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

[Atma]

In the Tamiya's IJN Tone there is suppose to be the C40 piece, wich is just watertight doors while the rest of the opening is closed. No big entrance or IJN Takao class hangar type.

[J. Soca]

In the Tamiya's IJN Tone there is suppose to be the C40 piece, wich is just watertight doors while the rest of the opening is closed. No big entrance or IJN Takao class hangar type.

Hi Atma

this is part C40.. if you look closely to the finished model outside the kit's box you can make out that entrance through the rear. could you upload the drawing you looked at because im intrigued right now




Jose

[Atma]

In the Fujimi's 1/700 IJN Tone 1944 and 1945 kit also in the IJN Chikuma here is what that side of the ship looks like, is fully enclosed:

[J. Soca]

i'll have to do something about that opening Atma because i know is wrong. i still can't find an aswer of why Tamiya left it as that?? any ideas?


i've been a little busy with this summer semester but when i get stressed out i have to sit down and model, next time i post something on Tone ill start my own WIP thread i've gathered a few shots of my process with the superstructure for the next update, nevertheless here is a small peek...

Jose

[Atma]

i'll have to do something about that opening Atma because i know is wrong. i still can't find an aswer of why Tamiya left it as that?? any ideas?




Jose

Jose I will try and help you, can you post a clear and close photo of that part ? If the c40 is defect I can try and help you to take a replacement part.
Unfortunately I cant accesss my stock of IJN Tone's cause at the moment Im on vacation in Thessaloniki (Greece ! )

[J. Soca]

i'll have to do something about that opening Atma because i know is wrong. i still can't find an aswer of why Tamiya left it as that?? any ideas?




Jose

Jose I will try and help you, can you post a clear and close photo of that part ? If the c40 is defect I can try and help you to take a replacement part.
Unfortunately I cant accesss my stock of IJN Tone's cause at the moment Im on vacation in Thessaloniki (Greece ! )

thanks Atma but i don't think is a defect. Tamiya screwed this one for sure.

http://www.1999.co.jp/eng/image/10126994z4/70/4 ( click on the 2nd and 18th slide) in the 2nd i can get to see a bit of the gap on the full hull completed model.

i even checked MW's Tone review and C40 is the same. wish i knew which source Tamiya used on this..


Jose

[Dan K]

I can't imagine the actual aft end of the shelter deck being left open. Particularly with unshielded TT tubes. I agree that it is a Tamiya error. Very surprising. I guess that's where the bean counters drew the line.

[chuck]

I prefer to do a Tone class CA in 1/350 configured as 1941-1942. I am debating whether to buy Tamiya's 1944 Tone now, or wait to see if Tamiya would release a 1941 Chikuma. As a high level overview, beside radar and proliferation of 25mm guns, how much additional modification did Tone undergo 1941-1944?

[J. Soca]

I guess that's where the bean counters drew the line.

and yet i still can't believe they had this part wrong!! a whole bulkhead gone to where?? if you look at the kit there are airvent marks within the torpedo bay as if this section was fully exposed..



Jose

[chuck]

I can't imagine the actual aft end of the shelter deck being left open. Particularly with unshielded TT tubes. I agree that it is a Tamiya error. Very surprising. I guess that's where the bean counters drew the line.

Agano was also commissioned with unshielded torpedo tubes under an aircraft deck that was open in the back. Being open in the back is not all that bad. Most of the spray, weather and wind comes from the front. It's probably more work to add detail to torpedo deck than to add an aft end bulkhead. Other companies have put in bulkheads where non existed on the real ship just to avoid having to put in the details behind the bulkhead, (Hasagawa Yukikazi) So I suspect Tamiya has good information that the bulkhead was not there, or at least was removable.

One thing I find strange about Tone is why didn't they build the fantail deck up one level so the entire aircraft handling space is on the same level? Such a structure won't weigh very much, it would significantly add to available space in the hull, and makes aircraft handling much easier, eliminating the need to push aircraft up that bottleneck ramp at the end of the elevated portion of the flight deck.

[Dan K]

O/T I know the Agano kit gives you a choice of adding a shield or not but, those tubes were shielded. Std. practice at that point.

I really think it was an error on Tamiya' part.

