The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2113
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
I have this new book, and in it are a few things that confuse me.

The book seems to think that the Japanese were working on three 40,000+t Battleships in 1941 (Two finished, one unnamed) called the Nissin and Takamatu (obviously these would be Nisshin and Takamatsu in actual Japanese) with a Third as yet named.

I notice the book excludes the Yamato and Musashi. Would these two BBs be referencing the Yamato and Musashi (and as yet uncompleted Shinano)?

The book also references a Zuikaku-class CV by the name of Takasago, and lists the Shōkaku as a completely separate class.

Was "Takasago" just a misreading of "Shōkaku?"

I have tried looking up the Kani, but can find nothing to suggest this as yet (given the readings of quite a few of the Kanji are now deprecated in modern Japanese).

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
Interesting example of spying - likely some truth in the information (number of battleships), but all the details wrong. At least slightly better than what we seen in the last decades.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 12:47 pm 
It was the best that the US naval attache (the overt spy) could do. Don't think the US had any covert spies in residence in Japan before the war.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: UK
I can't help with the specifics but it is interesting to note that the Japanese often refer to "Enterprise type" or "Saratoga type" rather than Yorktown and Lexington. My guess is that you are right about the battleships. They were highly secret projects so the info would be sketchy.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2018 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2113
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Does anyone have any speculation about the "Zuikaku-class ship named the Takasago?

Or why they would list Shōkaku as a separate class?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed May 09, 2018 11:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3142
Matthew,

Do you have access to a 1941 JANE"S ALL THE WORLDS FIGHTING SHIPS? They have pretty much this same info in there.

Battleships listed as New Construction with nine 16-in guns;

NISSIN
TAKAMATU
KII
OWARI
TOSA

But, Jane's doesn't mention any Aircraft Carriers under construction.

Allied INTEL wasn't very good on the IJN as to ships under construction prior to the war. Human agents were few and access to IJN Yards was restricted. The USN and RN took photos of IJN ships in fighting with China in the 1930s, gaining a lot of insight on many ships that way. The code breaking would likely not have revealed names during the war, much less actual ship parameters like armament. USN and RN construction was public record, most details of the ships were not released, but names were. In many cases anyone could get good views near ship yards.

Chances are, whoever wrote this Field Manual used Jane's as a reference source. :smallsmile: Although the Allies likely had a better insight to IJN carriers than Jane's did in 1941. But not their actual names.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2113
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
I do have a digital copy of Janes from 1933 to 1945.

But I cannot find anything in it that suggests the Shōkaku is a completely separate class from the Zuikaku. But then I have only looked at the 1941 edition, and I might need to look earlier, since the US Naval Ship ID booklet was likely assembled from a 1940 or earlier edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 10:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:12 pm
Posts: 1843
both were of the same class. http://combinedfleet.com/ships/shokaku


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: UK
MatthewB wrote:
I do have a digital copy of Janes from 1933 to 1945.

But I cannot find anything in it that suggests the Shōkaku is a completely separate class from the Zuikaku. But then I have only looked at the 1941 edition, and I might need to look earlier, since the US Naval Ship ID booklet was likely assembled from a 1940 or earlier edition of Jane’s Fighting Ships.

MB



Could the field manual have confused Zuikaku as the lead ship of the Hiryu class (which they incorrectly named Zuikaku class) rather than a member of the Shokaku class?

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat May 12, 2018 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:23 am
Posts: 2253
Location: Copenhagen
Perhaps they simply assumed that the IJN would continue to produce pairs of half-sisters as they had done in case of Hiryu/Soryu (and also with Akagi/Kaga, but there the differences are more substantial, because of the loss of one hull, which was replaced by a battleship hull).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Elvis965 and 2 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group