Miscellaneous Navy and Ships FAQs
 
depth charges
 
Posted By: Paul Richards <c2water@vianet.net.au>
Date: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 4:41 p.m.
 
In 'Silent Victory' by Clay Blair Jr., there are several references to the IJN depth charges as only being set to a maximum depth of 150 feet. There is also a reference to the submarine Gato surfacing with a depth charge on its after deck (Novemebr 1943).
Does anyone know;Was there a problem with depth charges? Did the IJN know the depth ratings for US submarines? What was the maximum depth setting for depth charges? Was there a standard procedure for hunting submarines?
 
Re: depth charges
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Monday, 18 December 2000, at 10:02 p.m.
 
In Response To: depth charges (Paul Richards)
 
Noted in Campbell's NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR TWO, "Japanese DC attacks were usually broken off too soon and the settings were too shallow. There were no ahead-throwing weapons such as Hedgehog or Squid but the usual stern racks, broadside DCTs and some Y guns were fitted.
Japanese depth charges were of "obsolescent design":
Type 88 (probably not in service in WW2)
charge: 148kg (326lb)
settings: 25m and 45m
Type 91 Model 1 Mod 1 ("apparently obsolete)
charge: 100kg (220lb)
settings: 25m and 50m
Type 95 (standard until introduction of Type 2)
charge: 100kg (220lb) [other versions with 110kg or 147kg]
settings: 30m and 60m [other versions with 90m setting]
Type 2 ("almost direct copy of British types")
charge: 105kg (231lb) [other versions with 162kg or 110kg charge]
settings: 30m, 60m, 90m, 120m, 145m
 
photo-etch and antennas
 
Posted By: John R <j.p.redman@nationwideisp.net>
Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 9:46 a.m.
 
I ask this question here because this board seems busiest...what is the best way to attach p/e railings and radio masts to a 1:700 ship? When people say theye use "white glue", does that mean white PVA wood glue? Really? I can't imagine that would work.
I've tried using superglue, but the trouble is it's very slow to dry. Many, many times I find the parts glue to my tweezers more readily than to each other or to the ship.
 
Also, what do people use for wires and rigging? I've tried hair, thread, fuse wire, and stretched sprue. None is really ideal. Hair looks OK in 1:700 (well, brunette hair does, anyway! - and I have access to an infinite supply) and glues quite well, but it's difficult to get it taut enough. It's so strong and stretchy that if you run a length between (eg) two masts, it will pull them together if you overtighten it.
 
Thread also does this and doesn't paint well, though it glues well. Fuse wire acquires gravity-defying kinks. I find stretched sprue impossibly fragile, and something that's not fragile (like thread) doesn't glue well to brass. Thoughts?
 
Re: photo-etch and antennas
 
Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
 
In Response To: photo-etch and antennas (John R)
 
Re. rigging.
 
Like many others, I have tried all the usual stuff-stretched sprue, fishing line etc. Then I discovered Lycra (in the US 'spandex') thread.
This stuff is great, it stretches forever and it can be split to almost into gossamer thin filaments! It sticks on contact and it colours with inks easily.
 
Re: photo-etch and antennas
 
Posted By: bob pienkos <bpink@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wednesday, 13 December 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
 
In Response To: photo-etch and antennas (John R)
 
For attaching photoetch railings I like to use white glue to get them to stay in place, then use a sparingly small amount of super glue to secure them. I then use a little bit of zip-kicker to dry the super glue instantly. For the antenna rigging I always use very fine stretched sprue although I here that .002 fly fishing tippet works pretty well also. I hope that I was some help.
 
Aichi E11a1 "Laura"
 
Posted By: Mark J. <johnson53@llnl.gov>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 9:25 a.m.
 
according to what sources I can find on the Aichi E11A1 {"Laura") float plane, it was deployed on "cruisers and battleships." I know that one of these ships was the Sendai. Does anyone know of any of the other ships on which this aircraft was deployed and the dates of its usage? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.
 
Re: Aichi E11a1 "Laura"
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 11:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: Aichi E11a1 "Laura" (Mark J.)
 
According to Lacroix only 17 planes were ever produced (confirmed by Francillon) and these were carried by some 5,500-ton cruisers which acted as destroyer squadron flagships and for a short while by the cruisers Ashigara in 1941 and Agano in late 1942. The 5,500-ton cruisers included Naka (1939-40 stated but still or again on board in early 1943) and Isuzu (late 1942). Sendai, Jints and Abukuma may have carried one of them before the war but this is unclear.
 
Re: Aichi E11a1 "Laura"
 
Posted By: Mark J. <johnson53@llnl.gov>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Aichi E11a1 "Laura" (Frido Kip)
 
Is it your understanding that these planes were never used in combat? Also, were they only used on board cruisers and never battleships?
 
Re: Aichi E11a1 "Laura"
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 1 December 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Aichi E11a1 "Laura" (Mark J.)
 
I could not find any reference of these specialised night seaplanes used on battleships and I therefore assume that they were never carried by them.
The remark above of the Java Sea appears to be one of the few cases in which they were actually carried during a battle. Lacroix does not mention their use during battle.
 
Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 4:46 a.m.
 
I guess some Japanese people on this site know that there were many English words used in IJN until the day IJN was dissolved.
As most of you know, IJN was idealizing the Royal Navy until 1945!
During WWII, English was a forbidden language in Japan, but everybody was forced to use some English words in IJN. (Although most of the words were strange when compared to original words.)
Actually, many IJN officers liked to use the English word "NAVY"!
Adm.Shigeyoshi Inoue, who was the commander of the 4th Fleet (Truk 1941), the Principal of Naval Academy in Eta-jima, and became Vice Navy Minister later, liked children very much and taught them English and music in his house in Yokosuka City after WWII.
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com>
Date: Sunday, 3 December 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Kaigun and English (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
 
This is an additional information.
In 1945, Kogeki Dai-1 Hiko-tai of the 601th Koku-tai (D4Y3 and D4Y4) was called "K1" and was pronounced "Kay One" in English.
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Tony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
 
In Response To: Kaigun and English (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
 
Hi. This is true, and on a related note, I have discovered in translating war diaries that Combined Fleet also resorted to *replacing* some English words with old Chinese words, as sort of a a "patriotic" protest. Hence, you come across the old Chinese kanji for "steam-chest" to try to describe "boiler". Similar occurences for things like directors, etc. Very interesting. It makes the translations tricky---you are reading along, then come across an obsolete word. ;)
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 6:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kaigun and English (Tony Tully)
 
Thank you, Tony. I saw you cool site.
In fact, I was surprised to know that the crews of submarines were using the English words like "Main tank blow!", and so on. (I don't know how to say in English.) Maybe many Japanese were surprised to hear they say "team work" in English while the Army were using many "new and strange " Japanese words! (My uncle told me that the Army called truck "jido-kasha"(=automatic cargo). In fact, the word "jido-kasha" was NEW Japanese word.)
This is one the lyrics of an IJN song;
"Nikkori waratte DIVE ni hairu, tomo no kan-baku isamashiya...."
(I guess you understand that "DIVE ni hairu" means "start(ed) to dive (with his carrier bomber)")
And as you mentioned, old Japanese people knew how to use Chinese characters correctly. And English words were not used often in Official Documents (such as War Diaries="Senji Nisshi").
You can find many English words in the books, but most of them sound strange.
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 7:41 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kaigun and English (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
 
I have read "A Glorious Way to Die - The Yamato" this year and the author states that before the war and in the early months of the war, naval commands were frequently given in English. This was a carry over from the days of close contact with the Royal Navy and the Imperial Fleet was enamoured with the RN. I have no idea if this is true or not but I would imagine, given the nationalist sentiment in Japan at the time, this would end fairly soon into the war.
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 9:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kaigun and English (Grant Goodale)
 
Although I have not seen the official order given in English (all of them were written in classic Japanese). many English words were used until the END of IJN actually. For example, "NAVY", "OFFICER", "END", "STICK", "FLEXIBLE", "SMARTNESS", "GUN ROOM", "ACADEMIC", "PENNANT","HEART", "NICE", and many others. But IJN also imitated RN's bad habit (beating up the soldiers with a wooden bat).
The students at the Naval Academy also had to learn how to use knives and forks. Lt.Cdr.Ekusa who was a carrier bomber pilot and was killed in 1944 during Saipan Campaign, used English when he was studying math at Navel Academy. His notebook of math is written in English only. When a petty officer became an Warrant Officer, he had to learn English, and the world history such as "History of the Han Dynasty", "the History of the Byzantine Empire".
Of course, during WWII, some officers insisted that this kind of education systems should be abolished, but Adm.Inoue, the Principal of the Naval Academy, said "A Navy officer is also a diplomat. There are no Navy officers who can't speak English in the world."
In fact, IJN was one of the most STRANGE organizations in Japanese history.
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 7:55 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kaigun and English (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
 
The orders that I was referring to were the verbal orders given on board ship, not the written orders. I would highly suprised if the written orders were in in anything but Japanese.
Thank you for the additional historical information.
 
Re: Kaigun and English
 
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com>
Date: Thursday, 30 November 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kaigun and English (Grant Goodale)
 
You are right. I was also surprised when I found the verbal orders in English in the novels written about Navy.
To tell you the truth, I am always surprised to find this kind of episode about IJN. And I guess most of the Japanese don't know about IJN very well now. I also didn't know much about Navy until I read the novels written by Hiroyuki Agawa.
 
Pilot quality / duty assignments
 
Posted By: Daniel Nelson <dan48@earthlink.net>
Date: Thursday, 9 November 2000, at 8:37 p.m.
 
I'm wondering if a flight crew's skill and reputation impacted where they were assigned at the beginning of the war. Did the "best of the best" get the fleet carrier gigs, leaving "lesser pilots" to fill slots on the escort carriers and with land-based units? Were "politics" (who one knew - personal or family connections) a factor? Were some assignments considered more prestigious than others?
I realize Saburo Sakai was land-based so any guide couldn't have been absolute, but I wonder if there was any rule of thumb the Japanese went by before the heavy losses began.
 
Re: Pilot quality / duty assignments
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Saturday, 11 November 2000, at 7:35 a.m.
 
In Response To: Pilot quality / duty assignments (Daniel Nelson)
 
Interesting question. I remember that most carrier pilots were specially picked for Pearl Harbor so there must be some truth in this. They were the best of all JNAF pilots, which explains why their loss at Coral Sea and Midway was so devastating.
In fact Sakai was trained for carrier duty shortly before the war, but his unit was assigned to Formosa instead so he never operated from carriers.
 
Re: Pilot quality / duty assignments
 
Posted By: William Blado <wblad@msn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 29 November 2000, at 9:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Pilot quality / duty assignments (Frido Kip)
 
The elite of the fleet were indeed the carrier pilots, but they had a hierachy within this elite (if any enlisted men in the IJN can be considered elite.) The older, established air groups looked down upon the new, green kids. At the start of the war the best Japanese carriers, the Shokaku and Zuikaku, had the air groups with the lowest status.
Before the war, the IJN conducted annual competitions in bombing, gunnery, etc., just as the USN did. The highest scoring units enhanced their status. When transitioning into a new aircraft type, such as the D3A, scores would fall, sometimes by as much as half, even though the new aircraft was better than the old. When the pilots became accustomed to their new mounts the scores rose again.
 
IJN Tracers
 
Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 4:13 a.m.
 
Did IJN CV AA machine-guns(specifically triple 25mm guns) use tracers?
 
Re: IJN Tracers
 
Posted By: Tony Williams <autogun@globalnet.com>
Date: Tuesday, 7 November 2000, at 1:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: IJN Tracers (Allan Parry)
 
Yes, they did. Ken Elk's definitive work on Japanese ammunition lists a large number of different loadings, including HE, HE/T and AP/T.
Link: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~autogun/
 
GMM PE Cable Reels
 
Posted By: Kamarul Hairi <fidoaimspace@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 11 October 2000, at 8:20 p.m.
 
I'm in the process of building my 1/350 yamato and just startting to assemble the GMM cable reel. There are some question that I would need some help
1. What is the color for the cable reels and what you guys use to simulate the cables.
2. What type of cable reels does the yamato have because in the gmm pe there is about 7 type to choose from and I'm not sure which one to use.
 
Re: GMM PE Cable Reels
 
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Saturday, 14 October 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
 
In Response To: GMM PE Cable Reels (Kamarul Hairi)
 
Janusz Skulski's book The Battleship Yamato has deck plans which show the locations of various reels, and a size code for each. Drawing H19/1 shows for each code the size and structural details. Color is not indicated.
His book The Battleship Fuso says "White canvas was used for...reel covers... Light brown or grey canvas replaced the white in wartime." Yamato was probably the same.
 
Mechanism of Japanese Warships question..
 
Posted By: Dan salamone <heroncreek@uswest.net>
Date: Monday, 9 October 2000, at 12:39 a.m.
 
I recently received the above volume on IJN carriers and was quite pleased with it..... I was wondering if anybody with the Battleship and/or Cruiser volumes could tell me if there are good photos/drawings of the seaplane catapults.
 
Re: Mechanism of Japanese Warships question..
 
Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, 14 October 2000, at 4:04 a.m.
 
In Response To: Mechanism of Japanese Warships question.. (Dan salamone)
 
There is an illustrated section on Seaplane catapults in my Tamiya 'Random Japanese Warship Details' book, with drawings of the actual mechanism.
 
25mm type 96 AA guns again
 
Posted By: Karoly Kele <kele@okk.szamalk.hu>
Date: Friday, 6 October 2000, at 12:51 a.m.
 
Have you info about how many person operated the type 96 25mm AA guns?
I need input especially for the single mounted version but double and triple mounted guns are also welcomed.
 
Re: 25mm type 96 AA guns again
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 6 October 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
 
In Response To: 25mm type 96 AA guns again (Karoly Kele)
 
The twin and triple mounts had three persons for the mount, a pointer, a trainer and a sight setter, and two 
loaders per gun. Thus the twin was operate by a crew of seven and the triple by a crew of nine.
Logic would therefore conclude that the single mounts had a crew of three: one person to operate the gun and two loaders. However, the close-up photograph of Kitakami in 1945 shows only two persons per gun.
 
Linoleum Decks
 
Posted By: Bill Colby <wcolbyge@harding.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 September 2000, at 2:53 p.m.
 
A few questions on the use of this deck material:
1) What year was it introduced on IJN ships?
2) Were older ships retro-fitted with it?
2) When it was removed from ships during WWII, was anything applied in its place?
 
Re: Linoleum Decks
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Sunday, 1 October 2000, at 3:27 a.m.
 
In Response To: Linoleum Decks (Bill Colby)
 
These are tough questions!
I have no idea when linoleum was introduced in the IJN, but I first noticed it on the Minekaze and Momi class destroyers and the Tenry class cruisers - the previous Chikuma class cruisers had teak decks - so late 1910s is my best guess. There is also a theory that the first aircraft carrier Hsh had linoleum on its flight deck when completed, but I dont known if thats true.
AFAIK linoleum wasn't retrofitted to older ships, with the notable exception of the big battleships, who received linoleum on their seaplane handling areas when reconstructed or refitted in the 1930s.
When it was removed during the war, the decks were usually left bare metal, again AFAIK.
I recently obtained the paint chips from Snyder & Short and was quite surprised to find the linoleum colour to be much darker than I expected. Its much closer to Humbroll 177 dark brown than the much brighter reddish yellow brown paint I had been using up till now and which confirmed with most model magazines and books. Actually, only Tamiyas Waterline Series Guide Book seems to use a similar dark colour. Does anybody have any comments on this?
 
Re: Linoleum Decks
 
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Tuesday, 3 October 2000, at 9:51 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Linoleum Decks (Frido Kip)
 
Kulski's books Takao and Fuso include color renditions of the linoleum although not quite the same. In 1956 I obtained in Japan an IJN color chip card. The linoleum color is very close to Kulski's Fuso color. Given the apparent depth of S&S research however, they may well be correct.
Anyone know why the IJN shipyards produced 4 unique greys as shown by S&S?
 
Cool link for ship fans!
 
Posted By: Rob Graham <reishikisenguy@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 14 September 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
 
http://www.ntxbg.org/pgGedunk/pgGedunkStand.htm
 
Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>
Date: Tuesday, 12 September 2000, at 7:46 p.m.
 
I am presently reading the book "Fading Victory - The Diary of Admiral Matome Ugaki, 1941-1943". On page 115, he describes the IJN's suspicion of a Soviet ship which may have cooperated with Doolittle's attack on Japan. This ship apparently was boarded by Japanese sailors (one officer and ten petty officers) and was being escorted by a destroyer when she managed to loose the destroyer. Does anyone know more about this story and what eventually happen to these sailors ?
 
Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship
 
Posted By: Sander Kingsepp <sander.kingsepp@neti.ee>
Date: Sunday, 24 September 2000, at 7:02 a.m.
 
In Response To: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship (J. Ed Low)
 
There seem to be even two ships fitting Ugaki's description. The following account is based on heavily censored memoirs published in Soviet magazine Technica-Molodyozhi some 20 years ago.
On 19 April shortly after 1000, the cargo ship ANGARSTROI carrying 7,555 ts sugar from San Francisco to Vladivostok encountered a major Japanese task force including "4 BBs, 4 large DDs and 6 regular DDs". To save coal, the Russian skipper (author of the aforementioned memoirs) had decided to take a shortcut through the Japanese war zone; his position at that moment was recorded as 30-00'N, 135-20'E. A 100-meter long DD armed with 4 guns, torpedo tubes and "plenty of machine guns" came alongside and sent a party of 13 sailors to Angarstroi. Their CO named Yato inquired about her cargo and destination. Upon hearing that she was returning from the States, the Japanese started a thorough search including all holds and coal bunkers. Before leaving they instructed the Russian skipper to proceed further via Osumi and Tsushima straits. Meanwhile the TF that had been heading NEE turned SE.
All of a sudden the DD got a blinker message and sent aboard a new boarding party of 11 seamen led by a Lt. Kato who brought along a written order to proceed to Kushimoto for further search. The DD escorted her quarry until morning of the 20th, when weather went rough and the ships lost each other.
The Russians were indeed giving a good thought to the idea of recapturing their ship or at last the radio shack as they outnumbered the Japanese party 6 to 1. Anyway, there were passengers aboard and all their weapons had been already confiscated.
On 22 April Angarstroi was near her new destination but the Russians refused to enter the 12-mile zone until they were escorted by the armed merchant cruiser BANKOKU (Bangkok?) MARU ("a 1,000 ts tub with two 3-in guns and 4 machine guns"). In Kushimoto the other Soviet merchant VANZETTI (the second candidate) was already waiting.
Officially both ships were charged with reporting Japanese fleet movements to Vladivostok and no word was said about American fliers. On 24 April Angarstroi was searched once again by 70 policemen armed with a variety of special tools, such as grappling hooks. The CO of the local naval district Masafumi Zushi then provided the ships with food, coal and new charts.
After an 8-day stay the Angarstroi departed Kushimoto. On 1 May at 2225 she was torpedoed by an "unidentified submarine" in position 31-55'N, 127-42'E. After 2 hits to port side she went down without sending a distress signal. None of her crew or passengers was killed, although the third torpedo passed right between one of the lowered lifeboats and the ship hull. 4.5 hrs later they were picked up by Japanese merchant KOYA MARU bound for Shanghai where the Russians were released. Vanzetti made it home without any troubles.
The issue of sinking the Angarstroi was brought up again during the Tokyo trial in 1946 where the Soviets presented it together with 2 other vessels sunk under similar circumstances.
 
Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>
Date: Sunday, 24 September 2000, at 9:44 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship (Sander Kingsepp)
 
A big thank you for the very detailed and interesting follow up to my question.
 
Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship
 
Posted By: Bob <Bob5@home.com>
Date: Sunday, 24 September 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship (J. Ed Low)
 
Great Article! The BB group had to be BatDiv 2: ISE, HYUGA, FUSO and YAMASHIRO. The article notes that the Angarstroi was torpedoed on 1 May at 2225 by an "unidentified submarine" in position 31-55'N, 127-42'E. That corrsponds with a sinking report of a 9,500-ton AK by USS GRENADIER (SS-210) at 32-00'N, 128-25'E. Another unavoidable wartime "whoops"!
 
Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship
 
Posted By: Sander Kingsepp <sander.kingsepp@neti.ee>
Date: Monday, 25 September 2000, at 6:43 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Missing Japanese Sailors on Soviet ship (Bob)
 
Gee, you ARE working fast!
Those two other ships (ILMEN and KOLA)were apparently sunk by USS SAWFISH in February '43.
 
IJN Signal Flags
 
Posted By: Bob Reddy <bobkatr@msn.com>
Date: Saturday, 9 September 2000, at 10:36 a.m.
 
I need to verify if the IJN used the International Signal flags or did they use flags unique to the IJN. I am 
especially interested in the various ship id flags.
 
Re: IJN Signal Flags
 
Posted By: C.C. Cheng <cheng.150@osu.edu>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at 9:19 a.m.
 
In Response To: IJN Signal Flags (Bob Reddy)
 
Yes, IJN did use the internaional Signal flags so they could communicate with ships from other country. But they also had their own classified tactic message.
There are some ship IDs I can find from the book "Random Japanese Warship Details", hope this can help.
Yamato JGAA Nagato JGIA Ise JGGA
Mutsu JGJA Musashi JGBA Hyuga JGHA
Akagi JQSA Soryu JQVA Shokaku JLTA
Junyo JLZA Kaga JQTA Hiryu JQXA
Zuikaku JLUA Shinano JQIA
Ashigara JGTA Nachi JGSA Haguro JGUA
Chokai JGXA Maya JGYA Takao JGVA
Suzuya JLAA Mogami JJZA Tone JLCA
Tama JJMA Kiso JJPA Noshiro JLFA
Yubari JJYA Kitakami JJNA Tenyu JLQA
Yahagi JLGA Agano JLEA Oyoda JLHA
 
Re: IJN Signal Flags
 
Posted By: Bob Reddy <bobkatr@msn.com>
Date: Sunday, 10 September 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Signal Flags (C.C. Cheng)
 
I figured that they used the international flags - but I have made a few assumptions about the IJN that have caused many of my models to be sent back for major overhauls.
 
Surviving 46cm guns?
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, not James K. Polk <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 4:38 a.m.
 
I recently read on the www.warships1.com site that following WW2, two type 94 46cm 45 calibre guns were taken to the Dahlgren Proving Grounds for evaluation. Does anyone know the fate of these guns? Do the guns, or the files regarding their evaluation, still exist?
 
Re: Surviving 46cm guns?
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Surviving 46cm guns? (Mike Connelley, not James K. Polk)
 
I'm quite certain that at least one of these guns has survived as I have seen a picture of it on permanent 
display at a U.S. naval base. Will have to look it up and come back to you.
 
Re: Surviving 46cm guns?
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 1:47 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Surviving 46cm guns? (Frido Kip)
 
Found it. The gun is displayed at the Washington naval yard. I don't know if it's still there... but I assume it is.
There's also a Kaiten and who knows what else. There also still exists a complete 16.1in/45 turret (with both guns) of the battleship Mutsu somewhere in Japan.
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Yutaka Iwasaki <navy_yard-iwa@mbj.sphere.ne.jp>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 5:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Surviving 46cm guns? (Frido Kip)
 
JMSDF still keep some memorial equipments
including Mutsu turret (with both guns)
in Etajima Naval Academy (Hiroshima prefecture).
see following images in Japanese page
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ku3n-kym/heiki/edajim/edajim.html
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, lost again <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 4:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Yutaka Iwasaki)
 
Thanks for the link. I went back a page to the big list of museums in Japan. It's a shame I can't get my Netscape to display things in Japanese or else I could ask my mom to translate some things. I noticed that at about 7 sites they had what looked like Yamato shells, but I was under the impression there were very few left. One location, Hiziri (?) had what also looked like a Yamato class gun. Can anyone read Japanese and shed some light onto this??? There were also a bunch of smashing photos of a restored Zero under the Mistubishi link.
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <Lowj@tir.com>
Date: Sunday, 3 September 2000, at 7:06 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Mike Connelley, lost again)
 
According to the caption on that page, the gun with the picture title "hiziri" and "hiziri2" belong to the Mutsu. Don't get too excited but my reading skills of Japanese is very limited.
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Yutaka Iwasaki)
 
I was actually looking for that small but important piece of information. Just added Etajima to my next visit to Japan (if it's open to the public). The pictures on the site you mentioned are very nice!
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>
Date: Tuesday, 5 September 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Frido Kip)
 
My understanding is that there are no surviving 46cm (18.1") gun barrels left. There was indeed one taken to Dahlgren for tests, but according to Nathan Okun (who is The Expert on this kinda stuff) it is no longer there and he doesn't know what happened to it. Ed Miller (author of "War Plan Orange") also told me several years ago that the Japanese came looking for it when they were getting ready to open their new naval museum in Kure (which Ed helped out with), and that the 18.1" weapon was long gone. So it's a minor mystery as to what happened to it. The large naval gun on display at the Washington Navy Yard is a U.S. 16"/45 weapon, not an 18"/45. The 18" would be significantly bigger.
There *is* a section of a Yamato-class turret faceplate intended for Shinano also on display at the Navy Yard. It would have been mounted on the upper starboard side of one of the turret faces, over the starboard gun barrel. It has a hole in it from a test firing of a U.S. 16"/50 weapon. Nathan has all the stats on those tests. Suffice to say that under normal combat conditions, a 16"/50 wouldn't have been able to penetrate the plate, but at point-blank range, and zero-obliquity, they were able to power a shell through it. Very impressive!
Etajima has the #4 turret of battleship Mutsu on display. I know, because I got pigeon crap on my jeans from trespassing and crawling up into it from the little access door on the bottom of the turret rear overhang. My Japanese hosts were a little horrified at my breaking the rules and climbing up there, but what the hell? She's my fav Japanese BB, so I wanted to get into the Zen of her turret, ya know? Mutsu's are, obviously, 16" weapons (41cm), not 46cm, and there is a 41cm shell on display at the base of Mutsu's turret (see http://www.combinedfleet.com/b_keep.htm for a picture of me standing next to it, with Mutsu's barrels in the background). Etajima does, though, have a 46cm shell on display at another building (the entarnce to the main museum, IIRC).
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 10:37 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Jon Parshall)
 
What a disappointment! I got my information from a photograph in one of Hans Lengerers articles and therefore assumed it to be true. Strange that nobody seems to know where they put this gun, how do you lose something this big?
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 1:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Frido Kip)
 
I remember to have read once the New Jersey was re-mothballed after her bombardment tour off Vietnam because nobody knew or remembered that a whole storage of dozens of reserve 16in guns was still around. Just like I now fail to remember where I've read it... people forget.
If this is true (I also read she was withdrawn because of economical or political reasons), then the US territory somehow is a big guns' Bermuda Triangle. They just get lost there. Perhaps some eccentric Texan (or Japanese!)millionaire... or Saddam Hussein...
An intriguing question it is: Where's that 18.1 incher? Perhaps "Nihon Kaigun" could post an ad, something like:
Lost: Japanese 18.1in naval gun. Name: Boomer. Color: Kure (?) Naval Yard grey (unless the Americans repainted it). Last seen at the Dahlgren Test Range. Reward: (Anybody got a suggestion?)
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret addition!
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Adm. Gurita)
 
Well did I remember! Well... the forgotten items were not the reserve 16in guns themselves, but the barrel-liners! My source, which I remembered so incorrectly, is "Sea Power" by Antony Preston and Louis S. Casey (Phoebus, 1979), p. 133/134. The story describes how USS New Jersey was recommissioned at the cost of 21 million dollars (the equivalent of 6 lost F-4 Phantoms, another of my sources said) and fired 5688 16in and about 15000 5in shells at targets in Vietnam. I quote: "The New Jersey's comeback did not last long, for she was decommissioned once more on 17 December, 1969. The reason was an apparent shortage of 16-in barrel-liners, without which her guns would soon become worn and inaccurate. Ironically, as she was on her way home to decommission a whole field full of gun-liners was discovered in Washington, apparently missed from the inventory some time since 1945. but in a large bureaucracy decisions cannot be reversed easily; the 70 officers and 1556 enlisted men had already been allocated to toher ships, and it was not possible to rescind the decision."
By the way, what are barrel-liners? I know a gun has grooves, that give the shell its staqbilizing spin. Do barrel-liners improve those grooves or do they realign the gun itself?
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret addition!
 
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, 7 September 2000, at 3:39 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret addition! (Adm. Gurita)
 
Admiral, barrel liners are the inner sleeves of the gun barrels which provide the machined grooves you speak of. As the gun is fired and the 'rifling' is worn, the entire sleeve (barrel liners) are replaced, not the entire cast gun barrel.
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 10:41 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Frido Kip)
 
I've wondered the same thing myself. I mean, this thing weighs, what, a hundred tons and is about 70 feet long? Pretty tough to misplace...
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: Grant Goodale <grant.goodale@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 6 September 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Jon Parshall)
 
It is not so strange to loose something like this. Just remember, this gun was handled by a part of a government. Any government anywhere in the world can always manage to loose anything. Are all of the nuclear warheads and tactical nukes fully accounted for in the former Soviet Union ? If you believe that, can I interest you in a nice used car ?
 
Re: 16.1in/45 turret
 
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Friday, 8 September 2000, at 12:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 16.1in/45 turret (Grant Goodale)
 
I would take minor exception to the charge of lost gun barrels. In the 60's there was a stock of 16 inch barrels at the Naval Weapons Laboratory Dahlgren. We took some of these, four or five, memory is imperfect, and secured them ene to end making a long tube. At the muzzle a long cone was fitted, like a narrow funnel, about a 15 degree or so taper. The barrels were loaded and fired with no projectile. The shock wave, confined to the cone, was a simulation of a nuclear blast, used to examine the resistance of structures and ships.
Also a large stock of barrels was not necessary.They were relined and recycled to the fleet.
I suspect if there is a remaining stock of such barrels, and the missing "Yamato" barrel, they will be at Dahlgren.
 
DECALS
 
Posted By: Jon Ryckert <corsair@grapevine.net>
Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:33 p.m.
 
Has anyone out there ever made their own decals on a Inkjet printer? I have a HP PSC500(printer,scanner and copier)and I really dont want to take a chance with screwing it up. A question for all of those scratchbuilders out there, What is the best way to build the hull (1/96 Yamato and it's waterline) without draining my finances. I've thought about making it using plastic from Plastruct, but that could get really expensive.Does anyone have any ideas or tips? Has anyone ever used a pounce wheel to make rivet heads and does it work well? I've seen this thing in The Floating Drydock catalog. I'm still in the planning stage and like they say prior planning prevents p@#$ poor performance, so there will be more questions as go along, so please bear with me.
 
Re: DECALS
 
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Saturday, 2 September 2000, at 9:12 a.m.
 
In Response To: DECALS (Jon Ryckert)
 
Decal paper is glossy. The ink jets will produce a line of dots. A laser printer will work well. Someone like Kinkos can do the job for you.
A pounce wheel will make rivets but not well, the spacing cannot be adjusted, a straight line is hard to maintain, the material has to be just right. The wheels are cheap so experiment. Northwest Shortline makes a riveter which does work well. Most hobby shops or Micro-Mark can find one for you.
 
Re: DECALS
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley, Lost Again <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:22 p.m.
 
In Response To: DECALS (Jon Ryckert)
 
For a 1/96 Yamato, first I recommend putting an extension onto your house, getting a second mortgage and hiring a small army of modelers. Having done that, in the Ship Modeler Journal (new quarterly magazine by Victor Baca) he is scratchbuilding a full hull 1/200 scale Flower class corvette and I think his method may apply to your situation. First he gets a bunch of bass wood sheet and balsa blocks. He cuts a "keel" piece that runs down the length of the ship, plus frames that fit the cross section every inch or so. He cuts slots into these parts so they lock together and glues it all together. Then he cuts the balsa to fit in the spaces between the frames and glues them all into place. Once everything is dry, you sand and file like hell until you have your hull shape. Simple as that. In the next issue, he'll cover fiberglassing the hull and making a mold. But in your case, you could probably just cover the balsa with sheet styrene and go from there.
Is this a museum job, or something fun for yourself? I've seen the 1/96 Akagi in the USS Arizona Memorial museum. It's very big, very detailed, and built by three guys (in all fairness, I think one guy just did all the planes since each plane is different). The models in the Gakken books are absolutely stunning, so if you can pull off something like that, then hats off to you! And here I was, thinking my 1/350 Yamato was getting to be a big project.
 
Re: DECALS
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: DECALS (Jon Ryckert)
 
I read somewhere about somebody building 1/100 scale ships using relative cheap regular sheet styrene for the hull and superstructure. I will look it up and come back to you as soon as I find it.
 
Re: DECALS
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 1 September 2000, at 1:03 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: DECALS (Frido Kip)
 
In an article in the Dutch IPMS magazine the work of Jac Koopman is shown. He builds 1/100 scale warships using only normal plastic sheets. He claims that its much easier to work with than wood, which he abandoned after his first ship. He apparently builds the hull as follows using very thick plastic sheets of approximately 5mm / 0.20inch thickness (to my eye at least). This thickness is necessary to provide the necessary rigidy and strength according to Jac. As far as I can tell from his photographs he starts with a base plate (bottom) and puts solid transverse bulkheads on them according to the ship hull lines at regular intervals. He also includes one or more solid longitudinal bulkheads. He uses the same thick plastic sheets to plate the hull (I have no idea how, heat?). He fills seems with putty (or something similar) and sands the hull into a smooth surface. Only then he adds the deck(s). This structure is apparently so strong that he can build models of more than 2 meters in length which weight relatively little. I actually remember seeing his cruiser De Ruyter at one of our IPMS nationals and it looked great, I was quite impressed by its immense size and good workmanship.
I hope that this helps you a little bid, I would love to see such a large Yamato model one day.
 
Graphical IJN Warship Reference Database
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 1:17 p.m.
 
Made a major update in the Reference pages of my web page "Mechanisms of Imperial Japanese Navy Warships in 3-D". My two loves with the Imperial Japanese Navy are building ship models and collecting books on the IJN. To help in the latter, I have started scanning in the covers of all the books in my library. This is a major effort and I have already placed over 300 reference-related images on my web pages. A graphical reference list is both more pleasing to visit and helpful in book identification - especially those books published in a foreign language. I am hoping that my visitors (especially those from Japan - where books are hard to obtain) can also contribute. If you are interesting in helping. My only request is to sent me the images in JPG format with a top dimensions of 140 pixel (i.e. 140x90, 140x88. The second dimension being determined by the shape of the book). A short description of the book (author, title, publisher, date of publication, ISBN#, etc.) would also be appreciated. You will also be given credit for the reference whenever possible. Please only sent information on books which relates to the IJN in W.W.II. Thanks !!
Link: http://www.ijn.dreamhost.com/index.html
 
Shipboard Aircraft Catapults
 
Posted By: Kevin A. Lawton <kal5@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 2:20 p.m.
 
I build 1/48 Japanese aircraft. Right now I am concentrating on building a collection of scouting floatplanes used on IJN battleships and cruisers. The models do not look right simply sitting on their floats. I'm looking for any plans, photographs, etc. of the catapults used to launch both single and double float aircraft. Plans or line drawings in any scale would be much appreiciated as would the title and author of any books covering this subject. I have a 1/72 Hasagawa model of the Aichi E13A w/ catapult but most of my collection is 1/48 or larger. Thanks in advance for any help you may be able to provide.
 
Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
 
In Response To: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults (Kevin A. Lawton)
 
The Japanese developed several catapults from the mid 20s till 1945. Each one was more powerful than the previous one, launching heavier weights. Therefore, the E13A was usually launched by a heavier catapult than the E7K, which makes it necessary to determine what aircraft and what time period you want to use. Although catapults did differ from ship to ship, it's the time period and the actual seaplane which determines which catapult should fit the model.
For instance, the powerful Type 1 No. 2 Model 11 catapult was only used on some Agano class cruisers, the Ise class battleship-carriers and cruiser Oyodo after her conversion, severely limiting the seaplanes you can put on these. Your best option therefore is the Kure Type No. 2 Model 5 catapult that was used on a wide range of ships (Yamato, Tone, Chitose, etc) and which could launch E7K, E8N, E11A, E13A and F1M seaplanes (but not older ones as these were no longer used).
I agree that the Skulski books probably have the best drawings for your purpose. They also show the two kinds of cradles used for twin and single float seaplanes. The Tamiya Random Japanese Warship Details No. 1 also has some interesting drawings. The Japanese Famous Airplanes of the World No. 47: IJN Reconnaissance Seaplanes (published by Bunrindo) has several photographs of seaplanes on catapults.
 
Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
 
In Response To: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults (Kevin A. Lawton)
 
Of course there are the books on BB Yamato, CA Takao and BB Fuso by Janusz Skulski, having 1/100th scale drawings of the catapults (a quick glance seems to show all three even had different models). Lacroix & Wells's cruiser bible doesn't have such large drawings, but mentions all catapults installed on IJN cruisers by official designation in its index and gives the reasons for installing or replacing various types.
 
Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults
 
Posted By: Kevin A. Lawton <kal5@dana.ucc.nau.edu>
Date: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults (Adm. Gurita)
 
To all those who responded to my inquiry THANKS. I'm beginning a book search now for all the references people mentioned. If I get this little project done I'll post a photo to the photo gallery. Now can anyone help me with the same information concerning the Submarine that was to launch the Seiran against the Panama Canal. I have the Tamiya Kit of the Seiran, but I'm looking for any documentation concerning the hanger space under the sail. Once again thanks for the quick response.
 
Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 4:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults (Kevin A. Lawton)
 
I can't remember ever seeing a drawing of the inside of the I 400's hangar, but there are several pictures that are more than helpfull. The best one is shown on page 177 of Boyd and Yoshida's The Japanese Submarine Force and World war II. This shows the inside of the hangar with its rails, powerlines and the internal framing. The book also has a photo of the catapult of I 14. Another book with excellent detail photographs of the I 400 class is Polmar and Carpenter's Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy.
 
Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Shipboard Aircraft Catapults (Kevin A. Lawton)
 
My pleasure - thank you too. The subs you're referring to are those of the I-400 class (I-13 and I-14 were to sail along on the Panama Canal operation too, but the I-400s were just that bit bigger). Orita Zenji states they could circumnavigate the globe without refuelling. If I remember correctly now the I-13s were to refuel from the I-400s during the PC operation. There is a wonderful site about them based on text by Tom Paine, an American who commanded the I-400 herself during her post-surrender transpacific sailing. The place is:
http://www.pacerfarm.org/i-400/i-400.htm
It contains several pictures too. HTH
 
Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
 
I was under the misconception that the red waterline of IJN warship (for that matter all large ships) are straight. My friend, Mr. Hiroyuki Yamanouchi tells me that this is not the case. The line which forms the top part of the red hull bottom apparently slants up towards both the bow and stern starting from the center of the ship. At the bow and stern the line is elevated 1/300 and 1/600 of the length of the ship, respectively. This is confirmed by a drawing in the Grand Prix book "Anatomy of Japanese Carriers" - Page 111. I was always under the impression that the line must be straight because my thought was that it was used to determine if the ship is bow or stern heavy. We would be grateful if someone can tell us the rationale for this configuration ?
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 5:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Waterline for IJN warships (J. Ed Low)
 
I'll go out on a limb here and toss out a few theories for y'all to consider. To see if the bow or stern is heavy, a nice straight demarcation line is nice but checking out the draft markers will also do the trick. Plus, you can sort of tell at a glance if a ship doesn't look like it's quite properly trimmed...there's a picture of the Missouri being fitted out where her bow is quite a bit higher than her stern.
I think the idea of having the red go up at the bow and stern followed the rational of having the deck at the bow and stern higher above the waterline. As the ship pitches, those areas are going to be wetter, longer. Since they'll get wet a lot, the Japanese probably figured they'd extend the protective paint over those areas too. That's my $.02.
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 4:26 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (Mike Connelley)
 
Interesting point ! So actually my first question should be - why are ship bottoms painted red ? Is it only for anti-foul purpose (probably main reason) but are there other reaons ?
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: Ed Roth <ejroth@incom.net>
Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (J. Ed Low)
 
A good summary of IJN painting systems is covered in the magazine Warship International, No. 1 1982, by Linton Wells.
The article states that the waterlines were arcs of curves passed through three points on the hull, NOT horizontal lines. The formula in effect for the 1930's was:
1. Midships point: (a) 1/100 of the ship's beam above the trials waterline for warships.
(b) 1/50 of the ship's beam above the trails waterline for DD's, MTB's and MS's.
(c) 1/25 of the ship's beam above the trials waterline for SS's.
2. Bow point: 1/300 of the length of the ship above the midship point.
3. Stern Point: The average of the bow and midships heights.
For small scale ship models, a straight line is close enough!
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 4:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (Ed Roth)
 
Thanks for the clarification and specific details. Unfortunately, I do not have that copy of WI. Can you tell us if they discuss the rationale for this particular configuration ? Does it also say if this is a configuration unique to the IJN ?
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: William Burdick <Maraposa@erols.com>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 9:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (J. Ed Low)
 
Having the underwater paint higher at bow and stern is probably due to the hydraulics affecting a ship in motion.The wetted surface at the bow will be higher than at rest due to resistence, pushing the water aside requires a gradient away from the ship. The stern will sag a little because the propellers are sucking water from under it. Think of a ship moored in a flooded drydock. If the shafts are put in forward rotation, the water level and the ship will drop, perhaps to the bottom of the dock.
And it may be that underwater hullcolor is often red or red oxide is because that is the cheapest color paint, significant because a large ship might have an acre of underwater surface. That is the reason that historically almost all railroad freight cars were red/brown oxide color.
I also have a recollection of a once popular use of high copper bearing underwater paint because of a belief that copper oxides were poisonous to fouling flora and fauna.
Unfortunately copper oxide green is not a very attractive color.
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: Ed Roth <ejroth@incom.net>
Date: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 8:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (J. Ed Low)
 
Unfortunately no explanation is provided for this method of marking the waterline. However, in Camouflage I by the Floating Drydock (Ch 6) the U.S. method for marking the waterline is described:
Boot topping on oilers, cargo vessels, and similar craft with a wide variation in service drafts, shall extend from the light-load waterline to 6" above the full load waterline.
on other surface vessels, the boot topping shall extend from the designers to 6" above the full load waterline.
Essentially a straight line.
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (Ed Roth)
 
A small addition to the waterline/hull paint discussion: Mr. Bill Lise, whose site is temporarily out of order (it is mentioned in the links section of the Nihon Kaigun site, www.combinedfleet.com), stated there that later in the war the IJN started (or seems to have started) to use GREEN underwater hull paint, which reportedly was quite poisonous. BTW, I hope his site will revive; it was very interesting, because Mr. Lise lives in Japan and is a translator, having that direct access to Japanese sources which invariably makes me jealous...
 
Re: Waterline for IJN warships
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 3:42 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Waterline for IJN warships (Ed Roth)
 
Wow! So this configuration for the IJN ships perhaps is unique to their ships. How interesting! We need the IJN experts to comment on this, or are we all stumped ?
 
25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Karoly Kele <kele@okk.szamalk.hu>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 12:29 a.m.
 
I ask the experts to help. There were single mounted 25mm AA guns (type 96?) on the four Japanese carriers that participated in the Midway campaign or they have only doubles and triples?
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: C.C. Cheng <cheng.150@osu.edu>
Date: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 3:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: 25mm AA guns (Karoly Kele)
 
What I heard is those single mounted 25mm AA were equipped on deck of carriers during the late war. I don't find any photo shows the single mount AA in the early stage of war. I tend to assume they were not there in the battle of Midway. The single mount AA on the deck apparantly would interfer the take off of airplanes, so those guns stood there only when the time the IJN aviation unit had almost been demolished.
Well, just my opinion. We are still waiting for the true historian to answer it.
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 1:19 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (C.C. Cheng)
 
Correction: Of course the "Akagi" had only 14 twin 25mm mounts (= 28).
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (Lars Ahlberg)
 
I agree with Lars that the single 25mm was only produced from 1943 and therefore did not appear on the four aircraft carriers. The mentioned machinegun batteries are correct, except for Kaga, which had four twins added before the war for a total of 15 twins. However, it should be noted that several carriers shipped a few Type 11 7.7mm machineguns, although these appear to have been usually dismounted.
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (C.C. Cheng)
 
A quick glance in the reports of the "U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan" reveals that twin 25mm mounts were introduced in 1936 (of both French and Japanese manufacture). The design for triple mounts were completed in 1941 and for single mounts in 1943.
So, consequently, no Japanese carrier was fitted with single 25mm mounts at Midway. According to the quite recently published book "Japanese Naval Vessels 1869-1945" by Fukui, the carriers at Midway probably had the following light AA armament: "Akagi" 28 - 25mm (15 2), "Kaga" 22 - 25mm (11 2), "Sory" 28 - 25mm (14 2), "Hiry" 31 - 25mm (7 3 + 5 2).
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 9:27 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (Lars Ahlberg)
 
I believe that Lars is correct in his tally. BTW, Lars, what were those two single mounts on the small deck just forward of the front of Kaga's lower hangar deck? I can't figure them out. Lousy sky arcs, as they are underneath the flight deck. Weird...
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (Jon Parshall)
 
Yes! Lousy sky arcs for AA guns indeed! However, I'm quite sure that these objects that resembles guns are actually 12.7cm exercise machines. To be more specific what the Japanese called 12cm HA gun crew loading exercise machines. Japanese ships usually carried one of these and, for example, the "Shkaku" class had one mounted aft. Good pictures can be found in Skulski's books and also in Okamoto Kji's picture book "The Heavy Cruiser 'Takao' 1927-1937" (Model Art).
As for the AA armament of the "Kaga", several sources do say that she received a further 4 twin 25mm mounts prior to Midway, and many drawings depicts her with 30 25mm guns (or even 28 guns). Have anyone found a Japanese source that gives the time and place for this AA increase?
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>
Date: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (Lars Ahlberg)
 
An exercise loader; duh. Why didn't I think of that?
The additional 25mm mounts would have been individually sponsoned twins on either side, up front. I think you can make one of them out of the port side in that April '41 overhead shot of Kaga, although it's kinda indistinct. What's Showa Zosenshi got to say on all this?
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (Jon Parshall)
 
Several of my sources state the increase by four twin mounts for a total of 30 machineguns to have taken place in 1941 before the Pearl Harbor attack. None mention 28, although this is the number of mounts on the Hasegawa model. Jentschura has the only drawing which actually shows 30 machineguns, placing an additional twin mount abreast the bridge on the starboard side when compared to the model. Ive discovered that several other sources show 24 guns, but this is definitely a mistake. The extra guns were probably installed in one of her refits at Sasebo just before the outbreak of war. Unfortunately, I could not find a Japanese source to confirm all this.
By the way, the six Type 11 7.7mm machineguns I mentioned earlier appear to have been 6.5mm weapons.
 
Re: 25mm AA guns
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@combinedfleet.com>
Date: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 25mm AA guns (Frido Kip)
 
That Hasegawa model has a number of flaws, too, that can be detected when compared to the photographic record: platforms that are missing, that sort of thing. Kaga has a lousy photgraphic record, though, so you can hardly blame them, I suppose
 
Whatever became of BatDiv-3?
 
Posted By: David Outten <DMOutten@cs.com>
Date: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
 
On Nov 15, 1944, BatDiv-1 was disbanded even though it still possesed two units (Yamato/Nagato). Does anyone know whatever became of BatDiv-3 (Kongo/Haruna)? Were they disbanded on this date as well? What administrative unit were they assigned to? Anyone's help is much appreciated.
 
Re: Whatever became of BatDiv-3?
 
Posted By: Allan Alsleben <Wildcat42@AOL.com>
Date: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:31 a.m.
 
In Response To: Whatever became of BatDiv-3? (David Outten)
 
This is complex, so please bear with me. This order started on April 10th 1941:
1st Fleet
BatDiv 1 - Nagato, Mutsu, Yamato
BatDiv 2 - Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro
BatDiv 3 - Kongo Haruna, Kirishima, Hiei
On July 14th 1942 it was thus:
BatDiv 1 - Yamato, Musashi - 1st Fleet
BatDiv 2 - BatDiv 2 above plus Mutsu, Nagato - Combined Flt
BatDiv 3 - Kongo, Haruna - 2nd Fleet, then 3rd Fleet. On March 1st, 1944, back to 2nd Fleet
BatDiv 11 - Hiei, Kirishima - 3rd Fleet. Deactivated 12/20/'42
BatDiv 1 remained intact until 2/25/'44 - To 2nd Fleet
BatDiv 2 was Deactivated on 2/25/'44, then ReAcivated on as BatDiv 2, Combined Fleet until November 15th, 1944, then Deactivated.
BatDiv 3 - Kongo, Haruna, Nagato - Was DeActivated 1/1/'45
BatDiv 1 - Yamato, Musashi, Nagato - Was Deactivated 11/15/'44
Nagato was with BatDiv 3 11/15/'44 to 1/1/'45
This is the best I can do.......
 
Re: Whatever became of BatDiv-3?
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:30 a.m.
 
In Response To: Whatever became of BatDiv-3? (David Outten)
 
The NAGATO was added to BatDiv 3 (KONGO/HARUNA) on 11/15/44. After the sinking of the the KONGO (11/21/44), BatDiv 3 was deactivated 1 January 1945. HARUNA and NAGATO were reassigned to the reactivated BatDiv 1 (1/1/45 - 2/10/45), Second Fleet.
When BatDIV 1 was deactivated for the second and final time, NAGATO was reassigned to Yokosuka Naval District (2/10/45) and surrendered there at EOW. HARUNA was also transferred 2/10/45 to the Kure Naval District and was lost 28 July 1945. YAMATO was reassigned to CarDiv 1 on 10 February 1945 as well.
 
diagrams or photos showing details
 
Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@uswest.net>
Date: Friday, 21 July 2000, at 9:24 p.m.
 
I am wondering if any one has an accurate source that shows details of IJN warships such as the place ment of the railings. I just purchased my first set of Photeched rails for my 1/700 scale fleet and I would like to see some photos or diagrams of where they were on the ships.
 
Re: diagrams or photos showing details
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 1:22 a.m.
 
In Response To: diagrams or photos showing details (Matthew Greer)
 
It depends on which ship you're doing, as there's a lot of good info available on various classes of IJN ships. For railing, a general rule is to put railing around the perimeter of the main deck, and all the decks. The exception is to leave a gap in the railing where a ladder comes up to the deck. If you let us in j-aircraft land which ship you're working on, we can help you find the best reference for your ship.
 
Re: diagrams or photos showing details
 
Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@uswest.net>
Date: Saturday, 22 July 2000, at 8:22 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: diagrams or photos showing details (Mike Connelley)
 
Thanks for the general info mike. Specifically the ships I am at the present planning to work on the the following ships The CV's Soryu, Hiryu, Akagi, Kaga, Zuiho, the BB's of the Fuso, Mutsu, Kongo, Yamato classes, CA's of the Tone, Mogami circa 1942, Chokai classes, the CL's of the Nagara, Yubari classes, The seaplane carriers Chotise,Chiyoda. Basicly I am modeling the Premidway fleet of Japan, Specifically the fleet between Coral sea battle and the Battle of midway.
 
Re: diagrams or photos showing details
 
Posted By: Mike Connelley <mikeconnelley@yahoo.com>
Date: Sunday, 23 July 2000, at 12:02 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: diagrams or photos showing details (Matthew Greer)
 
Well, it looks like you have a lot of spare time on your hands and/or you're preparing for a long haul. I'm sort of thinking of doing the main combatants of the Pearl Harbor Task force, but that's still quite a few ships.
I don't have much info on the carriers, but I know there's a Gakken book on the Shokaku and there's probably others on the other carriers. You may also want to check at Pacific Front Hobbies (www.pacificfront.com) which carries plans in 1/200 scale of many IJN ships for about $40 a pop.
For the Kongo, there's also a Gakken book on them, and I'm pretty certain there's a Warships Pictorial on these ships. Both books should be available through HLJ. On the Mutsu, I have the Monograph Morskie volume (in Polish!) on the Nagato class, which has nice photos plus two huge poster-size sets of drawings (mostly in 1/400 scale) on both the Nagato and Mutsu throughout their careers. That's worth checking out...enough info to scratch build a good sized model and it's pretty cheap too. For the Tone class, the best reference I know of is the Monograph Morskie volume, which also has great drawings (not as great at the Nagato volume, but still great). For the Fuso, Takao, and Yamato classes, the Anatomy series books are the way to go. The Fuso book should be easy to find, and the Takao shouldn't be too hard either, but the Yamato volume is nearly impossible to find for sale, and if you find one for sale you'll have to get a second mortgage on your house to finance it. It's suppose to be reprinted so they say, so patience pay pay off. There are also three Gakken volumes on the Yamato which are wonderful, and a Monograph Morskie volume on the Takao and Fuso. That's what I know of an have on hand (for the most part). For a good idea of what's out there, check out the HLJ web site (www.hlj.com) and do a search on each of the ships you want to find info on. I assume that you're doing all this in 1/700 scale. If so, then the Anatomy books are probably in the overkill category...they're so incredibly detailed and you pay for that. There's no large scale Fuso with which to bring the Fuso volume to bear, and with the ICM Takao due for release, that volume is finally getting something upon which to use it. The Yamato volume is the real gem, since asside from the new tool Tamiya 1/700 Yamato, all the other Yamato kits have numerous inaccuracies. If you have the afore mentioned Tamiya Yamato, you can skip the reference books and build it OOB...it's that good. I hope this helps.
 
Do IJN warship motor boats have a red bottom
 
Posted By: J. Ed Low <lowj@tir.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 July 2000, at 6:24 p.m.
 
This question has arisen a number of time in response to my model of the Akizuki and her motor launches (see URL). I have depicted my launches with a red bottom. However, a number of visitors has voiced the opinion that motor launches of IJN warships do not have a red bottom but have instead a uniform grey hull. The only close up photo of these launches I have seen is in the Maru Special series of books. In the volume which cover launches, I have seen evidence of boats with and without darkened (B & W photos) bottoms. Does anyone have any additional information on this topic ?
Link: http://www.ijn.dreamhost.com/index.html
 
Re: Do IJN warship motor boats have a red bottom
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Thursday, 6 July 2000, at 2:32 a.m.
 
In Response To: Do IJN warship motor boats have a red bottom (J. Ed Low)
 
There is no simpel yes or no to this question. However, in general I believe that shipboats were grey only and had no different colour (red) for their bottoms. In fact, Tamiyas Random Japanese Warship Details vol. 2 shows a motor boat with a red bottom with a large cross through it, stating clearly that this is wrong.
Most pictures seem to confirm this. For instance, the many close-up pictures of cruisers in Lacroix Japanese Cruisers all show single colour shipboats. Ive flipped through numerous photos of destroyers, including the Akizuki class, but I could not find a single shipboat with a darkened bottom, the few that were clearly visible were all grey overall. But there are exceptions. My collection of photographs on Ybari during her visit to the N.E.I. in the mid 30s clearly shows the cutters to be overall grey but the motorboats to have dark bottoms. However, this appears to be an exception to the rule.
I hope that this is usefull,
P.S. I've been following your site for quite some time now (even before I had internet myself) and I love it. Great job!
 
Komandorski Island, Japanese side
 
Posted By: Mike Mullins <mmullins@hekawi.net>
Date: Wednesday, 5 July 2000, at 4:43 a.m.
 
I'm looking for information on the battle of Komandorski Island in March 1943 from the Japanese side. Does anyone know of any books or other resources that have this info?
 
Re: Komandorski Island, Japanese side
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 5 July 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
 
In Response To: Komandorski Island, Japanese side (Mike Mullins)
 
John A. Lorelli has written a book named 'The Battle of the Komandorski Islands', published by the Naval Institute Press (ISBN 0-87021-093-9). It's an extensive account of the battle seen from both sides, and it also includes charts, ship's data etc.
 
Re: Komandorski Island, Japanese side
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 July 2000, at 8:34 a.m.
 
In Response To: Komandorski Island, Japanese side (Mike Mullins)
 
Paul Dull's "A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945" gives a serviceable account of this battle, as well as at least one decent track-chart of the engagement.
 
Hashirajima Anchorage defenses
 
Posted By: Matthew Greer <Furher@uswest.net>
Date: Monday, 3 July 2000, at 1:17 a.m.
 
I am wondering if any one knows what type of defenses the IJN used at Hashirajima fleet anchorage in Hiroshima Bay? In paticular things like Mine feilds, Sub nets, patrol craft stationed there,ect. Also if possible please try to be specific as possible as to location of staionary objects. I am also wondering if there were any nearby Flying Boat bases.
 
