The Ship Model Forum

It is amazing that those are drawings of the same vent, damaged in the same battle! My initial vote would go to drawing no.2 (JACAR, Ref. C05110130600) since it's a technical drawing and records damage in some detail. Second one is more of a sketch than a drawing, records much less damage and could have been done from memory without looking at the actual vent.

However, I think that there is a way of finding out which is correct IF original and large scale drawing of this part of Mikasa exists: one of the vent casings shifts vent's cowl significantly more to the side than the other. On an accurate plan view of Mikasa one should be able to measure this sideways shift of the vent's cowl and resolve the question.

Here is a rough drawing as a "proof of concept":

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

Hello Mr. Yasaka, I hope that your holidays were enjoyable

I have been examining this drawing from JACAR:



And the more I look the more uncertain I have become... I can't read Japanese but drawings 2 and 3 appear to be of the same (or identical) ventilator's right and left sides but is drawing 1 also of the same vent? Even if scaled up, dimensions of the first drawing still do not conform to those of 2 and 3!
For comparison, dimensions in all 3 views of ventilator in drawing 57 (it does not matter if it's the same vent or not) in "Wartime record of engine section" JACAR Ref. C09050661000, conform to each other.

And another question: do you know a reason why JACAR does have drawings of Mikasa's middle deck and main deck but not of the upper deck?

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

It's sad that there are so few photos of Mikasa's details and the drawings which could clarify the matter just aren't available. I can find more photos and drawings of details of Russian Orel or Borodino than I can of Miksasa!

But returning to vents... From all the drawings at JACAR I think that closes to to the reality are drawings of this vent (what vent is it BTW?):

(C05110130600 image 100 and 101) Except that, in profile, cowl mouth should be angled like I have drawn on the left image. I realize that those are only simple line drawings but, when compared with photos, outlines look much more correct than those in the other drawings.

In one of Russian publications there are some photos of Mikasa at Sasebo undergoing repairs after Tsushima. Those photos are high resolution close-ups and are probably one of the best sources of information about Mikasa's in 1905 that I have seen so far:
download/file.php?id=60072&mode=view
Do you, by any chance, know where they got those photos from?

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

Hi everyone,

need a little help on a matter discussed on the first page of this thread.
I recently checked about the Mikasa´s funnels until 1905 and compared those to the Hasegawa 1/350 kit.
The kit part shows quiet prominent something, the after market PE manufacturer like Eduard, LionRoar or WEM interpreted as footrails/funnel rings.

Those prominent funnel rings / footrails arround the funnels are not visible to me on temporary photos.

If I look at the given photo of Click: Mikasa in 1905, I can see nothing even close to the many funnel rings the kit provides.

Here is a close up:


I did check close ancestors and alike to Mikasa to get further clues at no avail.

Here is Click: IJN Asahi
Here is a close up:


Here is Click: HMS Prince of Wales (Formidable Class)
Here is a close up:


If I am not mistaken, those funnel rings were not common practice in the Royal Navy nor for the ships built in the United Kingdom.

I am aware, the Mikasa museum ship does show those funnel rings. I am just not confident, those were present in 1905 and before.
So, could please someone else check and give further input?
Thanks in advance.

_________________
kind regards
Dr_Who²

I commented a bit on the funnel rings discrepency in my build, but it probably doesn't help you all that much since I also could not find photographic proof of their presence.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Every now and then I check in on this thread. AFAIK, the funnel rings seem to have been added later, post 1905. Looking thru the KMM volume on IJN BBs, it seems that funnel rings were more typical of other navies, particularly the Imperial Russian Navy, as evidenced by those ships captured by the IJN and pressed into service.

The armored cruisers Ibuki and Kurama appear to be the first Japanese built ships to feature the funnel rings. FWIW.

Timmy, Dan,

Thank you so much for your kind reply.
Dan mentioned a KMM ? volume of IJN BBs - Sorry, I do not fully understand "KMM" ...
However, this reminded me I do have Japanese Naval Vessels Illustrated Vol. 1 by Shizuo Fukui.

There are two photos on page 41, that show nice close ups of Mikasa´s funnels as they are reworked, painted or alike. Those photos show no funnel rings -like those coming with the various PE sets - either.
Instead, two rings are clearly visible. One at the lower third half of the funnel and one at the upper third half of the funnel. Timmy did that with his Mikasa as shown in the thread he pointed to.
Those rings sit quiet close to the funnel with a couple of attachment points going presumably all around. They are situated so close, that they even do not interfere with the small pipes attached to the funnels.
Looks like those rings were used as attachment points to secure the funnels by rigging. The ring itself is quiet thin though.

However. the captions of the photos in that book come all in Japanese language. Problem is, I can not read Japanese language. From what I figured, each photo is given a date. I am unfamiliar with Japanese date system, so can not say which year those photos were taken.

