Calling All IJN Kongo-Class Fans

[Dan K]

If you haven't purchased the Kirishima yet, HLJ is running a 50% sale right now. Also 60% of the Aoshima Kongo.

[Morton_In_Formosa]

Folks,

I am about to get my Aoshima 1/350 Kirishima kit under construction. I am using the Aoshima PE for the rails and the enhancement parts for the ship itself. I notice two small T cross shaped items {part 20} on the ship PE parts that are not clearly detailed in the instructions {all in Japanese}. I'm particularly focused in on these two small items, I think they are some kind of ship formation lighting system I've seen on other IJN ships, consisting of red, green and white lights assembled on an upside down T cross shaped fixtures. I'll post a link to this in question. I'm trying to find photographic details that they positioned this above the catapult control house on the back side of the aft director housing.

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yasakaland/25760031.html

More detail on this pretty buildup of the Aoshima kit here. I think this same build was featured in a Model Art publication last year?

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/yasakaland/fol ... lc%26p%3D2

Photo closeup of area in question:

http://img.blogs.yahoo.co.jp/ybi/1/28/a ... 1239380631

Did Kongo and Haruna have these "follow me-formation lights" featured? I don't see these parts in the Fujimi PE sets for both those ships {which I also have}.

[chuck]

Can anyone point me to a drawing of the shape of Kirishima's torpedo blister? I believe this is different amongst the ships of Kongo class.

[Dan K]

Morton:

I'd been under the impression that the manuevering light display had been attached to the upper tripod of the mainmast but I've only found one photo that might possibly indicate this is so, not definitely. See the photo below of Haruna postwar, portside of the upper tripod. Somehing is there and I don;t think it is wreckage.

Regarding the Aoshima 1/350 Kirishima, I've had time only to examine the hull and main decks. I have the following observations:

1) The Kirishima kit apparently shares the hull with the 1944 Kongo so, many portholes are covered by scuttles and must be drilled out for a proper 1942 Kirishima. Not a tragedy by any means and understandable from a cost perspective, just a pain.

2) The horizontal crease that denotes the upper boundary of the side armor plate is barely noticeable, and lacks the large clips and/or scupper pipes that line it. It�s a very noticeable feature in all the photos, and the Fujimi versions.

3) While not waterlined, Aoshima provides a cut groove inside the hull to denote the water line. Problem is, it�s too high by at least 2mm (as estimated by a buddy), and not flat, esp. towards the stern. Can�t be used as a waterline guide.

4) The casemates are supposed to be smooth sided, yet Aoshima has provided a lot of unnecessary detailing around the borders (I think you alluded to this). These details were present on the class as originally built, but eliminated during the later rebuild.

5) Related to point #1, there�s an extra 01 deck level from Kongo on one of the trees. You could use it to help make a 1942 Kongo, I suppose, if one wanted to modify the bridge platforms.

Chuck, what makes you think that Kirishima's blisters are different? I'm not aware of any differences.

[chuck]

I once saw a full hull drawing of all 4 Kongos with alteration of their late 1930 modernization high lighted. IIRC, the shapes of the leading and trailing edge of the torpedo blisters were substantially different between at least some of the ships.

[Dan K]

I'd be curious as to the source. I checked my references. I consider the Ishibashi BB book to be the most authoritive and it shows identical blisters.

I wonder if perhaps the Hiei, in the drawings you saw, was depicted prior to 1937. She was not remilitarized until then, at which point her blisters were added. So ....perhaps that's the image you were thinking of.

[chuck]

I am recalling the diagram off the top of my head. I may be wrong. It's been a while and I don't exactly recall where I saw it.

[chuck]

.....

Regarding the Aoshima 1/350 Kirishima, I've had time only to examine the hull and main decks. I have the following observations:.......
......
.

aoshima continues to exhibit a sad inability to understand how the hawsepipe works. On the Kirishima kit, the hawsepipe opening on the deck is considerably further forward then the hawsepipe opening on the hull side. An anchor stowed in such a hawsepipe would need to have a Z shaped shank to be stowed against hull side in the manner seen in photos of the ship.

The large number of perforated steel structural members on the pagoda mast and around the midship top hamper demands dedicated PE set.

The pagoda mast definitely offers potential for very elaborate improvement, and give much scope to impress an observer with eye towards detail.

[jester63]

Hey everyone. I am going to be getting the Fujimi 1/700 Hiei in a trade. Was there much difference between the Kongo Class Battleships? Could I use this kit to make the Kirishima? I would like to make a Guadalcanal Naval Battle Diorama, but was preferring to make it with the Kirishima instead of the Hiei. Any input would be VERY MUCH appreciated! Thanks in advance!

[chuck]

You are out of luck. The Hiei was modernized later than the other 3 ships and to a different plan than the other 3 ships, and so were substantially different. For example, she had fully modern integrated director control tower similar to those on the Yamato, where as the other 3 Kongos had separate directors and range finders. Her foremast was built as an enclosed structure similar to the tubular tower mast of the Yamato, and not like the tripod based Pagoda masts on the other 3 Kongos

[chuck]

Morton:.....
1) The Kirishima kit apparently shares the hull with the 1944 Kongo so, many portholes are covered by scuttles and must be drilled out for a proper 1942 Kirishima. Not a tragedy by any means and understandable from a cost perspective, just a pain.

