Calling all IJN Kuma-class (球磨), Nagara-class (長良) & Sendai-class (川内) fans

[Mike W]

Thanks Dan, yes I hope someone who has the kit can answer. I'm trying to work out whether to keep the Tamiya kit (and see what etch I can use for it) or whether the Fujimi kit is that much better (plus it has matching etch).

thanks
Mike

[Mike W]

I've got a couple of further questions. Are the single light AA guns on Nagara (circa 1944) 25mm or 13mm guns? Also Tamiya's Kinu has a floatplane I'm not too familiar with, I think it's a Laura or Hank but can anyone confirm what it is and when it was carried?

thanks
Mike

[MatthewB]

Question about the Masts.

Specifically the Foremast.

Were all three legs the same diameter?

I cannot tell.

In some photos, it looks as if the central column is thicker than the aft two for the Foremast. I cannot tell for the Mainmast, but that question would apply there as well.

I am having an annoying time trying to create the starfish for the Nagara Bridge (in 3D modeling - so that I can extract dimensions for the Photo-Etch and for the 3D Printed Structures).

And I think that it might be because I have all three mast legs as the same diameter, when the aft two might be slightly smaller (although that could be annoying as hell in terms of creating the legs, as currently the central Pillar is only .015", and any smaller would be freakishly tiny).

Any larger and the Mast Legs just look freaking ginormous.

MB

[Dan K]

Were all three legs the same diameter?

It's a good question. The main leg is a little thicker than the trailing legs. There are no measurements that I know of. Best evidence are photos taken close to abeam of the bridge, original fit, with less obstructive views. Though taken far later, the Abukuma photo also gives a reasonable view, I think.

[MatthewB]

Well...

That is both annoying news and exciting news.

Having the posts as different diameters means that the starfish will be easier to model.

But it also means that (in scale) it will be harder to build (even with brass).

The aft posts will need to be around .0125" - .015", which means the central post will need to be around .02", which is rather large for that post, Ideally, "In scale" (1/700) they would be more like .015" for the central post, and .01" for the after posts.

But.... The never ending pursuit of scale versus buildability....


MB

[Dan K]

I think everything is a bit thicker than that. IMHO, those measurements are more appropriate for a DD. I would go with 0.03" and 0.025". Of course, I can't prove it.

To Mike, by 1944, the single are 25mm.


I believe the float plane was a Laura.

[MatthewB]

I think everything is a bit thicker than that. IMHO, those measurements are more appropriate for a DD. I would go with 0.03" and 0.025". Of course, I can't prove it.

To Mike, by 1944, the single are 25mm.


I believe the float plane was a Laura.

I just realized that I was dealing with Radii, and not diameter (I was just transcribing what I remembered entering in CAD).

And I am pretty sure that I have it as .03125" for the forward mast, and .025" for the aft. I need to check that, as it has been bugging me why the Starfish has been so wonky (It is slightly out of scale, even for PE, because it is so small in 1/700).

I am so sick of making the rear platforms on this model it is driving me nuts.

MB

[Guest]

This is Redoctober27 here.. I have forgotten my password for like forever but... I'm thinking about getting Aoshima's IJN Oyodos 1/700 1944 kit. My question is which Photo-Etch set is the best for the kit. The first is Fivestars PE sets http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=261701793384. And the second is AKAs PE set http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=182236381922. The big difference is that there is Anti-skid decks on the fore bridge and foremast on the AKA set and on the 5star set there is Linoleum with brass strips. Does anyone know which is correct? Maybe Dan K could help me here??

[redoctober27]

Question guys.. So I'm planing on doing a 1/350 IJN Tama and IJN Kuma in there 1944 builds. My question is, How close was IJN Kuma, in aperiance to IJN Tama? What was Kumas layout? I've found plenty on Tama but little on late war Kuma..

[MatthewB]

The most obvious thing would be the Stacks.

The Kuma had flared stacks, while the Tama's kind of narrowed at the top.

Both were Kuma-Class CLs.

�� The Tama, in Oct 1943, had the No. 5 & 7 5.5" guns removed, and a Type 89, Twin-127mm HA Gun was mounted in the previous No. 7 Gun position. The catapult was also landed (if it had not been previously)

It also received around 18 additional Type 96 25mm AA Guns (4 Triple, and 6 Single - making for a total of 4x3, 2x2, and 6x1), and a Type 21 radar above the bridge.

I am pretty sure that the Type 96 25mm were outfitted as:

��1x2 each abreast the forward stack (just slightly forward of it, with the forward splinter-shielding that protected it starting right at the edge of the well-deck with the Torpedoes).

��2x3 each on the Port/Starboard just after of the Ship's Boats.

��1x1 each to P/S just abaft the two forward guns (and forward of the bridge superstructure), and then 2x1 P/S on the fantail.
Note: I am not at all certain of the 6x1 Type 96 Positions.

