I had to touch this topic as I found some interesting comparisions between the Kuma and the other similar classes.
The Japanese Navy had 20 light cruisers when the war started. They only added 5 additional light cruisers during the war to their fleet.
Existing Light Cruisers
Tenryu & Tatsuta GHQ issued
Kuma, Kiso & Tama Latest GHQ release
Kitikama & Oi first GHQ light TT crusier release
Nagara, Natori, Izusu, Yura, Kinu & Abukuma GHQ released
Jintsu, Sendai & Naka GHQ released
Yubari GHQ released
Katori, Kashii & Kashima plus 1 additional unit not built NO GHQ model
War time additions......
Agano, Noshiro, Yahagi & Sakawa 2 GHQ models available.
Oyodo plus Niyodo, not built & 6 additional units planned NO GHQ model
Given that, there are 2 classes not yet modeled that hopefully will be done eventually.
Katori & Oyodo
I recently repurchased all of the light cruisers in pewter to replace my LEAD models.
As I had bought the Kumas, 3 ships, and primed them all I noticed a significant difference.
Given the bows and class differed they, the Kumas, Kitakamis, Nagaras & Sendais are all basically 532 overall in length give or take a foot or so, but I noticed the GHQ model of the Kuma is considerably shorter than the others. The gun mounts and stacks as well as the forward torpedo locations seem minutely smaller than the Kitakami s or Nagara s.
As I had accidently bought 6 additional Nagaras and I am considering using 3 of them by removing the forward bridge and replacing it with the bridge issued with the Kuma.
I would appreciate any comments or suggestions....... Don please give me you 2 cents or more on it.
Thanks in advance
IRISH
Japanese Light Cruisers ( Kuma model ) Error in scale?
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
IRISH
Japanese Light Cruisers ( Kuma model ) Error in scale?
Last edited by IRISH on Mon Jan 23, 2012 10:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
-
IRISH
Don Thank You
Don,
Thank you for you input. I am aware of the torpedo tube sizes between the Kuma and Nagara classes and the conversion of the Kitakami and OI. The difference in the GHQ Kuma class are as follows The Stacks are smaller and closer together than on the Kitakami, the foward 2 5.5 gun mounts appear to be about 90% the size of the Nagara and the Kitakami s mounts, the space and not the torpedo tubes distance as well appear to be about 90% When comparing the ships side by side the Kuma s are about a scale 20 to 30 feet shorter about a 1/4 inch in actual size. When I checked the 4 classes Kuma, Kitakami TT version, Nagara and Jintsu should all be about 532 feet overall and 520 at the water line.
That is why I was thinking of using the extra Nagara hulls with the Kuma bridges, the only major difference I saw in the 2 GHQ models is that the Kumas deck appears to be linoleum rather than the Nagara s steel from the funnels back to the aft 5.5 mount which I can cut the lines in to mimic the Kuma s.
Thank you for your input it is much appreciated.
Bill aka IRISH
Thank you for you input. I am aware of the torpedo tube sizes between the Kuma and Nagara classes and the conversion of the Kitakami and OI. The difference in the GHQ Kuma class are as follows The Stacks are smaller and closer together than on the Kitakami, the foward 2 5.5 gun mounts appear to be about 90% the size of the Nagara and the Kitakami s mounts, the space and not the torpedo tubes distance as well appear to be about 90% When comparing the ships side by side the Kuma s are about a scale 20 to 30 feet shorter about a 1/4 inch in actual size. When I checked the 4 classes Kuma, Kitakami TT version, Nagara and Jintsu should all be about 532 feet overall and 520 at the water line.
That is why I was thinking of using the extra Nagara hulls with the Kuma bridges, the only major difference I saw in the 2 GHQ models is that the Kumas deck appears to be linoleum rather than the Nagara s steel from the funnels back to the aft 5.5 mount which I can cut the lines in to mimic the Kuma s.
Thank you for your input it is much appreciated.
Bill aka IRISH
-
Donald M. Scheef
- E5
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:24 am
- Location: Waukegan, Illinois USA
I got back to my apartment this afternoon and measured GHQ's IJN24 and IJN49. IRISH is correct; IJN49 is 2.67 inches long (essentially right-on for a 1/2400 model of a 532-foot long ship) but IJN49 is only 2.47 inches long (only 494 feet in 1/2400 scale).
This is pretty surprising to me; I hadn't expected GHQ to make this sort of error. It looks as if I will have to buy some extra IJN49s in my next order and convert them with bridge & foremast assembly from the Kumas I already have.
Because of this problem, I am going to re-enstate Kuma class cruisers in the Consolidated Micronaut Wish list. I am also putting in a new entry for Kuma class and Nagara class as they were modified in 1941 with one twin 5" anti-aircraft gun replacing the number 7 5.5" gun (and with the number 5 gun also removed).
Don S.
This is pretty surprising to me; I hadn't expected GHQ to make this sort of error. It looks as if I will have to buy some extra IJN49s in my next order and convert them with bridge & foremast assembly from the Kumas I already have.
Because of this problem, I am going to re-enstate Kuma class cruisers in the Consolidated Micronaut Wish list. I am also putting in a new entry for Kuma class and Nagara class as they were modified in 1941 with one twin 5" anti-aircraft gun replacing the number 7 5.5" gun (and with the number 5 gun also removed).
Don S.
-
ww2navyguy
- E5
- Posts: 340
- Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:21 am
- Location: Sunny Florida
Since this post started about the CL Kuma model possible "errors", has anyone from GHQ chimed in to confirm or deny the differences in the IJN24 and IJN49 models?Donald M. Scheef wrote:I got back to my apartment this afternoon and measured GHQ's IJN24 and IJN49. IRISH is correct; IJN49 is 2.67 inches long (essentially right-on for a 1/2400 model of a 532-foot long ship) but IJN49 is only 2.47 inches long (only 494 feet in 1/2400 scale).
