The Ship Model Forum

Well, Mucho, I'm not so sure the position A is so improbable; it didn't seem to interfere with Chokai's torpedo bay opening. So, why not for Maya?
------------------------------------------------------
Dan, Yours´ didnt give a sufficient answer in the above. Maybe you have an eye-sight problem, not of eyeage, but of eye-concentration power. I see the clear difference. You don´t. Then I must say that ´s all there´s to it.
Notihng doing as a help to you.

Up until one comes across breakthrough, interpretations & photo-observation analysis can be used as substitutes to it. Please take a look what what I have done yesterday.


About the cable around the catapult support mas you have agreed to;
The two sisterships have a greater probability that the cabling was the same around the hull area where the catapult support is . I took the liberty to making a composite image for this analysis.

Whether you are able to see the cable or not is your own problem, I personally am starting to work on this visual appearance as shown with color lines.You may even keekp on saying that it´s not the cable;That´s still your own perception problem,probably,and I don´t care.

As i have not sunday-morning time enough to respond to other parts of your recent post,i would be attending them later in the afternoon or evening,,


And again,,, I see the cable. Dan,you don´t.That would be all.

Mutsuo S.

Aside from the interpretation/observation points in question,
I took the liberty of going through the degaussing cable on the manufacturers´kitmodels.

In short i must say their expressions on the boxart are not correctly materialized.

However, i think it´s OK as long as one get´s the kick out of building models as sunday hobbiests.
--- --- --
The biggest problem will be,
If a certain japanese model ship-magazine deals with the gear in a research article with an example of kit model(s) done by hobby builders or by members of a certain shipbuild club who have access to ample time and energy to search the materials,,it will be a big sin,I dare say this.

BECAUSE such an error,or miscenceptions,if any,can spread like a virus to the other side of the Globe.One of the worst examples was the Kure 2-25 catapult where the bottom steel plate was half missing ,and it was so outrageous.
If some other researchers think opposite of their result on their maqazine like the Model Art or it´s similar,they or he might even say,,irresponsible & unforgiven.lol

I myself have made dozens of mistakes and errors in the past, but i should like to keep those to a minimum.

Mutuso S.

I would agree with you there, Mucho. Box art and research errors are very problematic. I never use box art except when there are no other references for rigging. Even then, it's almost always incomplete, if not outright incorrect..

As far as our points of differentiation on Maya's degaussing cable, yes, until the day that firm proof actual appears, we will have to continue to disagree on this point.

I would agree with you there, Mucho. Box art and research errors are very problematic. I never use box art except when there are no other references for rigging. Even then, it's almost always incomplete, if not outright incorrect..

As far as our points of differentiation on Maya's degaussing cable, yes, until the day that firm proof actual appears, we will have to continue to disagree on this point.
-------------------
One sometimes comes across a funny phonomenon. When the box art on Aoshima´s Chokai 1/350 is correctly depicing the cut-out corner in yellow colored arrow,the company decision was totally erroneous,i.e. reclycling of Takao´s and herey with a wrong(and long) corner. Consequently i know that kitmodel builidng folks incl. you will be already aware of this differences & weaknesses of kitmodel makers. However, nobody in this forum seem to have pointed out the difference in shorter size of the corner on Chokai´s bridge side, this must be a fresh and new news to all,probably.
But I better spring it over now. That a model is a model,can never be an actual ship,is one of my mottoes. Incl mine,too.

About the cable;
Was way expecting analysis vs analysis method to tackle the year long issue of the degz.cable but there was nothing of the sort from you.
Just stay calm and cool, the New Year has only stated 2 weeks ago.

I'm open to the possibility that Maya's placement may have been different; there's just not enough conclusive evidence (again, for me). With that in mind, I laid out my rationale in the post before last as to why I think Maya's layout was similar to Chokai's. For me, the problem with further analysis is that I just don't see what you see in the photo. I see a lot of plate lines, plus sketches of buckled areas notated on the original photograph. Nothing else.

The 1/350 Chokai box art is erroneous for a 1942 fit if only because of the lack of 25mm AA postions set on her bridge face.

The 1/350 Chokai box art is erroneous for a 1942 fit if only because of the lack of 25mm AA postions set on her bridge face.

Dan, Sure about it,if you still remember back to April 2008, I remember i have posted this image after i checked it into the correct height with red line of the AA mg tubs at this very level of the bridge.
Good you remember it,too.

One thing back to Aoshima 1/350 Chokai kit,
there are obviously too many differences from Takao & others of her sisters in the bridge stucture alone.
I had quite a lot of discussions and research into the 4 sisters in year 2002-2003, where kitmodel maker related folk were gathering at the Vanguard forum during that period.(I never go there any more now).
Am under the impression that almost none of them apparently have been reflected on their Takao class serial products.

