The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Attached a camo comparison of Java and De Ruyter; and the stern of Java showing DC racks, shielded Bofors, and point where stern sheared off. :wave_1:

EDIT: By the way, the sheared off stern section is the most physically destroyed 'wreck', or part thereof, I have ever dived, barely recognisable as what it once was; caused by not just the torp hit, but the detonation of the aft magazines, and many of the depth charges. A jumbled mess to say the least!


Attachments:
Java-and-Ruyter-comparison-camo.jpg
Java-and-Ruyter-comparison-camo.jpg [ 103.75 KiB | Viewed 2577 times ]
Java-DC's---40mm-Shields----shear-position.jpg
Java-DC's---40mm-Shields----shear-position.jpg [ 107.63 KiB | Viewed 2577 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2017 6:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
And another broadside of Java camo. And another of De Ruyter camo. And a photo of her namesake so to speak, the uncamouflaged earlier destroyer De Ruyter! :thumbs_up_1:


Attachments:
Java-camouflage.jpg
Java-camouflage.jpg [ 93.83 KiB | Viewed 2528 times ]
De-Ruyter-Lampung-Bay-14th-Feb-1942.jpg
De-Ruyter-Lampung-Bay-14th-Feb-1942.jpg [ 88.05 KiB | Viewed 2527 times ]
Destroyer-De-Ruyter.jpg
Destroyer-De-Ruyter.jpg [ 103.7 KiB | Viewed 2527 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Posts: 12
Location: The Hague, Netherlands
I could recommend anybody building or planning to build a Dutch warship in general, and Java and De Ruyter in particular, to visit these pages on website of the Dutch "Nationaal Archief" (National Archives). I've posted this in the "Calling all RNN Tromp class fans" thread before, so you should replace "Tromp" for "Java" or "De Ruyter".... Drawings of Java (and Sumatra) can be found in section "3527-3565", drawings of "De Ruyter" can be found in section "3234-3283"....

have fun :)

Foute Man wrote:
aloha,

it might have been mentioned in another thread, but if you're interested in (building) former dutch warships, you should visit this page:

http://www.gahetna.nl/collectie/archief/ead/index/eadid/4.MST/aantal/20/open/c01:0.#c01:0. this is a collection of scanned drawings of dutch warships, sailing ships and motor or steam vessels and the scans are available for download

don't be afraid of the dutch language, google translate works on this page

in case of hr.ms. tromp,

1 - go to section 1.2 (Stoom- en Motorschepen) = steam and motor ships/vessels

2 - go to section 1.2.21 (Kruisers) = cruisers

3 - go to section 1.2.21.3566-3631 for 66 sheets of design drawings of hr.ms. tromp, including linesplans, deckplans, profile, drawings of engineroom etc etc

click on the subsections for the drawings:

example: if you want to see the linesplan, (click on the link for a sample pic)

http://images.memorix.nl/naa/thumb/1280x1280/c1cf542c-122f-a769-ac4e-9ca3bbfe45c7.jpg

1 - click on drawing nr 3580 (Lijnenplan en spantenlijst) = linesplan and cross sections

2 - in the submenu, click on the tab "Alle Scans" = all scans or click on "Bekijk de scans" = view the scans

3 - you'll see the drawings is scanned in three parts, click on the thumbs to view a larger version

4 - now you can view the image and zoom in or out to view details. click on "download" scan for a jpg version. be patient, it might take some seconds before the image is loaded and ready for download

hope this will be usefull :cool_1: and have fun exploring the rest of the collection

fm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 6:59 am
Posts: 128
Location: Shanghai,China
Attachment:
P1050666S.JPG
P1050666S.JPG [ 51.54 KiB | Viewed 2243 times ]


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 05, 2021 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
KevinD wrote:
And Gregory, would love to take you up on further discussion re DR and Java's Bofors, but best we do that over on one of their respective threads.
posting.php?mode=quote&f=48&p=960185
And so we can!



