In case of the open 25mm triple guns, there are some photos from 1945 available where you can clearly see, that the open triples haven�t any shields. For example you can see it clear at the attached photo where I had reconstructed the shape of the so called "Zarebas". From a nearby position another set of photos were shot, where you can see two more open triple guns (above direct at the superstructure).
And when it comes to the shape of the Zarebas, the actual 1/10 Kure Model is correct! The shape of Skulski�s Zarebas in his updated AotS is wrong.
Appreciate the help, the inclusion of the shields on the 25mm in AOTS had me scratching my head for sometime, so it's great to finally get some closure to that question. I take it the Zarebas are those shields around the 25mm mounts, I actually hadn't noticed the difference with AOTS, but when I get to doing them I'll keep in mind to refer to the Kure model instead. Strange that Skulski would include a detail like the shields when there is photographic evidence to disprove it, but still a great publication none the less.
Also, if anyone could second my conclusion on the shape of the stern before I do any major damage to my model that would be great! I have already begun sanding but thought I better wait incase any experts disagree. Accuracy is all at the end of the day.
Does anyone know what happened to KATANA? I was following his rigging posts and they just abruptly stopped. I'm just now starting my Yamato after having it for several years and would like all the info on rigging I can get. I have AOTS and many other references plus I saved all KATANA had given us. Just kinda wondering what happened.
In case of the open 25mm triple guns, there are some photos from 1945 available where you can clearly see, that the open triples haven�t any shields. For example you can see it clear at the attached photo where I had reconstructed the shape of the so called "Zarebas". From a nearby position another set of photos were shot, where you can see two more open triple guns (above direct at the superstructure).
And when it comes to the shape of the Zarebas, the actual 1/10 Kure Model is correct! The shape of Skulski�s Zarebas in his updated AotS is wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the shield for the gun directly behind the officers in the picture? It seams to fit your reconstruction drawing perfectly.
Seems very interesting. I used to have the Pit-Road, Fujimi and Yamato 1/700 kits (plus several aftermarket sets) and comparing the details, I have the impression that this is gorgeous and a step ahead. But this is just a rendering. Has anyone an idea what will like the real kit? And why the official Pontos site doeas not mention this?
I don't think Pontos usually puts things on their site until it has been released. Mr. Kim from them has posted a short thread announcing/confirming it on this forum though: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=334169
Not sure anyone caught this but a picture was released a few days ago on the Trumpeter&HobbyBoss Facebook page but taken down shortly after. It was a picture of their new 1/16 Panzer III kit but in the background was their 1/200 Yamato in test assembling. I quickly downloaded the picture before it disappeared. I'm really excited for this, I do hope it will be somewhat good. I still haven't finished my current Nichimo/Fujimi build.
tardis1916 wrote:Not sure anyone caught this but a picture was released a few days ago on the Trumpeter&HobbyBoss Facebook page but taken down shortly after. It was a picture of their new 1/16 Panzer III kit but in the background was their 1/200 Yamato in test assembling. I quickly downloaded the picture before it disappeared. I'm really excited for this, I do hope it will be somewhat good. I still haven't finished my current Nichimo/Fujimi build.
wow great find!! i recall seeing their box art image years ago. Can anyone dig it back up from the bottom of this thread?
If anyone in the US wants a Tamiya 1/700 Yamato with a good amount of Finemolds Nano-dread fixings for cheap, Tamiya's selling the special set at a very steep discount - $50 instead of $140: https://www.tamiyausa.com/shop/1700-wat ... -yamato-2/
Thanks! Tamiya with such parts and a good PE is always a good choice, despite the fact the kit is old and a LOT of manufacturers did their own Yamato. Does anyone know if in the future Tamiya will update this 1/700 kit? And also another problem I was not able to solve... if someone wants to add a full hull to this Yamato from Tamiya is there any effective possibility, an aftermarket set or something else?
"Also, if anyone could second my conclusion on the shape of the stern before I do any major damage to my model that would be great! I have already begun sanding but thought I better wait incase any experts disagree. Accuracy is all at the end of the day."
Seconding heaven one's request to see if we have an authoritative view on the stern shape. From the pictures heaven one linked, I'd guess that Skulski is correct in AOTS; however, the stern has buckled from impact just where the 'triangle' tapers into a thin edge. If this suggests distortion of the whole area, the current view of the stern shape could be correct.
I feel Skulski is right. If you look at the modernisations the Japanese did to their battleships (and Kaga) the stern was extended and the hull almost concaved in its path along the waterline. They may have discovered this added to the speed/efficiency. Aesthetically, the triangular transom was used on the stern extensions to Yamashiro and Fuso. Clear aerial photos of Yamato and Musashi under air attack show the deck at the stern really tucking in after the catapaults, too.
Given the hull is the biggest and most important part of a ship, it would be nice to get a definitive answer to this question. Does anyone have any clear wreck footage?
Jack G wrote:"Also, if anyone could second my conclusion on the shape of the stern before I do any major damage to my model that would be great! I have already begun sanding but thought I better wait incase any experts disagree. Accuracy is all at the end of the day."
Seconding heaven one's request to see if we have an authoritative view on the stern shape. From the pictures heaven one linked, I'd guess that Skulski is correct in AOTS; however, the stern has buckled from impact just where the 'triangle' tapers into a thin edge. If this suggests distortion of the whole area, the current view of the stern shape could be correct.
I feel Skulski is right. If you look at the modernisations the Japanese did to their battleships (and Kaga) the stern was extended and the hull almost concaved in its path along the waterline. They may have discovered this added to the speed/efficiency. Aesthetically, the triangular transom was used on the stern extensions to Yamashiro and Fuso. Clear aerial photos of Yamato and Musashi under air attack show the deck at the stern really tucking in after the catapaults, too.
