The Ship Model Forum

Interesting question. The loudspeaker mounted on the mast indicates that this is Zuikaku, not Shokaku. And, she did embark Rear Admiral Chuichi Hara as commander for the 5th Carrier Division during the Pearl Harbor operation.

The problem is that neither ensign carries the lower border that would indicate a rear admiral was aboard.(Though, we can't see the entirety of the upper, larger flag, and must leave open the possibility that perhap's it is an vice admiral's flag, which would indicate this photo is mis-dated. There was at least one occasion when Vice Admiral Nagumo was forced to board Zuikaku after Shokaku was damaged.)

The only other possibility that comes to mind is that, perhaps, the additional flag is an older battle flag that was raised to help commemorate the attack, similar in intent to the Japanese also raising Admiral Togo's battle flag on board Akagi at the time of launch.

Thanks Dan!
did I wrote Shokaku ? !! sorry - of course Zuikaku.
Yes - I was intending to think that it's rear admiral flag due to Nagumo onboard but shape and size does not fit really at all... it cannot be vice admiral flag neither since it has red strips on top and botom.
Thesis for commemoration makes sense....
thank you once again Dan

_________________
...in my shipyard...

Dan, I can't really agree that the upper flag could be a vice-admiral flag. All admiral flags had far less sun rays than the naval ensign- only eight, while both flags on the photo seem to have 16 rays. Plus, the Zero landing still carries markings for the 5th CarDiv, so it definitely is an early war period, when Hara is in command.

Your theory about the second ensign seems right though. AFAIK, Akagi carried the Z flag only for a while during the Pearl attack, and it was quickly taken down so it wouldn't be treated as an actual signal flag, troubling the formation. The second ensign can be therefore considered a "safer" alternative in commemorating Togo and his famous message in the Battle of Tsushima. But if that's the case, what is the Z flag doing below them in the picture? Acting as an ordinary signal flag?

Cheers,
Filip

Your are clearly paying closer attention to the details than I, Filip.

I was just speculating about the possibility of it being an admiral's flag. Your analysis nixes that idea.

Can't really answer about use of the Z flag in the photo. Possibly as a regular signal.

When I first saw the photo my first thought was also that it may merely be an ensign and an admiral flag, but something seemed not quite right...
The mystery of flag seems to be solved now. Many thanks, Dan and blacman!

While we're at the topic of Zuikaku during the Pearl attack, today I was analysing Fujimi's 1941 Zuikaku manual and what struck me is how different their deck markings are from what Dan posted in the page 16 of this thread from Shipbucket. Here it is, taken from HobbySearch:



The biggest differences are a circular marking at the 3rd deck lift, second katakana marking at the aft part of the deck, and different scheme of dashed lines on the sides.
At first I thought that Fujimi has provided us with a later (Coral Sea?) version, but according to shipbucket drawings, Zuikaku carried their version of markings both during Pearl attack, and later during the battle of Santa Cruz. Tamiya's decals are slightly different from Shipbucket's drawings as well.

So, who's correct here?

Based upon the conversation that I recall about the roll-down and the wooden-deck, I am going to say the image posted by Dan K.

Except of course that the image Dan Posted shows what looks to be metal-decking at the striped roll-down, and slightly forward that should be wooden decking.

I think that I have a deck transfer that matches the image Dan posted.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew, do you mean that you have an aftermarket decal for Zuikaku's deck, or is it a leftover from a kit?

I have Fujimi's full hull Shokaku waiting in my stash, decided to build it as 1941 Zuikaku, and thought that I will simply buy Fujimi's Zuikaku to take its decal, but now it seems that I have to buy Tamiya one...

Without seeing Fujimi's documentation for the circle, I'd say it was in error. While it's true that many of the IJN CV's carried a white circle close to their aft elevator in the first 1-2 years of the war, the Shokakus did not. While there is no wonderful, clear overhead photo of Zuikaku in late 1941, there are enough partial glimpses of the the flight deck to establish this marking as non existent. There is a photo floating around with an aft elevator within a white circular marking purported to be one of Shokakus, but it is, in fact, Hiyo. I wonder if Fujimi was relying on this particular photo.

Also, the documentation regarding her markings in various Japanese references has been fairly consistent over the years. Doesn't mean that the circle couldn't have appeared at one point, but it seems very doubtful to me.