A few important notes before I post the rest of this. What I am about to post is based off of what I have intuited about the AA systems on the De Ruyter and Java from looking at pictures of them and from the blue prints of the ships. I do not speak Dutch, and I do not have access to hard documents which prove what I am saying to be true. Thus if you have information which shows that I am incorrect, I would be happy to see it! That being said from studying those pictures, I'm pretty sure this is correct. Again if you know something I don't about these guys, I am all ears! :thumbs_up_1:

Anyway, here we go! So my thought process on these guys started several years ago when I was thinking about the fact I have seen the designs of both of these ships get a lot of flak for the layout of their 40mm Bofors. As many have pointed out, one well placed bomb would decapitate their AA systems. However, I am of the opinion that naval engineers of the 1930s actually had a decent idea of what they were doing when it came to building ships, especially the Dutch designers. Therefore I do not accept the premise that they made a ship with this vulnerability simply by overlooking the obvious risk of placing the guns so close together; that is far too big of a mistake to miss unless there was something more going on with them than meets the eye.

I was thinking about what that could be when I looked at a picture of the Eendracht's original blue prints, and I noticed something rather interesting in her design. She has two clusters of AA guns, and inside of both of those clusters is that boxy looking range finder from the De Ruyter. It makes no sense that she would have a back up fire control director right in front of her main fire control director, as in every other naval design that goes somewhere aft if it exists at all. Then it hit me, I'm fairly certain that boxy fire control director on the De Ruyter is actually a fire control director for her 40 mm guns, not her main battery. It only shows up on Dutch blue prints amid the 40 mm Bofors guns. And I have only ever seen two which were actually made, one on the De Ruyter and a second one on Java. Critically, Java only got that boxy fire control director after she picked up her 40 mm Bofors to replace her 40 mm Vickers guns.

Therefore while I have never seen it directly stated in English (Though https://netherlandsnavy.nl/ seems to heavily imply it) I'm pretty sure those 40 mm Bofors guns were very intentionally clustered around a centralized fire control director so that they would have a concentrated fire at one target under centralized controlled by the box director (circled in red in pictures below). This would essentially create a 40 mm mini (maxi?) gun of sorts which would probably have been absolutely devastating to any planes which were foolish to venture too close. And if it is true, I think it would be fair to say the Japanese are lucky that they stuck to high level bombing against the ABDA, as I don't think a torpedo attack against the Java or De Ruyter would have ended very well.

This would explain a few things about the De Ruyter and Java

1.) Those shields they got during the ABDA campaign which were unique to the two of them. Clearly those shields would have massively limited the lines of sight of the gunners, however that is not a problem if they guns are being controlled by a centralized fire control director. Also, I'm guessing the purpose of those shields was for surface combat particularly at night, as the Dutch seemed pretty keen on using them against opponents search lights in the Battle of the Badung Strait.

2.) It explains why De Ruyter's AA went off line during the Battle of the Makassar Strait. It doesn't make much sense to me that a near miss would prevent all her 40 mms from shooting. However, if they were under coordinated control and given how sensitive complex fire control systems like that were in the 30s and 40s it would make a lot of sense that a near miss could damage or knock off line the AA director, thus taking the De Ruyter's guns off line as a whole

3.) It also explains why the Tromp never got those shields, as her 40 mm Bofors were of a different type, and she was never fitted with that centralized director (if indeed that is what that box is) to save weight. Those shields certainly would have interrupted the view of gunners, which would have been much more problematic on a ship like the Tromp which did not have that centralized fire control system fitted

4.) Lastly and most of all, as mentioned above it explains why the Dutch were willing to risk having all the AA guns on their ships so close together. While they do seem to have put all their eggs in a basket, that basket would be pretty nasty for anything which flew too close.

I do apologize if this is something which is not new information, or if this is totally wrong, however usually all I read about the De Ruyter/Java is criticism for this AA gun layout, when in fact it seems to me like it is a risk which was deemed to be acceptable in order to have such a potent AA capacity. Please note, in the attached pictures, I circled what seems to be the AA fire control director in red, and the main batter fire control directors in blue.

One last thing which is just interesting to note: in that photo of Java in her camouflage, she does not seem to me to have her 40 mm shields yet (blue arrow). So either they were added after the war started or she was camouflaged before the war began. Anyway, I would be happy to hear y'all's thoughts on the matter!


