Japanese Air Warning Picket Hulk (exDutch sub)
*PIC*
Posted By: Bram <bramotto@bart.nl>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 4:35 a.m.
2 Mar 1942: The Dutch Submarine K XVIII is
scuttled while under repair in Surabaya in order to avoid being captured by
invading Japanese forces.
Date unknown: The Japanese raise (1944?) and
repair (194?-1944) the K XVIII. The submarine is converted into an air warning
picket hulk and is used in Madoera Strait.
16 June 1945: The Japanese air warning picket
hulk ex-K XVIII is sunk off Surabaya by the Royal Navy submarine Taciturn.
Position: 06°48S-112°47E.
Who has more info (and maybe an image) on this
air warning picket hulk? All additional info is welcome.
I am buiding a 1/144 Seydlitz Aircraft Carrier
for R/C Warship Combat and want to make the deck damaged so I don't have to
put a lot of planes on that will be shot off anyway (and I like making models
that look like they were shot to peices). I am wondering how aircraft carrier
decks are made, what I should do to make it looked like it was damaged by
bombs, what size bomb craters should I make, and if there are any websites
with good close up pictures of damaged aircraft decks. I would realy
appreciate any help you could give.
Re: Damaged Aircraft Carrier
Posted By: Ed Low <jlow@Bignet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
In Response To: Damaged Aircraft Carrier (Jason
Schafer)
I looked up this ship again just for interest
sake. Since she is based on a heavy cruiser, her aircraft compliment is
amazing small - 10 Bf 109G and 8 Ju 87D ! (from Conway's All The World's
Fighting Ships 1922-1946).
Re: Damaged Aircraft Carrier
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 12 December 2000, at 2:57 p.m.
In Response To: Damaged Aircraft Carrier (Jason
Schafer)
Depends on Seydlitz's internal configurations
and flight deck characteristics, and what sort of damage you are depicting. If
her hangar is fully enclosed (a la the Japanese and Brits), then large
explosions internally will lead to upward buckling of the flight deck. There's
a stunning shot of Shokaku's flight deck after she was smacked by multiple
1,000 lb GPs at Coral Sea. Her deck looks like an A-frame. It would be harder
to achieve this effect with a Brit carrier, as their flight decks were heavier
and less prone to deform. On the flip, internal damage could be greater in
such cases, since the flight deck may then have the effect of reflecting blast
pressures back into the ship's structure. Initial bomb hits against a carrier
with openings along the side (a la the U.S. CVs) tended to vent blast
overpressures out the sides (path of least resistance). Size of the bomb holes
will again depend on what the flight deck is made of, and what your
hypothetival bomb was fuzed to do--detonate on impact or penetrate below. The
Japanese used a mixture of ordnance on their dive bombers, some GP fuzed
instantaneous for flak suppression, some SAP fuzed for penetration. I've
noticed in perusing bomb hits in some of the BuShips damage reports I've got
(notably Franklin and Princeton) that bomb hits tend to tear rectangular or
oblong chunks of deck out. You don't seem to ge round bomb holes. The flight
deck tends to deform along its seams in the deck, i.e. along framing lines or
compression joints or what have you. Hopefully that will give you some ideas
to mull on.
USS WASP CV7
Posted By: bob pienkos <bpink@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Upon looking at my nov.2000 update I saw that
the USS WASP CV7 is going to be released in resin 1/700 scale by Corsair
Armada. Needless to say this kit has been very long awaited by either plastic
or resin product. Itshould (maybe) be released sometime Jan.2000. Lets hope
so.
Re: USS WASP CV7
Posted By: Jerry Wesolowski <j.wes@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
In Response To: USS WASP CV7 (bob pienkos)
Do you have any idea about the price of the
kit?
Re: USS WASP CV7
Posted By: bob pienkos <bpink@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 6:28 p.m.
In Response To: Re: USS WASP CV7 (Jerry
Wesolowski)
Unfortunately being a carrier and in resin the
kit is going to be very expensive, around $170-$180 dollars. To bad it wasn't
picked up by Tamiya or Skywave in plastic which would have given it a much
more down to earth price. Corsair Armada is atruly extraordinary resin
manufacturer I have three of their kits the USS NORTHAMPTON,USS PHOENIX, and
the USS LOUSVILLE. THey are all fabuously crafted works of resin perfection.
So needless to say the price for the WASP might be steep,the end result will
definitely be worth it.
Re: USS WASP CV7
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 5 December 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: USS WASP CV7 (bob pienkos)
I fully agree with Bob about the quality of
Corsair Armada resin kits. Their previous carrier kit of the USS Ranger is now
completely sold out and that kit also had a very high price. However, the
quality and uniqueness of the subject matter makes it a good value (even at
those kind of prices!). I would not be surprised if the Wasp run of resin kits
also completely sells out.
HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Paul Richards <c2water@vianet.net.au>
Date: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
On 19 November 1941, the HMAS Sydney was sunk
after a brief battle with a German raider Kormoran.
There is some speculation [not by me] that a
Japanese submarine may have been involved. Note that this is before Pearl
Harbour.
Would anyone know the whereabouts of the
Japanese submarines around this time?
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
In Response To: HMAS SYDNEY (Paul Richards)
As of November 1st, the following squadrons
were based:
Squadron 1 - Kure
Squadron 2 - Yokosuka
Squadron 4 - Kure
Squadron 5 - Sasebo
Squadron 6 - 3rd Fleet
Squadron 7 - Kwajalein Atoll
Squadron 7 had old RO Boats which operated on
the fringe of the Mandates.
Squadron 6 were minelayers in which SubDiv 13
would operate in the western Luzon waters, and SubDiv 9 along the eastern
coast of Malaya. SubRon 6 was operating in the South China Sea after the
completion of the "Show of Force" along the coast of Indo-China in
August. They carried no aircraft.
In order for the Japanese to assist in the
sinking of Sydney, they would need a newer submarine with aircraft, and
assistance from Germany as to the location of Sydney. Since the War Clouds
were looming and the training for the Pearl Harbor attack, plus the use of
half of the 6th Fleet (Submarines), it would be highly unlikely the Japan was
involved. The dates were too close together for an incident of that magnitude
to happen. Yet, according to "I was There.." by Admiral Layton (Page
205), it might have happened, but no documents on the Japanese side survived
and those in London have yet to be declassified and those in Perth are not
available. Very strange indeed......... One would think that the Royal
Australian Navy would attempt to end the controversy.
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Thursday, 16 November 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
In Response To: HMAS SYDNEY (Paul Richards)
The Japanese used their submarines as a part of
their scouting force. There was a submarine base at Kwajalein and if i'm not
mistaken, there was a submarine squadron in Indo-China. From the various
articles that I've read, the Japanese never entered the Indian Ocean in
November or December 1941.
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Randy
Date: Friday, 17 November 2000, at 11:56 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Allan)
Allow me the luxury of being less specific than
the situation might warrant but this story crops up every now and then.
The first question is one of range. From what
base would the IJN submarine -- I-class only, please -- operate? There is
simply no way any I-boat had the range to get to the battle area and return.
The next question is how the I-boat would be
aware of the presence of the battle scene -- from either side! The Germans
were operating surreptitiously, of course. And Sydney was operating in the
area strictly by chance.
Third, the known damage and witness reports by
the crew of Kormoran amply attest to the damage suffered by Sydney in her
final battle.
Fourth, what possible benefit would the
Japanese accrue from a disposal of Sydney?
Basically, it seems to me that this is one of
the more unbelievable of theories among many. Like many theories of this
nature it attempts to address an event which is unfathomable but true. It
attempts to answer the unanswerable. What happened is that a battle tested RAN
cruiser happened across a German raider and Kapitan zur see (I believe)
Detmers got the drop on his adversary.
Incidentally, a British raider had crossed
paths with HMS Neptune earlier under similar conditions and had reported that
Neptune was a sitting duck. Sydney had the unfortunate luck to meet with a
German raider...Detmers book is rather convincing.
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Allan <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Randy)
Firstly, an I 7 (July 3, 1935 Com.) had a
radius of 14,000 miles at 16kts. It could have been used from Camh Ranh Bay,
but highly doubtful. I'm not sure which squadrons ended up at Kwajalein before
the start of hostilities. My information is in a packed state. Long ranged
I-boats cruised as far as from Penang to the Eastern Coast of Africa - From
Kure to the Western Coast of America. So the range was no factor. Personally,
I don't believe the Japanese were involved, but something did happen to HMAS
Sydney and the information is still CLASSIFIED in London and Canberra. My
question is why?????? The answer I keep getting, is 75 years from the end of
World War 2. That means the year of 2035 before the information will be
released, if ever. I'm not into speculation, nor I'm I going to try, but there
is more to the sinking of Sydney than meets the eye.
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Randy
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Allan)
You have forced me to dig up some info and I'll
have to grant the I-7 could reach the area from Cam Rahn Bay, Empire waters or
Kwajalein with an approximate expenditure of 35%, 65% and 80% of the boat's
range...so it is possible.
Regardless of which boats were assigned where
these numbers provide good estimates.
