Watkins IJN Mogami

Discussion in 'Ship & Watercraft Models' started by Darwin, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. Darwin

    Darwin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone built the Watkins kit of the Mogami? I'm starting a redraw of it, and my preliminary work with computer overlays of the deck and base platform parts suggest there may be some major fit probems that need to be taken into account. As long as I'm fishing for information, is there a decent set of outline drawings available on the net (maybe on the Wunderwaffe site?). If I'm going to put this much effort into the model, I may as well make it full hull.
  2. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. shoki2000

    shoki2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you are putting so much effort into it, maybe that should qualify model as a new design. If yes, I'm already standing in line to buy it :D
    Which version you are working on? "Light" or heavy cruiser? - I'm totally unfamiliar with Watkins' kit.....
  4. Darwin

    Darwin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mike, the kit depicts the heavy version (5 turrets of 2 each 8" guns), The Watkins kits were produced in the 70's, I believe as a "garage" business. There is a reasonable level of detail, but it was designed more for use in wargaming than for serious scale modeling. The hull "framework" makes JSC's look substantial in comparison, which is why it will require one whale of a lot of redesign even should it prove not to have fit problems. In addition, the parts were all simple black-and-white line drawings printed on gray cardstock. Thanks to Charlie's input, I should be able to figure it out shortly, and have some good frame references to aid the full-hull conversion. I'm guessing a bit (not having taken ruler to the kit and crunching numbers against the prototype, but the scale appears to be about 1:300....I'm guessing it will build as-is to be about 2 ft. long. Depending on how well things progress and availability of documentation, I may eventually try converting it to the aircraft transporter late-war version (though the light-carrier version wouild be a lot easier). I'll keep your offer in mind, but have made a promise to myself that my first design with enough originality to avoid copyright hassles will be offered up as a gift to the paper model community in repayment for all the great downloads others have made available.
  5. Maurice

    Maurice Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    2
  6. shoki2000

    shoki2000 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Mogami is on the same level as the Houston, it seems to me that making her into a decent card model comparable with todays kits, it would actually require a completely new design, with Watkins' kit used only as a template.......
  7. Darwin

    Darwin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bingo! However, q stepping stone for a designer wanna-be. It is not going to be in the GPM league, by any means, but I think I can work it into something comparable with one of the Maly designs.
  8. Darwin

    Darwin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Progress report. Thanks to Charlie, I found several drawings of the Mogami (one the heavy cruiser version, thankfully), so have something to go on for converting to full hull. I have the deck redrawn, and am making progress on designing the hull framework. If I'm holding my tongue just right, there should be a pic of a portion of the foredeck redraw attached. For those ship designers out there....is it better to model the torpedo belt separately from the main hull, or integral with it? I'm tempted to design it as an add-on to the orignial light-cruiser configuration of the ship...that way, it should be possible to create a single kit with optional parts for either the light or heavy versions. Unless I'm missing something in interpreting the drawings, it appears the major difference between the two are addition of torpedo belts and changing the main armament from 15 six-inch guns to 10 eight-inchers.
  9. charliec

    charliec Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    0
    I believe the armament change was by design. Originally the Washington Treaty limited the armament of cruisers so the Japanese designed a triple 6 inch turret with a turret ring large enough to switch to a twin 8 inch if the treaty restriction was removed. I don't know about the torpedo blister - it may have been added when the armament was upgraded.

    The site www.combinedfleet.com refers to the Mogami class as "These ships win the prize for "Egregious Treaty Violation."

    Regards,

    Charlie
  10. Maurice

    Maurice Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    509
    Likes Received:
    2
    Strike all sorts of problems you can when you egregiously violate, and the Japanese encountered much strife from trying to pack too much into each hull with many ship classes. The Mogami class was particularly bad.
    Mogami's trials in 1935 showed up welding defects in the hull, doubtful stability and distortions affecting turret training. Had to be rebuilt 1936-38 with strengthened hull and bulges for added stability and displacement (note not primarily for torpedo defence). Upguned in 1939-40 when additional bulges were again needed. Hence those absolutely revolting lines plans.

    Cheers
    Maurice
  11. Darwin

    Darwin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I speculated that the blisters could have been more for increasing displacement rather than torpedo protection. From my researches, it appears that the class was designed from the git-go for the heavier main armament. Indeed, those sectional diagrams are UGLY. Another interesting aspect of the ship is the torpedo launchers....firing through a cutout in the hull is an interesting little twist, and I am definitely going to try to capture it in 3D.
  12. Darwin

    Darwin Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Time for an update. I've been distracted by mining the wunderwaffe site for reference material, but have made a little bit of progress on the design. I completed the hull framework design, but am not happy with the final result. I drew up a set of frames from the scale drawings, then made what I think is a big mistake of trying to "distort" the outlines to fit the waterline platform of the original kit, which made the hull sides too vertical. I am going to repeat the process and make the platform piece to fit the frames. A step backward, but should give a better final product. I've taken a rest by working on the first layer of the superstructure. A couple of pieces to show how it's coming....the bottom pic is the forward bulkhead of the island. The upper pin is of some internal detail of the torpedo compartments. The torpedos launch through cutouts in the hull sides, so gives some opportinity to fake some internal detail. The launchers will be 3D, but the other "detail" (artist's impression, not fidelity to true scale) is being conveyed 2D. Any comments from the peanut gallery?