Dan: The box art on the Kirishima kit shows that lower row of scuttles on the hull side was sealed. Could it be that the sealing of the scuttles were already done when Kirishima sank?

3) While not waterlined, Aoshima provides a cut groove inside the hull to denote the water line. Problem is, it�s too high by at least 2mm (as estimated by a buddy), and not flat, esp. towards the stern. Can�t be used as a waterline guide.

Based on reference photos, the groove inside the Aoshima hull corresponds very accurately to Kirishima's boot top, but not to her waterline. So if you wish to build a full hull or even a waterline version, you can use the groove as guide to paint to the boot top.

5) Related to point #1, there�s an extra 01 deck level from Kongo on one of the trees. You could use it to help make a 1942 Kongo, I suppose, if one wanted to modify the bridge platforms.

The problem is the Kongo's main turrets were different from Kirishima's. Kongo had faceted main turrets, Kirishima had rounded main turrets. So one could not really make an accurate 1942 Kongo out of a 1942 Kirishima.

I like to know why Kirishima and Huruna had rounded turrets. Both the Kongo which preceeded them, and Fuso and Ise classes that followed them, had faceted turrets.

[Dan K]

The box art on the Kirishima kit shows that lower row of scuttles on the hull side was sealed. Could it be that the sealing of the scuttles were already done when Kirishima sank?

I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it. There are photos of Kongo and Hiei in mid 1942 and, though not absolutely clear, it does seem the lower portholes are there. Sealing Kirishima's would predate the known use of the practice. But, it is possible.

Based on reference photos, the groove inside the Aoshima hull corresponds very accurately to Kirishima's boot top, but not to her waterline. So if you wish to build a full hull or even a waterline version, you can use the groove as guide to paint to the boot top.

I really have to disagree, Chuck. Aside from the fact that the IJN did not use a (black) bootline, the groove does not correspond to the correct waterline. Plus, cutting along the groove will result in a partial rise, than fall at the bottom of the waterline towards the stern - it's not a flat cut.

The problem is the Kongo's main turrets were different from Kirishima's. Kongo had faceted main turrets, Kirishima had rounded main turrets. So one could not really make an accurate 1942 Kongo out of a 1942 Kirishima.

This is true. My evaluation was limited to the hull and main deck - I didn't think it through. It might be possible to add some material and sand the turrets to the correct shape, but it would be a pain.

I like to know why Kirishima and Huruna had rounded turrets. Both the Kongo which preceeded them, and Fuso and Ise classes that followed them, had faceted turrets.

No clue. Perhaps they were experimenting, or, it was a limitation of the facility that built those particular turrets. I'm just guessing.

[chuck]

Based on reference photos, the groove inside the Aoshima hull corresponds very accurately to Kirishima's boot top, but not to her waterline. So if you wish to build a full hull or even a waterline version, you can use the groove as guide to paint to the boot top.

I really have to disagree, Chuck. Aside from the fact that the IJN did not use a (black) bootline, the groove does not correspond to the correct waterline. Plus, cutting along the groove will result in a partial rise, than fall at the bottom of the waterline towards the stern - it's not a flat cut.

Perhaps boot top is the wrong phrase. But the red marine paint, which extends above the water line, does seem to terminate outside the hull along the line Aoshima marketd with a groove on the inside of the hull.

When did Kirishima lose her foremost pair of 6" casemate guns after the modernization? At least Haruna seem to still have all her 6" casemate guns sometime after the 1930s modernizations. I would prefer to finish the Kirishima with a complete set of 6" guns if she still carried those anytime after 1940.

[Dan K]

I took a very long look at the kit hull last nite. While I agree about where the red marine paint ends (per the phto below - credit Fukui), I still have to disagree about the waterline groove.

Were you to cut exactly along the groove, the waterline would be placed just barely below the armor belt line, but even less so than as indicated in the photo. The error is compounded in the rear half of the hull, where the groove appears to curve upward before turning back down at the very stern. That portion of the waterline would intersect with the portholes placed aft of the armor belt. It's just not accurate, IMHO

[Jon]

That structure that is just aft of the aircraft crane. Looks to me like a cradle for the aircraft crane when it is in the stored possition. My question is, is it that? I've not seen anything else like it on a ship.

[chuck]

Yes. It allows the crane mast and arm to lie down on deck to clear the arc for X and Y turrets. Nagato has an identical crane, except instead of lying down on deck, the crane lies down on a special side sponson next to the hull.

[Jon]

Thanks Chuck, that's what I thought.

I have the 1/350 flyhawk set and not entirely sure how to assemble it. Not much ref. mat. out there for it.

[chuck]

Thanks Chuck, that's what I thought.

I have the 1/350 flyhawk set and not entirely sure how to assemble it. Not much ref. mat. out there for it.

Jon: Do you have the 1/350 Kongo superset? How do you like it?

[Dan K]

This photo might give you some perspective, Hiei on the right, Kongo on the left. Disregard the arrow - from another discussion (originally posted by Ed Low on j-ships).

[Jon]

Thanks Chuck, that's what I thought.

I have the 1/350 flyhawk set and not entirely sure how to assemble it. Not much ref. mat. out there for it.

Jon: Do you have the 1/350 Kongo superset? How do you like it?

I'm reviewing it for this site right now, it's pretty good in many ways, but one or two small glitches that should never stop one from buying it.

So is it a closed structure or a U shaped channel. I've seen a drawing showing a U shaped channel, but the flyhawk set is a closed box.