This has been frustrating with a couple of Japanese publications I own.
Maybe someone can shed a light on this matter so I can determine at least the year, those photos were taken.

Thanks to anyone who can help out.

_________________
kind regards
Dr_Who²

KMM is shorthand for the Kure Maritime Museum volumes on the IJN. Shizuo Fukui's entire photo collection was donated or obtained by the museum. In conjunction with its opening in 2005, large format photo album books were published containing a selection of the best of the photos for each category of warship. Not as comprehensive as the Fukui volume that you have, but the presentation of the photographs is beyond compare. Plus, they are still available from the publisher.

So, for instance, the KMM BB book has 5 full page photos of Mikasa. I believe the lines that you reference, and that are seen in these photos are seams between sections of the funnels joined together.

The Japanese dating convention prior to 1946 is a bit confusing for Westerners. The dates begin with start date of the reign of the emperor during which a ship was built. So, for instance, Mikasa was built during the Meiji Period, which began in 1868. The photos on page 41 start with the year 38, which is the 38th year of the Meiji reign. 1868+38= 1906, by my reckoning. For a chart of the various periods, see this link to a Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiji_period. (This may not be entirely exact as the count may begin with the first full year of the reign, or prior to the start of the reign. I'm not certain about that.)

Another example is the Showa period of Emperor Hirohito, which began in 1926. Japanese photos of, say, ships enroute to the attack on Pearl Harbor begins with the year 16. So, one might think that 26 plus 16 = 42. But the attack took place at the end of 1941. Likewise, Hirohito ascended the the at the end of 1926. So, I think they started the count with the previous full year but, that's just a guess. Still confusing, I know.

Showa 16= 1941, 20=1945

(edit: by the same reasoning of beginning a year earlier, 38 would then = 1905)

This is the photo you wrote about Dr.Who? If so, it shows Mikasa at Sasebo in 1905 undergoing repairs of damage sustained during the Battle of Tsushima.
And you are right about funnel rings. Those multiple, and quite prominent, funnel rings were a very late addition. There is a photo of Mikasa at Sasebo in 1908 (if the date can be trusted) which still doesn't show any rings. The earliest photo of Mikasa with funnel rings that I have seen is dated 1918 but it could have been done earlier. Still, during the Russo-Japanese War there were no rings but just 2 (much less prominent) bands:

(drawing showing damage to Mikasa's funnel sustained during the Battle of the Yellow Sea.

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

Dan, DariusP,

Very helpful information indeed!

Dan, thank you a million for the thorough introduction into the Japanese date system. That alone will save me a lot of time when I look further through publications in Japanese language. I will have to learn the proper symbols for the according emperor so I get my math right. Will from now on put some low tac adhesive smart labels beside the dates in my books.

DariusP, yes, that is exactly the photo in my book. There is one other with a more total view but about the same scene, as far as I can say. Date fits perfectly to the time frame I am checking.

Quiet interesting to me is the fact, that this click: Painting of Admiral Togo aboard Mikasa does show those prominent funnel rings for 1905. If I recall right, a color printed copy of that painting was included by Hasegawa in one of their limited edition offerings.
Also, the big model of Click: Mikasa at Yokosuka Naval Museum does show the funnel rings as well. Could not figure though, which configuration that model shows.
However, to me, the funnel issue is solved.
Thanks everyone for being so generous with information and confirmation.

I guess, no one can tell me how the funnels looked inside?
I found no picture nor any drawing detailing that part.

If allowed, I have another question which I can not answer myself.
I found a click: photo reported to be taken sometime before or close to the battle of Tsushima. So that would be around 1905.
The origin of that photo is unknown to me, but I could find out, that it was published in click: (Wikipedia about) The Illustrated London News for a short feature about Admiral Togo. The Headline reads:

On that page are 4 pictures. One of them being the one I linked above.
It shows the stern of Mikasa. In the lower section a small part of the aft turret is visible.
What I can not figure is, what the purpose of those metal pieces on top the turret are. I marked them in red to avoid confusion.



Anyone an idea?

_________________
kind regards
Dr_Who²

I suspect the key to this is the lack of a year 0 in the count. That is to say, 1926 is Showa 1, or the 1st year of Hirohito's reign. Add 15 and you're in the 16th year of his reign, or 1941.

- Sean F.

That would explain it. Thx, Sean.



I'm not certain. My first thought was periscopes for the turret but, the shape doesn't seem right. They might be mounts for some small caliber guns.

Dr_Who,

1- Painting of Admiral Togo on Mikasa's Bridge is just a painting and as such can't be used as any sort of evidence.
2- I suppose that internal structure of Mikasa's funnels looked just like that of Asahi's:
(inboard view)
3- I think that those little pedestals are aiming aids. They appear to have been located right in front of the sighting hoods (in fact, left sighting hood is visible in the photo) and might have acted in the same way as front sight of a rifle.

