Calling all IJN Tone (利根) & Chikuma (筑摩) fans

[Atma]

Check this Dan, is that correct ?

Then this one:

Wich one is correct, Fujimi's IJN Tone and IJN Chikuma got the second config, also the older Aoshima ones.

[Dan K]

Are you referring to the stagger of the two trailing AA platforms?

[Atma]

Yeap, so far I thought they had different positions like in the second picture.

[ajkochev]

Great.... I just got this kit (Fujimi 1945 Tone)and am planning on building it next year. If I put that platform on like that, I'm going to get comments on how I messed up my build whenever I display it. It sucks being the only ship modeler around where I live.

[LAE519]

Yeap, so far I thought they had different positions like in the second picture.

Atma, Thanks for posting this question from the "SN" site. I will look into the Gakken Tone issue tonight to see if it shows anything for this area.

I'm kind of pissed that Tamiya would make such an obvious mistake.

Here is a shot of the aft superstructure from Ed Lows work... this also show the stagger layout.

Here is the link: http://www.ijn.dreamhost.com/Model%20-% ... -12-17.htm

[Dan K]

It may not be so obvious to them. I've been examining the Tone wreck photos and, for instance, in some pics it looks as if the two sets of platforms are connected by catwalks, in others, no. Can't account for bomb damage, either.

As to the staggered postions, it's possible. Symmetry of fixed AA positions seems more likely but, not a certainty. I, too, will be examing Gakken.

[Atma]

So far, the asymmetrical possition of the AA platforms(Like the second picture I posted and the one provided by Fujimi's models and Aoshima models) seems to be correct. All the 3D pictures -wich I guess are all based on research- show them to be assymetrical, Model Art magazine IJN Tone and IJN Chikuma got the same way.
Based on all that, for me Tamiya made a mistake in that issue, wich I think is easy fix it.

Great.... I just got this kit (Fujimi 1945 Tone)and am planning on building it next year. If I put that platform on like that, I'm going to get comments on how I messed up my build whenever I display it. It sucks being the only ship modeler around where I live.

I strongly believe the Fujimi kit is correct.

[Dan K]

I still want to check.

Everyone may have the position of the first set of AA positions wrong, too far forward, at least for very late war. Have a careful look.

[Atma]

From the picture you can see that the AA platform is after the Type 94 director, like the Fujimi' kit and the old Aoshima ones. Tamiya has that AA platfrom before the type 94 director.

[Atma]

There:

[Dan K]

That's not an AA platform, that's the base tub of the port aft 25mm AA director.

If the aft 25mm are even there (which I am no longer sure of as the Gakken books gives no indication that they are there at all, not in the photos, 1/350 plan of the 1944 Tone, any of the models or the illustrations), they would be placed BEFORE, not after, the aft main director. Even if staggered. And, the splinter shielding would be lower.

[LAE519]

Guys,

While looking at the Gakken issue this morning I have some mixed results, and another question. The Tamiya kits shows only twin 25mm mounts in this area, however....

1. Page 20 & 21 shows the after deckhouse with what looks like 2 seperate platforms at different heights not connected. They also do NOT have the stagger shown above. However, the photo on page 25 makes this platform configuration very difficult to find, it almost appears as if the aft guns are blocked by the ships boats. The mounts forward are twins while the aft pair are triples.

2. Pages 36 & 37 Shows the same configuration, two levels, no stagger on Chikuma. All mounts are twins.

3. the fold out plans facing page 47 show a configuration similar to above with no stagger, and the mounts on two levels, twins forward triples aft.
4. Page 105 shows no staggered platforms, twins forward, triples aft.

5. The fold out prior to page 151 shows the non staggered configuration on two seperate platforms, twins forward, triples aft.

And so the plot thickens. I am writing this while at the office so I can't post any scans/pictures. I also briefly looked over Model Art 32 & did not find much to confirm the configuration. The PROFILE MORSKIE plans I have show the stagger configuration, does anyone have any other plans.

I orderd the Miyukikai plans and never opened them up. I'll take a look at those tonight....

HTH,

Larry

[Dan K]

pp.20-21, 36-37 refer to authoritive models of Tone and Chikuma. Since we don;t know the source of their references, we must take everything with a grain of salt. That said, neither show any 25mm mounts AFT the director, only boats.

Ditto with the 1/350 Tone 1944 plan on p.47

The plan on p. 105 does contradict all of the above but....we don't know which plan is more accurate

Agreed about the illustration on p151.

Profile Morskie plans are often inaccurate. I'm betting that depiction is based on an illustration in Maru Special #44 (1980)showing the same staggerereed aft mounts. Maru Specials are often inaccurate.

In the meantime, the photo(s) above, and in the Gakken book, do not appear to show any aft mounts. Study the overhead photo of Chikuma at Leyte Gulf on p.65 - I'm not seeing aft 25mm mounts only boats.

[J. Soca]

Just another source for thoughts..

Jose

[Dan K]

Thx. Which Kojinsha?

[Atma]

Yes Kojinsha, I think is the same book as I have at the moment in front of me.
Im 100% positive that Tamiya was some what messed up that part, unfortunately.

[J. Soca]

Thx. Which Kojinsha?

Dan, this is the booklet i got http://www.hlj.com/product/KJSWS12


Jose

[LAE519]

The Miyukikai plans do not show the staggered configuration.

[Dan K]

OK, time for me to contact Japan. This may take a few days.

[J. Soca]

I asked the question a few days back and while i was checking some websites i stumbled upon this other website and look what i found among other goodies.. http://www.am-works.com/store/nw35022-w ... p-102.html


Jose