
-
- Tom
- There are great details on the
KOGA loss in "Fading Victory," by UGAKI (p.p.344-345). The
Emilys were from 802 ku and 851 ku. KOGA was apparently on board the 851
ku Emily.
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: Kaigun "Otsu"
Jiken
-
- Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <mailto:katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com?subject=Re:
Kaigun 'Otsu' Jiken>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 1:29 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Personnel
Transport Disasters (Tom Hall)
-
- Hello, Tom,
- Please visit the site URL below.
- Adm. KOGA, Mineichi was on No.1
H8K, and his chief staff Vice Adm. FUKUDOME, Shigeru was on No.2 H8K.
The fate of Koga's plane is unknown by now, but Fukudome and some other
staff officers survived and were captured by Lt. Col. Cushing.
Later, Japanese Army rescued Fukudome and released Cushing's troops.
So, US Forces got the file of "Z Sakusen" from Fukudome.
-
- Hope this helps,
K.Uchida
-
- Re: Kaigun "Otsu"
Jiken
-
- Posted By: Tom Hall
<mailto:Hall023038@aol.com?subject=Re: Kaigun 'Otsu' Jiken>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 2:37 p.m.
-
- In Response To: (Uchida,
Katsuhiro)
-
- Thank you. "Taihen benkyou ni
narimashita."
- When you say "Otsu Jiken"
(Incident B), would that be the name for the loss of Koga and the
documents?
-
- Re: Kaigun "Otsu"
Jiken iNavy Incident "B")
-
- Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <mailto:katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com?subject=Re:
Kaigun 'Otsu' Jiken iNavy Incident 'B')>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 2:57 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Kaigun "Otsu"
Jiken (Tom Hall)
-
- Kochirakoso arigatou gozaimasu.
- Talking about the incident, the
"document" (about the operation "Z") was not included.
The loss of the document was the Top Secret in Japan.
Or I should say, to talk about the lost document was the "Taboo"
inside the Navy in those days. Furthermore, IJN nominated Fukudome as the
commander of the 2nd Air Fleet (the Philippines) after the incident to
HIDE the truth. But the Navy did NOT change the plan of the operation
"Z". (This kind of problem is hard to explain to the people
outside Japan!)
- By the way (sorry if you have
already known!), "Navy Incident A" (Kaigun Koh Jiken) meant
Yamamoto's death.
-
- Sincerely yours,
Katsuhiro Uchida
-
- Re: Personnel Transport
Disasters: KOGA Loss
-
- Posted By: James F. Lansdale <mailto:LRAJIM@aol.com?subject=Re:
Personnel Transport Disasters: KOGA Loss>
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 12:48 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Personnel
Transport Disasters (Tom Hall)
-
- Tom
- OKUMIYA in "Zero!," page
331 says, that "Admiral Koga was lost at sea in a Kawanishi flying
boat on march 31." I believe he was flying from Palau to the
Philippines. I recall reading a more detailed account of this loss in the
Japanese Monographs. Also, there was a report that the message regarding
his route had been intercepted and that there may have been an idea to
ambush him in a manner similar to the YAMAMOTO mission. Someone else will
have to quote rhyme and verse on this one!
-
- IHTH
- Jim Lansdale
-
- Re: Personnel Transport
Disasters: A few answers
-
- Posted By: Randy
Date: Saturday, 10 February 2001, at 1:17 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Personnel
Transport Disasters: KOGA Loss (James F. Lansdale)
-
- Hi All:
- The loss of Koga was mirrored by
that of Fukudome who was in an accompanying Emily which also crashed after
a stormy flight. Fukudome was captured by guerrillas and when the IJA (in
a rare example of cooperation with the Navy) put real heat on the
population of Cebu, Fukudome was returned unharmed...BUT the documents he
was carrying were retained and forwarded thru Allied High Command, so the
USN was aware of the defense plans for the Marianas and the Philippines.
I'll check for more details. Koga was an innovator but was not well known
to the USN nor was he shot down; his was an operational casualty.
- IIRC, Nishizawa was shot down
while riding aboard a Tabby. I'll have to look it up and get details.
- Randy
Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Good Source on IJN Cannons?>
Date: Thursday, 1 March 2001, at 2:38 p.m.
I'm looking for some good information on IJN aircraft cannons. Specifically, weight of each model, weight of drum if applicable, mass of each round, mass of projectile, and ROF and muzzle velocity info would be a bonus.
Here's what I have now: Maru mechanics 1980 zero special, Francillon, Mikesh, and this web site:
http://www.sam.hi-ho.ne.jp/ki-44/english/data/jn-gun-e.htm
Unfortunately, some data doesn't agree with the rest, and some data is just incomplete. Anybody know of a good resource for Japanese mgs and cannons?
Just to model the zero, I need info for...
Type 99 Mark 1, Model 3 (I *believe* that's the model for the a6M2)
Type 99 Mark 2, Model 3 (a6m3a/a6m5)
Type 99 Mark 2, model 4 (a6m5a+)
Also, if anybody knows a typical mix of rounds used by zero pilots, that would be very helpful.