Re: Hashirajima Anchorage - coastal artillery?
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Friday, 7 July 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
 
In Response To: Hashirajima Anchorage defenses (Matthew Greer)
 
I have no answer at all, but I'd like to add an extra possibility as to types of base defense: Did the Japanese have any coastal artillery at Hashirajima? According to "The Japanese War Machine", S.L. Mayer et al., Bison Books Ltd., London 1976 (my Dutch translation is of 1978), chapter 3, their c. a. was among the best in the world; the Army used several superfluous (because of the Washington Naval Treaty) BB gun turrets, even including 16in guns. With their "type 88" electric fire guidance system "a hit by the first salvo fired was almost guaranteed". Alas, the text fails to mention the locations of these guns...
 
Re: Hashirajima Anchorage - coastal artillery?
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Friday, 7 July 2000, at 8:05 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hashirajima Anchorage - coastal artillery? (Adm. Gurita)
 
From NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR TWO (John Campbell):
41cm/45 (16.1in) guns intended for KAGA or TOSA
three twin turrets, located to cover southern entrance to the Sea of Japan; one each on Iki, Tsushima and Pusan (Korea)
30cm [either 30cm/50, 30cm/45, 30cm/45 "small chamber"] (12in) guns removed from ships scrapped under Washington Naval Treaty
six twin turrets; one on Iki; two on Tsushima; two at Tokyo Bay; one at Tsugaru Straits
 
Re: Hashirajima Anchorage - coastal artillery?
 
Posted By: Adm. Gurita <agritter@inn.nl>
Date: Sunday, 9 July 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Hashirajima Anchorage - coastal artillery? (Jim Broshot)
 
Thank you, Jim! Another piece in the IJN puzzle fits, though not at Hashirajima.
 
Warship articles
 
Posted By: Michael Schnell <mschnell@one.net>
Date: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
 
I would like to ask for help in obtaining copies of the following articles from Warship International:
"Aspects of Japanese Warship Design", A. Raven, Warship #2 & #3
"Japanese Superbattleship Design", H. Lengerer, Warship #25, #26, & #27
"Japanese AA Rocket Launchers", H. Lengerer, Warship #36
"The Special Fast Landing Ships of the IJN", H. Lengerer, Warship #38, #39, & #40
Photocopies or scans would be very acceptable, and I would be happy to pay any costs involved. Being new to the IJN, the list has been very helpful. Thanks for your time and effort.
 
Re: Warship articles
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 2 July 2000, at 10:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Warship articles (Michael Schnell)
 
Contact your local (USA) library, or have one of us in the USA do so. Have the "Inter-Library Loan [ILL]" department order these. In a few weeks you will obtain "Xerox" copies of all for free.
 
Pitroad waveline series
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 2:25 a.m.
 
Can anybody out here help me complete my list of Waveline kits. I like to have a complete list of the Waveline series starting with WL-1 and so on, but the Pitroad site only gives kits that are still in production. I would even be glad if you know only one number to add to my list:
WL-? Shh - IJN aircraft carrier
WL-? Zuih - IJN aircraft carrier
WL-24 i - IJN torpedo cruiser
WL-25 Kitakami - IJN kaiten carrying cruiser
WL-38 Kaiy - IJN converted aircraft carrier
WL-39 Sagara Maru - IJN converted seaplane carrier
WL-40 Ryh - IJN aircraft carrier
WL-54 Noshiro Maru - IJN converted cruiser
WL-56 Noto Maru - IJA transport
WL-60 Barham - RN battleship
WL-61 Leahy - USN guided missile cruiser
WL-62 Aikoku Maru - IJN converted cruiser
WL-63 Reeves - USN guided missile cruiser
WL-64 Taigei - IJN submarine depot ship
WL-65 Hokoku Maru - IJN converted cruiser
WL-66 Conte di Cavour - RItN battleship
WL-67 Shiny - IJN converted aircraft carrier
WL-68 Nagato hull - IJN battleship
WL-69 West Virginia - USN battleship
WL-70 Mutsu hull - IJN battleship
WL-71 California - USN guided missile cruiser
WL-72 Maryland - USN battleship
WL-73 Rio de Janeiro Maru - IJN converted submarine depot ship
WL-74 Guilio Cesare - RItN battleship
WL-76 Hatsuharu - IJN destroyer (original layout)
WL-77 Abdiel - RN fast minelayer
WL-78 Ariadne - RN fast minelayer
WL-79 Ybari - JMSDF frigate
WL-80 Ishikari - JMSDF frigate
WL-81 Amazon - RN frigate
WL-82 Freccia - RItN destroyer
WL-83 Ha 101 & Ha 201 - IJN submarines
WL-84 Iwo Jima - USN amphibious carrier
WL-85 Okinawa - USN amphibious carrier
WL-86 Kashino - IJN ammunitions supply ship
WL-87 Baltimore - USN heavy cruiser
WL-88 Pittsburgh - USN heavy cruiser
WL-89 Irako - IJN provisions supply ship
WL-90 San Francisco - USN heavy cruiser
WL-91 New Orleans - USN heavy cruiser
WL-92 Musashi 1944 resin upgrade for Tamiya - IJN battleship
WL-93 Ukishima Maru - IJN converted cruiser
WL-94 Grozny - USSR guided missile cruiser
WL-95 Admiral Dolorko - USSR guided missile cruiser
 
Re: Pitroad waveline series
 
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, 25 June 2000, at 9:31 a.m.
 
In Response To: Pitroad waveline series (Frido Kip)
 
I can fill in these gaps:
IJNS Zuiho is R-09 (as it was released in the P&I series)
IJNS Irako is WL-31
IJNS Chiyoda is WL-32
IJNS Chitose is WL-33
USS Kidd (DD-993) is HM-05
IJNS Chogei is WL-26
Kynda (Russian DDG) is R-04
 
Re: Pitroad waveline series
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Pitroad waveline series (Mike Quan)
 
I didn't know that the P&I models were taken over by Pitroad. Are you sure that Irako is WL-31, as it is also WL-89, maybe an improved model?
 
Re: Pitroad waveline series
 
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Monday, 26 June 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Pitroad waveline series (Frido Kip)
 
You're welcome. Yes, the Irako is a re-release, but not having seen the newer release, I cannot say what changes have been made to the original kit.
P&I was (I think) a separate product line of PitRoad to market modern warships. The WL (Waveline)was reserved for ships complimenting the original WW2 waterline releases, and the HighMold line were for conversion sets. These days, with the (comparative) paucity of releases means that all releases are under the WL series.
 
Looking for information about the type 63 "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: DANIS <amar.derni@cfwb.be>
Date: Tuesday, 6 June 2000, at 4:47 a.m.
 
Does anyone have drawings and photographs of this particular weapon ?
In fact, I would like to scratchbuild this torpedo in 1/72 scale (using the torpedo included in the Hasegawa's Hiryu kit)to add this weapon in my collection of Japanese Secret Weapons models (with other things like the Kaiten and the Type A Midget submarine produced by Fine Molds).
I don't know if this torpedo was also carried by bombers ?
 
Re: Looking for information about the type 63 "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: Frido Kip <frido.kip@hetnet.nl>
Date: Tuesday, 6 June 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
 
In Response To: Looking for information about the type 63 "Long Lance" Torpedo (DANIS)
 
A good source of information on the Type 93 oxygen torpedo is the article of Jiro Itani, Hans Lengerer and Tomoko Rehm-Takahara, Japanese Oxygen Torpedoes and Fire Control Systems in the annual Warship 1991. I think it is available in most shipping libraries.
It contains a very extended description of the development of this torpedo and many technical interior drawings. There is also a photograph.
There was indeed an aerial oxygen torpedo derived from the Type 93. These were the Type 94 Models 1 (21in) and 2 (18in). However, only a handful were produced between 1938 and 1942 as their handling was found to be too difficult. I don't know if they were ever used in combat.
 
Re: Looking for information about the type 63 "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 6 June 2000, at 7:57 a.m.
 
In Response To: Looking for information about the type 63 "Long Lance" Torpedo (DANIS)
 
Actually, it is the Type 93, not 63. There are photographs extant, although I don't have any handy on my 
hard drive. If you would like a copy of the drawing of the innards of this beast that I did for Evans & Peattie's "Kaigun", let me know--without meaning to brag, it is by far the best drawing available in any publication East or West, and corrects a number of crucial errors in the internal drawing found in Maru Special. Email me directly, but give me a couple days, since our work email server is having drastic problems over the last few days.
 
IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Kamarul Hairi <fidoaimspace@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 3:03 a.m.
 
is the any reference book on the IJN weapons (Main Guns, AA guns, etc) used during WWII. Hopefully the book is in english.
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: mposis <mposis@excite.com>
Date: Wednesday, 3 May 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
 
In Response To: IJN weapon (Kamarul Hairi)
 
Try this page:
http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WNJAP_main.htm
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 11:14 a.m.
 
In Response To: IJN weapon (Kamarul Hairi)
 
Good English language sources on IJN weapons are:
* Campbell, N. John M. "Naval Weapons of World War Two". London: Conway Maritime Press, 1985.
* Lacroix, Eric & Wells II, Linton. "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War". Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1997.
* Skulski, Janusz. "The Battleship Yamato". London: Conway Maritime Press, 1988.
* Skulski, Janusz. "The Heavy Cruiser Takao". Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1994.
* Skulski, Janusz. "The Battleship Fuso". London: Conway Maritime Press, 1998.
* Lengerer, Hans, Itani, Jiro & Rehm-Takahara, Tomoko. "Anti-Aircraft Gunnery in the Imperial Japanese Navy". "Warship 1991". (article)
* Itani, Jiro, Lengerer, Hans & Rehm-Takahara, Tomoko. "Japanese Oxygen Torpedoes and Fire Control Systems". "Warship 1991". (article)
* U.S. Naval History Division. "Reports of the U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan 1945-1946". Washington: U.S. Naval History Division, 1974. (microfilm)
* U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. "Japanese Naval Ordnance". Washington: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946. (monograph)
* Lacroix, Eric. "The Development of the'A Class' Cruisers in the Imperial Japanese Navy"."Warship International" #4/1977, 1/1979, 1/1981, 4/1981, 3/1983, 3/1984. (articles)
A good German source is:
* Lengerer, Hans & Wnschmann, Michael. "Die Myoko-Klasse - Japans erste Vertragskreuzer", volume 1. Munich: Christian Schmidt, 1982.
Not all books are in print but most can probably be found in second-hand bookstores.
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Kamarul Hairi <fidoaimspace@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 28 April 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Lars Ahlberg)
 
Thanks Lars for the information you've provided.
In your listing you've mentioned a reference title "U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey. "Japanese Naval Ordnance". Washington: U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946. (monograph)". Do you know where can I find this monograph?
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Monday, 1 May 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Kamarul Hairi)
 
If you are searching for detailed information about IJN weapons then "Japanese Naval Ordnance" will be a disappointment to you because this 21-page monograph is more concerned with production of guns, ammunition, bombs, mines, and torpedoes as well as optical, navigational, radio, and electrical equipment. The copy I have is a Xerox-copy. Detailed information can be found in the reports of the "U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan". An excellent source! Apparently the late John Campbell used this source in his book "Naval Weapons of World War Two" (very good book).
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Kamarul Hairi <fidoaimspace@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2000, at 2:23 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Lars Ahlberg)
 
I've search at amazon for the book "Naval Weapons of World War II" by John Campbell, but the book is out of print. While searching through abebooks.com, I've found one copy but the price is out of my pocket ($345.00).
Now, my only option is to look for the "U.S. Naval Technical Mission to Japan",
which I've a single copy of this on the net. Do you know anybody who does have a copy of this is willing to do a xerox for me.
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Tuesday, 2 May 2000, at 12:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Kamarul Hairi)
 
Apparently the Campbell book is now out of print. However, I would like to suggest the following second-hand book stores:
Antheil Booksellers
2177 Isabelle Court
N. Bellmore
NY 11710
USA
G.L. Green
Naval and Maritime Bookseller
18 Aldenham Avenue
Radlett
Hertfordshire WD7 8HX
UK
John W. Doull
Bookseller
1684 Barrington St.
Halifax
Nova Scotia
B3J 2A2
Canada
Fisher Nautical
Huntswood House
St. Helena Lane
Streat
Hassocks
Sussex BN6 8SD
UK
McLaren Books
91 West Clyde Street
Helensburgh
Dunbartonshire G84 8BB
Scotland
My copy of the "US Naval Technical Mission to Japan" is microfilm reels only. I have never seen a copy of this item anywhere but perhaps someone somewhere have a Xerox-copy.
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2000, at 2:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Lars Ahlberg)
 
Which NavTech report, exactly, is it you're looking for? I have copies of several of them, although the photos are of very poor quality. I also have the Campbell book. Much of the technical information on guns you will find on my site (http://www.combinedfleet.com/guns.htm) and also the http://warship1.com site came directly from Campbell's work. Let me know if I can be of help.
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Kamarul Hairi <fidoaimspace@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 10 May 2000, at 9:48 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Jon Parshall)
 
Well, actually the one I'm trying to find out is the one that appears in the Gakken Vol 20. There's an article on Yamato 18.1" main gun, which is taken from the 'Ordanance Targets Japanese 18" Gun Mounts (U.S. Naval Technical Mission To Japan)/Naval Weapons(Campbell), which I presume it is taken from (the article is in Japanese).
Also on the same topic, there are some pictures in the book showing the model of Yamato main gun, do you have any idea if this model exists?
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Thursday, 11 May 2000, at 6:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Kamarul Hairi)
 
As it happens, I think I have that particular NavTech report here at work; I'm making a copy for myself from my friend's cache of NavTech stuff. Lemme look, and if it is I'll make a second for you.
 
Re: IJN weapon
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 May 2000, at 9:09 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN weapon (Jon Parshall)
 
I made a copy of NavTechJap O-45(N). It is a rather poor quality copy, being probably a fifth-generation version, so the photographs are pretty much useless, I'm afraid. But the words are all there. Send me you snail mail and I'll get it to you.
 
Atomic Tests
 
Posted By: R.H. Ray <rh.mk.ray@gilanet.com>
Date: Wednesday, 15 March 2000, at 11:20 a.m.
 
Can anyone provide me with a complete list of ships expended by U.S. in the atomic tests following WWII? I will gladly provide my pushpin sets with note flags (733 ships)lost in the Pacifis Theater to anyone supplying this information AND a 31/2 floppy with a stamped self adressed mailer. Please understand posession of Microsoft's Encarta Atlas is necessary for these data to be meaningful.My only stipulation is these data remain free and open and any modifications to them stay that way aswell.
 
Re: Atomic Tests
 
Posted By: Ron Wolford <wolfieeod@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 21 March 2000, at 7:25 a.m.
 
In Response To: Atomic Tests (R.H. Ray)
 
Appendix 1 of the U.S. National Park Service "The Archeology of the
Atomic Bomb:" Gives a complete list of ships and what happend to them.
You can check out this report at their web site.
There Web address is http://www.nps.gov/scru/bikin.htm
 
new web site
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
 
Here is an interesting new site on IJN warships: <http://www.tir.com/~lowj/Index.htm>!
 
700 scale aircraft decals?
 
Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000, at 5:18 a.m.
 
Does anyone know a source for IJN white and red roundels in 700 scale for the waterline carrier aircraft?
 
Re: 700 scale aircraft decals?
 
Posted By: Ingo Hohm <iho@datenrevision.de>
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000, at 7:31 a.m.
 
In Response To: 700 scale aircraft decals? (Allan Parry)
 
No source, but a method to live without decals:
When I was building waterline models (some 20 years ago) I had good results with painting the red roundels by the following method. I didn't try to make them with the white outline, but in pricipal it should work for that too.
I spilled a bit of the red paint (I used glossy red enamel color, but I guess it should work with acrylics too) on a flat surface like glossy paper. One does not need much for that - what comes from the sprue used for stirring the paint is sufficient. Then I used a pin (the steel type with the slighly thicker head like the ones often used with new shirts in their original wrapping. The type with the thick drop-shaped Head could not be used - the head has to be tiny.) and put the head into the thick colour. Now the Head of the needle is covered with a thick layer of wet paint. With that one could "stamp" a perfect round dot on any suitable surface (like the airplane). The dot becomes perfectly round if the needle is used properly and the conditions (how thick is the paint, how much paint etc.) are good. The size could be contolled by how much colour is on the pinhead and how near it comes to the target. A lot of paint and touching the surface gives a larger dot than less paint and not touching the surface.
I would recommend to make some experiments before trying it on the aircraft. It becomes very difficult when the targetsurface is rough (I have a few aircraft with bad "suns" on their side because of bad cleaning of sprue before painting).
I is also difficult when the paint is too thick (os has dried too long before using it) or too thin. Just experiment a littel to get experience before trying it on airplanes.
This method could be used well on 1/1200 aircraft too.
 
Re: 700 scale aircraft decals?
 
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 23 February 2000, at 7:15 a.m.
 
In Response To: 700 scale aircraft decals? (Allan Parry)
 
Gold Medal Models makes a 1/700 IJN aircraft decal sheet and I believe that the Pitroad/Skywave decal set includes IJN aircraft rondels. (At the moment, I don't have access to my Pitroad set for confirmation.)
 
Re: 700 scale aircraft decals?
 
Posted By: Allan Parry <dparry02@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 6:23 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 700 scale aircraft decals? (Dan Kaplan)
 
Does the GMM 700 scale decals have the IJN white and red roundels rather than just the red only?
 
Re: 700 scale aircraft decals?
 
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 26 February 2000, at 11:43 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 700 scale aircraft decals? (Allan Parry)
 
Unfortunately, the GMM website only gives a brief description and not a picture. But, you can email Loren Perry directly at goldmedl@rockisland.com; he's very good at responding to inquiries. Unfortunately, now that I've had a chance to look at my Pitroad decals, there are no rondels included. Sorry 'bout that.
 
1/1200 and 1/2400th ships?
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dpluth@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Monday, 14 February 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
 
I'm just wondering if anyone out there collects or models 1/1200, 1/2000 or 1/2400th ships? If so, could you comment on the availability of US and Japanese ships in these scales?
 
Re: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships?
 
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 16 February 2000, at 8:42 a.m.
 
In Response To: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships? (Dave Pluth)
 
For more background, evaluation on various mfgs, lists on offerings, etc. try the 1200/1250 scale icon at http://warship.simplenet.com/. Paul Jacobs is a very knowledgable listmaster/collector/seller of ships in these scales.
 
Re: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships?
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 15 February 2000, at 9:38 p.m.
 
In Response To: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships? (Dave Pluth)
 
I collect 1/1200 scale lead warships - have for years. There are many different makers - quality spans the spectrum from awful to superb. The best are the German company Neptune, but thaey are very expensive. $75-100 for a BB/CV, $35-50 for a CA/CL, $15-30 for a DD, etc. They come painted, but except for German warships, the schemes are never correct.
Other companies built models that are of less quality, but very acceptable for playing naval miniatures or the large collector. I have played with, and even own, several scratch built ships (balsawood mostly.)
Personally, I collect French Navy cruisers and contre-torpilleurs, a few choice USN and RN CVs, and from years ago, I have a substantial number of older Alnavco/Hansa German ships.
I guess the best conclusion is, it all depends on what you want them for and what you want to pay. There is one company I regularly do buisness with, and you can get all types from him.
I also have the Admiral Hipper's entire Fleet High Seas Fleet Scouting Force in an older 1/2400 scale plastic, with a few lead ships. In this case, purely wargame, but much better than cardboard cutouts!
Give me a shout if you want to know more.
 