Attachments:
Dutch AA.PNG
Dutch AA.PNG [ 203.34 KiB | Viewed 1434 times ]
Java and De Ruyter AA.PNG
Java and De Ruyter AA.PNG [ 262.56 KiB | Viewed 1434 times ]
Java AA.PNG
Java AA.PNG [ 360.2 KiB | Viewed 1434 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Hi Gergory,

Great to see you went to the trouble to kick off our 'new' line on an old discussion so to speak. :thumbs_up_1:

Anyawy I am om my tablet at present with all relevant pics and info on my computer, so I'll just briefly reply on a few main points, until I get back on my computer.

So, first a general question:

1) When is the date of the first known photo/s of the Bofors sheilds on DR and Java? (Interesting ancedote: soon after discovering the wrecks in 2002 I communicated with Henk Legemaate, the author (one of tbe authors?) of the ecxcellent book - only in Dutch though :scratch: - on De Ruyter. He was still in touch with the gun captain of DR's Bofors station. And at first, untill I showed them my underwater photos of the sheilds in place, the gun captain was adamant at first there were no sheilds on 'his' guns. He had simply forgotten, so they were obviously a fairly recent addition.) Both had them at Gasper Strait, if I am not mistaken, but how long before? And over on the 'other' thread we just transferred from Maarten gave some wartime yard dates, so one might assume they were fitted during one of those vists, but an early dated photo would narrow it down.

2) I agree with you're view re Bofors placement and effectiveness therein (although DR's Bofors director being knocked off-line from the bombing attack at the Battle of MS you refer to does show an Archilles heel).

3) As for you're 'circled' director placement I also think you are correct.

4) However, the sheilds are on in that photo you posted of Java in camo. I'll post a larger photo later.

So, more later, but at least we are up and running! :wave_1: :good_job:

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 337
Location: Laurieton , Australia
In the strbd bow qtr image of Java, the bofors appear not to be fitted with shields, the stern image clearly shows the shields fitted. They were obviously newly fitted, possibly at that time in port and were present for a very short period before loss.


Attachments:
javastern.jpg
javastern.jpg [ 40.08 KiB | Viewed 1410 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Brett Morrow wrote:
In the strbd bow qtr image of Java, the bofors appear not to be fitted with shields

Yes, I think you and Gregory are correct here. My mistake. Here is the best crop I have of that 'camo' image.

The other image below, if I am not mistaken, was taken from HMAS Canberra circa the Gasper Strait mission / time frame, and they are on there then.


Attachments:
Java CROP.jpg
Java CROP.jpg [ 123.76 KiB | Viewed 1407 times ]
Java Bofors Close.jpg
Java Bofors Close.jpg [ 150.72 KiB | Viewed 1407 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Oct 06, 2021 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
No worries on the misunderstanding on the starboard side Kevin, I'm glad we were able to get this thread going again with some new conversations. :thumbs_up_1:

First of all, thank you for all you did in discovering that fascinating detail about the shields existing in the first place. It's cool little details like that which cause me to have the interest I do in this hobby.

Also, it's cool to hear that my theory on the AA directors on the De Ruyter and Java could be correct. It fits what we're seeing on them well, and it makes a lot more sense than the usual "haha look at what those unintelligent Dutch engineers designed, I can't believe they didn't know bombs exist" mentality which is usually ascribed to their design in common conversations about these two ships.


As for when the shields showed up, it looks like we can narrow down the window a bit. She definitely had them by Jan 18, 1942, as we see in the HMAS Canberra photos. I found a photo which is labeled as being from August 1941, and she does not appear to have them in this photo, nor does she have her camouflage. Thus she got her camouflage sometime after August 1941, and got those shields sometime after that, and had both by mid January 1942.

