I'm impressed by your answers Chuck i really I'm. i've read the AOTS specially the armament's section a couple of times and what's written there is not even half you wrote. Is there an specific book which talks about this or has this been the compilation of more than one book, sources all together?
These were based on a number of different sources, including ATOS drawings on the 25mm mounts, books quoting accounts by former crew members from Yamato and Musashi, diagrams on from Gekkan books showing the linkage between AA directors and the triple mounts, description of capabilities of Type 94 directors in Shattered Sword, some documentary clips showing the 25mm guns firing.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
Has anyone ever tried replacing their Tamiya 1/350 turrets with brass tubes?
I actually am pondering the possibility of exagerating the 18" guns of the Yamato slightly by going over scale, and replace the thin plastic barrels with slightly thicker brasstubes.
I was just wondering if anyone has had the experience before, what size of tubes did you use?
I want to exagerate, but not blow the guns into epic proportions, haha.
chuck wrote:These were based on a number of different sources, including ATOS drawings on the 25mm mounts, books quoting accounts by former crew members from Yamato and Musashi, diagrams on from Gekkan books showing the linkage between AA directors and the triple mounts, description of capabilities of Type 94 directors in Shattered Sword, some documentary clips showing the 25mm guns firing.
I've been thinking of buying another gakken, i already got vol. 50 thanks to you but i i'd like to get a hold of another one. if you had to choose, which one would you get?
Has anyone ever tried replacing their Tamiya 1/350 turrets with brass tubes?
I actually am pondering the possibility of exagerating the 18" guns of the Yamato slightly by going over scale, and replace the thin plastic barrels with slightly thicker brasstubes.
I was just wondering if anyone has had the experience before, what size of tubes did you use?
I want to exagerate, but not blow the guns into epic proportions, haha.
Gun barrels have an very noticeable taper on the outside, especially large caliber barrels. So replacing them with brass constant diameter tubes will look very wrong. A number of outfits provide dedicated brass replacement barrels with the right taper and shoulders, some even with representation of the liner at muzzle. You can try these. Lion Roar out of China provides them, Fukuya from Japan also offer them.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
chuck wrote:
Gun barrels have an very noticeable taper on the outside, especially large caliber barrels. So replacing them with brass constant diameter tubes will look very wrong. A number of outfits provide dedicated brass replacement barrels with the right taper and shoulders, some even with representation of the liner at muzzle. You can try these. Lion Roar out of China provides them, Fukuya from Japan also offer them.
i concur with Chuck, take a look at Yamato's 15.5 cm secondary guns on this picture which is not mine BTW, i scanned it from Yamato's "Modeling Guide" Magazine.
chuck wrote:These were based on a number of different sources, including ATOS drawings on the 25mm mounts, books quoting accounts by former crew members from Yamato and Musashi, diagrams on from Gekkan books showing the linkage between AA directors and the triple mounts, description of capabilities of Type 94 directors in Shattered Sword, some documentary clips showing the 25mm guns firing.
I've been thinking of buying another gakken, i already got vol. 50 thanks to you but i i'd like to get a hold of another one. if you had to choose, which one would you get?
TIA
Jose
I have Gekkan 11, 20 and 50. 50 is the best for modeling references, but the other two have more functional information.
I do feel the guns look much more massive... So that's why I've been pondering about that opition. Doesn't mean I'll add them, but figured I'd ask anyways.
FYI, it's Gakken, not Gekkan. The later volumes are better as far as information is concerned, but they are frequently sold out. Ebay does sell lots of them and most interesting volumes pop up from time to time. #50 contains a lot of computer renderings (Which look bland in this volume. What is it with these cheap renderings anyway?). Actually, Gakken have 4 volumes on the Yamato's, each of them adding more of the same. For the Gakken's, my policy is getting them while you still can. A very nice cheap reference is the "Super Illustration IJN Yamato" by modelart.
And for people considering to purposely building barrels overscale, well, I'm not talking to you.
The renderings in Gakken 50 may be blend, but the 3D model is IMHO detailed, thoughtful, and as well researched as any I've seen. So I find it extremely good for visualizing the shape and detailed arrangement of what is otherwise not a well documented ship. All the more because there are relatively few other representations of the ship in her 1941 guise. There are elements of the Gakken 50 interpretation that is unique. For example the weather deck level water-tight doors, the depth charge racks on the fantail, but I've not found any of its interpretation to be obviously wrong based on available photographic evidence. Nor is there any interpretation, save possibly for the depth charge rack, that is clearly unreasonable in my opinion.
