The Ship Model Forum

I've found several of the Maru Naval Specials and other books from these three sellers on Ebay. Prices are decent and they can combine shipping on multiple books. I'm a repeat customer of all three and never had any problems.

(Japan) http://www.ebay.com/sch/faatestbook/m.h ... pg=&_from=
(Japan) http://www.ebay.com/sch/raidensamurai/m ... pg=&_from=
(US) http://www.ebay.com/sch/zeroman/m.html? ... pg=&_from=

I've also bought books/magazines from overthebluehorizon, but their prices are a bit higher, even accounting for "free" shipping. They are good for really hard to find books, like Navy Yard magazine.

HTH,
Mike

Thx, Mike. I'll check them out.

Well, I've let a lot of time go by on this thread. With Berend's help, I have managed to obtain a number of images to post. I'll finish up with the first group and try to move on to the other groups.

All these images are of Kyokuto Maru, probably in late 1941 after receiving most of her UNREP gear. The dating is strictly a guess, but I do note that here she is missing her 4.7cm main mount and bandstand on the forecastle, which she did gain by mid 1942. If the dating is accurate, then it may have been in mid November when she and other sisters in the Support force practiced refueling with elements of the Kido Butai prior to departing for the Kuriles. Based on the type and arrangement of the turrets, she is refueling a heavy cruiser of the Takao or Tone classes. If she is with elements of the Kido Butai, then the cruiser is Tone or Chikuma.

On the other hand, she was designated an Auxiliary Fleet Replenishment vessel in July, 1940, so it's conceivably possible that she engaged in some UNREP duties prior to late 1941. But, there's no indication of receiving specialized UNREP gear until late 1941.

And, as I posted this elsewhere, Kyokuto Maru in her postwar guise as California Maru, after salvage in Manila Bay and refit. Note that her bridge facing is partially plated in on the wings, in the same manner as her later sisters.

Could someone provide some information as to the apparatus rigged to the hull side of Kyokuto Maru ?
I take it that these were unique to "under-way" refueling, and of a standardized design. Were these seen rigged only at the time of refueling activities or did they remain stationary on tankers tasked with this duty ?
Also, were they employed at the bow during tandem "kido butai" type refueling ? Thanks.

_________________
"Why spoil the beauty of a thing with legalities"
Teddy Roosevelt .."The Wind & The Lion"

Those are bumpers. Stored on deck when not in use.

Thanks Dan.

_________________
"Why spoil the beauty of a thing with legalities"
Teddy Roosevelt .."The Wind & The Lion"

hi, Dan & others,
The cruiser is , in just one word, Haguro.
Details will follow when i get less busy with Aoba, tja

Mutsuo Sasaki (mucho)

I had an offline discussion with Mucho and, I defer to his judgement. Makes me think this might be sometime between January and April, 1942, again based on the lack of K.M's bow mount and her yard visits.

Maybe it´s a better idea to move to some other IJN heavy cruiser fan forum, since this one is about IJN Kawasaki class tankers.
Well,one of the infallible clues is, when i took a first glimpse of the signal deck,this cruiser is absolutely neither Takao class, nor Tone class, rest assured.
How? The ijn fleet turn will keep you better informed.

The rest of clues will be following as time goes by.

Mutsuo S.

In my experience, "Overthebluehorizon" has intriguing material, but it is often more highly priced that other sellers of such publications in Japan. If you can be patient, you will often find a lower price compared to OTBH.

That said, I've bought material from this seller myself, it has shipped quickly, and always been as described.

Edit: Just saw Mike C's post above in this thread and agree those are sellers of comparable material and often beat OTBH on price.

- D-Boy

I’m rebooting this thread, sort of. The intent is post both new as well as some better versions of previously posted photos of various class members. Hopefully, there will be enough to cover most of the class members as well as interesting details and points of differentiation. Wartime views are rare and I will post those available that provide good views or context.

Taking a half step back, it’s worth starting with the two well known prototype tankers, Teiyo Maru (Yokohama Dock) and Fujisan Maru (Harima), both launched in 1931 in response to the IJN’s request for a large, fast tanker that could be requisitioned in wartime as a navy auxiliary to help fuel the fleet as an UNREP vessel. They, and the subsequent Kawasaki Type ships, were designed and built with Navy financial subsidies. Ultimately, it was Fujisan Maru’s design that was judged best, and hers became the basis for an improved design. You can certainly see the origins of the design in both these ships. (credits: all USCG or Still Pictures Branch (NWDNS) unless noted otherwise, National Archives. And, a special thanks to Ron Wolford for his gracious sharing of his collections.) More to come.

A quick note: I think it’s important to note that while all these tankers were requisitioned for use as naval auxiliaries, not all of them were fitted for underway replenishment (UNREP). At the same time, they were all capable of, and fitted for, use as fuel depot ships while at anchor. To the best of my knowledge, neither Teiyo or Fujisan were actually used for UNREP during the war, just fueling from a anchored station. (3/7/2016 EDIT: Apparently, at least one of them was capable of UNREP. See a few posts below.)

I’ll indicate this for each ship as I go along.

I’ll also try to go over some differentiating details as we progress through the various groups of sisters.


Toa and Kyokuto Maru continued -

What make Kyokuto Maru interesting to me is that she was the flagship of Supply Force #1 for not only the Pearl Harbor operation, but pretty much for whatever operation the Support Force was assigned to, particularly in escort of the Kido Butai. I often wonder if that's why her rig is a bit more elaborate than the other tankers. Also, as the 3rd and 4th photo at the top of page two makes clear, she also carried an additional aerial mast immediately to the rear of each of her bridge wings. Obviously, for enhanced communication ability.