Micah Bly
Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?
Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?>
Date: Thursday, 1 March 2001, at 6:06 p.m.
In Response To: Good Source on IJN Cannons? (Micah
Bly)
Micah -
Try the link below
HTH
- Grant
Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?
Posted By: Tony Williams <mailto:autogun@globalnet.co.uk?subject=Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 1:21 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons? (Grant
Goodale)
Thanks for the mention, Grant. I recently did a bit of work on ammunition weights for someone else - I'm planning to post it on my discussion group page over the weekend, at:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages
Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 10:08 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons? (Tony Williams)
Great information, Tony, thanks.
While we're on the subject, do you happen to have the explosive filler weight of the American 20mm Oerlikon shell, 1.1" shell, and 40mm Bofors shell? I have scanned my Norman Friedman and John Campbell, but have come up with nada. I am currently corresponding with a gentleman named HYODO Nisohachi in Japan, who has written some books on the topic of Japanese aircraft armament, and he was curious about these issues, as well as some of the more arcane ballistic properties of our .50-caliber machinegun (fall of projectile over a 500m range, i.e. how straight did it shoot., as well as its terminal velocity) Once again, Campbell and Friedman are failing me in this respect. Any help would be great.
Thanks,
-jon parshall-
Imperial Japanese Navy Page
http://www.combinedfleet.com
Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?
Posted By: Micah Bly <mailto:micahbly@visi.com?subject=Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 9:29 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons? (Tony Williams)
Grant,
Thanks for the pointer. I saw Mr. Williams posting on a different board ages ago, but couldn't remember his name or anything else useful. :)
Tony:
How good is your IJAAF and IJNAF info? I looked through your outline, I am curious as to what sources you were able to use for the Japanese material. One of the frustrating things I'm finding so far is that no 2 sources seem to agree on this, and THEIR sources are often unmentioned. I remember the discussion of the LW mine shell on WWIIOL, can I expect the same level of detail on
IJN/IJA weapons?
Micah Bly
Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?
Posted By: Tony Williams <mailto:autogun@globalnet.co.uk?subject=Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons?>
Date: Friday, 2 March 2001, at 2:31 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Good Source on IJN Cannons? (Micah
Bly)
"Rapid Fire" covers the principles of gun and ammunition design plus the use of heavy automatic weapons by all three services throughout the 20th Century; so I have to admit that detail inevitably suffers (my publishers wanted purchasers to be able to carry it out of the shop without needing a fork lift truck!). However, I have described and tabulated the basic details as best I can.
The Japanese ammo info I am quite confident about as I have copies of US intelligence reports immediately after the war. They sectioned, weighed and analysed the ammo and even measured the muzzle velocity in some cases, so it's as good as you are likely to get. The Japanese gun info also comes from some primary sources but I am mainly indebted to Ted Bradstreet, an American researcher who specialises almost entirely in Japanese aircraft guns and ammunition (with a a side-order in Luftwaffe stuff). I would guess he knows at least as much as anyone now living.
Incidentally, I have now published the ammo weights on:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages/
Tony Williams
Author: Rapid Fire - The Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces.
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
-
- Posted By: Chuck Nimsk <mailto:cnimsk@aol.com?subject=Isshikirikko question>
Date: Sunday, 11 March 2001, at 6:42 a.m.
-
- Hello all (again!)
- I have a question. In many books written since 1980 the Japanese names for various aircraft have been included, as well as the abbreviations. Terms such as Kanko, Kanbuku, Kansein, Rikko, are now often used in scholarly works.
- The Type 1 Land Attack Aircraft, model 11 - the Betty - is usually called the "rikujo kogekiki", shortened to "rikko" in most works. It is usually stated that the above means "land attack plane".
- Then Tamiya released their wonderful if expensive model kit for the Betty. Clearly, on the box is the term "isshikirikko"..specifically "Mitsubishi Isshikirikko Type 11". I don't speak Japanese, not even close. So....does anyone out there know the difference between the two terms.."rikujo kogekiki" and "isshikirikko"? Is there a difference? Which one is actually correct? Both? Neither? I'm really curious.
-
- Thank you,
- Chuck
-
- Re: Isshikirikko question
-
- Posted By: Osamu Tagaya <mailto:osamutagaya@aol.com?subject=Re: Isshikirikko question>
Date: Tuesday, 13 March 2001, at 6:17 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Isshikirikko question (Chuck
Nimsk)
-
- Chuck, et. al.
This might be a good opportunity to bring up a subject which has been on my mind for some time, and that is the "proper" way to refer to Japanese aircraft.
- As you know, the Japanese (both JNAF and JAAF) had several designation systems for their aircraft. Leaving aside the Allied codename system used during the war (Betty, Oscar, Val etc.), in the postwar years people in the West have come to use the short code designation system for navy aircraft (A6M2, G4M1 etc.) and the "kitai" or airframe designation system for army aircraft (Ki43, Ki21 etc.) almost exclusively. I can understand how these systems have gained wide currency in the West, as they are easy to use for non-Japanese speakers, provide technical precision, and appear very similar to Western designation systems (B-17, F6F, Bf-109 etc.)
