HBG's Japanese Sets

Generally speaking, WWII carriers fell into four types: fleet carriers, light fleet carriers, escort carriers and seaplane carriers.  The term “heavy carrier” wasn’t really used, as I recall.  The differences between the four types were basically as follows.  Fleet carriers were fast, and they operated the full range of carrier plane types; both these characteristics also applied to light fleet carriers, but they were smaller and thus they carried a smaller numbers of planes than full-scale fleet carriers.  Both types were suited for offensive action against enemy fleets.  Escort carriers were slower, and they operated a more restricted range of plane types; they had primarily a support function rather than an attack function.  Seaplane carriers were the least capable of all; I’m not even sure that deck landings could be performed on them.

As I recall, Japan used a total of seven full-scale fleet carriers in combat during the war: the “original six” which attacked Pearl Harbor (Kaga and Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu, and Zuikaku and Shokaku), plus the heavily-armoured Taiho which became operational later in the war.  I’m excluding Shinano from this list because, as Pacific War mentioned, she never reached a fully operational status and was sunk without seeing combat.  So in my opinion, those are the seven carriers from which HBG ought to be choosing when deciding which one to produce as a first-rate carrier unit for Japan.  I’d be fine with any of them as HBG’s selection.

By the way, here’s a useful resource:

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ijn_cv.htm

@CWO:

As I recall, Japan used a total of seven full-scale fleet carriers in combat during the war: the “original six” which attacked Pearl Harbor (Kaga and Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu, and Zuikaku and Shokaku), plus the heavily-armoured Taiho which became operational later in the war.    So in my opinion, those are the seven carriers from which HBG ought to be choosing when deciding which one to produce as a first-rate carrier unit for Japan.  I’d be fine with any of them as HBG’s selection.

I’m right there with you on this.

I would also like to point out that I think there is a difference between number of aircraft carried and actual number ready for flight operations.  I believe that there were extra aircraft onboard but they were partially stowed to replace losses.  Just because a carrier carries “x” number of aircraft, that doesn’t mean that that number can be hurled at the enemy at a moments notice.  So, taking the Akagi as an example, it may have carried 91 aircraft but the number ready for combat that could be put up at any given time was somewhat less.  There is also the issue of deck space available to be factored in so it should be noted that a carrier never had all of it’s available aircraft in the air at one time.  The same applies to US carriers.  So when we research numbers, we have to keep these things in the back of our minds.  Focusing on the Shinano again, part of its envisioned duty was as an aircraft ferry because, by that point in the war, Japan knew that it could not oppose the US navy on the open seas.  You will find some sources listing it as carrying a very large number of aircraft but it could never operate such a large number nor was it intended to.

@Pacific:

I would also like to point out that I think there is a difference between number of aircraft carried and actual number ready for flight operations.  I believe that there were extra aircraft onboard but they were partially stowed to replace losses.  Just because a carrier carries “x” number of aircraft, that doesn’t mean that that number can be hurled at the enemy at a moments notice.  So, taking the Akagi as an example, it may have carried 91 aircraft but the number ready for combat that could be put up at any given time was somewhat less.  There is also the issue of deck space available to be factored in so it should be noted that a carrier never had all of it’s available aircraft in the air at one time.  The same applies to US carriers.Â

And apart from the space capabilities inherent to the ship designs themselves, I think there were also differences arising from operational practices.  As I recall, the US Navy liked to operate with full carrier decks as much as possible, in addition to the planes stowed in the hangars.  The US Navy practice had the advantage of maximizing the number of planes on each carrier, and my guess is that the trade-offs were: a) greater vulnerability of on-deck planes to storms, and b) more complicated coordination required of the movements of planes between the deck and the hangars.  The USN could afford to replace lost planes (especially in the second half of the war), so the first trade-off wouldn’t have been much of a problem.  As for the second trade-off, the famous wartime colour docu-drama “The Fighting Lady” includes footage showing how good the USN’s deck crews were at “re-spoting the deck” (repositioning planes for take-off after each set of landings).

That is an excellent movie.

@coachofmany:

Really it might be better to make another carrier, forget the Shinano, everybody has 50 of them already. Akagi was done in 1941 game, we are doing Kaga as a fleet carrier (same size as OOB), maybe we should do another fleet carrier for second set and then people can decide to use them however. Thoughts?

I disagree… Unless the cost of producing additional sculpts would be too much, I would love to see a Fleet-sized carrier, in addition to the others.

By no means is the absence of a Shinano class/size carrier a deal breaker, because it does not matter that much to me. But I would like to have one in a set, or available at some point.