But we still haven't disposed of the other
reasons...one of which constitutes the testimony of the eyewitnesses who
survived. Is there a way to dismiss that aspect?
I still find the issue quite persuasive.
Dominion laws are notorious for their reach into time...the US has some
similar laws as well, I understand. Could it be simply the 'embarrassment' of
losing a warship to a 'merchantman?'
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Bob <Bob5@home.com>
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 3:35 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Randy)
Included in the Australian Parliament’s
Inquiry into the loss of HMAS SYDNEY is a discussion of a theory that the
reason for the Japanese presence off the coast of Western Australia on 19
November 1941 was a plan to transfer specialized Japanese communications
personnel to Germany to coordinate the war effort. The theory holds that the
DKM attache Rear Admiral Wegener in Tokyo offered the services of the KORMORAN
to meet a Japanese submarine and take aboard the German group, but the SYDNEY
interrupted the transfer and the Japanese were forced to open fire. The
Inquiry Committee considered this theory, but found it unconvincing. Japanese
war plans were well advanced and the theory appears most unlikely.
Moreover,there is a total lack of documentary evidence to support the theory.
But as far as the I-boat’s capability goes,in
1942 they were used in attacks on both Darwin and Sydney (unsuccessfully).
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Paul Richards <c2water@vianet.net.au>
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Bob)
According to Royal Australian Navy 1939 - 1942
by G Herman Gill,
page 450
Detmers was now ordered by the German Admiralty
to rendezvous with Kulmerland 9the supply ship which had accompanied the Nauru
raiders in December 1940) which,, now disguised as an American steamer of the
Luckenbach Line left Kobe on 3rd September. The two ships met on 16th Oct
about 1,100 miles west of Fremantle and sailed leisurely north in company for
10 days. During this period the raider provisioned and fueled from Kulmerland,
and transferred to her all her remaining prisoners (except 4 Chinese taken
from Eurylochus).
Surely, it would have been much easier to send
men and/or equipment from Japan on this ship than send a submarine?
Then, there is the question as to what, if any,
messages were handed to Detmers by the Captain of the Kulmerland?
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Randy
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Paul Richards)
I see you guys are just going to force me to
dig up Detmer's book...I'll start right now.
I'll be back when I find the relevant
passages...maybe they'll shed some light upon the questions.
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Randy
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 9:29 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Randy)
I have Detmers and Woodward now and will look
over everything. Give me a little time but keep the questions coming.
Re: HMAS SYDNEY
Posted By: Heikki Virtanen <mervir@wakkanet.fi>
Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, at 11:00 a.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Allan)
For those interested in the very complex
question of how HMAS Sydney was sunk, I recommend that you visit the link
below.
It contains a large investigation conducted by
Australian Parlament on the loss of HMAS Sydney, and includes discussion of
the possibility of a Japanese submarine being involved. This mystery has
interested me for a long time, and I am personally not at all certain that the
whole truth of this matter has emerged. Hope you will continue this
discussion.
Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Heikki
Virtanen)
It does look like someone is trying to hide
something. When I try to connect to the site, I get the message that I am not
authorized to view this page! I have tried it from both my home and work
computers.
???
Re: website directions
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, 20 November 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HMAS SYDNEY (Grant Goodale)
Computers and URLs are tempermental. Direct
routes are not always functional.
Go back to the basic URL "www.aph.gov.au"
then click "house", then "committees", then "list of
committees" then "Joint Foreign Affairs Defense & Trade",
"Reports", "Sydney"...
US Ship color *PIC*
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 4 October 2000, at 8:48 p.m.
What is the color of the US warship in this
video scan from Claus Kruger?
Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced here.
Re: US Ship color determination
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 6 October 2000, at 7:59 a.m.
In Response To: US Ship color *PIC* (David_Aiken)
To answer your question, I posed this scan to
Ed Grune, fellow ship modeler in our club. Here are his thoughts:
"In my opinion ---
"First of all I'm assuming that this is a
picture taken during Okinawa or Iwo Jima with kamikaze wreckage. The wing
panel is scuffed & worn. Recovered wreckage from the early war operations
would have shown the aircraft to be better maintained.
"With that assumption in mind - I'm
thinking of the late-war patterns. The bulkhead color appears to be Ocean Gray
(5-O) at first glance. Each of the three 30 series of disruptive camouflage
patterns included 5-O to some extent. Not a lot to go with there. But look at
the dungarees and chambray shirts on the crew - they're gray - not blue. I
think you're looking at a shot taken with color film that didn't handle blue
well.
"It’s my thoughts that this is probably
a Ms 21 Navy Blue paint job. Ms 21 would be appropriate for late-war
operations. It provided good air to surface camouflage with the ship blending
with the water surface.