- These systems (short code, and airframe number) are certainly not incorrect or inaccurate, but it should be pointed out that, as used by the Japanese service professionals themselves, these systems were highly technical and limited in use to very technical documentary references for the most part. The standard system used most widely by the men of the JNAF and JAAF was the "Type Year" system. Thus, Type 1 Rikko or Type 1 Land-based Attack Aircraft for "Betty", Type 2 Taitei or Type 2 Large Flying Boat for "Emily", Type 3 Fighter for "Tony", Type 4 Heavy Bomber for "Peggy".
- In the navy, once official names came into use from 1942 onward, such as "Suisei", "Gekko", "Tenzan", "Shiden" etc., these names replaced the Type Year System as the most widely used official designation system; very similar to the RAF in which the official name was the "proper" way to refer to their aircraft once accepted for service (Spitfire, Hurricane, Lancaster, etc). In the army, however, popular names such as "Hayabusa", "Hien", "Shoki", "Hiryu", while official and correct, were not really used by service professionals so much. Like the use of popular names in the U.S. air services, such as "Flying Fortress", "Mustang", "Hellcat", "Corsair", or in the Luftwaffe, such as "Sturmvogel", "Schwalbe", "Greif", "Uhu", they were more for the popular press and general public than for use as "proper" designations by the service professionals themselves.
- If use by the service professionals themselves is to be accepted as the "proper" way to refer to an aircraft, then we would want to say FW-190, and not "Sturmvogel". Likewise, although perhaps not quite to the same rigid extent, we may prefer to say P-40 rather than "Warhawk" or "Tomahawk", or SBD rather than "Dauntless". If we apply this same criteria to Japanese aircraft, the system to use is the Type Year System, NOT the Short Code or Airframe Number System.
-
- Sam Tagaya
-
- Re: Isshikirikko question
-
- Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Re: Isshikirikko question>
Date: Sunday, 11 March 2001, at 8:43 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Isshikirikko question (Chuck
Nimsk)
-
- Hello Chuck,
- Mitsubishi G4M1 was called "Ichi-shiki (or Isshiki) Rikujo Kogeki-ki 11-gata". "Ichi-shiki (or Isshiki)" can be written "1-shiki" (Type 1).
"Rikujo" usually means "on the ground", but in this case, this word means "land based". "Kanjo" usually means "on the ship", but in this case, it means "carrier based".
- J1M1 = 2-shiki (Nishiki) Rikujo Teisatsu-ki = Nishiki Rikutei
D4Y1/2-c = 2-shiki (Nishiki) Kanjo Teisatsu-ki = Nishiki Kantei
G3M = 96-shiki (Kyuuroku-shiki) Rikujo Kogeki-ki = Kyuuroku Rikko
D3A = 99-shiki (Kyuukyuu-shiki) Kanjo bakugeki-ki (or Bakugekki) = Kyuukyuu Kanbaku
A6M2-N = 2-shiki (Nishiki) Suijo Sento-ki = Nishiki Suisen
E13A = 0-shiki (Reishiki) 3-za (Sanza) Suijo Teisatsu-ki = Reishiki Sanza Suitei
E14Y = 0-shiki (Reishiki) Kogata Suijo Teisatsu-ki = Reishiki Kogata Suitei
H8K = 2-shiki (Nishiki) Ohgata Hiko-tei = Nishiki Taitei ("Tai" means "big", "Tei" means "boat")
L2D = 0-shiki (Reishiki) Yuso-ki (but this plane was usually called "Douglas" by IJN)
A6M = 0-shiki (Reishiki) Kanjo Sento-ki = Rei-sen or Zero-sen
- Ummm...sorry for too many examples!
-
- Regards,
Katsuhiro
-
- Re: Isshikirikko question
-
- Posted By: UCHIDA, Katsuhiro <mailto:2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp?subject=Sorry! (Correction)>
Date: Sunday, 11 March 2001, at 9:01 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Isshikirikko question (Chuck
Nimsk)
-
- Oh, I have to correct one example!
Although you might have awared that "J1M1" should have been "J1N1"!
- And please allow me to show two more examples.
Both G3M and G4M were also called "Chuko". "Chuko" is simplified word for "Chuugata Kogeki-ki" (Middle Size Attack Plane).
G5N and G8N were called "Taiko" (Ohgata Kogeki-ki = Large Size Attack Plane).
-
- Thank you!
Katsuhiro
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo?>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2001, at 10:01 p.m.
Hi Everyone,
Bill Morris kindly sent me an article about the use of torpedoes at Pearl Harbor. The illustration in this article shows the Type 91-Modification 2 Torpedo as having eight stabilizer fins at the rear of the body. Photos and other articles show the more usual four fins. What's the correct design?
Cheers!