Of an interesting side note. She already has her depth charge rollers in August 1941. A double note on that, Java's rollers were different from the ones on Tromp and Sumatra (their rollers being shorter than the Java's), but possibly the same as the ones on De Ruyter. Just another little interesting detail if you are making the Java


Attachments:
Java.PNG
Java.PNG [ 339.1 KiB | Viewed 1354 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
GregoryC wrote:
No worries on the misunderstanding on the starboard side Kevin, I'm glad we were able to get this thread going again with some new conversations. :thumbs_up_1:

First of all, thank you for all you did in discovering that fascinating detail about the shields existing in the first place. It's cool little details like that which cause me to have the interest I do in this hobby.

Also, it's cool to hear that my theory on the AA directors on the De Ruyter and Java could be correct. It fits what we're seeing on them well, and it makes a lot more sense than the usual "haha look at what those unintelligent Dutch engineers designed, I can't believe they didn't know bombs exist" mentality which is usually ascribed to their design in common conversations about these two ships.

As for when the shields showed up, it looks like we can narrow down the window a bit. She definitely had them by Jan 18, 1942, as we see in the HMAS Canberra photos. I found a photo which is labeled as being from August 1941, and she does not appear to have them in this photo, nor does she have her camouflage. Thus she got her camouflage sometime after August 1941, and got those shields sometime after that, and had both by mid January 1942.

Of an interesting side note. She already has her depth charge rollers in August 1941. A double note on that, Java's rollers were different from the ones on Tromp and Sumatra (their rollers being shorter than the Java's), but possibly the same as the ones on De Ruyter. Just another little interesting detail if you are making the Java


Thanks for the compliment Gregory, and also that photo I had not seen of Java before.

Below are a few fairly large 'close-ups' of DR and Java's Bofors station, one early on of DR's, and the other two of DR and Java cropped from the last known close-up photos of them, AFAIK.


Attachments:
Bofors-DR-platform.jpg
Bofors-DR-platform.jpg [ 166.28 KiB | Viewed 1330 times ]
DeRuyter-Lampung-14th-CROP.jpg
DeRuyter-Lampung-14th-CROP.jpg [ 183.86 KiB | Viewed 1330 times ]
Java-Bofors-CROP.jpg
Java-Bofors-CROP.jpg [ 205.52 KiB | Viewed 1330 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 4:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
So, are these arrows pointing to both ships Bofors 'director', or..........................?


Attachments:
Java-Bofors-CROP2.jpg
Java-Bofors-CROP2.jpg [ 101.06 KiB | Viewed 1328 times ]
DeRuyter-Lampung-14th-CROP2.jpg
DeRuyter-Lampung-14th-CROP2.jpg [ 54.22 KiB | Viewed 1328 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:51 pm
Posts: 2853
--


Last edited by EJFoeth on Thu Feb 17, 2022 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 337
Location: Laurieton , Australia
Here is a better image of De Ruyter`s Bofors gun deck and HA Director, no doubt Java`s director was identical. The optical Rangefinder on Java looks like a 12 ft and was for the main aft/midship armament, an identical unit was fitted on the bridge for the forward guns, I would expect either rangefinder could direct the full main armament should one have been disabled.


Attachments:
DR RF.jpg
DR RF.jpg [ 317.48 KiB | Viewed 1315 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 9:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Thanks for that link EJ, and the much clearer photo Brett!

For the record, Java's wreck had the top 'half ' of the rangefinder collapsed completely away where my red line is drawn below, and bottom part quite disfigured, whereas just the cladding on the outside of DR's upper 'half' (green arrow) was rotted away exposing the innards. Most likely Java's primarily gravitational - aided and abetted by weakened metal from the fire that ragged there prior to sinking - because Java laid right over on her Stbd side, whereas DR was just tilted to Stbd at about 40 - 50 degrees (?, I'd have to look up the exact angle), so it did not fully collapse like Java's.

Also below is a pic of the main barnacle encrusted rangefinder above the forward superstructure on DR. Notice how the upper arm ends jaggedly, possibly(?) shot away.

Question, what is the rangefinder for on Java aft of Bofors station then, her aft main guns (red arrow) I assume?