Ed."
HTH, Captain Banzai - it would appear that this
picture has a serious color shift from blue towards gray.
Re: US Ship color
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2000, at 10:59 a.m.
In Response To: US Ship color *PIC* (David_Aiken)
Can you provide more background details such as
place and date?
Re: US Ship color
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 5 October 2000, at 12:35 p.m.
In Response To: Re: US Ship color (Mike Quan)
Claus Kruger sent the scan. That is it. Sorry.
If the ship's color (or some other "standard" within the scan) may
be known then maybe we can determine more about other colors in the scan. Hey,
Claus, do you know the particulars?
Re: US Ship color
Posted By: Claus Krüger <cdk59@msn.com>
Date: Thursday, 12 October 2000, at 12:12 p.m.
In Response To: Re: US Ship color (David_Aiken)
sorry,I'm late but I look not everyday in the
ship side.
I can only say that the picture was taken from
a dokumentation in the german TV about the Kamikaze.I think it
must have color shift.Made with wartime
celloloide,brought
up for TV standart,than I catched it,send it to
David,than
published on j.-aircraft.com.I thing a very
long way for a small picture.
Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 8:28 a.m.
The Thai Destroyer, Phra Ruang was a British
"R" Class Thornycraft. I have the "Specs" on her. But what
I would like to have, is her combat record. I know that she was crewed by
Thai's and that she made trips to Manila, Takao and Brunei. I am assuming that
these trips were as an escort for the Japanese convoys in the South China Sea.
Her name started showing after November 1st 1943. Any information on her will
be greatly appreciated.
Re: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 10:44 a.m.
In Response To: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
(Allan Alsleben)
Go to the 'Nihon Kaigun' site and look up
Mysteries of the IJN. Then see the story of Harder's last battle. That has
some stuff there for you. And that Thai vessel did not sink Harder.
Re: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Thai Destroyer - Help
Wanted (Randy)
You are correct. The sinking of Harder was a
combined effort of CD 22, P-bt 102 and aircraft from 901 Ku. Phra Ruang was in
the general area on the 24th of August, but did not participate. The aircraft,
after dropping depth bombs, conned the surface ships to Harder's location.
That is as I understand it.
I'm looking for more information as to what
Phra Ruang did after November 1st, 1943. I am assuming that she might have
been an escort for convoys to Takao and Manila.
Re: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
Posted By: V. Tapasanan <tvidya@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
In Response To: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
(Allan Alsleben)
Randy was correct, acccording to Royal Thai
Navy records, they did not provide any warships to support IJN escort or
patrol operation except within Gulf of Thailand during the Pacific war.
Moreover, by the time of WW2, HTMS Pra Ruang was relegated to traing duty and
hardly used for operation because of her age.
Re: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Thai Destroyer - Help
Wanted (V. Tapasanan)
Does anyone know why she was at Manila?????
Re: Thai Destroyer - Help Wanted
Posted By: V. Tapasanan <tvidya@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Thai Destroyer - Help
Wanted (Allan Alsleben)
In fact, she was not but was mistaken to be
there. It should be the former USN 4 pipe destroyer that IJN converted to be
an escort that Randy mentioned.
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 4:15 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Thai Destroyer - Help
Wanted (V. Tapasanan)
Wait a minute! Go to this site and post. Get a
hold of Tony Tully and read that deal he put out before you
all waste a lot of
time chasing geese. The story is out but
it is not what has been previously published;
and I never yet mentioned the Stewart.
I mean that it was all grey, but the boxart
have a camouflaged colour
what was the colour in the pacific fleet ?
what was the colour of the deck ?
Re: Victorious colour with pacific fleet
Posted By: Graham Boak
<graham@boak98.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sunday, 7 May 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
In Response To: Victorious colour with pacific
fleet (Philippe)
Is this the poor Aosima kit?
Vic was in the Pacific in mid-43, when she
carried a multi-colour RN pattern. The Deck was presumably dark grey, but may
have carried a camouflage pattern at this time. She may even have been in the
same pattern as in Operation Pedestal, where several photos were taken and are
probably easier to find.
When she was in the British Pacific Fleet in
1945, she will have carried the late-war standard pattern of light grey
overall and a light blue panel low down on the hull - this was standard on a
lot of ships whereas the earlier patterns were prepared especially for the
individual ships. The deck will have been dark grey.
However, I am not an expert on these ships and
Vic is not one I've taken any great interest in.....There is a very good book
on the Victorious in the Warship Cutaway series (Conway press, I believe) and
I advise you to try to find that.
lct1263
Posted By: Milt Hutchins <jbgram34@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 9 April 2000, at 8:16 a.m.