And a word of warning! Hasegawa's model looks great but it's of "the closer you look the less accurate it appears" kind. So, if accuracy is your aim, get as much information about Mikasa as possible before starting your build. A good place to start would be Mr.Yasaka's blog here: http://blog.livedoor.jp/studio120/archives/2010-10.html

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

Hi everyone,

SeanF:
This click: Wikipedia entry about East Asian age reckoning supports your statement. Thank you so much for helping out.

Dan:
Problem is, there are so few photos of Mikasa, that I did not spot in any of them what those metal mounts were used for. I checked whatever photo I have in books and online. Seems only the aft turret had that equipment. I found a photo of Mikasa around completion, which might indicate it was there from the beginning. Look at the red marked spots please when zooming in.



I will investigate and report back if I get something substantially worth thinking about.

DariusP:

1. Indeed, but when there was no camera, naval paintings were all there was. For this, I would have expected something else.

2. Thank you for providing the drawing. I know, EJFoeth investigated the click: inside funnel structure of HMS Hood. He was lucky to have at least one photo at avail, which partly showed what the funnel looked inside.
From my understanding, the metal structure on the funnel top was necessary so the crew could raise a tarpaulin over the funnels to prevent water (rain) to get inside. Other than that, I have no clue why someone would bother to have such a metal structure on top of the funnel.
If I recall right, this tarpaulin was most likely installed, when the ship was at anchor or berthed somewhere as then the funnels were not in use - in terms of heated and venting a lot of smoke.
If I am not totally mistaken by this, then there must have been a way to get to the top of the funnel to install the tarpaulin. Taking some artistic licence, I presume, that inside the funnel there were stairs / a walkway up to the top with possibly a platform there. I assume this, since it would greatly help to install the tarpaulin if someone from inside could help those outside to stretch the tarpaulin over the metal cage. Since HMS Hood and NTK Mikasa were of British design, I assume some similarities at some point.

3. First I am happy you took the time to figure a use for that equipment. I am not confident about them being iron sights though. While an iron sight makes sense with a rifle because you can move the whole rifle to your needs while aiming at a target, it would make not much sense to me on a turret, where only the barrels can be moved but not the whole turret. I am not ruling out your explain though. Maybe some details about the inside of the turrets can give further clues about this idea of yours.
If it is an iron sight, then I assume a kind of notch / device inside the turrets observation station / lookout. Not much room in there though.

3. Thank you for warning me about the Hasegawa kit. I have no plans to correct each and every possible error I may find or read about. It is just a kit after all and sure saves me a lot of research. When done, even out of the box, it will represent more or less the NTK Mikasa.

At the same time I simply love investigating the mechanics of ships, read about their history, reflect their impact on history and alike.
This said, my interest in a kit is many fold whereas the kit itself is just one part of my interest. I never forget warships are not built for aesthetic reasons though.

A while back I wrote a couple of reviews about various ship kits. Those were published online in English and German language. Doing research on the original ships made me fully aware, that one can praise a kit or let it just down at will.
No matter the rating I gave to a kit, there always were a ton of stuff others would call unforgivable errors. That noted, I always had to decide at which point a negative comment makes sense for the audience and at which point to just keep silence. This was truly sometimes a hard decision to make even though I bought the kits from my own money and was not in dept to anyone ever.

This said, I am quiet sure I will correct some of the parts of the Hasegawa kit and maybe add here and there missing elements. For doing a truly accurate and convincing model of the Mikasa though, the scale is not helping much, if I was asked.

Thank you for the superb link. Google translate is getting more and more a kind of friend since I started researching Mikasa in depth.

_________________
kind regards
Dr_Who²

The ultimate Mikasa fan will be pleased to note that Wave will be releasing a 1/200 model in December: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10343455

Injection plastic with PE.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Too early to be sure Timmy, but it appears that it isn't any more accurate than Hasegawa's one. Just bigger...

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

Had an Email recently saying that the Wave kit that I have ordered was now going to be released in February rather than December as was originally planned. When I get it, I could be building the kit about 500 metres from where the real thing was built here in Barrow.

_________________
My photos... http://david-j-ross.smugmug.com/



"We're all non-believers about most gods; atheists just go one god further."

I have one on preorder, as well...

Maybe the release is postponed because they will correct some issues? What are these issues, anyway?

Cheers, Peter

Judging purely from the renders at Hobby Search a major oversimplification of midship area. Especially vent bases. Not that visible in 1/700, visible in 1/350, VERY visible in 1/200.

_________________
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." H. L. Mencken

Hobby Search has scans of the Wave 1/200 Mikasa kit available: http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10343455

The deck planking looks impressively fine, and none of those trench buttends!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?