The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:08 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9404
Location: EG48
Hasegawa's Wood Deck Set has markings for both sisters.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 1:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
Well, to be anal about it, the documentation is there to differentiate between 1942 sisters, but I'm not aware of anything for 1944, aside from the hiragana lettering. I wonder if they list any information sources in the set.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:45 am
Posts: 52
Yep, I do think they were almost the same in 1944. Since Fujimi released 1/700 Hiyo recently, maybe it's not a bad idea to use Fujimi's kit as a reference.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:45 am
Posts: 52
I think it was 652 squadron on Junyo and Hiyo in 1944, but Hasegawa's decal is 320 squadron. I even cannot find 320 squadron on the List of squadron of the Imperial Japanese Navy. That's weird.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
Well, it appears that 320 was the tail code prefix on Junyo aircraft for a time in early 1944. See these two threads; the first is the more recent one:

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php ... 6#msg63916

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php ... 94#msg9594


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:45 am
Posts: 52
Good researches. Thanks.
My mistake, I did not realize that tail numbers 320-XXX belong to air group 652.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9404
Location: EG48
Bottom half of this page has Junyo's aircraft markings for the attack on Dutch Harbor.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:52 am
Posts: 74
Location: Corinth, MS
Dan K wrote:
IIRC, Hiyo was the flagship for the division.

No, Junyo was in 1944. Hiyo was the flagship in 1942, but it was transferred off after Santa Cruz. Junyo received the flag of ComCarDiv 2 RADM SAKAMAKI Munetaka (41) at Truk on 21 June 1943 from Ryuho, and remained flagship when RADM JOJIMA Takatsugu (40) took over as ComCarDiv 2 on 1 September 1943. CarDiv 2 was deactivated on 10 July 1944.

_________________
Image
SSG, MS State Guard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
Well, I bow to Mucho's expertise on this class. He, as well as several Japanese websites, maintain that Hiyo was flagship at this time.

It sort of makes sense, as Junyo was under repair from torpedo damage and did not rejoin CarDiv2 until February, 1944. Not that the timing alone is the criteria.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 10305
Location: Calgary, AB/Surrey, B.C., Canada
Photocomparison of the new Fujimi 1/700 1942 Junyo kit with the Hiyo 1944 version:

http://mokehana.blog34.fc2.com/blog-entry-829.html

_________________
Yo dawg, I heard you like PE, so I put some PE in your PE so you can use PE on your PE.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
Thanks for posting the Omani blog link, Timmy.

To Fujimi's credit, they have retooled the hull to omit the sealed porthole covers of the late war ship. An impressive change. Wish they had done that with the Shokakus, and Shohos.

Same goes for the flight deck. While the planking is still way too wide and overscale, Fujimi has changed the planking pattern to repeat every 4th plank instead of every other plank. I think that may be true of the earlier Hiyo kit as well, and is something I did not notice until now. Kudos to them. It definitely helps.

Maybe they will do the same as the release new editions of the other CVs.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2035
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Dan K wrote:
Thanks for posting the Omani blog link, Timmy.

To Fujimi's credit, they have retooled the hull to omit the sealed porthole covers of the late war ship. An impressive change. Wish they had done that with the Shokakus, and Shohos.


:scratch:

Please don't tell me that the Fujimi 1941 Shōkaku that I have is going to have plated over portholes that need to be drilled out.




Quote:
Same goes for the flight deck. While the planking is still way too wide and overscale, Fujimi has changed the planking pattern to repeat every 4th plank instead of every other plank. I think that may be true of the earlier Hiyo kit as well, and is something I did not notice until now. Kudos to them. It definitely helps.

Maybe they will do the same as the release new editions of the other CVs.


I have a brass deck... So I am glad not to have to worry about it.

But hopefully the Hiyō will have a similar PE deck by the time I get around to thinking about getting one.

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 Jan 25, 2017 10:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
Quote:
Please don't tell me that the Fujimi 1941 Shōkaku that I have is going to have plated over portholes that need to be drilled out.


No worries, M. The mold has all open portholes. It's the Zuikaku 1944 versions that need to be plated over. Or, a Shokaku '44 for that matter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 9404
Location: EG48
Yay! (owner of a 1944 Zuikaku)

TIme for some practice with that punch & die set or chopper, I guess.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
Save yourself some aggravation, Tracy. The Lion Roar set LE700090 sealed portholes comes without attachment points. You just pop them off the backing and glue on with CA. Nicely detailed, too. Absolutely worth it, IMHO: http://www.bnamodelworld.com/bmz_cache/ ... 74x719.jpg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:25 am
Posts: 2035
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Dan K wrote:
Save yourself some aggravation, Tracy. The Lion Roar set LE700090 sealed portholes comes without attachment points. You just pop them off the backing and glue on with CA. Nicely detailed, too. Absolutely worth it, IMHO: http://www.bnamodelworld.com/bmz_cache/ ... 74x719.jpg


:big_eyes:

That is a time saver!