Also, I do not know if it still carried any Type 93 13.5mm AA guns. I do not think she did, but I just don't know, as I have only been paying attention to the Cruisers in the Southern and Mid Pacific.

But the Tama left Yokosuka on 24 December, 1943.


���The Kuma had the No.5 5.5" gun and Catapult landed in Nov 1943, and 2x3 Type 96 25mm AA guns added to the aft of the boats (2x3 and 2x2 - with the 2x2 in the same location as the Tama).

This would have been her outfit when sunk in Jan 1944.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


So....

It looks as if these are the differences between the two


MB

[Dan K]

This might also help.

[MatthewB]

Dan, what is the source on that?

If it is accurate, then several other online sources need to modify their accounts of the Kuma and Tama, which state it never got the Type 89 Twin 127mm, as well as contradicting that it kept its Catapult (Like Combined Fleet).

See: 1 Nov, 1943:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/kuma_t.htm

1 November 1943:
Drydocked. KUMA's No. 5 140-mm gun is removed as are her catapult and derrick. Two triple mount Type 96 25-mm AA guns are fitted. This brings KUMA's 25-mm AA suite to ten barrels (2x3, 2x2).

Since she was refit at Singapore, I would think that getting the Type 89 HA 127mm mount would have been more difficult, unless they kept a stock of these mounts in Singapore for repairs.

And the Tama Entry at Combined Fleet shows it only got 4x3 Type 96, and not the 5x3 that the image you posted shows (2 P/S behind the additional 2x2 Type 96, one on the Catapult Mount, one on the Deckhouse behind the Mainmast, and one on the fantail deck).

http://www.combinedfleet.com/tama_t.htm

27 October 1943:
Arrives at Yokosuka. Begins repairs and modifications. Her Nos. 5 and 7 140-mm guns are removed as are her catapult and derrick. A twin 127-mm HA gun is fitted as are four triple mount and six single mount Type 96 25-mm AA guns. This brings TAMA's 25-mm AA suite to 22 barrels (4x3, 2x2, 6x1). A type 21 air search radar is also fitted.

This image would show a need to change the accounts of these cruisers at other sources as well: Pacific War dot com, Hyperwar, and just regular Wikipedia Entries.

MB

[Dan K]

This source was the Model Art Ship Modeling Special #29.

The illustrations for Tama and Kiso match those from the LaCroix and Welles volume on IJN cruisers (the most authoritive source in English that I know). That includes Tama having 5 x triple 25mmAA.

OTOH, L & W do not mention the installation of the aft 12.7cm mount on Kuma. Can't remember about the catapult. But, this book is not infallible, either. FWIW.

[MatthewB]

This source was the Model Art Ship Modeling Special #29.

The illustrations for Tama and Kiso match those from the LaCroix and Welles volume on IJN cruisers (the most authoritive source in English that I know). That includes Tama having 5 x triple 25mmAA.

OTOH, L & W do not mention the installation of the aft 12.7cm mount on Kuma. Can't remember about the catapult. But, this book is not infallible, either. FWIW.

Then someone should comment Combined Fleet to correct the Tama page.

Not to mention asking what their sources on the Kuma having the #5 5.5" and catapult Removed at Singapore in Nov/Dec of 1943.


MB

[redoctober27]

Thank guys! Idk what I was thinking in that I thought they where similar. Here I was thinking I could use Rainbows 1/350 Tama PE set for Kuma . Looks like I'll be waiting:/

[Greg lester]

Does anyone have the deck layout for the Isuzu in 1945? There should be multiple triple MGs but I'm struggling to find anything accurate.

[Angeliccypher]

Does anyone have the deck layout for the Isuzu in 1945? There should be multiple triple MGs but I'm struggling to find anything accurate.

There were a total of 11 triple mounts as of 9/44. The locations are as follows:
-2 on the platform in front of the bridge at the O3 level.
-2 port and starboard the first funnel.
-2 on the outboard sections of the platforms between the second and third funnels.
-2 just above the aft most portion of the torpedo tubes on the port and starboard sides.
-2 forward the main boom on port and starboard.
-1 on the lower deck aft the last 12.7cm centerline of the ship.

There is a drawing in L&W on page 401.

HTH

[Dan K]

I'mnot aware of a deck layout for 1945, only late 1944 and the aforementioned L & W schematic:

[Greg lester]

Excellent thanks, I keep reading that there were a total of 50 barrels for the mg's, so that's it then. A few Japanese sites seem to conflict by throwing in more triple mounts on their models.

[Greg lester]

Ok, next question, given there is so little reference material on this class, I'm trying to figure out the panel lines on the hull and what the 4 "flaps" are on the side of the Isuzu. The Aoshima kit does not have them but the box art does. The rest of it I have figured.