Does anybody have any information on lct1263.
located in Guam off the LST727
sometime between 1944 and 45. I was stationed
on this vessel and would like to find anyone with info or who may have been
stationed on this LCT. We were in Leyte Harbor Phillipeens at the end of the
war.
Re: lct1263
Posted By: Ed <efgrune@flash.net>
Date: Monday, 10 April 2000, at 8:38 p.m.
In Response To: lct1263 (Milt Hutchins)
A buddy passed me your request for information.
I don't know of any active links to photo information on LCT1263. May I
suggest that you post your request for information on the WWII LCT Sailors
association at the following URL.
http://members.tripod.com/~ww2lct/main.html
They may be able to help you - any you may be
able to help them. Do you have any old snapshots of the ship and/or crew? How
about a crew list (even partial)? They are soliciting that sort of
information.
WW2 Essex class carrier camouflage
Posted By: Pete <Rodetripn@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 12 March 2000, at 5:47 p.m.
A trivia question to which I'd like an
authoritative answer: of the following Essex class carriers, which did not
have the "dazzle" camouflage scheme during WW2?
Essex CV-9
Lexington CV-16
Bon Homme Richard CV-31
Princeton CV-37
Shangri-La CV-38
Based on incomplete information, my guess is
Princeton, but I'd like a more definitive answer. If anyone can help, I'd
appreciate an email at Rodetripn@aol.com. Thank you in advance.
Re: WW2 Essex class carrier camouflage
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 11:16 p.m.
In Response To: WW2 Essex class carrier
camouflage (Pete)
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OF THE US NAVY (Stefan
Terzibaschitsch) trys to track camouflage patterns of the carriers. The
"dazzle" pattern seems to have been either Measure 32 or Measure 33
Essex CV-9 - Measure 32 April 1944 to November
1944
Lexington CV-16 - Measure 12 (a Graded System),
"LEXINGTON (CV-16) was the only ESSEX class carrier built during the war
which never had 'dazzle pattern' camouflage."
Bon Homme Richard CV-31 - Measure 32 November
1944 to March 1945
Princeton CV-37 - did not see wartime service;
seems never to have had a "dazzle" pattern.
Shangri-La CV-38 - Measure 33 from completion
to early 1945.
Looks like probably two of the above never were
"dazzle" camouflaged. The author notes that "of the carriers
operating during the war, only three ships (except for the four prewar
carriers lost - LEXINGTON, YORKTOWN, WASP and HORNET): LANGLEY (CVL-27) and
CABOT (CVL-28) were camouflage painted to Measure 21; and LEXINGTON (CV-16)
was finished intially in Measure 21 and later in Measure 12;"
and "none of the carriers completed after
World War II had a camouflage design but many were camouflage painted."
(which I assume to mean they were not "dazzle" painted).
Re: WW2 Essex class carrier camouflage
Posted By: Andreas Prinz <afaprinz@t-online.de>
Date: Saturday, 6 May 2000, at 9:05 a.m.
In Response To: Re: WW2 Essex class carrier
camouflage (Jim Broshot)
one of the best sources for
"camouflage" is Floating Drydock - they have a book about the US-fleetcarriers
and their dazzle-paint.
website: www.usbusiness.com/drydock
Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
Posted By: Steve Bull <stvpgbull@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 11 March 2000, at 9:34 p.m.
I'm pretty new to the computer craze but I ran
into this web site and I was wondering if anyone out there had any pictures of
these two Japanese ships from WW2. My Mom's first husband was on the Arisan
Maru when it was sunk by the Americans that didn't know POW's were aboard.
There is a web site that is trying to get a picture of the ship. We had a
memorial for the men that were lost at the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg,
Texas last year. Also my father was a POW on the Nissyo Maru and was
transported to Japan during the last years of the war. If anyone out there has
any idea on finding photos of these ships I would appreciate it.
There were a lucky cargo-passenger, named
Nissyo Maru which survived through the war.
NISSYO MARU
Build 1939
Owner Nanyo-Kaiun shipping co. (Post war
renamed Tokyo-Senpaku shipping
co.)