And i have an understanding that makers(s) don´t care in the long run. I see it very well, then it´s OK.
They are not my models,not a single business of mine. da!
yes i grin.

mucho,

There´s something a bit more interesting on Maya´s portside pic, primo Dec. 1983 st Yokosuka harbour.

I am aware from damage reviews about degaussing cables in general from the Pearl Harbor Special Opr.,other naval operations & voyages,IJN changed numbers of cable stopper-bolt from single to dual on either side(top and bottom)


These black dual dotts marked with red colored arrows on the second image most apparently will be these bolts.
The soft cable is liable to becomee warped and it apparently did when the explosion took place.
However the stoppers and bolts are still holdingg the degaussing cable around this area of damage.

Sugestion of anything other than the bolts,would be welcomed
and about the warped stripe like belt,too.


Mutsuo Sasaki

I can appreciate the amount of work you put into this Mucho. However, as the full photo would indicate, you are indicating a line for the cable that would stetch across the entire hull at a point considerably below the main deck level (excepting where it would need to wrap around the base of the catapult sponson, most of which is missing due to bomb damage).

The issue I see is this: as far as I can tell, virtually all the available photos of degaussing cables for IJN ships, regardless of class or size, show that the practice was to run the cable as high as possible relative to the edge of the main deck, excepting the need to wrap it around a sponson base. I would imagine it was done this way to both maximize the cable's field effect, and to minimize the physical impact of the sea upon it. You are implying that Maya was treated differently by carrying her cable lower down, and I would wonder why that is? I'm just thinking out loud.

The issue I see is this: as far as I can tell, virtually all the available photos of degaussing cables for IJN ships, regardless of class or size, show that the practice was to run the cable as high as possible relative to the edge of the main deck, excepting the need to wrap it around a sponson base.

・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
Thanks, Dan,for replying to my post.
I rather suggest you to check up other cruisers, for ex.:


●My favorite Aoba and Kinugasa have the lower cable around the stern hulll area & the bow area, too.
●Among 4 sisters of Myoko class, Myoko has the lower one,too. But 3 other sisters have theirs´ as high.
●Chokai most likely has the same lower one. Pls see pic from 1942 at Singapore once again.
●Maya most apparently has the same lower one here.
●Well how would I classify cable of Agano class 4 cruisers.
●　What about cable of TONE ?
●　Mogami 1944 has the higher cable around here ? I shouldn´t think so.
●　Mikuma 1942 at Midway has the higher cable popsition here, too? Neither I think so.

I will be giving my answer to the below later.
I learned something different from this. IJN liet.commander Fukada Msao was
in a former circle where I belonged to.
↓　↓　
I would imagine it was done this way to both maximize the cable's field effect, and to minimize the physical impact of the sea upon it. You are implying that Maya was treated differently by carrying her cable lower down, and I would wonder why that is? I'm just thinking out loud.

↑　↑
I have to adimit one´s imagination doesn´t lead to getting IJN truths.
It can get you entangled and confused in many ways. And I love to avoid doing that.
But qualified guesses based on IJN data /documents,official calcurations & analysis-data
are very acceptable.

"Maximizing cables´s field effect" --

I recall well that liet.Cmdr Fukada never mentioned such a thing as you wrote.
He says that magnetablilty of ships hull is different from ship to ship.
( this is very important to remember first)
In order to cancell directionability of magnetism of either "N" or "S", amount of the electric power
to apply as counter current is there-fore very different from ship to ship.

This means that some ships have less N or S current around it´s own hull than other ships
when born from dockyards. Some ships with more courrent,too.

Therefore the word "maximizing " is something not precisely appropriate for this matter,
i must say.
----------------------------
I thought you knew that the most affected place of degaussing cable is around the bow side area
where the cable can get torn off in high seas.
PHA voyage was one of the examples as i wrote in my precious post.

----------------------------
As you must have checked other cruisers which have lower cable position.
It is nothing but an IJN truths and there is not much room for imagination and fantacy
that may take up much longer time of you without having any correct anwsers.

If you still have them, probably it will be your own problem like in a similar case of Taiho´s slant
area beside the funnel. Since it´s difficult for me to know how much your question is competent
or not.

Therefore i am unable to think on behalf of form of your imaginations,true.


cheers,
Mutuso Sasaki,

I see that you are correct about the stern of the Myokos, Mucho. However, I'm not so convinced about Chokai, aside from a short dip around #4 turret, and the catapult sponson.

Dan K wrote:

I see that you are correct about the stern of the Myokos, Mucho. However, I'm not so convinced about Chokai, aside from a short dip around #4 turret, and the catapult sponson.