Greg
Re: Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo?
Posted By: Bill Sanborn <mailto:bsanborn@psemc.com?subject=Re: Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo?>
Date: Wednesday, 21 March 2001, at 7:54 a.m.
In Response To: Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo? (Greg Springer)
Hello Greg,
Eight it is!! Check out my PH Ordnance summary, page 7. There is a set of drawings and a photo of the mod 2's on Akagi prior to the raid. The fin arrangement can just be made out, as well as, the black painted warhead. Was the article by John DeVirgilio, by chance?
Bill
Re: Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo?
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: Type 91 Modification 2 Torpedo?>
Date: Wednesday, 21 March 2001, at 9:31 a.m.
In Response To: (Bill Sanborn)
Hi There,
I read your PH ordnance article with great interest--that was nicely done. I noticed the photo of Type 91 torpedoes on Akagi's flight deck. That photo was indeed taken between 22-26 November, 1941--I am dead sure I have seen it dated in Japanese books I have. And from what I can tell, Akagi was never again in Hittokappu Bay after she sortied Nov. 26--her subsequent refits and training operations were conducted in the neighborhood of Hiroshima and the Inland Sea from Dec. 29 to Jan. 8, 1942--first Hashirajima, then Kure (to dock, I would suspect), back to Hashirajima anchorage, then to Iwakuni (which is within spitting distance--I used to live near there), then off to Truk and operations in the south. She returns to Hashirajima April 22, and is in that neck of the woods until Midway.
Her TROM is on my site, at:
Hope that helps.
-
Posted By: Jeff McGuire <jmcguire@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Thursday, 8 March 2001, at 4:23 p.m.
Sometime ago someone mentioned seeing pictures of an Emily getting ready to sortie on a kamikaze mission. I would like to know if anyone would know how frequently these big birds were used for this, what targets, and if effective.
It seems nearly impossible to me that they would have any effectiveness, I know I read somewhere that the use of Vals was halted due to lack of success not these should have been less suited for that type of mission.
Re: Mavis or Emily Kamikaze missions?
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Saturday, 10 March 2001, at 11:18 a.m.
In Response To: Mavis or Emily Kamikaze missions? (Jeff McGuire)
I think you mentioned about Operation "Tan No. 2". According to "2-shiki Taitei
Kusenki" by WO NAGAMINE, Goro (Kojinsha Sept. 1976), his H8K led twenty-four P1Y Gingas of "Azusa Special Attack Force" to Yap on Mar. 11, 1945. Gingas flew to
Ulthi.
(Seven Gingas became out of order and returned to Kanoya Naval Air Base.) Nagamine's H8K went to Meleyon after he saw the Gingas off over Yap.
(Nagamine's duty was "leading" Kamikaze Gingas to Yap.) This "Azusa Force" gave slight damage to USS Randolph.
As far as official reports by IJN are concerned, this is the only (and biggest) kamikaze mission of H8K flying boat.
TAN [2] Sakusen
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <aoba41@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, 14 March 2001, at 10:45 a.m.
In Response To: Operation "Tan No. 2" *PIC* (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
Operation TAN No 2 was really dependent on reconnaissance missions similar to the Operation TAN No 1. The Japanese had waited until USN carriers would return from Iwo Jima waters to Ulithi
[Urusi] Anchorage. On 9 March 1945 Saiun from Truk had discovered 15 USN CV's in
Ulithi. Due to jamming by American radio operators the scout's report was delayed and operation could not be launched before 11 March.
In Koku Fan I've read that 5 H8K took part in Operation TAN No 2. They took off from Kagoshima and were part of 801 Kokutai [successor to famous Yokohama Kokutai]. The 801's H8K were divided into two units. First consisted of three flying boats [one took earlier for weather
recce] and the second of two planes. H8K's were to guide P1Y Ginga planes to Minami Daito Jima and then return. One H8K was lost in TAN No 2.
Sources differ on how many Gingas aborted the mission.
Despite the fact that Adm Ugaki had visited the P1Y crews before take off [Azusa Tokubetsu Butai was established only on 7 March] it was not entirely suicide mission. Japanese Navy deployed two submarines to support the strike. I-58 under famous Cdr Mochitsura Hashimoto [unfortunately he died in Kyoto on 25 October 2000 - his death was overshadowed by departure of Saburo Sakai] was to serve as radio beacon for Ginga planes. HA-106 was cruising off Minami Daito Jima to pick up ditched aircrews. I don't know how many of the P1Y aviators from Azusa Unit survived this operation.
Re: TAN [2] Sakusen
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Thursday, 15 March 2001, at 7:59 a.m.
In Response To: TAN [2] Sakusen (Andrew Obluski)
According to the report of 762 ku, ten aviators survived (some were injured because of unusual landing) out of fifty one (seventeen P1Ys) including squadron leader Lt.
Kuromaru.