Route for South-East Asia/Indonesia
Shipyard Mitsubishi-Kobe
Gross t 6,527 ton
Weight t 8,814 ton
Lpp 128.0 m
Bredth 17.4 m
Depth 10.3m
draft 8.2m
Engine Steam turbine x 1set
Power 4,500 HP
Speed 17.6 kt
Cabin First Class 26 persons
Third Class 56 persons
Last Scrapped 1965
And the photo is included in
'JAPANESE PASSENGER SHIPS IN HISTORY'
author HISASHI NOMA and MITIO YAMADA, 1991.
publisher KAIJIN-SYA
http://www.ships-net.co.jp/homee.htm
NAO building
1-14 Shin-Ogawa-machi Sinjyuku-ku Tokyo-to,
JAPAN
Re: Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
Posted By: Paul Richards <c2water@vianet.net.au>
Date: Tuesday, 14 March 2000, at 5:22 p.m.
In Response To: Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
(Steve Bull)
Ther is a web site which deals with the Arisan
Maru. It is www.uslink.net/~snoflake/shipwrecks/arisan.html
At the bottom of the page it makes reference to
an Oklahoma magazine article, there was also a vidoe made which might still be
available. It is named the same as the magazine article.
For quick reference, the Arisan Maru was
torpedoed on 24 Oct 44. The ship had on board about 1,800 American Prisoners
of War who were being taken from Manila to Japan. Of this number only 9
survived and only 8 survived the war.
Re: Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
Posted By: Ron Wolford <wolfieeod@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 13 March 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
In Response To: Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
(Steve Bull)
I can not find anything on the Arisan Maru (I
assume you mean the ship that was sunk by U.S.S. SNOOK on 24 OCT 1944) in the
Japanese Merchant Ship Recognition Manual ONI 208-J. That it is not listed
dose not mean much, it might have been a new ship or changed it's name durring
the war or they could have copied the name down wrong from japanese records.
As for the Nissyo Maru, there a seven ships
listed with that name. Nissyo Maru #1,#8,#12,_ and three outer ships just
listed as Nissyo Maru. I think all the ships with a number after the name were
Gunboat (small ships less than 2000 tons) but with out knowing the approx size
of ship it will be hard to track down. I know this did not help you much but
if I find out any more info or ever track down a photo I will let you know.
Re: Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
Posted By: Jeff McIntyre <JMcint1058@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 20 May 2000, at 8:07 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Arisan Maru and Nissyo Maru
(Ron Wolford)
I do have a picture in a book of the Nissyo
Maru, my father was also on that boat to Japan...the book is called 1051 I
have a copy, a whole chapter relates to the trip to Japan your father was on..
the author lives right by me here in Wash..
LCT(R) in pacific ?
Posted By: Philippe <philippe.brems@skynet.be>
Date: Saturday, 11 March 2000, at 4:29 a.m.
I'm just working over LSM, LCI, LCT from
SKYWAVE in 1/700.
But, I can make a LCT(R)(LCT with Rocket
laucher)with that box and here is my question. Have the US NAVY used LCT(R) in
the pacific war ? And where ?
Re: LCT(R) in pacific ?
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Saturday, 11 March 2000, at 10:17 p.m.
In Response To: LCT(R) in pacific ? (Philippe)
In Appendix I of Morison's VICTORY IN THE
PACIFIC, LSM(R)s are noted with the Western Islands Attack Group and LCM(R)s
with the Gunboat Support Flotilla for Okinawa landings.
According to Silverstone, the LSM was
originally the LCT(7); and the LCI(R) was converted from the LCI(L).
Re: LCT(R) in pacific ?
Posted By: George Nex <GeorgeNex@Compuserve.com>
Date: Thursday, 27 April 2000, at 1:33 p.m.
In Response To: Re: LCT(R) in pacific ? (Jim
Broshot)
As said before the US used the LSM(R), the
LCT(R) in the skywave kit represents the British Mark 3 Conversion. They may
have been used as according to Conway's Fighting Ships the number of rockets
varied if Tropicalised although this may have been for operations in the
Indian Ocean. One problem is that there were not many converted and it is
known that were in use for several landings during and after D-Day including
1945, so they would of had a very long trip to get to the Pacific. It would
also explain why the Americans built there on variant on the LSM Hull
Soviet/CIS Missile Cruisers (1/700 Waterline)
Posted By: Steve Epperson <sepperson@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, 10 February 2000, at 10:16 p.m.
Does anyone know if there are any Soviet/CIS
Missile Cruisers out there? Resin or Injection.
Re: Soviet/CIS Missile Cruisers (1/700
Waterline)
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Saturday, 12 February 2000, at 10:04 p.m.
In Response To: Soviet/CIS Missile Cruisers
(1/700 Waterline) (Steve Epperson)
While not professing to be anywhere near to any
sort of Soviet/CIS expert on available waterline ships, I do have a nice
P&I/Pitroad resin kit of the Kynda-class missile cruiser. It is kit #R-04,
and I strongly suspect it is unavailable now from PitRoad, not being listed
anymore in their catalog. It is a nice resin molding, though as a
"cruiser", it is rather small, measuring just 7-5/8" in length.
