The Ship Model Forum

Thanks so much, Dan!

I see that the viewfinder ports on the front of the turrets are differently shaped as well. When viewed from the front, the Takao's were rectangular, the Mogami's trapezoidal.

Thanks again!

Hi, Steve -

Unfortunately, the turrets are quite not identical because, as you surmise, the rangefinders were different. Takao class model E turrets had 6m rangefinders while the Mogami class had model E2 modified turrets with 8m rangefinders. The Mogami turrets also lost the hood for the observer. See below.

Of course, this matters more to rivet counters than a more casual builder, so your Takao turrets are not out of the question.

Were Mogami-class 203 mm turrets identical in design to those of the Takao-class? I wonder if the rooftop rangefinder housing was a bit different. References we have are too poor to know. Takao is flat across the bottom, Tamiya Mogami kits depict the bottom as sloped downward from the end of rangefinder "ears" towards the turret.

If the Mogami-class turrets and their associated rangefinder housings were identical to those of Takao-class ships, we have Takao-class turrets available now in 1/350 scale and can immediately offer a set for Mogami-class kits.

TIA

Light cruiser Mogami is next. Since the Mikuma kit, funnily enough, only comes with decals for Mikuma's name for the stern, I have a set of etched Japanese ship names.

Nice work!

[quote] First ship I'll have completed since before my oldest son was born[/quote]

I am familiar with that circumstance :smallsmile:

Mogami is basically complete. Same for Kagero. Just need to add the lifelines and aircraft. First ship I'll have completed since before my oldest son was born.

There's nothing authoritative out there to confirm or disprove that complement and combo that I'm aware of. I could be wrong.

Judging from what the CA's seem to be carrying in 1942, a mix seems likely.

What is the correct seaplane complement for Suzuya in 1942 and how are these painted?

Some kits would suggest 2x E8N in camo and 1x E13A in overall amber grey. Is that correct for 1942 or any time frame?

[quote]thanks for confirming I'm not seeing things. [/quote]

Well, you're not seeing things here, but I can't attest to what's happening elsewhere :big_grin:

While it would seem to make sense to handle the entirety of an installation at one time, Japanese production, resource, infrastructure, and supply chain issues undoubtedly came into play. The installation of radar aboard their destroyers is an example. Foremasts to carry the Type 22 radar were being modified as early as mid-1943, but the radar itself often wasn't installed until months later.

So, a partial installation was entirely feasible, IMHO.

Interesting, thanks for confirming I'm not seeing things. It seems Suzuya didn't have this drydocking, so Kumano would be the only one that (maybe) briefly had the upper baffles before addition of extra AA and radar.

[quote]this is Kumano at Rabaul in December 1942. To my eye it looks like the air defense platform might already be there? As the ship is silhouetted the roof of the compass bridge looks quite thick.[/quote]

Yes, it is Kumano at Rabaul in Dec, 1942, and yes, it certainly does seem like her foretop has been changed. She spent a week in drydock at Kure in November, 1942, so it is possible that some work was done. It may not be the entire AA command platform, but at the least the start of it, particularly the baffles.

[quote="Vlad"] Were the larger lower baffles added to all 4 by Midway? L&W is indeed missing this detail. But in that case, why do the Tamiya 1/350 kit and Fujimi 1/700 kits that claim to be in 1942 fit have the upper air defence platform with its own baffles when L&W clearly state these weren't added until April 1943 and the pictures support this?[/quote]


Ooops, apologies, I sent the wrong link, this is the Tamiya demo model I was talking about, it has the baffles only below the bridge windows:

[url]https://www.modelsport.co.uk/product/tamiya-1350-mogami-heavy-cruiser-with-guns-427391[/url]

[url]https://www.modelsport.co.uk/_images/products/800/gallery_78023_05.jpg[/url]

[quote="Vlad"]

Were the larger lower baffles added to all 4 by Midway? L&W is indeed missing this detail. But in that case, why do the Tamiya 1/350 kit and Fujimi 1/700 kits that claim to be in 1942 fit have the upper air defence platform with its own baffles when L&W clearly state these weren't added until April 1943 and the pictures support this?[/quote]


Hi. With regards to Tamiya's Mogami, incidentally, the picture B that I showed is from a demo shot of their assembled 1/350 Mogami kit in her 1942 heavy cruiser fit (link below). It appears that they got the demo sample right but made an error when making the instructions. It's easy to rectify this however, since the parts for the plain topmost platform without wind baffles is also present in the kit's L sprue... part L26 if IIRC.

[url]https://www.tamiya.com/english/products/78023/index.html[/url]

I guess just a kit blooper then, although Fujimi are usually quite well researched.

What's your take on this picture by the way? I was told this is Kumano at Rabaul in December 1942. To my eye it looks like the air defense platform might already be there? As the ship is silhouetted the roof of the compass bridge looks quite thick.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/uYr7EnT.png?1[/img]

Outside of Mikuma, no photo of their respective bridges exist for mid 1942. According to their TROMS, all four CruDiv 7 sisters were at Kure for drydocking and hull cleaning in the last week of April through Mid May 1942. This seems the mostly likely time for an installation.

[quote]But in that case, why do the Tamiya 1/350 kit and Fujimi 1/700 kits that claim to be in 1942 fit have the upper air defence platform with its own baffles when L&W clearly state these weren't added until April 1943 and the pictures support this?[/quote]

Erroneous data and/or extrapolations.

[quote="Dan K"]Different navies refer to it differently. Venturi is actually the wind effect. Windscreen or wind baffles also works.

The important thing here is that only the lower baffles were added by Midway, and the top of the bridge had not yet been transformed into an AA command position. IIRC, the L&W IJN cruiser bible does not point at that baffles were added before Midway, yet the photos clearly bear this out.[/quote]

Were the larger lower baffles added to all 4 by Midway? L&W is indeed missing this detail. But in that case, why do the Tamiya 1/350 kit and Fujimi 1/700 kits that claim to be in 1942 fit have the upper air defence platform with its own baffles when L&W clearly state these weren't added until April 1943 and the pictures support this?

My pleasure. Choice B for certain.

Thanks for the explanations, Dan and Phil, much appreciated.

Dan thank you very much for that picture, I was about to ask the same exact question: I plan to replicate Mikuma in her 1942 fit when she was sunk and wanted to ask whether she should be represented as in Picture A in the link below (Fujimi's 1/700 version of Mikuma 1942) with wind baffles both below and above the bridge windows and presence of numerous binoculars on the topmost level of the bridge, or picture B where the wind baffles are only present below the bridge windows and the topmost level of the bridge doesn't have any binoculars. Based on the picture you have shown and another Midway picture of Mikuma as posted below, I think it's safer to copy picture B for a 1942 fit. Many thanks again for the help.


[img]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FIJFIAF7-3ktwmjzgc8EqUQCcbQDeR-O/view?usp=sharing[/img]

[url]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FIJFIAF7-3ktwmjzgc8EqUQCcbQDeR-O/view?usp=sharing[/url]

Different navies refer to it differently. Venturi is actually the wind effect. Windscreen or wind baffles also works.

The important thing here is that only the lower baffles were added by Midway, and the top of the bridge had not yet been transformed into an AA command position. IIRC, the L&W IJN cruiser bible does not point at that baffles were added before Midway, yet the photos clearly bear this out.

The things that extend forward of the superstructure below the bridge are "venturis." They capture air blowing against the superstructure and deflect it upward. The rising air mixes with air coming over the bulwarks and deflects it upward, forming an invisible "wind screen." It really works! I have been standing on the open bridge in rain squalls and the rising air from the venturis deflected the rain over me.

Phil