:scratch:

But why isn't ALL PE done like this?

I would sure love to NOT have to file off the attachment point spots on PE railing.

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: Tue Feb 28, 2017 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 6161
Location: In the hills of North Jersey
A very busy Dan Kaplan has provided a list of available kits, which have been posted to the first post in this topic.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
My thinking regarding Junyo’s light AA fit as of October, 1942 at Santa Cruz has evolved and departed from the common wisdom, that of Junyo retaining the same “bare bones” AA fit as when she entered service five months earlier, prior to the Aleutians operation. Certainly every reference to date, including the most recent Model Art Ship Modeling Special v63, depicts her (and by extension, Hiyo) in that minimalistic fashion. Yet, as far as I know, there are no photographs, detailed schematics, official drawings, or even TROM data that can actually confirm that assertion.

I believe that, at the very least, both ships would have received their two triple 25mm AA emplacements at the stern; Hiyo prior to its commissioning in late July, Junyo during its dockyard visit during the last two weeks in July, 1942 at Kure. For Junyo, this would have at the same time it received its Type 21 radar and its Type 94 High Angle directors (though the latest Model Art vol. 63 indicates that she may have just received shields for the Type 91 units then installed.)

I have been looking at what transpired with the other carriers since May, 1942 at Coral Sea, when the available defenses did little to halt the damaging of Shokaku and the sinking of Shoho. My thinking is that the IJN recognized shortly after Coral Sea that it’s carriers were already vulnerable to air attack in terms of AA, and that plans were made to upgrade the carriers as they returned to dock. This appears to have been an ongoing process. Photographic evidence exists for the following:

Shokaku underwent considerable repair at Kure in June, 1942, and her AA armament boosted by two triple 25mm emplacements at both the bow and stern. Photos at Santa Cruz show an additional triple 25mmAA position on the flight deck aft the island, surrounded by sandbags. Presumably, the other unit in front of the island was also in place at this time.

Zuikaku received the same triple 25mmAA emplacements at the bow and stern before Santa Cruz, probably in early August, 1942, also at Kure. I’m not certain that she took on the 25mm AA positions fore and aft bridge at this time, but it is likely. (Btw, the box crew’s quarters for men servicing the bow and stern mounts do not appear to have been added as of yet. Possibly true for Shokaku as well.)

Zuiho received the same two triple 25mm emplacements at the stern , as well as additional positions on her bow on the main deck level at Sasebo, in late July/early August, 1942.

Perhaps most significant is that, Taiyo, a CVE, received the same two triple 25mm stern emplacements in late May, 1942. They are prominent in photographs taken October 16, 1942 at Kure as she entered drydock to repair torpedo damage.

So, I believe the same vulnerabilities were recognized in Hiyo and Junyo and addressed during that summer. This work would have been considered urgent, given the rise in importance of the CarDiv 2 ships after the Midway debacle. So, I think they received at least the stern 25mm emplacements. I also believe that they likely received at least one more 25mm emplacement on or forward the bridge. Possibly also to the outside on a sponson. Admittedly, my reasoning is based on circumstantial evidence, but I find I cannot ignore the transition then underway in the IJN. My two cents worth.


Attachments:
Zuikaku, Eastern Solomons, August 1942 from Shokaku.jpg
Zuikaku, Eastern Solomons, August 1942 from Shokaku.jpg [ 85.41 KiB | Viewed 471 times ]
Shokaku Flight Ops for Santa Cruz 10-1942.jpg
Shokaku Flight Ops for Santa Cruz 10-1942.jpg [ 122.53 KiB | Viewed 471 times ]
Zuiho, S Pacific, Sept 1942, possible from Shokaku sm.jpg
Zuiho, S Pacific, Sept 1942, possible from Shokaku sm.jpg [ 92.09 KiB | Viewed 471 times ]
Taiyo torpedo damage, Kure drydock, Oct 1942 Fukui CV vol #2 alt.jpg
Taiyo torpedo damage, Kure drydock, Oct 1942 Fukui CV vol #2 alt.jpg [ 174.75 KiB | Viewed 471 times ]


Last edited by Dan K on Mon Mar 20, 2017 8:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:56 am
Posts: 6131
Location: New York City
I can put this another way: Save for Hosho, virtually every other carrier in commission by Fall, 1942 has gained its rear AA emplacements. Is it reasonable to think that Hiyo and Junyo were not upgraded to the same standard?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 12:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 1:33 am
Posts: 109
Location: Sydney, AU
Hi guys
I just can across this on Hobby Search, assume its new.

1/350 Hasegawa IJN Aircraft Carrier Hiyo Release date July
www.1999.co.jp/eng/10460338

Plenty of Carriers now in 1/350 :-)

Regards
Peter H
Sydney, AU


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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