The original price was listed as 3500 yen.
Essex Class models
Posted By: Razz <airdaletweek@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 9 February 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
Does anybody know what company makes a 1/350
scale essex class carrier. Post Korean era. With the angled fight deck and
steam cat's.
Re: Essex Class models
Posted By: joe <jaci@lehigh.edu>
Date: Thursday, 10 February 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
In Response To: Essex Class models (Razz)
Unfortunately, there is none. Tom's Modelworks
makes a 1/350 Essex, but in 1944 fit. Jim Shirley Productions (now out of
business) made an angled deck Essex (USS Oriskany) but it is in 1/700 scale,
there may be a few floating around. JAG Collective may come out with a new
one, most likely in 1/700 scale. Sorry man, but those are your choices.
Re: Essex Class models
Posted By: Sami <sami@akol-yoshii.com>
Date: Thursday, 10 February 2000, at 11:32 a.m.
In Response To: Re: Essex Class models (joe)
Actually Jim Shirley Productions made the
Oriskany in both scales in 1/700 and 1/350. The large model is very expensive
and might be a bit difficult to find.
Re: Essex Class models
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Thursday, 10 February 2000, at 10:57 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Essex Class models (Sami)
I almost hesitate to post this but since old
kits are offered on ebay (witness the discussion about the old Aurora Zero
kit), I remember building a Revell kit of the Essex class, with the angled
deck in the early 1960s. I am sorry that I can't remember the scale. AND about
the same time a friend of mine had the Lindbergh Essex class kit that was the
original WW2 version.
Forest Sherman class destroyer's
Posted By: Razz <airdaletweek@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 6 February 2000, at 4:30 p.m.
For the longest time now. I've been looking for
a Forest Sherman destroyer model. If anyone has ANY info on a company anywhere
that makes this model please e-mail me.
Re: Forest Sherman class destroyer's
Posted By: Steve Epperson <sepperson@earthlink.net>
Date: Sunday, 6 February 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
In Response To: Forest Sherman class
destroyer's (Razz)
JAG, which makes Resin kits is coming out with
a Forest Sherman Class Destroyer in two scales (1/700 or 1/350). The 1/700
will be waterline and the 1/350 can be built as either. The below website will
get you to where you need to look. But the Forest Sherman's aren't listed yet.
Don't worry, according to JAG they will be releasing them with in 45 days.
They are also releasing the following kits with in a few weeks.
Albany and Chicago CG's, FRAM Sumners and the
USS Newport LST. Also in the works is the Bainbridge, Austin LPD(almost there)
and New Jersey (1968-1969).
These are the best resin kits I have worked
with and are very clean and sharp.
Here is the website:
http://warship.simplenet.com/Jag.htm
HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Philippe <philippe.brems@skynet.be>
Date: Sunday, 30 January 2000, at 1:33 a.m.
I'm working about the HORNET in 1942 (just
during the Doolittle Raid)
I saw that 24 B-25 were over the deck.
But are they other plane in the stern Hangar
Deck ? (with the Tamiya's kit, the shutters can be open)
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Sunday, 30 January 2000, at 8:06 a.m.
In Response To: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (Philippe)
If I read THE FIRST TEAM - PACIFIC NAVAL AIR
COMBAT FROM PEARL HARBOR TO MIDWAY (by John B. Lundstrom) correctly, HORNET
carried 16 B-25s on her flight deck (none below). Her air group would have
been stored on the hanger deck. She could have launched fighters in an
emergency but could not have landed them.
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>
Date: Monday, 31 January 2000, at 6:53 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (Jim Broshot)
When USS Hornet (CV-8) departed the US West
Coast on 31 March, 1942, the Hornet's Air Group consisted of the following
aircraft:
Commander, Hornet Air Group (CHAG): 1 x SBD-3
Fighting Squadron Eight (VF-8): 30 x F4F-4
Scouting Squadron Eight (VS-8): 12 x SBD-3
Bombing Squadron Eight (VB-8): 12 x SBD-3
Torpedo Squadron Eight (VT-8): 10 x TBD-1
All 65 aircraft were stowed on the hanger deck.
The Army contingent, under Lt-Col. James H. Doolittle, USA, consisted of 16
B-25B medium bombers that were permanently parked on deck. Throughout the
cruise these aircraft occupied the after end of the flight deck. In an
emergency, aircraft of VF-8 could have been spotted forward using the number 1
elevator, and launched, but they would have had to land on the escorting
carrier, USS Enterprise (CV-6), or on their own ship after the B-25s had
either departed on the mission assigned or been jettisoned, which would surely
have happened had the Task Force been sighted by enemy aircraft before it was
in range of Japan.