Crew men of one H8K (801 ku) waited in Meleyon waited for a submarine for fifty seven days. (They destroyed this H8K after they arrived in
Meleyon.) The author of the book I mentioned in last posting said that all the Japanese soldiers were starving there. I-369 rescued these starving aviators on May 7, 1945. I-369 returned to Yokosuka on May 24.
By the way, I am so surprised to know that I-58 captain Cdr. Hashimoto's death!! I did not know about that at all although I live in Japan...
I really hope he and the crew of USS Indianapolis will live together in Heaven peacefully...
Thank you for the very impressive posting!
Lt Naoto Kuromaru and CHITOSE Aviators
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <aoba41@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 16 March 2001, at 7:45 a.m.
In Response To: Re: TAN [2] Sakusen and Cdr. HASHIMOTO, Mochitsura (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
Thanks a lot! I was surprised to hear that Lt Naoto Kuromaru survived TAN [2]
Sakusen. I hope he had also survived the Pacific War.
I checked in my sources and discovered that CHITOSE F1M2 crews of 1941 - 1942 years were a formidable unit. Apart from very experienced unit commander Lt Takeshi
Horihashi, CHITOSE Air Unit possessed many outstanding aviators. Lt Naoto Kuromaru also flew as CHITOSE man during the Guadalcanal Campaign before conversion to fly Yokosuka P1Y Ginga bombers. PO Kiyomi Katsuki [one of only two floatplane fighter aces of World War II - the other being PO Hidenori
Matsunaga] took part in the heroic defense of seaplane carrier NISSHIN early in October of 1942. He was able to ram and destroy [and survive] US heavy bomber and prevent Americans from scoring hit on this strategic transport vessel. It is interesting that Katsuki achieved aerial victories flying so many different planes but including F1M2, A6M2-N and N1K1.
One source claims that Lt Yukio Seki was also a member of CHITOSE Air Unit in 1942. Can you verify this?
Personally I doubt this info as Seki had only graduated from Eta Jima Naval Academy in December 1941 [70 Class] and from Kasumigaura Naval Officer Air School in January 1944 [39 Class]. Moreover Inoguchi and Nakajima state that Seki had converted from dive bombers [not floatplanes] to fighters.
Nevertheless CHITOSE possessed excellent floatplane crews that took part in many important battles of the Pacific War.
Could you look for a photo of CHITOSE aviators and post it on the floatplane page?
I have found info about the death of Cdr Mochitsura Hashimoto on USS INDIANAPOLIS official page. It was a real tragedy that so many US seamen died in the last days of the war. And many years later USS Indianapolis' skipper, Captain Charles McVay III would commit suicide as a result of unjust verdict in USN court and memories from that fatal day.
Re: Lt Naoto Kuromaru and CHITOSE Aviators
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 8:14 a.m.
In Response To: Lt Naoto Kuromaru and CHITOSE Aviators (Andrew
Obluski)
I coincidentally found the book about Azusa Special Attack Force today at a book store near my house.
According to the book, he belonged to Naval Academy 67th graduation class and became an F1M2 aviator of CHITOSE as you explained to us.
After the Operation Tan No. 2, he became the P1Y squadron leader for Operation Retsu (for Saipan Attack). But he was ordered to go to Taiwan as a squadron leader of P1Y.
He finally survived and came back to Japan after the war.
More information will follow in near future!
Re: Lt Naoto Kuromaru and CHITOSE Aviators
Posted By: Andrew Obluski <aoba41@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 13 April 2001, at 8:41 a.m.
In Response To: Kuromaru survived the war!! (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
Great news. Naoto Kuromaru was such a gallant pilot. He led Kamikaze mission and was very lucky to survive Operation TAN [2] as well as the whole Pacific War. Hope you would post more info on him plus photo.
Lt. KUROMARU, Naoto (2) *PIC*
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Sunday, 15 April 2001, at 6:16 a.m.
In Response To: Lt. KUROMARU, Naoto *PIC* (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
This picture is just for your information. (Sorry, guys! This is not a photo of float plane...)
Lt. Kuromaru standing in the front navigator's cockpit of his P1Y (Mar. 11, 1945 at Kanoya Naval Air Base on the day they flew
to Ulithi.
He belonged to Naval Academy 67th graduation class. After he finished training as a ship crew like all the other Navy officers,
He started to learn aviation in Nov. 1940 and became a navigation/gunnery officer of F1M2 observation float plane of
Chitose.
Until he came to Toyohashi Naval Air Base as a squadron leader of K262 on Nov. 25, 1944, he was a E13A navigation officer and was the
"Hikocho" of Yahagi.
Source: "Azusa Special Attack Force" by JINNO, Masami (Nov. 2000
Kojinsha)
Chitose aviators? (Kuromaru and Seki?)
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <2000gt-b@mui.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Saturday, 17 March 2001, at 10:16 a.m.
In Response To: Lt Naoto Kuromaru and CHITOSE Aviators (Andrew
Obluski)
I am sorry that I do not have any information about Chitose aviators now!!