There are no new Kyokuto Maru photos of consequence, aside from these: 1) refueling Hiei again, 2) Kyokuto Maru and part of the Kido Butai at Staring Bay, Feb., 1942 & #s 3 & 4) a distant view of her at Manila postwar, partially sunk. (Thanks to Berend for identifying the photo.) What is interesting in the postwar photo is the apparent lack of a rear tripod kingpost or latticework HD crane. I suspect they were removed, as opposed to damaged or having been destroyed in an attack, though I’ve no idea at what point in time.

Of much greater interest are these new photos of Toa Maru, taken around the same time as those of her on the previous page. Judging from her condition, the photo with her bridge so prominently on display may have been taken on one of her earliest voyages. She’s very fresh in appearance. Coupled with the two photos on the previous page, we actually have her appearance from all four horizontal vectors, which is unusual. (Photo Credits, via Ron Wolford, USCG, Still Pictures Branch (NWDNS), National Archives ). Like Kyokuto Maru, Toa Maru was fitted with the UNREP capability. No photos of her during wartime have surfaced to my knowledge, so it is uncertain if her appearance echoed that of Kyokuto Maru.

Reflecting on the Fujimi kits meant to reproduce both Kyokuto and Toa Maru; truthfully, there’s really not much that’s positive that can be said in terms of accuracy. The kits do come with a bridge face that is a decent approximation of the real thing. Aside from that, though, there’s not much else. Though the facing looks ok, the real bridge had a much more pronounced curvature then that of the kit. That's because Fujimi has used the same structure for all of its Kawasaki class kits; the later sisters had the flatter, shallower bridge face. Even more problematic, the location of the bridge for these two ships was actually several meters aft of where it’s been molded. (Again, the more forward location is proper for the later ships.) Anyone seeking to be accurate will have to move the bridge, and corresponding hull siding, back a few millimeters.

For interested parties, there is a 6 page build and display of such a conversion for Toa Maru in the recent Model Art volume MDA925 IJN Submarine and Small Fleet Train issue: http://www.hlj.com/product/MDA925

UPDATE: Berend van der Wal has just sent me these two great photos from Maru magazine, Sept, 1974, that shows CL Tama being refueled at sea by Fujisan Maru during the Aleutian campaign in 1942. So, obviously, Fujisan Maru was capable of UNREP.

(Important note: 4-28-2017: This ship has been subsequently identified as Kyokuto Maru, not Fujian Maru, which is fantastic, given the closeup detail. Dan)

Awesome photos...thanks for sharing!

_________________

MS State Guard, 08 March 2014 - 28 January 2023

As far as the groupings go, I subscribe to Motoyuki Iwashige’s view, which groups the vessels by the power of their machinery and period of construction. Some websites ascribe to grouping by appearance. A closer examination of these ships reveals that appearance is too varied in details to make that sort of generalization, IMHO. By the machinery measure, Kyokuto and Toa Maru had machinery generating approximately 9000hp and were completed in 1934.

The Group 2 sisters were comprised of Tatekawa, Nippon, and Toho Maru. There ships had machinery of about 10,000hp and were all completed in 1935-36.

This group introduced a revised bridge, with a less concave facing and situated a few meters further forward than the first two ships. These two design changes remained consistent for the rest of the sisters. The apertures at the base of the bridge facing also changed to one of two options. Instead of a single, wide open pass-through in the center at the main deck, some ships utilized a solid facing with no openings, while others utilized a central compartment with an open pass-through to each side. Of these three, Tatekawa Maru had a solid bridge face, while both Nippon and Toho Maru had openings to either side. Note the pillar supports that were part of those openings.

Another point of differentiation has to do with the shape of the bridge face at the top, or compass deck, level. In the case of Toho and Tatekawa Maru, the bridge face is squared off all the way to the top of the compass bridge deck. For Nippon Maru, the uppermost deck is indented slightly on both sides. This indentation of the compass bridge deck was also incorporated into all of the following sisters except for Nichei and Toei Maru.

One last bridge face change from the prior ships is that the facing is enclosed at the sides for the deck below the compass bridge deck.

One last point of differentiation on the bridge concerns Nippon Maru. She, alone of all the sisters, had the compass bridge deck extended fully width wise for the entire length of the deck, and not just for the bridge wings, even though her bridge wings are enclosed. This can seen in almost all of her photos. It’s a great way to identify her. (photo credits: Tatekawa Maru – NARA, Ships of the World (SOTW), & ONI; Toho Maru – SOTW, LA Herald Express Jan 13, 1937, last via Ron Wolford, USCG, Still Pictures Branch (NWDNS), National Archives; Nippon Maru – SOTW, via Ron Wolford, USCG, Still Pictures Branch (NWDNS), National Archives, Maru Special x 3, SOTW.)

Aside from the initial bridge face option, the Fujimi kit provides two bridge face options for the later sisters; one that is solid, the other with a partial opening to one side. In terms of hull position and depth of curve of the facing, these are far more correct than the option for Kyokuto and Toa Maru. However, these options have no indentation to either side at the compass deck level, nor, a complete set of openings. So, without any modifications, only the solid face without any openings is correct out of the box, and then, only for Tatekawa Maru.

(Note 4-28-2017: subsequently, Genyo and Itsukushima Maru have also been confirmed as having a solid facing. Dan)

Some modifications to the facings are required to depict any of the other sisters correctly.