The Ship Model Forum

If you mean the camouflage with several green shades: this was only implemented after the summer of 1944. Since Taiyo was sunk around 18 august, it seems unlikely that she received it.

The camo patterns were used as part of testing during the summer of 1944 (probably June), but I've no idea if Taiyo was actually wearing them when sunk.

I read that Taiyo was part of that test, So it is possible she may have even had the test camo on when sunk. It seems unlikely that they would have painted her gray again? Thanks for the reply. I will look for my source , i think it was a US navy study done post war.

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_ ... 20X-32.pdf
I'm sorry but I haven't posted much and don't know how to take a page image but this is the url to link to the report. Taiyo is listed in the carrier section of experiments with a really fun swirl pattern. I think I will use it for my build.This report says the painting experiments began in March '44, and Taiyo was in port at that time until May according to Combined Fleet's tabular movement record.

This is the page from the report on experimental camos done in the summer of '44

Ok, that makes it a lot more plausible that she was camouflaged already in august '44.
No way to be absolutely sure without photographic evidence of course, but that camouflage certainly makes for a fun painting exercise and a good looking model.

Also a bit confusing as to the Taiyo's heavy AA in her late refit in '44. I have seen it listed as "6 x 120/45, AND 4 x 127 twin' mounts. But where would they have put the 127mm type 89's? The heavy duty platforms were only six for the 120's as originally built. I believe her sisters had their 120/45 singles replaced with the type 89's....

Taiyo always carried six single 12cm/4.7inch mounts. These were never replaced. Her sisters were better equipped with four of the twin 12.7cm mounts.

Thank you!

This illustration from Gakken comes up in lots of searches. I think the bottom scheme is mis identified as the Chuyo, since Chuyo sank before this type of camo was instituted, and since the pattern strongly resembles the Taiyo camo in the US intell document, I believe it is the Taiyo. But it causes me some question as to the colors. On the side, the lighter color is something like IJN grey green used on aircraft or the Tamiya color XF 76. The flight deck light and dark greens dont match, and seem to have a more yellowish or olive hue. The end color which appears to be a light tannish grey is probably the color of the linoleum or whatever they put on the deck of these carriers. Any clue what it was? And lastly, as the top illustration seems to accurately portray the Taiyo at some earlier point in its career, I notice the flight deck being shorter than her sisters, so was Taiyo's flight deck lengthened?

I don't know what this color is, because there is variation between color plates of not only these sisters, but other carriers. I've always assumed it was wood deck planking left unpainted, or maybe washed some how.



It's a good question. Even the Japanese WIki article on her points out there is contradicting information. Supposedly, the flight deck was lengthened by 10m during the late 1943 refit, but an eyewitness officer states otherwise.

A question to Dan K. When I look on a box art of Aoshima Chuyo I noticed that her 12.7 cm AA gun is of a type used on heavy cruisers like Myoko, Mogami and Tone class. Is that possible or it's just an artistic license?

No, it's not artistic license. Unlike Taiyo, Chuyo and Unyo each carried four twin 12.7cm/40 cal mounts for their main batteries. Same mount as on those cruisers.

Thanks Dan K. I'll take note of it.

By the way Dan K, do you have this particular book? A must have if you wanna know the number of planes on the deck of every IJN CVs in every battles.

https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10462796

Dan, I am not sure you are both talking about the same points. Yes, Chuyo carried twin 5" mounts, but they did not have the same shields as the ones on Mogami. They did have the enclosed control station on the side of the mount, like the ones on Takao and Atago (and most of the other carriers). The box art for Chuyo appears to show a full Mogami type shield, which is what I think Bayuro is referring to.

I have one other observation. The photo I have seen with Chuyo carrying twin 5" mounts does not have them located where the box art depicts. The after ones match, but the forward ones are on the fore deck, just forward of the hangar structure.

I've seen it, but I don't have it. Good to know.



You might be right, Dick. I took it to mean different cruiser classes with the same 12.7cm mount, though, yes, with different shields. Nor did I reference the Chuyo box art until now. The presumption ( which I endorse) is that the semi shielded mount as seen on Takao/Atago, and virtually all the fleet carriers, was the same as installed on Chuyo and Unyo. Truthfully, there's no close-up or photo clear enough to actually verify that. But, it seems highly unlikely these mounts would be more fully shielded as on Mogami/Myoko/Tone.



The photo below has been cited as being either Chuyo or Unyo. For these purposes, it doesn't matter. The larger 12.7cm emplacements do seem to be in the same position as the box art. There is another set of bandstands at the bow that are carrying something. Normally, I would have said 25mm mounts, but these look like single somethings. I know some line art illustration place the other set of 12.7cm mounts up forward, but that's not what these look like. Bit of a mystery, really.

Dan, I presume you have Maru Special #38. The photo of Chuyo on the bottom of page 54 shows a sponson forward with a twin 5" and only one apparent large sponson aft. Some sources indicate that Chuyo and Unyo lost their twin 5", replaced by the 6 single 4.7's, to use the twin 5" to upgrade more "frontline" combatants. If you want to contact me off line, I might have a slightly lighter copy of the photo. dick_jensen_44@msn.com

I did find a copy of the this photo and, damn, great eyes, Dick. This positioning of her main battery is definitely not in any of the literature. Just hiding in plain sight.

I went back to research the Chuyo/Unyo photo post above. After reviewing both the Japanese Wikipedia entries, Tony Tully's notes on Chuyo on the Nihon Kaigun site, and the Shizuo Fukui drawing of Unyo's AA armament fit in mid-1944, I am now certain that it is Unyo. Apparently, the English literature on Unyo's armament is also incorrect. Unyo was armed like Taiyo with six 12cm single mounts. Only Chuyo had twin 12.7cm mounts.

Dan, one question I have been unable to answer, because the photo is not clear enough, is if the after 5" mount and the triple 25MM guns just forward of it had the gas covers like the fleet carriers with the downturned stacks had on the starboard side aft. Any thoughts?