The photo below was taken a few weeks later during the raids on Rabaul, Lae and Salamaua. The original photo is highly washed out because of the angle of the sun, so I've darkened it considerably. The red arrows point to the #s 2 and 3 elevators. The 3rd, aft most elevator is at left. I find no circle markings discernible in the area immediately in front of the elevator, even though the center stripe is prominent.

The aft hiragana marking appeared in 1943, during training. It may have been retained only for training.

Yes, it is just the decal. Habit of language leftover from the days before dry-transfers for models were a thing.

And I am going to eventually have the same problem with the Zuikaku for 1942.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Thanks for explanation, Dan! It does seem that Tamiya has to be a decal donor after all... I just hope it won't be too short for Fujimi's deck

Well, if you could find a supplemental set of short/dotted stripes to add to the Fujimi set, it might work. The Fujimi set is just lacking some of the outer, dotted lines. (Deleting the circle and aft hiragana symbol as well.)

Well, the aft katakana sign is made of three straight lines equal in width, so I could simply cut it into short pieces. On the other hand, Tamiya's kit has more short stripes than necessary, so if any unbroken line provided by Tamiya turns out to be too short I can lenghten it with those leftovers. Either way, I'll have to improvise- that's the fun part though, isn't it?

So, after our discussion about the deck markings I've bought both Flyhawk's deck and Tamiya's Zuikaku as a decal donor, but I have noticed a major difference between Tamiya's and Fujimi's deck and the Flyhawk deck that I think hasn't been mentioned here yet- Flyhawk extended wood planking more to the aft of the flight deck. I used the shipbucket graphic to show the issue- blue line shows where the border between planking and anti-skid metal deck is on both plastic decks, red line shows where the border is on Flyhawk's deck. This got me quite puzzled.
Another question that rises here is to how far should the striped aft area extend, because both Tamiya and Fujimi supply us with a decal that reaches the blue line, but with Flyhawk's deck it would make sense for the stripes to reach only to the line marked red.
Are there any photos or plans to confirm any of the two versions?



Cheers,
Filip

Well, the first photo clearly shows that the wood meets the striping, and that the metal plating is treaded. So, we know this is true for at least Shokaku.

I haven't found another, more telling match but, my sense is that the striping probably extends up to the blue line, at least through midwar.

However, the second photo does show Zuikaku later on with the striping only as far as the blue line. And, the decking appears consistent in terms of appearance back to that line, which still indicates (to me, anyway) that there is no thin swath of plain metal plating between the end of the planking and the striped area as Tamiya portrays it.

FWIW

Do you mean that the striping only extends to the Red-Line on the Zuikaku?

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

I think it extended to the red line only in the latter war period. Judging by these two pics, here's my theory:
-Both sisters had treaded metal plating and the striping reaching the blue line in the beginning of war (I see neither reason nor evidence for them to differ in this aspect)
-Then in the middle of the war, maybe when deck markings are modified, the striped area is shortened to the red line to reduce carrier's visbility, as after Midway the Japanese are scared of American aerial attacks. In 1944 stripes disappear completely when Zuikaku is camouflaged, so it could be a sign of continuous tendency to limit carrier's aerial visibility.

I think Fivi has it right. There is no overhead of Zuikaku earlier on to confirm beyond a doubt, but there is this photo of some crew scrubbing her flight deck back by the starboard glide path guide outrigger (that's one of the names I give that thing, since I don't know what they called it). If you look carefully at the photo, you can see that the planking extends all the way back to the outrigger (on the left) and that the planking and striping extends just as far back on the right. If there was metal plating down there, ahead of the outriggers, I'm quite positive we would see the change in the surfaces.

The way the planking seems to drop away to the water behind everything is because that's the transition point to the round down at the stern.

Shokaku in view, astern.

This pic seems to solve the case. Apparently Flyhawk's deck has a major flaw in this aspect- quite disappointing.

Anyways, happy Easter to all of you, guys!

Hey Guys!

Just finally got a 1/350 Zuikaku & think I ordered the wrong etch for it.

Will the Fujimi deck truss set for the Shokaku fit Zuikaku, Or am i now looking to but a Shokaku to use it on? Looking at the parts on HobbySearch, The Zuikaku has the truss on the 'S' runner, Shokaku on the 'E' runner. how screwed am i?

Thanks for ANY help you can offer....

It will probably work, but you have the part #? I want to be sure.