If you are modelling the regular Hornet
Aircraft on the hanger deck, remember that the Doolittle Raid occurred before
BuAer ordered the removal of the red centers to the US Stars (carried in six
positions) and the red-white rudder stripes.
Hope this helps.
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: J.G. Murphey <Jgmurphey@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 2000, at 11:38 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (Mark E. Horan)
Some of the Hornet's a/c were brought topside
during the Doolittle cruise. There are several well-known pictures showing
SBD's intermingled among the B-25s aft of the island, and of F4Fs, probably
having their guns sighted, forward of the island. It would be interesting to
know when the B-25s were ultimately spotted in their final positions prior to
the actual launch.
Regarding hangar deck catapults, I have an
article from the Summer 1985 issue of THE HOOK by H.J.Walter which delineates
the development and demise of these devices - will Email it to anyone
interested.
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Jeffrey Barta <barta.j@hsl51.navy.mil>
Date: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (J.G. Murphey)
According to Ted Lawson's THIRTY SECONDS OVER
TOKYO, the B-25's were spotted for their takeoff positions the morning of the
raid, just after GQ was called away.
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 2000, at 11:20 a.m.
In Response To: Re: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (Mark E. Horan)
As I recall, US carriers of that era also had
provisions for a catapult that was mounted transversely across the ship on the
hangar deck forward, which would have permitted launching fighters from the
hangar deck without access to the flight deck. No doubt this provision was
rarely used as it was dangerous enough without the benefit of any
wind-over-the-deck to assist lift of the plane!
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (Mike Quan)
Right, as set out in Friedman's U S AIRCRAFT
CARRIERS, who says, "generally small observation aircraft, weighing less
than 5,000 pounds, were launched" from these hanger deck catapults. Their
removal was authorized on 17 Feb 1942 because they could not launch the
"heavy" aircraft then in service. Hornet's was removed on 26 June
1942.
Re: HORNET's hangar deck during Doolittle
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Monday, 31 January 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
In Response To: Re: HORNET's hangar deck during
Doolittle (Mark E. Horan)
The last time I was at the Air Force Museum in
Dayton OH (in July 1998), there was a B-25 displayed as if it were staged for
take-off on the flight deck of the Hornet. Perhaps some of the Ohio contingent
can supply photographs of the details and markings?
Post WW2 US Carrier Flight Decks
Posted By: Steve Epperson <sepperson@earthlink.net>
Date: Saturday, 29 January 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Can anyone tell me what USN Carrier Flight Deck
colors and marking were after WW2 and through Korea. I have seen a color photo
of Essex (Post SCB-27A)
with her deck stained blue with white numbers
and dashes.
But, then I see Oriskany in her 27A rig, her
flight deck looks to be Natural wood color using White or Yellow numbers and
dashes. Also, the steel deck carriers
(Midway's), what color flight decks did the
have from 46-54?
On the wooden deck Essex's, If the decks were
left unpainted what would the closest model paint be to match the color. I
like the look of Italian Hazel Tan, but that might be to light in color.
Thanks in advance for any help here.
Re: Post WW2 US Carrier Flight Decks
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 2000, at 11:14 a.m.
In Response To: Post WW2 US Carrier Flight
Decks (Steve Epperson)
It appears that during the transition period
between wooden and steel decks, there was a variety of color
used by the US
Navy. You have hit on the use of blue stain which is a carry-on from WW2 use.
Steel decks were covered with a dark gray coating for non-skid purposes. I
suspect but have no proof that natural wood decks were a contingency measure
used until it could be stained. What with oil and grease dropped from aircraft
onto the deck, compounded by the wear and tear from weather and propwash/jet
blast, unfinished wood was likely to wear very quickly. Were the
"bare" wood decks pictured during Korean operations?
Dutch Ships
Posted By: John Videll <jvid33@cbot.com>
Date: Wednesday, 26 January 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Can anyone tell me what colors ships of the
Dutch Navy were painted during the 1942 Java Sea Campaign?
Re: Dutch Ships
Posted By: Anthony Tully <atully@flashnet.net>
Date: Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
In Response To: Dutch Ships (John Videll)
I can't answer precisely, but I have come
across interesting indication that the Dutch cruiser JAVA may have had a
camouflage pattern of vertical bars. With this exception, my best evidence
indicates its a buff color (almost like Titanic's funnels) or an off-white.
The destroyers were darking, apparently a mossy green of some kind, than the
cruisers, which were buff or off-white. The photographic evidence is scanty.