Super Illustrated has impressive looking drawings, many of them quite fine. But there are obvious drafting mistakes, and one is also left with the impression that the drawing has never passed through the filter of a real 3D model, for some of the details only look good in an isometric drawing, and would be impossible to covert into 3D model.
ATOS has very nice drawings, but many of its interpretations are clearly wrong based even on the scant available photographic evidence. Japanese version is no better.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
@ Chuck: I think I'd prefer Gakken 54 over 50, with a better mix of data. Didn't notice the depth charge racks, but they sound improbable?
I don't have Gakken 54. But I will look into it. The depth charge racks as depicted in Gakken 50 are on the fantail, behind the crane. I can see why, from the photographs presented in Gakken 50, someone might conclude the objects at extreme stern looks like depth charge racks. But I think it is improbable for a battleship to be equipped with depth charges. A battleship will most likely run away as fast as possible from a submarine rather than stay around to try to depth charge it. Depth charges are a serious and unnecessary explosive hazard for a battleship.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
I had a look at volume 50. Those depth charges look like jettisonable fuel drums to me. Also, it's just a drum on a rack, not a typical depth charge rack.
Comparing 50 to 54: both contain the same 3D model that is very detailed. Where volume 50 spends more pages on a 3D Yamato sailing around, 54 shows more close-ups and line drawings of the ship. I'd pick 54 over 50, should I have to choose.
Foeth_ wrote:I had a look at volume 50. Those depth charges look like jettisonable fuel drums to me. Also, it's just a drum on a rack, not a typical depth charge rack.
Those strongly resemble the compact depth charge racks on pre-war IJN destroyers, which held only a single charge each. The compact racks are arranged 3 or 4 on each side of the stern, positioned to tip a depth charge over the side rather than roll them off the stern. These are augmented by one or two Y-gun depth charge mortar behind them. The single charge compact racks were gradually replaced with conventional multi-charge stern roll off racks starting about 1942.
Yamato is equipped to handle 7 float planes, so I suspect she would need to stow more aviation fuel than cold be held in 2-4 Hood style jettisonable fuel drums.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
I've also seen those before and its hard to say what are those although they do resemble depth charges on racks. it's virtually improbable for a battleship to do this hunting sub game and here we are talking about the biggest one of all . i do remember reading on 2 books she carried hydrophones and even a sonar, i figured its possible to believe those things at stern might be depth charges after all, very few of them though maybe they just had these to scare off subs
The hydrophones were installed in late 1943, so they they were not available to support depth charges on deck in 1941. The hydrophones were probably installed as a submarine warning device, not an offensive ASW system.
The Germans had experimented successfully before the war with using underwater hydrophone to pick up the underwater reverberations of enemy gun fire, and use that to direct a ship's own guns in case of bad visibility. Perhaps Yamato's retrofit hydrophones were for this purpose as well. Certainly the Japanese devoted considerable effort before WWII as well to use acoustic techniques to control gunnery.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
chuck wrote:The hydrophones were installed in late 1943, so they they were not available to support depth charges on deck in 1941. The hydrophones were probably installed as a submarine warning device, not an offensive ASW system.
The Germans had experimented successfully before the war with using underwater hydrophone to pick up the underwater reverberations of enemy gun fire, and use that to direct a ship's own guns in case of bad visibility. Perhaps Yamato's retrofit hydrophones were for this purpose as well. Certainly the Japanese devoted considerable effort before WWII as well to use acoustic techniques to control gunnery.
late 43? according to the nihonkaigun website she was refitted with the beehive structure in early 44, after this i believe those depth charges are no longer seen. Do you know anything about those type 0 sonar arrays that Mr. Skulski briefly talks about on AOTS?
Nothing in particular, I might be mistaken about the exact date of their installation, but I know they were not on board in 1941. Also I would want to distinguish between hydrophone array and sonar. Sonar implies some form of active pinging capability. Having dedicated pinging feature would suggest at least some active ASW role is contemplated. Passive hydrophone, on the other hand, can be used solely for other things such as submarine warning, long distance surface warning, even surface target direction finding.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