This is pretty surprising to me; I hadn't expected GHQ to make this sort of error. It looks as if I will have to buy some extra IJN49s in my next order and convert them with bridge & foremast assembly from the Kumas I already have.
Because of this problem, I am going to re-enstate Kuma class cruisers in the Consolidated Micronaut Wish list. I am also putting in a new entry for Kuma class and Nagara class as they were modified in 1941 with one twin 5" anti-aircraft gun replacing the number 7 5.5" gun (and with the number 5 gun also removed).
Don S.
I was only checking in case GHQ staff replied directly via PM.
Thanks!
-
IRISH
Copied from other post
Dear GHQ
As with Don my sources for Kuma class cruisers:
- Gray, Robert (ed.) 'Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921,' p. 238. "Dimensions: 532ft oa, 520ft 1in wl x 46ft 6in x 15ft 9in"
- Jentschura, Hansgeorg, Dieter Jung and Peter Mickel (trans. by Antony Preston and J. D. Brown 'Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945,' p. 106. "Length, ft in / 532 0 oa / 520 1 wl / 500 0 pp"
- 'Drawings of Imperial Japanese Naval Vessels' Volume 7 #2
162.1m, 531-10 oa / 158.6, 420-4 wl /14.2m, 46-7 beam
-Wikipedia, always taken with a grain of salt, but their numbers match my books.
- Watts, A.J.'Japanese Warships of World War 2" added 1/18/12
The model is outstanding in detail, but when set next to the Kitikami, Nagara and Jintsu it is smaller.
Kuma 531-10 x 46-7
Nagara 534-9 x 48-5
Jintsu 532 x 46-6
Scale of GHQ Kuma 494
Not meaning any disrespect, I have been collecting Micronauts since they first came out in the early 1980s, but I noticed this last weekend when I was starting priming and painting my IJN cruisers. I have always appreciated every release.
GHQ is par none. Thank you for you attention to this matter.
William aka IRISH
As with Don my sources for Kuma class cruisers:
- Gray, Robert (ed.) 'Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1906-1921,' p. 238. "Dimensions: 532ft oa, 520ft 1in wl x 46ft 6in x 15ft 9in"
- Jentschura, Hansgeorg, Dieter Jung and Peter Mickel (trans. by Antony Preston and J. D. Brown 'Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945,' p. 106. "Length, ft in / 532 0 oa / 520 1 wl / 500 0 pp"
- 'Drawings of Imperial Japanese Naval Vessels' Volume 7 #2
162.1m, 531-10 oa / 158.6, 420-4 wl /14.2m, 46-7 beam
-Wikipedia, always taken with a grain of salt, but their numbers match my books.
- Watts, A.J.'Japanese Warships of World War 2" added 1/18/12
The model is outstanding in detail, but when set next to the Kitikami, Nagara and Jintsu it is smaller.
Kuma 531-10 x 46-7
Nagara 534-9 x 48-5
Jintsu 532 x 46-6
Scale of GHQ Kuma 494
Not meaning any disrespect, I have been collecting Micronauts since they first came out in the early 1980s, but I noticed this last weekend when I was starting priming and painting my IJN cruisers. I have always appreciated every release.
GHQ is par none. Thank you for you attention to this matter.
William aka IRISH
-
Donald M. Scheef
- E5
- Posts: 1629
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:24 am
- Location: Waukegan, Illinois USA
-
IRISH
Error in scale
OK I had noticed what appeared to be an error in the scale of the Kuma cruiser.
I did not want to jump to any conclusions being that GHQ makes the BEST models out there. I wanted to confere with sevral others to see if I was right or if I did not know something, Upon researching my references ( listed in a post in this thread ) and hearing from a few others I came to the conclusion that the Kuma was in deed smaller than the other Light cruisers Jintsu, Nagara and the Kitakami by about 40' .
When comparing her to the Kitakami, her sistership you can see the difference in the length and when looking further the gun mounts, boats and stacks are all smaller by being about 90% in size.
I have for the time decided to modify 3 Nagaras adding the Kuma's bridge and removing the bridge, deck house just after the 3rd stack, adding a deck house at the back by the #7 mount scoring the deck to simulate the wood upper deck.
Hopefully GHQ will either correct the model sometime in the future or produce the Tama or Kiso as they appeared when they had added AA.
If I counted right 1 out of 359 is a very good percentage to me.
Keep em coming GHQ I swear by your product and support you 100%
I am looking forward to you new releases for the coming years.
Thank you,
IRISH
I did not want to jump to any conclusions being that GHQ makes the BEST models out there. I wanted to confere with sevral others to see if I was right or if I did not know something, Upon researching my references ( listed in a post in this thread ) and hearing from a few others I came to the conclusion that the Kuma was in deed smaller than the other Light cruisers Jintsu, Nagara and the Kitakami by about 40' .
When comparing her to the Kitakami, her sistership you can see the difference in the length and when looking further the gun mounts, boats and stacks are all smaller by being about 90% in size.
I have for the time decided to modify 3 Nagaras adding the Kuma's bridge and removing the bridge, deck house just after the 3rd stack, adding a deck house at the back by the #7 mount scoring the deck to simulate the wood upper deck.
Hopefully GHQ will either correct the model sometime in the future or produce the Tama or Kiso as they appeared when they had added AA.
If I counted right 1 out of 359 is a very good percentage to me.
Keep em coming GHQ I swear by your product and support you 100%
I am looking forward to you new releases for the coming years.
Thank you,
IRISH