Intereresting point about the Navigation Section. If I recall correctly, both Maya and Chokai underwent refits at Yokosuka in late 1941 that included the installation of the degaussing cable. So, it seems logical to me to think that placement would be very similar.


　☝

Dan, on 12th of Jan you made the above account concerning similarity of the two cruisers in an affirmative way.

BUT your new uncertain feeling as "a short dip" in CHOKAI today will be able to be/
will have to be confirmed by re-checking it into materialization to see if it is a short one or a similar
one exactly like that of other IJN cruisers and especially of Maya who have the lower position of it.
---------------------------
Prepare some side-view drawings from for. ex. Skulski´s Takao book,
Then you will see something.
And compare the result with other IJN cruisers for the similarity.
Those will become your IJN truths.
-------------------------
As I told in J-air forum that IJN truths and substances are my living God.

Whereas ,Dan you´re still having imagination or presumption which is in fact akin to "feelings"

And I remember well that you said that it´s not the matter of (presumptive) feelings in the J-air forum.

AS a conclusion on researching processes in general, it´s up to you to convince yourself on things IJN.
I don´t often feel any obligations to have to convince others incl. you.
If you can help yourself with sustantial efforts to convince yourself with,that will be much better,
more enhanced and self-supporting.

Dan,your so-called imaginary efforts can often be something different from ijn substances ande truths.

The carrier Taiho´s slope pr your initial disbelief in it was just one of such typical examples,as we now know.

I, most occasionally, can/will present with IJN facts,data,visual ref. IJN reviews,documents and the like.
Probably these will be part of my humble roles to play with.
---------------------------------------------------------

Of course Aoba is going to have a big dig like
Maya(Chokai),
Mogami, Mikuma,
Tone class,
Agano class 4 sisters,
and Furutak & Kako which have the same dip alongside this hull area.


From now on I need to concentrate on Aoba research & build,
I may not have time enough for responding to the cable issue.
But of course if there is something absolutely important and useful ,you are welcome to post more.


/Mutso Sasaki,

hello to those concerned,

I tried & compare the degaussing cable of MAYA( as of 1943 photo)
with cruiser AOBA(1941-) to confirm to which extent there´s similarity.
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=154805&p=612372#p6123727

More comparisons with other cruisers + MAYA will be made if only i have time.

Dan wrote on 14th of Jan.:
The issue I see is this: as far as I can tell, virtually all the available photos of degaussing cables for IJN ships, regardless of class or size, show that the practice was to run the cable as high as possible relative to the edge of the main deck, excepting the need to wrap it around a sponson base.


Actually real IJN ships don´t necessarily have this practice.
I would rather ask you,Dan, from which source you obtained such info as the above.
The thing is ,if it was your own telling of a story,that will be more or less different thing from actual IN practices.

As are shown by me, many of IJN cruisers have their cable in lower position around certain places of the hull.

Probably you didn´t check other available photos, if not all, to check this issue.
If you aren´t able to do,then i think i can help you do this to a certain extent.
Also by the use of some official drawings as well as photos.

As I pointe out in my previous post,Mogami and Mikuma have the cable as" lower" as another good example.
Newly attached is this composite image of the two Mogami class cruisers.

/Mutsuo Sasaki,

Thank you, Mucho, for your illustrations, and your points. I better understand your thoughts about Maya, and I agree that your Maya configuration is certainly a strong possibility. (I've reposted your illustration below).

However, I do not agree that Chokai was entirely similar. I have outlined her degaussing cable pattern below, and her pattern is not from my imigination. There is a dip in her cable between #4 & #5 turrets, but the dip does not travel as far forward as you suggest.

Again, both Chokai and Maya were modified by Yokusuka in the same timeframe; it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to think that the pattern for two sisters would be close to identical. My opinion.

Dan, thanks for a reply, a nice one.
Yea, I was noticing it & was to work on the possibility that Chokai must have the cabling changed.

The another Chokai pic from a low angle(at Singapore harbor) is showing a different way of cabling than here.

Will post it soon to compare this with that soon. Just give me time.
(I was a bit into Tone for this matter, she has two different cable arrangements which suggests changing.
The one is onlyh an illust, though)


Mutsuo/mucho


A) The first is pr Dan´s observation, nice!

B) And the second one is showing the cable of Chokai as different from A)



Probably the key will be which is the earllier, or the later version of cablling for Chokai.

It is identified that the pattern of the degaussing cable around the hull section in question was altered for the two ships at least.


TONE 1941 illust. = Maizuru N.Y. official drawing of degz. cable arrangements illustrates the same line of cable,too.