Attachments:
DR-main-rangefinder.jpg
DR-main-rangefinder.jpg [ 132.41 KiB | Viewed 1305 times ]
DR Bofors rangefinder CROP.jpg
DR Bofors rangefinder CROP.jpg [ 235.59 KiB | Viewed 1302 times ]
Java rangefinder aft.jpg
Java rangefinder aft.jpg [ 274.54 KiB | Viewed 1302 times ]

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Oct 07, 2021 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
KevinD wrote:
Thanks for the compliment Gregory, and also that photo I had not seen of Java before.

You are welcome! And I actually just found that photo like yesterday, or the day before that. It it would seem more photos from that crucial time period are slowly making their way onto the internet, which is great to see!

KevinD wrote:
Thanks for that link EJ, and the much clearer photo Brett!

For the record, Java's wreck had the top 'half ' of the rangefinder collapsed completely away where my red line is drawn below, and bottom part quite disfigured, whereas just the cladding on the outside of DR's upper 'half' (green arrow) was rotted away exposing the innards. Most likely Java's primarily gravitational - aided and abetted by weakened metal from the fire that ragged there prior to sinking - because Java laid right over on her Stbd side, whereas DR was just tilted to Stbd at about 40 - 50 degrees (?, I'd have to look up the exact angle), so it did not fully collapse like Java's.

Also below is a pic of the main barnacle encrusted rangefinder above the forward superstructure on DR. Notice how the upper arm ends jaggedly, possibly(?) shot away.

Question, what is the rangefinder for on Java aft of Bofors station then, her aft main guns (red arrow) I assume?

First of all, thanks for sharing the photos and that info about the wreaks. For shame the fires and damage wrecked the top half of the director, that would have been interesting to see. Over all really cool and interesting stuff! :thumbs_up_1:

Secondly, to echo what Brett said, the range finder seems to another range finder for her main armament.


Attachments:
Java AA2.PNG
Java AA2.PNG [ 312.35 KiB | Viewed 1267 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2021 1:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
GregoryC wrote:
Secondly, to echo what Brett said, the range finder seems to another range finder for her main armament.
On Java wreck that main rangefinder was no longer there then. Either was blown off when stern exploded and severed from torp hit, or just collapsed from gravity over the years. Wreck ended directly at aft end / wall of Bofors deck house, and didn't see it on the seabed next to there though, but not surprising giving seabed had built up to cover almost, but not quite, half the width of the ship aft over the interviening years. What remains of the devestated stern is aboiut 200m away and didnt see it there either, but stern 'section' was such a mess it was hard to make heads or tails of much there.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2021 5:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2021 8:31 pm
Posts: 52
KevinD wrote:
GregoryC wrote:
Secondly, to echo what Brett said, the range finder seems to another range finder for her main armament.
On Java wreck that main rangefinder was no longer there then. Either was blown off when stern exploded and severed from torp hit, or just collapsed from gravity over the years. Wreck ended directly at aft end / wall of Bofors deck house, and didn't see it on the seabed next to there though, but not surprising giving seabed had built up to cover almost, but not quite, half the width of the ship aft over the interviening years. What remains of the devestated stern is aboiut 200m away and didnt see it there either, but stern 'section' was such a mess it was hard to make heads or tails of much there.

Makes sense, given the beating the Java took, even though that would have been pretty cool to see on the wreak


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:24 pm
Posts: 62
Just curious: isn't that RF aft on JAVA simply part of the MB system?
Not the actual MB director, is it?
Or, did she have a separate director system(s) for her aft MB?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Oct 09, 2021 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:41 am
Posts: 337
Location: Laurieton , Australia
The aft RF was likely part of the Main Battery control, a range/fire table would be heart of the control probably located in the bridge structure. Java`s early config was 3 prismatic RF. Most if not all cruisers up, had more than one RF/Director. They allowed splitting of the MB, ie the midship turrets. I expect each RF would be able to assume control of the bearing MB in an emergency.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2022 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:05 pm
Posts: 421
Recently dug out the Pacificcrossroads 1/350 Java, looking over the parts and instructions, ran into a question about the lower bow section. In this area, there is an extension to the Meier form bow that I can only guess was maybe an attachment for the paravene gear. Most plans I have seen shows this with what looks like a cutout pattern. The photo etch piece in the kit is solid. Anyone know which is correct?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 138 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 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

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