If it costs too much to print additional carriers, then don’t do it. It is your decision as a company what is most profitable for you. However, my general thought is that I live to see as many types of (especially) ships as possible.

Guys,

@LHoffman:

@coachofmany:

Really it might be better to make another carrier, forget the Shinano, everybody has 50 of them already. Akagi was done in 1941 game, we are doing Kaga as a fleet carrier (same size as OOB), maybe we should do another fleet carrier for second set and then people can decide to use them however. Thoughts?

I disagree… Unless the cost of producing additional sculpts would be too much, I would love to see a Fleet-sized carrier, in addition to the others.

By no means is the absence of a Shinano class/size carrier a deal breaker, because it does not matter that much to me. But I would like to have one in a set, or available at some point.

If it costs too much to print additional carriers, then don’t do it. It is your decision as a company what is most profitable for you. However, my general thought is that I live to see as many types of (especially) ships as possible.

––I agree completely with my esteemed friend "LHoffman"s above stated opinions.

“Tall Paul”

@Variable:

Well crew, your opinions have been heard. Coach and I spoke today on the carrier subject. We are shelving the Shinano for now, but expect to see it back some day… :wink:

In it’s place, our plan is to go back to plan A, a regular fleet carrier sized Unryu. I’m working to convince him that the Shokaku/Zuikaku need to be included as the fleet carrier in set 3, The Basic Set. How does that grab everybody? Give us your feedback.

Perfect!  And thank you guys!

@Variable:

I just added more model pics for the Japanese Expansion Set.

Good stuff all the way around!!

Great pics of the new pieces to come. I think that I have found a problem with your Type 97 medium tank. I think the gun barrel is incorrect. The overall body and turret of the tank look to be the late war version but the gun barrel looks like the early war version.
With the Type 97, the early versions had a short-barreled 57mm gun. While it did okay in simply blasting infantry positions, when they went into battle against enemy armor (I believe it was against the Russians on the Manchurian/Soviet border) they found it lacking in armor-punching power. So the Japanese came out with an “upgraded” version with a longer barreled high velocity 47mm gun.
While the new gun did provide better armor penetration, I think it’s success against Allied armor was still questionable.
Look at the picture of my 1/35 scale models of both versions. The early model is on the right, the later model on the left.

@Variable:

Well crew, your opinions have been heard. Coach and I spoke today on the carrier subject. We are shelving the Shinano for now, but expect to see it back some day… :wink:

In it’s place, our plan is to go back to plan A, a regular fleet carrier sized Unryu. I’m working to convince him that the Shokaku/Zuikaku need to be included as the fleet carrier in set 3, The Basic Set. How does that grab everybody? Give us your feedback.

Sounds very equitable. I am very happy that the Shinano is on hold rather than cancelled. Thanks for listening to our feedback, that really is amazing customer service. When it comes down to it though, I know that everyone here would like HBG to make the best decisions for their company to remain profitable in the business. But the consideration is eminently appreciated.

Two thumbs way up.

As long as I can get an escort carrier, a cargo plane, a paratrooper, and a heavy bomber I’m good.

@coachofmany:

Really it might be better to make another carrier, forget the Shinano, everybody has 50 of them already. Akagi was done in 1941 game, we are doing Kaga as a fleet carrier (same size as OOB), maybe we should do another fleet carrier for second set and then people can decide to use them however. Thoughts?

Coach I really love what you guys do. I don’t have anything critical to say at all when it comes to HBG’s product line. If I were to chime in on current and near future projects though I simply would suggest creating sets that emphasize compatibility with previously released sets. That being said it seems that’s what you gents are doing.

I also think sets of  sub genre pieces would do well like say a Pacific set with UK, JAPAN, US, ANZAC battle pieces that are comparable in stats.

Lastly, I think there maybe a market for large sets similar to FMG’s Italian set with larger quantities.  Maybe combining the already produced German and Axis minors sets or USMC and US Supplement set.

Keep up the good work!

Coach,
Awesome lineup for the Imperial Japanese set 2.  Will be ordering 10 sets when you
have them up for per-order.  I really like your version of the Battleship Yamato, it looks to be bigger and has more detail than the OOB Yamato.
Second I trust your choice for a Fleet carrier for the IJN for this set.
Maybe include a Shinnano, Shokaku and Zuikaku sculpts in an all Japanese naval set like we discussed in 2011

WARRIOR888 :-D :-D :-D

So no one else notices the gun barrel on the Type 97 tank?

I saw the updates to the second Japanese set and everything looks very nice!  You guys did a wonderful job on the Unryu!

Just noticed the change in the Type 97 tank. Didn’t think I was being heard, but apparently I was. Thank you guys at HBG.