But I am going to read the book I attached below someday.("Azusa Tokubetsu
Kogeki-tai" by JINNO, Masami Kojinsha)
I will look for the information about Kuromaru, Seki, and others. If you get some information about them, would you please let me know or post on the site?
And thank you very much for the story about Capt.
McVay. I still have many stories to learn...
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/4769809808.09.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Posted By: Michal
Date: Thursday, 28 June 2001, at 8:27 a.m.
Could someone confirm my aircraft's
OOB:
I wave
61 A6M5 Zeke (45 with bomb)
8 B6N Jill
lost 42
II wave
48 A6M5 Zeke
53 D4Y Judy
27 B6N Jill
lost 79
III wave
40 A6M5 Zeke (25 with bomb)
7 B6N Jill
lost 7
IV wave
40 A6M5 Zeke (10 with bomb)
9 D4Y Judy
33 B6N Jill
lost 73
There were some B5N Kate and D3A Val but I have no idea when they were used.
Posted By: Mike Taylor <mailto:ataylor@vvm.com?subject=Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base>
Date: Saturday, 4 August 2001, at 8:18 p.m.
Does anybody have information on the types and numbers of seaplanes based on Camiguin Island (north of Luzon)on 10 December 41? They were used to provide cover for the Aparri landings. The only seaplanes that I am aware of are F1M2 Petes from Sanyo Maru and Sanuki Maru. Some believe it was 3-5 planes, but I think it may have been 10-15. Any help would be very appreciated! Thanks.
Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base>
Date: Sunday, 5 August 2001, at 12:31 p.m.
In Response To: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base (Mike Taylor)
This from IJN Sources.........
The 3rd Raiding Party moved on to Camiguin Island, near the Northern end of Luzon, and on 0925 on the 10th December 2 Platoons of the Sasebo Combined SNLF were landed. Sanuki Maru carried materials to set up a seaplane base and quickly put the neccesary equipment ashore. Sanuki Maru's seaplanes would land here after flying missions over Aparri. It was soon realized that the rough seas made the base unttendable so it was closed down the same day and returned to Tung Ch'ang in Formosa.
Three aircraft (Types Unknown) were damaged beyond repair as a result of Seas and weather.
HTH, Al
Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base
Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base>
Date: Monday, 6 August 2001, at 8:34 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base (Allan
Alsleben)
Al -
That's some pretty good stuff, there. It looks like a passage right out of one of the "Senshi Sosho" history volumes (BKS, Tokyo), perhaps vol 2 (Occupation of the Philippines, 1966) or vol. 24 (Philippines-Malay Area Naval Attack Operations, 1969)? May I ask where it came from? There's a lot of outstanding and previously unexposed historical material lying among the pages of this seminal 102-volume work that's closed to most of us due to the language barrier. Have you shattered that barrier?
(Larry)
Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base>
Date: Monday, 6 August 2001, at 9:10 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Camiguin Island IJN seaplane base (Larry)
Larry,
It was, Volume 21 not 24. Those passages were from translation in Tokyo in 1977. I wish I could have gotten the whole set in English. Back then, all I could take was pencil and paper.
Al
Posted By: Jason Riley <mailto:jason_riley70@hotmail.com?subject=carrier types req'd takeoff length>
Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 10:10 a.m.
I apologize if this may have been posted before. Can someone supply some distances required for various types to get airborne from the flight deck?
Consider aircraft in normal shipping strike trim (i.e. full load of fuel and appropriate munitions)
Zero A6M3, A6M5
B5N1,2
Aichi type 99
Jill
Judy D4Y
Thanks!
Jay
Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <mailto:lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se?subject=Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length>
Date: Friday, 18 May 2001, at 12:35 p.m.
In Response To: carrier types req'd takeoff length (Jason Riley)
Dear Gentlemen,
When it comes to take-off distances and such stuff the following is from the reports of the "U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan", which I'm sure both Jon and David have access to.
Type: Landing speed /Take-off speed/Min. take-off distance, no wind/14 m/s.
"Zeke" 00-21: 60 knots/65 knots/194 m/80 m.
"Zeke" 00-52c: 63 knots/65 knots/200 m/80 m.
"Zeke" 00-52: 68 knots/67 knots/257 m/90 m.
"Val" 99-22: 70 knots/67 knots/210 m/85 m.
"Judy" Suisei-12: 78 knots/70 knots/320 m/125 m.
"Judy" Suisei-33: 79 knots/70 knots/352 m/125 m.
"Judy" Suisei-43: 80 knots/72 knots/462 m/140 m.
"Kate" 97-12: 61 knots/65 knots/226 m/85 m.
"Jill" Tenzan-11: 72 knots/70 knots/274 m/130 m.
"Jill" Tenzan-12: 72 knots/70 knots/259 m/130 m.
The data for the table was obtained from Captain Musataka Nagaishi a torpedo plane pilot and once "hikôchô" of the HIRYÛ.
Lars
Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length>
Date: Wednesday, 16 May 2001, at 2:30 p.m.