[Dan K]

I reviewed every resource I have for photos of this area on Tone/Chikuma. Few in number, none are particularly good. The best angle of the port bulkhead area comes from overhead photos taken in 1940 at the last IJN Naval Review but, these are all blurry to one extent or another. The best one appears to my eye to be solid but, it would certainly be open to interpetation. If I get a chance, I'll try to scan it.

In the FWIW dept, I do note that the 1/100 Tone and 1/200 Chikuma models in the Gakken #44 volume do show solid bulkwarks in this area.

[Atma]

IJN Tone's 1/76 model at the The Mitsubishi Heavy Industries - Shimonoseki Shipyard & Machinery Works at the Shimonoseki, Yamaguchi Prefecture show solid bulkwarks in this area, with 2 large watertight doors and no portholes. Just like the Fujimi model of IJN Tone(1944, 1944 full hull & 1945 versions) and IJN Chikuma(and the 1944 full hull version).

[sirpaul]

They may have been left open after a refit. During Midway the mikuma was sunk because her torpedoes exploded in the torpedo rooms after being hit by bombs. The explosions had no where to go and damaged the hull. The Japanese were aware of this flaw in the design and tryed to correct it several times. Like raising the levels of the torpedoes and carring less reloads. Maybe this was also one of there atempts to let the explosions up and out of the hulls instead of being traped in the hull and losing the cruiser to a bomb or torpedo hit in the engine room.

[Dan K]

I seriously doubt that mod was made.

[Atma]

They may have been left open after a refit. During Midway the mikuma was sunk because her torpedoes exploded in the torpedo rooms after being hit by bombs. The explosions had no where to go and damaged the hull.

No this is not a mod, is nowhere recorded not even in Japanese texts

The Japanese were aware of this flaw in the design and tryed to correct it several times. Like raising the levels of the torpedoes and carring less reloads. Maybe this was also one of there atempts to let the explosions up and out of the hulls instead of being traped in the hull and losing the cruiser to a bomb or torpedo hit in the engine room.

The text in the bold is not correct. Cause this is never happened for safety reasons.
The only safety measure that Japanese navy took for the torpedoes onboard the heavy cruisers, was to relocate the launchers from bridge(Takao class), aft of the bridge, before and abaft the catapults foundations(IJN Mogami, IJN Tone and reconstructed IJN Myoko, IJN Aoba and IJN Furutaka class)
The levels of the torpedo tubes was raised only in IJN Furutaka, IJN Aoba and IJN Myoko and reason was weight reduction and the launchers was more practical, that fixed torpedo tubes in the hull.
Also tests in the incomplete Battleship IJN Tosa, showed that explosions inside the hull(like the fixed torpedoes in IJN Furutaka, IJN Aoba and IJN Myoko) was catastrophic, so new system was created for the IJN Takao class where the warheads of the torpedoed was outside of the hull also the training launchers where actually partly beyond the side of the hull to reduce the damage in case of a warhead explosion, also the tubes will be trained outboard during action( see the famous picture of IJN Mikuma from Midway) to bring the warheads well beyond the ship's side.
Less reloads was carried only by IJN Maya wich actually she had no releoads at all, and again not for safety reason. She was a overwheight and that was a weight reduction measure.
There is never recorded a decision to remove or reduce reloads for safety reason.

And to end the myth that most IJN Heavy cruisers where sunk by their own torpedos, only IJN Mikuma and IJN Suzuya's loss was from damage sustained by their own type 93 torpedoes.

[Dick J]

And to end the myth that most IJN Heavy cruisers were sunk by their own torpedos, only IJN Mikuma and IJN Suzuya's loss was from damage sustained by their own type 93 torpedoes.

Do you have any info on the loss of Chokai? I have seen her loss speculated as possibly torpedo related, but nobody had anything definitive to confirm either yes or no.

[Atma]

Noone knows, only speculations. Cause the where no survivors from her sinking, there is obscure and conflicting findings in IJN Chikuma's loss too, cause of the same reason.

[chuck]

However, Japanese cruisers are theoretically more vulnerable to catastrophic damage and loss from light hits which can't penetrate their armor compared to ships of other countries.

[Atma]

If there is no warheads onboard(jettisoned) the chances are the same like any other cruisers.And if we compare armour, IJN Tone class was the best armour protected cruiser in the pacific war till the appearance of USS Baltimore class.