Given the hull is the biggest and most important part of a ship, it would be nice to get a definitive answer to this question. Does anyone have any clear wreck footage?
Hi!
I would never go with the actual "Skulski" Stern! I�m more into the 1/10 Yamato Model in the Kure Museum.
In a Facebook Group someon made a comment, that he send an Email to one of the Curators of the Yamato Museum. Here is the answer he got:
Hello, Mr.David,
Thank you for your e-mail.
I'm Seiko SUGIYAMA, a curator.
I was surprised at your model.
The workmanship is exquisite.
I think that you would like to build it as a complete one.
So, you want to know about the sterns.
However, we don't have information about that.
We conducted a submersible survey of Yamato in 2016, but we couldn't catch the shape of sterns.
Thank you.
Best Wishes,
Seiko SUGIYAMA
Imho Skulski can�t get more information about the stern than the Yamato Museum.
Finally I would go for the !/10 Yamato Stern and the Super Illustration Battleship Yamato No. 745 from Model Art.
Jack G wrote:"Also, if anyone could second my conclusion on the shape of the stern before I do any major damage to my model that would be great! I have already begun sanding but thought I better wait incase any experts disagree. Accuracy is all at the end of the day."
Seconding heaven one's request to see if we have an authoritative view on the stern shape. From the pictures heaven one linked, I'd guess that Skulski is correct in AOTS; however, the stern has buckled from impact just where the 'triangle' tapers into a thin edge. If this suggests distortion of the whole area, the current view of the stern shape could be correct.
I feel Skulski is right. If you look at the modernisations the Japanese did to their battleships (and Kaga) the stern was extended and the hull almost concaved in its path along the waterline. They may have discovered this added to the speed/efficiency. Aesthetically, the triangular transom was used on the stern extensions to Yamashiro and Fuso. Clear aerial photos of Yamato and Musashi under air attack show the deck at the stern really tucking in after the catapaults, too.
Given the hull is the biggest and most important part of a ship, it would be nice to get a definitive answer to this question. Does anyone have any clear wreck footage?
I highly doubt skulski was right.
1. Modernized Fuso and Yamashiro didn�t have a triangular transom. What they had was a traditional hydrodynamic tapered cruiser stern below waterline, but flared out above waterline to enlarge the deck area available to work the float planes. Yamato didn�t handle float planes at the extreme stern, there is no clear reason to adopt such a flared stern.
2. The skulski stern is not really a transom stern. The key feature that makes transom stern hydrodynamically efficient is the sharp knuckle at the bottom. This allow water flowing under the keel to separate cleanly, in effect giving the ship the water flow pattern equivalent to that of a longer ship. Skulski� s stern has a rounded bottom. In this case the reason for the flat vertical stern depicted by skulski is not clear. It just doesn�t make sense.
Assessing the impact of new area rug under modeling table.
baseballbrat wrote:Question: This kit just launched here in the US and wondering, Pontos is calling this Yamato 1945, but it looks like an early version with the twin gun placement on the aft behind the crane. Also single gun placements forward. Is Pontos just stupid and not informed about Yamato's history? It's a great kit, but if their are too many errors, what's the point. It's a $150 kit in 1:700.
I'm not sure every exact final detail of Yamato's final anti-aircraft weapon configuration is definitively known? Both due to destruction of the records by the Japanese before their surrender, and the heavy damage to the wreck from her final battle and her subsequent magazine explosion.
Maybe there are lovely high resolution photos in Japanese sources somewhere that clearly show the detailed placement of every sandbag position and the shape and position of every single splinter shield for each and every 25mm AA mount? But I certainly have never seen them. Photos taken by US aircraft both before and during the final battle seem to be the best sources of information?
Calling Pontos Models stupid is unduly harsh in my opinion. Regardless of kit manufacturer, I imagine there will be an element of educated guesswork for Yamato's final AA configuration. And indeed Musashi's final AA configuration from October 1944 for that matter. As to my knowledge definitive sources for every little detail in this regard simply did not survive the war and thus no longer exist.
baseballbrat wrote:Question: This kit just launched here in the US and wondering, Pontos is calling this Yamato 1945, but it looks like an early version with the twin gun placement on the aft behind the crane. Also single gun placements forward. Is Pontos just stupid and not informed about Yamato's history? It's a great kit, but if their are too many errors, what's the point. It's a $150 kit in 1:700.
I'm not sure every exact final detail of Yamato's final anti-aircraft weapon configuration is definitively known? Both due to destruction of the records by the Japanese before their surrender, and the heavy damage to the wreck from her final battle and her subsequent magazine explosion.
Maybe there are lovely high resolution photos in Japanese sources somewhere that clearly show the detailed placement of every sandbag position and the shape and position of every single splinter shield for each and every 25mm AA mount? But I certainly have never seen them. Photos taken by US aircraft both before and during the final battle seem to be the best sources of information?
Calling Pontos Models stupid is unduly harsh in my opinion. Regardless of kit manufacturer, I imagine there will be an element of educated guesswork for Yamato's final AA configuration. And indeed Musashi's final AA configuration from October 1944 for that matter. As to my knowledge definitive sources for every little detail in this regard simply did not survive the war and thus no longer exist.
I apologize for my error. Looking at my reference books which are many, I found my statement to be unfounded, thus my rant on the Pontos kit should never had been posted. I actually went out and bought one today because I don't think any 1:700 kit has this much detail included. I think I might be losing my mind. Probably from wearing a mask so much, my brain is being starved of oxygen. Haha!
Sad note: I recently found out that Janusz Skulski, author of the Anatomy of the Ship series book on Yamato, as well as ones on Takao and Fuso, passed away back in September 2021. He will definitely be missed.
) Flyhawk did the plastic-work for the kit!