Re: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships?
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Monday, 14 February 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships? (Dave Pluth)
 
I started buying a few 1/2400 scale ships for playing Command at Sea; even at the scale my feeble painting efforts were not that good. So I have switched to 1/6000 scales, where you can buy a lot of bangs for your bucks.
As I recall there is a good selection of IJN and USN ships in 1/2400. Two manufacturers are Micronauts and GHQ. Micronauts are more detailed (and more expensive).
An outfit in England sells 1/6000 and you can buy whole fleets, even hypothetical fleets (IJN 8-8 plan etc.)
 
Re: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships?
 
Posted By: Ingo Hohm <iho@datenrevision.de>
Date: Tuesday, 22 February 2000, at 5:36 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 1/1200 and 1/2400th ships? (Jim Broshot)
 
a little correction: GHQ is the company that make a series called Micronauts. They have an internet site. There are other manufacturers too. CinC made 1/2400 ships nearly as good as GHQ, but CinC is currently out of production.
If you want the major warships complete and cheap: try any of the wargamer's scales (1/2400, 1/3000 [crude, but inexpensive] or 1/6000). If you want detailed models and even rare and obscure items: there is no choice to 1/1200 in what is (or was once) available, but few manufacturers have a complete range in constant production - there are (and were) a lot of small manufacturers with limited production numbers. Including their models nearly everything has been made by someone sometimes in 1/1200 (or 1/1250)
 
Looking for drawings or photographs of the Kure and Sasebo shipyards
 
Posted By: DANIS <Amar.derni@cfwb.be>
Date: Tuesday, 1 February 2000, at 7:34 a.m.
 
In order to build shipyard dioramas as accurate as possible, I wonder if aerial photographs, drawings (showing the place of each battleships)of the Kure, Sasebo and Nagasaki shipyards of 1939-45 period exists ?
 
Re: Looking for drawings or photographs of the Kure and Sasebo shipyar
 
Posted By: Jon Parshall <jonp@is.com>
Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
 
In Response To: Looking for drawings or photographs of the Kure and Sasebo shipyards 
(DANIS)
 
There's a new book out on military shipyards from USNI press by Robert (?) Winklareth. I just got it. It contains diagrams of Kure and Nagasaki for sure, and I think Sasebo as well. Not as detailed as I'd want, but better than nothing
 
Rufes
 
Posted By: Jerry Chisum <jerryc1131@rocketmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
 
What ships delivered Floatplane fighters or obsevation/reconnaisance aircraft to the Aleutian Islands? What ships delivered spare parts or components? Were any of these ships sunk in the Aleutians? What is the lat/long of sinking?
 
Rufes
 
Posted By: Jerry Chisum <jerryc1131@rocketmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
 
What ships delivered Floatplane fighters or obsevation/reconnaisance aircraft to the Aleutian Islands? What ships delivered spare parts or components? Were any of these ships sunk in the Aleutians? What is the lat/long of sinking?
 
Re: Rufes
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 6:54 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (Jim Broshot)
 
Just for yucks, can you provide details all of the floatplane/seaplane/flying boat deliveries to the Aleutians?
 
Re: Rufes
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2000, at 10:03 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (Mark E. Horan)
 
About all I can add from the article is that "Kimikawa Maru and other vessels transported at least 35 A6M2-Ns to Kiska and Attu."
452 Kokutai was evacuated from Kiska to Yokosuka where it was reformed. It was then sent to Shumushu Island, where it was used to intercept B-24 and B-25 raids over Paramushiru. After the lake where it was based froze, the unit was withdrawn to Yokosuka and disbanded on 1 October 1943.
Or should this go on the Zero list? :):):)
 
Re: Rufes
 
Posted By: Jerry Chisum <jerryc1131@rocketmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (Jim Broshot)
 
Thanks for the priceless info. It would seem, then, that all these Rufes were delivered in Nakajima gray-green finish and repainted on-site after the July 3, 1943 directive. Considering the pounding they were taking, is it possible the dark top colors were applied earlier? How many Rufes were ferried away and what was the unit's score of successes? Any evidence of special markings? Are any of the pictures of Rufes with censored-out tail markings of this unit?
 
Re: Rufes
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 11:22 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (Jerry Chisum)
 
From the article it appears that only the pilots were evacuated (by submarine), and the planes (what were 
left) were abandoned. To get victory totals would require going through the article which lists claims and actual losses for aerial engagements, but no totals.
 
Re: Rufes
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 4:19 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (Jerry Chisum)
 
The 5 ku Rufes in the Aleutians received their dark green upper surface top coat before November 1942 as evidenced by photos of Rufes in such colors still carrying the [R-1..] code. The [R-1..] code preceded the [M1-1..] code assigned after November 1942 when the 5 ku was redesignated the 452 ku.
 
Re: Rufes
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Thursday, 27 January 2000, at 11:17 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (James F. Lansdale)
 
There are two photos of 5 Kokutai Rufes at Kiska (undated) in the AE31 article. One has six pilots with a Rufe in the background, tail code R-106. Rudder appears to be a different color than the rest of the tail fin. Second photo shows Rufes damaged by high seas, one has tail code R-107 but rudder appears to be same color as tail fin.
 
Rufe Rudders and Aleutian Colors
 
Posted By: James F. Lansdale <LRAJIM@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 28 January 2000, at 5:00 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufes (Jim Broshot)
 
The lower left photo in AE No. 31 page 8 shows the Rufes shortly after their arrival and assignment to 5 ku in the Summer of 1942. They are indeed in the early factory finish similar to gray-green FS-16350 overall. Your sharp eye has noted what seems to be a fairly common practice on Rufes and Zeros produced by Nakajima (which is evidenced on some Mitsubishi built Zeros as well).
Fabric control surfaces were clear doped, primed (in red) and left in a gray (FS-16314) paint. Why so many of these did not receive an over-coat of the hairyokushoku (gray-green) paint used on the metal surfaces has not been fully documented. Speculation is that the fabric surfaces were sub-contracted and to facilitate the production they were left in their gray paint during assembly. Close examination of scores of early Zero photos does reveal this phenomenon.
I have documented this practice on several Zero samples where I have fabric and metal relics from the same aircraft. On the early A6M2s built by Mitsubishi I have evidence of fabric surfaces having been painted either hairyokushoku (gray-green) or haiiro (gray).
The photo on the lower right page 8 of AE No. 31 shows the 5 ku Rufes having been painted a dark color on the upper surfaces. Although I have seen no samples of dark-gray paint being used for these aircraft, I have seen a report from a B-17 crew which reported this color on attacking Rufes. The only relics I have examined has shown this paint color to be similar to the usual dark-green used by the IJN in other theaters. It is fairly certain that this paint scheme was field applied. This photo was probably taken when the Aleutian storms began to kick up in the Fall months (September/October 1942).
 
Re: Rufe Rud/AE31
 
Posted By: Jerry Chisum <jerryc1131@rocketmail.com>
Date: Friday, 28 January 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
 
In Response To: Rufe Rudders and Aleutian Colors (James F. Lansdale)
 
Between you two I now have the meat of the article in AE31. If I could only find a copy, I wouldn't have put you to all this trouble. So it appears that up to 35 Rufes came to Alaska and none returned. Hmm... there are freshwater lakes on Kiska and Attu... "The Forgotten War Vol. 4" pg 158, shows a picture of the tail of an inverted Rufe showing heavy weathering of the dark green finish, probably applied on-site. It also confirms the much lighter gray of the fabric elevators. It may have been thought unecessary to corrosion proof the fabric finish, even at the factory level. Page 79 shows the separation line between wing trailing edge and stabiliser, but the data block has been chopped out by souvenir hunters. How do I send a scanned picture as an attachment?
 
Re: Rufe Rud/AE31
 
Posted By: Jerry Chisum <jerryc1131@rocketmail.com>
Date: Sunday, 21 May 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Rufe Rud/AE31 (Jim Broshot)
 
I may have located AE 31 in New Zealand. Just added to my Rufe references with the French Magazine "Avions" No. 77, August 1999. Article, many pictures of the French use of a Rufe and Jakes in Indochina ca. 1946. The Rufe in marked IJN Green Topsides(quite shiny), black cowl, French cocards 6 positions and "ATAIU" on the fin and rudder. Received by the British at Singapore. I haven't yet translated "La fin tragique du Rufe" but it should be interesting. Something about an engine failure and the river Rach Ba Sang
 
The death of Kazuo Sakamaki
 
Posted By: Ron Werneth <ronwerneth@aol.com>
Date: Saturday, 25 December 1999, at 2:41 p.m.
 
My buddy said that Sakamaki-san, the only surviving PH mini-sub veteran died earlier this week. Does anybody have any details?
 
Re: The death of Kazuo Sakamaki
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
 
In Response To: The death of Kazuo Sakamaki (Ron Werneth)
 
Follows is the obituary in the Los Angeles Times, date unknown:
" Kazuo Sakamaki; First Japanese POW in WWII
Kazuo Sakamaki, 81, the first Japanese to be taken prisoner in World War II. As an ensign in the Imperial Japanese Navy, Sakamaki was captured by U.S. soldiers when his submarine armed with two torpedoes ran aground before the Pearl Harbor attack Dec. 7, 1941, and he swam to shore. The surprise attack killed or wounded 3,700 people, brought the United States into World War II and ignited the war's Pacific theater. Sakamaki was moved around several American POW camps including one in Wisconsin where several Japanese were injured in a riot against camp guards. Although he published a book titled "The First Prisoner" in the 1950's, Sakamaki said little about his experiences as a prisoner of war. Falling into the hands of the enemy was considered shameful to the Japanese, and colleagues said Sakamaki had difficulty putting his feelings into words. When he returned to Japan at war's end, Sakamaki began working for the company that eventually became Toyota Motor Corp., and from 1969 to 1983 was president of a Brazilian subsidiary of Toyota. He retired in 1987. On Nov. 29 in Tokyo."
Hopes this helps. Possibly this obit was published in early 2000, I know there was a delay mentioned by others. I think it was published in 1999 though.
 
Re: The death of Kazuo Sakamaki
 
Posted By: V. Tapasanan <tvidya@hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, 25 December 1999, at 5:25 p.m.
 
In Response To: The death of Kazuo Sakamaki (Ron Werneth)
 
According to Japanese newspaper, Sakamaki-san passed away with natural cause early December but the family witheld the news for private reason.
 
Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: DANIS Jean-Charles <amar.derni@cfwb.be>
Date: Friday, 3 December 1999, at 5:41 a.m.
 
As I'm particulary interested by the secret weapons, I'd like to scratchbuilt a "Long Lance" Torpedo in 1/72nd scale in order to display it with other Japanese secret weapons like the Type A midget sub or the Kaiten (both available from Fine Molds).
Does someone know where I can find drawings and photographs of this torpedo ?
 
Re: Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: Scott Reigel <Sdreigel@concentric.net>
Date: Saturday, 4 December 1999, at 2:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo (DANIS 
Jean-Charles)
 
The IJN Warship page is probably the first place to go for Japanese torpedo information. You may want to contact them directly for possible assistance.
Link: http://www.skypoint.com/members/jbp/torps.htm
 
Re: Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Saturday, 4 December 1999, at 10:51 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo (Scott Reigel)
 
This is the Nihon Kaigun website. It looks like they rely almost extensively on Campbell's book NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II for data.
 
Re: Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Friday, 3 December 1999, at 5:17 p.m.
 
In Response To: Looking for information about the "Long Lance" Torpedo (DANIS 
Jean-Charles)
 
JAPANESE CRUISERS OF THE PACIFIC WAR (LaCroix and Wells) has drawings and schematics, as does KAIGUN.
There are also photos and one drawing in NAVAL WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR TWO (John Campbell) but this book is out of print.
 
Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force
 
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wednesday, 1 December 1999, at 5:37 p.m.
 
A few of you have recently mentioned on the Workbench Message Board that you are interested in building the PHATF in 700th. While I also share this goal, it surprises me that my ideas are not unique about this subject. I have listed what I have (to date) surmised the task force to consist of. An asterisk after the name means that to my knowledge, there is no kit or sister ship in 700th that can be modified. Can anyone comment, add or delete from this list?
Carriers: Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Zuikaku & Shokaku
Battleships: Hiei & Kirishima
Heavy Cruisers: Tone & Chikuma
Light Cruiser: Abukuma
Destroyers: Tanikaze, hamakaze, Urakaze, Asakaze, Kasumi, Arare, Kagero, Shiranui & Akigumo
Tankers: Kyokuto Maru*, Kyokuyo Maru*, Kenyu Maru*, Kokuyo Maru*, Shinkoku Maru*, Toho Maru*, Toei Maru* & Nippon Maru*
Submarines: three subs - unknown names
Destroyers Akebono & Ushio were sent to shell Midway Island as a diversion.
 
Re: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force
 
Posted By: Albert Peters <dsr017@ibm.net>
Date: Thursday, 2 December 1999, at 8:21 a.m.
 
In Response To: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force (Mike Quan)
 
Hi everyone, came across your site which was a pleasent surprise. I built the combatant elements of the PHATF way back in the early 1970's when I frist discovered the waterline series. To do it today with what is now available would really be a great project. Good luck, Mike, let me know if I can help ....
The submarines around the island were I-16,20, 24 22, 18 and 10 ... source is Maru Special 92. Of course, one of the best sources is "AT Dawn We Slept" .. on page 416 is a table listing all components of the attack force ... of the units listed all were sunk by war's end except the DD Ushio and I have not been able to confirm fate of the Nihon Maru, because there were more than one unit to share this name.
 
Re: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Wednesday, 1 December 1999, at 10:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force (Mike Quan)
 
Off the top of my head, there was no destroyer "Asakaze." There was an "Isokaze", a Kagero class destroyer. Also, a recent finding suggest that Akigumo, which was formerly thought to have been a Yugumo class, was actually a Kagero class destroyer. Also, the three subs which sailed ahead of the main task force were I-19, 21, and 23. By the way, the prefix "I" in the names of IJN subs (as in I-19) is NOT pronounced "eye." It is pronouced as "short i" as in Si (in Spanish) or Oui (in French).
There was also a fleet of subs surrounding Pearl Harbour, including the 5 mother ships for the midget subs. I'll post the names of the subs once my modelling buddy returns the Gakken book on IJN subs to me.
 
Re: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force
 
Posted By: Kevin Pryor <kpryor@mail.millikin.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 1 December 1999, at 9:26 p.m.
 
In Response To: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force (Mike Quan)
 
Remember the midget subs. I believe one of the Skywave/PitRoad sets has some as well as the Tamiya 
fast landing craft set. (We're going for complete here!)
Also, some sources mention Katori was part of the strike force. If memory serves me correctly, in addition to training she was a sub flotilla flagship, but that could be stretching it a little. She was probably at Truk or someplace there about on 7 December.
 
Re: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force
 
Posted By: Kevin Pryor <kpryor@mail.millikin.edu>
Date: Saturday, 4 December 1999, at 9:14 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Pearl Harbor Attack Task Force (Tennessee Katsuta)
 
I was just killing time flipping through "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" and found the status of all the submarines operating on 7 December.
In addition to the subs you mentioned with the task force itself, I-9,-15,-17,-25 (1st Submarine Group, Rear Admiral Sato Tsutomu commanding) patroled the area northwest of Oahu with the purpose of catching any escaping ships or, if the need arose, intercept any counter-attack .
The Second Submarine Group, under Rear Admiral Yamazaki Shigeteru, was I-1, -2,-3,-5,-6,-7 patroled the waters between Kauai, Oahu and Maui.
The Third Submarine Group was the largest. Under Rear Admiral Miwa Shigeyoshi, the group was to patrol the area south of Oahu. It consisted of I-8, -68,-69,-70,-71,-72,-73,-74,-75. I-71,-72, and -73 were to conduct reconnaissance of Lahaina Anchorage.
The Special Attack Unit for the minisubs were I-16,-18,-20,-22, and -24 with Captain Sasaki Hankyu commanding. Although given the epitath "Special Attack Unit," this should not be confused with the later suicide operations of the same name. The minisubs were supposed to be recovered and the subs remained at their rendezvous points until the 10 December (remaining a full day later than planned), waiting in vain for the minisubs' return.
Katori, the flagship for submarine operations, was not at Truk, but Kwajalein.
 
Gakken book on Shokaku class
 
Posted By: Dan Salamone <dano@rust.net>
Date: Friday, 5 November 1999, at 3:18 p.m.
 
I received from HLJ the Gakken book on the above mentioned ships. The book spotlights a wonderful 1/100 model of Zuikaku that has to be seen to believed as well as some black and white photos, schematics of ship equipment, as well as color artwork and drawings of the ships' island. There is a fair amount of text (all in Japanese), and what appears to be some information on various people who served on the ships(?) that appears very interesting, like of an IJN sailor "rubbing noses" with what appears to be a native person from the Aleutians. If you're into these ships, you'll like this book (Gakken #13).
 
Re: Takahashi rubs noses
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Friday, 5 November 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Gakken book on Shokaku class (Dan Salamone)
 
Yes, that is a neat pre-war "goodwill tour" photo of the "hikotaicho", air group CO, of dive bombers in the 
first attack on Pearl Harbor Lt Cmdr Kakuichi Takahashi. The sole known photo of his D3A, EI-238, is above Rabaul in Jan 1942.
Editors Note: The photo is not reproduced here.
 
Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Friday, 5 November 1999, at 4:15 p.m.
 
In Response To: Gakken book on Shokaku class (Dan Salamone)
 
In case you're interested, that sailor (rubbing his nose with a native woman) is Lt. Commander Kakuichi Takahashi, who lead the dive bomber group for the carrier Shokaku. The photo was taken in 1928, and that woman is a native in New Zealand.
The Gakken books are excellent references for ship builders. I just ordered their "Shinano & Taiho" issue, and I can't wait to lay my hot little hands on it! Apparently their newest issue on the Akizuki class destroyers are available in Japan (hopefully HobbyLink Japan will get it soon), and is well received by the Japanese ship enthusiasts.
 
Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class
 
Posted By: Dan Salamone <dano@rust.net>
Date: Friday, 5 November 1999, at 7:49 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class (Tennessee Katsuta)
 
Thanks for the reply.... I knew I was going out on a limb as far as where the person with Takahashi came from, the headband is very interesting.... As far as the book goes I was thrilled with many things in it including the camouflage scheme of the deck circa later in the war. I'm also waiting for "Carrier Strike Force" also from Gakken but it's out of stock currently at HLJ.
These books may make me build 1/700 ships again!
 
Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class
 
Posted By: Dan Guernsey <drguer2@pop.uky.edu>
Date: Thursday, 11 November 1999, at 9:26 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class (Dan Salamone)
 
I concur; the Gakken Shokaku book is indeed great. And, like you, I eagerly await to receive "Carrier Strike Force" from HLJ. I also got a copy of the book covering in detail the 1/100 model of the Zuikaku, some of which, as you noted, are reproduced in the Shokaku-class book; it is pricy, but worth the bucks. If you have not seen the book, its incredible! I believe that the Japanese gentelman made it mostly from wood, done in the supurb tradition of Japanese craftsmanship.
 
Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class
 
Posted By: Dan Salamone <dano@rust.net>
Date: Thursday, 11 November 1999, at 4:47 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class (Dan Guernsey)
 
After taking a really close look at the model in the book I am more impressed. I can't believe that was the work of a single person- what an incredible inverstment of time and love to make such a replica
 
Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class
 
Posted By: Dan Kaplan <dboykap@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 5 November 1999, at 4:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Gakken book on Shokaku class (Tennessee Katsuta)
 
I have #s 11 thru #22, including both the Shokaku and new Taiho/Shinano book. They are the best visual references I've yet come across. I'm using the Shokaku book as a reference for a 1/700 Zuikaku, circa June, 1944 now under construction. I have a few questions that I'd like to solicit opinions on but those will come in a later post. The Taiho model is a beautiful 1/500 rendition of what appears to be a kit that I've seen advertised in some of the Model-Art publications. The photos are pretty much limited to an extended sequence of photos taken at the Tawi Tawi anchorage prior to the battle of the Phillipine Sea, 6/44. The photos are taken at sea level, port and starboard, as well as an aerial shot from above. For those of you who have seen one or two of these shots, this is the same sequence that shows the Shokaku and Nagato in the background. However, the principal shot is much clearer then any previously published. There are enlarged croppings and digitized but grainy enhancements. There's also a grainy overhead shot from another perspective that shows the Zuikaku. The model itself is beautiful, but differs in some significant detail from the familiar Tamiya 1/700 model as well as most line drawings. The departures have to do with the detail of the enclosed bow and the boat storage along the aft, starboard side. There also seems to be debate/discrepancies with the deck markings and the white funnel band. I'll be interested in Tennessee's and others comments.
 
Japanese Carriers at Midway
 
Posted By: James Holloway <bobwimple@aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, 27 October 1999, at 10:22 p.m.
 
Sirs, does anyone out there know for certain if Ens. George Gay (Torp. 8) attacked the Kaga or the Soryu at Midway. I have references naming both ships, and one says they attacked one and switched to the other. I would like to know the one he flew over.
 
Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dpluth@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Friday, 29 October 1999, at 8:15 p.m.
 
In Response To: Japanese Carriers at Midway (James Holloway)
 
According to "The First Team" (about the only book I trust these days) by John Lundstrom, Gay was 
attacking the Soryu when he was shot down.
 
Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway
 
Posted By: Phillip Gore <nursewilly@aol.com>
Date: Monday, 1 November 1999, at 6:56 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway (Dave Pluth)
 
I agree there is conflicting printed information about which carrier VT-8 attacked, but I believe it was the Soyru. In addition to "The First Team" book as a source, Mark Horan's/Bob Cressman's "A Glorious Page In Our History" book also confirms the Soyru as the object of VT-8's attack. Mark Horan is a very credible and knowledgeable source concerning the Battle of Midway.
 
Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway
 
Posted By: Mark E. Horan <mhoran@snet.net>
Date: Friday, 31 December 1999, at 12:44 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway (Phillip Gore)
 
I appreciate Phil's kind comments. As he stated, I co-authored the book "A Glorious Page in Our History" on the Battle of Midway. I spent, quite literally, years researching the air actions fought on 4-6 June. Theer is, IMO, little doubt that Torpedo Squadron Eight attacked the Soryu. While there are a great many facts used in determining this, I can summarize them thus.
1. At 0915, Kido Butai was steaming SE with the four CVs in two rough columns centered on the fleet course of 135 degrees.
.....S\
......H\
..K\
...A\
2. At 0917 Nagumo ordered Kido Butai to turn to port and take up an ENE course of 070 degrees to close with the US task force spotted to the East. Critically important is the fact that the carriers each turned individually, NOT by division in column. Thus the carriers relative positions remained the same, only the course changed.
..........VT
.....S/
......H/
..K/
...A/
3. At 0918, Kido Butai (Tone) sighted 15 US single-engine torpedo planes approaching from the NE ahead of the fleet. Therefore, the the approaching torpedo planes were flying the reciprocal of 045 degree course, 235 degrees (appromimately) [see above]
4. Factually, and contrary to the Hornet's written action report, the Hornet airgroup departed Task Force 16 on a westerly course of 265 degrees. This course was well north of the bearing to Kido Butai at the time, approximately 240 degrees. Approximately 85 miles out, Torpedo Eight turned to port and took up a course of 234 degrees. They sighted Kido Butai, dead ahead, at 0918.
However, regardless of whether you believe that account or not, ALL accounts of VT-8's attack indicate they were proceeding SW when the enemy was sighted dead ahead. (The action report claims the air group departed on a south-westerly course from the get go - it did not, as the Hornet radar log confirms.)
5. Torpedo Eight's commander, Lt-Cdr. John Charles Waldron, USN, initially selected the left-hand carrier (Hiryu) as the squadron's target. but quickly switched to the right-hand carrier (Soryu) to avoid the CAP fighters (zeros) approaching from the SE.
6. Kido Butai's (Nagumo) reports indicate that Soryu was attacked by torpedo planes around 0930. The only US torpeod planes in action at that point was VT-8. Conversely, Kaga, on the far side of the formation, was not attacked by torpedo planes until 1000 by VT-6, which approached from the SW on a north-easterly course having flown past Kido Butai before sighting the smoke Tone and Chikuma made upon sighting VT-8. [This was a standard Japansese tactic at the time to alert the CAP fighters that the enemy had been sighted - their radios could not be relied on.] Likewise, Hiryu was not attacked by torpedo planes until 1035-1040 by VT-3. Interestingly, the commander of VT-3, Lt-Cdr. Lance Eugene Massey, USN also initially chose Soryu as his target, but switched to Hiryu to avoid the large quantity of Zeros approaching from Soryu's vicinity.
7. With Waldron leading VT-8 in on Kido Butai alone, it would be impossible (let alone make no tactical sense) to ignore two carriers steaming directly at him in the front of the Japanese formation, and attempt to fly around the fleet to attack Kaga in the rear of the formation!
8. There is, therefore, no doubt that Kaga was NOT the target of VT-8 on 4 June 1942.
 
Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway
 
Posted By: Anthony Tully <atully@flash.net>
Date: Tuesday, 9 May 2000, at 3:28 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese Carriers at Midway (Mark E. Horan)
 
As part of a reconstruction project I have spent considerable time studying the Japanese records and scant evidence regarding the formation and relative positions of Nagumo's fleet. I agree pretty strongly with Mr.Horan's conclusions that VT-8 attacked SORYU and not KAGA. This is also supported by Kusaka's observations and Fuchida. The Japanese records closely confirm this assertion, but I note that Mr. Horan's reasoning of the approach course of VT 8 from the NE and his discovery of the error in Hornet's report is both fascinating and a fresh insight I don't recall encountering.
 
National Geographic Sub Special
 
Posted By: Jerry Wesolowski <J.wes@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Saturday, 11 September 1999, at 10:36 a.m.
 
If anyone is interested. On 9/11/99 there's a National Geographic special on NBC. It's supposed to be about a WWII Japanese Submarine, the I-52. Sunk during WWII by U.S. warplanes. The Sub was supposed to be carrying a shipment of gold. It sounds like divers will be going down on the wreck. It's supposed to air at 8:00 P.M. EST.
 
Re: National Geographic Sub Special
 
Posted By: Ron Werneth <ronwerneth@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 6:23 p.m.
 
In Response To: National Geographic Sub Special (Jerry Wesolowski)
 
Does anybody have a copy of this? I would be happy to pay for the tape + duplication cost. I love Japanese subs. I hope to interview some of the sub veterans during my next research trip to Japan.
 
Re: National Geographic Sub Special
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dpluth@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: National Geographic Sub Special (Ron Werneth)
 
Pick up the new National Geographic also as there is an article with several photos from the dive. It's one of their better specials and probably worth the $19.99 they were asking for it.
 
Re: National Geographic Sub Special
 
Posted By: Jerry Wesolowski <J.wes@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 24 September 1999, at 7:30 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: National Geographic Sub Special (Ron Werneth)
 
At the end of the show, they broadcast an offer to purchase copies of the show. I don't know the e-mail address for National Geographic. However I'm sure someone else out there can help out. Their library of video tapes is very extensive. Also they usually have extra footage included in them.
 
Re: National Geographic Sub Special
 
Posted By: Bruc <bc_jewett@msn.com>
Date: Saturday, 11 September 1999, at 11:48 p.m.
 
In Response To: National Geographic Sub Special (Jerry Wesolowski)
 
I was impressed with the show. I thought the I-boats had a hanger on deck for a seaplane but none was mentioned. Does anyone know if they were ever meant to have one? Also I wonder if the Japanese government or a Japanese business has any intentions of raising the I-52 or recovering what they can.
 
Re: National Geographic Sub Special
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Sunday, 12 September 1999, at 9:30 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: National Geographic Sub Special (Bruc)
 
Many Japanese subs carried a seaplane, but some classes did not carry any sea plane. The I-52 (by the way, the "I" is not pronounced "eye", but it should be pronounced "ee") belonged to the "HEI" class subs, which sacrificed their seaplane and catapult for more torpedoes and torpedo tubes.
 
Saw the special
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dpluth@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Saturday, 11 September 1999, at 8:45 p.m.
 
In Response To: National Geographic Sub Special (Jerry Wesolowski)
 
We watched the special here. It was funny to see the historian vs the businessman and who won out in the 
end. Overall the footage was pretty good and there was a nice amount of it, as opposed to the previous Midway National Geographic Special.
 
Movie about Japanese midget submarine attack on Sydney
 
Posted By: Jim <shoner@uniserve.com>
Date: Sunday, 5 September 1999, at 9:43 a.m.
 
Many years ago, (about 1989), I saw a one hour docu-drama on PBS about the IJN midget submarine attack on Sydney harbour. It also had a five minute part on the midget sub attack on Pearl Harbor. It was very well done and historically accurate as far as I can tell, and also told of Lt. Keiu Matsuo's early life and story of his background in the IJN. I managed to tape the first 34 minutes of this program but was not able to tape the name of the program at the start and my video tape ran out before the end, so I do not have the credits at the end. I think this was probably a joint Japanese/ Australian or American production as the Japanese actors spoke Japanese with an English voice commentary and some actual 1940s Japanese film was used. There was extensive use of mutiple radio controlled Japanese midget submarine models as well as interior mockups of submarine interiors. My questions are as follows. 1)Does anyone know the name of this program or show? 2) Dioes anyone have a copy of this program? 3) Does anyone know if this program is for sale through any of the specialty videos production companies?
 
Re: Movie about Japanese midget submarine attack on Sydney
 
Posted By: Garth <kkoori@mpx.com.au>
Date: Monday, 13 September 1999, at 12:21 p.m.
 
In Response To: Movie about Japanese midget submarine attack on Sydney (Jim)
 
I have not heard of this production, I am in Sydney and Canberra and I have an immense interest of World War Two in, around and over Australia.
I have several books on the midget submarine attack, none of which mention the movie. I have just sent an email around to my military history workmates and friends to see if they can shed any light for us ;)
 
Good News for 1/700 IJN Waterline Series Fan
 
Posted By: V. Tapasanan <tvidya@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 2 September 1999, at 6:42 p.m.
 
According to information from the latest Model Art Magazine, they mentioned that Major Japanese 1/700 Waterline Series Producers ar planning to issue new re-tool famous & popular IJN ship models in the future. Some interesting items in the list are, Tamiya's Mogami class cruiser, Hasegawa's Nachi class cruiser, Aoshima's Soryu & Hiryu carrier and Takao class cruiser. Well, hope that we will forget some shortcoming of these models in the past ( some of you may remember how poor tooling of the Soryu & Hiryu 's flightdeck were).
 
shipwrecks of IJN warships
 
Posted By: Matt Jones
Date: Thursday, 24 June 1999, at 2:34 p.m.
 
Hi, does anyone know if there are pictures, paintings, or drawings of the wrecks of ANY cruisers (heavy or light, it doesn't matter), fleet carriers (preferably Shinano, Taiho, Shokaku, Zuikaku, Soryu, Hiryu, Akagi, Kaga, or Ryujo), or any of the battleships sunk during the war. And can anyone tell me if the wrecks of cruisers Takao and Myoko, scuttled post-war are owned by anybody and if there are any pictures of the wrecks in their present condition? If so, please call me at:
(281)-445-9755.
 
Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships
 
Posted By: Jerry Wesolowski <j.wes@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Friday, 2 July 1999, at 7:40 p.m.
 
In Response To: shipwrecks of IJN warships (Matt Jones)
 
I don't know of any existing pictures. However the NAVAL INSTITUTE PRESS has a book called "THE ANATOMY OF THE SHIP, BATTLESHIP YAMATO" This is a very good referance book on the ship, and is loaded with many scale drawings, and photos. One of the last drawings in the book is based on photos of the wreckage as it lies on the ocean floor. She is indeed broken in pieces. This is due to the fact that her magazines exploded. I don't know if the book is currently available. If it is I believe it is in the $60.00 range. I hope this helps.
 
Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <Kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Tuesday, 29 June 1999, at 4:45 a.m.
 
In Response To: shipwrecks of IJN warships (Matt Jones)
 
As far as I Know, the following wrecks were found and photographed after the war.
Battleship Yamato-apparently her hull was found broken into two.
Battleship Nagato-found and photographed at Bikini Atol when the radiation level was low enough.
Light cruiser Kiso-sunk at Manilla Bay in 1944, she was salvaged and broken up for scraps in 1955.
There may be more, but I am not aware of them. There were a number of ships sunk at Japanese harbours which were later salvaged, but I did not include these.
 
Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships
 
Posted By: casey greene <cgreene@rosenberg-library.org>
Date: Friday, 25 June 1999, at 11:24 a.m.
 
In Response To: shipwrecks of IJN warships (Matt Jones)
 
As a corollary to this query, I'd like to know if anyone has seen photos of TAKAO at the end of World War II. The books by Maruzen have published two views of MYOKO but none of TAKAO.
 
Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships
 
Posted By: len blix
Date: Tuesday, 22 February 2000, at 5:27 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships (casey greene)
 
sakawa has also been found and photographed at bikini atoll.
 
Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 5:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: shipwrecks of IJN warships (len blix)
 
I believe all the ships would be property of Japan with the exception of
those captured. The ones which you have referred to are in, relatively speaking, shallow water.
 
Battle of the Javasea
 
Posted By: Rutger Bartels <poodle@wxs.nl>
Date: Tuesday, 22 June 1999, at 4:41 p.m.
 
I'm making an essay on the battle of the Javasea and i was wondering if you have any good links for me. I haven't got much resources, so any information on this battle is welcome. And does anyone know what aircraft and which squads were involved in the fight? We lost a big part of our (Dutch) fleet in the battle (eg 'De Ruyter and 'Java'), and I was just interested in what happened there.
 
Re: Battle of the Javasea
 
Posted By: Aldert Gritter
Date: Wednesday, 23 June 1999, at 7:47 a.m.
 
In Response To: Battle of the Javasea (Rutger Bartels)
 
I'm Dutch as well and a WWII/Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) freak. I do possess several books on this subject, but no E-mail address at home yet. (I'm at my working address now). Perhaps you could call me: 050 - 5713434. From memory then:
In the battle of the Java Sea aircraft were hardly used. Most important were several spotter aircraft from the Japanese cruisers, that directed their artillery fire. One or two (not successful) bombing attacks were made by Allied bombers on IJN ships.
The Allied fleet numbered five cruisers (RNN De Ruyter (flag of RADM Karel W.F.M. Doorman), RNN Java, HMS Exeter, HMAS Perth and USS Houston) and nine destroyers (RNN Kortenaer and Witte de With; HMS Electra, Encounter and Jupiter; USS Pope, Pillsbury and two more of which I'm not sure now - as a kind of revanche for this these four American destroyers, smallest ships on either side, were the only Allied ships to survive the battle and its aftermath).
The Japanese fleet consisted of four cruisers (IJN Nachi (flag of RADM Takagi Takeo), Haguro, Naka and Jintsu) and fourteen destroyers (Yukikaze, Amatsukaze, Tokitsukaze - beautiful names, but hard to learn by head!)
Firing started at about 16.15. After an hour (17.08) Exeter was badly hit, reducing her speed too far to be useful for the rest of the battle; she was sent off, escorted by Witte de With. A few minutes later Kortenaer was sunk by a Japanese Long Lance torpedo, a weapon that was a big surprise to the Allies.
Shortly afterwards Electra was sunk as well, this time by Japanese destroyer gunfire. The American destroyers fired their torpedoes but had no success and, being too weak in the gunnery department, left the battle also. At about 21.25 Jupiter sank, probably by a Dutch mine... Only four cruisers were left when Encounter left the battle also (and by so doing saved the survivors of Kortenaer). So far the Japanese had made two large torpedo attacks (ca. 50 torps per attack), yet only hit Kortenaer. This time (23.30) however they fired a total of only twelve from both heavy cruisers (Nachi and Haguro), but nonetheless hit both Dutch cruisers. The battle had been lost by the Allies; not a single Japanese unit was sunk.
I have books by Dutch (Bezemer, Kroese - CO of Kortenaer -, Bosscher), English (Gordon - CO of Exeter -, ?- forgot the guy's name; the title of course is: "The battle of the Java Sea") and even a Japanese (Hara - CO of Amatsukaze) authors.
 
23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Jasper Versteeg <jasper.versteeg@student.utwente.nl>
Date: Tuesday, 16 March 1999, at 7:49 a.m.
 
I would like to know more about the following ships:
Japanese troopship SS Katori Maru (9848t)
Japanese troopship SS Hiyoshi Maru (4943t)
these ships were sunk at 23 december 1941 by the Dutch submarine K-XIV which
in the same attack also damaged the following ships:
Japanese troopship MS Hokkai Maru (8416t)
Japanese troopship SS Nichiran Maru (6503t) (or Ninchinan Maru)
further on the submarinetreid to attack a Japanese freighter and a destroyer
these attacks were without results.
If anyone has some info about these ships it would be welcome. Names could
be written wrong.
One warning I am not a ship builder but an airplane builder who took a little
side road and is now planning to build the K-XIV in 1/72.
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews <ritoews@mb.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wednesday, 24 March 1999, at 12:52 p.m.
 