In Response To: carrier types req'd takeoff length (Jason Riley)
Assuming the required 12-13 meter/sec relative wind over the bow was happening, the takeoff room needed for the Zero was on the order of 70-80 meters. 120 meters was the standard for the the B5N, loaded, but I know for a fact that this was considered a bare minimum. The Type 97 was underpowered, and even the additional 30kg. of weight going from the Type 91 Mod 2 to the Mod 3 was a cause for concern at Midway (at least according to what my Japanese sources are telling me). On the shorter decked carriers like Soryu, getting the lead kanko off the deck when fully loaded musta been pretty interesting.
-jon-
Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length
Posted By: Jon Parshall <mailto:jonp@combinedfleet.com?subject=Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length>
Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 7:55 a.m.
In Response To: Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length (Jason Riley)
I dunno about the later models, but my suspicion would be that they were similar in terms of launch parameters--heavier aircraft but more powerful powerplants should have led to somewhat similar launch characteristics. That's just a guess, though.
As far as relative wind is concerned, you can roughly multiply m/s times 2 to get rought knots. In other words, your carrier typically needed about 26 knots worth of wind over the bow. You can see that Kaga, for instance, just *barely* has the top end needed to launch torpedo planes with zero natural wind--she has sufficient speed to generate the needed relative wind. In actuality, from what I understand, with Type-97s, you'd like something closer to 30 knots relative wind. It is my suspicion that Kaga would still be able to deal with this because she had a pretty big flight deck, and hence more run-off room. Again, on board Soryu, you've got a faster ship (and hence more ability to generate artifical wind), but less room to operate. Given my druthers, I think I'd rather have more deck to work with, but I'm not a pilot.
Cheers,
-jon-
Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length
Posted By: David Dickson <mailto:ddickson@firstam.com?subject=Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length>
Date: Thursday, 17 May 2001, at 9:46 a.m.
In Response To: Re: carrier types req'd takeoff length (Jason Riley)
I'm not sure what Jon is sending you but with Jill and Judy the problem got to be power/weight wing loading. Though Jill and Kate had near identical outside dimensions the latter was heavier and higher performance. Judy was fairly high performance with smallish wings so it had real problems on the slower CVLs and XCVs. Some were equipped with RATO but too late for service in action on carriers(no catapults on
IJNCVs).
-
- Posted By: Grant Goodale <mailto:grant.goodale@sympatico.ca?subject=Dinah and the IJNAF>
Date: Thursday, 23 August 2001, at 7:13 a.m.
-
- Hello world -
- The posting on the General forum about the new Hasegawa releases tweaked my interest. They state that they will be releasing a Ki-46 with IJN markings. I was looking in the A6M Zero in Action book and they also show a photo of a Dinah parked in with Zeroes. The caption identifies it as a Ki-46 assigned to the IJNAF.
- Were these Dinahs actually in IJN Kokutai service or were they special IJAAF units attached to a certain base? If they were true IJN birds, does anyone know what units they served with?
-
- TIA
- - Grant
-
- Re: Dinah and the IJNAF
-
- Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Dinah and the IJNAF>
Date: Thursday, 23 August 2001, at 4:15 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Dinah and the IJNAF (Grant
Goodale)
-
- Hello Grant,
- The earliest unit I'm aware of was the 76 FCS or Independent Chutai operating over Guadalcanal or the HQ unit of the Brigade. When they mention HQ unit, I believe they are speaking of the Brigade. It was Army, and the overflights were for Army information. The 76FCS used the same strips that the IJN used while at Rabaul.
As far as I'm aware of, I've never heard of any Naval Unit being equipped with Ki 46, as the Navy had the Type 2 Reconnaissance ("Irving") airplane.
-
- FYI - Allan
-
- Re: Dinah and the IJNAF
-
- Posted By: Jim Broshot
Date: Thursday, 23 August 2001, at 10:09 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Dinah and the IJNAF (Allan
Alsleben)
-
- Al:
- I am going to guess that this line may be based on (who else) Francillon. In Profile No. 82 he states that the IJNAF acquired "a small number" of Ki-46s. No exact date given, Then he states, "Some JNAF Ki-46-IIs, flying from Timor Island, were active over Northern Australia." No date and no unit given. The same statements are repeated in his JAPANESE AIRCRAFT OF THE PACIFIC WAR.
-
- Re: Dinah and the IJNAF
-
- Posted By: Larry <mailto:Hldeziv@aol.com?subject=Re: Dinah and the IJNAF>
Date: Friday, 24 August 2001, at 6:33 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Dinah and the IJNAF (Allan
Alsleben)
-
- Guys -
- There were a couple of units: 151 Ku had "a few" Ki-46 DINAHs during 1943 at Rabaul-Lakunai, and on 26 March 1944 it still had one on strength that was serviceable. This is from Mikesh/Tagaya (Moonlight Interceptor: Japan's IRVING Night Fighter) and Sakaida (The Siege of Rabaul, p.27).