TONE 1942= at the time of the Midway Battle-- altered

Chokai 1941 primo Dec,.1941=around the PHA.taken at Seyo Island Sea.

Chokai 1942, well much after March 1942 (at Singapore Harbour.) before going to the Shortisland to join the 8th FS cruisers--- is thought to have it altered.

Maya had the cable probably altered in the same manner as Chokai´s

(The pic of Maya -a private collecttion used in the composite is from the Showa 8-nen- a.d.1933)

Reasons of these alternations will not be difficult to be pointed out in view of situations/causes which
lead to this change from the standpoint of IJN Navigational/Operational practices.
-------------------------------------------

In my analysis the mid-1942 Chokai must have the latest version of the degaussing cable,
which will be the closest to 1943-Maya in the pattern.

Mutsuo S.

I don't think that Chokai's pattern was altered. I do think that there is a extra "dogleg" that drops it below the housing that protects some of the ships boats just ahead of the catapult sponson. I had not really noticed this before. Re-examing the side view of Chokai brought this out, to me. So, it's a bit of what I sketched out, and a bit of what you sketched out.

I've revised my view below.

So, perhaps Maya's cable also looked like this?

I had to strain my eyes witout any positive ID about the first leg on another book of mr Fukui, Shizuo,
Dan, maybe you have a better one. If it´s confirmed postively, then it´s another bingo.

About your new question on Maya(1943)
The damage photo of her is showing me a different one.
I.e. I am not in a position to confirm existence or trace of the cable, suppose Maya would have had it in the same way as Chokai.

Even if the cable was blown totally off from Maya´s , it´s traces and/or stains should remain somehow,since the cable had been there for several years.

Attched is a pic of battleship ISE (borrowed from the Gakken Archive)where one can clearly see trace and holes of the cable-stoppers which were there several years, too.

This will be one of the reasons of mine that Maya and Chokai had the cable around this hull section differently.

Mutsuo S.

There are some interpretations on how they did the degaussing cable of AA cruiser MAYA.
According to IJN tech officer Fukada Masao(was still alive at the time when i had heared about him at Kan-Assoc meeting)IJN fighting ships,when they were ocean-going/operative,had the cable until the War ended.

Indubitably the harbour-guard ships =Keibi-kan which could not set sail didn´t have the necessity for keeping the cables any more.


/mutsuo sasaki

Thx, Mucho. That's Mr. Kawai's Maya model, is it not? As seen in the gakken volume?

I understand what the tech officer said but, that does not explain why sea going ships like Oyodo, the Unryus, or the reconstructed Isuzu did not wear external cables, IMHO.

Hi, Dan,
yepp,that´s mr. Kawai´s, the same model as on the Gakken book, built some 25 years ago.

Truly as to the 3 ships degz. cable,,,,questions remain unchallened/unanwered yet.

1)ISUZU
There´s a good possibility she is not having thr cable yet at this stage of series of trial runs.
Neither has BB/CVX Hyua the calbe yet.

The reason will be, trial runs are made up of more than 33 items which can strech over 2-3 month period.
AND,,, navigational apparatus(degz cable) trial run and/or it´s installation//calibration/testing can be done much later.
This means that the cable does not necessarily get installed on the 1st or the 2nd day of the trial runs.
That´s why I am thinking that it will be a bit too early to conclude on Isuzu´s yet.

Of course there will be another reason which will be favourable to your idea.

------------------------------------------------

2)Oyodo and 3) Unryu

Ex IJN cmdr Fukada Masao´s account is further supplmentted by ex. JMDF liet.cmdr.
with the following(Gakken book#57 page 137)

a) From the midwar period JN was not supposed to repair degaussing cable for the ships
due to lack of materials for degz cables.

b) Though,except for cruisers, destroyers, minesweepers, submarines, Suirai-Sentai FS,gunboats,and the similar

c)After the midwar period some "cruisers" like Haguro were unable to have the cable repaired due
to the lack,and her cable was removed in stead.

However, nothing or none are mentioning the removal of the cable in general because of advent of newer types of seamines.

---------------
Looks like carrier Unryu may come under category b) or a)

The fact is Oyodo is no longer a DesRon FS from the spring of 1944.
As to which category has been applied to Oyodo which becomes Rengo Kantai FS
after the conversion is somewhat guessable.

If we apply c) to Oyodo, she ought ot have the cable installed ca. 4 months after the completion.
or, she simply fails to have it. In stead, a) must be the case with Oyodo regardless of mission types as recon/scout/des ron FS.

According to caterogy b), MAYA must have had the cable in 1944.
Only photo evidence(s) is missing.
......................................
pics from blog.livedoor.irootoko homepage & Gakken photo archive

/mutsuo sasaki