In Response To: 23 december 1941 (Jasper Versteeg)
 
In The Imperial Japanese Navy (1941-1945), page 42, Paul Dull briefly mentions the attack of 23 December as follows, "Since 15 December, the Japanese forces had been subject to sporadic air and submarine attacks. Further losses were incurred when the destroyer Sagiri, on 24 December, was torpedoed twice and sunk, with 121 men killed, by the Dutch submarine K-XVI. At Kuching one transport was sunk by planes, and one by the K-XVI. Three transports were also damaged by the K-XIV." Unfortunately I cannot find any more details on these transports.
As I understand it, SS means steam ship and MS means motor ship (ie. diesel). MV, or motor vessel, is sometimes used instead of MS.
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Jasper Versteeg <jasper.versteeg@student.utwente.nl>
Date: Wednesday, 24 March 1999, at 1:19 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 23 december 1941 (Ryan Toews)
 
Thanks for the reply. But I mentioned the K-XIV and you mentioned the K-XVI
these are two different ships as a mather of fact the K-XVI was sunk by the Japanese submarine I-66 just a day afther this attack whil the K-XIV survived
the war.
Thanks for the explaning of MS and SS. But do you know anything about the Japanese names? What means Maru? Ship?
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Graham Boak <graham@boak98.freestyle.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, 25 March 1999, at 11:18 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 23 december 1941 (Jasper Versteeg)
 
I understand that Maru is applied as a suffix to all commercial ships (including a number of auxiliary warships based on civil hulls) and an approximate translation is "tubby" i.e. fat, stemming from their shape compared with the slender design of warships. But I'm not expert in Japanese.
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 March 1999, at 7:01 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 23 december 1941 (Graham Boak)
 
Graham is absolutely correct about "maru" being used as a suffix to commercial ships. The direct translation of "maru" is "circle". I do not know why it's use is limited only to commercial ships(although if memory serves correctly, I believe early Japanese warships from late 1800's often had the suffix "maru").
I looked up "maru" in a Japanese dictionary, and it stated that "maru" was often used as a suffix for names of persons, swords, art work, ships, and even pet dogs. It also explaned that the word maru, when used as suffix, was derived from an old Japanese word(we're talking about about 1000 years ago),"maro." "Maro " was often used as a suffix to a male name. It didn't say how the usage of "maru" to represent a ship's name came about.
I deduce that the meaning of the word "maru(which is "cicle")" has very little to do with its use in a ship's name. After all, it's also used to name swords, which are far from being circular or round.
Are there any linguists out there who can explain how they came about using "maru" to represent ships?
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Ryan Toews
Date: Thursday, 25 March 1999, at 4:05 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 23 december 1941 (Jasper Versteeg)
 
The K-XIV was the sub that was said to have damaged the 3 tranports. I am not able to say what the ships' names translate as but I believe that Maru means ship.
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Jasper Versteeg <jasper.versteeg@student.utwente.nl>
Date: Thursday, 25 March 1999, at 8:46 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: 23 december 1941 (Ryan Toews)
 
Sorry I aperaintly read the message not completly right, due to the language
problem I guess. Thanks for your reply.
 
Re: 23 december 1941
 
Posted By: Jasper Versteeg <jasper.versteeg@student.utwente.nl>
Date: Saturday, 20 March 1999, at 8:08 a.m.
 
In Response To: 23 december 1941 (Jasper Versteeg)
 
Sorry everyone,
But I'm still looking for info on the Japanese ships meantioned in my firstmail on this messageboard. Certainly I would like to know what it is:
SS Nichiran Maruor or SS Ninchinan Maru. Further on is there a translation possible of these names and what means SS or MS?
 
Re: Japanese names
 
Posted By: Roland Mar <tsuma@rmi.net>
Date: Friday, 2 April 1999, at 7:00 p.m.
 
In Response To: Japanese names (Jasper Versteeg)
 
I hope I am not intruding, as I just blundered into this website, but in answer to your questions: S.S. means "Steam Ship" and M.S. means "Motor Ship". The latter means the ship is diesel powered. I hope this helps.
 
Re: Japanese names
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 6:12 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Japanese names (Roland Mar)
 
Anyone who 'blunders' into a website, as I have, such as this is to be welcomed. Any-way, your definition of MS versus SS is dead on and it helps those of us not
so enlightended.
 
Japanese catapaults/launching devices
 
Posted By: Gary Majchrzak <GAMAKACH@MR.NET>
Date: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 5:56 a.m.
 
I'm looking for a reference or information that I can read or view about Japanese devices used to launch planes from their battleships or cruisers.
I am particularly interested in the ship name, years of service, view of the device and plane types it launched and color schemes.
If some of you learned scholars could supply me with this information I would be most grateful.
 
Re: Japanese catapaults/launching devices
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thursday, 4 March 1999, at 12:47 p.m.
 
In Response To: Japanese catapaults/launching devices (Gary Majchrzak)
 
That's a tall order.
For your sources, you could try old Maru pamphlets on ships, or compilations like Shashin Nihon no Gunkan. There is also a pair of pamphlets by Tamiya
on ships and ship parts. They show a common catapult and dollies.
I can't tell you much about the early '30s off the top of my head, but
in the late Thirties we see planes like Alf and Dave on catapults,
then along come Jake and Pete. I don't know if it was possible to
launch Rufe from a catapult, but Rufe is sometimes seen stowed on a
catapult on seaplane tender Kamikawa Maru. It would not have been on
the sorts of ships you're talking about, though.
Many of us are still looking for a photo of Norm or Paul on a catapult.
 
Pitroad/Skywave website?
 
Posted By: Mike Quan <MnkQuan@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 6:15 a.m.
 
Many folks have been looking to see if Skywave (Pit Road) had a web
site. A suggested possible site from the Ship Modelling Mailing List was: http://giao.com/pit-road/ It's in Japanese, but navigating through it is as simple as it gets (click on Next to progress through two or three pages.) It is very sparse and looks more to be a sight for a store, but it the title says Skywave and there are no other links to other manufacturers. The map and directions could be to an outlet or a showroom. Can anyone with some Japanese translation skills confirm or deny? TIA.
 
Re: Pitroad/Skywave website?
 
Posted By: Tennessee Katsuta <kinson-garments@on.aibn.com>
Date: Sunday, 28 February 1999, at 6:13 p.m.
 
In Response To: Pitroad/Skywave website? (Mike Quan)
 
Yes, it is an official Pit-road site. It looks like it`s just started. Hopefully it will grow bigger. They mentioned on the site that they might do Akitsushima, the Japanese flying boat tender. If it becomes official, they will announce it around May.
 
Carrier elevators
 
Posted By: Steve Long <lmcclong@mindspring.com>
Date: Tuesday, 19 January 1999, at 11:48 a.m.
 
Is there any photo's or drawing for the elevators on japanese carriers. I would like to produce a 1/48th elevator to use as a base for a model.
 
Re: Carrier elevators
 
Posted By: Lars Ahlberg <lars.ahlberg@halmstad.mail.postnet.se>
Date: Wednesday, 10 February 1999, at 9:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Carrier elevators (Steve Long)
 
Drawings of Japanese carrier elevators can be found in a book by Hasegawa Tichi entitled "Gunkan Mekanizumu Zukan: Nihon no Kk-bokan" ("Warship Mechanisms Picture Book: Japanese Aircraft Carriers") published by Grand Prix, Tokyo, 1997 (Japanese text). On page 152 you will find a good drawing of an elevator from the light fleet carrier "Chiyoda" and some other details.
 
Re: Carrier elevators
 
Posted By: Tom Hall <hall41@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Friday, 22 January 1999, at 3:36 p.m.
 
In Response To: Carrier elevators (Steve Long)
 
We certainly need some good diorama bases.
Unfortunately, there are not a lot of really clear
photos showing whole elevators. Then, too,
you will find some different sizes and shapes.
I think it's safe to say that a manufacturer
would need to choose between doing a sort
of generic elevator and doing them on a
case-by-case basis.
Have you seen the Maru series? It does a
pretty good job of showing the couple of dozen
photos that seem to have been published. Wish
I knew of a big sink hole of such photos.
 
Funnel Stripes
 
Posted By: David Aiken <David_Aiken@hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 12 January 1999, at 8:18 p.m.
 
There are funnel stripes in pre-war photos. There are no funnel stripes seen in the war-time photos. When was the change? In route to Pearl Harbor, as one source states? or: Just prewar as another suggests?
 
Re: Funnel Stripes
 
Posted By: Charles Watson <procladius@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 12 January 1999, at 5:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: Funnel Stripes (David Aiken)
 
In reponse to the request for information on IJN funnel stripes, Warship International, 1982, Vol. 1, has an article entitled, "Painting systems of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1904 - 1945", by Linton Wells II. In it he says the following about funnel bands in wartime: "In May, 1941, Admiral Yammamoto ordered the bands painted out when entering anchorage, but they continued to be used during ordinary fleet operations. During the Pacific War, the use of stripes was left to the discretion of division and squadron commanders, and some ships carried them at least until 1943."
This is supported by a photo of the DD Uranami at the battle of the Bismark Sea in early March, 1943. Taken by an American bomber on a low level pass, it clearly shows the DD with two white stripes on the after funnel. This picture appears, among other places, in "Battle of the Bismark Sea" by Lex Mcaulay.
 
Battle of Sunda St.
 
Posted By: Arjun Sarup <sarup@intnet.mu>
Date: Thursday, 29 October 1998, at 9:56 p.m.
 
This discussion board is really fantastic, so I thought I'd take the liberty to ask another question. Here goes:
In the web site Nihon Kaigun, there is an account of what happened during the Battle of Sunda Strait, reproduced below;
"The Japanese, however, paid the price for their profligate use of torpedoes, because they managed to sink two of their own vessels (a minesweeper and a transport), and severely damaged three more transports with friendly torpedo fire."
There is a passage reproduced below from the web site //sunsite.unc.edu/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/USN/cruisers/ca-30.txt:
From: Dictionary of American Fighting Ships, Vol. III, 1968,
Navy Department, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Naval History Division,
Washington, D.C.
"The cruisers were almost torpedoed as they approached the bay, but evaded the nine torpedoes launched by destroyed FUBUKI. The cruisers then sank one transport and forced three others to beach. A destroyer squadron blocked Sunda Strait, their means of retreat, and on the other hand large cruisers MOGAMI and MIKUMA stood dangerously near. The result was foreordained, but HOUSTON and PERTH fought valiantly. PERTH came under fire at 2336 and in an hour had been sunk from gunfire and torpedo hits. HOUSTON then fought alone, her guns blazing at the enemy all around her, a champion at bay. Soon after midnight she took a torpedo and began to lose headway. During this time HOUSTON's gunners scored hits on three different destroyers and sank a minesweeper, but suffered three more torpedo explosions in quick succession."
The 2 passages are contradictory, which is understandable given the level of confusion that must have existed during the battle. However, as per the first account, the Japanese succeeded in sinking or damaging their own ships, whereas the second account attributes their loss to USS Houston & Perth.
I'd imagine a torpedo hit has quite a different effect to gunfire, so hopefully someone can track down what really happened to that Japanese minesweeper and transports. There ought to have been survivors off the Japanese ships, so maybe another account exists somewhere.
 
Re: Battle of Sunda St.
 
Posted By: Randy <r.stone.eal@juno.com>
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2000, at 6:43 p.m.
 
In Response To: Battle of Sunda St. (Arjun Sarup)
 
If you have found the answers to your questions you have found an in-teresting story. If not, get hold of me and I will pass along the info
you need to answer those questions. The answers are out there and readily available but we can help you with no problem. There are many books which address these issues.
 
Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Francois P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Saturday, 12 September 1998, at 2:29 p.m.
 
This is a long time dream for me: have a 1/72nd carrier to put models on...
Unfortunately, I'm an humble plastic kit builder and I don't feel ready to undertake a scratch build ship model of this size. Beside that do any of you, guys, have a source for very detailed plans that could help in such endeavour?
I know sounds foolish but...
 
Re: Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Dean Keller <deankeller@internetwis.com>
Date: Saturday, 27 February 1999, at 4:51 a.m.
 
In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)
 
I built a Kagero class destroyer in 1/72 just to practice for the same reason. I intend to build the Zuiho someday. No, my DD isn't very detailed but it is to scale. The hull and bridge are solid wood and the gun and torpedo turrets are solid steel. (I made those at work) I used three different profiles I was able to find for this class of ship. I took each profile and determined the mathematical ratio that would give me 1/72 scale. Then I measured all the different dimensions and made an exact 1/72 blueprint to work from.
I plan to make the carrier as I mentioned, but my debate now is how I want to build it. My son will soon be 4 and he likes to play with my really old kits. I was considering wether I should make the flight deck with elevators and or with hinges so he could use it as a toy box for the planes he is allowed to play with.
If you really want to see what a 72nd carrier should look like, there is a fabulous 'on the water' version of the Essex (?) at the air museum in Oshkosh WI. USA with F6F's, TBF's, figures, and whatever you can imagine.
 
Re: Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Mike Goodwin <Mike.Goodwin@kst.siemens.de>
Date: Tuesday, 16 February 1999, at 11:07 a.m.
 
In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)
 
This is probably not the ideal solution for you, but I have a 1/300th card scale model of the Akagi. It is from the Polish firm of Flymodel, and generally available. If you'd like to photocopy and enlarge each sheet x4 (it is printed on A3 format, about twice as large as Letter), you could make a 1/75th paper Akagi! Flymodel and other Polish producers make a range of aircraft carriers, mostly to 1/200th scale, so you could make a 1/50th scale model with the same magnification, or a 1/72nd scale model by magnifying somewhat less.
There is also a 1/100th scale card model of the I-19, from GPM in Poland. It includes a 1/100th card E14Y1 "GLEN" to perch on top. There is also a number of card models available of Japanese aircraft, mostly to 1/33rd scale. The largest I have is also by GPM, of the G4M2e "BETTY", together with MXY7 "BAKA" to sling underneath.
If anyone would like further details, please get in touch.
 
Re: Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Hiroyuki
Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 8:06 p.m.
 
In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)
 
I know sounds foolish but...
Well,there's a famous model club in Tokyo whose members spent several years building the USS Hornet in 1/48 scale and loaded it with B-25s!
I'm not a ship modeller so I don't know what kind of plans are nocessary to scratch build a ship, but if I were you, I'd start with a sub like I-400 or I-19 and load Seiran or Type O Small Floatplane for starters. I saw a guy who scratchbuilt an I-400 in 1/48 that was electrically operated so the hatch opens and the Seiran slides out, and the wings unfold.
 
Re: Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Dave Pluth <dpluth@j-aircraft.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 4:05 a.m.
 
In Response To: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)
 
VLM has a section of deck that you can buy and put your aircraft on. I believe it's about 1 foot X 1 foot and runs somewhere around $16. They have both 48th and 72nd. So, even if you didn't want to use the piece itself, you may be able to use it as a template for the rest of the deck. Oh and you do have to paint it yourself.
 
Re: Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Francois P. WEILL <frpawe@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 5:05 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Carriers for our plane models (Dave Pluth)
 
But my real dream would be a complete waterline model...
PS: I'm not sure this trade mark is distributed in France
 
Re: Carriers for our plane models
 
Posted By: Rob Graham <RGraham111@aol.com>
Date: Sunday, 13 September 1998, at 3:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Carriers for our plane models (Frtancois P. WEILL)
 
Verlinden should be available there, Francois. I believe VLS is from Belgium. As an additional note, Carrier Deck Accessories (a division of Classic Warships) makes several versions. Mine, a 1/48 IJN carrier deck, measures 11" by 12 1/2 " and includes photoetched tie downs and a set of white metal wheel chocks. It also comes with painting instructions. It is available at hobby shops here, and retails for about $30 US. It looks nice, and I think it works out well. The manufacturer can be reached at:
Carrier Deck Accessories
PO Box 57591
Tucson, AZ 85732
Phone/FAX (520)748-2992
 
"Z" flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz
 
Posted By: Uchida, Katsuhiro <mailto:katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com?subject='Z' flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz>
Date: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 6:37 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Finemolds official homepage (Greg Springer)
Hello Greg,
Thank you for replying!
Yes, as you guessed, the painting on the tail is one of the signal flags.
(As most of the ship modelers know) That is "Z" flag. The flag became "special" one for the IJN since Adm. Togo used it at the battle against Russia.
The meaning at that time was "The fate of the Empire hangs on this battle. I desire each of you to make great effort."
Adm. Togo compared him to Adm. Nelson of the RN, and Adm. Nimitz leaned lot about Adm. Togo. (Adm. Nimitz dedicated his portrait with his autograph on it to the Togo Shrine in Harajuku, Tokyo after W.W.II. Battleship Mikasa was restored because of Nimitz's devotion and we Japanese owe him a lot.)
So you can say, history repeats itself...
Best regards,
Katsuhiro Uchida
 
Re: "Z" flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: 'Z' flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz>
Date: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 10:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: "Z" flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
 
Hello Katsuhiro!
Thank you for the story! Admiral Nelson's famous flag signal at the battle of Trafalgar was 'England expects every man to do his duty.' At the Nimitz museum there is a bronze casting of young Lieutenant Nimitz shaking hands with Admiral Togo when he visited Japan early in the 20th century. Both of them were true gentlemen even if they were from very different cultures.
Best Regards,
Greg
 
Re: "Z" flag and Pearl Harbor
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: 'Z' flag and Pearl Harbor>
Date: Wednesday, 31 January 2001, at 7:52 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "Z" flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz *PIC* (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
 
Aloha K Uchida Sama,
The international flag signal "Z" used by Admiral Togo -which was the "code of that day" for the "Fate of the Nation is in your hands"- was copied by Admiral Nagumo at Pearl Harbor.
However, the flag code "for the day" was different than as used by Admiral Togo. In error, many English texts detail that the same Z flag used by Admiral Togo was brought with Nagumo to be raised at some point prior to takeoff for Oahu.
The actual flag code "for the day" that meant the same as Admiral Togo's Z flag, was the two flags "DG". THE RELUCTANT ADMIRAL is the first English text to reveal this.
Cheers,
David Aiken
 
Re: "Z" flag and Pearl Harbor
 
Posted By:  <mailto:katsuhiro.uchida@honeywell.com?subject=Re: 'Z' flag and Pearl Harbor>
Date: Thursday, 1 February 2001, at 5:09 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "Z" flag and Pearl Harbor (David_Aiken)
 
Hello David-san,
Yes, I also used to think that Vice Adm. Nagumo used Z flag on the day until I read the book you mentioned . (AGAWA, Hiroyuki's "Yamamoto Isoroku - the reluctant admiral") Even in the movie, TOHNO, Eijiro (as Nagumo) said "I use 'Z' flag for the day." That was also an error.
You can see "Z" flags on many pictures taken at the naval air bases during the war.
It is also said that Vice Adm. Ozawa (commander, 1st Mobile Fleet) used "Z" flag in the Battle of Marianas, but In Agawa's another novel "Kurai Hatoh (the Dark Tide)", the different flags are used on Taiho.
Thank you very much for the further information!!
Katsuhiro Uchida
 
Re: IJN flags
 
Posted By: David_Aiken <mailto:David_Aiken@hotmail.com?subject=Re: IJN flags>
Date: Thursday, 1 February 2001, at 9:00 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: "Z" flag and Pearl Harbor (Clint Bauer)
 
Hi Clint,
The IJN used the same International Alphabet Flags, Naval Numeral Flags, International Numeral Pennants and Special Flags/Pennants that other navys used.
Check with your local Navy recruiter for a copy of "RAD 68924 Bureau of Naval Personnel" handout which gives these in color; or look in large dictionaries, etc for drawings of these flags/pennants.
Oh, yes, for the flag hoist that said "DG" for the Pearl Harbor Attack...the flags were "Pennant Zero" [at the top]; then "Delta" flag, and then "Golf" flag (using todays gargon).
Of course, the signals changed often, so what the code for "come and get it" might have another meaning later.
I sure wish I had the USN code for 7 Dec so I could understand what the flags on USS California and USS Pennsylvania were sending in those graphic shots. Some of the codes for that day are in the Congressional Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack: "LK" = "light forces will operate according to battle plan indicated"; "BE" = "attack according to plan indicated"...
Cheers,
David
 
Re: "Z" flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz
 
Posted By: Greg Springer <mailto:gspring@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: 'Z' flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz>
Date: Tuesday, 30 January 2001, at 10:18 p.m.
 