- Also, 171 Ku is said to have had "a few" Ki-46 DINAHs at Kanoya NAS in May-July 1945 along with a larger number of C6N MYRTs. 171 Ku flew L-R maritime reconnaissance searches as well as radio countermeasures and deception flights for the Kikusui special attack missions under 5th Air Fleet. This is from SRH-055 in Record Group 457/National Archives (Top Secret ULTRA sigint material).
-
HTH
(Larry)
-
- Re: Kudos to Larry and Rick
-
- Posted By: Allan Alsleben <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Kudos to Larry and Rick>
Date: Friday, 24 August 2001, at 8:23 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Dinah and the IJNAF (Larry)
-
- Hi guys,
- I knew that if anyone could provide an answer, you both could. I just didn't have enough material to say one way or the other.
- Other than 151, 202 and possibly 171, would it be too muchg to ask what other units?? I've noted those mentioned with your source.
-
- Al
-
- Re: Kudos to Larry and Rick
-
- Posted By: Elephtheriou George <mailto:arawasi_g@hotmail.com?subject=Re: Kudos to Larry and Rick>
Date: Friday, 24 August 2001, at 9:10 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Kudos to Larry and Rick (Allan
Alsleben)
-
- Konnichi wa,
from FAOW 38, page 39, top photo:
photo taken end of Showa 17 (1942) at Rabaul airfield. The Navy received a few Dinahs which opperated in the South Areas and the Mainland among others. This Model II is camouflaged in deep green and has yellow IFFs on the wing's leading edges. It opperated recon. missions over Guadalcanal and
P/N.G. areas.
-
- Domo,
George
-
- Re: Dinah and the IJNAF
-
- Posted By: richard dunn <mailto:rdunn@rhsmith.umd.edu?subject=Re: Dinah and the IJNAF>
Date: Friday, 24 August 2001, at 7:57 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Dinah and the IJNAF (Larry)
-
- All
- Emphatically "yes" the Navy operated Ki 46's. In addition to 151 Ku as noted by Larry on, March 1st 1943 the 23d Air Flotilla requested two Ki 46's with crews to be assigned to 202 Ku. The Type 2 land recon a/c did not have the high altitude performance to operate over Australia.
- I'd have to check my records for other units operating the type. But definite on 151 Ku and probably 202.
-
- Rick
-
- Re: Dinah and the IJNAF
-
- Posted By: John Lundstrom <mailto:jl@mpm.edu?subject=Re: Dinah and the IJNAF>
Date: Monday, 27 August 2001, at 10:09 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Re: Dinah and the IJNAF
(richard dunn)
-
- The Dinahs that operated from Rabaul in October 1942 against Guadalcanal were definitely flown by the JAAF's 76th Independent Air Squadron. One (flown by Capt. Kirita Hideo, the chutai leader) crashed on 25 October right on Henderson Field. Souvenir hunters swarmed the wreck and only about ten days later it was noticed that the flight helmets bore the Army star. Consequently on 8 November 42 Halsey warned Nimitz that the IJA had planes in the South Pacific Area.
-
-
-
- Posted By: Mitch Fairley <mailto:mfairley@mindspring.com?subject=Flight suit color/material>
Date: Thursday, 19 July 2001, at 11:13 a.m.
-
- Greetings all! I have a question for you all that I haven't seen posted before. Does anyone have any information about the color and material of the Japanese pilot's flight suit. In some pictures it appears to be brown, in others it looks like a mauve/brown. All help appreciated.
-
- Thanks
- Mitch
-
- Re: Flight suit color/material
-
- Posted By: A.E. Hamilton <mailto:AEHamilton1@aol.com?subject=Re: Flight suit color/material>
Date: Friday, 20 July 2001, at 1:52 p.m.
-
- In Response To: Flight suit color/material (Mitch
Fairley)
-
- Flight suit colors for japanese airmen depend on the branch of service (Army or Navy)and the time period. Pre WWII suits, that is the Pearl Harbor vintage naval stuff tends to be brown but later the color switches to green, kind of an OD color, but very attractive as the fabric is generally quite shiny. There is quite a variation between green/brown during the later stages. IMHO the most attractive naval aviation suits are the mid war shiny greens and i usually display my pilot with one of these.
- Navy boots are either brown or black with black being by far the most common. They are cut and put together different than army aviators boots and are extremely pricey and hard to come by.
- Army boots are brown, are fairly common and come in different heights. Very late war ones can be wide ranging as I have seen pictyures of silvery grey to red ones. I'm not sure what the tanning process was at that time but there were certainly some strange results.
- If you have any more questions you can contact me and I may be able to help. It would probably be best if you could see some different flight suits.
-
- Re: Flight suit color/material
-
- Posted By: Clint Bauer <mailto:CBauer@mmfn.com?subject=Re: Flight suit color/material>
Date: Friday, 20 July 2001, at 5:46 a.m.
-
- In Response To: Flight suit color/material (Mitch
Fairley)
-
- Mitch,
- I have several color pictures and illustrations and the closest brown I have come up with is Testor's Italian Brown.
-
- Clint
-
Return
to Navy Message Board Threads