In Response To: "Z" flag and Admirals Togo and Nimitz (Uchida, Katsuhiro)
Hello Katsuhiro!
Thank you for the story! Admiral Nelson's famous flag signal at the battle of Trafalgar was 'England expects every man to do his duty.' At the Nimitz museum there is a bronze casting of young Lieutenant Nimitz shaking hands with Admiral Togo when he visited Japan early in the 20th century. Both of them were true gentlemen even if they were from very different cultures.
Best Regards,
Greg
Good references for battleship/cruiser catapults
 
Posted By: Jim Broshot <jbroshot@socket.net>
Date: Sunday, 11 February 2001, at 8:48 p.m.
 
In Response To: Good references for battleship/cruiser catapults? (Dan Salamone)
 
Skulski's three Anatomy of the Ship series books (ISBNs for Naval Institute editions):
YAMATO (already mentioned) - catapult type not given
TAKAO (1-55750-354-0) - Catapult Type 2 Model 3 and Catapult Type 2 Model 5
FUSO (0-55750-046-0) - Catapult Type 2 Model 5 also.
detailed drawings at 1:50 scale for Fuso, 1:100 scale for Takao, 1:100 scale for Yamato
IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Deniz Karaçay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=IJN Sotie to Ceylon>
Date: Friday, 1 June 2001, at 6:06 p.m.
 
I did not quite get the idea what IJN was doing there. Was the sole purpose to sink British Ships or was there an invasion plan for Ceylon (todays Sri Lanka) or even Madagascar?
Can you suggest any good books about this operation.
 
Thanks
Deniz
 
Re: IJN Sotie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Elliott <mailto:elliott1940@yahoo.com?subject=Re: IJN Sotie to Ceylon>
Date: Tuesday, 12 June 2001, at 10:29 a.m.
 
In Response To: IJN Sotie to Ceylon (Deniz Karaçay)
 
For an excellent account of the Japanese attack on Ceylon, read 'Bloody Shambles' by Christopher Shores, I think vol. 2 - from memory, the Japanese never planned to invade Ceylon - they were just out to sink British (& allied) shipping.
We lost a lot of Hurricanes in both attacks on Columbo and Trincomalee.
Regards,
Elliott
 
Thank you all
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:dkaracay@umr.edu?subject=Thank you all>
Date: Wednesday, 6 June 2001, at 5:48 p.m.
 
In Response To: IJN Sotie to Ceylon (Deniz Karaçay)
 
Well, I still did not get any Grand Strategy behind Ceylon Sortie, perhaps there was none. If the idea was to sink what was left of RN then it was more like using a Sledge Hammer to crack a nut and unnecessarily risk NO1 force of Japan. Kido Butai came so close to give Blenheim its finest hour.
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 8:43 p.m.
 
In Response To: IJN Sotie to Ceylon (Deniz Karaçay)
 
Hi Deniz:
I can't tell you why the Japanese went to Ceylon...what a major waste of time and effort. Just who did they think they were battling? and with USN carriers roaming the Outer Mandates during this time? and with the need to refit and refresh their ships and men of the Nagumo Force for Second Stage Operations? Beats the devil out of me what they thought they were doing, although they were rather successful at it.
Don't get me wrong, the Japanese had sound and valid arguments for what they did but as a latter-day, Monday-morning observer of the events, Operation "C" just reeks to high heaven.
 
More to the point, however, Nagumo was nearly bit, and bit hard, about three times during this operation and these examples should have provided a warning to the IJN in general and Nagumo in particular:
 
1.) The absence of decent search capabilities by the Kido Butai. Nagumo was definitely out on limb using limited scouting by accompanying surface vessels; no, while Tone and Chikuma (and later Mogami) were steps in the proper direction, the fact is that Nagumo's carriers had limited organic assets and training for reconnaissance. The Kido Butai was oriented far too much toward attack TO THE EXCLUSION OF adequate reconnaissance.
2.) The discovery of Cornwall and Dorsetshire was a definite surprise to Nagumo and, to some degree, so was Hermes. That the assets for assault against these vessels existed hid a fundamental flaw in Japanese carrier operations. Namely, an unknown force could catch Nagumo with his pants down while the majority of his strike force was committed either to an attack or to rearming...sound familiar?
3.) The British nevertheless nearly nailed Nagumo with night flying torpedo bombers (hadn't heard that one before? neither had I until Mark Horan gratiously enlightened me about this) and Nagumo was most lucky when the Blenheims surprised and bombed his force like 'a bolt from the blue'...again, sound familiar?
 
As to sources regarding Operation "C," off the top of my pointed head I would say:
David Thomas...Japan's War at Sea,
H.P. Willmott...Empires in the Balance,
Fuchida and Okumiya...Midway!,
Gray...Operation Pacific.
 
And I would particularly recommend Thomas given his coverage of the Ryujo/heavy cruiser raids during the Nagumo attacks...something usually overlooked by most histories.
 
Sincerely,
Randy
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Deniz Karacay <mailto:denizkaracay@yahoo.com?subject=Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon>
Date: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 7:31 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Randy)
 
What kind of a/c attacked Japanese Carriers at night? Swordfish? Beaufort? Blenheim?
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Friday, 8 June 2001, at 12:45 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Deniz Karacay)
 
IIRC, it was radar equipped Albacores which were to do the night dirty work against Nagumo.
The Blenheims hit him during daylight.
 
Randy
 
Re: Attack on KdB
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Attack on KdB>
Date: Friday, 8 June 2001, at 11:55 a.m.
 
In Response To:  (Deniz Karacay)
 
Deniz,
Not quite........ They used level bombing at 11,000 ft. Of the 11 that took off, 2 aborted, and 3 surviving machines were so shot up, they were written off. 6 were lost along with the crews. It was a fore-taste of events to come......
And it should be noted, that the Blenheims came in under the IJN CAP, and weren't spotted so they did have an element of surprise, but it was all for naught.
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon>
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2001, at 9:29 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Randy)
 
Hello Randy,
Nagumo was merely following the instructions handed down to him, and that was to keep the Royal Navy away from the Burma operations and not to make the same mistake (Oil Tanks and Docks) he made at Pearl Harbor.
 
The conjecture is the search that was conducted by Nagumo. I've heard many variations of why he used a single phased search, but I've not seen anything documented. I have not heard any evidence as to what type of aircraft were involved in those searches, just rumors. Personally, I believe he used those from his cruisers, using a 180 degree fan. That might use at least 10 aircraft, I don't know.
The other conjecture was why an interdiction while the US was roaming thru the Mandates? "C" Operation was already on the table a month before it took place and it actually started with the Andaman Operation, or the beginning of it. I don't know nor have I heard (Documented) what Yamamoto's thoughts were on the subject, but I've heard unsubstaniated comments on it. Since I don't have any recorded documents on the subject, I refrain from making any statements, as it could prove false. But the fact is, Nagumo was following orders, and he did use a single phased search which could have caught him, or maybe not, and that depends who one talks to. My purpose was to clear the air and not read more into it or take something out of it.
Nagumo has taken some lumps, but if one looks at what his assignment was, he did follow it to the letter. It is most fortunate that Yamamoto selected Nagumo to run KdB, for if it had been Yamaguchi, the war might have lasted a while longer.
 
FWIW - Al
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 6 June 2001, at 5:17 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Allan)
 
Hi Allan:
OK, I just wanted to see precisely where you were coming from and why.
As to conjecture over these issues I would not shy away from such concerning the IJN in general or Operation 'C' in particular. But your caution is not to be dismissed nor do I do so.
 
But let me begin a few comments by saying I feel a great deal of sympathy towards Nagumo as opposed to the great deal of opprobrium he has garnered over the years. As to whether there was more latitude to be exercised by the Kido Butai, and was apparent to Nagumo and his staff and not judiciously considered, I too am not certain. This is why -- for better or worse -- I am trying to secure the writings of various of the wartime commanders for what it is worth, ie. Kusaka, Ugaki, etc. Nevertheless, there is not a whole lot to be lost by engaging in reasonable conjecture assuming we try to ascertain truth rather than fiction; and, as long as the agenda we pursue is grounded in neutrality with respect to the facts as we can determine them.
 
I understand your comments regarding the timetables set out by the Japanese and how these contributed to the operations which ensued. My comments were directed at the fundamental core of the issue; namely, why the Japanese chose to dilute their efforts against the USN by moving into the Indian Ocean. I understand your viewpoint and respect that. I do not believe you have failed to provide any answers and are correct in assuming a stance of caution lest we provoke a great deal of misinformation. I believe the information we seek does exist.
 
My information about the search plans is scant but parallels yours and I believe we are close to the facts. I am also interested in why this type of search plan was allowed to continueleaving aside hubris, habit and Japanese psyche. It has been many years since I have read cover to cover either of Willmott's volumes (and I believe both are very good, where is the third?) but I intend to do so and have them readily at hand. And, in spite of the fact that Willmott's version of Midway will be revised somewhat and shortly, I find his analyses quite provoking and valid, if somewhat ill-served by some of his sources (primarily Morison).
I could stand on my points 1, 2 and 3 above simply by pointing out that they indeed are true but, like you I presume, I am very interested in the how and why of it all. However, I would rather say that I am pleased by your approach to the issue and thank you for the courtesy of a thoughtful reply rather than the type of invective and polemics I could find on other forums.
 
Could you possibly post relevant sources regarding Operation "C" and reconnaissance procedures of which you are aware and which I may find of use?
Lastly, allow me to apologise for this post sounding so pedantic. I am almost embarrassed by its' style but feel the need to get the message out as more important than any necessary editing.
 
Sincerely,
Randy
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon>
Date: Wednesday, 6 June 2001, at 7:33 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Randy)
 
Hello Randy,
Firstly and most importantly no apologies are needed and I concur with your asessment 100%. I have been finding that Nagumo has taken lumps that were not of his making. Certainly he was cautious as he relied heavily on his Air Staff and it showed throughout the course of 9 months. Although I have no documentation, I believe that the searches were purposed by the Air Staff and he went along with it, certainly he had the option of using several types of searches, but I've been cautioned not to rely too heavily on Fuchida.
 
The only way to gain any information, is to bring these types of operations out into the open, and have a frank and candid discussion........ and I do appreciate any and all input.
I too have been waiting for Willmott's third book, but it was "Empires in the Balance" that really stirred be. Paul Dull's book "The Battle History of the IJN" does not go indepth, nor does Stanley Woodburn Kirby (HMSO) "The War Against Japan" 1957/1969. Kirby was more indepth than Roskill or Morison, but it was tantalizingly vague. Only when Chris Shores came out with "Bloody Shambles" did I realize how large "C" Operation was. The movement of forces on land as well as sea, including the seizure of Christmas Island, the Andamans, the Burma Convoy (18th Div) and the reduction (As you will) of Ceylon. I have not read Ugaki's "Fading Victory", so I don't know if it is useful or not. The other is the the USSBS "Campaigns of the Pacific War", but that just refers to the operations by phases. The various IJN Monographs on the subject as just as vague, so I've been very cautious when approaching this topic.
 
Your comment ..."why the Japanese chose to dilute their efforts against the USN by moving into the Indian Ocean." intrigue me. That decision was made not by Yamamoto, but by a compromise with the Army and Navy, to secure the objectives and provide support. Yamamoto was concerned about the "Raids" but had to wait for the conclusion (April 10th)of the 1st Stage of Operations and the return of his fleet to Japan. I believe John Toland wrote a segment on that subject, but I can't remember the title.
 
As to the searches, I don't really have a clue, except that I remember a comment being made that the searches were a 120 degree fan, with the Battleship floats covering the flanks. Now I need to follow this up and find where I read this, but the pattern is very simliar to the one used at Midway, and I think those were Fuchida's or Genda's comments. I realize I'm going out on a limb here, so I need to verify this. So you see, I'm about where you are........
 
Frustrated......
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Randy
Date: Wednesday, 6 June 2001, at 9:59 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Allan)
 
Hi Allan:
Allow me to look up many of the sources you mentioned as I have them. I find Toland to be a very credible source, as you may have heard me state before in some form or another. Fuchida is to be consulted with some caution.
 
I intend to buy "Bloody Shambles," as I can not believe such a source could be poor. Thank you for further confirmation.
 
Yes, the Army controlled so much and brought to bear enormous influence concerning operations in SEA. They were a driving force behind so many operations by action...or inaction. So I understand your comments in that regard.
 
Note for Denis: Please bear with us Denis; actually, there is method to this madness. I would suggest you read Willmott for an overview of the strategic considerations regarding Operation "C" and other related offensives in the area of SEA. I think it fair to say Allan and I got off on a tangent and perhaps we distracted you...sorry. Ask for more help and I'll be happy to oblige.
 
Sincerely,
Randy
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Mark Shannon <mailto:Shingend@ix.netcom.com?subject=Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon>
Date: Thursday, 7 June 2001, at 7:08 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon (Randy)
 
I believe there is only one explanation for the swing through the Indian Ocean. That was the original strategy all the time.
 
Remember, the attack on Pearl Harbor was just a late addition to the plans, and all the plans were to ensure the capture and fortification of the Southeast Asia and Indonesian resources of oil, rubber, tin, and copper. All of the histories relate this essential strategy. (Wilmot, Morrison, Toland (when he was accurate), etc.)
The Japanese strategists had a singlemindedness that included the assumption that the enemy would respond the way they, themselves would. The blunting of the American battlefleet at Pearl was considered in the plans as protecting the left flank of the overall assault. The right flank was to hold on, if the British fleet threatened the right, until the striking forces from Kido Butai were able to reinforce.
 
The sinking of the H.M.S. Prince of Wales and H.M.S. Repulse was as much a pleasant surprise to the Japanese as it was a shock to the British. As far as the strategic plans, it was a bit of langianape. The drive through the center, into Java, Sumatra, and New Guinea, could now procede unimpeded.
With this kind of thinking and planning, the sweep of Kido Butai into the Indian Ocean was something that was in the works from the beginning and still useful enough to complete.
 
This kind of planning did tie Nagumo's hands more than a bit, and his goal probably also concerned conservation of resources. I would bet, as far as scouting and carrier protection duties were concerned, that some Japanese bean counter-type mind in planning decided the 'optimum' scouting and protection given the limited fuel and maintenance resources available. With the fixed view of both British and American strategic responses and the derogatory opinion of the individual enemy fighting man, it seemed like a good budget at the time. (Unadulterated purely my own speculation and opinions.)
 
.Mark.
 
Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: IJN Sortie to Ceylon>
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2001, at 1:21 p.m.
 
In Response To:  (Randy)
 
Hello Randy,
"C" Operation was a part of Phase 4, Stage 1 of their collective operations. While one may not agree with the Japanese planning, it went like this:
Kido Butai provided "Distant Cover" for the following:
1 - Ozawa's intrusion into the Bay of Bengal
2 - For the 3 convoys transporting 2 Divisions to Rangoon
Ozawa provided "Close Cover" for those transports plus interdicted merchant commerce raiding.
Only after the conclusion of these operations, did the Army and Navy haggle what they were going to do next. I refer to Willmott's "Empires in the Balance".
What Admiral Nagumo did, or didn't do, is conjecture, nor am I going to speculate, but Yamamoto seemed to be satisfied with the results. It did chase the Royal Navy to Mombasa where the climes were much better for them at the time. Somerville felt much relief, because he knew it could have been much worse, altho Churchill would disagree with that.
 
Al
 
Re: IJN Sotie to Ceylon
 
Posted By: Barry <mailto:berry@operamail.com?subject=Re: IJN Sotie to Ceylon>
Date: Monday, 4 June 2001, at 2:54 a.m.
 
In Response To (Deniz Karaçay)
 
There is a book called 'Fleet Observer' (I think) by as the title suggests a FAA fleet observer who was with Somerville's fleet. Sorry I don't remember the author's name, but he provides some analysis of the campaign. I believe the Japanese were attempting to secure the right flank of their advance into South East Asia and support the operations in Burma. After all, the British Far Eastern Fleet was a 'fleet in being' just like the US fleet at Pearl Harbour, and Trincomalee and Colombo were substantial bases. One of the great 'what if' scenarios of the war I think
Kamikawa Maru
 
Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject=Kamikawa Maru>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 5:23 a.m.
 
Does anyone know the fate of the the various Float plane carriers used by the Japanese, including the Kimikawa Maru and Chitose ?
 
Re: Kamikawa Maru
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Kamikawa Maru>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 7:34 a.m.
 
In Response To: Kamikawa Maru (Bill Bourke)
 
Bill,
11/ 4-'44 - Kagu Maru As a transport - by Bream and Ray
10/ 7-'44 - Kinugasa Maru As a transport - by Hawkbill, Baya
7/25-'45 - Kiyokawa Maru As a transport - by TF 38 (Beached)
4/30-'45 - Kunikawa Maru - As a transport - by Aircraft
6/22-'43 - Sagara Maru - As a transport - Harder
1/28-'45 - Sanuki Maru - As a transport - Spadefish
5/26-'44 - Sanyo Maru - As a transport - Cabrilla
4/28-'43 - Kamikawa Maru - By Scamp
10/23-'44 - Kimikawa Maru - By Sawfish
5/ 2-'42 - Mizuho - By Drum
10/25-'44 - Chitose/Chiyoda - As Carriers - By TF 38
 
HTH 
- Al
 
Re: Kamikawa Maru
 
Posted By: Bill Bourke <mailto:billbourke@xtra.co.nz?subject=Re: Kamikawa Maru>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 4:58 p.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kamikawa Maru (Allan)
 
OK Thanks Al. I thought you might know. One would observe that they lasted in most cases quite a long time and had given up the seaplane role to plug gaps in the the rapidly dwindling mercantile fleet.
The other observation is, that the US Submarine force really got itself into gear - particularly after they got reliable torpedoes !
 
Re: Kunikawa Maru
 
Posted By: Allan <mailto:Wildcat42@AOL.com?subject=Re: Kunikawa Maru>
Date: Tuesday, 3 July 2001, at 7:59 a.m.
 
In Response To: Re: Kamikawa Maru (Allan)
 
Bill,
Of note, Kunikawa Maru had been damaged by an Australian mine laid by RAAF PBY's near Balikpapan Bay, and was sunk later by units of the 380th BG, 5th Air Force in the same general area.
Return to Faq